User talk:Donner60

Please put comments or questions on new subjects at the very bottom of the page, use a new section heading, refer to the exact title of an article and sign your message with four tildes. That will help me to see that there is something new on the page and will point me to the right article and person to be concerned with. This will allow me to reply faster. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

For those who have asked about my brother, he had good x-rays last week. He has finally turned the corner on pain and fatigue and is feeling somewhat better. He is optimistic about significant recovery in the near future. I will still be busier than usual for about another 10 days, then I should be able to spend a little time on the April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive, possibly contributing one or more articles. Donner60 (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

New messages, questions, comments: Put at very bottom of page, see text of this section

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., :<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.

...............................

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, your message, question or comment should not be immediately 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. Usually I will reply on your talk page and may note that reply on this page. If you do not get a reply on your talk page, check back here. I may put brief replies here, especially if they do not seem urgent. If you have a user name, I will try to remember to ping you if I just leave a return message here. When I notice a question or comment that was not placed at the bottom of the page, I will move it to the bottom of the page and provide a heading if there is not already a heading. Donner60 (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If you put a question or comment on this page but not at 'the bottom of the page despite the above request, and can not find it, I have moved it to the bottom of the page with an appropriate heading if there was none. If your edit was disruptive, vandalism or abuse, and you do not find the edit, it is because I have deleted it. In most cases, I will also put another warning on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link and bracket bot notifications

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)
......................

Swara edits

Nobody uses 'svara' as a spelling for notes in Indian music. No Indian does, anyway. I will request a page move to "Swara". I was just correcting the spelling before I do that. Thanks for being on the lookout for vandalism, though! 70.114.211.80 (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Your note to me shows that your edit was in good faith and you are now attempting to handle this in a proper way under the guideline. So I struck my warning message as both unnecessary and improper under the circumstances especially as it is a template "final message". Thank you for your diligence. I hope you will continue to edit. Donner60 (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Saint Lucia

Don’t know if this will get to you but I will try. The article on Saint Lucia - the island in the Caribbean. I note that it does not include information on Saint Lucia’s participation in the United Nations. I am a St. Lucian and served at the Director 2 level at the United Nations for many years. So far I know of 3 St. Lucians that have been staff members-there could be more. I would be happy to provide more information. Celine Walker2601:204:CC01:F23E:F9AE:AC14:B1CE:4386 (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Moved message to bottom of page. I think this is a notable point which could be included in the article. In general terms, what is needed are reliable, verifiable, third-party sources that support the activities and/or name the officials. The most helpful Wikipedia guideline and policy pages would be: Help:Getting started; Wikipedia:Introduction; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style; Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources; Wikipedia:Citing sources; Help:Footnotes; and Wikipedia:Verifiability. I will do a quick internet search later tonight or tomorrow. If I do not find anything that I can use, I will need to leave it to you or someone more knowledgeable to fill this in. Please note that the reliable, verifiable sources must be secondary sources e.g. books, credible newspapers or internet sites, not primary sources. I should add that I am not an administrator or a participant in helping new users create new articles, but I have helped place relevant additional information in articles other than the ones I have written or to which I have added some substantial information. So I will spend a little time on this to see if I can come up with something. Donner60 (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I have added the following to the Saint Lucia article in the Foreign Relations section: "Saint Lucia became the 152nd member of the United Nations on December 9, 1979.<ref>[http://saintluciamissionun.org/ Permanent Mission of Saint Lucia to the United Nations]. Retrieved January 26, 2018.</ref> As of January 2018, Cosmos Richardson, who presented his credentials on February 22, 2017, was Saint Lucia’s representative to the United Nations.<ref>[http://saintluciamissionun.org/press-release-saint-lucias-ambassador-extraordinary-plenipotentiarypermanent-representative/ Saint Lucia Press Release About New UN Ambassador.] Retrieved January 26, 2018.</ref> In the text, the footnotes do not show the code within the ref tags but rather: "Permanent Mission of Saint Lucia to the United Nations. Retrieved January 26, 2018." and "Saint Lucia Press Release About New UN Ambassador. Retrieved January 26, 2018."

Please note the link in the Saint Lucia article to the article on Foreign relations of Saint Lucia. That article mentions the UN membership but referred to a past ambassador. I changed that to the current ambassador. Anything further that you might wish to add, with reference to a reliable, verifiable source, would be more properly added to the Foreign Relations article. I hope this meets your concern. Donner60 (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

List of North American Football Nicknames (Nick Foles)

I wrote that Nick Foles holds the nickname, "Big Dick Nick." I offered two citations, copied below:

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://awfulannouncing.com/nfl/eagles-fan-big-dick-nick.html}}</ref>

This first reference shows that it has become a common nickname, having been spoken aloud in a live interview, referenced several times on social media, and chanted by groups of fans on more than one occasion.

