User talk:Donner60

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, this should not be below this message but at the very bottom of the page after every other item on the page. It will help me to understand what you are talking about to add a section heading, identify the article you are concerned with, and use a link, (if your question or comment refers to a specific article), probably putting the article name in the heading, and sign your edit with four tildes (~~~~) so I know to whom to reply. Keep an eye on this page because I may just reply here if the answer is simple and does not seem to be time sensitive. When I notice an out of order question or comment, I will move it to the bottom of the page and provide a heading if there is none already. Donner60 (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If you put something here or other than at the bottom of the page despite the above request, and can not find it, and assuming it was not vandalism or abuse, it is probably at the bottom of the page under what I think is an appropriate heading, probably related to an article name in the comment. ......................

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

Hi there

I don't understand! 😭 Brilloman12 (talk) 05:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I tried to give you some advice by pointing you to pages that could help you. Maybe you did not have time to look at this before you made another disruptive edit. In addition to the comment I made about what Wikipedia does not include, it does not include personal commentary. It is not a blog. See especially Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. If you continue to edit in the same pattern, adding speculation and personal comments to articles, you risk being blocked soon. Donner60 (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Possible editing to be done?

Hello Donner60,

The article for the University of Michigan notes that the alumni section needs to be restructured: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:University_of_Michigan_alumni

I've made edits to the alumni section, but don't have the skills to restructure the page. Might you assist in that regard or put me in touch with someone who might do the editing.

Thanks in advance, and thanks for contributing to the Michigan page

Bluedudemi (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You are referring to the University of Michigan alumni category page rather than the University of Michigan page or the List of University of Michigan alumni page or its sub-pages. Someone has tagged the category page because they think there are too many entries in this general category. The page has a few sub-categories already, where articles of alumni who are athletes or graduated from a few schools of the university of the university can be categorized, but apparently there are not enough since so many articles have been added to the parent general category.

Presumably what is desired is to create new sub-category pages, in the same way as creating an article, placing them in the category of University of Michigan alumni. Then, one would go through all of the individuals and place them in the sub-categories, removing them from the more general category. While other schools of the university might be good categories, assuming they exist and some of the individuals' articles show them as graduates of the school, others could possibly be derived from the sections (or categories, in a non-technical sense) in the list of University of Michigan alumni article(s). I suppose an example could be Category:University of Michigan alumni (politicians). While this seems different than most sub-categories one would expect to see for a university, I am not sure you could reduce the number of categories without something creative such as this. I also suggest you see: Wikipedia:Categorization, Help:Category and any links from those pages that appear relevant which will give you more definite and authoritative advice.

Possibly use of Wikipedia:HotCat could help the process but I have never used it and do not know anything more than the page about it could tell you. Otherwise, it would appear that one would have to create the sub-categories, then look at each of the 3,647 articles in the existing category to see which sub-category might be substituted for the general category. I suppose some sub-category names might be suggested by looking at the articles if you can not come up with all the appropriate sub-categories by looking at the list articles or considering other schools as sub-categories.

You might also look at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, which might give you a little more information. Also, by perusing some of the items, you may find other editors who know more about categorization and do work in that area, which I do not, who could help. This appears to be far too big and time-consuming a task for me to undertake since I can think of no shortcuts, have no experience in the area, and have many other tasks under way. I hope this is helpful. Good luck with this. Donner60 (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Grundigligaen

Hi, Im sorry I didn't write why I deleted it. The thing I did was to improve the wiki-site, not vandalize it. I was now going to edit more and finish it, and then you deleted it :/. I hope you can restore it, so I can finish the wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stennes (talk • contribs) 21:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the message on your talk page because you told me that you were in the middle of editing and had not finished. So your removal of content was in good faith. Please use Wikipedia:Edit summaries, which can help prevent such misunderstandings. I also rolled the article back to your last edit. Sorry for the disruption. Donner60 (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Removed information i added to the page of an school I go to for being "Incorrect!"

