User talk:Donner60

Donner60: Eat a dick. Donner60: Don't fuck with my edits I don't screw with yours. Friggin' Politically Correct, Liberal assholes, the time is coming, soon you'll rue the day you screwed with us.

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]

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8
Archive 9 Archive 10

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)[reply]

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

Germany–India article

Reverted the "Germany–India relations" article but took care to redact the disruptive/inappropriate reference tag (which got added automatically by my URL sources inclusion tool) and which is an unfortunate oversight. You will see that the rest of the updates are made in good faith and appropriately and abundantly referenced. 81.240.175.173 (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me about the problem and for adding a fully corrected version. I deleted the original message from me on your talk page with strike through. Donner60 (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :)

81.240.175.173 (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Public Protests: Just the TTIP of the Iceberg?

This article fails to represent the growing level of and protest against TTIP within the EU and UK. Despite this, comments highlighting public concern have been removed. WHY? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.106.20 (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see it was an edit just before yours which added "The End of Democracy in Europe?....Well, Yes. According to Kevin Rees, but, What do I know?" and my edit did not remove it. I did not notice that. I also think that the addition of "(for US business)" is neither neutral nor accurate considering supporters think Europeans will also benefit. It seems that the rest of your edits could be considered supported by the sources without the need for additional sources. I am sorry I included the remark first mentioned as part of your edit and indeed, another editor had to remove it. I am sorry I did not review and handle this better and did not leave a more specific note. I would have no objection to your restoring the rest of your edits but for the parenthetical phrase which I think the text and sources do not support. Donner60 (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing The Alexander Nevermind Wikipedia page

Hello I'm trying to create a wikipedia page about Alexander Nevermind and his career up to this point and once it seemed as if i had made some progress on the page it then sent me a editing conflict error notification and said that i needed to contact you in this way. before i started editing when i would search Alexander Nevermind it would just forward me to a wiki page about Prince the Musician. flattering as that may be im not writing about prince. do i need to create a new page in order to finish what im trying to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.220.124.194 (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Nevermind is a Prince alias. If you wish to create a separate page for Alexander Nevermind, which I assume is the Prince alias and not a separate person, I suggest you create a new page and title it Alexander Nevermind (Prince alias). I would be aware that someone may challenge it as included in the Prince page. In that case, it would be better just to add more sourced content on Alexander Nevermind on the Prince page. If there is a separate actual person named Alexander Nevermind, I still think you need to create a new page with a title such as Alexander Nevermind (musician). If you do this, you will need to provide references to show that this is indeed a separate person from Prince. I saw no such references but I only needed to see that it was a Prince alias to know that the redirect to the Prince page was correct. I deleted my first message on you talk page in the manner prescribed by Wikipedia guidelines (strike through) because your message to me shows you were in good faith. I added some links to pages with useful information that can help you in editing and writing for Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the info and yes i am indeed writing about a separate actual person named Alexander Nevermind who is an Artist ,Musician and Magician that is located in Colorado. In this case would i have to make a new page under Alexander Nevermind (Artist) or Alexander Nevermind (artist, musician and Magician)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.220.124.192 (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should pick one word for the parenthetical expression. See Wikipedia:Article titles for more information. Also, be sure you can show that the person is notable and support this with citations to reliable, verifiable sources, which means they can not be from the subject but should be from neutral sources. For further information about editing or writing for Wikipedia see: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Help:Footnotes Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. Donner60 (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DrPhuong213

I reverted the artificial organ article back quite a bit. It looks like DrPhuong213 had been having fun with that article for awhile. Smeggysmeg (talk) 00:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

slander

sir you are slandering my master teacher you need to remove that information because it is very false. he is not serving a 135 year sentence for child molestation he is serving that sentence for racketeering the child molestation charges were dropped. you need to remove your post about the master teacher Dr York Nuavyon (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced. Your deletions and additions are unsourced and not supported. Donner60 (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you!

