User talk:Donner60/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Archive 13 starting with closed talk page threads starting August 2, 2016 - to October 31, 2016

Running Article Edit

Hi Donner60,

I made an edit to the Running article which you reverted for "unexplained removal of content". I'm sorry if I didn't go about my edit the correct way I'm just trying to improve the article. I'm a big fan of running. I feel like the Benefits and the injuries sections need the most improvement. After going back to see what I removed my thought process was that the line didn't have a citation and it was worded vaguely and seemed opinion based rather than fact. I will post in the Running articles talk page with my edits either today or tomorrow. I'd love to get some feedback or approval before I made and edit to the main page.

Thanks! Mitchell

MitchellPreston (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I struck the original message and left a more specific one, which I should have done originally. Your main problem is that you inadvertently removed footnote references by the format that you used. I set out how to do this correctly. I also left quite a few helpful links. Sorry for any inconvenience by not being more specific and good luck to you in editing. Donner60 (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

You removed my edit under false pretense

My edition is perfectly according to NPOV, but you have reversed it based in false pretenses. I have merely clarified that the assertion made by the christian author is an opinion, and not (by far) academic consensus. Please revert your edition and be mindful of the references added to the article. 177.20.243.189 (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Although I believe my edit was correct, I will assume your good faith and consider it debatable. While I cannot in good conscience revert my edit, I will not revert your edit again if you restore it. Also, I have stricken my message on your talk page so it will not appear as a criticism or warning. Donner60 (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing to debate, I have merely turn a direct quote into an encyclopedic text. 177.20.243.189 (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

After my message to you, which I cannot see that you can interpret as anything other than a concession which will allow you to restore the edit without further attention from me, I see no good reason for your additional comment. If you are seeking some kind of further admission or act of surrender from me, I again do not see any good point to further comment. Donner60 (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you have misjudged me again, I'm not after any admission or "act of surrender", I'm just trying to explain my position. Anyway, keep up with the good work. 177.20.243.189 (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

You have made me consider that I may have misjudged your edit and your comments. Sometimes a particular turn of phrase or sequence of comments can be misinterpeted. Like anyone else, I am not immune to that. I certainly am sorry it that is the case, as it seems to be. Good luck in further editing. Donner60 (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Shirobako

You claimed that I didn't cite my findings for editing Shirobako because they are a living person, but Shirobako is an anime, and my only citations are the fact that I'm watching the anime right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.226.25 (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I struck the original message on your talk page because you pointed out to me that Shirobako is an anime. It is no real excuse but the program I use for editing only shows the changes and a very small amount of the adjoining article. Nonetheless, I still should have recognized that this was an article about an anime. The additions would have been a problem in a biography of a living person, but not as factual additions to descriptions of a character, which you can restore as far as I am concerned. I am sorry for the mistake and I hope this will not discourage you from editing. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Donner60 (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Links left on ShadowSpud talk page

Thanks :) and the amity affliction is melodic hardcore and emo as stated via my sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowSpud (talk • contribs) 02:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Good message! Something like this should be added on the page with the first warning. May I use it too? BTW: It's wp:Words to watch, not wp:Words to Watch Thanks again! Jim1138 (talk) 04:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Thanks. Yes, you can use it. I am glad that you think it is useful.

I can not take credit for much originality. I recall that I wanted to modify the longer welcome message which does not seem to be used as much as it once was. My goal was to use most of the links but to add or subtract a few others. I also wanted a slightly more compact presentation. I use several variations of this depending on the situation. I sometimes cut the number of links down to about 10 or 12. Sometimes, I have added a few that are appropriate for the editor's problem which may be covered by one of the more specific pages.

If I am not mistaken, a welcome message can be delivered from Huggle, and maybe from Twinkle. Ideally, I think you are correct that these should be delivered with each message. But since I am placing these separately from warning messages, often in addition to them, it takes extra time. I don't mind doing that if I think a new user may just be mistaken or ignorant (not meant pejoratively). I am not sure that the template welcome messages are quite as effective, or useful when the user seems to be an obvious vandal from the outset. Besides, I think you need to take some extra step to deliver them as well.

After awhile, I think we begin to recognize, or have at least a better idea about, the mistaken or ignorant editor as contrasted with one who is apparently merely disruptive or a vandal. It is the first type of editor who may have some promise and should not be driven off by template messages which don't adequately explain the problem or may not give several useful links rather than one or two. Sometimes the disruptive editor might be seen as borderline vandal but if that user is given a more specific message with some links, further disruptive behavior is more likely to be vandalism and that user will be subject to a report to AIV. If they do straighten out, then perhaps we will gain a productive user.

I keep a growing number of these special messages with combinations of links in a document offline so I can retrieve the variation I would like to use quickly. I may have to take the time to organize it better since I now have quite a few slight variations and I need to scroll or search for one I may want to use.

Strange as it may seem (for time wasting if nothing else), I have kept a list of the pages on which I have used the message or a variation of it. I thought I might be able to see how effective these messages were but since most of these go to IP users and if they do not continue to edit, there is no way to tell whether they gave up or registered an account. Out of habit, I add to the list every few days. Of course, one can see if the IP was blocked one or more times if that was the case.

I saw an edit by that user (ShadowSpud) which looked contrary to policy, not necessarily vandalism. Indeed, the user had an edit summary which in effect asked for help. Also, the "report the user" box came up so I knew there were several previous messages which while technically correct, may not have been helpful when help would be productive here. Admittedly, this seemed quite a rare situation. Despite four warnings, I thought the user might possibly just be uninformed and a little misguided. So I left that message, hoping to set the person straight, rather than reporting him (presumably).

Thanks for pointing out the typing error. I just recently added that link to my "standard" long version so I hope I haven't made that typo more than a very few times.

That may be more than you needed to read but I suppose I am glad someone asked about it and I could write about it. Donner60 (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Looking back at the ShadowSpud talk page, I see you delivered the shorter message to that user earlier. So they were advised and I note that you are quite familiar with the template welcomes. (So I needn't have gone on about that point) Although it turns out that I may have been a little too solicitous of that user, perhaps the longer message will help the person in the long run if they wish to come back and edit productively. After your (last) message to the user, Materialscientist blocked the user. You may have reported the user or someone else may have done so. I also have seen Materialscientist block a user who had been warned with at least four messages apparently by discovering the vandalism before anyone reported it. Donner60 (talk) 05:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I did report the user. Also left a note on my talk page which I snapped a grumpy reply back: user talk:Jim1138#Problem. I really think a team needs to redo the warning messages and methodology. I think many potentially good editors are intimidated, stunned, and leave feeling victimized. Looking back on some editor's talk page carnage, I see that an editor might have a test warning, a unsourced warning, maybe an attack warning and the result is a confusing mess. It works if one gets four of one kind of warning type, but a mix makes for a mess. I have a short-attention span and mostly Huggle. I was told that I am in the top 20 Hugglers. I wonder how many good editors I've driven away. I've looked for a venue to address these concerns, but haven't found one.

Have you considered making a template? You can just add it to a page as I did here: User:Jim1138/Help1 See the result on User:Jim1138/sandbox. The second is subst: It doesn't indent at all however. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jim1138: I put too many colons on the previous message so I am backing it up a little to allow more time.

I also received a message about being in the top 20 Huggle users. I suppose I should have responded to the request to let the WMF person watch my edits and comment or discuss by telephone. I did not do that, although I left a reply on my talk page. I thought that I would not have much to contribute and that scheduling might be difficult and the whole process might be something of a problem or trial. Did you participate and, if so, did you think it was worthwhile? It seems that nothing much has come from the project yet as near as I can tell.

My guess is that many people use STiki instead of Huggle. I will show my ignorance - or maybe lack of a proper zip program - by saying I could not download, unzip and install STiki. Otherwise, I might have tried it by now and could comment on any differences. On the other hand, I assume template messages are delivered with reverts via Stiki and that these are the same, if not identical, messages to the Huggle messages.

