User talk:Donner60: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:08, 11 July 2020

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Simplified and good introductory references: • Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. • Getting started. • Introduction to Wikipedia. • Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset and • Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style.

• Wikipedia:Civility • Wikipedia:No personal attacks. • Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

• Wikipedia guidelines on twitter, facebook: Wikipedia:Twitter. Wikipedia guidelines, policies on external links: Wikipedia:External links, Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided.

• Wikipedia:Five Pillars. • Wikipedia:Notability. • Wikipedia:Verifiability. • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. • Wikipedia:No original research. • Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. • Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. • Wikipedia:Citing sources. • Help:Footnotes. • Wikipedia:Copyright Problems. • Wikipedia:Image use policy. • Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles. and • Help:Contents.

User Talk page policies and guidelines

• Help:Introduction to talk pages. • Help:Using talk pages. • 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 user page 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, i.e. after every other item on the page. If you put them here (immediately before or after this paragraph), I may either not see them or at least not see them very promptly. That will delay any reply from me to you. Please 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.

Often I will reply on your talk page and may note or summarize 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. Keep an eye on this page because I may just reply here, especially if the answer seems simple and does not seem to be time sensitive. If you have a user name, I will try to remember to ping you if I just leave a return message here. As far as I know, IP addresses cannot be pinged. 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)[reply]

If you put a question or comment on this page but not at the bottom of the page despite the above request, and you can not find it if you check back, I have moved it to the bottom of the page in a new section with an appropriate heading if there was none. If your edit was disruptive, vandalism, uncivil, nonsensical or abusive, and you do not find the edit on this page, it is because I have deleted it. In most such cases, I will also put another warning on your talk page, but will not otherwise reply to it. (I will reply, however, if you then leave a civil and reasonable followup with a legitimate question or comment and some reference or reasonable explanation.) Donner60 (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
......................

Koch People

You asked me about Koch people. RameshSingh321 (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not sufficient. Many people have licenses of some sort. That does not make them notable because this is not a reliable source of notability or public recognition. Again, there is no Wikipedia article about the person to establish notability. Mensa membership alone does not establish notability. Besides, one cannot access the web site to check it without having a password. See Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Citing sources an Help:Footnotes. Donner60 (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry

This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.

No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well D60. MarnetteD|Talk 23:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas Donner60
	Hi Donner60, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia this past year, –Davey2010^talk 00:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Merry Christmas, Donner60!
Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Donner60, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,
JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 08:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas!

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!
	Hope you enjoy the Christmas eve with the ones you love and step into the new year with lots of happiness and good health. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year!CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings; Happy New Year messages

I am amending this note because I have caught up. I changed to New Year messages only when I could not finish by December 26. I think I posted more this year than in the past few years, despite a small glitch or bothersome coincidence when I sent many out a few years ago. I took administrator names from my list of actions on my reports, mostly AIV, for this year which is on my user page. I took other names from my "thank" or "thanked by" lists. A few may have been just from my talk page but I omitted some one-off talk page items from users I did not otherwise recognize. I omitted a few names where I noticed the user had few or no edits recently and I did not recognize the name as someone I had run into much in the past. I added a few prolific users whom I have seen often making edits of the same type that I make. If we have corresponded or interacted in the recent past and I end up missing you, it was not intentional but a product of where I sourced names and perhaps the time period I used. The same can be said if I mistakenly omitted your name because I thought your recent edit history showed you were recently inactive or nearly so. In any case, I wish you in particular and all Wikipedians the best of the season and Happy New Year. Donner60 (talk) 06:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ta

for the greetings

keep safe in the new year JarrahTree 14:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Hello Donner60: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Everedux ^(talk) 18:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you too :)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Donner60, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

You Reverted My Edit

You reverted my edit on the page for Resetti. And you left a message on my talk page about how I deleted the ClueBot warning. I did it because it was constructional. And I deleted the warning on my talk because the message said, "If you believe this edit was constructional, delete this" BLAH BLAH BLAH. Anyways, it told me to delete the warning and put back the edit afterwards if it was constructional. Please give me a reason and I will respect it. If you believe it was vandalism, then I won't bother you, and I won't put the edit back. Romanian Maniac II (talk) 03:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a vandalism problem to begin with, just a manual of style issue. I have placed the following message on your talk page:

Since I did not place a warning as such on your talk page, you did not get another "warning" despite any implication suggested by the wording of my message. I now see that a better explanation was needed and my first sentence was unnecessary. So I am striking the first sentence above (in my original message on the page). In retrospect, I think as a new user you would not have seen the problem. I note that your edit was not vandalism; it just did not conform to the manual of style.