I go to chattooga high, and i noticed an error about when we started the four day school week. It said the four day school week began in the 2014-2015 school year, but it really began in the 2010-2011 school year. I tried to edit it, but Donner said that it was "Incorrect"! I am just trying to correct information! I don't think that he ever attended a school in chattooga, so who is he to tell me i am wrong!?! I do have a credable source! http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/news/story/2010/aug/08/chattooga-schools-launch-4-day-week/25793/ So fix it! 68.112.78.173 (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC) A concerned Chattooga High School student!

I now see the sources in the article conflict, or at least one of them that I relied upon is not clearly written. I will accept your source and explanation, rollback my edit and delete the comment on your user page. Donner60 (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank You!

I apologize for being so rude, but i have been apart of that school system my whole life, and didn't like how my edit was counted as incorrect. My apologies. 68.112.78.173 (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)GabeMcg (the chattooga student)

No problem. It turned out to be my mistake for relying on just one source and not looking at the others. Usually, that would not be necessary so one can think that it is not worth the extra effort to look further. However, newspaper stories can have errors or be unintentionally misleading so another check would have been in order here where a different newspaper story was what I looked at and relied upon. Donner60 (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't get it.

Why is my edit on My Friends Tigger and Pooh have no resources? Darby (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The entire article only has one source and it has been tagged since last November as needing more citations. In that sense, I can see how you are wondering why even more unsourced text cannot be added. When you refer to a show that never aired, people might question whether that show really existed. More than that, you say that many people wonder how a show that bad could nearly air. Who are these many people? How do they, or you for that matter, know anything about a show that never aired or how bad it might be? This is more speculative than anything already in the article. That is why you must cite a source. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for more information. Donner60 (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Neutral POV?

What? -I'm removing a section without proper citation based on OR/Synth and the inclusion of weasel words 'said by some', what's not neutral? I presented the points on the talk page which are fully supported by policy, without any dissenting view offered (and after giving it reasonable time to be responded to). You can't just assert 'Not adhering to neutral point of view' without supporting that. If you want to dispute the edit, find a proper cite or take it to the talk page, I am not interested in edit warring, given that there has been dispute I'll leave it longer for people to counter the points raised, but if it isn't corrected or addressed I will remove it again.219.88.68.195 (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I left this message on your talk page: There are citations in the paragraph you removed. I am not interested in getting into an edit war over whether this is original research and whether the citations are valid. Since this is arguably disputable, I am removing my message. I will not rollback my edit. However, I will not revert your edit if you restore it. Donner60 (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and retraction regarding non-neutrality, genuinely appreciated. I've left another comment on the talk page of the article regarding this. Previous to removing the text in question I presented a rationale on the talk page, including points about the citations which had been added after its previous removal as being uncited. I had left it there for a reasonable amount of time without anyone dissenting before editing, which I think is the correct process and demonstrates good faith.219.88.68.195 (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that you handled this in good faith. As far as I know, someone using Huggle (as I was) to review recent changes would have to make a special effort to look at the talk page and almost never is clued in to that by the edit or edit summary. In almost all cases it would be a waste of time to look. Of course, there can be occasional exceptions. A reason I accepted your position is that you had put an explanation on the talk page but I had only viewed the change. Thank you for your further comment. Donner60 (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Mount Wilson Observatory edits 8-12-15

Hi,

I am somewhat new to editing and will defer to you on much of the technical stuff regarding rules and formatting. I followed some of your comments to the other user who battled you to change the MWO page and believe your edits are the more correct of the two version. You backed off from your position, citing this page as a science article when it clearly is not. It is a historical and informational page about a scientific facility. The versions you changed repeatedly altered the names of the various telescopes in the attempt to be "wiki proper" when our versions were in fact correct. No one calls any of those telescope by any metric designations. They predate metric convention by many decades and are historical and famous for their accomplishments. They cannot be referred to by metric labels as they have no context with those new names. How is this context made clear and the proper edits made to keep it a historical article? I work there and was trying to supplement the limited and sometimes incorrect information on the wiki and would like to see it written as I left it, with the proper formatting for automatic metric conversions and such. I wrote the names and numerical units the way I did so it would read correctly. Clearly bots and such sniff out any unit discrepancies and I cannot battle this with my limited experience. Can you assist in putting this back to the conventional, non metric article that I wrote? Thanks for your help. There is much to add and the sooner these difficulties are settled, the easier the new content can be added without issue. Norm Vargas Norm Vargas (talk) 06:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

PS I have an even bigger problem that will need settling regarding crediting of my aerial photo on the same page. It was wrongly attributed to NASA when it is in fact my photo. How do I make a valid claim to the photo? My previous edits have been undone as vandalism before.

