User talk:Donner60

Friendly talk page watchers are appreciated. They may respond to questions on or edits to this page, especially when I am unable to respond quickly or when an additional response to an edit, question or comment would be helpful.

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)

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

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:Avoiding common mistakes. • Wikipedia:Vandalism. References to Wikipedia policies, guidelines, instructions, include:
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style. • 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:Manual of Style/Words to watch. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Relative time references. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Puffery. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Editorializing. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. • Wikipedia:Handling trivia. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context.

• 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)

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)

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for all the anti-vandalism contributions you make! JMVR1 (Communicate) (Validate my actions (for my ego, ofc)) (Email me) :) 03:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

A Disney Halloween

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that I strongly believe this came out in 1983 and not 1981 (two major factors to these reasons being that the brief footage of the live-action Jack-o'-lantern puppet after Night on Bald Mountain from Fantasia (1940) but before "The Wizards Duel" scene from The Sword in the Stone (1963) is taken from Disney's Halloween Treat (1982) and that the copyright after the end credits reads "© 1983 Walt Disney Productions All Rights Reserved"). At the 1:27:34 minute mark: https://archive.org/details/adisneyhalloween1983 2605:E000:121D:8BF5:952B:19B:E329:75E3 (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources show the episode aired 24 October 1981. Your recollection or belief is not a verifiable, reliable, third party, neutral source.

The following quote from a Wikipedia policy page, Wikipedia:No original research, is relevant here: "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a reliable source; what counts as a reliable source is described in Wikipedia:Verifiability."

From Wikipedia:No original research: "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a reliable source; what counts as a reliable source is described at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources". From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an Wikipedia:Citing sources#Inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" and "Articles must be based on reliable, third party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an Wikipedia:Citing sources#Inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). See Wikipedia:Citing sources for details of how to do this.

Helpful information about editing Wikipedia can be found on various Wikipedia guideline and policy pages which I left on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Revolver edit

Hello, I would like to talk about my edits for the Red Dead Revolver page. It's very heavily implied that the game takes place in 1880, such as the 1870's era clothing and the fact that all of the guns used in the game are pre-1878. The games' spiritual successor/indirect sequel, Red Dead Redemption, mentions that the events of Revolver took place approximately 30 years from 1911/1914 (when Redemption takes place). One character in the game, Sheriff Bartlett, mentions that the death of Red Harlow's parents was twelve years before the events of the main game. This would place the date of his parents death to be circa 1868. Now I'm not too aware of what Manuel of Style is. Does it mean that the writing style wasn't consistent with the rest of the article? If so, how do you suggest that I make it more consistent? 98.19.30.48 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I should have been specific, as I was on your talk page. I struck my original message because of your explanation and for reasons you mention here and I further comment on. I have left some helpful links on your talk page. I made the minor corrections for which I left the original message.

Thrace

I have quotated the source should be fine now,not trying to vandalyse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasing-shadows-origin (talk • contribs) 04:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Yet, it is still inaccurate to change these long referenced Greek gods and legends to Thracian origin. Thrace was part of Greece in ancient time and part of it still is. Donner60 (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Are they any reliable sources to confirm what you stated ? Why did you remove the two different Orphism teachings do you work on percentage or something ? I have quoted where the source of that information is . Why dont you let the people judge for themself ? what is your problem with that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasing-shadows-origin (talk • contribs) 13:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

"Greece is an new state created back in 1830s, such country and nation didn’t exist 2000 years, not sure how Thrace is considered part of greece." how does that sound to you ... how can you claim thrace was part of greece when greece did not even exist you are a funny man... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasing-shadows-origin (talk • contribs) 13:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Greek city-states; Greek culture; Greek language, Greece under the Macedonians and perhaps more importantly, throughout literature and writings referred to as Greek. So you are a Thracian or have a bias toward changing these gods and terms from the long-established "Greek" to Thracian, I get it. Some of this "Greek" culture may have come from Thracia. Your reference to 1830 is disingenuous since all things Greek did not begin in 1830, just the modern Greek state after centuries of outside rule. I find it hard to believe that you are taking the position that there was nothing that should be referred to as "Greek" before 1830.

People are not supposed to judge for themselves unless there are two good positions and both are presented. The minority position, which yours surely is if it has any credibility, must be shown as such and not given under weight.

See Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The prohibition against original research limits the extent to which editors may present their own points of view in articles. By reinforcing the importance of including verifiable research produced by others, this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view. Also from the first link: "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a reliable source; what counts as a reliable source is described in Wikipedia:Verifiability."

I will leave this to others who are likely more expert and more interested in the topic so that third opinions can be taken into account. We will see if anyone else cares about this. Donner60 (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Cortinarius caperatus common name issue

Hi Donner60, thanks for inviting me to cite this. I am not saavy with Wikipedia editing, so please forgive the mistakes I will inevitably make, and I thank you in advance for your help on this issue. There are many resources which verify the racially problematic nature of the term 'gypsy', but here is a website for example: https://now.org/blog/the-g-word-isnt-for-you-how-gypsy-erases-romani-women/

Please let me know what type of resource you think it would be best to cite for this correction, if this one is insufficient. Thank you!

best, 198.29.35.161 (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Anna

You cannot erase a common and long-used term and change it for one that does not fit as well. See: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored. I have a relative of Romani descent so I am not in favor of slurring Romanis. This is one of those situations where, under Wikipedia guidelines, we cannot simply sanitize a fact because we think it is offensive. Donner60 (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Changes to Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan

Hi Donner60. Which incorrect information are you referring to regarding the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan article? As far as I recall I only made a change to the President part, and the updated version seems to be the exact same, just with a title. Please let me know, Targeryen — Preceding undated comment added 00:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I added this: The web site that I checked appeared official but did not show the change in president. Also, there is no article about the change (as again edited by another user) so a reliable, verifiable source should be provided to verify the change" and some helpful Wikipedia policy and guideline page links to your talk page.

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit to: Secret societies at the University of Virginia

Hi Donner60,

Apologies for my lack of understanding on how to edit the Wikipedia page. I wanted to delete the section on the "Vega Society" on Secret societies at the University of Virginia because it is not an actual secret society and should not be recognized as such. It is literally one person who wrote a letter to administration and is calling himself a secret society. I did not intend for my edits to be humorous and I should have provided more of an explanation when I submitted my edit, but I was not familiar with this process since I have never edited a page before. Can you help me with this?

04:15, 25 November 2020 diff hist -1,938‎ Secret societies at the University of Virginia ‎ Vega is not a real secret society. Tags: section blanking Reverted

2603:6081:1905:A297:C87:1E37:213A:9118 (talk) 04:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I am striking my original message on your talk page due to your explanation which appears to show that two consecutive edits were a good faith attempt to remove or clarify an apparently invalid addition to the article. I have removed the section since the recently formed anonymous group (if it is a group) does not appear to be the type of society described in the article. I base this on my reading of the cited source. However, I will not edit the article further if there are competing claims by persons who appear to be more knowledgeable about what is considered a secret society at the university. I have added some links to helpful Wikipedia guideline and policy pages to the new message. Donner60 (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Donner60! I appreciate your diligence in verifying this edit. 2603:6081:1905:A297:C87:1E37:213A:9118 (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding my edit to "Otokonoko"

Hello. I am new to editing wikipedia, but I noticed you had thanked me for my edit to the page Otokonoko. The edit was undoing the removal of a section of the article by another user. The section of the article did get removed again. Because I am new to editing wikipedia, I thought asking a more experienced editor for advice before going forward would be a good idea. I do want to avoid an edit war. I get that the section regards an opinion, and Wikipedia does not have to publish opinions. However the removed section of the article does not claim that the opinion is correct or attempt to push it. Instead it simply claims that there are people who hold this opinion, which is a factually correct statement. Thank you in advance for any advice you can give, Randomstuff84 (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

You are correct but as I explain at greater length on you talk page, I would let it go. This is mainly because the point is now only made indirectly in the text but it is made in the citation that remains. It is probably made in more general articles as well. This is something of a gray area because arguments could be made about relevance to the article and overemphasis of an opinion, even though sourced. I would not get into a dispute (edit war) over it and suggest, as a new user, that you do not do so either. Donner60 (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Jerm (talk) has given you a Turkey! Turkeys promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a turkey, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Thanksgiving! Spread the goodness of turkey by adding {{subst:Thanksgiving Turkey}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Needing a citation for Pedee tribe language

Yeah, hi. My citation is that I'm a member of this tribe. This is the language that we speak. You can refer to our Chief Peter Parr. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.107.215 (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

A person adding content to an article based on personal knowledge or experience is are not a reliable source. The editors and readers do not know who that person is and whether they are telling the truth. Wikipedia cannot take user's word for types of edits which could be joke edits, vandalism, invasions of privacy or simply mistakes. They must have citations. Wikipedia guideline pages also point this out.