For being the rollbacker Wikipedia both needs and deserves. GAB^Hello! 22:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hi Donner60. You might want to go back and sign your vote. Altamel (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry I forgot that. Donner60 (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BYU/San Diego

Thank you for your watchful eye. As a little FYI, all the edits for the BYU/USD women's soccer match tonight were done by me. I work as a staff writer for a local paper on Friday Night's covering area high school football games. I have listened to the Friday Night WSOC BYU games 3 of the past 4 weeks and 4 of the last 7 total via my smart phone. I usually update the scores as the game is going on so I won't have to spend extra time on it at the end. Tonight I waited until the first score of the game, which was in the final 6 minutes. I typically do not log in with my username and password on the work computer solely because I don't want to risk anyone else having that info. So in this case, all 3 edits were actually made by me. I logged on after you reset everything because I wanted to point out that it was all correct and shouldn't have been reset, which is why the stat link was added. The only mistake I made on any of it was accidentally listing the USD penalty as a goal instead of yellow card on the 1st edit.

Edit 1- Added scoring, penalties, officials, and attendance (all taken from the Stat Broadcast link).
Edit 2- Added the Stat Broadcast link as a reference and corrected the yellow card that was accidentally listed as a score for USD WSOC.
Edited 3- Added final result and score.
Edit 4- Will add the BYU page recap as the summary and the Deseret News article as a reference next to the score. This is being done shortly.

Bigddan11 (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I thought I remembered an entry out of place but when I checked it again I thought your edit was ok. You were mostly correct so I should have mentioned something specifically or let it go because someone making a correct edit will almost certainly correct a minor problem in a short period of time. Donner60 (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for 1864 Republican National Convention

An article that you have been involved in editing—1864 Republican National Convention —has been proposed for merging with 1864 National Union National Convention. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. older ≠ wiser 18:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the articles, via changing 1864 Republican National Convention article, into a redirect to 1864 National Union National Convention article. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Thaler

Hi, you keep reverting my constructive edits to a vandalised version. Please be more careful with Huggle. Thank you 90.203.6.79 (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can this person be both a referee and a player at the same time? Donner60 (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, that's how it works in Rugby League! 90.203.6.79 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave it to you and others more familiar with the Rugby League. It is unlike any sports league I am familiar with if a person can be both a referee and a player. Sorry if my unfamiliarity with the league caused a mistake. Donner60 (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was joking pal, of course a referee cannot be a player! I have now reverted the article back to it's correct version! :D 90.203.6.79 (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-linked polyethylene

OMG i am so sorry. i have learnt my lesson about leaving my laptop open during class. once again i am so sorry and i will make sure nothing like this will happen again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidabbott9011 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Niraj Goel

Hi Donner60 apologies in advance for any process errors I make in my communication. I know from direct real world experience that the current comments on Niraj Goel's page are lies. The person in question has paid for weak news content to boost their google search for the purposes of defrauding investors. I say this not to slander but to protect potential victims. If actual facts (the edits I made) are valued less than supported lies I suggest that defeats the whole ethos of Wikipedia. Kind regards, facts are great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsaregreat (talk • contribs) 03:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You removed many positive statements about Niraj Goel without any showing that they were erroneous. Then you added negative content without a single citation. If these are really such well known facts, surely you can cite some reliable, verifiable source that can back them up. Otherwise, all we have is your word for it and no one knows if your edits are made because they are true or because you have some sort of grudge against this person. As information, you may find the following pages have useful information about Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Help:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. Help:Contents provides guidance and links to pages were help can be requested. Also see Wikipedia:Teahouse. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I will just have to wait until the "mainstream" media reports the case. Easy enough to arrange. The facts are erroneous and the sources are laughably weak. The "Times of India" and "Indian Diaspora" are pay for play rags and those are being used to support 90% of the claims including him being a billionaire. A former employee was tasked with creating the page in the first place - hardly impartial. For various reasons what has happened is being kept under the radar. Don't take my word for it though, please feel free to contact anyone at his associated companies, as well as the MAS and CAD authorities in Singapore. I respect the wiki process so won't make any further edits but the reality is the system has been gamed and he is using the front of wiki respectability to help him steal money from people. Whether you believe what I say or not the page is full of lies, which in my mind outweighs an ethical concerns sources. Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsaregreat (talk • contribs) 04:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC) I'm still waiting for a reply. Disappointing you prefer "valid" lies to actual truth.[reply]

