User talk:Donner60

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

New messages[edit]

Please put new messages at the bottom of the page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies, guidelines; twitter, facebook; what Wikipedia is not; avoiding common mistakes[edit]

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[edit]

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., :<small>This topic was split off from [[#FOOBAR]], above.</small>. 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.

Note that it is proper to use <nowiki> and other technical markup to fix code samples.

Disambiguation link and bracket bot notifications[edit]

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)

Alien abduction[edit]

The IP seems to be trying to make an article here but doesn't know the ropes. I wouldn't know how to help him/her and I'm packing it in for the day. Know any where he/she can get help making a stub? SlightSmile 02:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The immediate problem would be the need for a source. All other persons listed in the article on Alien abduction have articles. Presumably, they have sources. The IP tried to add this name but I reverted due to lack of an article and lack of a source. I wonder from the attempt whether the IP is a non-English speaker or a rather young person. I will look quickly for a source. Otherwise, I will place a welcome template. There would no reason to spend further time on this. If this were a notable incident, alien abduction buffs might have put up an article by now. Donner60 (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks SlightSmile 03:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I found nothing about this on Google or High Beam. I think it is a hoax or a prank, possibly involving someone the IP knows. It should be deleted. Meanwhile, I left a welcome template - although I have second thoughts about that now. Donner60 (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
How did I not catch that! Really time to say good night. SlightSmile 03:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Easy enough to assume good faith. By the way administrator FreeRangeFrog already has deleted the page. Donner60 (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi how can we edit Ganguli page? I tried editing. Why did you delete? Can you add a photo please to the page? What's his career update? Couldn't find anything on his Wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Added to your talk page: You removed a large amount of material in your two edits. If you were attempting to add material, you were going about it in the wrong way, as you seem to be aware. I did not delete material; rather I restored it by reverting your edits. I suggest you study the material at the links in the welcome message above for directions on proper editing. Donner60 (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

How can his fans see photos of his work and his life? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion transferred to User talk:discospinster. Donner60 (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich[edit]

You never exactly clarified how you thought my contributions to that article were NOT constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced, unencyclopedic language, unnecessarily repeated several times. Donner60 (talk) 04:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
And you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ferguson Timeline page[edit]

Hi, this is Starchild, just responding to your note. Excuse me if this goes in the wrong place, I'm not that familiar with all the protocols -- hopefully you will see it. You were asking why I deleted the material -- it's because the material I added to the timeline about the Libertarian Party issuing a press release was deleted -- presumably people did not feel it was important enough to include. I can see that argument, but if that's the operative logic, it seemed to me Al Sharpton making another appearance wasn't that important either, hence my deletion. It was not a mistake, but sorry I forgot to take time to explain the edit. Hope you will either re-delete the material I deleted, or put the other material back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarchildSF (talkcontribs) 10:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Left on Starchild talk page as well: Removed notice due to adequate explanation of edit. I have restored your edit. With this type of controversial article, someone else might make a similar or further edit. In that event, you may need to leave a message for them. Thank you for your explanation. Donner60 (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Last surviving Confederate veterans[edit]

Hello Donner60, I note that the above article is again receiving what appears to be a mass of "original research". Did you ever get any advice from an administrator regarding this problem? As stated before, I am not a expert by any means on this subject - it's just an interest - but I am concerned by this mass of well-meaning original research. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to say that I have not followed through yet. I decided to research the matter. While I found references to the prior findings and a few sentences that point to them, I found nothing more on them. That gave me a little pause and I let it slip into the background. Still, I need to gather such information as I have and present it to someone for a further look. Rather than go immediately to an administrator, I think I will pose the question to a few editors who work regularly on American Civil War articles to see if we can get something of a consensus. Thanks for keeping up with this and giving me a nudge. Donner60 (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
All these "edits" appear to come from eastern Australia. Good that you intend to consult editors who work on American Civil War articles, although I still feel an admin will need to get involved. My own view is that whilst these edits are in good faith, they are original research - which Wikipedia does not allow. My own non-expert view is that the article should revert to the situation before the mass of IP edits. With best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I wanted to present the best case and slipped up when I found this would require more digging around than I thought. Regardless of that, it is original research and most of it is quite dubious. I don't think there is any bad faith which is another reason why I hesitated while searching for a definitive source. Still, it is outside the Wikipedia policy in any event. The early warnings may or may not have convinced the user of that. Also, I think most or all of the conclusions are speculative at best. No real correlation between common names in unit rosters and the "survivors" can be made and such additional sources as are mentioned don't seem to make the connection as well. Donner60 (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Further reply on my Talk page. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Comments to your draft communication to the IP editor on my Talk page. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Republican Primaries 2016[edit]