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://dailyupperdecker.com/2014/05/nick-foles-apparently-has-the-biggest-dick-in-the-eagles-locker-room/}}</ref>

This second reference is an interview conducted with a former team mate where the team mate answers a question by saying that "Nick" has the largest penis. The answer and comment were noted in the title of the article. This tells the story of how he got the nickname.

Why isn't this good enough to crown him with the nickname that he deserves?

Jack Mozen 28 (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC) Jack Mozen 28

These are essentially rumors and chants by drunken fans. There is no indication that Foles "deserves" this nickname by accepting it or that he does not consider it demeaning. However, since there are citations, such as they are, I will not revert the edit again if you wish to add it. Other editors may have a different viewpoint and leave it in place. I do not rule out that some might see your citations as technically allowing the addition which is why I will not edit it again. I do not think it has been shown to be line with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - and would not be unless Foles accepts it, which is why I will not restore the edit myself. Perhaps it is debatable. It certainly is not worth arguing or edit warring about. Donner60 (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Erythrina crista-galli

The term crista-galli is Latin for 'cockscomb', not cockspur.

A cockscomb is the red crest on the head of a cock (also known as a rooster...). Erythrina crista-galli was so named because it's red flowers resemble a cockscomb.

A cockspur is the rear claw on the foot of a cock.

If you are not willing to do the basic research on the topic, why would you incorrectly 'correct' somebody that has?

2602:306:CE41:A340:F5E7:7902:E7BA:2CE3 (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Because you changed the hatnote for the redirect from "cockspur coral tree" - which is an existing redirect as the note indicates - to "cockscomb coral tree" for which there is no redirect. I changed it back to show that the former phrase redirected to the article, which is exactly correct. I made no other change since I did a revert to the only change you had made. "Cock's comb" as well as "cock's spur" is already explained in the article as well. I will not ask a snotty question of you in return but I would suggest you read Wikipedia:Civility. Donner60 (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

== A barnstar for you! == Hail. I was going to cite my sources before you rudely erased my content in the wirlns encyclopedia. Whats with that

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	I saw you take some personal attacks in your anti vandalism work tonight. Please have another barnstar to let you know you're appreciated. Ifnord (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ifnord: Thank you! Nice to be recognized by a long time editor. As you know, this comes with the territory. BTW, I have that Prisoner user box and the other one on my user page in the collapsed section "Thank you veterans and current military; Quotations." Donner60 (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Ahmdis are not Muslims.

Hi Donner 60

Then why does the BBC article state otherwise? I will grant that mainstream Muslims may not accept this. So why not just add that point with a citation rather than removing sourced content? Donner60 (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Alexander Pushkin

You rejected my initial edit and I'm not too sure why. There is no russian letter for the letter "x" nor is there an "e", which would be a cyrilic "e" or "и". In Russian it is Александр Пушкин. This is Aleksandr Pushkin not Alexander. Simple edit, easy mistake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Pushkin Starellen2 (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I have explained this on your talk page (or your previous IP talk page). This is the English Wikipedia and English spelling should be used. This is already established by the article title. The Russian spelling is explained in the first line or two of the article. Your edit does not conform with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If there was no explanation of the Russian spelling, you could add one, but this is unnecessary because it is already there. Donner60 (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

This makes little to no sense. You're completely changing the name, though it sounds the same. Alekandr is English, hence it being written in a non-cyrillic alphabet. Just because there are traditional english names in existence doesn't mean they take precedent over the actual technical spelling on the persons given name from another language. For example, Jean. It's french and its our "John" but that doesn't mean a English wiki or encyclopedia is going to introduce the person as "John". Starellen2 (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Starellen2: I don't make the rules; I simply apply them to the best of my understanding. Please read the Wikipedia pages cited to you, especially the Manual of Style. Occasionally I make a mistake and will correct it when pointed out to me. I am not convinced there is a mistake here. By the way, the name of the article could be changed. There is a procedure for that although I doubt it would comply with guidelines for such changes or be agreeable to other editors. In any event, there are also other ways to get additional opinions if you wish to pursue this. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I don't consider this a dispute in the sense of a disagreement over content. The Russian spelling is different, it is already explained in the article and I don't disagree with that. The problem here is that you do not agree with my interpretation of the Wikipedia style guidelines and naming conventions and their application to the first use (perhaps any use) to the first use of the article title in the article. Since the Russian spelling is already noted, to be consistent, you would have to change every such spelling, which I am convinced would not be allowable. Donner60 (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Starellen2: I am sorry I wrote about the Manual of Style in general terms. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), a specific explanation of such naming conventions exists and should have been cited. I suggest you read that before deciding whether to pursue the matter further. Donner60 (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Nicholas Ray