My offline document serves the same purpose as a template. I also have identical versions of a few slight variations with the colons to provide the indent. I am not sure that it would be any faster to have the document on line especially since an indented version also probably would need to be retrieved for use by the extra click of opening the template for edit. I do appreciate your suggestion and will think about putting my versions and a few variations on a sub-page.

The templates have been revised once or twice in the past but I am not sure about the details or what the project might have been. I think that more specific messages probably could be tied to the various reasons for reverting an edit - although I am no computer expert. I will spend at least a little time looking for a page, or a record, for past work. I was under the impression that the Huggle project might be working on something concerning the template messages but I may be wrong. I think a few more reasons for reversions ought to be among the choices as well. I do wonder how much enthusiasm there would be for a template project. Certainly some computer guru or gurus would need to participate to advise whether certain suggestions could be implemented.

I have been concerned about driving away potential good editors as well, which is why I started leaving specific messages or welcome-type advice and links. I suppose we can think about whether anything more can be done. As a practical matter, only a few people may be watching many edits per minute and can only take so much time on each instance of possible vandalism or get hopelessly behind. I would not worry about driving away a large number of potential editors. Despite some angst expressed about this on other pages, my view is that the great majority of vandals or disruptive editors appear to be nothing but vandals and disruptive editors. While more generally helpful and specific messages might help some, I think the main point may be to try to spot the good prospects and advise them accordingly.

Certainly I think we should share ideas if we can come up with others. And at least a few of the other regular reviewers might have some ideas, or at least some similar concerns that would lead them to think about this and perhaps to participate in some more general project.

I hope that makes a little sense and I am not getting too foggy now to go along with long-windiness. Donner60 (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Re:Gender Pay Gap

It's true that women are systematically discriminated against in the workplace in terms of pay. All the social organisations say it, just search it up on google. So don't revert my edits Feminist1234 (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Left this message on your talk page: "Please read the links on reliability and verifiability. It is not incumbent on readers or even editors to search out the reliability and verifiability of various edits, especially ones likely to be disputed or controversial. Please learn more about Wikipedia. I am not disputing what you wrote or taking any position on it. That is not the point. The point is that such assertions are controversial and others may well revert the edit and get into arguments with you. Better simply to cite a reliable, verifiable source. I am simply following Wikipedia guidelines. You may also want to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You will be more successful if you follow the guidelines and write in a neutral manner rather than simply asserting your are right (which you may be; but if so, you can cite sources) and telling people to look it up. My point is reinforced by the message you just received even before I could finish writing and posting this." I might well have left a link to Wikipedia:Civility. Donner60 (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Bulava - timetable

Hi,

I feel that source provided for 15 November 2015 - Bulava launch is not reliable third-party source. Article don't specify where they got their information from, so how can it be classified as - reliable? I tried to settle the "edit war" in RSM-56 Bulava talk page, but nobody seems to visit it. All i want is reliable source to back up that launch failure claim.

Thanks.82.181.226.194 (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Reply as left on your talk page: "I have deleted my first message as well. Between the time you asked the question and my being on line to answer it, another editor has accepted your edit with modifications. The substance of the edit and the source are accepted. He may view the edit as definite enough, considering the source, to avoid the speculation or "crystal ball" interpretation that I gave it. I am glad I deleted one message of my own accord. I also think the links I added in the separate message could be helpful. I am sorry for the inconvenience caused by my interpretation. I am quite willing to defer to the more liberal interpretation. Please do not be discouraged. I urge you to continue productive editing." Donner60 (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Quoting Confuscius isn't original research

Please see WP:GF also help with any relevant appeals process would help solidify the WP:GF, and put me partially in the wrong; thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.173.26.130 (talk) 04:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Left this message on your talk page, also on the article talk page: "User:@MarnetteD: has left a link to the synthesis section of the original research page. This is a good explanation of the problem with your edit and I suggest you read it if you have not done so. I will add a few additional words about this. What you are doing is adding an interpretation or conclusion of the lesson of the tale which is the subject of the article. In effect you are saying something like: "See, Confucius said a wise thing that could be the lesson to be drawn from this." But Confucius had nothing to do with writing the tale itself or interpreting it. You are using his saying to draw a conclusion and to hint that it is good because Confucius said it first. An encyclopedia is not about a writer's interpretation or conclusions whether on his own or through the use of a completely extraneous source. Certainly Confucius may have written the statement. But it had nothing to do with the tale. An encyclopedia is about the facts related to the subject of the article. An expert of some sort may have made a conclusion which could be cited, but Confucius did not. The fact is that Confucius had nothing to do with writing the tale which is the subject article. Also, it can not be said that this is Confucius's interpretation of the tale, which would have been impossible since he lived long before it was written. So your use of a statement by him under the circumstances is simply your conclusion. Under these circumstances, you really do not have an appropriate reason under WP:EXCEPTIONS to include your edit. It simply is contrary to the guidelines. The essay on exceptions is simply suggestive, or an editor's interpretation. It is not itself a guideline and cannot overrule one. Good faith does not come into it all. No one questions that you mean well in adding the conclusion, but it simply is beyond the guidelines whether you make it up yourself or cite a saying from Confucius, who was not commenting on the tale itself, to support it. I hope this helps explain it." Donner60 (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Donner60 has explained things very well - and thanks D for taking the time to go into such detail. The fact that the IP has made this connection between the two is interesting but it is WP:OR as well as the WP:SYNTH already mentioned. WikiP relies on outside and WP:SECONDARY sourcing - not the connections that we make through out own learning. MarnetteD|Talk 04:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Western film vandal

Thank you for reverting vandalism to Last of the Comanches and similar articles. This persistent contributor has been range-blocked on 67.44.208.* since June but has obviously found a new /24. Further details in User:Certes/Western. I've pinged the blocking admin. Certes (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Certes: Thanks for the info. Just a guess: I wonder whether this person is a student, very likely a teenager. Now back in school after a summer off, he is bored and back to this bad habit to waste or take up time. Makes no difference, of course, unless it is the start of more appearances by him. Donner60 (talk) 04:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Software Engineering

Hi Donner, my edit to Software Engineering is in line with the other article on its history, which goes into more detail. See History_of_software_engineering#1945_to_1965:_The_origins. In fact, the current version of the page explicitely contradicts the articles here: http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/scientists.html and http://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/article/20150108/NEWS/150107759/1007/OPINION 2604:2000:1280:8118:48F0:703E:6DD:AE10 (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I struck the original message on your talk page because you have explained the edit. The edit standing alone did not make this apparent to me, especially since part of the explanation was in another article. Occasionally pointing this out may be necessary. Thanks for setting that straight and I hope you continue to edit Wikipedia. By the way, I also note that you have taken account of Wikipedia:Edit summary, which is helpful. Donner60 (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

chekhov is ukrainian by father

hi, chekhov is ukrainian by father and I don't think a small notice will hurt. U ask for citations: 1. first of all it's in article itself "His father, Pavel Yegorovich Chekhov, the son of a former serf, was from a village Vilkhovatka near Kobeliaky (Poltava Region in modern-day Ukraine) and ran a grocery store." 2. here u got another one: -"Chekhov's paternal grandmother Efrosinia Emelianovna, whom her grandchildren saw even less, for she rarely left the farm, was Ukrainian. All the loud laughter and singing, the fury and joy that Chekhov associated with Ukrainians, had been beaten out of her. She was as surly as her husband, with whom she lived fifty-eight years before her death in 1878." -this from his father diary: "I remember my mother came from Kiev and I saw her" this is from the site https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/r/rayfield-chekhov.html looks pretty solid. in russian there are more evidence, in his personal letters Chekhov was referring to himself as Ukrainian in many occasions. Maybe they weren't translated to English, I look some more. So what do you think? I see no reason why not to mention in the article that Chekhov was Ukrainian by his father side. 94.139.128.207 (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

here you go another one, from his personal letter : "Moreover, I imagine the journey will be six months of incessant hard work, physical and mental, and that is essential for me, for I am a Little Russian and have already begun to be lazy." (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/6408/6408-h/6408-h.htm)