From Wikipedia:No original research: "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a reliable source; what counts as a reliable source is described at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources". From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an Wikipedia:Citing sources#Inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" and "Articles must be based on reliable, third party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

Helpful information about editing Wikipedia can be found on various Wikipedia guideline and policy pages including: Help:Getting started; Wikipedia:Introduction; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style; Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources; Wikipedia:Citing sources; Help:Footnotes; Wikipedia:Verifiability; Wikipedia:No original research; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; Wikipedia:Notability; Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons; Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch; Help:Introduction to talk pages; Wikipedia:Copyright Problems and Help:Contents. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

"British" is a nationality, but when describing British people on Wikipedia, their ledes usually put whatever country in the UK they come from.

Hi! I noticed you cited in your Lily Collins edit that "British" isn't a nationality ("British is not a nationality; English is how her paternal origin is described elsewhere"). Well, British is a nationality and is used to describe people from the United Kingdom. There's a whole section for British nationality law. Though, most, if not all notable British people in their Wikipedia ledes usually get described as being "English", "Welsh", "Scottish" or "Northern Irish" or whatever place in the United Kingdom they come from.

Technically, describing Lily Collins as "English-American" is right, at least in regards to the consistency with other articles, but I just wanted to point out your reasoning. I'm sorry if I'm getting worked up over a very petty detail. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Clear Looking Glass: Thanks for the clarification. I think I have seen the "British" description changed so many times that it may have seemed the obviously correct reason for doing so - or I was just too hasty. I don't recall often, if ever, making the change in earlier reviewing. In any event, I don't think that being precise is being petty and I am glad to have the proper information. I will look for a guideline on this. There should be a better way to explain this frequent change or original description. If not, maybe it would be better to leave it for someone else to review. Donner60 (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Removed my Bwiti edits, claiming lack of sourcing.

Hello- you removed my Bwiti page edits claiming that there was a lack of source. I am the source of my information as I have experienced these things first hand. As I stated in the edit summary, I have lived with the Bwiti people and I am very familiar with the customs. I have been involved with the Bwiti for years. Many of what is written in articles or in books is incorrect and I was intending on cleaning up the links in this page as well. Only links with true and accurate information should be listed, not just any link that talks about Bwiti. I have discovered many people talk about Bwiti but very few actually have been to the village and spent time with the ancient tradition, as I have. Bwiti is an oral tradition, Bwiti people do not write books on the subject so it is up to us to correct these things. I would love to help clean this article up. Without my edits, there is so much false information here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.87.48 (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello I created an account so that you can know that I am sincere. Please feel free to reach out to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alligatorpatrol (talk • contribs) 19:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I previously left the following message on your IP user talk page. I think it is clear that Wikipedia guidelines do not allow original research.

From Wikipedia:No original research: "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a reliable source; what counts as a reliable source is described at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources". From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an Wikipedia:Citing sources#Inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" and "Articles must be based on reliable, third party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an Wikipedia:Citing sources#Inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). See Wikipedia:Citing sources for details of how to do this."

Helpful information about editing Wikipedia can be found on various Wikipedia guideline and policy pages including: Help:Getting started; Wikipedia:Introduction; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style; Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources; Wikipedia:Citing sources; Help:Footnotes; Wikipedia:Verifiability; Wikipedia:No original research; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; Wikipedia:Notability; Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons; Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch; Help:Introduction to talk pages; Wikipedia:Copyright Problems and Help:Contents. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Edits to the header of Robert Peary.