Hello Donner60. I made changes again to your Nicholas Ray listing about how he impacted Ken Jacobs and Larry Gottheim. I was one of Nick's students at the time and I can tell you that what you wrote about Ken and Larry's reaction to Nick's improvising was far from the truth. His irresponsible, divisive, behavior and drug abuse was the real cause of a lot of problems. Gerry Weissblum2600:1700:4000:30A0:A54D:2CD8:93FF:6F5D (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not write anything in that article. I reverted your edit because it is quite negative. It may be true but if so it needs to be supported by a reliable, verifiable source. You may be who you say you are but Wikipedia does not know that. You could be anybody, claiming anything. Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a reliable source; what counts as a reliable source is described in Wikipedia:Verifiability. Donner60 (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Gerry 76.80.12.51 (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC): If you look up the nature of Ken Jacob's and Larry Gotheim's films, and the department they ran in Binghamton, you'll find that both of them are experimental film makers who wouldn't be at all phased by Nick's improvisational work ethic. It was his behavioral problems that were at issue. At least change your article to just reflect that Nick's work methods were found problematic. You can go for the gist of what actually happened without being too negative. AS it stands, I think you besmirch Ken and Larry and that too is negative. Thanks.

As I noted, I wrote nothing in that article. I only reverted an edit that was based on personal experiences or recollections not on verifiable, reliable sources. We are volunteers here and I am interested in reviewing changes and rarely will try to improve existing content unless I see something that is unquestionably outside Wikipedia guidelines. If you look closely, you might find I have helped a few other users add or revise content. I have done this only when they showed me or convinced me that there were sources for the changes and they could not easily write the content, probably because they failed to do so already. More likely, they simply did not work in the sources and place the edit it in proper form. These involved a few sentences or a paragraph or two at most and did not involve extensive, if not futile, digging around for material. My work in review is to see that new additions or subtractions do not violate the policies and guidelines. My main interest in article creation and supplementation concerns other topics.

If you can support your additions or changes with reliable, verifiable sources, you can change them yourself. If not, you are in the same situation you were before, relying on your own experiences, without verification. You may be able to get further advice or to find help for your changes at Help:Contents or Wikipedia:Teahouse. Although this is not strictly speaking a content dispute since differing verifiable content is not currently at issue, something in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution might also lead you to someone who might be able to advise or help you further, though I would go to that last. There are persons willing to help with content creation or modification and if you cannot provide a source or make a neutral edit yourself, you may be able to get help from them. Donner60 (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages

I see you recently accepted this pending change to February 9. I looked for a source for this date of birth in the James Bennett and it was unsupported by any source there either.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. I've gone ahead and un-accepted this edit and backed it out.

Please do not accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Toddst1: I am glad that you brought the specifics to my attention. I am aware that birth dates, especially for celebrities and athletes, are some times wrong. This seems mainly because they have been added or changed by vandals somewhere along the line. In this case, I actually did check several online sources and at least four that do not appear to be mirror sites use the February 9 date while another has February 19, possibly a typo. I did not check whether there was a citation in the article which I believe I have used to be sure there is support for the date in past reviews. Sometimes little exact information can be found about such details for celebrities but I found there were sources with Jimmy Bennett that appeared to be legitimate. You are correct that I did not realize that there was a policy requiring a citation for the date in the article. I do think it is a good idea because of the past vandalism, which I assume is what brought about the policy. Since I have checked this in that manner in the past, I will not rely on just an online check for verification and will be sure to check that there is a supporting citation in the article in the future. Thanks for the heads up on this. Donner60 (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Donner. Yep - that's exactly the idea. Toddst1 (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

ZenCash(Cryptocurrency) New Unreviewed Article

I would appreciate your help to review and cleaning my brand new article. I would really appreciate your expericen and comments to improve it

Regards

--Fergus_Manx 23:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceMAN (talk • contribs)

