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)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![edit]

please help translate this message into the local language
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The Cure Award
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

DYK for Anna Strong (spy)[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


Full disclosure when threads for this period are move to archives in about two weeks: May 15, 2014 I thought I might as well clean the slate entirely by deleting the other parts here of a corresponding thread that another editor deleted on his talk page.
May 21, 2014 I deleted a note about assuming good faith when I reverted a speculative, original research and POV edit of an IP editor - which the commenting editor acknowledged was original research and rewrote. I didn't see that retaining the obvious good faith point or any reply to the note generally would be useful. Donner60 (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Fire (element)[edit]

You were quite right to revert this edit but just so you know (as your edit summary seems to indicate you don't) I think what the editor meant was that the element fire is associated with the suit of swords of the minor arcana of the Tarot cards. SpinningSpark 13:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I am glad the reversion was correct. You are quite right that I did not know about the association with the Tarot cards. Donner60 (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
There is continual edit warring in all these "element" articles by adherants of different groups of Wiccans over which is the correct association of the element with suits/gemstones/compass points/seasons etc etc etc. None of them ever provide a source so delete on sight is the correct response. If only someone would do a scientific study to establish which method of reading the cards actually works.... SpinningSpark 09:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I suppose it should be no surprise that these types of edit wars spring up but it seems odd nonetheless. I am glad to know about this. If I come across other such edits I will not have to doubt about whether they are acceptable. Donner60 (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


I am confused as to why you reverted the change to chlorothiazide. Please check or any pharmacological source to determine its true half-life, which I had corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page, accepted good faith edit and returned it to page, deleted nonconstructive edit notice, added welcome template references. Donner60 (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 6[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 6, April-May 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

  • New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
  • TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
  • TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
  • New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Wikipedia Visiting Scholar news, and more

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar thanks[edit]

Thank you for the compliment about my maps. I noticed you selected the elderly photograph of Hotchkiss--that's more apropos than you may know. :-) Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I know you are retired, if that is what you mean. On the other hand, I have seen what great shape you are in from your web site. Donner60 (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


"The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability. This requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." I see you are not demanding citations for quotes, but for material that in my view would not be challenged by a reasonable person. Or do you seriously believe that Hudak did not announce that he is resigning? If you seriously believe that, then say that on the article Talk page. Because it is a waste of everyone's time to remove material that helps readers by informing them and no one seriously doubts its accuracy. If you SERIOUSLY wish to question the facts here, then let's see that challenge written down, at which point a citation can provided to satisfy your doubts.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page with apology for not being more specific and a few further remarks. Donner60 (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The bottom line here is that not every edit without a citation to a source is "nonconstructive", as you saw fit to instruct the editor. Is it better with a citation? Of course, unless it is in the intro and is merely repeating the article body (where there is a cite), or the information is not likely to be doubted by any reasonable person who has been keeping up on the subject to at least a basic extent. I would suggest adding "citation needed" when the MAIN objection is simply that a source is needed. Removal should be limited to those cases where there are additional problems with the material, as I understand policy anyway.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
You are correct that I should have used the tag here. I have added the "citation needed" tag on many occasions when I realize that the only problem or potential problem with an edit is that it seems dubious and should have a citation to support it. Here I saw something I thought was a typically nonconstructive edit and acted accordingly when, indeed, I should have thought about it a little more. If I had, I probably would have realized this was actually a "citation needed" situation. So your advice is good; I just misinterpreted this instance. Donner60 (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed[edit]

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding Desiccated Thyroid Extract article[edit]