Simply put, your edit was an attempt to give additional information about the game but by using the words "you" and "your" instead of referring to a "player", it appeared you were giving directions or advice to the reader. Wikipedia is written in the third person and your edit should have been phrased in the third person, not the second person ("you", "yours") both to conform to the manual of style and to avoid the appearance of giving direction or advice.

I have restored your edit to the article but changed it so it now uses the third person. Please see the sentence as I have revised it.

Thank you for your polite and constructive comment from which I was able to clarify this. Please continue your constructive editing. I do advise that you read or at least stay aware of the Wikipedia (guideline and policy) pages that I have linked on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a joke

Hey. You posted on my talk page that I wrote a "joke edit" on the page of Collyridianism. I most certainly did not. The actual description in Epiphanius, which is the only source that mentions this sect, is as follows: they “decorate a barber’s chair or a square seat, spread cloth on it, set out bread and offer it in Mary’s name on a certain day of the year” (VII:1,6). The quote comes from pg. 52 of this paper. 69.157.44.136 (talk) 07:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I left the following message on your talk page:

I am striking the above message (my original message) because it was not a proper reason for reverting your edit.

However, your edit removed text from a cited source and added information that was already stated later in the paragraph. This does not appear to be a productive change so I will leave my edit as is.

I then added links to Wikipedia guideline, instruction and policy pages. Donner60 (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings

Hello Donner60: From high in the Canadian Arctic I hope you enjoy the holiday season, the Winter or Summer solstice, Quviahugvik, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah or even the Saturnalia, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adapted from {{Season's Greetings}}

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Donner60,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

MMXX Lunar Calendar

Donner60,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

– 2020 is a leap year – news article.
– Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Donner60: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

User talk:73.91.227.67

Donner, will you just please report these rightaway? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I shall do so. Some years ago I had a few reports turned down as "not enough warnings." Except for racist and similar edits, I have stuck with the four warning routine since then. Now that you mention it, I think we are, and should be, more sensitive to clear BLP vandalism in recent years. And this one was rather vile as well. Donner60 (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I know you as a sensible editor. You may know that I am not a fan of these steps, certainly not of the very first step, esp. not for disgusting stuff like that. Yes, I also have seen my share of "not enough warnings" stuff, but I think it's better to run that risk than to let some of these awful edits be added again and again. Thanks and take care, Drmies (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Donner60!

Happy New Year!

Donner60,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010^Talk 00:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hey, thanks for your thoughts, hope your year is good too. --Lofty abyss 04:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Donner. De728631 (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and thanks

Hey, just wanted to say thanks for the greetings. I hereby return the good wishes and hope you have a healthy and fulfilling new year. ...GELongstreet (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justus McKinstry

This fellow was long on my list of Aztec Society redlinks and I stopped by to tell you how impressed I am with the level of detail and sourcing on this subject. Nicely done. Much better work than I might have done. As strange as it seems, this totally unheralded figure makes a fascinating reading subject, causing someone somewhat knowledgeable like myself to rethink much of what I have read previously in reliable sources. The G.E. Rule-linked stuff is spectacular and compelling. Thanks for all you do here. I'm tickled to see this. BusterD (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BusterD: Thanks for you comment. I am sorry to say that I missed it for a few days. For some reason, I thought the comment below was the only new one. McKinstry's story is a little more complicated than the blurbs that simply say he was cashiered for being a crook. My guess is that is why other users may have skipped by his story and not very interesting. He may not have been entirely honest but, according to at least one well researched view, he also may have been a scapegoat to a large extent. There is little doubt in my mind that all Civil War generals should have articles (maybe not all the honorary brevet generals). I think there may be a few obscure ones that still need articles but almost all of them now have articles.