I have been offline for four days. In the meantime, I see that User:Kjerish has edited the article. His stated background appears to be helpful for this type of article. Also, it seems that if anything needs to be added, it will require research that I would be unable to do anytime soon, if at all. A close relative is having surgery in a few days and I may be able to edit only briefly, if at all, for several weeks after that. I suggest you work with User:Kjerish or seek help or advice at Wikipedia:Teahouse if you need further help or think someone might be interested in adding to or editing the article. I do not have new page reviewer rights, which are different from the reviewer rights I have with respect to existing pages. So I could not give a new page review or approval if that is part of what is needed in any event. I thank you for the compliment of asking me to look at this and I am glad that someone else has looked into it in my absence. I wish you the best in getting it to a satisfactory condition if it has not been improved enough already. Donner60 (talk) 06:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Requesting your help

I seem to have struck a nerve (inadvertently) with Malik Shabazz. He has now had another editor lock down the page. If you look at my edits you will notice that I did not exceed 3rr nor did I engage in edit warring or contentious editing. I discussed every edit I made, but more importantly, I endeavored to remove completely unsourced information from the article. I don't have an axe to grind. But I am now unable to edit the article simply because another editor disliked my edits. You seem like a very reasonable person. What's my best course of action? Let it go?. Thank you in advance. 23.114.214.45 (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I would let it go. At least I would wait until the limited page protection expires on February 20 to allow some time for reflection and calming. Then if you wish to continue, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Before that you would be trying to pursue a matter in which an administrator has in effect imposed a cooling off period. That administrator, for some reason, reached the conclusion that the editing was becoming disruptive. So I think it would be best to allow that time to run. It seemed to me that you and Malik Shabazz were working along on this reasonably well (your first edit was referred to as a "good faith" edit when he reverted it) but some testiness may have crept in at the end. Waiting would help keep the tone civil, in my opinion. That is important if a dispute is to be progressed.

I made a commitment not to edit any of your edits or Malik Shabazz's edits - which in turn may effectively mean edit the article at all. I also asked Malik Shabazz, as an experienced editor, to help get the article to a satisfactory state with you because I thought I might just be confusing the matter by editing at the same time. I focused on the one sentence that you wished to delete or change for accuracy. I thought it would be might be a good compromise to delete the phrase about the academic community but to leave the main thought since there was a citation. You later tried to rewrite rather than delete the sentence for apparently similar reasons. I think the main thought is correct and at least one, probably more, sources can be cited for it. Therefore, while we wish to have the most accurate text, and the "academic community" opinion may not be directly expressed in the cited source, I am not sure that point is worth contention over. In any event, I cannot edit the article or argue about it on another page without breaking my commitment. I think you are only asking for my opinion but I should be clear that I think I am committed to do no more than that, only on this page.

Malik Shabazz originally supported deletion of the article. Even knowing that was Malik's initial view, I think Malik has tried to improve the article but to keep it within a strict interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines and policy and to adhere to sources - even if one phrase may seem to be an interpretation. I think you have conceded that additional examples may not be needed. I take that view even without delving into the details. The most prominent example is still in the article. While I am not an expert and have not studied the matter in any detail, the article seems informative, reasonably accurate and not biased against a prevailing or reasonable explanation. I suppose I could be shown to be wrong.

Does that leave the difference as only a phrase or an interpretation or a restatement in one's own words? If so, the article may be accurate enough and not worth the trouble to contend about. If not, and you believe you can make a reasonable argument and cite sources for a change, then you might want to look at the dispute resolution process. The bottom line, for me, is that the reader would not be misled in any serious or important way by the current text of the article so I would not pursue a dispute over a detail that I do not think seriously undermines the article - in the absence of another reliable source which establishes a clear refutation.

For what it's worth and may concern persons interested in the article, I wouldn't be surprised if more controversial edits appear in that article in the future. A compromise and more neutral approach (if that is what I am trying to achieve, I suppose) might help in supporting or opposing those future edits.

I know this is a long reply and maybe does little more that restate my brief comments when I in effect turned the matter over to you and Malik Shabazz. I think I make some definite points which are necessary for me to work through this and reach some conclusions. I hope that this might help your own analysis and will be sorry if you find this too long and unhelpful. You can make your own conclusions, of course, and may consider a few of the details more important or crucial than I do. You may consider my thoughts as off point or wrong. So take these comments for what you think they are worth. This is not necessarily an easy topic or article to deal with so I tried to take that into account. Since I am not an administrator and might not be considered neutral since I tried to edit the article, I cannot resolve the matter. I probably could not give a formal neutral third opinion, although I think I had tried to work toward that. Donner60 (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually I really appreciate you taking the time to write this, and I will follow your advice. What troubled me was the fact that user:Malik Shabazz seemed to think I wanted to go to "war" with him when that was most certainly not the case. I simply thought there was a sentence that was inaccurate and could be improved. I will stay away from the article going forward. As another editor pointed out to me - there are enough advanced editors on wikipedia at this point, that the input of inexperienced editors (especially IP editors like myself) is rarely needed or helpful. I apologize for throwing a monkey wrench in the works - it was not my intention to do so. 2602:306:330B:7B00:9D28:FD76:1BA3:D0A1 (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

