User talk:Donner60

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

Please put new messages at the very bottom of the page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC) To clarify, the new item should not be below this message and not below the repeated message after my introductory paragraphs but at the very bottom of the page after every other item on the page. It will help me to understand what you are talking about to add a section heading, identify the article you are concerned with (if your question or comment refers to a specific article), using a link, probably putting the article title in the heading, and sign your edit with four tildes (~~~~) so I know to whom to reply. Keep an eye on this page because I may just reply here if the answer is simple and does not seem to be time sensitive. When I notice an out of order question or comment, I will move it to the bottom of the page and provide a heading if there is none already. Donner60 (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

References to Wikipedia policies, guidelines, instructions, include:
Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Wikipedia guidelines on twitter, facebook: Wikipedia:Twitter. Wikipedia guidelines, policies on external links: Wikipedia:External links. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which includes not a dictionary, a publisher of original thought, a soapbox or means of promotion, a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site, a directory, a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal, a crystal ball, a newspaper, or an indiscriminate collection of information. • Wikipedia:Verifiability. • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. • Wikipedia:No original research. • Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. • Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. • Wikipedia:Citing sources. • Wikipedia:Notability. • Wikipedia:Image use policy. • Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes. • Wikipedia:Vandalism. • Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles.

User Talk page guidelines

Excerpts Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia.

Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and unregistered users.

There are certain types of notices that users may not remove from their own talk pages, such as declined unblock requests and speedy deletion tags. See Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings for full details.

User talk pages are subject to the general userpage guidelines on handling inappropriate content—see Wikipedia:User pages#Handling inappropriate content.

• Personal talk page cleanup: On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving.

From the section Editing comments, Other's comments in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines:

• Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels, removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls or requests for comment (RfC), fixing list markup, using <nowiki> and other technical markup to fix code samples, and providing wikilinks if it helps in better navigation.
• Fixing layout errors: This could include moving a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom, adding a header to a comment not having one, repairing accidental damage by one party to another's comments, correcting unclosed markup tags that mess up the entire page's formatting, accurately replacing HTML table code with a wikitable, etc.
• Sectioning: If a thread has developed new subjects, it may be desirable to split it into separate discussions with their own headings or subheadings. When a topic is split into two topics, rather than sub-sectioned, it is often useful for there to be a link from the new topic to the original and vice versa. A common way of doing this is noting the change at the [then-]end of the original thread, and adding an unobtrusive note under the new heading, e.g., :<small>This topic was split off from [[#FOOBAR]], above.</small>. Some reformatting may be necessary to maintain the sense of the discussion to date and to preserve attribution. It is essential that splitting does not inadvertently alter the meaning of any comments. very long discussions may also be divided into sub-sections.

Note that it is proper to use <nowiki> and other technical markup to fix code samples.

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

Please put messages, questions or comments at the very bottom of the page. If you put them here (immediately before or after this paragraph), as some people have done, I may either not see them or more likely not see them very promptly. That will delay any reply from me to you. To clarify, this should not be below this message but at the very bottom of the page after every other item on the page. It will help me to understand what you are talking about to add a section heading, identify the article you are concerned with, and use a link, (if your question or comment refers to a specific article), probably putting the article name in the heading, and sign your edit with four tildes (~~~~) so I know to whom to reply. Keep an eye on this page because I may just reply here if the answer is simple and does not seem to be time sensitive. When I notice an out of order question or comment, I will move it to the bottom of the page and provide a heading if there is none already. Donner60 (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Disambiguation link and bracket bot notifications

I occasionally get one of these notices. I fix the link or bracket, then delete the message, as the messages state is permissible, instead of further cluttering up these pages. Donner60 (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
......................