I have seen your work around and you also do good work. I have probably done too much vandalism reverting and minor editing in recent years and keep resolving to do more writing and major editing. Sometime this year I think I will finally do so. Again, I really appreciate you taking the time to comment on the article. Donner60 (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding link to page

Dear Donner60,

A while back I added a link to the Gaston Chevrolet page allowing visitors to view my website:

https://ChevroletBrothers.com

Shortly thereafter you removed the link.

The website is educational in scope, and is devoted to the history of the 3 brothers. The site contains over 850 original photographs, 500+ trade journal reports & newspaper articles from the period, and over 300 pages of original signed documents. No products or services are offered for sale, and while the site carries the dot com designation, there is no commercial component to it what so ever.

In 2018 the site was recognized by the Society of Automotive Historians for excellence in presentation of automotive history. I believe the site offers a thorough insight into the of the history of Gaston Chevrolet, and his 2 famous brothers. With that being said, do you really find the link to be objectionable?

Your comments would be most appreciated, thank you

Mr. Frontenac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Frontenac (talk • contribs) 18:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I left a longer comment on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many Thanks! I have added the link, and posted an explanation in the edit box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Frontenac (talk • contribs) 01:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gavrilo Princip page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:203.147.93.62 You deleted my edit claiming there is no reference that Young Bosnia was multi-ethnic. DO I need to refer back to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Bosnia#Assassination_of_Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand_of_Austria In the very first sentence it claims multiethnicity. 203.147.93.62 (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this is being raised 7 months later. If a comment had been made here at the time, some clarification could have been timely made. Your comment presumes the reader will have read the Young Bosnia article, which may not be the case. I note that the Young Bosnia article's first sentence refers to each group with "Bosnian" as the descriptor. The meaning of this, to the reader who may not have figured this out from that, is spelled out with a source later in that article. It is not sourced in the lead, which it did not need to be, nor in the section linked here. The source is Dejan Djokic, who is not cited as a source in the Princip article. A citation to the Djokic book on this point would be more useful to the reader than presuming that the reader would check the Young Bosnia article, and its sources, to verify the point. No need for snark, by the way, when a comment and request for explanation would be enough. Donner60 (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muhamad Ibn Hanafiyyah

hi yes you left me a message concerning muhamad ibn hanafiyyah.The pervious user had misinformed the reader of info concerning what son he was.Which makes a difference to shia muslims and historical references.I made additional edits as minor mistakes on mybehalf as far as spelling and I also forgot to add info.My intention of this edit was to show what both sides of the muslim sects view as his proper role.Thank you Ya Ali Ya HUsayn (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I left this message on your talk page. Thank you for your message. Because you intend to add back some content, I will strike through the above message. Please state the significance and place in history for both Shia and Sunni. It would be good to add a citation to a reliable, verifiable source for added content, especially if there is any chance this may be disputed. I also left links to helpful Wikipedia articles on guidelines, style, policies and editing advice and requirements. Donner60 (talk) 04:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

False Information

Hi, I’ve been trying to adjust Quentin Tarantino’s awards list and have been doing a pretty good job on it, but recently users have been putting some unsourced nominations on the list such as Pulp Fiction for Best Picture. He was not a producer on this movie therefore he was not nominated for that specific award. I keep having to delete the same thing over and over again. I’m not asking if you can block the users or protect the page or anything like that, I was just wondering if you could warn them not to do it if anyone tries to do it again. It would be much appreciated. Thank you.