Hi Donner60, I noticed you contributed to the Desiccated Thyroid Extract article and are a top medical Wikipedia contributor. I am working on improving it for readability and usefulness and am having a difficult time finding a verifiable source for the drug ingredients of all three brands (Westhroid, Naturethroid, and Armour Thyroid) of desiccated thyroid extract. In your opinion, would information from RLC Labs (the makers of Westhroid and Naturethroid) be considered a verifiable source? Your feedback would be greatly appreciated. Also, if you do not have time, could you refer a few users that I may ask? Many thanks! Presto808 (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I am just an editor, researcher and vandalism reverter, not an expert in the field. The experts, together with some information on their fields of concerntration, can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Participants. Nonetheless, here is a little information from my research. I do have a personal interest in thyroid hormone replacement drugs, but that is a coincidence.
I think the information from RLC Labs would be a reliable and verifiable source. Prescribing information for Naturethroid is available on line at and shows the inactive ingredients. Of course, it does not show the proportions of these ingredients but I don't know why that would be important. Some quick research showed that Westhroid is the same as Naturethroid, although that was not always true. These are made from pig glands, which is information which can be widely found on the internet.
Armour Thyroid has the same active ingredients but slightly different inactive ingredients.
A couple of online sources, but the first is from High Beam so a subscription is needed if the information is not otherwise available on line:
Milner, Martin. Hypothyroidism: optimizing medication with slow-release compounded thyroid replacement.(Disease/Disorder overview). In "Townsend Letter: The Examiner of Alternative Medicine," February 1, 2007. Retrieved June 29, 2014.– via HighBeam Research (subscription required)
"USP dessicated thyroid or Armour Thyroid is made with a ratio of four parts of T4 for every one part of T3. This ratio is comparable to those in the human and porcine thyroid glands, which produce 75% T4 and 25% T3. One grain of Armour Thyroid contains 36 [micro]g of T4 and 9 [micro]g of T3. The T3 is released all at once, not slowly."
Quackenbush, Kate. Finding A Natural Hormonal Balance in Natural Practitioner — January/February 2013. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
"The main natural approach to treatment for hypothyroidism should be the use of NDT, according to RLC Labs’ Jinn. Two of the company’s staple products, Nature- Throid and Westhroid, are Prescription Versions of NDT, which currently falls under the federal monograph of Thyroid USP (under the specification of United States Pharmacopeia). “Under Thyroid USP, the desiccated thyroid gland is derived from pigs and the specific levels of T3 and T4 are very carefully monitored and tested to ensure consistency and reliability from batch to batch (the exact same consideration as the prescription synthetic thyroid medications),” Jinn said.
"RLC Labs also offers two dietary supplements, a-Drenal and i-Throid, which were designed to offer complementary support to the company’s principal hypothyroid drug. The main ingredient in a-Drenal is the desiccated adrenal gland, and various adaptogenic herbs, like cordyceps, ginseng and rhodiola, along with pantothenic acid (B5) to aid in combating adrenal fatigue. Meanwhile, the function of i-Throid is to offer main ingredients (iodine) in a solid dosage from the traditional Lugol’s solution therapy.
"In spring 2013, RLC will also be introducing Westhroid-P, which will incorporate the same Thyroid USP with only two inactive ingredients, inulin and MCT (medium chain triglycerides), for the ultra-sensitive patients."
Dai Jinn is chief science officer with Arizona-based RLC Labs, Inc., a company primarily focused on thyroid issues.
I hope that is helpful to you. Donner60 (talk) 06:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi again Donner60, thank you so much. If it is alright with you, I will reach out to you again for more help regarding other questions and feedback of the Desiccated Thyroid Extract article. I will be conducting more research this week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Presto808 (talkcontribs) 16:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
If I can help, I certainly will. Please remember that I am not an expert in the drug/supplement field. I can only help with any sources that I might find that might be helpful or with general questions about citations. Donner60 (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Gruesome First Minnesota[edit]

Hey, were I a wounded Union soldier at the Plum Run thicket on the afternoon of July 2... ...I'd 'go dingo' on the leg of a passing Rebel before I died.Donaldecoho (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Replied at a little more length on your talk page. In summary, I think we agree it could have happened, but did it, and is there a reliable, verifiable source for it? The person who added the statement did not provide a reference and has not added one for about three weeks thereafter. Donner60 (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
So sorry. I was mocking the 'gruesome assertion' and agreeing with your edit(s)Donaldecoho (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
No problem. It's been a few weeks but I remember trying to come up with a word or phrase to go along with my thought that the point really ought to have a citation. Edit summary limits don't allow much space to explain. "Gruesome" was the best I could do at the time; I might have thought about younger or sensitive readers. If it is a fact, it's a fact and might well be included regardless of sensitivities. Something similar apparently happened at Sailor's Creek. I took it as a good-natured mock but wondered whether it also might have had to do with my asking for a citation. I thought "go dingo" was funny. Donner60 (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Informal note[edit]

Hey, I notice that you have HighBeam access and you seem to have a few topicons. That being said, if you are interested, I've created {{Wikipedia:HighBeam/Topicon}}. No reply to this message is necessary (and I won't see it unless you ping me), just wanted to let you know it was available. Face-smile.svg Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 00:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)