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	thank you for reverting my mistake Jonnymoon96 (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have deleted my original message on your talk page since you obviously made a mistake (also shown by past history). The barnstar is appreciated although I must say that a simple thanks and explanation would have been enough. Happy editing. Donner60 (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Hi,my name is Marco chali,can you help me to put my info in wikiPedia,coz i dont Know how put all those details,sorry for anythin bro, Thanx Marco M Chali (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It is curious that you know how to create user and user talk links without creating the corresponding pages so I suspect you know more than you say you do. It is also curious that you found this particular page, which is not on any help page, with your first edit. Donner60 (talk) 03:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Your Fitness Club - Koregaon Park

Hey Donner,

Greeting of the Day,

i have Edited the Koregaon Park Wikipedia Page with More Information Like Health Club Or Gym where People Can do Workout Daily.. I have Taken the Membership from the Your Fitness Club in Koregaon Park Branch & i love the place & environment .. !! Worth of Time & Money

Hope other People will also Enjoy this

Thanks in Advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.63.226.135 (talk) 04:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Your only addition is #Your Fitness Club. Even if this was a proper addition, it gives the reader no real information. As information about this not being a proper addition, please see Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#Twitter. Also, please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. I will put some other helpful links on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Editing page on Bifurcation Theory

Hi Donner60, you removed my edit on the page for bifurcations because you thought it was a test. It was not a test and the edit I made was a needed correction. The page lists a Neimark bifurcation but in fact the most used convention is Neimark-Sacker. Try googling Neimark bifurcation to see for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.109.159 (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

In view of your explanation, I deleted my message on your talk page, left some helpful links to Wikipedia pages if you are not familiar with them and rolled back my edit so that yours is now the last edit to the article. I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Sorry for my misunderstanding. Donner60 (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Editing page on Wolf–Rayet star

Hi Donner60, you removed my edit on the page for Wolf–Rayet stars because you thought it was a test. It was not a test and the edit was a needed correction. The page lists the latitude of the Wolf–Rayet star Gamma 2 Velorum as northern but in fact it is southern. Try googling Gamma 2 Velorum to see for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.181.234 (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry for the mistake. I deleted my message on your talk page, rolled back my edit so that yours is now the last one on the page, and left some links to helpful Wikipedia pages in case you are not familiar with them. I hope you continue to edit Wikipedia. Thank you for your contribution. Donner60 (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Just working to make Wikipedia better one word at a time. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.181.234 (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

editing on Portola California

can you redo the posting? here are the sources...

Ronald "Jake" Jacobson http://freestyle.usskiteam.com/freestyle-programs/athletes/development/aerials https://usagym.org/PDFs/T&T/National%20Teams/tt_1314_srnationalteam.pdf

Tucker Larrieu http://tuckerlarrieu.com/ http://xgames.espn.go.com/xgames/athletes/3893026/tucker-larrieu

Mario Rodriguez http://www.wmubroncos.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=206293164 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.89.251.168 (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I left a message on your talk page in which I explained that I would add the Mario Rodriguez entry but gave reasons why I could not add the other two. This should give you an example of formatting. I left comments which state what would be satisfactory sourcing to add the other two. I left some links to Wikipedia pages which can help you to write for or edit Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

here are more links to prove those two people

Ronald "Jake" Jacobson https://www.usagym.org/pages/athletes/athleteListDetail.html?id=126517

Tucker Larrieu http://www.hookit.com/members/tucker158/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.89.251.168 (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Just got your new message as I was posting my message above. I will check these and get back to you. Donner60 (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I left this message on your talk page: I will piece together the additional information that you provided. I think that the three entries will be acceptable with this information. I hope you will review the pages above and contribute to Wikipedia in the future. Donner60 (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Editing page on Samaritan Hebrew

Hi Donner60, I changed from: "in Holon (in what today has become the State of Israel) or in Schechem (i.e. Nablus, located in the West Bank, in the area known as the Palestinian territories)" to: "in Holon (in the State of Israel) or in Schechem (i.e. Nablus, in the State of Palestine)" in order to render the sentence perfectly balanced and as NPOV as possible. The latter seems less distracting too. I didn't see this edit as a problem since the entry "State of Palestine" already existed in WP, even though I'm aware that this status is not recognised by everyone. And finally, the phrasing "in what today has become the State of Israel" sounds like defining Israel something recent or artificial. In other words: none of the two nations was correctly described. If you agree, could you please restore my editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.73.132.144 (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I have restored your edit, deleted my original message and placed some useful links on your talk page in case you are not familiar with them. Donner60 (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for both things! --151.73.132.144 (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Erik Bergquist

I am Erik Bergquist and very little of that information is varifyable - besides screen credit for Fast and The Furious. Please do not put up unverified or incorrect info about me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazlnut (talk • contribs) 04:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Your message to me a few minutes ago seems to refer to my message of six days ago. I checked the article in view of your message and current blanking of the page and found that only one of the sources exists. I suggest you not blank the entire page if your edit is questioned again, since a bare minimum of information is apparently true. Page blanking is a red flag for reviewers. I will not revert your current edit or edits in view of the lack of verifiable sources due to dead links and your concern but I can only speak for myself. (I am not an administrator.)