I only reused sentences from the existing article and moved them to the header section, which previously only included information about his accomplishments and successes, ignoring the issues he created for native populations. Is it appropriate to ignore the bad things a person did in their summary? Tack 03:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to repeat these things at length in the introduction. It can only be so long. Moreover, some of what was written in the introduction is written in speculative language and would require a source. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, Wikipedia:Manual of Style, Wikipedia:Verifiability Donner60 (talk) 04:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Why is it appropriate to repeat only his successes and accomplishments in the introduction then? Shouldn't the harm he caused be given similar weight? Tack 04:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

No. Not considering the magnitude of the incident and the fact that some of the language in the text is based on speculation and the likelihood that Peary had no intent to harm the six individuals. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. Donner60 (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement

New Message regarding Battle of Mutah edis i made. The results should be written as contested as there are sources that say the muslims won [1] while others say the christians won — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.41.26.86 (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Then both should be included with citations to the various sources. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, Wikipedia:Citing sources and Help:Footnotes. Donner60 (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC - scope and title for the American Revolutionary War article

I am forwarding this RfC notice to you, along with the ongoing Discussion Summary Chart because you are listed as a Military Project member interested in the American Revolutionary War. The RfC and discussion is found at Talk:American Revolutionary War. Please feel free to delete this notice if it does not fit your current interests. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

American Revolutionary War, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for value. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Which of two (2) titles should be chosen to define the scope of the existing article American Revolutionary War?
discussion summarized by TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

A. "American Revolutionary War”

B. "War of the American Revolution"

align="left" style="border-color:#000000;border-style:solid;border-width:1px 1px 1px 4px;Template:Border-radius"|- continuity - used at this WP article and sisters for 19 years - scope - British-American insurrection in continental North America - participants British & US Congress with their respective allies, auxiliaries & combatants - war aims -- Brit: maintain First British Empire with mercantile system -- US: independence, British evacuation, territory to Mississippi-navigation, Newfoundland-fish & cure - results - US independence & republic; Britain the biggest US trade partner & finances US expanding business & Treasury - reliable scholarly reference Britannica for the general reader - prominent adherents - 15 Pulitzer history winners

align="left" style="border-color:#000000;border-style:solid;border-width:1px 1px 1px 4px;Template:Border-radius"|- modern update - uses 'vast majority of sources' found in a browser search - scope - British-American insurrection in continental North America, Anglo-Bourbon (Fr.&Sp.) War-across worldwide empires, Fourth Anglo-Dutch War-North Atlantic, Second Mysore War-Indian subcontinent & Ocean - participants British & US Congress, France, Spain, Dutch Republic, Kingdom of Mysore - war aims -- Brit: maintain First British Empire with mercantile system -- US independence, British evacuation, territory to Mississippi-navigation, Newfoundland-fish & cure -- Bourbons: Gibraltar, Jamaica, Majorca, expand Gambia trade, expand India trade -- Dutch - free trade with North America & Caribbean -- Mysore wider east-Indian sub-continent sphere of influenced results - Second British Empire, Spanish Majorca, French Gambia, further decline of Dutch Republic - reliable scholarly reference [world military dictionary] for the military specialist - prominent adherents - Michael Clodfelter, more to follow

The use of the name Riverdale, South Riverdale instead of Kingsbridge in the Bronx

Hi there brother, I work at the Columbia Doctors on West 231 Street & Corlear Avenue @ 3050 Corlear Avenue, and everytime we have to answer the phones, or use the internet, we were told, and should use the name Riverdale, or South Riverdale Bronx as our address at all times. We were told NEVER to use the name Kingsbridge, since Kingsbridge is mainly used around the Kingsbridge Road geographically named area, and confuse the people trying to find our clinics. If you use the name Kingsbridge, and are caught, you're job may be on the line as well. Anyway, it seems to work fine this way, and so it goes. Have a Happy Holiday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:610B:4600:F92E:9CAC:4164:C5A2 (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps your right, but your edit is not verifiable:

The following quote from a Wikipedia policy page, Wikipedia:No original research, is relevant here: "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a reliable source; what counts as a reliable source is described in Wikipedia:Verifiability."

From Wikipedia:No original research: "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a reliable source; what counts as a reliable source is described at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources". From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an Wikipedia:Citing sources#Inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" and "Articles must be based on reliable, third party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Donner60 (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I am right, because I have been working there since 2015, and that's 5 years in a row now that the name Kingsbridge is NEVER used..... GET IT ....