I did not think your comment called for a reply. You make a few other unsourced comments and conclude that you will wait until there are mainstream reports. That seems to leave the matter where it is for the time being. I repeat that at this point it is your word against sourced content or previously unchallenged content that is not shown to be wrong. You make allegations against certain publications (at least one of which is a rather well known source) but do not back this up by any source, even a biased one. Wikipedia does not work by contacting people to get other unsourced reports, if that is what you mean. Again, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Help:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view among the pages I cited above. I suggest you wait until you can cite a reliable, verifiable, neutral source before further editing the article or further carrying on a discussion which can only lead to the same conclusions unless sources are cited. Donner60 (talk) 09:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't make something truthful they just make it sourced. I know Bloomberg will be writing it up soon so will come back to edit then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsaregreat (talk • contribs) 21:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Donner60 (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adeiny Hechavarria misunderstanding

Hi, I got a message saying you removed an unsourced link from the page Adeiny Hechavarria that was from this IP address but I don't ever recall making an edit to that page. I've never even heard of Adeiny Hechavarria.66.87.82.228 (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are several possibilities including that someone used your computer during an unguarded moment, someone hijacked your internet access in a public place and a few others. A few unexplained edits have been reported in the past. There is no doubt that this IP address was used because the identification process is automated. If it does not happen again, I would not worry about it. Donner60 (talk) 02:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question about editing

Can I be on this site if I'm just a normal uk citizen earning a normal wage in a normal job? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.226.73 (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made a reply and left a list of links to helpful Wikipedia advice and policy pages on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 02:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question about External Link Section

I have observed few organization pages having social profile links such as Facebook & twitter. Can I remove such links? Please help me with what kind of tag should be used so that, it will get auto deleted in case any one tries to add such links violating wiki guidelines

--Deepak HM 06:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Deepakhmwiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepakhmwiki (talk • contribs)

Please see Wikipedia:External links especially in the Links normally to be avoided section in particular for a listing of social media sites to be avoided as external links:

"10. Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists."

"11. Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)"

Although the official guidelines are in Wikipedia:External links, the essay in Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites has a useful explanation. Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard and a few pages linked on that page are pages where questions about external links can be asked]].

I know of no way to tag a page to automatically keep such links from being added again. As far as I know, pages simply needed to be watched or recent changes to pages need to be watched. You might want to ask your question on the noticeboard.

You also may find the following pages have useful information about Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view,Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. Help:Contents and Wikipedia:Questions provide guidance and links to pages where help can be requested on various subjects Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 07:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso Martini

What 'factual error' am I supposed to have introduced to the article? 85.229.48.166 (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In anticipation of the questioning you expected, you explained the edit and I missed it. Sorry for the mistake. I rolled back my edit to your version and deleted the message on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lumber River

The name of the Lumber River is Lumber River, it is not the Lumbee River. What was included was not inncorrect http://www.rivers.gov/rivers/lumber.php

2602:306:BD5B:44E0:D824:F9E2:131:FD3C (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I should have checked that instead of relying on a recollection which you have shown is incorrect. I will roll back my edit if it has not been corrected and will delete the message on your talk page. Thanks for pointing this out. Donner60 (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steatoda

