User talk:Donner60/Archive 12

Archive 12 starting with closed talk page threads starting March 23, 2016

Clete Blakemen

Way back when you said something about my edit to his page, can you go into more detail — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.204.28 (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a blog, forum, fan site or advice site. It is an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable, third-party sources. It does not publish personal opinions, commentary or unsourced information likely to be changed, challenged or disputed. It also does not publish trivial mistakes by game officials, to which you later added even more unsourced negative comments. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. See also Wikipedia:Five Pillars, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Help:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For further information about contributing to Wikipedia, see: Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

working on the Ferron page

Donner60 - you beat me to the punch. i am working on sourcing the material already on this page. and i guess i made a rookie, mistake by editing live. sorry. i'll try to recreate my work when time allows. Is there a way to revert? I already had references entered, that i need to be linked to the amended text. it would be easier to continue on my path. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakfeathr (talk • contribs) 22:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC) -k — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakfeathr (talk • contribs) 22:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I deleted my original message and left some helpful Wikipedia page links on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I restored your previous work on the basis that it was in process. Sorry for the inconvenience. Donner60 (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Looks like I beat you to the revert, and in return you beat me to the report. (Though, to be fair, you've beaten me to more than one report or revert today...) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you have gotten a few ahead of me as well. It takes more than one person monitoring vandalism to get all, or at least most, of the instances that Cluebot misses - in part because it is set not to make consecutive reverts to edits to the same article if I am not mistaken. Donner60 (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome--and yeah, that happens a lot, especially with the blatant stuff in mainspace, because probably half the actively-monitoring vandalfighters see it and all of those attempt to revert it. XD

As to ClueBot not consecutively reverting...yup. (Not sure if it's "to the article" or "to the same user on the same article", though—I thought the latter, but I've been away for the better part of a year up until a week ago, so...could be wrong) Probably to avoid it from going into an edit-war, which would be counterproductive at best. Especially since it's not always right or reverts back to an already-vandalized version, which happens particularly easily if for one reason or another multiple folks vandalize the same page in a short timespan. (For that matter, Cluebot's not the only one prone to doing that--pretty sure it happens to all of us vandal-fighters from time to time, especially if the other vandalism is less blatant or when not double-checking the reverted articles to see if anything is "off")

And Cluebot isn't very likely to catch the small content-removal stuff, either. Probably because even though it's a common form of vandalism, it's also a common form of constructive editing. Plus the other subtle stuff...depends on the time of day, day of week and time of year, but yeah, there always need to be several vandal-fighters to catch the majority of it, and even then some stuff will slip through and only get caught a while later. (For example, my first edit on returning from my recent wikibreak was undoing some minor vandalism that had gone unnoticed for 16 months...) ...rambles on for half a page...whoops? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem with the "rambling" since I do that when I get going on some issues. Whatever Cluebot is set for, we agree that it won't catch everything and will sometimes revert to a version which is also bad. I catch that sometimes but occasionally I miss it because I use Huggle for most of my anti-vandalism and if the previous vandalism was to a different part of the article, one will probably not see it. Donner60 (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, good, good. Yeah, Cluebot never was aimed at getting everything to start with, just help lighten the load and all. (The only way a bot could catch everything would be by reverting everything on sight, and I'm afraid that might be a slightly too high false-pos rate...) Yeah, that's why I use a mixture of Huggle, Twinkle and "plain" Rollback with the occasional use of a manual undoing or the undo button. All depends on situation.

Suspect the O of Open-in-webbrowser-tab may well be the button I use most frequently on Huggle, though--both to verify reverts/state of the article afterwards, and to figure out the cases that aren't so clear I can immediately see them from the Huggle screen or where I need to compare two non-adjacent versions (which Huggle doesn't really lend itself to). Even so, I miss stuff or make mistakes. The only Wikipedian who never does, is the one who never edits, I'm sure. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Received your message

I received your message concerning the edit I made on one of the Desperate Housewives episode pages. Granted, it was a little silly and pretty inconsequential, but I was merely correcting a misquote from the episode. Wikipedia should strive to be as accurate and trustworthy as possible, and watching the episode or even searching the quote in Google would show that incorrect information was being displayed that you put back into place by reverting my edit. Again, the edit was very small and inconsequential, I don't care enough to go back and change it, but please think a little in the future before making a decision that could potentially display false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.37.27 (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I restored your edit. Without references, a change to an existing version of an article can be suspect. Then again, the article has no sources and I doubt that transcripts are readily available. In any event, I checked the history of the article and saw that the wording you changed was in fact the original wording. The change looks suspiciously like a personal preference not to use certain words. Accuracy is indeed important and Wikipedia does not back away from using words that might be offensive if they are in direct quotes, which this in fact is. Sorry for the inconvenience but this called for a some explanation. Now that it has been given and I have done such investigation as seemed possible, I agree with you. So I am also striking the original message on your talk page. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Donner60 (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Shane Watson

Hi, re your revert, can you please revert again, ie back to the last edit by Vjbxk? Thanks JennyOz (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@JennyOz:  Done.You're right, the edit before the one Donner60 reverted also didn't quite belong. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@AddWittyNameHere: Thanks! It almost seems predictable that this would come up after we just discussed it. Another thing that this shows is that if someone else can come in and make the correction, so much the better. I had not signed out yet but I might have done so without seeing this message. That could have left the problem in place until the next time I was online. Donner60 (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. And yeah, I know what you mean. Saw you hadn't edited for a few minutes, figured I might as well go for it. Didn't know if you were going to log off or just 'idle' for a bit, but suspected that either way I wouldn't be causing edit conflicts for you at the least. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@AddWittyNameHere: Thank you both. JennyOz (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 03:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for Help regarding the Kalmyk Anthem's page

Dear Donner60, Firstly, I would like to thank you for taking action against the IP address who has been harassing me on the page for the Kalmyk Anthem. That being said, I still require help regarding that page. The full details are listed in my entry on the discussion page for Wikiproject Russia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia). However, the perpetrator refuses to cease their actions and has resorted to switching computers after your warning. I therefore request additional aid. I know the culprit's Youtube account and while I have tried to contact them, they refuse to cease their actions.

I therefore request that something be done. If required, I can prove that the translation of the lyrics for the Kalmyk anthem that I provided is more suitable, using my rudimentary knowledge of Kalmyk (and the opinions of my Kalmyk friends). I know for a fact that the perpetrator does not know any Kalmyk.

I will check your talk page for a reply.

122.132.199.88 (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry for the delayed reply. As I noted at the top of my user talk page, I expected to be busy and editing less than usual this month so I only now have time to reply. Since my response is delayed, I am posting it on your talk page to be sure you get it as soon as you next check in, but I am not including the remainder of my response below on my talk page because of its length. (The article title is Khalmg Tanghchin chastr.)

