- 1 New messages, questions, comments: Put at very bottom of page, see text of this section
- 2 Disambiguation link and bracket bot notifications
- 3 General William Morrises
- 4 A new reference tool
- 5 Thanks
- 6 Pontiac GTO: Here comes the Judge
- 7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klann_linkage
- 8 Kerbal Space Program
- 9 Thanks for your help with Don Lane (Santa Cruz)
- 10 A Little Help?
Please put new messages at the very bottom of the page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC) To clarify, the new item should not be below this message and not below the repeated message after my introductory paragraphs but at the very bottom of the page after every other item on the page. It will help me to understand what you are talking about to add a section heading, identify the article you are concerned with (if your question or comment refers to a specific article), using a link, probably putting the article title in the heading, and sign your edit with four tildes (~~~~) so I know to whom to reply. Keep an eye on this page because I may just reply here if the answer is simple and does not seem to be time sensitive. When I notice an out of order question or comment, I will move it to the bottom of the page and provide a heading if there is none already. Donner60 (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia policies, guidelines; twitter, facebook; what Wikipedia is not; avoiding common mistakes
References to Wikipedia policies, guidelines, instructions, include:
Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Wikipedia guidelines on twitter, facebook: Wikipedia:Twitter. Wikipedia guidelines, policies on external links: Wikipedia:External links. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which includes not a dictionary, a publisher of original thought, a soapbox or means of promotion, a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site, a directory, a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal, a crystal ball, a newspaper, or an indiscriminate collection of information. • Wikipedia:Verifiability. • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. • Wikipedia:No original research. • Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. • Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. • Wikipedia:Citing sources. • Wikipedia:Notability. • Wikipedia:Image use policy. • Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes. • Wikipedia:Vandalism. • Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles.
User Talk page guidelines
Excerpts Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia.
Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and unregistered users.
There are certain types of notices that users may not remove from their own talk pages, such as declined unblock requests and speedy deletion tags. See Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings for full details.
User talk pages are subject to the general userpage guidelines on handling inappropriate content—see Wikipedia:User pages#Handling inappropriate content.
- Personal talk page cleanup: On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving.
From the section Editing comments, Other's comments in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines:
- Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels, removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls or requests for comment (RfC), fixing list markup, using
<nowiki>and other technical markup to fix code samples, and providing wikilinks if it helps in better navigation.
- Fixing layout errors: This could include moving a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom, adding a header to a comment not having one, repairing accidental damage by one party to another's comments, correcting unclosed markup tags that mess up the entire page's formatting, accurately replacing HTML table code with a wikitable, etc.
- Sectioning: If a thread has developed new subjects, it may be desirable to split it into separate discussions with their own headings or subheadings. When a topic is split into two topics, rather than sub-sectioned, it is often useful for there to be a link from the new topic to the original and vice versa. A common way of doing this is noting the change at the [then-]end of the original thread, and adding an unobtrusive note under the new heading, e.g.,
:. Some reformatting may be necessary to maintain the sense of the discussion to date and to preserve attribution. It is essential that splitting does not inadvertently alter the meaning of any comments. very long discussions may also be divided into sub-sections.
<small>This topic was split off from [[#FOOBAR]], above.
Note that it is proper to use
<nowiki> and other technical markup to fix code samples.
Please put messages, questions or comments at the very bottom of the page. If you put them here (immediately before or after this paragraph), as some people have done, I may either not see them or more likely not see them very promptly. That will delay any reply from me to you. To clarify, this should not be below this message but at the very bottom of the page after every other item on the page. It will help me to understand what you are talking about to add a section heading, identify the article you are concerned with, and use a link, (if your question or comment refers to a specific article), probably putting the article name in the heading, and sign your edit with four tildes (~~~~) so I know to whom to reply. Keep an eye on this page because I may just reply here if the answer is simple and does not seem to be time sensitive. When I notice an out of order question or comment, I will move it to the bottom of the page and provide a heading if there is none already. Donner60 (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I occasionally get one of these notices. I fix the link or bracket, then delete the message, as the messages state is permissible, instead of further cluttering up these pages. Donner60 (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
General William Morrises
I'm glad you pointed the discrepancy with H. out, the Google Books preview doesn't include page 713 and that saves me the trouble of checking out the book. With W. I didn't know about the 'backdating' of awards. I made both changes as you suggested & if you want to add the details from Generals in Blue go ahead (again, saves me the trouble of tracking it down) - Thanks! Kirk (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Your welcome. Glad to help. Donner60 (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
A new reference tool
Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Donner60, I am completely new to Wiki editing. Thanks for editing the VCBF page to make it more appropriate and aligned to Wiki guidelines. I have an article that I have been trying to publish, and so far, I have not had much success. I'm wondering if you could lend a helping hand to a fellow Wiki user. Thanks in advance. -Charlie CharlieSkye (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have replied in detail on your talk page. I hope it helps. If you have any further questions, please leave another message and I will try to answer or point you in the right direction if I can the next time I am online. Donner60 (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Pontiac GTO: Here comes the Judge