Hi. I am not an administrator so I can only report vandals or disruptive editors. I can revert current edits and warn users for vandalism, failure to cite a reliable source, factual errors and failure to edit in line with policy and style guidelines, depending on the type of problem the edit presents. Since you have reverted the edits and there has been no further activity, I cannot warn a user for some past error or problem. Also, as a volunteer, as we all are, I am only online occasionally and can only look at such things on those occasions. Usually, I am looking at a recent changes feed. If the problems with this article persist persist, you can report them to either Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Read the instructions on those pages carefully if you have not done this before so that you do not make a technical error. You can also ask a question about the situation at Wikipedia:Teahouse. You can contact an administrator directly about the problem. One way to find an administrator who may be able to help or give advice is to look at the list of recently active administrators at this page: [[1]]. Good luck in your editing. Donner60 (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added relevant information that was deleted on George Remus' page

I fixed glaring errors throughout the page and updated his recent notoriety, including books and a spirit named after him. I cited both, then had someone erase the citation (the website), then removed the website, then got a threat to be blocked for not citing. Remushistory (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)Remushistory[reply]

You spammed the article with promotional content about a new whiskey brand, cited to an article generated by a company press release. When I reverted you, you added the promotional content back, without a reference, and another editor reverted you. Your first edit shows that you understand the need for a reference. Your second one shows that you are willing to try to spam without a reference. Please stop your spamming. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 37

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 37, November – December 2019

#1Lib1Ref
Wikimedia and Libraries User Group

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Fisk Harrison, Fiske Goodeve Fiske Harrison, Copford Hall, Brian Harrison

Hello, I amended information in August 18 about Clive Fisk-Harrison because it was incorrect. I removed only information that I knew was incorrect and left a note why this was so!

Fiske Goodeve Fisk Harrison died without legitimate issue, his marriage (to Jane Sparrow)was annulled on the grounds of impotency [1,2] so all references to the current Fisk-Harrisons (or Brian Harrison or info on the hereditary path of Copford Hall) being descended from him are incorrect. His only surviving child was John Blakeney Maskell. JBM is buried at Copford I believe (from a more recent Harrison), he was educated courtesy of his father (I sent for the Will) but never acknowledged as heir, therefore Copford Hall passed to a cousin and so on. The current Harrisons and Fisk-Harrisons share descendency with Fisk goodeve FH but they are not descended from him. It's a different branch/branches of the family with a different source for the addition of Fiske/Fisk. Way back they inherited as cousins when a current lord of the manor died without heirs. Its fascinating history. It is always incorrect to assume that the same name means automatic descendancy - you have to do the research to be sure. I have done the research, sent for the records, etc, in this case and much of the information is available online at ancestry.co.uk.

I have no idea if this post will go to the right place - your page says put at bottom but there is no-where to insert a post/message or reply. So I hope so. Its not at all clear what to do. I'm sure you do a sterling job with everything else, just in this case I happened to know it was and still is incorrect! I may yet go through and amend this incorrect information in the others.

[1,2] <ref>https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5779f184e561096c9312f511</ref> <ref>https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C3678474</ref>

AncestryMatters (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)ancestrymatters[reply]

@AncestryMatters: I have been offline since before you left this message because I have been unusually busy or tied up in "real life." This is the reason for my delayed response. I have changed the format of your references. Otherwise, they would leave this item and continue down the page when other items are added. I am aware that ancestry information can be erroneous as I have encountered this before. As long as you give your reasons and citations, the change is valid. That was the problem with the earlier edit; you cannot just rely on information you have not cited or explained in the edit summary and, if elaboration is needed, on the talk page. Since some time has passed, I assume that if you have not completely tidied this up with the citations, you will do so. Thanks for your message. Donner60 (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sell from Satire news and web

	Delete sell from Satire news and web
	It's a mistake man Nazmul Naz (talk) 07:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK? Not sure how this relates to edit unless you are saying you have made a mistake rather that intentional deletion of sourced content. Donner60 (talk) 07:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March Madness 2020

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

Craig Challen

Re: Craig Challen. You removed my edits. I am Heather Jayne Endall, partner of Craig Challen. Craig requested me to update his page. The information on the new diving depth is relatively new so nothing to reference to as yet. Please reinstate my edits. Heather Jayne Endall (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC) Heather Jayne Endall <craig challen>[reply]

I have replied to this at length on the poster's user talk page. Donner60 (talk) 08:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Akbaruddin Owaisi

Why you think akbar uddin owaisi is divisive leader? Mohd Dastagir (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not my opinion. It is a quote from some political opponents published in a verifiable source. You not only deleted content based on your personal opinion but you falsely changed the content to quote the opponents as saying favorable things about him which they did not say. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. I could have reverted your edit on the basis of verifiability and introducing errors into Wikipedia in addition to the reason I checked. See also: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Please do not make such changes and additions without basis again. Donner60 (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User Page updates not being saved