(I noted that I am not an administrator; that the latest edit has remained for four days and perhaps the problem is resolved; that I did not view the disagreement as harassment from what I saw; that the post on Wikiproject:Russia might be changed to reflect that and make it more likely for others to respond; and described other places to get help and other methods of dispute resolution, among a few other things.) Donner60 (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Revert changes: 15 Demands, Leap manifesto

Hi Donner60, I saw you reverted my edits (Leap Manifesto) and suggested me to See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. I have just read this article, however I am not sure to understand why my edits will be considered a means of promotion because the Leap Manifesto is a set of 15 demands and I simply added what those demands are. Would you please explain me? karambache —Preceding undated comment added 04:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. The gist is that I will not object to restoration of the edit with the source and without advocacy. Sorry for any inconvenience. Donner60 (talk) 04:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Food Waste edit

Hi Donner60, I am editing the Food Waste wiki page for a class. I think it would be wise to add a section about what people can do to personally reduce their food waste. My college, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, has had repeated efforts in food waste campaigns, as well as advising "14 Ways Consumers Can Reduce Food Waste."

FrancescaG&AlannaJ (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)FrancescaG&AlannaJ

Your proposed addition to the article on Food waste copies verbatim most of an article found at http://food.unl.edu/14-ways-consumers-can-reduce-food-waste which has a copyright notice at the bottom of the page. Addition of copyrighted material without permission is contrary to copyright law as well as Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using copyrighted work from others. See also Wikipedia:Copyright Problems and Wikipedia:Copyright violations.

Also see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. Note specifically "1. Instruction manuals," where the following applicable sentence is found: "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not." As noted earlier on the page, Wikipedia also is not a forum for advocacy of any sort. A blog or a forum is a more appropriate venue for that. Even if this is not considered advocacy, it still falls within the guideline on instruction manuals.

If you wish to seek another view, the article falls within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink and Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment. You could ask about your proposed edit on the talk pages of those projects. Questions also can be asked at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions where new users/writers/editors in particular ask questions. While I do not think you will get a different answer, you are welcome to ask at those pages. Donner60 (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I should have noted that since you are a student at the University of Nebraska, perhaps you can clear the copyright hurdle, at least, by getting permission to reuse the article from the appropriate University office. The Wikipedia:Copyrights page also has some advice on how to get such permission and what you may need to show in order to do that. If you could get past that problem, you would still need to overcome the instruction manual guideline problem. I would defer to the opinion of an administrator or experienced editor in that area but again, I doubt you can get an opinion that such content is acceptable for Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

revert edit

Hi Donner60, I saw you reverted my edit. I had added a URL to an article on the Hotel Indigo brand. The article lists all of the individual hotels, many of which have a link to the individual hotel posted next to their name. I just added another one. If you feel that there shouldn't be a link next to the hotel why did you not remove all the ones that are already there? I think it ads great value to all readers to be able to find these hotels and not having to search for each individually. After all this is Wikipedia! :) Revell (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The program from which I review does not show the entire article, which almost always is not a problem or cause for confusion. This seems to be an exception. I understand your confusion so I am striking the original message on your talk page. None of those links to the individual hotels web sites should be in the text of the article. If you look at the external links section, you will see that the New Orleans hotel is referenced, as is several others. If these belong anywhere, that is where they belong. They are not references to show the existence of a fact. Since Wikipedia is not a directory, it is not proper to list the individual hotel web sites in the text of the article. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. The chain web site is in the infobox, which is acceptable and the New Orleans site has already been referenced. You are correct that for consistency the other links should be deleted or moved to external links. Sorry for the confusion. Donner60 (talk) 02:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

List of Panama Papers

Hello Donner60, I just received your message. I will explain my reasons of that change and sorry If I not did it after...I'm principiant here;) I made a new sections putting there executives of football teams named in the list of Panama Papers and this is way in somewhere, as Josep Lluís Nuéz or the president of Cstellón were removed..but they are in the new sections. I have another question, why you removed Mr. De Sousa in the section of business people? He was the president of Pescanova, the most important fishing company in Spain.

I hope that this can help you to understand my changes and sorry If I did something wrong

Albert, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alsoriano97 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I am striking my original message on your talk page. I misunderstood your edit, partly because the Huggle program shows only the immediate change. So your purpose was good. It would be good to explain not just your change but that you are working on further changes in the edit summary. The removal of a name was a mistake on my part. Reverting an edit is all or nothing. This usually does not matter but in this case took a further change with it. Since there have been further edits by you, I cannot restore your edit without disturbing the further edits and probably not being able to get them as you want them. You will have to do that if you have not done so already. Sorry for the mistake and inconvenience. Donner60 (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Époisses (French cheese), health risks

Donner60, Hello. Name is John. I am a relatively new user but am learned in the area of alcoholic beverages and foods. My several edits to the article on Époisses is not a test, but I am in the middle of the edit when I got your note and haven't yet inserted my sources. The current article is seriously out of date in that it identifies Époisses as necessarily an unpasteurized cheese, which it isn't at present, and omits any reference to the reason pasteurization is now required for this cheese when sold in the USA, which is the risk of a potentially serious or even fatal disease called listeriosis. There are other edits which would be advisable, IMO.

If there's a better way, like the sandbox you refer to, to handle in-process work, I'll try to learn to use it. I see that making changes piecemeal without giving citations when they are complex will cause confusion, but didn't think of that. Let me go back and work on the article again and try to copy it to the sandbox first, and I'll ask questions if I'm in trouble. Shouldn't be too hard!

Hope I've figured out how to communicate with you properly! 2602:306:8BAA:4EF0:299F:37F9:E69F:4B7C (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I now have copied the article (as I have currently left it) to the sandbox, and so you should feel free to revert all edits for now. I've gotta run and will be back on line later!! 2602:306:8BAA:4EF0:299F:37F9:E69F:4B7C (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

One further thing: is there a system for mentoring new users like myself? 2602:306:8BAA:4EF0:299F:37F9:E69F:4B7C (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

If you are going to contribute to articles to the extent of revamping some of them, I suggest that you create an account. Dhrm77 (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dhrm77: Thanks! Donner60 (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your inquiry. I am glad that you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia. I hope you will not be discouraged and will continue. You are on the right track. Although it appears that one can jump right in and write or revise articles, there are some guidelines to follow and there are some potential problems new users can run into, quite innocently. I am listing below some helpful Wikipedia guideline, help and policy pages from which you can find most of these guidelines and policies. Other pages, which often deal with specific recurring issues, are linked from these pages.

You hit and have recognized one problem. If you change an established article piecemeal and without citations, you are likely to have editors challenge the change. There may be a presumption by some editors that the existing article, especially if has references, should be correct or that the change seems wrong. In fact, the article may not be correct or may be outdated but unless changes are backed up, they are likely to be challenged. Reviewers are not likely to take time to track down whether unreferenced changes are more correct when many changes are made to pages every minute.

Being caught in the middle of making changes is not necessarily a problem just for new editors, but established editors with accounts can be caught in the middle of work if someone comes across them in the middle of changes, perhaps because the article is on a user's watchlist and they are checking changes. I try to use the sandbox or, more often, prepare articles or large changes in a word processing document to copy into the article in one edit to avoid this problem. Another way to help avoid being caught in the middle of work is to note that more is to come in the edit summary or to place the template Template:Under construction or Template:Rewriting on the page.

As User:Dhrm77 states: establishing an account can be helpful. You will get a personal sandbox with a link at the top of pages and the ability to create sub-pages of your user page for various purposes. See Wikipedia:User pages. Also, you can build up a record of good contributions so that the Huggle review tool bypasses your edits, although this does not mean they are totally free from scrutiny or showing up on other tools.