"Little Russians" (Maloross in rus.) is how Ukrainians were called back then, the Russians themselves were called "Great Russians" (Velikoross). U can read an article about it on wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Russia. 94.139.128.207 (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I left this message on your talk page: Thank you for your messages and explanation. I hope you understand that if there were no support for this, it could have ended up being the subject of dispute. I was concerned about the process here, not whether it was a fact or not. It is better to be prepared to answer an objection by anyone claiming this was not a fact. I would have had to do research to determine that. In the event you are not familiar with some of the Wikipedia policy and guideline pages, here are some links to some of the main Wikipedia policy, guideline, style and help pages that you may find useful: Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources; Help:Footnotes; Wikipedia:Verifiability; Wikipedia:No original research; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; Wikipedia:Notability; Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons; Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; and Wikipedia:Words to watch. For certain purposes, you may also wish to see Help:Introduction to talk pages, Wikipedia:Copyright Problems and Wikipedia:Images. Help:Contents and Wikipedia:Questions provide guidance and links to pages where help can be requested on various subjects. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Anarchism and Marxism

The claim that 'Commmunist' governments have all successively followed a particular policy to promise indigenous people national liberation and then denied it is not supported by any source. The fact that multiple Communist parties throughout the world exist because of splits and historical circumstances should make it obvious that there is no universal policy on national liberation that every Communist party follows. This claim is baseless and sounds more like the assumption of a cynical anarchist or a tall tale from an ultra-nationalist Eastern European. Please restore the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.31.36.209 (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I am striking the original message on your talk page. because your explanation shows your edit was in good faith. I still cannot agree with your removal of content as an alternative view, if nothing else. I will not revert your edit if you restore it. Of course, I cannot know what any other editor may think about it. Donner60 (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Huffington Post is click bait

I think I made myself clear. It's that or spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.139.20 (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

As further information, please 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 is written from a neutral point of view. It does not publish personal opinions, commentary or unsourced information likely to be changed, challenged or disputed. See Wikipedia:Five Pillars, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Help:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Words to watch. For further information about contributing to Wikipedia, see: Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Eskimo Article NPOV cc: message to Gillam

Hi Gillam,

I noticed that you removed my NPOV tag on the "Eskimo article" after less than 30 days. I'm not sure if that was an appropriate. The tag was NOT on there because I disagree with the current content of the article, I am quite happy with the way it is. Rather I put it on there because I feel/notice -- and experience has borne this out-- that out of apparent personal biases (presumably well-meaning) poorly informed people, en masse, cannot seem to keep from introducing inaccuracies to the article, which then tend to say there. Hence, no matter how rock solid the arguments may be for the current writing of the article, people invariably ignore those arguments, make their edits, and no one even tries to stop them. I have suggested completely rephrasing the entire introduction in order to limit the scope of such destructive edits, but I was essentially stopped from doing so for reasons not fully clear to me. You say you removed the tag because no one was willing to argue my point. I'm afraid there was no discussion because my point was obviously right to anyone who was paying attention. In that case I say you, having removed the tag, now must automatically have the responsibility to maintain the article, protecting from the kind of inaccuracies I was working against. Otherwise you are seriously undermining the credibility of the article, and those who wrote it, myself included. Maybe you are not aware, but there really have been a lot of persistent problems with said article, esp. the intro, so if you haven't bothered to pay attention to what is going on, you really shouldn't be taking this kind of administrative action. Please make a further review of the situation if you are not satisfied as to the truth of my comments. I copy Donner60 with this message. --from IP 4.35.243.35 69.162.192.65 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure why this was copied to me since I have made no edits concerning the tag or template. I reverted an edit by IP 162.119.231.132, not this user's IP but perhaps related in some way such as from a dynamic IP, open proxy or different computer of the same person, which was: "Except for one in particular by the name of Chelsea. She doesnt see it as derogatory in the slightest." This is certainly a disruptive edit. Two citations which followed were in the article already. The one which can be verified certainly has nothing to support this edit. I don't see how this edit can be supported under the most lenient interpretation I could dream up for it. Not only is it irrelevant and not notable, it may even be some sort of attack on or attempt to embarrass a particular person, even though a last name is not given. If it is an attempt to show something about the subject of vandalism to the article, it is ill-conceived. I see no reason for me to get into the debate about the tag.

This recent entry on the talk page of the article seems to address the point quite well. "Too many people who too clearly have no idea what they are talking about keep editing this article, esp. with regards to the idea of "Eskimo" as a pejorative term. This article still exists because a vote was taken to keep the article with this title in the English Wikipedia, and for good reason. If people want to have another vote, maybe that makes sense. Otherwise, there needs to be a stop to sabotaging the truth and utility that is in the article. That is, there needs to be an enlightened consensus, and we need to stick to it. Key word being enlightened. Mob rule is not serving this article well. This is the English Wikipedia, not the "politically correct words" Wikipedia." Under the circumstances, Gilliam has this well in hand. cc: @Gilliam: Donner60 (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, I copied you because it is obvious that you are a fair and reasonably informed third party. Basically, I am concerned over the future editing of this article, and am doing my best to raise awareness to this problem, particularly considering I do not have the time or even the resources to continually "watch" the article by myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.162.192.65 (talk) 09:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Just replied at length on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks very much. I absolutely believe you when you say you don't have a lot of time to manage individual articles. And, indeed I may not have the process in correct order. I myself in general do not spend too much time editing wikipedia articles (though I try to do a good job with the ones I do work on), and am less familiar than I probably should be with how to deal with an issue like this. In truth, this sort of problem hasn't actually arisen on my radar before. Hence, just trying to make sure that you and Gilliam, at least, are aware of the potential issues that exist. I really appreciate your making whatever efforts you can afford; trust me I'm very familiar with the balancing act on these things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.162.192.65 (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Western Australia

There is an ip causing chaos there - yeah I dont like those horrible long weird ip things either, it happens for once the person behind the long weird ip is actually attempting to revert the ip... please read carefully the diffs, I usually dont JarrahTree 02:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC) the real culprit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/59.100.216.22

cheers JarrahTree 02:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Left this message on your talk page: "Thanks for the message. You are correct. I misread the sequence of edits or misinterpreted one of them. Only the IP user whom you pointed out is the problem editor. I struck my message on the other IP user's page, left an explanation and some helpful Wikipedia page links, and a word of encouragement. I also entered a null edit so I could leave an edit summary stating that the other IP user's edit was correct. I did that so no one would be misled by my previous revert. I hope that clears things up, although we still may need to watch for vandalism by the other IP editor. A few more such edits and I am sure he will be blocked. Thanks again." Donner60 (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow - hey thanks for such a formal reply - things happen quick with this sort of stuff at such a fast rate and I for one rarely read diffs properly. I usually avoid articles such as that one in that the potential for confusion as to who or what is doing what can be difficult to keep up with JarrahTree 02:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

About the case of impressionism in music

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edit to User talk:Donner60 constitutes vandalism and has been reverted or removed. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Donner60 (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC) You didn't give any practical investigations about this case, then left the message here. Should you firstly produce the investigation why things had happened and who was wrongly enough. Jason M. C., Han (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

You gave no explanation for your actions, which were not proper under Wikipedia guidelines. Under those circumstances, there was nothing for me to investigate. Returning my messages here with little additional explanation appeared to be disruptive. I now will assume that is not what you intended and am sorry if I failed to understand your point. However, I properly applied Wikipedia guidelines on page blanking. You have a message on the article talk page but you made no mention of it - possibly because you recently had deleted that entire page as well. It would not make much difference in the ultimate handling of the reverting of your page blanking if I had seen it because you may have a content dispute. If you have a content dispute, rather than an objection to the policy regarding reverting the removal of all sourced content from an article, you need to handle it as I point out below.