I was responding to your post. I had moved Former Senator Scott Brown to the Previously speculated area because it had been 6 months since the last media footnote. I just forgot to put the reason for the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CTU Almeida (talkcontribs) 21:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleted notice due to explanation. Donner60 (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


I'm pretty sure mentioning the drake equation in relation to hypothetical concepts and paranormal phenomenon is relevant to that paragraph. I linked to the drake equation wikipedia page, which has many citations. I don't see how that would violate the 'no original research' guideline. Not everything on that page even has a citation and it has a hint of bias when mentioning POSSIBLE intelligent extraterrestrial biological/mechanical entities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted the notice on your talk page in the manner prescribed by the guidelines. The edit has been explained to me. The rationale seems to have been a good one which I should have recognized. I am sorry for the mistake and inconvenience.
I have restored your addition but moved it to the section on Paranormal subjects. If you believe it should be in the introduction and not where I have placed it, feel free to move it. Donner60 (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: City of Glass[edit]

Thanks. The edit that I made was to remove a section of the article that did not contain citations and violated the NPOV policy. I accidentally deleted part of a reference tag which broke the page and made it appear to be unconstructive. Ehburrus (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I left the following message on your user talk page: I left the above message because the edit broke a reference tag. It has been explained to me as a mistake in an otherwise valid edit. In view of the fact that the problem with the edit was a mistake, I think the above message was unnecessary and it is unfair to leave it on the page. I have deleted it in the method prescribed by the guidelines. Donner60 (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Anna Maria Jopek[edit]

i did not vandalise any page, as i add more and more info and sources every time my changes are undo, without explanations, claiming the sources are wrong, while i did explain that sources are reviewed, i've got no response why the sources are wrong, and what sources should i use, claiming that i vandalised article after hours of rewriting and adding sources is offensive (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the warning that was placed on your page by Huggle because after a review of the edits I believe it was not appropriate to leave a severe warning. I have further explained or commented on this on your user page. I had one revert on the page you edited and it was for technical reasons, which I may have misunderstood, although an edit summary would have helped. I think any further discussion should be with those editors who are more knowledgeable or involved with other issues concerning additions to the article. Donner60 (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you please[edit]

Hi Donner. Could you please move to change the name article for Crowned Marian images in the Philippines into Canonically Crowned Images since the article now contains other Papal recognized images from across other countries. It should not just be about the Philippines but other locations as well. Thank you. TreasureIslandMediaBoss (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I will look at this very soon. I am not sure that changing the name of the article will be the only possible action. For example, we might consider whether an entirely new article should be created with the content about other countries. A small summary of the images in the Philippines and a link to the current article might be included. A discussion on the talk page, if any one will look at it over a brief period of time, might be appropriate first. Someone might have a more recognizable name for a new article. I say this because many readers might not be looking for the word "Canonically", although I can think of nothing better at first glance. I am not sure I am the proper person to change the name but it does not have to be done by an administrator. Any autoconfirmed/confirmed user can do so if they have a good reason. Donner60 (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I left a further response on my your talk page. It now seems that you have moved this along. So I will consider my response above as obsolete and you can proceed as noted by Aristophanes68. Donner60 (talk) 09:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Ercan International Airport[edit]

I think this post is not accurate enough. I have tried to say that there is no Greek and Turkish part. It is Republic of Cyprus controlled areas and those which are not controlled by the Republic of Cyprus due to the Turkish invasion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristidesz (talkcontribs) 11:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I placed this comment on your talk page: I will review this and the link you placed on my page. I note that the article Cyprus dispute says that only Turkey recognizes the separately held Turkish part of the island. Still, we must phrase these matters from a neutral point of view. I am not sure that working this dispute which is covered by its own article into the article on the airport is appropriate. Again, I will review this carefully to see if an edit such as the one you made is in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. In the meantime, I remove the notice above not because I think the edit was necessarily valid but because I think you made it in good faith. Donner60 (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Simon Kenton[edit]