Wikipedia:Tutorial is a good page from which to learn some basics of editing. There is a mentoring program which you can find at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. Wikipedia:Teahouse is "a friendly place to help new editors become accustomed to Wikipedia culture, ask questions, and develop community relationships."

Not to overwhelm you but here are some links to other pages with useful information that can help you in editing and writing for Wikipedia:

• Introduction to Wikipedia; and Getting started
  
• Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes; and How to edit a page
  
• Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Manual of Style
  
• Help:Referencing for beginners; and Help:Footnotes
  
• Wikipedia:List of policies; and Wikipedia:List of guidelines
  
• The five pillars of Wikipedia; and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch
  
• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources; and Wikipedia:Verifiability; and Wikipedia:No original research; and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
  
• Wikipedia:How to copy-edit; and How to create your first article
  
• Help:Introduction to talk pages; and Help:Using talk pages; and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines
  
• Wikipedia:Copyright Problems; and Wikipedia:Copyright violations; and Wikipedia:Images; and Wikipedia:Image use policy
  
• Help:Contents and Wikipedia:Questions provide guidance and links to pages where help can be requested. Also see Wikipedia:Teahouse as mentioned above.
  

If you have any further questions, I will try to answer them or you can try the Wikipedia:Teahouse where several editors with experience with various areas of or issues concerning Wikipedia can answer questions or refer you to a page for guidance or to another person who can answer them. Donner60 (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Inkshares

Hello, I am Pda4ever, I'm not sure what I am doing so let me apologize if it's wrong. Please do not remove my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inkshares I did copy an paste things from their site, but I was unaware that I could not do that. Now that I know I will not make the same mistake. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pda4ever (talk • contribs) 04:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you put your reasoning on the talk page. I am not an administrator. Now that I have tagged the article, and it was also tagged by another editor earlier, it will be up to an administrator to decide whether the article can exist in its current form. Note the information on the speedy deletion template concerning the proper way to describe a company without promoting it. You may have to accept that the article is flawed and try to recreate it in proper form and with citations to reliable, verifiable, neutral and independent (third-party) sources later. If an administrator accepts the article as you have revised and shortened it, you will have a good start but you will need to provide some more explanation and citations proving notability or someone is likely to bring it to another step in the deletion process.

Copying information from a company's web site is almost certainly going to result in promotional material being put into the article. See Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. It also can result in a copyright violation. See Copyrights, Wikipedia:Copyright Problems and Wikipedia:Copyright violations.

In addition to the linked pages above, I suggest you review the following pages about contributing to Wikipedia:

• Wikipedia:Tutorial; and Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia; and Getting started
  
• Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes; and How to edit a page
  
• Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Manual of Style
  
• Help:Referencing for beginners; and Help:Footnotes
  
• Wikipedia:List of policies; and Wikipedia:List of guidelines
  
• The five pillars of Wikipedia; and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch
  
• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources; and Wikipedia:Verifiability; and Wikipedia:No original research; and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
  
• Wikipedia:How to copy-edit
  
• Help:Introduction to talk pages; and Help:Using talk pages; and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines
  
• Wikipedia:Images; and Wikipedia:Image use policy
  
• Help:Contents and Wikipedia:Questions provide guidance and links to pages where help can be requested. Also see Wikipedia:Teahouse.
  Donner60 (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

AnnaSophia Robb

Hey, Donner60, I'd like to request that you still keep your eyes on AnnaSophia Robb – it looks like we're still going to have problems, even with semi-protection, as we still have new, recently autoconfirmed editors causing problems over there... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: Thanks for the heads up. As of the time of writing this, your edit is the latest one. I am not sure what KgosarMyth was trying to accomplish with his format edits but I don't think he (I presume) has bad intentions. He reverted the unsourced negative comment several times before the page protection was put on the page. I reverted that repeated entry for failure to cite a reliable source - because I did not think they could have done so. Inappropriate biographical content would also apply. In fact, that might be the best reason to revert the addition and I probably should have used that reason. The edit was bad in any case. Donner60 (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith here. But I am assuming some inexperience from that editor... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: I agree. I didn't think you were accusing that user of bad faith but I thought I should note his previous efforts to help. Unfamiliarity with the pages you cited seems to be the problem with those format edits. Donner60 (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Jonah falcon

Hi Donner, my edit is not meant as vandalism, he really does have world record for biggest penis, see Jonah Falcon

Strange but true, it seems. I will delete my message on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Allen West BLP: DONNER60, You are the vandal and I have reverted your vandalism (edit)

Donner, Please read the edit that you have reinstituted. You have vandalized the article in question because I reverted the vandalism. I am reverting your revert and please read the edit before putting trash (read vandalism) back in the BLP. Thank you. (For the record: this was added by User:2602:306:ce98:1510:4cef:d74c:d98c:4a0e.)

Good job. Read the latest version that you restored. It now contains the sentence: "It was there that Allen learned the joys of same sex relations, as the Army's motto is "Never leave your buddy's behind"." Please read Wikipedia:Civility. Donner60 (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Since you now have reverted your revert, I assume you now see that I was right. Donner60 (talk) 03:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

edit to Allentown Central Catholic High School

Hello Donner60. I am sorry for adding that edit about Mark Damiter to the page. Many people believe me when saying that this edit deserves to be here. All of the facts are 100% true. I am a new user, and do not know how to add citations. I asked my friends to help, and even Mark Damiter himself. He said "This is a great article. I am glad to be appreciated after serving 30 years here. Once again, I am sorry for adding that artice, but I am asking for a favor, and to let this edit be as it is for the time being. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeshmo223 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Names of persons cannot be added to articles without showing they are notable by link to a Wikipedia article about the person or to a reliable, verifiable, neutral source. See verifying, reliable source and Help:Footnotes. Without such a guideline, the name of almost any person, even fictional people, could be added. Your edit to Allentown Central Catholic High School was unsupported and therefore has been reverted. It is also unencyclopedic. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. You also may find the following pages have useful information about Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Rio Conchos

Hello Donner and thank you for reverting the recent unhelpful edits to Rio Conchos (film)‎‎. IP addresses in the 67.44 range have been damaging Western film articles regularly for several months. Incomplete details are at User:Certes/Western if you're interested or want to suggest any further action. Thanks again, Certes (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Certes: Thanks. I know that IP ranges can be blocked but I am not familiar with the procedure. I assume the process starts with a filing at one of the administrator noticeboards. I will look into it. Whether I post the notice or suggest you do, your name will become involved because your special page will be the basis for the request for the block. I'll get back to you. Donner60 (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Certes: My review of some Wikipedia guideline pages caution administrators to be careful about large or lengthy range blocks and blocking dynamic IPs. "Collateral damage" is feared. There are some recent threads at the Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents showing the problems that can occur and the reluctance to pursue remedies in these cases unless the circumstances are really bad. Otherwise, they are inclined to block the individual IP user addresses and semi-protect hard hit articles. This would seem to work well if only a small number of IP addresses and articles over a brief time are at issue, but that is beyond what we are considering.