I will further try to explain why I reverted your action and the basis for doing so. There is no justification for removal of sourced content which is not shown to be wrong and in fact is the entire contents of the article - which removal of all content is what you did next. You gave no explanation for the removal in the edit summary. For the problem with page blanking, see Wikipedia:Page blanking; see also Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. There are procedures for deletion of a page. I am sure that is not really what you want, even though it is what you did. I will refer to the policies in the unlikely event you are interested in them. The procedures are shown in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. For criteria, see: Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

Apparently you do not like the fact that some additional content, which seems to have been added by you earlier, was removed by another editor. That content is not written in an encyclopedic style (for example, some of it is not in third person and some of it directs the reader rather than informs the reader) and it is not clearly written. In my opinion, it does not seem to add much to the existing content. It is not helpful because it is difficult for the average reader to understand. It could be reverted on that basis as well. If the real problem here is a content dispute between you and one or two other users, you need to work this out with them. Failing that, you can follow Wikipedia procedures for resolving disputes. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Other important Wikipedia guideline, policy or style pages which may be pertinent here include Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music and Wikipedia:No original research. Additional helpful Wikipedia pages include Wikipedia:Five Pillars, Help:Referencing for beginners, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Help:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Words to watch, Help:Using talk pages, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:Copyright Problems.

For further information about contributing to Wikipedia, see: Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Help:Introduction to talk pages; Wikipedia:Copyright Problems; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. Donner60 (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Let us re-clarify several important points of this case:

1. Impressionism, if it was applied into music, should have great relationships with the part 'Special Instrumental Techniques'. You can see: Impressionism painting has special techniques and other schools all have the special techniques in training and performing. This was from the natural reasonability and as the common knowledge known by all the instrumental teachers, learners and researchers. If there weren't this part existing, this article has no practical meanings and no reason to be here, therefore, it needs to be cancelled; 2. The reason why this case happened was because of Michael Bednarek (talk)'s unappreciated behaviours firstly. I paid much energy, time and internet fee in making this part - 'Special Instrumental Techniques', which summarized both the documentary resources, notation-transcripts and articles; meanwhile, it has also summarized my, my teachers', some experts' and our students' practical experiences - these commons' contributions in teaching and learning Debussy's music and the impressionism in music. Then, I upload it up. Facing this case, Michael Bednarek didn't give any constructive suggestions, and even, he showed his discriminations of piano-players and Chinese ideas in his talks. Today, when opening it, there was no notice, no explanations, but this part was disappeared. The communications were closed by himself, rather than me. To be honest, it's his language which firstly expressed the meaning of cancelling this article, rather than mine. As the respect of his suggestion, I have made a developing zone for other instrumental experts to put their professional ideas upon. However, he didn't belong to them. A good musician should give out his solutions for bettering this article, rather than criticism others'. His attitude was really bad and his language was rude. That's why I have removed them. 3. You said language style: to be honest, I understand linguistics and really followed the language style of Wikipedia and its politics. I have used the third person and made the grammar's modifications. Language was developing all the time and was communicating with others frequently. We should not make Wikipedia as one old-fashion book without any creativity. If so, no one wants to read and the existing meanings will be lost. 4. My behaviours of dealing with this writing was under 'the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License'. If he felt unhappy about my changes, he can put his solutions as how to write 'Special Instrumental Techniques' upon, rather than cancelling it, without clearly talking which parts he though was disrupt. I can make total modifications of them. Rather than this, he firstly put several categories of other instruments upon. However, it was beyond his abilities to write more words on. Facing this, I give a solution - summarizing all his categories into a 'Developing zone' following. Then, I have stated to him why I did so - including Post-impressionism and Neo-impressionism. However, I found he didn't understand them further and he also didn't understand the following references I have put were from the contributions of Chinese Piano-musical Educational system - tens more years’ practices from the teachers, academic scholars and the researchers. His behaviour - simple cancelling this part hurt the commons' hearts.

All in all, Thanks for your response. Writing this part wasn't only for me, but for the commons who are practice and love impression in music for long time. Three points of descriptions of how to train impressionist skills together with the direct sound file and notation-transcript can carefully express how impressionist music was going-on. Yes, maybe, my writing as the beginning wasn't of the good-quality. How to change it and how could us better it should be the most important thing, rather than making so many unnecessary and unpractical arguments. It was because that from nature of impressionism in music to say, we cannot ignore the trainings of its 'Special instrumental Techniques'. They are really existing belonging to individual trainers. Sharing here, much more commons can know them and some commons who cannot find good teachers can turn to our Wikipedia for helps. They are the meanings of it. Yes, I can close my door and re-share it only in academy and with my students. However, this isn't according the principles of my philosophy. Therefore, I reminded the investigations of this case totally. It might cancel not only a part, but some commons' interests and the public sharing of new-forming knowledge in a new era. In addition, if possible, please give back the link of original edition of 'Special Instrumental Techniques', I can replace it to other place Thanks Jason M. C., Han (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page as follows: I have read your latest message to me. I think I understand your point and that some addition to the article seems to be necessary for completeness. I cannot agree that the article should be deleted without the addition but I do not need to agree with that to consider that some addition should be made. I will look at your previous addition to see if I can copy edit it. I do not have much confidence, however, because I am not familiar with this topic. It seems too technical if one does not have familiarity with it to write a useful version. After that, I will contact one of the other contributors to the article. I may explain my purpose to Mr. Bednarek but it may be that Mr. Kohl or even someone who worked on the article earlier would be more interested in expanding the article. Donner60 (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

This time I really need to say thanks: My interests weren't important and my writings might be not good enough, but behind them, there were plenty teachers, researchers and scholars who were continuously researching the impressionist techniques in diverse instruments, including piano (Somehow, it is the main part, depending on piano's expressive abilities and Debussy's original interests in instruments). As me and my teacher, we were playing and teaching Moonlight of Debussy and presenting his ideas in training, for about 10 more years, as directly in the school of impressionism. Meanwhile, I had read some good points from academy about it - some need to be translated into English and some need to be collected across cultures. It wasn't a closed case but with the vivid vitality towards a beautiful future. That's why it was really hard. A musical school, if without the Special Instrumental Techniques' supports, cannot be called a school but an idea. That's why I am so unhappy about this part's lost. our behaviours are equal to save some treasures from teachers' 'fork teaching operations' and 'daily practices'. No one denied that 'impressionism as a school in music'. However, 'Impressionism' was from 'the generalized a sequence of impressions of musical landscapes' and is hard to be described. You knew, then arguments and discussions are also of normal.

Hopefully, this can be got back. If not, after a time when I am not busy, I would like to join some more daily practice-researches, the explorations of its training, discussions, arguments, and collect some more documental references, firstly maybe put in talks. Waiting a time, after no denying voices and the voices somehow will be unified, then we together push out a piece as a category; or, someone or me firstly push out a category, then... That's all okay. Though you aren't in this field, thanks for your understandings, again!

Jason M. C., Han (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that your main point is that certain special instrumental techniques must be used to produce impressionism in music. That makes sense to me. You wish to identify and describe these techniques in addition to describing the school of impressionism. I do not wish to insult you, of course, but I think you now realize that your description is not clear even to those who edit this article and are familiar with the topic. That seems to be the main problem. I tried to revise these thoughts to make them clear. I was only a few sentences into the section and became hopelessly confused. I did some research online but could not find anything that clarified the techniques for me. I have not verified that your addition is referenced to reliable, verifiable sources. If not, there may be an original research issue as well. I have not thought it necessary to look at that because there seems to be a basis for your addition. That would be an additional problem if there is not. Since I could not clarify the text, there is no need for me to look into that. I will ask others who have edited the article whether they can help with this. If they cannot, we may have to leave it as it is until someone can make a clearer presentation. I regret that I can do no more than this but it is made more difficult because I am unfamiliar with the topic. I will add another comment after I make a few inquiries. Donner60 (talk) 08:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

edit to Paul McCartney discography page

Wikipedia's Paul McCartney discography page under this section:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_McCartney_discography#As_producer.2C_composer.2C_or_session_musician

lists The Beach Boys album "Smiley Smile" as having a contribution by Paul McCartney in the form of him providing "percussion" by crunching on vegetables on the track entitled "Vegetables".

This is an urban legend.

You told me I need to cite my sources, so here is my first of two sources:

Me.

I spoke personally to both Brian Wilson of The Beach Boys (in 1998) and Paul McCartney (in 2006). Both events were signings in Manhattan. I asked both of them the same question: Are the sounds of Paul McCartney crunching on vegetables on the 'Smiley Smile' track "Vegetables"? Brian Wilson stated most assuredly that Paul was at the session, but did not "perform" on the track. Paul McCartney said, with a little embarrassment, that he just couldn't remember.