Regarding the size of the Steatoda species - I actually have a false widow sitting here in a pot that I caught last night in the toilet & was trying to find info on it and straight away found that the size details are incorrect. The one sitting here which has been identified by true spider keepers and multiple pictures has a 30-35mm leg span, way over what is stated on any of the Steatoda sp. pages. I can TRY sort out a picture of a tape measure under it, just getting it to sit still for long enough is a bit of a nightmare let alone with its legs out-streched showing the full size but can give it a shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenette 001 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been offline for several days due to illness and travel. In answer, think this would be original research contrary to Wikipedia editing guidelines. You should cite a reliable, verifiable source for the fact that these can grow to larger sizes. I think one of the cited articles actually says something about these possibly growing to 3 cm., but, sorry to say, I did not take note of it and could not readily find the story. So I can believe your change but I still think you need to provide a source - and that such source can be found. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources; Help:Footnotes; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view,Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive?

Hi. Can you please tell me how my most recent edit to Hell in a Cell (2015) is disruptive? I directly quoted that from 411mania.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatwweguy 619 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. Deleted my message, added comment and links on sourcing and footnotes. Donner60 (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Leslie_Goodwin

Hey Donner

I just got your message regarding my"test". It actually was a wrong citation. "Possibly 2nd class" even tho in the original it's "Probably 3rd class":

Number 4: http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/description-of-recovered-titanic-bodies.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1205:5020:5F70:A984:D9B5:728D:131F (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am deleted my original message on your talk page because you were actually trying to correct an error. However, it seems to me that you need to cite the more specific web page of http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/titanic-victim/sidney-leslie-goodwin.html. The general page that you referred to on my talk page does not appear to contain enough information to support the change. Assuming you agree, please make the change (but not in all capital letters) and add this more specific citation. If you do not agree, let me know so we can consider it further. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial India

Deleted uncivil and uninformed message but left reply and helpful links on user's talk page.

Thank you for giving a polite answer. I understand that I have acted not in a civil manner previously, and I would like to apologize for it. I understand that there are rules and I wish to follow them. What disturbed me was that after a mistake was bought into attention by my horrible editing, the same mistake was put back again. But I really appreciate you replying in a polite manner which I didn't expect. I am extremely sorry for my previous behaviour and for all the inconvenience that I have caused you. I will go through each and every link that you have posted and will make sure I don't repeat this behaviour of mine again. Thank you for being patient. I really appreciate the way you have handled the situation. Sorry again for my misconduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soumo1989 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Left this message on your talk page; copied here to keep the threads together.

I appreciate your reply. If we are making our best efforts as editors, it is to explain Wikipedia to new users and to bring them in to make constructive edits in the future. That does not work if one does not try to explain the many policies and guidelines which most people would not know exist unless they are told about them. There is no need to argue with people who are trying to act in good faith. We need to all be on the same page and try to understand and work out any differences. I am always glad when someone becomes more familiar with the project and continues to work on it.

While we may give some presumption to existing text, there is no doubt that sometimes it needs to be modified or replaced and, if challenged, citations need to be given.

I actually did take a few minutes to research this issue and found this: Wills, Jr., John E. The World from 1450 to 1700. New York, Oxford University Press, 2009. ISBN 978-0-19-533797-6. Page 39. "After the conquest of Goa, Albuquerque had encouraged his men to marry widows of fallen members of the Muslim garrison; we might wonder what the ladies thought about being treated as part of the conquerors’ loot. Albuquerque’s action often is seen as a sign of a relatively relaxed Portuguese attitude to racial mixing, and the result all along this coast and in Sri Lanka was the emergence of a substantial “Indo-Portuguese” population, mixed in racial heritage and Catholic in religion, uniquely blending heritages of culture and custom." Retrieved October 29, 2015. – via Questia (subscription required) . Of course, we do not know whether the original author got the idea for the disputed language from this or from some other source. It may, or perhaps may only partially, support the sentence at issue. Also, I think you may be more concerned with a more limited group of people who seem to be included by the general language and perhaps should not be. Donner60 (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Donner60:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 00:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Hey Donner60! It's been a while since we chatted, so I wanted to wish you a spooooooooky Halloween! --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 00:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Donner60 (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boole