It seems to me that you have contained the problem for the time being. I think that would make administrators more reluctant to block a range. I found one or two vandalisms that you had not removed yet but I also saw that you had taken care of all the others from the vandalizing IP users that you found. I found no others but I may not have pulled them all up in a search. I spot checked a few of the many articles in the category and found no other instances of vandalism. Under these circumstances, I think administrators would be reluctant to take any action. For the time being, I suggest keeping an eye on this problem and if it pops up again, try to deal with it without requesting a dynamic IP or range block.

Excuse me if you already know this: I suggest that you leave warnings on the talk page of vandals when you revert their vandalisms. A variety of templates for various purposes can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. The topic of vandalism, including warnings, is explained at Wikipedia:Vandalism where there is also a link to the page for reporting vandalism, usually resulting in the vandal being blocked, at least for a short time. If the users are not warned, administrators will be reluctant to block their addresses, although they may make exceptions when several obvious vandalisms have come from what appears to be a vandalism-only account. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection can be made if several vandals are attacking a page nearly simultaneously.

If this gets out of hand and cannot be contained through reverts, warnings, individual IP address blocks and page protection, a noticeboard request might be necessary. I don't think I would do that right now. Let me know if you have any further thoughts about this. I should add, although it may be obvious and I have a userbox which mentions, that I am not an administrator. Donner60 (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for those useful comments and for tiding up the instances I'd missed. I started out adding uw-vandalism warnings but this editor clearly has dynamic IP and I gave up as he'd never see my messages. He may have seen last night's, as we were online at the same time (I got an edit conflict on my first attempt to warn). I notice that the same IP has undone the damage in a few cases. This could be a case of a young Paw Patrol fan playing with Mom or Pop's computer, where Mom/Pop is a good-faith IP editor who occasionally notices the kid's efforts and tidies up for us. Certes (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Certes: Thanks for the further comment. Your suggestion is a good one. Just a few days ago I saw a disruptive editor also correct some of the bad edits. I thought that was strange but you may have an answer to the question about that. Donner60 (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/67.44.208.145 has appeared. I'm not sure IP edits actually qualify as sock puppetry but the problem may get relisted somewhere more appropriate. Certes (talk) 09:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Certes: Thanks. It will be interesting to see how this is handled. I am reasonably sure I have seen IP addresses included in sock puppet investigations but I don't specifically recall that any of them included solely IPs with no named accounts. I hope this provides some guidance for any similar future cases. Donner60 (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

About modification of UEFA Respect Fair Play ranking

Hi Donner60,

According to your message, I made an incorrect modification on that page. I still do not understand why. Could you please explain me. In section Ranking/Criteria, it is currently written the following:

• "The total number of points will be divided by the maximum number of points, 40 [...], this number is then divided by 4 which will result in a score between 0 and 10"
• Let's suppose that a team got a score of 30. Applying the formula given in the sentence will result in 30/40 = 0.75 and then 0.75/4 = 0.1875.
• This is clearly wrong, from 30/40 one should read 7.5/10.
• I therefore decided to revert to previous formula (not written by me) which was correct (in my opinion) stated that: "The total number of points will be divided by the maximum number of points, 40 [...], and multiplied by 10 which will result in a score between 0 and 10.

To support my modification, you can check the same page in other languages:

• French version: L'évaluation d'une équipe s'obtient en additionnant les points attribués selon les différents critères, puis en divisant ce total par le nombre maximum de points et en multipliant le résultat par 10.
• German version: Der Gesamtpunktwert wird durch die jeweils maximal möglichen (40 oder 35) Punkte geteilt, mit 10 multipliziert und das Ergebnis nach der dritten Nachkommastelle abgeschnitten.
• Italian version: Il totale dei punti viene diviso per il massimo numero di punti (40 o 35) e moltiplicato per 10, in modo da risultare compreso fra 0 e 10.

All of them say "divide by 40 and multiply by 10". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.65.240.68 (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I saw one source near the beginning of the notes which supported the change, although doing some quick math in my head seems also to have misled me. I checked some of the other sources and indeed they support your edit. Since my edit was the last one, I undid it. Sorry that I was mathematically challenged - or did not look through the valid sources - and caused inconvenience. Donner60 (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Edits on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_S._Jaffe

An anonymous person ("Rohan" in the talk page) has repeatedly changed a biography of my father, Frederick S. Jaffe, to add unsubstantiated interpretation regarding a 1969 memo he wrote, as well as adding references to a site, "The Jaffe Memo: A Sinister Agenda on a Single Page", which pushes his political agenda. Since the memo, or rather a single table from it, has been the source of controversy I added that section to the bio with a short statement of the facts of the matter and a link to the original memo, so readers can judge for themselves. I can give you more background if you are interested. I didn't realize I had to document changes initially and I apologize for that. However, as you can see on the talk page I feel I have carefully explained the edits since I was made aware of this policy.

Thank you, Dave JaffeDaveJaffe (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Noting that I left a message on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the edit summary. I will use that as well as the talk page going forward.DaveJaffe (talk) 03:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Your welcome. Donner60 (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Donner, I am the 'anonymous' person that DaveJaffe is referring to. DaveJaffe has a clear conflict of interest. This is his father, and you can tell. While that is honorable in one respect, it is unfair that he can simply revert because it is his dad's site. (I don't think you think that. I think he thinks that.) As I just explained to Dave, he is making the contention that the memo merely lists some ideas, but in fact that is precisely part of the debate. So, I added "defenders say" to the contention and then provided a link to a critic that says otherwise. (How else am I to substantiate what a critic says except link to a critic?) Again, DaveJaffe has a clear conflict of interest in this case and he probably has his own political act to grind. I would refer you to the talk page where I have carefully explained the reasons for my edits. I have been trying to work with him and he has compromised on only a single word. DaveJaffe is engaged in an edit war. 75.100.7.42 (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

As an illustration of the fact that I am the one actually acting in good faith on that site, I would like you to note that I am the one who directed him to the talk page in the first place to try to work through the matter. If I hadn't done that, he would have simply reverted forever and ever. 75.100.7.42 (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Your points are well taken. I probably should have left my original edit based on the reversion of the removal of cited content and let those who are more knowledgeable and interested work it out if that did not stand. I am concerned that I may no longer be considered a neutral editor. I certainly don't want to get into an edit war over this. I think the best thing for me to do is step away, acknowledge that you also have a point and that this may involve a number of questions such as neutral point of view and interpretation which others are better able to handle with a fresh view. I am not an administrator so ultimately I cannot resolve the matter. Thanks for your explanation. I will withdraw from editing the article. Donner60 (talk) 09:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Donner for your help. I have never hidden the fact that Fred Jaffe was my father unlike Anonymous who has never divulged his identity. I have pointed out to Anonymous a much better Wikipedia page to place his comments but his main goal is to have a link to the "The Jaffe Memo: A Sinister Agenda on a Single Page" website on the Frederick Jaffe bio page. How do we engage someone from Wikipedia to decide this? Thanks, DaveDaveJaffe (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The page Wikipedia:Dispute resolution suggests steps to resolve conflicts. You will see that the second section is "Resolving content disputes with outside help", which in turn links to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests. I think those pages answer your question. Donner60 (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Peaches (The Stranglers song) revision