No apology is necessary. I think you made a good faith effort at improving an article and I even agree that the sentence could be improved. But I do not think it is so misleading as to ruin the accuracy of the article which otherwise seems rather good and well stated for a controversial topic. I think the one example given is enough under the circumstances. Under the circumstances, I think it is better to move on to other edits or other articles.

The editor who made the remark to you is either a little jaded or bitter about something or is out of the mainstream on Wikipedia policy about editor retention and contributions new editors can make. Perhaps that editor spends too much time on controversial matters and has a particular point of view. For some articles and a few experience users, the comment may be accurate. But I think it is not true in general.

I think it is good to work on some non-controversial articles and gain experience and knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines and policies before getting into the closer calls and more controversial articles. I have had some problems and have had to concede a few times but have worked things out at other times.

I have left some other and longer comments on your talk page. Among these, I suggested reading Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention. Also, the topics of editor retention and civility come up in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost from time to time. The February 5 issue has an article about two new arbitration cases concerning user behavior and civility. A user can go to the Archives page and perform a search of back issues for topics such as editor retention and civility if one is so inclined.

There are many articles of many topics yet to be written and many more to be improved. There is plenty to do and become interested in at Wikipedia. Due to human nature and anonymity, some problems will arise. But I still think that many worthwhile contributions can be made to a great and beneficial project. And in the great majority of articles you will not find any trouble, controversy or disagreement. I'll leave it at that but I encourage you to read the linked pages and not to withdraw from contributing as your time allows and interests may lead you. Donner60 (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to wear out Donner60's patience, but because you don't edit from a fixed IP address, I don't know where else to leave a message that you're likely to see. I don't know who told you that Wikipedia has enough editors or that IP editors' opinions don't matter (or matter less), but I disagree strongly on both points. (I encourage every registered editor to read WP:IPs are human too, but that's a subject for another day.)

I asked for the page to be protected because (a) you had violated WP:3RR and (b) my experience with you at two articles (at Transracial (identity) and at Crystal Mangum) has led me to believe you are inclined toward edit-warring to protect your preferred version of an article. (That's not an accusation, just a description. I'm that way myself. If you look at my contribution history, you'll see plenty of times when I've made three reverts to an article in a short period of time. I know better, but I don't always do what I know I should.) You'll notice that I haven't changed your last edit while the article is protected. This difference of opinion shouldn't be personalized by either of us. If I used the word "war", it was only in the sense of "edit war".

When you're ready to discuss the article further, I would encourage you to read WP:Dispute resolution, as Donner60 suggested. We may be able to ask for a third opinion. Alternatively, we can start a "Request for comments" and invite opinions from a broader spectrum of editors who may not have been involved with the article before.

When you're ready to discuss the article further, please follow up at Talk:Transracial (identity), where content-related discussions should be held. If you have concerns about anything I wrote about you, please follow up on my talk page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: Thank you very much for your followup and comments. I have been around long enough to have seen your work. I was quite sure that you would not agree with the comments of the other editor about there being no need for new editors or IPs having a lower status. I also would assume that you would not personalize any disagreement. You are most diligent in supporting your positions with citations and reasonable interpretations, which is not to say that someone might occasionally disagree, as you know. I do not often edit in the same areas as you do, usually only when Huggle shows me something that someone else has inserted that seems beyond policy guidelines. Nonetheless, I have encountered an occasional disagreement or differing interpretation in the mostly non-controversial articles in which I make content contributions, or even start new.

Recent changes reviewers will be looking for vandalism and the other types of questionable edits that I mentioned. We usually neither want to or need to get into any detailed controversy over the substance. Occasionally, the "vandalism" limit on Huggle is cited in limiting recent change reviews but in fact other types of disruptive or questionable edits or simple failure to comply with guidelines (often due to ignorance which is why I often leave additional messages) are other reasons for which reverts and Huggle messages can be left. While this relates to why I jumped in for this article, I seem to be wandering so I won't go on much longer.