If you are unable to get the article changed through the editing process, which sometimes happens, please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. Also relevant may be Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. Donner60 (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Jatli

hi donner 60

those information was passed to me by my grandparents as i am the resident of that village since birth 56 year old please reconsider and remain the changes on the page of JATLI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.74.193 (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I deleted my original message on your talk page. I added further comment and explanation on your talk page. I also added links to helpful Wikipedia pages. Donner60 (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

New citation for your approval

Still working on removing speculation from my first submission, per your directions. Wish to add the following brief passages, cited from hard historical sources: From Historical Papers and Addresses of the Lancaster County ..., Volumes 26-27: From Page 234: 2.--John Grubb, son of Henry of Stoke Climsland, settled at Upland, Chester County, Pa., before 1679. He married Frances Vane. ... 3.--Peter Grubb, the first, son of John and Frances Vane Grubb. .... (End excerpt from Source) Camikympy22 (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a good source. I have left a detailed reply on your talk page. I am sorry I did not see the comment there earlier. My reply is not complete. I will reply further as promptly. Thank you for your work on this and your patience. Donner60 (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ringtone External Link Edit

Hi Donner60,

I'm Nick. Nice to meet you :) Just wanted to drop a note about the link you censored on the Ringtones page as advertising / marketing. I'm the researcher, developer and designer of the of the blocked resource. The site was developed commercially, but I think it's genuinely awesome and adds value to the Ringtones page and the Wikipedia community. It wasn't posted on Wikipedia for any commercial gain, though I confess it would be cool to have something i built to be on Wikipedia! Visitors to the resource can access audio files of Monophonic and Polyphonic ringtones from the the most popular cell phone models since 1983, listen to the top 10 ringtones for purchase from 2005-2013, and listen to pre-cell phone "ringtones" like what the first phone call sounded like and the ringtone a crank phone made. I really hope you'll check it out and reconsider. It's a truly unique site and it continues to grow with the help of submissions from users in the spirit of Wikipedia itself. Please let me know your thoughts. Any communication is welcome :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:4200:F700:D472:3BC9:22DD:31BE (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I will look into this further and get back to you soon. My first thought is that it might be best to get another opinion or two. Donner60 (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I have looked at this again. Even though the linked page arguably could be an external link, I believe the page would better fit and be less controversial as a footnote to statements in the History section of the Wikipedia Ringtone page. This may require the addition of a sentence or two to that section to make a better fit. I will try to do that tomorrow (actually now later today) unless you wish to do so before I get to it. (By the way, if I get tied up on Saturday, I will be offline for the next 7 or 8 days as well.) I have taken into account that SAS does not sell ringtones, there is no direct link to the SAS page (though I suppose few people do not realize they can get to a page by clicking on a logo), that iTunes already is mentioned in the Wikipedia article and that no sales pitch is made on the SAS ringtone page. I was concerned that the ability to link to iTunes might be considered advertising but the lack of affiliation and of a sales pitch seems to me to make the inclusion non-controversial. I now agree that the linked page adds some value to the History section of the article. Donner60 (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Super! Thanks for the consideration Donner and taking the time to review the resource. The iTunes links on the page are only for users to be able to play the ringtones (no commercial value) & SAS does not sell ringtones. Always interesting to have a conversation with a Wikipedia moderator BTW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.16.230 (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I have added a sentence to the history sentence and used the ringtone web page as a citation. You should feel free to edit the sentence or paragraph, of course, if you think of an improvement. Donner60 (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Cemile Sultan

Why it is forbidden to wrote her children and descendants? I give the source you can see... https://archive.org/stream/GenealogyOfTheImperialOttomanFamily2005#page/n13/mode/2up

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talk • contribs) 00:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I deleted my original message, left an explanation on your talk page and provided useful editing links. I will restore your edit and properly footnote it, but I cannot say that others will not review it for other reasons. Donner60 (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Valencian Community