My edits did have a citation. I attend this school and the page was outdated. I thought this was what wikipedia was all about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:B601:9900:78E0:C2AD:123D:B68B (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I left this notice on your talk page: I am removing the notice from this page due to your good faith in making a newer clean edit to the page with a source. Your prior good edits got caught up with the one about sleeping in class. That was not sourced nor a good edit. I give you credit for realizing that by not inserting it with your new edit. Donner60 (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Michael Drake[edit]

Redid the edit wtihout the words lame and stupid (just venting, couldn't help it). I have references regarding the problems with the investigation, but wikipedia reference format is inscrutable. Trying to figure it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I have put some links on your user page which you might find helpful. The references in the article are not well done so they do not provide much guidance. I may edit one or two for style. Donner60 (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Gross World Product[edit]

I moved the content to the new page Golden Ratio of Interest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrielcwong (talkcontribs) 10:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I deleted the notice on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The mistake with Dinosaur Train[edit]

Hello Donner60, I am the one who just removed the Dinosaur Train character list, a few months ago, I had a discussion with Mz7 about this information, he told me we should remove any biographical information in the article and stick to real-world information. I did this, and another editor said I turned it into another cast list by doing this. I therefore decided to remove the entire list. Thank you - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I will remove the notice on your talk page. I see some consensus has been developed with respect to the content of the article. Please proceed as that has developed. e. Donner60 (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello Donner, I appreciate your concern. I deleted some of the topics that had nothing to do with spiritism but I thought I left a message there explaining why. However, I believe that I didn't really understand how a template is supposed to work. I'm going to look further into it and I apologize for any mistakes or inconveniences. I'm still learning how to work with everything here. Thanks again,

CaetanoNegrao — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaetanoNegrao (talkcontribs) 17:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem was with the edit to a template which refers to articles on the subject or persons or organizations connected with the subject. I think your point may be that the connection is not direct to the concept itself. However, that is not what this template is about; it is a determination by editors that those articles belong in that category. The category could be removed for any one of them individually if it is not applicable, with explanation. It is not proper to remove them from the category template directly. Since you said you will look into this, I think you are on the right track. Donner60 (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Lilly Wood and the Prick[edit]

Sorry but the band's name is Lilly Wood and the Prick. I have known them for years and they have never been called just Lilly Wood, but always Lilly Wood and the Prick, even on their Wikipedia page where the link leads you. In some English countries, they are called Lilly Wood and the Beast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BalaoGT (talkcontribs) 23:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I deleted the notice on your page. Sorry for the mistake and inconvenience. Donner60 (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

About POET edit[edit]

What I removed was a 'main article' link. That link was incorrect Cellulosic Ethaonol is not the main article for POET's Cellulosic Ethanol plant. There exists proper links to the Cellulosic Ethanol plant a bit later in the paragraph. The use of the 'main article' link was improper as it would indicate the linked article is about POET's Project Liberty plant. -- (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It seems I misinterpreted this and will delete the notice on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit to page undone[edit]

If you see this line, clearly the structure not only....but also should be applied, instead of only....but also. Thats why I made the edit which was undone. Please see to it. "The loss included only one of his 14 Grand Slam title trophies, from his first Australian Open victory,[41] but also included two Davis Cups, an Olympic ring and six trophies for finishing top in the year-end rankings." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulserver (talkcontribs) 07:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Left this message on your talk page: Delete notice in manner prescribed by guidelines. The confusing sentence structure prior to the edit has been pointed out to me. The edit was justified to clarify this. Sorry for the mistake. Please proceed as you have a better understanding of what you are trying to correct. Donner60 (talk) 07:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit to Isolation by Distance page:[edit]