Hi. Yes i just made an minor edit (delink) then a vandal interjected, Everything seems to be in order. The article probably needs a 24 hour lock. Cheers.RyanTQuinn (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Rezan

Remove Anna Rezan page. It does not belong on Wiki. She is a no name actress, looks like it was written by her PR person. Very, very bad bio. Homemade crap Bellatarr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Anna Rezan page. It does not belong on Wiki. She is a no name actress, looks like it was written by her PR person. Very, very bad bio. Homemade crap Bellatarr (talk)

A page cannot be deleted simply because a reader/user/editor does not like it or like the subject of the page or because it is poorly written. (I can agree that the page is not up to Wikipedia quality and has some puffery, at least, but that is cause someone who is interested in improving the article editing the page, not for its deletion. I have tagged the page for cleanup.) The article has sources which appear to be neutral and reliable. I am not an administrator and cannot delete the page in any event. The page does not meet the criteria for criteria for speedy deletion. I checked a source and it was not copyrighted. If any material violates a copyright from any other sources, that material could be deleted without going through a deletion process. The source of the copyrighted material should be identified in the edit summary or on the talk page with a mention in the edit summary so the removal can be verified as legitimate. See Wikipedia:Copyright Problems and Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Otherwise, if you wish to have the page deleted, you must proceed under the procedures shown in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. For criteria, see: Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Given the subject's notice by the sources cited on the page, I think you might have difficulty establishing she is not notable under the general notability guidelines but you are welcome to try. See Wikipedia:Notability (people).

Other Wikipedia policy or guideline pages that may be useful to you in editing or writing for Wikipedia include: Wikipedia:List of policies; Wikipedia:List of guidelines; The five pillars of Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Help:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. Help:Contents provides guidance and links to pages where help can be requested. Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages (but not article edits) by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User MetlifeWP

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Incidents#Gibberish_edits_by_disruptive_but_well_meaning_editor. Thank you. You helped clean up MetLifeWP's nonsense edits, so I thought you might like to comment on this. Andyjsmith (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

I'm new on Wikipedia....having trouble adding refs...haven't figured it out yet.....I have the refs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcbstudent (talk • contribs) 04:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I left some links on your talk page to Wikipedia pages that give help and guidance for editing and writing for Wikipedia. In particular, as to references, see Help:Referencing for beginners; Help:Footnotes; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Donner60 (talk) 04:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still having trouble adding shpack landfill refs...I'm working on it...Please know as creator of the page I think you did a great job...If you want to help me add the refs it would make the page even better....I'd like to start by adding links to the original NRC investigation report; the link for Oak Ridge's 1981 report; Bechtel's 1984 report; obituaries for Vannevar Bush and Carroll Wilson.....on the clean up section of the article there is new info....the site clean up was completed in 2012 50,000 cubic yards of contaminated material shipped to Clive Utah....Shpack site is also now covered by Energy Employees Compensation Act relating to cancer victim compensation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcbstudent (talk • contribs) 18:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I left this message on your talk page: I did not create the page. I only came across your edit while reviewing recent (which is to say almost current) changes. It seems you have put much additional work into it and others have also made some edits. I encourage you to review again Help:Referencing for beginners, [[Help:Footnotes] and perhaps even Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes because it seems you are still having some problems with footnote and reference formats. Since I am not familiar with the references, or even the article as a whole, unless I come across a problem that seems to need immediate correction, I will leave it to you and the others who have worked on the article to finish the work on it. If you have a more specific question, especially about the citations, let me know and I will try to give an answer as best as I can as promptly as I can. Donner60 (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

On the WITS Academy page, It's Peter Lopez, not Peter Dager as Harris. Read the end of WITS Academy credits.

-OmgBunnies

OmgBunnies (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted my original message on your talk page and left some useful links to Wikipedia guideline, policy and style pages on your talk page in the event you are not familiar with them. I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]