It seems that I was too easily persuaded to move off my original position. I thought the changes to metric (only) were incorrect under the Wikipedia Manual of Style but I also thought they simply did not look right in the context of an article about an American observatory and instruments over 100 years old. I think you are correct that this is not a science article - and I should have thought about that more carefully before conceding to that rationale.

I would like to see if I can find a person who edits Wikipedia who might be more knowledgeable and could help with this problem which I would do by looking at the most pertinent project pages to see if I recognize someone to contact. One of the persons on the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Members may be helpful. I recognize a few names. There also may be a noticeboard of some sort connected with Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy to take this up on. It might be that this needs to be handled as an editing problem and someone with knowledge of the editing of units of measurement would be more helpful. So another project page or, more generally, theWikipedia:Teahouse or Wikipedia:Help desk pages might be the most logical places to go with the question, rather than to an individual. Wikipedia:Requests has links to a variety of places to go for help including links to Help:Contents/Directory and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests. That general dispute resolution board is available but I think help from a more specific project might be the first place to look.

As far as uploading images, or taking credit for images, is concerned, I am not an expert. I think the best I can do is refer you to Help:Introduction to uploading images/1 and pages linked or following on from there. Wikipedia:Uploading images and pages linked from that page also should be helpful. You will also find the following advice at the bottom of the page. Get personal technical help at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Wikipedia:Help desk, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), Help:Introduction to talk pages or Wikipedia:IRC.

I was about to log off and will be offline for most or all of the next few days (visitors) so I may not be able to get back to this right away but I will look into it further as soon as I can unless you see a quick way to handle this based on my comments or the links cited. Although I could get back involved with making changes and supporting those on the talk page and engaging in renewed comments with the person making the changes, I think it would likely just lead to calling in additional parties. Some notice that his interpretation is being challenged after all and how it will be handled would be appropriate in that event.

I hope these comments are a useful start. Donner60 (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I have checked the article. I had not rolled back my reversion of the edits to the article, even though I had conceded (wrongly, it appears) on the IP user's talk page and deleted my messages. The user again made the edit to the page but another editor then reverted that edit. No more edits have been made for about 34 hours now. It seems that nothing needs to be done to correct the Mount Wilson Observatory article at this time, but it probably will need to be checked for consistency and watched in the future. I have spent over two hours looking into the proposition that dual units, and US customary units as the standard unit, should be retained. I think a good argument could be made to the Astronomy project or currently uninvolved members as mediators. After all this time, I just come back to the same Manual of Style sections I relied upon to begin with, plus the cogent argument that this really is not a science article, even though it is in the general purview of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy. Since nothing apparently currently needs to be changed, there is no reason to renew or expand discussion of the matter with respect to this article at this time. I have thought about making a backtracking comment on the IP user's talk page about the proper units and the fact this is not an article which discusses scientific principles (but not trying to restore my warning messages as I think that would be improper under the circumstances). I think this argument should be saved in case the matter comes up again. I probably should look at the other edits made by this editor to a few other articles because I think one other one may need to be changed. I hope you have made some progress with the image question or that I have sent you on the right track. Donner60 (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

About the Kids' meal article

I added the sources now. 73.160.108.91 (talk) 02:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute

Hello, Not sure how Wikipedia actually works, I Googled myself and found a quote in an article about Susan B Anthony which I never said; it was from a time in my life when I was being targeted by people writing letters to editors in my name. At the time (late 1980s) I thought I managed to find them all and contact the editors, but evidently this one went far enough to be included in a scholarly journal and Wikipedia! PLEASE remove the quote purportedly by me (Annette) in Daughters of Sarah magazine, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.214.237 (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Partial reply: The main reason I reverted your edit is that you also removed categories and the default sort from the article. There would seem to be no justification for that as the quote could have been removed without the other global changes to the article. Also, the default sort is needed in every article as part of the organization of Wikipedia. This removal appears to have been a problem, along with not putting an explanation in the edit summary for your change, with the previous removal edit. I will look into this further but the inclusion of the quote in a scholarly journal may be difficult to refute. I also think that we may be better off tossing the question to User:Bilpen who is a major contributor to the article. I will look into this a little further and get back to you. Donner60 (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Also placed on your talk page: Unfortunately, as an editor looking at recent changes, all I can see is that a scholarly journal supports the quote in the article. A sentence is left out that could be inserted, but it would not seem to change the meaning. I could find nothing on the internet that can be cited to show you have publicly refuted the quote or that the letter to the editor was sent by an impersonator. I do not see how I can view it as anything but removal of content. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. So your request will have to be approached differently.

The major contributors to this article appear to have engaged in rather intense debates about what should be included or not included, including the contributor I mentioned. These debates have played out on the talk page of the article. They even have included the Thomas article and even the quote from you should be included and how the references should be phrased. Click to archive page 2 in the box near the top of the talk page to see this rather recent discussion.

Because of the volatility of this matter and the long participation by other editors to the article and the fact that the article has been the subject of arbitration at least once (Wikipedia's "highest" form of dispute resolution), I think it would not be proper for me to become further involved in a matter in which all I can reasonably do is edit according to Wikipedia policy on the basis of references that I can see (or cannot find). I cannot necessarily refer you to any of the contributors for help or mediation because they seem to have points of view that would require them to reach some sort of consensus before acting on your request - unless they see it as more clear cut than I do, perhaps because you present them with some more information.

In accordance with common Wikipedia practice, you should place your question and request and supporting arguments or sources on the talk page. Given the activity with this article, I am sure that the participants will weigh in. You can place comments on their talk pages if any of them do not. If this does not end up satisfactorily, you can take the matter through the dispute resolution process. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and pages linked from that page such as Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests.

I am sorry I cannot be of more help on this but you do have some forums and methods open to you to try to resolve this under Wikipedia guidelines and I hope the links I have cited will point you in the right direction. Donner60 (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Re Biblestudyprof

His edits technically fall under WP:NOTVAND. I have reported him at WP:3RRNB. My D&D game is over now, so I can revert him some more. I recommend not reverting him again as some admins would include you as edit warring as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought that it looked like vandalism since he had been warned and had been referred to the talk page but I think you are correct that this is more like borderline behavior and I should back away from further involvement with the article. I will follow your advice. Donner60 (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.. Biblestudyprof (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the request has now been declined. Donner60 (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

His real weight is 227 lbs

His Odawg1414 (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

If so, and it is similar to the weight listed, that is the weight you should use. Donner60 (talk) 02:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Danesville mn name not correct

I am not a programmer but wanted to let you know that Danesville is misspelled. The correct spelling is Dehnsville Mn. I grew up a half mile from the store and did submit good data. here are 2 cites that use the correct spellings and name of the 2nd operator of the store. http://www.dingmannfuneral.com/obits/obituary.php?id=5 http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/40524559/6329 sorry if I made you think I was messing around — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.197.224.202 (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Harry A Dehn was the first operator of the store. 70.197.224.202 (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have left a message on you talk page that states in part that your references were in the wrong place and improperly formatted, which caused part of the problem. Of course, the U.S. Geological Survey uses the current name, as used in the article. It is fine to add history and show that there was once a previous spelling, along with references. The U.S. Geological Survey is the definitive source for the current spelling. I have deleted the earlier messages on your talk page as provided by the guidelines (strike through) and left a slightly more detailed note and some links to pages with information that can be helpful in editing Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

hey, sorry for the mess.

hi, I wrote reasons and I think messed up while deleting some of them. most of the "events" dont show any pkk losses, and desperately calling pkk terrorists as "guerillas" pkk is a terrorist organization. in casualities section, the link provided does not work, I tried to remove that, but apparently messed up. thanks for fixing them in advance, and please keep the biased opinions deleted.