Hi Donner60. Could you please give me more clarification as to why you do not think that my contribution to the isolation by distance article was not constructive and why you reverted it back to it's original state? All of my statements were cited and my contribution was a significant expansion/improvement to the content of the stub. Thanks. Tennischick-jrj (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I left this message on your talk page: The reversion of the edit and placement of the above notice was clearly a mistake on my part. I only can assume that I must have intended to revert an edit to the previous page in the queue, not this article, and I slipped on to the next page, through touching the button to move the list forward, before making the edit. Simply put, I pushed the wrong button, probably twice in rapid succession. Please accept my sincere apology for the mistake. I have deleted the notice in the manner prescribed by the guidelines (which shows that I did it, and not you). And I restored your edit. Donner60 (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Mercedes F1 W03 ‎[edit]

my edit was right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:A500:708:2853:FF3C:379A:704C (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Placing the words "so cool" at the beginning of the article is personal opinion and not encyclopedic. Donner60 (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Nikos The Impaler[edit]

I added a source to my edit which was what was asked for when it was taken down the first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TypeONegative13 (talkcontribs) 01:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Left this message on your talk page: :Deleted notice. Source was provided for latest edit. Title may look offensive but it is correct. Sorry for the inconvenience. Donner60 (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Just checking in...[edit]

What's up, Donner60? I'm not WikiStalking, but I just wanted to check in and see how you were. I see you got the rollback flag on 6 August. Congratulations! How are you finding Huggle 3? I have used both Huggle 3 and the older Huggle 2, so if you ever need help with both versions (I recommend you try both of them and get a feel of both of them, since, IMO, both have their own pros and cons), you can ask me. I can also recommend some other anti-vandalism tools, if you wish. STiki and Vada are more simplistic than Huggle, and Vada works right in the browser like Twinkle. The thing I like about STiki is how it monitors recent changes even when nobody is using the tool. It collects edits that it suspects are vandalism in its own server, and the next person that uses the tool will be presented with an edit from the server, where they can decide to revert the edit, classify the edit as constructive and remove it from the server, or pass it on for another STiki user to check. It's quite useful after a period of time when most recent changes patrollers (mainly those in the Western hemisphere) are asleep and vandalism may have collected and piled up. While other vandalism tools catch edits as soon as they are made, STiki will catch edits and save them for a human to give the final verdict later on, so it can easily access this pool of vandalism for a vandal fighter to drain the gray water out of.

Other than that, glad to hear you're still alive! Keep doing what you do best, for the encyclopedia! --k6ka (talk | contribs) 00:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Good to hear from you. I replied on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 13 September[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Sports in New York City[edit]

Donner60 I edited NY arm wrestling from the New York Arm Wrestling Association and I received a note that it was not appropriate and I cannot understand why my editing was removed. We are a not-f0r-profit sports entertainment organization for 38 years. i only put general updated information. Please reply to email - Thanks Gene Camp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyawa (talkcontribs) 00:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I now think that with some changes, much of your addition to Sports in New York City about the New York Arm Wrestling Association could be kept. I viewed the addition as completely promotional in violation of Wikipedia policy. A closer look leads me to conclude that although some changes and deletions are needed, some of the text should be includible.
The citation of the association web site in the text is not needed for reference and violates Wikipedia's policy on advertising. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion.
The following sentence, the last sentence of the paragraph, is promotional. It starts with "We", which does not refer to Wikipedia but the association, and invites the Wikipedia reader to contact the association. Wikipedia certainly does not offer this invitation, as it would appear, and does not allow other organizations to do so. The sentence "We would like to share our insights and demonstrate how New York Arm Wrestling® events can offer a viable lifestyle sporting event that can help build your strength, engage your mind and enhance your image." This sentence or anything like it cannot be included.
At least two citations should be given for the assertions that the association is (1) "one of the most innovative and recognizable sports-entertainment organizations in NYC" and (2) has spanned 38 years with visible evidence of “hard work, promotion and performance credibility”, which is evidently a direct quote from some text or web site.
A smaller problem with your additions is that some of the text does not conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks where it states among other things:
  • Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one:
instead, use: Time, Kiss, Asus
  • Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs).
avoid: LittleBigPlanet™, REALTOR®
instead, use: LittleBigPlanet, Realtor
Usually a detailed review of promotional material is not useful because there is no truly informational content that can be separate from the improper content. In this case there seems to be informational content that is includible, so I am glad you brought it up.