You are by no means trying my patience. I was trying to be helpful in reviewing an edit that caught my eye but then realized I might just be muddying the waters. I have seen that happen when several editors are trying to edit an article at the same time. Since I inserted myself, at least I can try to help move things along without getting further involved.

You may have seen the note I placed at the top of the page. I will be editing little, if at all, for perhaps a month due to my need to attend to a close relative who is having a serious operation next Monday. So I am not likely to be on line for any other developments. I mention this in case I appear to suddenly become unresponsive to messages on this or other topics for a long time.

I will note your comment on the IP user's talk page. Donner60 (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Alabama and Mississippi Rivers Railroad

An article that you have been involved in editing—Alabama and Mississippi Rivers Railroad—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mackensen (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Offline

@MarnetteD:, @General Ization:, @Oshwah: I will be with my brother for three to five weeks. He is having an operation on his neck and will need some help. I expect to be online and editing little, if at all, during this time. I would appreciate if you look in on this page to see if anything needs to be reverted or answered. A few others watch my page and I would welcome them as well, but I thought I would let you know since you have been the most active and helpful in taking notice of such things. I would expect little, if anything, to come up, especially if I have few or no new edits. But one can not be sure about such things. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll be happy to help keep an eye on things D. My very best wishes to you and especially your brother. MarnetteD|Talk 03:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Just logging off; thanks. Donner60 (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I can certainly do that for you. If you want, add a header to the top of your user talk page here and direct people to mine. They can message me directly and I'll help them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I also echo MarnetteD above. I wish you well during your time away, and I hope that your personal priorities are taken are of and that you can return with good news. I'm available any time by email if you need anything, and I'll make sure anything here is handled. I'll be awaiting your return. Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Ditto. Wishes for a successful surgery for your brother and for his speedy recovery. General Ization ^Talk 06:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Back

@MarnetteD:, @General Ization:, @Oshwah: Thanks for your messages and keeping an eye on this page. I see that no messages or vandalisms were left on the page since February 17 so that turned out well. I returned a few days ago but this is the first time I have had a chance to get online since I left.

My brother's surgery was successful according to the doctor - at least his vertebrae were put back in place without any apparent damage to nerves and only some soreness in his throat. My brother was well enough for him to take care of himself and for me to return home a few days ago. He is still in considerable pain, however, and seems far from fully recovered as a result of the pain and pain medicine. He has to wear a neck brace when out of bed, is limited to lifting no more than ten pounds for about another month and can not drive until he can comfortably turn his head. All that was expected. He has pain not only where the vertebrae were out of line but in another spot on his neck/shoulder as a result of the surgical correction. That has continued at about the same level so far, which was not really expected. The pain medicine seems to make him a little groggy and lethargic for awhile after he takes it. Luckily, he has a few friends and neighbors who can help him with what he cannot do for himself. He had planned to go back to work in about three weeks but that is beginning to appear less likely. I hope he gets some help at his doctor visit on Wednesday.

I have some catching up to do and need to finish preparing a talk on the US in World War I - which will probably have a second part later in the year - as well as preparing tax returns. So I expect to be editing sporadically for about a month. Thanks, again. Donner60 (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know how things are going D. Best wishes for your brothers continued improvement and to you in working on your taxes and talk. As to the lack of vandalism how does - grr razzle frazzin @#*$ rizzin drizzin - work for you. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 00:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

That works! I think vandalism usually occurs almost immediately after an edit or within about a day. However, I have had some instances of vandalism out of the blue that seem to have related to edits that were weeks or months old. I would guess you may have had the same experience. Donner60 (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I sure have. I've been lucky though there are others who get attacked for days, weeks or months at a time. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply... it's great to see you back :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

No apology necessary; I am impressed by how much you accomplish. I am glad to be back though my brother is still recovering slowly. I am learning from more anecdotes that this is not unusual and the doctor may have been giving him a better case scenario (faster recovery time), possibly as encouragement. Still, he is able to get along and even walked a block and a half to a polling place to vote in a primary on Tuesday. Thanks for watching and the note. Donner60 (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for making Wikipedia a better place to be. Thewinrat (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Thewinrat: Thank you! Keep up the good work! Donner60 (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Also have this for your pleasure. Thewinrat (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

You should have insisted...