Hi Donner60,

I am wondering why you decided to revert my edit made to Valencian Community Wikipedia page?. Adding an informative colloquialism never can create harm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.2.66 (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

"Vaginal Wart". Seriously? Donner60 (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Valencian Community

What did I do wrong?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.2.66 (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, you changed "Valencian" to "Vaginal Wart". Seriously? I will consider any further such sarcastic postings on this page as vandalism. Donner60 (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Conversion of non-muslim places of worship into mosques

Actually, I removed one of my own original contributions. An entire section of edit was removed indiscriminately and I restored it, removing a disputed section referring to places of worship that were not, in fact, converted to mosques. I don't see how that warranted removal of the entire edited section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD15:A770:3401:8514:6BCB:851B (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I deleted my original message on your talk page in the manner prescribed by Wikipedia guidelines (strike through) because it was in error. You have pointed out that the edit was part of a series of edits intended to improve the article. I saw it as a stand-alone edit and did not notice the prior edit. I saw only the last changes with the program I used (not an excuse) but should have look at the list of edits more carefully. Sorry for the mistake. I hope this will not discourage you from continuing to edit Wikipedia. I have restored the article so that your last edit is now the last edit to the article. Please review this to be sure that it is the final version that you intend and, if not, make any other changes accordingly. I added some useful links to Wikipedia format, policy and guideline pages to your talk page in case you are not familiar with them. Donner60 (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Information on talk page

HI, thank you for the information you posted for me on my talk page. It is very helpful and it will take me some time to look through the links you provided. I do not know what this template is you mention, "I am leaving the help template in place" so I cannot delete it, but I hope that the information you provided stays visible to me on my talk page so I can reference it. thanks again for your help. Klossoke

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Shpack landfill

I am still have trouble adding even the simplest references such as those from the Wall Street Journal's Wastelands series pertaining to radioactive waste sites linked to the cold war. There is a problem with Wikipedia's un-editability not me. In the mean time this site was contaminated with 85 tons of uranium linked to a thousand cancer victims or their survivors who have been compensated under the Energy Employees Compensation Act. You may be concerned about my inability to add references to a non-functional HTML package, my concern are all the people who died. The unedited article is a feel good, sanitized version of the facts that doesn't come close to conveying the facts or magnitude of the environmental problem that existed. I'd just as soon pay somebody to re-write this article.....JCB student — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcbstudent (talk • contribs) 03:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

When I go to edit on the shpack landfill page none of the links shown below appear as an option. The info below taken from Wikipedia instructions on editing

There are different templates suitable for different types of sources:

{{cite web}}: Empty citation (help) for references to general websites {{cite news}}: Empty citation (help) for newspapers and news websites {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help) for references to books {{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help) for magazines, academic journals and papers

I have been out of town and offline. I will look at your question in more detail as soon as I can. Ideally, we can solve your referencing problem or get you to understand it better so that you can contribute without being discouraged by formatting problems. I note that User:Keri has also made some remarks about referencing and the proper articles in which to add materials. As I think I pointed out before, editors will question and probably revert the addition of large amounts of material without reliable, verifiable references, especially if the topic is current or controversial. Donner60 (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Assault weapon

You left the following message on why you kept reverting my modification:

Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Assault weapon seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

So I am doing just that. The term assault weapon was originally created by anti-gun proponents to elicit an emotional response to make it possible to pass legislation. There is actually no such technical description, as is clear from the actual page. The person who was mainly responsible for defining and spreading the term assualt weapon is Diane Feinstein, who is a known anti-gun proponent. As can be derived from the article in question, the term seems to have been sometimes used in the past, but only started to be actively used by anti-gun proponents in the last decades. The current definition also muddles military and not military features together to come up with a totally new classification not based on any common technical properties. Even if the original term was a marketing term for the firearms industry before, it is now almost exclusively used by the anti-gun groups, which use it to gain public support based on emotions and suggestion. To be honest, what sounds scary? Semi-automatic firearm or assault weapon? As such it is a fact the term is suggestive and coloured. And I would assume facts are neutral, as such the term assault weapon is coloured and suggestive and only actively used by anti-gun proponents/press. A similar situation with word choice would be "nigger" this word has definite negative connotations and is almost exclusively used by racists. So can you please make sure this is reflected in the text as per my suggestion? 91.159.55.220 (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I added this to your talk page: Thank you for your explanation. I do not disagree with you but I think your wording would be subject to challenge as non-neutral. I will try to add your concept in more neutral language. I will let you know when I have this ready, which may be a few hours from now because I will soon be signing off for awhile. This may require a reference or two, as well. I hope we can agree on an edit which in turn also will be accepted by others. I am striking the above message because I think you were in good faith and any problem here is more with the wording than the content. Donner60 (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