Donner60 (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Donner60 Thank you for your reply and information on the reference and Wikipedia's violations policies. To be honest I did not read the policy prior to editing. I will try to re-edit the New York Arm Wrestling Association to meet your terms and Wikipedia policy. Hope I could get it right this time. Thanks, Gene Camp Founder/President of the NYAWA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyawa (talkcontribs) 03:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Your welcome. This shows a problem with making people aware of the Wikipedia editing guidelines that I think is difficult to solve. Vandalism aside, Wikipedia can be freely edited but there are limitations as to what can be included. Those limitations are reasonably well spelled out on the page Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. But many, perhaps most, people are probably unlikely to find the page unless they are really looking for such guidelines or are told about then. If the person adds something that does not comply, they may need a detailed explanation and a page link but these might not always be forthcoming. Since Wikipedia is a volunteer organization (except for a few computer and administrative people), every editor may not make such content and even experienced ones may not always see the need for it. Also, editors/users/writers are only on line as they have time and only one may know about, or be contacted about, a particular situation. I suppose the only real solution is to respond as quickly and clearly as possible when questions are raised. Donner60 (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

WMU Presidents[edit]

Trying to create list of university presidents but my link does not appear on pages like it should. I created and the page says to use "Template:Western Michigan University presidents" on pages for the correct info box to appear, but it does not. Any ideas?

I will look at it now. Donner60 (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

On this page:, on the very bottom is a drop-down info box for the University of Missouri and Washington State University presidents. I am trying to create the same for Western Michigan University presidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me the problem is that you created the template on a template talk page. The actual template page is blank. So when you put the template link up, you get nothing because the page is blank. I think if you move the template to the template (usually the article) page and remove the same material from the talk page, it should work. I think you need to define colors for the font and for the base color of the box as well.
I need to tell you that the links to food and drink special pages for various beaches need to be removed because they do not conform with Wikipedia's policy on promotions or advertising. SeeWikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion.
I deleted the previous notice on your talk page because it is obvious that the problem with the edit was a mistake not an intentional nonconstructive edit.
Donner60 (talk) 05:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

External links for Carolina beaches articles[edit]

I apologize with not really know how to properly respond here, as my account is obviously still new. I appreciate your reason for removing the external link I added in the Wilmington Wiki. I read the guidelines and honestly the site I added passed each of the guidelines regarding sites to be avoided. Its all unique and relevant content (I personally got the content first hand at each local establishment), it requires no sign int, its not littered with advertisements etc etc. Its a local restaurant guide based in Wilmington NC, instead of a restaurant list (which is on one of the pages) it lists by special. Again I respect your view point, but I do have to disagree with it based on the guidelines as I saw them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neofotography (talkcontribs) 04:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies on advertising are spread out on a few different pages and come up in different contexts such as creation of articles and external links. The external links policy, while applicable here, and the article creation guidelines are incomplete unless you see the other Wikipedia policy pages. Your additions are clearly advertising. The very first thing that comes up is a solicitation for adding advertising to the page. The next item is a Buffalo Wild Wings ad. There are many ads below. I am not sure what you think you put up because it does not sound like the web page which is linked. That is full of advertising. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. So I have to conclude that this link and the others on Carolina beaches pages do not conform to the policies on the pages I just cited. If you are unconvinced, we can ask the opinions of a few experienced editors or administrators if you wish. Donner60 (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Donner60 the slides at the top of the page show up in random order so the first thing that "comes up" isnt a solicitation for advertising each time. Yes there are slides promoting local businesses in the top which is kind of how most every page on the internet works including the local area guides also listed on the wiki pages you reference above. Beyond that the "many ads below" you mention below are specials listings. They are unique content blocks offering information on specials listings hand sourced and hand added. They are the equivalent of a list of local restaurants and bars in the area except they are listed through a searchable specials format. Again it seems like you are equating this to a landing page with a bunch of google ads on it. This isnt the case, its unique, relevant, area content that has value to locals, tourists and visitors to the town.

My site is at least usable, unique content for this area...

Examples from the Wilmington Wiki External Links: B.C. Brooks Writer's Hiding Place <--- is a page selling people writing help on their history papers for $40 (why is this one there? Wilmington and Cape Fear Visitor's Bureau <--- im sure they sell advertising however currently that page doesnt even resolve.