You recently reverted my edit. I had undone a revision that was likely the product of urban legend. There is no such word as "clitaris" (or "clitares"), whether bathing suit-related or otherwise. This is discussed in the article's Talk page. Since the word in the song is contested, the previous phrasing was preferable. --2600:1008:B027:FDAC:5980:1AD4:B2A9:E1B9 (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That sounds reasonable. I struck my original message on your talk page. Sorry for any inconvenience. Donner60 (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Template for "find a grave"

Hey,

I saw that during the last days you replaced lots of findagrave-templates with direct links. As far as I can see the template is both easier and needs less space than the direct link. Maybe I missed something, so why are you changing it? ... GELongstreet (talk) 07:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, just noticed the discussion for deletion. But there is no consensus yet - and for now the numbers are clearly for keeping it. ...GELongstreet (talk) 07:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@GELongstreet: Yes, that is what prompted me to make the change. Since I have been making a few other changes and additions, I thought that I might as well make that change as well as in view of what might (or might not) happen if the template were deprecated. I am not sure it makes that much difference, since they both would take the reader to the same place. The space difference seems rather small to me in the scheme of things. I can certainly stop making that change if anyone has a strong preference and I will do that in the meantime as I go ahead with other edits. I must admit I am reluctant to change back the ones I have already changed right away because the change has the same effect on the link, but I suppose I would agree to do it, especially if there were no time pressure. Donner60 (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Moise Katumbi

So i saw that you changed the info of Mois Katumba, how do you know that his Mother is Congolese? Candace black (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

He was born in Lubumbashi (which is in the Congo). (Footnote 4) The changes said he was from Zambia. He lived in Zambia for awhile but was not born there. No change was made to the statement about his mother but sources say she was Congolese in any event. See footnote 17 among others. Donner60 (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieval of edit

Hi I saw that you left me a message, about removing my part on a wiki page. Is there anyway I can recover what I wrote? My computer isn't working right and I wasn't able to save what I wrote. Is there a way to recover it and then add my citation?

Thanks, Kim Ianora — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimianora (talk • contribs) 04:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Click on the view history tab at the top of the article. You will see a list of all the edits made to the article, including those that have been reverted. Click on "prev" opposite the edit showing your user name and the edit should be visible. If you do not see what you are looking for, you may need to go forward or back one edit to see it. Donner60 (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Gija and Gojoseon

Removed source content are not related to the Gija Myth. Source does not mention Gija, and these events are at least four centuries apart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.120.20.13 (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting that nasty edit to my talk page. I appreciate it. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 02:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Donner60 (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Religious views of Adolf Hitler

Hey Donner60, I apologize if my edit seems biased - that was the exact opposite of my intention! I love Wikipedia and care deeply about it remaining as bias-free as possible. That's why I bothered to sign up to edit this article in the first place and that's why I'm sitting here at 2 am writing you this response.

Someone posted this article on a Facebook group page for humanism today and the local populace was up in arms about how misleading it is. I think my edits might seem biased at first glance because the article is already so biased in the opposite direction. My intention is to bring it back to the center.

My primary concern with the summary of this article is that it focuses entirely on a supposed (and not cited) "consensus" view of "scholars", yet entirely omits Hitler's own voice from the discussion. I present to you the following wikiquote page: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

There are 84,362 characters of sappy Hilter quotes about his faith and affinity for Catholicism on this page alone, and not even one of his public statements suggests that he is "not a Christian" - the opposite, in fact! My favorite: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." - Adolf Hitler, 1941

By his own account, Hitler was a devout Christian. This is not just some historian's opinion. It is verifiable fact. Now, perhaps his faith was just a convenient political tool, sure. But this article summary completely omits it. Instead the author has chosen to exploit the cherry-picked speculations of cherry-picked authors to build a narrative that is exactly the opposite of Hitler's own words.

Now, I'm more than willing to listen to what these various scholars have to say, but not even a single sentence is provided to Hitler's own voice. Seems to me there is no more authoritative source on Hitler's religion than Hitler himself. He should at least be given equal-footing in the introduction of the article, and I think a strong argument can be made that he should be the centerpiece (it is, after all, an article about him).

Finally, on a side note, I take issue with the opening claim that there is a "consensus" view among "scholars". Which scholars, exactly? There is no evidence cited for this claim. I assure you, no such consensus exists among humanist scholars. Ask Christopher Hitchens:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8VFFW0sbF4

I am new here on Wikipedia. This is my first edit so I don't really know how to proceed forward. Any guidance you can provide would be much appreciated. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naplesmedellin (talk • contribs) 07:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment and explanation. If I had not originally thought you were proceeding in good faith and had some contributions to make, I would not have gone back and struck the original message and left some explanation. However, my further review has introduced some additional doubts and shows that my second opinion was actually less careful than my first. .

I interpret some of the points in your message, as well as your edit to the introduction to show an effort to change the point of view of the article. You say in your edit summary that you removed claims without citations. This is not consistent with your action and appears to be deceptive. You also deleted the citations and quotations from them. I had originally gone into detail in this message and made some other points but that isn't really necessary. I am sure you know what you did. I am sorry that my giving you some benefit of the doubt made you think that I did not know and would support your point of view. In fact, I was not prepared to continue in the same vein without a detailed and careful re-examination.

Your edits were not an effort to balance the article but to strike support for a point of view that you do not like and to introduce a biased and unbalanced conclusion to the article, citing only some sources which support your point of view. If your intent was balance, you would not have changed the conclusion at the beginning and would not have deleted support for the existing article. Instead, you would have only added some material as supporting a different interpretation.

Now that I have reviewed the full measure of your changes, and especially your deletions, I am convinced that your edits to the introduction are biased and not in keeping with Wikipedia policy. You have removed opinion and much support for it, apparently because it did not mesh with your point of view. Then you had to restore some bare citations for the authors later because you had removed the base citations.

You will note that I express no opinion as to the validity of your possible additions, which may well be acceptable as support for an alternate interpretation to the extent that is expressed in the article without claiming it is the correct interpretation and without giving it undue weight. Your changes and deletions were not in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

If you wish to replace rather than add to the content, change the focus of the article, and eliminate supporting citations and quotations for the existing article. you will need to take up the matter with those who have contributed to or are interested in the page, starting on the talk page. The full process for resolving content disputes is described in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Donner60 (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

William Weld

Hey, Donner 60, the William Weld edit was an attempt to undo a total hack job on his wiki page. You need to erase all changes made in the last 3 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.169.206 (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I will look at the recent edits. I see there are quite a few. What I saw in the most recent edits was the removal of sourced material but with so many edits, perhaps there is more to it. Donner60 (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I read the material you removed as accurately stating what is found in the sources which appear to be reliable sources, including the New York Times. I can see no justification for your removal of the content. Donner60 (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Change to article Jonathan Tah

I'm new to this, so please be gentle.

You asked on my talk page about why I deleted some content without providing an explanation. I did provide an explanation. I chose the option "(Undid revision 720987820 by Blackhammer27 (talk) Reverting vandalism or test edit)" from the edit page.

The change page is URL https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan%20Tah&diff=720987971 Carlroddam (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. My mistake. We were both trying to revert vandalism to the article at the same time. My timing was a little off or I just did not notice that your edit and not the vandal's had preceded mine. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Donner60 (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This is a courtesy notification as the filer failed to notify you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Can we talk about Huggle?