I left a note and some helpful links on your talk page. After I saw this note, I also added: In response to your message, please make your edits more carefully and support them with sources when necessary. As I noted before, wholesale deletion of content is not the proper way to address these issues. You should address them by adding supporting material for your points with sources. If material is truly biased, it should be edited into more neutral language, especially if it is supported by reliable, verifiable sources. If it can not be edited to make it neutral and it is not supported by sources, then (at least in most cases), you should be able to delete it. Please read some of the pages that are linked above that may relate to this. Donner60 (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Citation

You said I needed a reliable source for my information on palisades, I know them and all about the information I added! All definitely reliable. Guitargaskarth (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't find any mention of this on the band's Facebook page. Sorry, leave it out until you can find a reliable, verifiable, neutral source. Based on a quick search, I can't find one but perhaps you are more familiar with references about the band. Your statement alone can not be accepted as a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Donner60 (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal of information added to Fly Systems.

My source would be myself. I have 10 years experience in the Theatre business. If you would like, I can supply pictures to go with my information when I go in for more maintainence tomorrow.

http://www.controlbooth.com/threads/rigging-question-tieing-off-a-line-set.551/ Here you have industry professionals and students discussing exactly what I posted. They use some different terms such as "Dogging" and "Snubbing". The principle is the same. Terms change with location.

You cannot base your addition solely on your own experience but you can certainly add citations which back you up. Your own version backed up by one or more citations is in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. For information about editing and writing for Wikipedia see Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Help:Referencing for beginners, Help:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Help:Getting started, Wikipedia:Introduction, Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. Donner60 (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

That is unfortunate... There are some things we do in this industry that are not published work (or harder to find) and more so taught by experience.

A few brief sentences might not be challenged if they look legitimate but I would not encourage that approach. Since you have a citation, why not use it? Every word you write does not need a citation, not even every sentence as long as the basic ideas are supported by the source and legitimate web sites (meaning in general ones that are not obviously simply expressing personal opinions) are valid sources. You can write up the information much as you have it as long as you can cite something that shows what you are writing is reasonably accurate. Donner60 (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

kat williamson photo

Hi Donner60, I was wondering if there's any way you could change kat's profile picture to a different action shot or possibly head shot? I've been trying to and I'm encountering trouble and thought I would reach out to someone who knew more about how to change it. Thanks for messaging me- sorry it has taken me some time to respond, I'm not very technologically savvy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jking1707 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I left a longer reply on your talk page. I am not a tech person either but I can change an image if it has a file name and is freely licensed. If it needs to be uploaded, rather than already existing on Wikipedia Commons, that may be more difficult. A bigger problem, however, can be showing that the image is freely licensed and not under copyright. I'll look into it and get back to you. Donner60 (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Further comment on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 09:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Can You help out?

Hi, I can't bellows works

1. Please create Park Jong-Won then make #REDIRECT Park Jong-won

2. Please attache language links. ko:박종원 222.98.25.251 (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I left a comment and advice on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. Jong Wong Park is wrong name. Definaltely, German made a mistake.00:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.98.25.251 (talk)

Afonso I of Portugal

Sorry for the mess. What happened is that I was trying to insert a new image on King Afonso I of Portugal's Infobox, and I messed it up because, I inserted wrongly the image and by consequence I messed up the Infobox. I shut down the page beliving that the mess would be resolved in a instant. The problem is that I still don't get how do I insert images on a Infobox. I'm deeply sorry for what happened. I'm looking forward for a response.

Keyier II (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Keyier II

You don't have a proper file name so your proposed change won't work. You need a file that ends in .jpg or some other extension that shows it is a picture. Also, it has to be freely licensed. You must be able to show it is not under copyright. If it comes from Wikipedia Commons, the status will be shown there. If not, you will have to upload it and show the copyright status. Donner60 (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Brodsworth

Why did you delete my post billybob787 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billybob787 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Introduction of factual errors; vandalism. Donner60 (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Mustang Range

The contribution is highly relevant and placed in an appropriate place. This is particularly evident in consideration of cost incurred by the contributor's experience (or understanding) of what it cost in the 1960s. I'm really surprised this didn't occur to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.131.60 (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Your own experience or understanding is not a good source. However, since similar information is on the page and also is not directly sourced, I deleted the message on your talk page and will not revert the edit if you add it again but I can not know how other editors may view it. Donner60 (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Rogue Edits?