Examples from the Carolina Beach Wiki External Links: Carolina Beach Surf Report <---- domain expired and its a park page Carolina Beach Lifeguard Stand Locations & Beach Information <--- domain expired and its a park page Carolina & Kure Beaches Chamber of Commerce <---- domain expired its a godaddy park page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neofotography (talkcontribs) 06:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

As you can see on the policy pages, the fact that other bad links have not yet been removed is no excuse for putting up others that violate the policy. You do prompt me to check those other links for deletion.
You admit that you are linking to "my site." I cannot accept your reasons for self-promotion as well as business advertising. Again, Wikipedia is not a travel guide and not a forum for promotion. Donner60 (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[edit]

Actually they were reverting vandalism on my talk page, not creating it. —Frosty 01:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I left a message on your talk page while you were leaving this one on mine. I deleted the warning message to the user and apologized for the mistake. Donner60 (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


Hi Donner, Ithink Wikipedia does not want to keep the information related to the actual history of Hastinapur that's why the edit which i maid to the page,in which i mentioned the text from the official govt. website of the archeological survey of india are also removed.Moreover information related to the ancient historic places which are edited along with the edit summary and relevant links are also undone.

Please maintain the relevance of the page and don't be partial in keeping the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You gave no reason with your edits for the removal of a substantial amount of material that appeared relevant. If you wish to avoid suspicion of vandalism in removing material, please use edit summaries or if the explanation is too long, put a brief note in the edit summary and refer to a longer explanation that you put on the talk page. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hippocratic Oath[edit]

Hi Donner60. Wish to know where in your recent revision of the AMA Original version of the hippocratic oath, do l find the specific verbiage that states, "at first do no harm"? Thank you, Duchess14 p.s.-l am very new, my first time & personally, disturbed regarding what l observe to be unethical treatment by a doctor. Please advise as to this notation and l am open to constructive critism and critique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duchess14 (talkcontribs) 23:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I did not revise the article except to restore the first paragraph which someone had deleted without explanation. Nonetheless, I hope the following answers your question.
The section that follows the introduction contains the original oath as translated by, or from, the cited source. It contains the words "and never do harm to anyone."
Another translation on the web site Medicine.Net translates the full sentence as "I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice." The cited source is "The classical version of the Hippocratic Oath is from the translation from the Greek by Ludwig Edelstein. From The Hippocratic Oath: Text, Translation, and Interpretation, by Ludwig Edelstein. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1943." You can find this same translation on the PBS web site NOVA: The Hippocratic Oath.
This same translation also appears on the National Institutes of Health web site at Greek Medicine: The Hippocratic Oath. Credit for the translation is to Michael North, National Library of Medicine, 2002.
I can only conclude that the exact words you cite are a popular paraphrase. I suppose there could be another translation that has those words rather than the two similar versions that I cite. I interpret them as meaning the same thing. But I cannot find such a version nor would I have more time to look for one since the other similar forms of words have been verified.
So I do not think the article needs to be revised to include the exact words you cite. If these words are from an alternate translation, the words would probably be added as a footnote and would not be added to the text. It would not be right to combine differing words and phrases from more than one translations. Of course, the alternate words would need to be accompanied by citation of a reliable, verifiable source. Donner60 (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Undo of update to Ode to Billie Joe - unsuitable HTML / CSS used by Wikipedia[edit]

This is a *real issue / problem*. Wikipedia is almost unique amongst major sites in delivering the wrong version of pages to high resolution mobile devices. I, and others I know, have tried repeatedly to get some recognition of the problem by Wikipedia, or even a *response*. But, nothing. It seems that updating articles is the *only* way to get a response. Yes, it might be reverted soon after but, hopefully, some of the more responsible editors will eventually understand and escalate the problem to people who can resolve it and provide a resolution. It will make the Wikipedia experience much better for many people. It will stop Wikipedia lagging behind most large sites which resolved such problems a long while ago, if they ever suffered from them.

Update follows...

Sorry. That is no reason to leave unrelated messages on pages, however. I am not an IT person. You need to bring your concerns to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or one of the other Wikipedia:Village pump pages, as appropriate. Donner60 (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Poor web site - wrong version served[edit]

Wikipedia continues to deliver inappropriate low resolution versions of web pages to high resolution tablet devices, often with higher resolution than most desktop / laptop computers. Very few significant web sites make this fundamental error. It really is time that a site as big as Wikipedia gets some IT / UI staff who understand how to deliver suitable versions. As it is the experience is very poor for many users.