With the possible exception of adding the word "controversial" which I would not contest but others perhaps might, I can find no other edit to the first sentence or later in the article which would fall outside the conclusions I draw below. Note, however, that I do suggest that some sourced additions later in the article might be possible if they are clarifications and are made in neutral language. I expand on this, and qualify it some, below.

I have looked closely at the entire article and sources that are both cited in the article and I have now looked at the talk page for the article, which we should have looked at before. There is a long debate about the term, and about the first sentence in general, that seems to have ended abruptly with the sentence staying the way it now is. Except for the possible addition of "controversial" to see if it is accepted, I think that it would be improper to change the sentence without bringing this up again on the talk page, loathe as I am to suggest that in view of the history. As I point out below, the point of your edits seems to be covered adequately later in the article, but you might have a better chance adding facts and clarification later in the text than trying to change the opening text.

I conclude from my research that Diane Feinstein is not the originator of the term but only used it to try to reinstate an older law which had expired. The term was brought into common use for a large and vague category of funs by an anti-gun proponent, Josh Sugarmann, in a 1988 article already cited in the text. It seems to have had some use before then, but only infrequently and apparently as a somewhat inaccurate alternative to "assault rifle." A problem with pinning this on Sugarmann, as seems most accurate, is that a few other writers have argued or suggested that the gun industry made up and used the term (first) though I have found no direct statements or any citations in the available sources that verify this. Nonetheless, these writers are cited and it would be difficult to show they are wrong from the available sources.

Returning to the talk page and the first sentence of the article, the conclusion reached by the commenters seems to have been to define the term in neutral language and get into its history and use later. Again, the points about the history and use of the term are made later in the article. "Controversial" in the first sentence or opening paragraph might fit into the scheme of the article as a whole but I think anything further would likely bring out opposition.

With the possible noted exception, the proposed additions to the first sentence, which have not been included after previous debate, would appear to put Wikipedia in the position of accepting a controversial definition which is later discussed at length and does not reach a definite conclusion. It accepts the possibility that the other sources, on prior more general use or use by the gun industry, may be correct or at least debatable and worth mention.

Your analogy does not persuade me that a more dramatic change to the first sentence is needed. I also do not see a real need to add to or clarify the later text but I would not oppose neutrally worded clarifications or additions. I agree that the history of the term "assault weapon" shows it is made up and not clearly defined, even is inaccurate and used for propaganda or political purposes, but this failing does not equate with a racial slur. More importantly, I think the facts are set forth in the article as some of the commenters on the talk page argued would be the best solution to earlier similar debate.

Since I think the first sentence cannot be rewritten in neutral language, except that "controversial" seems accurate and not inflammatory, the matter of changing that sentence is still a potential talk page subject and the term and its history are discussed as completely as the conflicting sources seem to permit, with some weight given to the anti-gun definition, I cannot think of any language that could be added to the first sentence or would expand the material already found later in the article.

If you wish to pursue this, especially by changing the first sentence, other than as noted, I suggest you bring it up on the talk page first. Given the interest in this article, I am sure it will attract attention and comment. I repeat that otherwise I would not try to change the first sentence again as I believe it will only invite reversion as non-neutral. If you can make any further additions or clarifications at a place or places later in the article, and add citations, you might have a better chance of having additional material accepted and if you are careful to be completely factual, resort to the talk page might not be necessary unless your changes draw further debate. For what it is worth and only for the sake of thoroughness, I also suggest you think about whether the article as a whole adequately covers the necessary points about use of the term and its history without the need for further addition. Donner60 (talk) 09:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Removing my Forge of Empires edit on wikipedia