I haven't been able to update my user page in recent days. I split off more than one-third of the content to a sub-page on February 29, and can't edit that either. The user page is long but longer versions of that, and even talk pages, have been editable. I have been editing articles. I am busy writing for the Military History WikiProject this month and other tasks so I will probably not look into the user page edit problem further for a week or more. If anyone has been looking at that page in recent weeks, that is why I haven't updated it. Donner60 (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

revert edit

Luciferianism Mcuthbert21 (talk) 04:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how are you doing buddy, I welcome help with orientation in regards to being a Wikipedian since I am new at this, you claimed to have reverted my contribution since it did not "appear to be constructive". Rules and regulations are one thing, that the content of something appears "not to be constructive" because one has no knowledge in such things is a completely different story brother. That is not helping Wikipedia, you can challenge me to find a source, not revert a contribution that has a very solid foundation in true biblical exegesis Mcuthbert21 (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy: Reverting an edit which removes all the sources and footnotes, and references to other bible versions, is not improper. The end result of your rewrite may perhaps be a little better written text but is not an overall improvement because it appears to omit additional information and alternative explanations as well as several footnotes with sources. Without the sources for your version, it appears to delete text simply because you do not agree with it and to be original research, which can be removed.

The Wikipedia guidelines encourage distinguishing properly sourced points of view or information by, for example, adding sources that support a different point of view or explanation as the majority or correct explanation. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight."

The sourcing for three paragraphs has been removed along with some content and has not been kept for any content that has been kept and has not been added for revisions. The reader should be able look at the sources and decide what is relevant, supportable and persuasive. Again, see Wikipedia:Verifiability, in general.

Before adding unneeded accusations about what one has knowledge of, or challenging the rules and polices cited in the linked polices, or about what one does to help Wikipedia, think about Wikipedia:Civility, brother, and whether long-time volunteer reviewers may simply be editing according to Wikipedia guidelines. That is not to say that anyone is infallible or that exchange of information and reasoning cannot produce a better result within the guidelines and policies.

I will acknowledge that the template message may not have been the best for this situation and a little more explanation and links, or even a different template message, would have better helped show the reason for my revert and even given a little guidance. As a reviewer views a stream of changes from different articles, the need for more explanation than the template may not always be evident. A simple request for me to consider an explanation of why the change is better and what I may have missed, rather than a belligerent post, would have helped foster cooperation and more easily resulted in an agreeable result that does improve Wikipedia. I could have acknowledged your point while still suggesting that some information, and definitely some sources, needed to be added, with better overall attitudes and results. The final result can still be agreeable and a better text overall. I encourage you to review your addition and deletion and consider adding sources and restoring other information and citations. If you do not wish to do so, another editor may well revert your change if I don't. Donner60 (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wayman Mitchell AfD

Feel free to vote at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wayman_Mitchell.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sad

I am displeased Technoquacker (talk) 04:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised. Not that you are displeased, but that you have not been blocked by now. Your other edits seem to have sneaked by without notice so far. But the pattern is clear, isn't it? Donner60 (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably bring this to attention at WP:ANI, WP:AIV, or even directly to an admin. I've noticed the disruptive edits as well. Very sus considering it's a new account. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 05:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bait30: Thanks. I reported it to AIV at about the same time User:Bongwarrior blocked the account indefinitely. Another editor reported the user as a possible sock puppet and a notice to that effect is now on the user page. Donner60 (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some stripes for you!