Sorry. That is no reason to leave unrelated messages on pages, however. I am not an IT person. You need to bring your concerns to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or one of the other Wikipedia:Village pump pages, as appropriate. Donner60 (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Your removal of Insignia (novel)'s summary[edit]

Hi Donner60,

You removed my plot summary of Insignia (novel) because you cited it as "not appearing constructive." Previously, the page only included a one-line description of the novel that was neither informative nor insightful. If I had wished to learn more about the novel through Wikipedia, that "plot summary" would have given me nothing. Thus, I wanted to provide more details for other viewers who may have wanted to understand what Insignia was about in a nutshell. Other novels have similarly extensive plot summaries. I'd also like to note that I was still in the middle of making the edit when you proceeded to remove the part of the summary that I did complete.

Please address this concern.

Thank you. KingRedSheep (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)KingRedSheep

Left this message on your talk page: :Deleted notice. Mistaken reversion. Good faith attempt to add content. Sorry for the mistake. Rolled back my edit. Donner60 (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


Not notable. Please can you nominate it for speedy deletion. Or let me know how to — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Left this message on your talk page: Deleting large parts of an article which has existed for six years and inserting random notices calling for its deletion is improper. If you truly wish to nominate this article for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion]. In my opinion, and I am not an administrator, the article meets none of the criteria for speedy deletion. It must go through the article for deletion process. Donner60 (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

why you delete my stuff on the wiki[edit]

i am a 80 year old man trying to give the truth to the people that need it and you delete it that was the truth that i wrote and you deleted it all of it my hard work now gone and now im mad at you all you youngsters these days are all the same. Mike bearinger (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)mike bearinger

Vandalism after final warning. Donner60 (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

external links removed and correction reverted on Willliam McCarter[edit]

Did not do anything in so links were put back in and correction of Jim Goad to William Faulkner was put back in too. Need explanation and reference to why links aren't relevant. Wikipedia needs to refer to information outside of itself in order to be relevant and supported with citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Put this message on your talk page: Deleted notice in manner prescribed by guidelines. I misinterpreted the edit. I think I see why, but it seems I was wrong all the same. I am sorry for the mistake. I am glad you restored your work. Donner60 (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


Okay first of all my edits were a birthday present for someone who's pretty down in the dumps. He wouldve been pretty happy for a while. Second off, it's WIKIpedia if this sites no longer a wiki thats not open to the people then change the name of the website. Might as well just call it encyclopedia. Finally, everythimg I said besides him owning a world record is most likely true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebishophoward (talkcontribs) 01:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You seriously misunderstand it if you think it is a social media site. It is a site that anyone can edit - within the framework that it is an encyclopedia and has certain rules. Also, your edit could just as easily be false and an attack on the person for all anyone knows. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Donner60 (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Grommet Edit[edit]

I don't see what I have done wrong. One example of "Grommet" being popularized was shown. I simply added another.

The YouTube user "JonTronShow" has brought lots of traffic to the word Grommet and the wiki page for Grommet. More than the example given, so tell me, Donner60, why did you remove that example of the use of Grommet in popular culture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

ANSWER ME — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Apparently you are not really interested in an answer because you have been vandalizing this page nearly constantly since you asked the question. If you had the courtesy to wait a few minutes, I would give you an answer. Donner60 (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Obviously your intent was not to add information about grommet. And I am sure you must realize there is no way to verify that a You Tube site sends traffic to Wikipedia. Even if it did, a self-published site which merely asks in profane language about the meaning of the word is not adding anything of value to Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The Fifteen Whispered Prayers[edit]

Hi, could you please explain the reason for your rollback of the page creator's recent edits on this article? We are in the midst of a DYK nomination and I think he is improving the page based on our comments. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I apparently "pushed the wrong button." I don't remember making this edit (although I obviously did), which means that I advanced the page before hitting the rollback button. I was not on the page I intended to edit. Please proceed. I will remove any notice in connection with this. Donner60 (talk) 08:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, no problem. I reverted the changes. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry if I can not change some images?, I think some of the photos are so old , they have bad quality and sometimes are wrong in the royalty section, but I will not be contributing anything if prohibited... Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiqueroyals (talkcontribs) 14:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)