Hi, you removed some stuff from the Rogue brewery page becuase you said it looked like a test. I don't know what that means. I looked through the edit history of that page and it's almost all rogue employees doing the writing? It it supposed to be that way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MerabWade (talk • contribs) 21:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure how you suppose that the editors are all Rogue employees but I don't think it is necessary to go into that. Wikipedia publishes facts based on verifiable, reliable sources, not opinions or commentary, especially based on blogs or forums, and ones that simply criticize and have axes to grind. I assumed you did not know this and did not have bad intent when you posted your previous changes so I marked it as a test. A longer explanation with reference to Wikipedia policies that I now link would have been better. In any event, now I see that you deleted content in the article, mid-reference, leaving gibberish to start a paragraph. Apparently you have something against Rogue and are not adding or changing content according to Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. Also, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Donner60 (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

City of many chickens

You removed saying it was a test. I was just there. There are indeed chickens walking the streets everywhere. Maybe you can tell me if you don't want me to put that there if there is a section where I can add it as there city bird? Feralchicken (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

If you have a verifiable, reliable source that you can cite and this is not simply your opinion (See Wikipedia:No original research), let me know. Also, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a blog, forum, soapbox or publisher of original research or opinion. It is an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable, neutral sources. (See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.) Donner60 (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Random IP edits

Hi, I'm sorry if this is the wrong place for questions, but I think there's been some sort of mix up. I was told that I had made some edits that were considered vandalism, but I have never even edited Wikipedia in the first place. I use it a lot, but I've never edited it. I don't have an account, but it told me that you knew it was me from the IP address. This is a work computer, but I've had it for several months now and never edited Wikipedia during that time. It looked like the edits in question were from the last four months or so? 208.87.234.202 (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Also, I just made an account so if you responded to this I could see it. Thank you again. Zacharykopet (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I replied on the talk page for your new account. Donner60 (talk) 02:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Chinese Mini-Nuke Event

Referenced sources and simple logic is profusely given. Scientific analysis transcends politics. Please at least summarize the data I condensed and simplified in the article somehow, with the referenced peer-reviewed journals explaining the logic of causation here...

Ambrosini, R.D., Luccioni, B.M., Danesi, R.F., Riera, J.D., and Rocha, M.M. 2002. Size of Craters Produced by Explosive Charges on or above the Ground Surface. Shock Waves, 12 (1): 69–78.

Ambrosini, R.D., Luccioni, B.M., and Danesi, R. 2006. Craters Produced by Explosions on the Soil Surface. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 73.

Ambrosini, R.D., and Luccioni, B.M. 2007. Craters Produced by Explosions above the Soil Surface. Mechanica Computacional, 26: 2253. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:F051:AB0F:3A76:DE48 (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You can certainly do this. The only problem that I saw with your additions was that they would likely be challenged for lack of citations. I assure you that politics has nothing to do with it as far as I am concerned. Since you have the citations, just add them as footnotes to support your text. There is no need for me to rewrite it as you are knowledgeable about the topic and know what the sources say. Help:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Citing Sources and Help:Referencing for beginners are pages with information about citing sources if you are unsure about how to do this. Thanks for the reply. Donner60 (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Sir, my above words are my own, but half of what I wrote to you was removed somehow, certain syntax and grammar in the public article modifications, and on here, both subtly warped, making my mind seem "eccentric" in an unflattering way, these changes not from MY END ... Genuinely puzzled, and I leave the NSA to this, I suppose. I know not what to think, period, now. Freaked out slightly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:F051:AB0F:3A76:DE48 (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The edit histories show no other user or IP address modified the above message or the article after your edits and before my reply or revert, respectively, both of which in turn did not modify anything you wrote. I am no computer expert so I cannot even guess at an explanation. Donner60 (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Oral administration of Propylene Glycol

Hi Donner60,

Please consider my addition to this section:

A recent case of propylene glycol poisoning from excess whiskey ingestion has been reported, in which a young man required ICU admission for respiratory depression and a significant osmolal gap metabolic acidosis.