Here is my other source:

You - or Wikipedia, to be exact.

In the "Recording" section of this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetables_(song)

Al Jardine is quoted as recalling the following:

'The night before a big tour, I was out in the studio recording the vocal [for "Vegetables"] when, to my surprise, Paul McCartney walked in and joined Brian at the console. And, briefly, the two most influential musical Geminis in the world had a chance to work together. I remember waiting for long periods of time between takes to get to the next section or verse. Brian [seemed to have] lost track of the session. Paul would come on the talkback and say something like "Good take, Al."'

So right there, The Beach Boys' own Al Jardine only recalls seeing Paul at the console and not in the actual recording area where such percussion effects would be recorded.

Furthermore, on that same Wikipedia page, it says, as the page's very first paragraph:

'"Vegetables" is a song written by Brian Wilson and Van Dyke Parks for American rock band The Beach Boys, released as the second track on their 1967 album Smiley Smile. Paul McCartney of the Beatles appeared on an earlier version of the song entitled "Vega-Tables", chewing celery as percussion.'

And right there, Wikipedia is admitting that, IF Paul McCartney crunched vegetables on the track of the same name, he would have done it on an EARLIER version, and NOT the one found on "Smiley Smile", as your Paul McCartney discography page tries to say.

Lastly, since Paul McCartney's appearance was "surprising", as Al Jardine stated above, it would be foolish to assume that Paul McCartney, a native and lifelong resident of the United Kingdom, would just happen to be present at every session when The Beach Boys attempted to record "Vegetables", which they always did in California, NUMEROUS times between October of 1966 and June of 1967 - just as the Wikipedia page states.

I would like to believe that if Wikipedia is as serious about maintaining the integrity of this site's encyclopedic information as I am about preserving the integrity of Beatles history, then you would respect the basic principles of where the burden of proof lies when trying to prove or disprove the existence of something.

Actually, the burden of proof is with you. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Nonetheless, you have proved your point. It must be said that removal of sourced content is always going to be suspect. Some statement in the Wikipedia:Edit summary and additional mention on the Wikipedia:Talk Page of the article if expansion is needed will usually prevent misunderstandings. You could have done that. Ideally, reviewers might spend much time reviewing every questionable edit and the whole article in which it is placed and look for sources in addition. I do that up to a point with quite a few edits. However, with hundreds of edits per minute, maybe more at busy times, and usually only the bot and a few editors reviewing them, it would be impractical to take much time to check on suspect edits at length. Hundreds of others will go by unchecked and there are only a few later chances problems will be caught from watchlists or one of the tools (STiki) used by some editors. So the burden of proof or an obligation to make extraordinary efforts to check every edit that does not comply with the guidelines and has no explanation or reliable, verifiable support is not with the reviewer. Even leaving out the pure vandalism, there are just too many edits to check to verify all the questionable ones which take time to edit. (Addition of content or of an alternate explanation is often easier to check.) As I noted, you are not a reliable source. The guidelines state that. We have no way to know who you are and whether you are telling the truth, nor would a reader. But you do not have to rely on that and could have used some or all of the explanation you have given and sources you have cited without relying on yourself, whoever you may be. Of course we want Wikipedia to be as accurate as possible, so since you have proved your point, I will rollback my revert. Donner60 (talk) 08:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

By "you", I mean anyone, especially someone who is anonymous, who would make claims based on assertions of personal knowledge which are unverifiable. I was not trying to harangue you personally. Donner60 (talk) 08:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: Adam

I believed that the reference to the Abrahamic creation myth later in the article warranted Adam's status as a mythical figure. It's fairly unimportant at this stage; no worries on this end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.104.181.237 (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Reply on your talk page with helpful Wikipedia policy and guideline page links. Donner60 (talk) 04:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

George Weigel

The edits I made were not negative but were factual and direct quotes from articles written by Weigel himself, since much of the content on the page is sourced to material he's produced, published by the National Review. I don't understand why unsourced personal opinions clearly written by Weigel himself can remain intact but the sourced statements I've made cannot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hereisnowhy (talk • contribs) 02:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

No they are not. They are your negative interpretations of his opinion, not necessarily a fact. I would say the same thing if your interpretation was the opposite. Wikipedia has strict policies against such statements in Wikipedia's voice. Wikipedia does not publish negative assertions which could be interpreted as libel. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Also see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a blog or forum. If you wish to put the article up for deletion, you must proceed under the procedures shown in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. For criteria, see: Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Also, be sure your are familiar with Wikipedia:Notability before you make a nomination for deletion. Donner60 (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

If you read the articles that I've cited you will see that he openly rebukes gay marriage and blatantly makes statements that I've quoted without any editing, the only thing I could see being misconstrued as bias is me suggesting that what he said is homophobic. He absolutely and in no uncertain terms states that the gay rights movement is a front for regression in sexual morality, that it is destructive to the morality of america and christianity. He defends a school for firing a teacher because they are gay and calls those who oppose their decision idiots. Did you read the article before deleting what I wrote out on his page? Did you take into consideration that he blithely has written statements about his own personal beliefs to his page without any kind of source material backing these up? He litearlly refers to America as "she" on his page. Why should that stay if the factual depiction of his beliefs backed up by his own writing cannot? The "negative interpretation" of someone's openly biased standpoints are fact. He is homophobic and everything else that I've stated is fact straight from things that he has written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hereisnowhy (talk • contribs) 03:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You are simply arguing for your interpretation. Wikipedia states the facts, it does not make interpretations and go on to characterize people in negative terms. You say that he establishes the fact himself. I read the article and he does not say anything about being homophobic or hating gays. The text you cite may be his beliefs, but it should not contain interpretations, nor do I see that problem in a quick link. I have already sufficiently explained this with links. If you wish to carry this on, discuss in on the talk page and with others who have recently edited the article. After that you can try the deletion process, though I frankly think you can not establish that he is not notable. Otherwise, you can take further steps under Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I am not the other side of this; I am simply applying the principles and procedures in the pages that I have linked above, which I again suggest you read. Donner60 (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere in my proposed edit did I call him homophobic or say that he "hates gays," I said that the views he has expressed are homophobic which can pretty much be verified by definition. I'm not fighting for my interpretation because it's not my interpretation. You can't tell me that there is no standpoint in those articles or that what I have surmised of them is inaccurate. I make no declaration of him as a person, I simply say that he has expressed homophobic views and give links to the homophobic views in question. What if it was changed from "openly expressed homophobic views" to "openly expressed his personal views regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage," then how exactly is it "my interpretation?" I genuinely am not seeing where you're coming from. I don't transcribe his views, I literally kept them as close to what he has said as I possibly could. It genuinely is crazy to me that this:

"In some cases, he adds, moral reasoning may require that the United States support authoritarian regimes to fend off the greater evils of moral decay and threats to the security of the United States. For Weigel, America's shortcomings do not excuse her from pursuing the greater moral good."