Greetings: The article Svara used to use a consistent scientific transliteration method for Sanskrit terms, one universally adopted by all professional Sanskritists since the end of the 19th c. That was until the 25th of January when IP 70.114.211.80 decided to "correct spelling" and made a mess of it, turning the spelling of all Sanskrit terms in this article into something that is neither the vernacular informal transliteration commonly used in India nor the rigorous Western one, but a kind of a hybrid of the two that nobody uses. At first you reverted him, but then he reverted you back, and you left it at that. That was unfortunate, because you were correct. It is no longer possible to undo him, because of intervening edits. One would have to go and correct the spelling of each term one by one. However I thought I'd let you know, maybe for next time's sake. Cheers. Basemetal 21:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Of course it was not my intention to leave the article that way. By reverting the original edit, I showed that it should not have been placed in the article. I either had logged off when the next edit was made or the bot did not show me the next edit for some reason. I review changes to articles in real time which means that I review many changes and cannot go back to see if a change was made to an article later unless I am informed. We are all volunteers, as you know, and there are just too many problems to deal with if a person does reviewing and editing. It is unfortunate that these cannot be undone at this time. I am not skilled in Sanskrit so I would not want to attempt to make manual changes where there are intervening edits. I hope you or someone else can make the necessary changes. Donner60 (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Baghara baingan

I edited this page. The origin of Baghara Baingan is Tashkent,Uzbekistan, which is quoted in the wiki article itself. I merely made the correction. what is the problem with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.177.134 (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I struck the original message on your talk page since your edit was in good faith but I still think your edit is incorrect. This is the reason I reached that conclusion, which I repeat on your talk page. It is at least unsupported. There is no reference that states that the dish is currently an Uzbekistani dish. The only reference is to an article which states it is a popular Indian dish in Hyderabad. Even if it originated in Tashkent, for which there is also no reference, there is no reason to state that it is currently a popular dish there without a source. Also, the source clearly supports that it is currently a popular dish in India. The change misrepresents the source and the current popularity of the dish in India. More might be added to this article, but references would be needed. I also put some helpful Wikipedia page links on your page. Donner60 (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I was merely updating the page to reflect its own claims. Otherwise that contradiction didn't make sense. Whether it's true or not, I don't know but it is definitely a Turkic food & not created by Indians as per the references i've seen thus far.

>The history of bhagaray baigan itself is vague. However, a wider history of the region suggests that the Hyderabadi cuisine as we know it today, evolved to be so in the 17th century. The Mughul Emperor Aurangzed marched to Deccan and lay siege to the Golkanda Fort in hopes of conquering the region.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1135304 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.177.134 (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your further explanation. You obviously are familiar with the wider history. I think it would be best to add another source for the additional information in order to make this clear. Donner60 (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

UsingHollywood Math typo?

Welcome back to Wikipedia. Glad your friend's doing better and hope he makes a full recovery.

You said this edit did not appear constructive. i thought i was fixing a typo? Isn't that constructive? or is "UsingHollywood" supposed to be one word? The Dean Devlin article is the only search result for "UsingHollywood" using the Wikipedia search box, and although the award is supposedly from Stinkers Bad Movie Awards, that article does not confirm it, nor can i easily find it by using the Wayback Machine to dredge up their defunct website.

Please reply here on your talk page, which will be easier to remember than "What's my IP address this time?" ;-)

--71.121.143.151 (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I struck the original message on your talk as it was a mistake. I repeat the reply here as you asked. You are correct and I rolled back my edit. I can only think that I was trying to roll back the previous edit and the last edit got in between although perhaps some other mistake may have been possible. Sorry for the mistake. Donner60 (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Wyatt

It was a joke please don’t remove it Jejwjejana (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a joke page. Donner60 (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Nazia Hassan

Did I upset you Donner60? I am sorry if the answer is yes. I did nothing wrong against you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.123.10 (talk) 03:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

No, you did not upset me. You twice used the word "witch" in an article about the singer in the caption heading. That appeared to me to be intentional and, of course, would be improper. However, if this was just a spelling error on your part, then this simply needed to be corrected. Of course, it you did not know it was a spelling error, we both needed to realize that and correct it. Thank you for your message. Donner60 (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Economy of Communist Czechoslovakia