I’m reaching out to you because our logs tell us you’re a highly active Huggle user (top 20, actually). The Wikimedia Collaboration Team is researching a project that we hope will be useful to people who use Huggle and others engaged in edit-review and anti-vandalism. Using artificial intelligence programming (in ORES) and other means, we believe we can create feeds of Recent Changes that are better tailored to the type of work you do, helping you to be more effective and efficient. (The technology will have other benefits as well, which we can talk about.)

We're in the early stages of planning this and want to speak with people like yourself to better understand your work, goals and issues. If you’re interested in helping, I’d like to set up a time to meet by video conference, so that you can explain and demonstrate (via screensharing) some of your workflows, and we can ask and answer any questions.

To participate, please email the following information to me, jmatazzoniwikimedia.org, or send it to designresearchwikimedia.org:

• Username
• city/time zone
• Best time to talk to you?
• Email where we can reach you
• Please use the subject line: Huggle User Conversations

Thanks! JMatazzoni (WMF) (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure if you will see this unless I e-mail you so I may send an e-mail in the next few days to give these initial thoughts. I thought I would leave a preliminary or tentative reply rather than wait to gather my thoughts. I am sure I will need to do that to be of any help.

I would like to help but I am not sure I have much to contribute. At least I will need to recall what some of my thoughts about possible Huggle improvements or limitations may have been. Perhaps I will need to work with Huggle some to refresh my memory. I might be wasting your time otherwise. I have not written these thoughts down so I am not confident I can recall them without some reminder, and then write them down to keep them in mind.

To the extent I have any goals, they are to help the project. I think this can be done not just by reverting vandalism but by trying to pick out new users who may appear to not be aware of some of the policies and guidelines and to leave them some special messages about what they did wrong and where they might look for help in Wikipedia pages. While some new users may appear to be disruptive, I think in reviewing the edits they try to make that some of them simply don't know what they are doing or what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not can be a good reference for those who don't realize this is not a blog or a site for personal opinion, commentary or original research.

As far as I know, I don't have videoconferencing capability but I may be behind the times on that. Donner60 (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your tireless work fending off the vandals and imageboard attacks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. Donner60 (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)/

John McDougall

This is a message about my deleted edits to the John McDougall page. What I did was (1) delete 2 sentences which were obviously biased and complete duplicates of each other and (2) added a counter-citation to add balance to the previous negative citation. If the goal is unbiased objectivity then what I did was further that. I have nothing to do with the subject other than currently reading some of the McDougall's materials and that is why the original Wikipedia article stood out as blatantly ugly and biased. Isn't a neutral, objective and unbiased post preferable?Doug Lerner (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)douglerner

I left this message on your talk page. I am striking the above message because your message to me pointed out that both points of view are still represented and that the contrary point of view may have had undue weight. I think I focused only on the deletions and not the remaining material so I apologize for my oversight. Donner60 (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking my intent into consideration. I apologize if I am not entering this correctly as I am not used to this feature. Thank you. Doug Lerner (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Muhammad Shaikh

Hey Donner, This is in regards to the International Islamic propagation centre page which I have updated. We would like to create a new Page for Muhammad Shaikh & it does not allow to do so since his name is already mentioned in International Islamic propagation centre. Kindly help what should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vansonclose (talk • contribs) 22:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Replied with comments and helpful Wikipedia guideline and policy page links on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your time -- no worries 68.13.222.11 (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Your deletion?

You deleted the following for "vandalism" on Demagogue?

Donald Trump

On ITV’s “Good Morning Britain” on Tuesday, Stephen Hawking referred to Donald Trump as "a demagogue who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator.” and that he "can't" understand his popularity.

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Adding a living current political candidate to whom people are opposed, to a list of historic demagogues, all of whom held political power, is not in keeping with Wikipedia policy, even if a noted scientist is doing the name-calling. Also see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Donner60 (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"Investment Funds" article

Hi Donner60, I'm really blown away by this editor world and all that's happening behind the scenes of an article. In my mediocre college education, professors always tried to discredit Wikipedia as a site where "everyone could just make an entry". I am blown away and clicked through layers and layers of edits and I truly stand in awe with what I just discovered here.

Concerning my edit: I apologize if I might have recklessly broken one of the Wiki-policies, but I couldn't help but notice that the article said "unsystemic" instead of "unsystematic".

Best wishes,

68.111.190.72 (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC) Trésor

I thought that "unsystemic" was the correct word. However, I should have sent that message directly instead of leaving a template message. I will give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, rather than spend time trying to verify which is more accurate. I have restored your edit. I am sorry that I did not give you credit or look into the proper wording more closely to begin with. I hope this will not discourage you, and if you may have other useful edits to make to the article. In any event, I am striking the above message as well as restoring your edit and I apologize for moving through that edit too quickly. Donner60 (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Simpsons

I just like to say that those DVDs are fake, the real ones aren't. And yeah, keep the change that I did a minute ago, OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.252.240 (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I will assume your message to me is correct and I struck the original message on your talk page and restored your edit. Please use Wikipedia:Edit summaries. If you had put your explanation in an edit summary, I probably would have left your edit intact. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Why blanked

Why did you blank this page. This is a textbook case of nonsense and should have been tagged as {{db-g1}}. No blanking needed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't usually use db-g3. I have used it occasionally, however, and have not had my use of it questioned for this sort of article. I am not sure it makes much difference since it is clearly an invalid article. In fact, I actually considered tagging this db-g1. What I have had come up before was that I was told by an administrator after tagging a very similarly constructed page with g1 that g1 should be used only for random letters, clear gibberish - and that g3 was the better option. This type of case seems to be on the line and perhaps a matter of discretion. Donner60 (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Even as a db-g3, why blank the page? That just makes the reviewing admin's job that much harder to review the case, and there was nothing on the page that was offensive. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@WikiDan61:. Sorry I did not make myself clear. I did not blank the page - not intentionally anyway. I did not know that tagging it with g3 would blank it. But that is what seems to have happened. What I did was tag it g3 using Huggle. So blanking of the page is either new or I hit some sort of additional button by mistake (don't really know what that would be) or it was simply some sort of random occurrence. Again, I had only the intention to tag it - with my previous experience in mind and never having had this tag questioned in the past. I don't know why it was blanked. I am sorry if my response gave the wrong impression as I should have explained it better rather than just talking about g1 and g3. I had in mind that I had done nothing to blank the page and that it seemed to have happen automatically without my direct action or even knowledge it was done. Although I had it in mind and thought perhaps it was some thing that was obvious, apparently it was a mistake I did not realize or some sort of aberration. So I thought the important point was the tag number but I should have explained the page blanking occurrence in detail as I have just done.

For all I know, courtesy blanking can be done by an administrator while the deletion is being considered. Perhaps this might not even show in the edit history - which is gone now in any event. The point is that I did not place the blanking template or blank the page intentionally. In fact, although I have seen the courtesy blanking template notice before, I did not even know the message existed as a template until I just further looked into the explanation of courtesy blanking. Donner60 (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I've only ever seen courtesy blanking used in an attack page. It is one of the parameters in the {{db-g10}} template. It is not one a function of the {{db-g3}} template, but perhaps Huggle has been updated to include that functionality. I use Twinkle instead, so I wouldn't know. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding recent revert of an edit in the Medieval Warm Period article

Sorry to have done so without an explanation. I spotted what I believe was an attempt at manipulation (arguably NPOV) on a "climate skeptics" and thus reverted the edit. I'll leave it to you to decide to leave it in or out.