Can stay, without any kind of source or anything, but what I've said cannot. Seriously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hereisnowhy (talk • contribs) 03:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

As for the two sentences you cite, they can be tagged with a citation needed tag and if no citation is provided within a reasonable period of time, that text can be removed. See Wikipedia:Citation needed. No matter how many ways you try to come at justifying your interpretation and point of view, I am not going to agree your characterization is consistent with Wikipedia policy. As I noted, you should take this up elsewhere with others. Donner60 (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Tim Tam "Tim Tam Slam" Edit Revert

Thank you for your message regarding your revert to my edits on this page. I'm new to Wikipedia and didn't intend to commit my changes yet. Thanks for redirecting me to the sandbox, this is better suited to my needs. Cordially 66.219.213.35 (talk) 04:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Aspiring Wikipedia Contributor

Thanks. I left some links to helpful Wikipedia style, guideline and policy pages on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Balangiga Massacre

September 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm Donner60. Your recent edit to Balangiga massacre appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

49.150.159.200 (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Hi, I was about to revert it back. I was just showing that person what Wikipedia is all about and telling her that this is a collaborative work by users. But thanks for reverting it back for me. :)

I accepted your explanation, struck through my original message and left links to helpful Wikipedia format, guideline and policy pages. Donner60 (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

49.150.159.200 (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)great! thanks man! I will try to figure out again my wikipedia account and use that going forward!  :)

Thank you

Thanks for catching/reverting those. Neil took care of that IP! -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dane2007: You're welcome. Glad to help. Others, including you, have reverted such edits to my page. Occasionally such edits can remain for awhile if the user is busy elsewhere or has signed off. Always good to remove them as early as possible. Donner60 (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverted change on paralympics page

You reverted a change I made that deleted something about Brazil 2016 being the first paralympics to take place in winter. the paralympics started in september, which is spring in brazil, not winter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.190.26 (talk) 05:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I left the following message on your talk page: I am striking the above message because it was a mistake. I restored something that in fact should have been removed or changed. I may have misread the sequence of edits but in any case, the edit was not a test and my reversion was a mistake. Since this was several days ago, there are too many intervening edits to roll mine back but if an error remains, it can now be correct. Sorry for the mistake. If you are not familiar with them, you may be interested in pages with helpful information about editing Wikipedia which can be found on various Wikipedia guideline and policy pages including: Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources; Help:Footnotes; Wikipedia:Verifiability; Wikipedia:No original research; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; Wikipedia:Notability; Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons; Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; Wikipedia:Words to watch; Help:Introduction to talk pages; Wikipedia:Copyright Problems and Help:Contents. Thank you for your contributions and your message. Donner60 (talk) 05:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

White pride

I believe you unnecessarily erased the adjustment I made to the page on white pride which simply clarified not to conflate the nationalism and sense of separatism of whites with neo-nazism and white supremacists. I provided a sufficient edit summary adequately explaining the changes I made therefore it seems unreasonable that these changes were erased. I am leaving you this message because I believe you made a mistake in restoring the original inaccurate content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPreamble (talk • contribs) 00:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. However, I reverted an edit in which you removed a picture and caption and replaced the picture and caption with a red link. I reverted the edit as an unexplained removal of content. That is exactly what it was. It seems that you intended to substitute one picture for another. But that was not the result of your edit. This is a different issue from the one addressed in your explanation. That issue pertains to later edits by you which were reverted by other users. Since these edits not only followed mine but had to do with the text not just a failed picture substitution, any controversy over those changes would be between you and the other users. My revert of your edit concerning the problem with the picture substitution was proper and had nothing to do with the content of the article or later edits. So you need to take up the issue with the other users. In the event this does not work out to your satisfaction, I suggest you look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Donner60 (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You should join us on IRC!

Donner60! Just sending you a personal message to see what you think about joining us on IRC? IRC is chat medium used to send messages between one another. A lot of us vandal fighters talk in there a lot. If you want to connect to IRC and chat on the English Wikipedia channel, just click here. It would be really awesome to see you become a regular on IRC with us! Maybe I'll see you in there? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm also in IRC now if you want to join and chat! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah:. Thanks! I had been thinking about whether there might be a forum of some sort for comments about vandalism in general without making a big deal about them. I may drop in at some time. After a short while, I plan to work on an article tonight, about a major general and combat hero. I have gotten quite far along but have to consider whether it needs to be reduced and some information moved to other articles. I am leaning toward posting the long version. Donner60 (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, either way, I'm usually on IRC 24/7. If you join, just ping me by typing 'Oshwah' into the chat. It will alert me that you're trying to talk to me. Would love to say 'hello'! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah:. Great. Good to know you are likely to be there. Donner60 (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Kaveri River Dispute

Why are calling an update to existing incomplete table as disruptive when it is based on already existing reference. The other user is deleting the fact deliberately — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CDC3:A9D0:0:0:0:3ED (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

You added "based on a biased decision" which is nowhere in the reference that you cite. Your additions to the table have been questioned by another editor, apparently because they differ from the tribunal's numbers. Your reference is apparently outdated. In any event, the edit to the table was taken away with your non-neutral edit because it was part of the same edit. You can take that up with others. My point is that Wikipedia can not say that the decision was biased when no neutral source can be cited for that phrase. Donner60 (talk) 05:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow looks like a you are super reader. Read 41 pages in less than 5 minutes and coming to a conclusion! Looks like you are a sr editor. I was expecting that you read the article in full before jumping into conclusion. However please note it is clearly stated in Table 2 of page 22. I am not sure why the other user is deleting it to favour one state over other state. BTW: Threats like 'you will be blocked' will not help wikipedia to keep its current high standards.

As I said, the reason for my edit was that you inserted the words "based on biased decision," which you do not seem to be acknowledging. I did not read the article because, if you are referring to citation 7, it is not linked. Also, since I said I was not dealing with the table, which unfortunately is part of the same edit (but which has been questioned and now has a decision that gives a difference number), I did not need to read the reference. Wikipedia's high standards are not kept by editors who push their point of view by adding phrases like "biased decision" which is their own unsourced interpretation - in other words, it is not a neutral point of view. Why don't you just leave that out and support your changes in the actual text, since that is really the important thing? BTW: That is not a threat; it is simply a fact that users who repeatedly fail to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines and policies (or are vandals, which I do not accuse you of being) will be blocked. And it is a standard message given all the time as the number of such messages grow. Also, I repeated the previous message. If I had added another more direct version, you would be down to your last try. I did not do that because I am trying to get through to you what the problem with your edit is. Donner60 (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

'based on biased decision' is removed. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CDC3:A9D0:0:0:0:3ED (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting my edit (really).

@Donner60, I'm glad you were on top of that article (Apologeticus), noticed the change, and reverted my edit. It was an error due to a curious series of events. After looking at the wording of something in the 1st (creation) version of the article, I left to work in another browser window. I later came back to the browser where the 1st version was still showing. Believing it was the current version I edited it to fix an errant 'a' in the lead, then saved.

Take a look at the history 00:56, 13 June 2004‎ and you'll instantly see what happened. I didn't know it was possible to overwrite the current version that way.

Once more, thanks for being alert.

KSci (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@KSci: Thanks for the explanation. I have been around long enough to have saved an edit by mistake so it can happen. I have also had an article open in two windows so I know that can result in a situation where a mistake is made by making edits (especially along with deletions, intended or not) on both pages. Good luck in future editing. Donner60 (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Edits reverted on Don King (boxing promoter) mistake

Probably by mistake you reverted my edits on the page for Don King (boxing promoter), claiming I was doing "editing tests" even though it was a real edit. It looks like you were using Huggle and it got flagged as vandalism? The edits I made were clearing written, notable, and cited by strong sources, therefore can we re-revert the edits? Do you have any other thoughts / conflicting opinions? Thanks - William Casey (talk) 04:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Williamcasey: The word "rum" was inserted at the end of a paragraph. It seems obvious from your message that this was unintentional, though you are correct that it was what was immediately visible on Huggle. Donner60 (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I fixed that error and re-added the new content. I guess somehow "trump" turned into "rum" by mistake. William Casey (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Removed my edits with no explanation

-rep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.138.84 (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I used the editing test template because I could not believe the edit was serious and even if it was, I did not want to tag a first edit as vandalism. Your edit ", "which is why the town is widely known for red trucks" was unsourced. It is unlikely to be widely known and is certainly questionable. Even if you could get over the hurdle of citing a reliable, verifiable, third-party source, the comment is unencyclopedic. See also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, such as a blog, forum, etc. Donner60 (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for that. It was a mistake. I meant to edit something else but I got a glitch on my computer. 2602:301:779C:C0F0:61FC:84D4:BA6C:F5A (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC) ...