Hello! I noticed that you removed part of the article titled Economy of Communist Czechoslovakia about Czechoslovak consumption at times exceeding western countries. I do believe you made a mistake, the document which I sourced in the next line linked compared consumption of Czechoslovakia to numerous western and eastern bloc countries, and the Czechoslovak consumption was indeed greater then many western european countries, In particular with regards to consumption of meat and eggs. The table detailing this can be found on page VI of the document I sourced in the article, and have linked for your convenience: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP86T00591R000100140005-4.pdf I appreciate your commitment to the integrity of wikipedia, but I think you have made an honest mistake! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91and71 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You are correct. I struck my original message and left a comment on why I may have missed that on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

list of genocides

hello I realized you have deleted an edit of mine. I do understand why you deleted it, but I feel like there should be an addition to the list of genocides. Like the native americans that were killed during the colonial period. Which is estimated to about 100 million. I think wikipedia should add this data somehow to present better and clear information to the public — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.129.21 (talk) 02:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Please see Native American disease and epidemics. There are only a few verifiable instances of intentional killing of Native Americans by disease and the link. The current consensus is that the vast majority of Native American deaths were by diseases that were unintentionally and unknowingly introduced to North America by European colonists. Genocide is the intentional killing of a large number of people in an ethnic group. In any event, your number of 100 million certainly could not be verified by a reliable, verifiable source as the discusses. You would need citation of reliable, verifiable, neutral (third-party) sources for the addition.

You may be able to carry on the discussion at the talk page for the article (and it is likely to have been covered in the past, at the Wikipedia:Teahouse or perhaps on the talk page of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Other forums can be found at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Resolving content disputes with outside help.

This is my opinion and how I would evaluate such a change. You are free to look for others. I am glad you noted that my revert of your addition is not at issue. You have no doubt realized that your addition also improperly (but I assume inadvertently) removed another entry.

I appreciate your message and the chance to comment on your proposal. Donner60 (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Steve Hockensmith

Hiya! So I just wanted to edit Steve's wiki a little bit and it got deleted because of an issue with the source or something of the sort ?? I'm new to editing wiki stuff so I don't really know a lot on what to do and heck. Essentially, I was just elaborating on some info on his page because I actually know him and his family and heck, I hope this makes sense !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozrikjadenwolfrikravenkroft (talk • contribs) 03:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

This direct quote from a Wikipedia information page explains the policy. "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a reliable source; what counts as a reliable source is described in Wikipedia:Verifiability." You are not a reliable source because your identity and your claim cannot be verified. Donner60 (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For the obnoxious edit war with the IP you had to endure tonight! Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 03:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball career times on base leaders

Re: the career times on base leaderboard. Here you can see the leaderboard from which Wikipedia's is sourced—https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/TOB_career.shtml. I don't have a source that will tell you it excludes IBBs, but if you follow the links to the player pages it's readily apparent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.96.8 (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

It would be helpful to add a footnote to that effect (without saying you don't have a source, just explain the facts). I won't revert your further edit but someone else might if the edit is not sourced or explained. Thanks for the message. Donner60 (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Indiana Pacers

Granger The Granger era did not end until the '13-'14 season when he was traded

PG The PG era did not begin until the '13-'14 season, '12'13 at the earliest 'due to Granger injury'.

We Grow Basketball Era The current era is not about an individual. The focus of the team as a collection & is not the '2017–present: The Victor Oladipo Era' it is the '2017–present: We Grow Basketball Era' as shown below.

Grow

NBA Slam Dunk Contest

• • Winners If there is a better way to format the winner bullet please do so, I am not well versed when it comes to scripting

NBA All-Star Weekend

NBA All-Star selections|Slam Dunk Contest

• Billy Knight – 1977
• Don Buse – 1977
• Reggie Miller – 1990, 1995, 1996, 1998, 2000
• Detlef Schrempf – 1993
• Rik Smits – 1998
• Dale Davis – 2000
• Jermaine O'Neal – 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007
• Brad Miller – 2003
• Ron Artest – 2004
• Danny Granger – 2009
• Roy Hibbert – 2012, 2014
• Paul George – 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017
• Victor Oladipo - 2018

NBA All-Star East Head Coach

• Larry Bird – 1998
• Isiah Thomas – 2003
• Rick Carlisle – 2004
• Frank Vogel – 2014

NBA Slam Dunk Contest

• Terence Stansbury – 1985, 1986
• Kenny Williams – 1991
• Antonio Davis – 1994
• Jonathan Bender – 2001
• Fred Jones – 2004
• Paul George – 2012, 2014
• Gerald Green – 2013
• Glenn Robinson III – 2017
• Victor Oladipo - 2018
  • Winners

Thanks for the explanation. I struck my original message on your talk page and left your later edit in place. I left a more detailed reply and some helpful Wikipedia page links on the page as well. Donner60 (talk) 11:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Crazy

Die die you s9it Die die die aaaaaaa out of my talkpage uc n00b — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.24.172.153 (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)