Link to apparent attempt at manipulation: https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/4lx550/body_of_proof_large_number_of_studies_show/d3s4o4n

I have an archive.is link as well (5GGLT after the slash) in case it gets deleted/edited. 74.56.190.125 (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I am striking the original message because your message to me indicates you were in good faith, although without an explanation, the deletion of sourced content will almost always appear suspicious. Whatever the motivation of the change, the existing text appears to be adequately sourced. In the absence of a showing that it is wrong or inapplicable, I am not going to change it back. Removing it also appears contrary to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If you wish to take it up further, I suggest you start a discussion on the talk page or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment or both. Donner60 (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem, you make a fair point. Instead of removing the edit, I've instead opted to add a bit more information, citing a landmark 2012 paper on the subject. Hopefully this edit is more acceptable. 74.56.190.125 (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 17

(message deleted)

Regarding revert of changes to BBQ Pitmasters

Hi Donner60, I just saw your message of 03:14, 31 May 2016 about the reverted edit for this page. This was not a test edit after all, just a small one to correct a small mistake in the one of the types of meat that was being cooked in that episode (which I happened to have been watching at the time). [1] Astrosnapper (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC) [1] (Season 3 Episode 2 on Google Play (probably not a proper source).

TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! 20:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Pam Lynch Page

Thank you for restoring the content! Silly me! Sorry about that:) Trustworthybastile (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I struck the message on your talk page because your message to me indicates you did not intend to delete the content. Donner60 (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for your anti-vandalism work on Top Model-related articles! :D Linguist 111talk 04:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Linguist111: Thanks! It has been a busy night since AIV is backed up and one or a few IP vandals have been persistently vandalizing these articles. Since I signed off Huggle a short time ago, I hope this problem is over and perhaps the vandal (or vandals) has been blocked. Donner60 (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, 2604:2D80:C029:E9B4:D099:D3E3:B56E:81B4 has been blocked. Countless 2604 IP's have been vandalizing Top Model-related articles for months now, blanking content and adding false info. I believe it's the same person IP hopping. I've reverted a lot of their vandalism; I remember one day when I spent 25 minutes reverting them. Linguist 111^talk 04:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thank you for improving wikipedia :) HorseHeadMask (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Not me

You sent me a message saying that I edited or vandalized a page called KnightOwl; however I made no such edit. This is a private computer. Is it possible someone spoofed my IP address? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.65.9 (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I left this message on your user talk page: Yes, I believe it is possible that someone could spoof your IP number although there are a few other possibilities. What I think is more likely is that someone may have latched on to your computer or network connection while you were on line or your connection was in range, possibly in a public place. If someone had access to your computer in any way and used it to edit Wikipedia, your IP address would show up. There have been a few incidents where it appeared that the owner of an IP address did not make an edit but it was generated from his/her IP address in some way. This is not a Wikipedia glitch because an automated program picks up the IP address from which the edit originated - but that does not mean some interference was not possible. In any event, I am assuming that your message was in good faith and am deleting the above messages. Donner60 (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for undoing the changes to my userpage.Jllm06 (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Donner60 (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi, regarding that revert you spoke to me about: I did further research and found that I was inaccurate. I will leave your revert as it is and not make any more edits. Thanks! :)

DrForbidden (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)DrForbidden

I have indirectly determined which edit you were talking about. Indeed you were mistaken as I assume the source, not to mention other sources that I have read just yesterday, showed the existing text was correct. Making a good faith mistake is no reason not to continue to contribute in general. Only you know whether you can make any further constructive contributions to that article. Donner60 (talk) 07:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Methane entry

Regarding the deletion of Goodland and Anhang (2009) from the Methane entry --- from page 14 of their article: "Further work is needed to recalibrate methane emissions other than those attributable to livestock products using a 20-year timeframe." Given that the FAO originally used the 100-year GWPs, this indeed means that Goodland and Anhang are using the 20-year GWP for methane from livestock and the 100-year GWP for methane from all other anthropogenic sources.This is obvious if you follow their adjustment. OnceJolly (talk) 04:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

You deleted my reply on this page, and based on your deletion in the article, I must assume it is because you did not agree with it. Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines "Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request." I restore my comment with an addition.

I don't see how that supports your deletion of the reference to the article. Many academic articles on a variety of subjects contain isolated sentences calling for further research. I have read the article. It is a legitimate article and deletion is not supported while other articles on the same subject are being kept. Again, I must suspect that you are doing this to support a particular point of view and to leave the article unbalanced. Nonetheless, I think this should conclude our interchange as I am not going to edit war with you over this. Donner60 (talk) 04:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The "recalibration" is a trivial calculation which suggests that its the authors that have the agenda. In any case, I've left the reference to the article and added a further reference to a more recent study from the FAO. OnceJolly (talk) 05:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@OnceJolly: Thank you. I believe you have now handled the matter properly. Good luck in future editing. Donner60 (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

124.106.246.131

Hi, I noticed your comment on that IP's talk page here [1]. Unfortunately, he/she does not seem to take in consideration anything on his talk. He/she started adding (or changing) random unsourced birth/death dates few days ago, then randomly changing nationalities (English/Scottish -> British; England -> United Kingdom) or adding USA after an American state. Khruner (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Khruner: Thanks. I see the user was given a final warning but no one followed up on later edits. I assume some of these are improper. I will look at these a little later tonight/this early morning. If these edits are clearly disruptive, erroneous or vandalism, I will revert them and make a report. If some of these are not of the same nature as previous edits about which warnings were given and could be viewed as innocent mistakes or ignorance (non-judgmental), I will leave one or more additional warnings and explanations. I note that the last warning was placed by User:Favonian, who is an administrator, so I think a great deal of additional slack need not be given to the user. Donner60 (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I should add, now that I look at some of the earlier edits, that not all of this user's edits are necessarily contrary to policy and some of them seem to be correct, such as those adding exact dates. I had already checked some of them. So, I think we should still be cautious that this user's changes are not necessarily meant to be disruptive. I will try to be careful in evaluating this before I report the user. Donner60 (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Khruner: The user clearly was stepping over the line again and violating the placename guideline about the United Kingdom. With these new disruptive edits, I had the Huggle AIV report box open and was in the process of reporting the user. When I pressed the report button, I received a message that the user was already reported. So someone else had seen the disruptive editing and got in ahead of me, which is alright. It is good that the user is finally reported. Presumably an administrator will block this user and revert the other bad or unsupported edits. Donner60 (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Block applied and edits reverted by administrator Materialscientist. Donner60 (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, it was bedtime here. Good to hear, I guess now the user is plenty of time to ponders about his behaviour. Thanks, Khruner (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Your revert at Russo-Georgian War‎

About your edit here [2]: please note that your edit summary describing the edit you reverted as "unexplained" was wrong – the previous edit by Odabade90 [3] clearly had a talkpage link in its edit summary [4], which does point to an explanation of this edit. I'm not saying the edit was objectively good or justified (no opinion either way); I'd just like everybody to be extra careful to engage in constructive discussion before new revert-wars erupt on that article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: My revert was through Huggle; I can't say that I did not know that "unexplsined" was part of the template message, however, and this is a case where I should have paid more attention to that. I saw that sourced content, about an EU report, had been removed so I assumed it was an invalid edit, probably a non-neutral one.