Short-lived Ottoman provinces

Do you even try to understand why an edit was made before reverting it? --178.252.126.70 (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

In looking into this further based on your message, I see that you were changing a redirect to a direct link and referring to an article directly on the subject instead of two articles on the subjects in general. Similar edits can be disruptive or otherwise nonconstructive. You can help avoid such misinterpretations or misunderstandings by using edit summaries. Since your edits are valid, I struck the original messages on your talk page. I have rolled back my edits so that your edits are the last ones now showing. Donner60 (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Assess carefully

Assess carefully before you put a warning message on a user's talk page like you did on my talk page. --Merinakutas (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I did. You have been putting the same advertising/promotion/spam into several articles. Several editors have reverted these. Follow the links in the message for further explanation of the advertising or promotion that you have been attempting. Donner60 (talk) 06:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, There is possibly vandalism occuring on Penny Oleksiak's page. Her height has been changed without any references twice now. Could you take a look? Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_Oleksiak — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.110.169 (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Her height is correct as of the minute I write this. https://swimswam.com/canadas-penny-oleksiak-high-demand-rio/ is a source that shows she is 6 ft 1 in tall and the conversion is from meters so the meters height is correct as well. Also, there are two citations, with dates earlier this year, in the infobox now in support of the current height. Donner60 (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

6'1" is the correct height - a vandal had changed it to 6'3" without citing any sources on Sept. 23 which I reverted, then another vandal changed it to 6'3" again on Sept 30. (which was reverted by Gap9551 before you saw the page), and now another vandal has changed it to 6'3" again after editing the height 4 times in a row (this time deleting the 2 original citations as well). There is no indication that the vandalism will stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.110.169 (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as I look at the policies for page protection, and just as importantly some decisions against page protection on the list at this time, I think there is not enough vandalism by enough users for an administrator to add semi-protection to the page right now. Only two or three vandals have attacked the page recently and not even daily. They have been thwarted by other users, such as you, reverting the vandalism promptly. You could look at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to see if you want to make a request but I think it is not likely to be granted unless the amount of vandalism increases. Much as this looks like recurrent vandalism by several users, I would not yet make a request for page protection because I think only a very protective administrator would grant it at this time. That is the policy as I read it but you may view it differently. Donner60 (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Nu Kappa Epsilon

Hello! You removed my edit to the Nu Kappa Epsilon page. I am the co-founder of the Gamma chapter and I put my own name there because it is supposed to be there and all of the sisters are in the know about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:B400:B6:3800:FD59:D582:ECA8:475 (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I struck the original message on your talk page because of your reasonable explanation. The state of the article is such that an explanation probably should not have been required. On the other hand, it is good to know it is being edited by someone knowledgeable and not by a random person just adding random names. Donner60 (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

FetLife

Thanks for the thank you. Beat you to it! I think Ian.T was blocking before I AIVed. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jim1138: That was a bad one that needed to be reported as soon as possible. The user had left a defiant message here and promised to continue the edits through a dynamic IP even if blocked. I reverted it and left the message on the user talk page of vandalism after final warnings (because there had already been two). We'll see if he continues but a block may be enough to stop him. Obviously he has a grudge against the company. It seems he can't prove any of his charges are facts, however. Under the circumstances, I thought your report especially needed a thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It's amazing the vendettas about. I've been having at it with meatpuppets on Tamil Eelam until it was fully protected and then Talk:Tamil Eelam. Clueless meatpuppeting... Jim1138 (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Ferrari 275 revert

See explanation at my Talk page. I'm going to make the edit I was making when you reverted. It stands on its merits. Yours, 50.163.88.251 (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Already reconsidered and struck my message before this was posted - or at least before I saw it. Donner60 (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Frank Luntz revert

I edited the entry to add "propagandist" to the page about Frank Luntz. Despite some negative connotations about the word propaganda in American English, it is not an insult or intended to be negative. In fact, I believe that it is the simplest and most accurate word to describe what he does for a living. New to talk, so forgive me if I don't mark this up correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.179.23.122 (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I accept your good faith but I think that since the article is about an American, and the word does have negative connotations especially in the current context and political environment, and because there is so much negativity on Wikipedia (to the extent it does not get reverted) and elsewhere about anyone associated with the Republicans, fair or not, the edit does not adhere to a neutral point of view. Should we also put "propagandist" in the article about every pollster associated with the Democrats or have shown to have leaned heavily toward their point of view in the past? The question would seem to answer itself. Thanks for your explanation in any event. Donner60 (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

My answer to your question would be "yes", in any case. There are too many euphemisms employed in defining the activities of these individuals that are simply meant to obfuscate their true role. Anyone involved in political messaging would be a propagandist, by the definition. I'll accept your decision on this, but will first ask you to reconsider as I don't believe that it is the Wikipedia community's responsibility to ensure that posts are free of factual information that *might* insult the sensibilities of some people who have assigned negative meaning to a neutral word.

It is not just the sensibilities of certain readers that are at issue, but whether this is a neutral point of view. Also, consideration must be given to Mr. Luntz himself. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I don't think the addition of the term, even with a citation, would last very long in any political pollster's biography. Donner60 (talk) 03:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

3RR notice to IP user 2600 ...

Hi, you are mentioned in a 3RR notice I wrote on talk page of 2600:8800:ff04:c00:8926:80c7:6af7:cfa3 RaqiwasSushi (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is properly formatted ID User:2600:8800:FF04:C00:C123:9BE1:5248:EB97. (There is no info on user page; there is info on talk page) Subsequently noticed you had posted on this user's talk, and then changed your POV. Modified my post on 2600 to reflect that. Sorry for inconvenience. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I have no point of view, really. As I wrote, after looking at it further, it appeared to be "arguable." Under those circumstances, I think this should be resolved between users with more knowledge or interest in the matter and not simply under a reversion criteria such as removal of content or whatever might be applicable. Donner60 (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Since I posted on IP user page -- summarized issue and asked user to not revert again -- this user has deleted everything from the talk page.

I picked POV as acronym to reflect your change of decision. Apologize that was inaccurate. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Me again. 2600.. talk page again has info. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your diligence in handling this and for your accuracy. Donner60 (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Michelson-Morley Experiment reverted

Hi Donner60,

I made a minor edit of the entry on the Michelson-Morley Experiment pointing out that due to the null result of the experiment being explained by the Lorentz Transformation (length contraction), the possibility of an undetectable aether remains a possibility. You reverted this change due to no reference being cited.

I undid this revert and added a reference, as requested, to the Wikipedia entry on the Lorentz Ether Theory where this possibility is acknowledged. On this page it states "Because the same mathematical formalism occurs in both, it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment." Also, one of Lorentz's quotes from tis page says "... he argued in 1913 that there is little difference between his theory and the negation of a preferred reference frame, as in the theory of Einstein and Minkowski, so that it is a matter of taste which theory one prefers."

Regards, Declan Traill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Declan Traill (talk • contribs) 23:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Declan Traill: Thanks for your explanation and edit. In this case, I think the link is an adequate reference. Usually bringing over one of the references in that article as a footnote that supports the text in the edited article would be the preferred option, and may be required if the link is also unsupported. The link indicates the edit is not just a user's conclusion which is the main point. Donner60 (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Donner60,

Ok, thank you.

I would be a good idea to add a link to those two quotes I mentioned above, as you suggest. I am not familiar with how this would be best done; please feel free to add such a link to my edit...

Regards, Declan

I put some information on your talk page which I hope will answer your question. Donner60 (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I have added the new Note to my edit - seems to work OK. Thanks for the help...