I think it is relevant, but have not had much practice with editing. I'd like to try to site this article for the above addition: http://hic.sagepub.com/content/3/3/2324709615603722.full.pdf?ijkey=zv5XbFAllOicgL4&keytype=finite

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtaileen (talk • contribs) 13:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted my message and restored your edit. I misinterpreted it. I left a little longer comment on your talk page. Thank you for calling this to my attention and I am sorry for the mistake. Donner60 (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Lookout Mountain GA website error

I attempted to edit an incorrect link in the Walker County, Georgia article. The "City of Lookout Mountain, Ga" link currently listed (http://www.cityoflookoutmountain.com) takes one to a page with oriental text and is definitely not the website for the city. The correct URL is http://www.lookoutmtnga.com. (204.93.103.216 (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC))

You are correct. I must say it was really weird to test the old link and see the Oriental characters come up. Sorry for the mistake. I am deleting the original message on your talk page in the manner prescribed by the style guidelines (strike through). I have restored your edit. Thanks for bringing this to my attention and I hope you will be encouraged to add further useful edits to Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cannes Film Festival Best Director Award

62.85.42.252 (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC) Hi,Donner 60! Table "Template:Cannes Film Festival Best Director Award" is repeated twice. Please, correct it. Apologize about my bad English, and so on. 62.85.42.252 (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I only see the template contents shown once in the current version of the template. Are you referring to a different page or am I missing something? Donner60 (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Now I see from your edit summary that you were apparently concerned about the double entry in the article about Sergei Yutkevich. I removed the double entry from that article. You were editing the template itself which not only blanked the template but would not work to solve the problem with the Sergei Yutkevich article. It now seems that everything is correct. Thank you for alerting me to this. Donner60 (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit in page "pitts modern school"

Dear sir,

  I have done some editing like-1.added chairman 2.added website address 3. School address at the page of school "pitts modern school".

My changes have been removed and i got a message as : "Hello, I'm Donner60. An edit you recently made to Pitts Modern School seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)".

Please reconsider it.All changes i have done are correct.please make the change visible and applicable. Thankyou! Tapas ranjan mahto (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapas ranjan mahto (talk • contribs) 02:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted my message on your talk page. I have restored your edit except that I corrected the number of students from your number of 22000 to 2200. I was suspicious of that number which is why I tagged the edit as a test. Now I see that it must have been a typographical error. Sorry for the confusion but now all the changes appear to be correct. Donner60 (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Sex Difference in Intelligence

This is John Smith, a few minutes ago you removed an edit because I didn't provide the source but I actually DID provide that source and if the edit is still available please recheck it. If I did manage not provide a source, can you please cite which one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Deranjo Smith (talk • contribs) 04:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

You referred to "another study in Spain" but I see no further identification of it or reference to it. You also wrote "Therefore most IQ studies on sex differences tend to be representative of college students not overall population" without identifying a source for that. I think that unsourced edits to this article are likely challenged with regularity so it would be better to provide the references than get into a dispute about the contents (not with me, but with others who may take a greater interest). See Help:Page history for information on the "View History" tab where you can see previous versions and edits. Donner60 (talk) 04:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

How do I contact the author of the page "Sex differences in intelligence"? I wanted to talk to him about my deleted edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Deranjo Smith (talk • contribs) 17:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Removing my edit

Why was my edit removed? -71.224.115.250 (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You changed Cloud based applications to Butt based applications. Donner60 (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Revising the edits

Hello Donner60,

My name is Jzermene Van Ornum, I had my adding into the HTHMA deleted (it was the ip address before), The director of School, Robert Kuhl, has given me permission to add anything, but no inappropriate things, if you don't believe me, I will show you the email. Please respond, thank you Jvanornum2019 (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't believe you. You have added and changed information inconsistently and added an obviously bogus year change to 2025, changed numbers back and forth and put in something about a student hurting himself after losing in a game to his 2-year old sister. Or was it a 5-year old sister? You used both. Donner60 (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

   Since this is a big school, the ip's are all the same in the school, I promise you, my friends think it's funny changing things without the Director's permission, I on the other hand did. Jvanornum2019 (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