		Military history service award
		For scoring 175 points in the WikiProject Military history 2020 edit-a-thon March Madness, I am pleased to award you this token of appreciation from the Project. Thank you, and well done. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry

Sorry for incomplete article change and lack of cite source. Despite to intent of completing content change, I ignored my intent of doing that and get out to do other things. I'll observe the compliance of completing content change and I would follow that policy as I should abide by. 211.237.125.110 (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXVIII, April 2020

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content
Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the logistics behind the Crusades and the USAF's early Cold War nuclear deterrant

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I didn't cite the[Tawar] wiki page as I am from there and was writing from my own personal experience.Iamgid (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 38, January – April 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020

New partnership
Global roundup

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIX, May 2020

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content
Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at fortifications, the German Army, and post-Cold War conflict

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning

I didn’t remove anything. I was undoing a vandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troysprose (talk • contribs) 04:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Troysprose: Got it. I noticed my mistake immediately and struck my message on your talk page as fast as I could. We edited simultaneously or nearly so. I intended to revert the same edit that you did. Sorry for the mistake; though infrequent, near simultaneous edits resulting in a mistake can happen. Donner60 (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Providence Health and Services

I would greatly appreciate it if you would re-instate the changes I made.

The page as it is written is filled with accusations, not facts and includes numerous errors as to the names and numbers of the hospitals we serve.

Every single change I made can be verified at www.providence.org.

I'm new to this so citations is not my strong suit (although I appreciate the value of them!) but you shouldn't allow complete falsehoods and errors to remain on the page.

Donovan Itsjustdonovan (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is up to you to provide citations. There is no way a reviewer can know whether your changes are valid or a reader can verify them. It is not up to volunteer reviewers to do research for users who add or subtract material, especial text with citations. Will respond further on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Reference in Hell (DC Comics)

The aforementioned Reference you removed is also at Neron (DC Comics). I got it from there.

Constantine the Hellblazer #8-13 is what's being referred to here. It's Neron's first major appearance since Reign in Hell (where he was killed by Satanus). The Reference is correct as I stated it (I read the trade paperback Constantine the Hellblazer Volume 2: The Art of the Deal and know that it's right).2600:1700:7E31:5710:90FF:F4CD:310F:3FA1 (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a mistake on my part. I struck my original message on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020

Library Card Platform
New partnerships
- ProQuest
- Springer Nature
- BioOne
- CEEOL
- IWA Publishing
- ICE Publishing
Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

Hi! Do you know where I could find the userboxes about trying to do the right thing and not being an administrator? I almost simply copied them off your page but I thought I should ask first. I'm still figuring out userboxes. Thanks!Schickdavid3 (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I put the information on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great information. Thank you!Schickdavid3 (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXX, June 2020

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content
Book review: Nick-D looks at the naval siege of Japan in 1945

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transracialism

You were unclear about which edit failed to include a citation. I made several edits and included citations for most. Please provide additional details. I am also curious as to the reasoning behind your decision to remove my edits while allowing more vague references by the previous contributor to remain.

Just answered on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained revert

Please don't make unexplained reverts, as you did here. Thank you. 2601:243:2200:60E:E08F:50A0:9A84:2F4E (talk) 04:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your edits were obvious violations of neutral point of view, removal of sourced content and unsupported. Donner60 (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and would appreciate a more detailed explanation from you. Each edit was supported by an edit summary which you should feel free to prove erroneous. 2601:243:2200:60E:E08F:50A0:9A84:2F4E (talk) 04:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 04:05, 11 July 2020 edit Donner60 (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 234,273 edits →‎Unexplained revert: reason for reverts ← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:08, 11 July 2020 edit undo 2601:243:2200:60e:e08f:50a0:9a84:2f4e (talk) →‎Unexplained revert: response Next edit →
Line 607:		Line 607:

	:Sorry, your edits were obvious violations of neutral point of view, removal of sourced content and unsupported. [[User:Donner60\|Donner60]] ([[User talk:Donner60#top\|talk]]) 04:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)		:Sorry, your edits were obvious violations of neutral point of view, removal of sourced content and unsupported. [[User:Donner60\|Donner60]] ([[User talk:Donner60#top\|talk]]) 04:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
			::I disagree and would appreciate a more detailed explanation from you. Each edit was supported by an edit summary which you should feel free to prove erroneous. [[Special:Contributions/2601:243:2200:60E:E08F:50A0:9A84:2F4E\|2601:243:2200:60E:E08F:50A0:9A84:2F4E]] ([[User talk:2601:243:2200:60E:E08F:50A0:9A84:2F4E\|talk]]) 04:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)