Hi, in 1969 "Here comes the Judge" was a routine made popular by comedian Flip Wilson, not Sammy Davis Jr as indicated in the description of the 1969 GTO. Flip was a regular on Rowan & Martins Laugh In. My source for this info is I grew up watching the show ;>) Thanks, Rod 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- You may be right, especially since Wilson was a comedian and Davis primarily a singer and actor, but your memory can not be the source for a change. Isn't there a source on the internet or otherwise publicly available that can be cited for this? Added that I deleted the original message on your user talk page. Donner60 (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- I now see that there is nothing wrong with the edit except that it is in the wrong place. It should be in the footnotes or external links sections, not at the bottom under the categories. This is usually a sign that the addition is advertising or promotional, irrelevant or outright disruptive. Here, this simply seems to be replacing an otherwise bad link. Sorry I did not look at this more closely. I will move it to the proper place on the page so it won't raise a question. Donner60 (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Kerbal Space Program
- I left the following message (plus a welcome template not repeated here) on you talk page: I am deleting the above message in the manner prescribed by the guidelines (strike through) because you have explained that the edit was a mistake caused by a filter extension for Chrome. I have run across this in a few other instances but (as far as I know) it is not readily apparent when reviewing changes to articles that this was the cause of the problem. Thanks for letting me know and correcting the problem. Following is a welcome message which contains some links which might be helpful in future editing, although I don't recall that this particular glitch is covered. Donner60 (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with Don Lane (Santa Cruz)
Thank you for your help in keeping Don Lane (Santa Cruz)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Lane_%28Santa_Cruz%29 honest and as negotiated on October 15 2014. They have added this sentence: "The following paragraph was written by a political opponent of Lane who has decided to take up 25 percent of Lane's biography with his obsession with a minor event from more than 25 years ago that is not accurately described. The references cited do not actually verify all of the contents of this paragraph:" which is patently untrue. I am not the political opponent they are referring to though I do oppose many of Lane's policies and decisions. I have added this after the above inserted sentence: "The previous sentence is not true as evidenced by the following links and direct quotes."
It's funny how Don Lane and his team are so upset about this episode that they lie about it. It's also funny that Don Lane refers to it in a jokingly condescending manner in a recent fluff piece about him in a local paper: http://www.gtweekly.com/index.php/santa-cruz-news/santa-cruz-local-news/6203-on-his-terms.html
- Comment This isn't how content disputes are dealt with on BLPs. 3RR notices issued, temp semi protection requested. Take it to Talk:Don Lane (Santa Cruz). Keri (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- It seems the comment was directed to The Man of Heart rather than to me. For clarity, I will state that I have had no involvement with the article or any comments or pages related to the article or any contact with any of the editors of the article about the article prior to this message. While reviewing recent changes using Huggle, I saw a removal of content from the article with the letter "A" remaining where the content was. The latter was actually a key indicator of a problem for me. A previous editor had reverted the same change. Deleting content which cites a source, with no explanation, which has been reverted previously and leaves stray letters or other incomplete vestiges of the removed comment almost always adds up to vandalism. Even in the rare instance where it might not be, I think that an edit with such facts being obvious does not appear to justify the time spent on any further extended examination. In the rare case of an error, it can be brought up and changed within a short, reasonable time. I approached this not as some sort of content dispute, or something in which I had any interest in the content, or as anything other than a type of disruptive editing I have seen many times. If this was a mistake, which I am not sure is the point of the comment and I do not think was one under the circumstances, it was an honest and a rare one. Since the page has been placed under administrator protection, it seems to be a moot matter now. Donner60 (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- It is "unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus"; see WP:FORUMSHOP. Keri (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
A Little Help?
Apparently I've been flagged as to be in an Edit War at Don Lane (Santa Cruz). If you have the time and interest, would you comment on the Article's Talk Page? Thanks, The Man of Heart (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Since I last signed on, the Don Lane (Santa Cruz) page was placed under editing restrictions and only administrators can edit it. I do not see this has been taken any further either on the talk page or a noticeboard or by an administrator's comments. Your explanation seems to suffice at this point. Since the matter seems moot, at least for now, I think that further comments that might unnecessarily reopen or escalate the matter at this point would be unproductive even if I had anything useful to write about it. Since it seems your edits could be considered part of a content dispute rather than reverting improper edits and were within a 3RR time period, I cannot say that the edit war template placed on your talk page and advice to take the matter to the talk page, where it could be explained to those more generally interested, was wrong. It is not necessarily easy to craft a specific message in this type of situation so use of a template is understandable. There seems to be no bias in it because it also was left on the talk page of the IP user who appears to be the other party principally involved.
- The dispute seems not to have escalated further and the edit flag matter seems to have been left as a warning and not taken further. I note that the subject of the article rather obviously (from the user name) was the creator. He has edited the article from time to time. This seems to raise a question about whether the article which now stands close to the form it was written was created under a conflict of interest. In any event, unlike the editors who have been interested in the substance of the article and have edited for content, I have no knowledge or information about the underlying content dispute that I could add to the talk page. Donner60 (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)