    They also don't have a wikipedia (so did I before) account, so all the changes linked into 1 ip address, & it was the school's ip address (All the chromebooks/computers are controlled by Hightechhigh.org), If you still don't believe me, I will give you the email I sent to the director for permission. Jvanornum2019 (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The whole email:

Jzermene Vanornum <jvanornum2019@hightechhigh.org> 2:22 PM (2 hours ago)

to R Hello Mr. Kuhl

    My name is Jzermene Van Ornum, a 9th grade student, may I add something in the HTHMA's Wikipedia, it will not be innapropriate, thank you.

R Kuhl <rkuhl@hightechhigh.org> 2:24 PM (2 hours ago)

to me

certainly

    I made this account so I can separate from the whole School ip's to wikipedia. Jvanornum2019 (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

OK. That sounds like a reasonable explanation. I am sorry that I did not give you more credit for acting constructively but without the explanation, I had no way to know that was the school IP address and not your own. So I could only think that you made the edits. I am glad you got an account. Protect your password and do not let anyone else use it, or leave your account unattended at school or in a public place, and you will be alright. Please go ahead with appropriate edits. Donner60 (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I left some links to pages with useful information about editing and writing for Wikipedia on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, since the school is based with the same ip, they can make the same edits with 2+ people, so you have to be on the lookout on that Ip. Thank you for putting in the consideration. Jvanornum2019 (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Belarus

I spent a couple of hours searching for duplicate references and what do I get? Semi-automated revert! You should better check every revert you do. --Jarash (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I have rolled back my revert and restored your edit. However, I believe you removed the URL from the first edit and did not replace it. That was what I saw. (Please double check that.) I am sorry I did not scroll further; that was my mistake. If I had, I would have noticed that you obviously intended to fix the citations. Please accept my apology and I hope you will continue to edit. I am striking my message on the user talk page before the redirected page and repeating this message on the other page as a mistake. I repeat this message to be sure you will get it. Donner60 (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

List of Bullpups.

I apologize for not adding a source. I changed those three years on the P90, F2000, and Famas because of the year they began production, not design. If you look at their wiki pages it will say what I put. Thanks!71.195.251.211 (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Without a source or an explanation such as this in the edit summary, I could not be sure whether the change in years was valid. Donner60 (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Janet Jones (artist) page reversion/removal

Hello Donner60. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Last night, you made a reversion to Janet Jones (artist), a page marked under construction as part of a meet-up. You may not have realized that the new user involved was working in a library, under the guidance of Wikipedia Administrators (see Anne Delong), as well as several librarians and other Wikipedians. The new editor was focused on formatting, prior to inserting relevant content with citations. Unfortunately, your abrupt reversion/deletion (under 30 minutes from posting) was seriously discouraging to this editor, who comes with significant knowledge resources that would be highly valuable to Wikipedia. While your overall efforts are appreciated, you should give pages marked with under construction templates (see below) the stated week to complete their collaborative work.

As you know, while there are many users with technical sophistication, quality articles require people with exceptional writing and research skills. Patience with them on initial edits and posts would go a long way to improving the overall quality on Wikipedia.

Seazzy (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on this. I obviously missed it. I was using Huggle last night and I either missed the tag or Huggle did not show it. As you probably know, Huggle shows the changes, not the entire page, so occasionally something in an unchanged part of the page, or an earlier edit, might not be seen. No excuse, of course, but it may be what happened. Either way, I will pay more attention to this possibility in an effort to avoid this problem in the future. Donner60 (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, now that I have gone back through the history of the page, I see why I did not see the template on Huggle. It was not added to the article until after my one and only reversion of the additions. It was a later editor who reverted the content after the template was added. Nonetheless, I will take your message as a reminder to be vigilant when editing with Huggle.

Don't revert edits for no reason

You reverted a clearly described edit I made within seconds of me making it. Obviously, you didn't even bother to read it, and you certainly didn't have the courtesy to give any coherent explanation of why you reverted. Such destructive behaviour is entirely detrimental to the aim of building an encyclopaedia. Don't do it again. 186.9.130.34 (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)