Thank you for pointing out that this is no run-of-the mill content removal. NPOV may be what is really at the bottom of this, but it may be that further intervention by parties whose only knowledge comes from the appearance of the edit, despite being neutral and uninvolved, perhaps is not for the best. I see where my edit with the standard message could provoke users on one side of this obviously long-running contentious debate. So, I have undone my revert and have noted in the edit summary the existence of the talk page discussion and suggest involved parties should continue to work this out.

FWIW, I see in the history that this content has been removed and then restored by more than one other patroller/reviewer over the last few months.

In any event, I was trying to implement guidelines about removal of content, with a possible NPOV problem as the basis for it - which seems to be the case - but it seems my use of the template with the unexplained removal clause itself may be contentious. There may be nothing to be gained in the content of the article or resolution of an ongoing dispute by me becoming an involved party under the circumstances. If, however, I am misinterpreting your message or, more to the point, you suggest some other course of action, please let me know. I will be logging out quite soon, however, so any further response from me will not be immediate. Thanks again. Donner60 (talk) 08:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

America at a crossroads

Hi, I'm User 72.198.49.108. What I wanted to say is that this isn't my opinion but a historical event. I didn't mean any harm, but I only wanted to report the facts so I edited it with a balanced, neutral point of view. If I made a mistake then please leave me a note on my talk page. Thank you.72.198.49.108 (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Four years ago ...

hero of reviewing
... you were recipient no. 186 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

{{ping|Gerda Arendt}} Thank you. You have made many wonderful contributions to the project. I always have appreciated the recognition from you and am flattered to receive this further notice. Donner60 (talk) 06:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Mouli Ganguly

Hi i accidentally removed some stuff then added it back while adding another row. Can u delete what u added now cuz i cant n i dont wanna mess it up. Thanks👍🏼😬 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.124.74 (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, you have restored the previously deleted text. Since you are making the addition, I think you should check it to be sure it is correct. If I revert it to a prior version, the changes you have made since then will be lost. I appreciate your concern that something may be missing, but I don't see it. Since you are familiar with the filmography, I think that you are better able to correctly add anything else that is missing. Donner60 (talk) 04:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

West Coast Hip-Hop

You keep undoing my changes to West Coast Hip-Hop. The Oakland section says "known locally as Oaktown". "Oaktown is an antiquated term that natives stopped using around 1994. Oakland is referred to by natives as "The Town", because San Francisco is known as "The City". Due to gentrification and the rising influx of transplants relocating to Oakland, many newer residents have resurrected the term "Oaktown" however when one uses this term, it's a dead giveaway that they are in fact neither from Oakland nor grew up in Oakland. In addition you undid my changes to San Francisco. The City is not known locally as "San Fran". In fact, the term "San Fran" is universally hated among nearly all Bay Area natives. "Frisco" is looked down upon too, but rappers like JT the Bigga Figga and RBL Posse have referred to The City as "Frisco" in their songs. In urban cultures, SF is also known as "Sucka Free City", a phrase made popular by rappers Rappin' 4-Tay, San Quinn and JT the Bigga Figga. The slang term is what inspired the title of the 2004 movie Sucker Free City which was written by San Francisco native Alex Tse.

I have struck the original messages on your talk page because you have provided a reasonable explanation for the edits. I am sorry for any inconvenience. I will not further disturb the addition of these edits. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

SHS FC

Hi Donner60! I just wanted to let you know that the article was blanked by its creator. I went ahead and reverted your edit and added the G7 tag. Hope you're doing well, and I hope you have a great rest of your day. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Thanks. I missed that one so I am glad you caught it. And a good day to you as well! Donner60 (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem! I got your back! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Re:

Sorry if my recent edit appeared to be unconstructive, but I was just trying to keep a bit of consistent terminology on A-League in regards to the word "soccer". Also, this is a shared IP address, so those other edits weren't done by me. 138.44.177.178 (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The mistake appears to be mine. Thanks for pointing this out to me. I am striking the original message and the first sentence of the second one on your talk page. Sorry for the mistake. Donner60 (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Huh?

You just sent me a message saying you removed a link I submitted but I have never done such a thing? I have password protected wifi so I don't know what happened...It certainly wasn't anyone in my house, they would never be able to figure out how to use wikipedia... 23.240.189.22 (talk) 08:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

That was almost two years ago on a different IP address. Someone else may have had it at the time or otherwise tapped in to your network, which is rare but not unknown. In fact, I am not sure how your message is showing up on a different IP address. Perhaps some technical thing may be amiss. Donner60 (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

the safety issue of Saccharin

please take a look on follow web page : http://mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/eat/saccharin-diet-fat/ which talk about Saccharin v Stevia Comparison , test result show Saccharin can cause high blood glucose levels !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.149.179.240 (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I placed this on your talk page: At the risk of going on a little too long, I will expand on User:Jim1138's note. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Impartial tone. Encyclopedias do not use capital letters and numerous exclamation points in their texts. In addition to the referencing advice Jim1138 notes, see Help:Footnotes for proper citation style. (Reference to a doctor who appeared on tv is not a proper reference as it can not now be verified, nor can the doctor's credentials or basis for his remarks be examined. If he, or his position, has statements in a reliable, verifiable book or journal, that may provide a valid reference.) Also please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, including not a means for promotion and Wikipedia:Words to watch, such as puffery. Wikipedia is not a blog, forum, fan site, advice site or means of promotion. It is an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable, third-party sources. It does not include personal opinions, commentary, speculation or unsourced information likely to be changed, challenged, disputed or wrong. See Wikipedia:Five Pillars, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Help:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For further information about contributing to Wikipedia, see: Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. You may have something that could be put in the section of the article that you put your edit provided it is stated impartially, is properly referenced to a reliable source, and does not give undue weight to a particular position. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Tomb of Genghis Khan

Heelo. I am sorry. It seems that you deleted my commentary on the article tomb of Genghis Khan. I am not a specialist of this subject, but my commentary was very simple : as I said, there were no Jesuits in the 15th century. So I reacted to this misinformation. I think that this information should be checked and source verified in order to improve accuracy. Sorry, but I can't do it. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.241.210.129 (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I put comments on your talk page. Extended messages in the context of articles are not appropriate under Wikipedia guidelines, even though it appears you are correct. I suggested you put the template {{disputed}} after the sentence in question and put a brief explanation on the talk page. I left some Wikipedia page links as information. I checked all the references that could be checked but did not find a reference to the sentence. A number of possible explanations not limited to a typo, a mixed up in the reference of some sort (different book, author not a Jesuit, etc.) and others may exist. In the absence of something more definitive, I think my suggestions are in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Changing the century reference may even be acceptable, although that may be too close to the edge and I would not do that if I could not find a source. My further thought is that someone converted a year in the 1500s to 15th century. The problem here is that even if you are correct, guidelines do not permit commentaries in the text of articles. If they did, all kinds of unsourced comments or challenges or disputes that are not credible, as yours is, could occur. Donner60 (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)