Hartford page

It wasn't vandalism, I just thought the pages should be switched, as "Hartford" is the better title for the page. So it wasn't vandalism. 72.69.187.111 (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You are right. I struck the two messages I left because while I think the edits were not appropriate, it is easy to see how they could have been made in good faith. So no warnings should have been given. I wrote a similar message with some helpful Wikipedia page links while you were leaving your message. Sorry for the inconvenience and for leaving the messages instead of this message in the first place. Donner60 (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) IP you copy an article that already existed and pasted it over a redirect. While technically not vandalism the edit creates numerous problems. If you want to suggest a move of the current article you need to file a request here Wikipedia:Requested moves. Donner60 I hope that you are well and that you have a good week. MarnetteD|Talk 21:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Thanks for the additional explanation. Glad to hear from you and I hope you are doing well. I have been well and, more specifically, I was out of town for a few days on a quick family visit. I intended to revert those edits without leaving the accompanying messages and then go back with a more specific one. After I realized I had hit the wrong button, I thought I needed to quickly pull them back. I still needed to be a little more specific so I am glad you filled that in. Donner60 (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

No worries D. Between the two of us I think we've covered all the bases :-) Autumn is proceeding nicely here and I am well. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 21:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Darren Williams

I am the writers son. DomTheBunny (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

And you're adding inappropriate, plaigirized, copied and pasted, and disruptive edits to his article. Donner60 (talk) 02:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Seige of Acre

My source is from "The Crusades, The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land" by Thomas Asbridge. I'm sorry when I was reading about the siege of Acre I felt like I need to make some corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.246.79 (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I own a copy of the book and it is not exactly unbiased or free from error - or at least in coincidence with other sources. Nonetheless, it should pass as a reliable source since the author is a college professor. I struck the original message on your talk page and asked you to cite the book for your additions. I also left helpful Wikipedia page links with information about footnotes and other guidelines and policies. Donner60 (talk) 05:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Aaron Meyerson

i was editing the bio because there were typos and it was too wordy, plus bringing it up to date. now the edit button has been replaced with an edit source button so i dont know how to make changes now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronmeyerson (talk • contribs) 05:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Jesse and Noah

Jesse is sitting there right now: Edit summary. Templated IP w/ COI Jim1138 (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Thanks. I am glad you saw that. I thought the deletion edit was overboard but I accepted the explanation in the next edit summary - good faith and all that. I was about to sign off Huggle so I thought I might as well give the user time to fill out the article. I should have handled it the way you did (telling the user to revert as they went along; instead I said fill it out quickly so it did not have such a large deletion for long). Interesting that a conflict of interest was revealed when you stepped in. Thanks for letting me know. Donner60 (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

121.209.210.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The IP merely inserted an irrelevant source to give the illusion of honesty. Try the find a connexion between its statement and the given citation. It was making a racist joke. — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 11:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I sent a thanks via the thank you button. Donner60 (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Cleveland Indians

I apologize for the misunderstanding, but I merely thought that the name "Indians" is both pejorative and offensive, and I acted on it. Do you have the authority to revert blocks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docolusanya (talk • contribs) 11:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Not a test

My edit to Vitamin B12 was not a test. Conversion can happen inside the body or earlier so it requires changing. I'm an experienced editor who hasn't bothered logging in on this computer. 122.105.137.113 (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The "or earlier", without a citation, did not look right. I will give you the benefit of the doubt on this and not revert further edits from you on this article. Donner60 (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/TB2

Could you revert the vandalism here? (If not already done), you're welcome about the vandalism on your talkpage, also... :-) 2601:1C0:4401:F360:4057:B87:4A96:758B (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I think I got it but I am afraid that he will keep popping up somewhere until he is blocked. Donner60 (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the edits to the Jack Wilshere article.

Hi, I received your message about some non-constructive edits I allegedly made to the Jack Wilshere article. I'm a bit confused, as I did not make these edits in question. I'm not exactly sure if I'm on a shared IP either. Perhaps I have been hacked? I've actually not made any edits in quite awhile. Certainly nothing like the vandalism that took place on Jack Wilshere. MrGamble (talk) 04:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I had this much written and ready to post until your change conflicted me out. The edit was made on October 8 and came from your IP address. The earlier vandalism came from your address on July 4. There are reasons why this could happen although you personally did not do it. One is that someone on a shared IP with you, possibly in a public place, did it. If it were in a public place, you could have been hacked. If you only recently got this IP address (though the edit is rather recent), it could have been assigned to someone else before you got it. If you register an account, you will not have to be concerned about a shared IP. But if someone is using your computer while you have Wikipedia open or if you open it in a public place, an edit can come from your IP address. So you must be careful in guarding your privacy and protecting against unauthorized use of your computer. Since there is only one recent bad edit, I would not worry about it - unless further such edits come from your IP address, of course.

The vandalism came from your IP address, not from your user name that you now have posted. So my previous comment is still valid. By creating a user name, as I had written, you should be able to avoid these problems in the future, but please remember that your computer can be hacked in a public place or used by someone else if you leave it open to Wikipedia and walk away for awhile - or if they are savvy enough to open it. Good luck in future editing. Donner60 (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, that makes sense. I was really confused and alarmed when I read that initial message. I've created this account to avoid any other such conflicts. My apologies for messing up your post, I'm not very familiar with how this system works anymore. MrGamble (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

No problems. I am glad you mostly figured it out before my post. Sorry for the typo in the second paragraph of my response but I trust the meaning was still clear. Donner60 (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Not a test: ISIS

Hello Donner60: You recently removed an edit I made to the page about Islam being a religion of peace saying it looked like a test. It isn't. I made the edit in good faith.

I edited a section that used a citation from an ISIS spokesman that was used to show that Islam is a violent religion. The citation is faulty because the person speaks for an organization that does not represent Muslims. ISIS was created by the Obama administration, as my citation said. I made an edit and sourced it to a reputable source. It the edit runs counter to official opinion, that's not my fault.

If there is a technical reason that my edit was removed, please tell me and I'll make adjustments, but the edit as it stands is sound.

I look forward to your response.

Thanks, Lexismaximus

Responded on your talk page concerning your added assertion, stated as a fact in the introduction to the quotation, that the Obama administration created ISIS. There is no direct evidence from a reliable, verifiable source. Possible conspiracy theory or fringe theory. Even if not, it is based on vacuum of power created by US lack of action, quite a stretch that is not acceptable as an established fact as so stated without further explanation. Tangential to the article on the religion of peace, at best. May be covered by ISIS article, which I do not have time to examine tonight. Belongs there if anywhere. Donner60 (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Men Without Hats

The photograph on the page was captioned "men without hats perform in 2015", the caption is clearly incorrect, because one man in the photograph has a hat. I fixed this caption and you reverted it and said that my edit required a citation. This does not make sense. If there was a picture of a cube and it was captioned "a sphere" would I need a citation to fix the caption. Does wikipedia require citations from experts to verify visibly obvious things? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.36.237 (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Men Without Hats is the name of the group. Changing the caption because one man has a hat in the picture does not change the name of the group or make a different caption an accurate name of the people in the picture as a group. The obvious part is that the original caption of the picture, and the name of the group, is Men Without Hats. I am sorry that the template message delivered was not more accurate. This still does not make your edit accurate, however. Donner60 (talk) 03:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Miko Hughes Article

The information that I deleted was a bunch of crap in spanish, about a series of reggaeton albums called Imperio Nazza. It stated that Miko Hughes was a reggaeton singer and made those albums with Daddy Yankee and some other latin singers. Besides the information was written in spanish and the article is in english. And you reverted my change, putting again that fake info and in the incorrect language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.236.203.96 (talk) 04:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I struck my original message on your talk page because you are correct that the content should have been deleted. Since section blanking and blanking a large amount of material is suspicious, it is an unfortunate possibility that people and bots will see that and restore the content without taking a good look at the prior content. You almost certainly would have avoided the reversions and the messages had you used an edit summary with a brief note as to why you were deleting a large amount of content. I don't know about the bot for sure, but this would have gotten my attention and I would have checked the previous version carefully to see that you were correct.

Helpful information about editing Wikipedia can be found on various Wikipedia guideline and policy pages including: Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources; Help:Footnotes; Wikipedia:Verifiability; Wikipedia:No original research; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; Wikipedia:Notability; Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons; Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines; Wikipedia:Words to watch; Help:Introduction to talk pages; Wikipedia:Copyright Problems and Help:Contents. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Open business

My change below wasn't test: Add link of "Awesome Open Company", a community-curated list of awesome open companies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.4.160.12 (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

There are no edits from this IP address. Nonetheless, I remember this as an advertising or promotion edit, and I did look at the web site. See Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. The other external links all have articles or explanation of open business and open source. Your addition is simply advertising, as I read it. The template message that I left (through the bot) is the mildest one but I am sorry that I did not leave a more specific message. A more specific explanation, as just given, would have been more appropriate in this case. Donner60 (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20