I was trying to let the world know about what happened to me with my diamonds disappearing, and you keep deleting all my messages as vandalism however, I have a site link proving my ticket I opened at Forge of Empires. I want my link back on , I will talk to anyone from wikipedia I have to to get that link put back in. THERE WAS NO VANDALISM AT ALL IN MY LAST POST, OR IN ALL OF THEM FOR THAT MATTER, ALL WERE TRUTHFUL YOU DO ADVANCE FASTER IN THE GAME WITH DIAMONDS LIKE I SAID, MY DIAMONDS WERE LOST AND NOT REFUNDED BACK, AS I POSTED IN THE LINK THAT WAS LAST POSTED, SO EVERYONE COULD SEE THE REAL TRUTH AND THE CONVERSATION I HAD WITH YOUR STAFF THE LINK I POSTED FOR ALL WHO WISH TO SEE THE CONVERSATION, WHEN MY DIAMONDS DISAPPEAR, THE GAME CREATORS BLAME ME, AND TELL ME I WAS FULLY RESPONSIBLY BUT I WASN'T AND THAT I CAN ONLY GET MY IN GAME DIAMONDS BACK IF I PAY THEM REAL LIFE CURRENCY.

https://support.innogames.com/playerticket/showticket/?ticketID=9930375

I will review your comments and citation and reply to you as soon as I can. This will be later tonight because I will soon be signing off for awhile and I have a few other questions to answer so please be patient. Please note that personal comments and experience are not proper subjects for Wikipedia articles. Donner60 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I added to your talk page that I will note now, based on another quick look at your comment, that your proposed additions appear not to be proper subjects for a Wikipedia article. Content should not be added to Wikipedia based on your personal experience, knowledge or opinion. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is based on reliable, verifiable, neutral (third-party) sources, which must be cited if an entry is challenged or is likely to be challenged. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Please also note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a forum; again see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. You may express comments about the content of the article and needed improvements or ask for comments or help on the article's talk page, although, again, personal experience and personal opinion are not topics that can be added to an article. See Help:Introduction to talk pages, Help:Using talk pages and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. You also may find the following pages have useful information about Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. I will give you a further answer later. Donner60 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

(donner60 says)

I will note now, based on another quick look at your comment, that your proposed additions appear not to be proper subjects for a Wikipedia article. Content should not be added to Wikipedia based on your personal experience, knowledge or opinion. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is based on reliable, verifiable, neutral (third-party) sources, which must be cited if an entry is challenged or is likely to be challenged. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Please also note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a forum; again see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. You may express comments about the content of the article and needed improvements or ask for comments or help on the article's talk page, although, again, personal experience and personal opinion are not topics that can be added to an article. See Help:Introduction to talk pages, Help:Using talk pages and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. You also may find the following pages have useful information about Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. I will give you a further answer later. Donner60 (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not a matter of personal opinion, it is factual, and has the games website as the link I provided talking with game makers, about facts, not opinions, and this wasn't my personal experience, this is just one I saw and heard of btw, that I am choosing to pursue, because I have morals.

Again, I am not sure that your edit is in line with Wikipedia guidelines and appropriate for the article but as I noted, I will look into this further. It will take a little time, however. Donner60 (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Where is the place where you can express comments about the content of the article and needed improvements on the forge of empires website, because I want to list my link on their, and the problem of diamonds and $. ] If you can copy and paste a link to that improvement/comment section I would be very happy.

As I noted above, you may express comments about the content of the article and needed improvements or ask for comments or help on the article's talk page. Just click on the talk tab at the top of the article's page next to the article tab. See Help:Introduction to talk pages, Help:Using talk pages and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Donner60 (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Now that I look at this further, I see that you are contradicting yourself. First it is about you; then about someone else. You say that you talked to someone from "your staff." You could not have talked to anyone from Wikipedia about this because Wikipedia has no affiliation with the games' web site. Your link does not connect to any page about your "ticket", probably because one has to be logged in to see it, which no one who is not a member can do. It appears that your complaint and proposed edits have only to do with yourself and are neither connected to the game in general or notable. It certainly is unsourced because your link does not work. It appears to be some dispute between you and the game site. Please review my comments and the links above for further information. You may contribute constructively to Wikipedia in the future if you choose, but your current effort to make these types of edits is inappropriate and outside the guidelines as best as can be evaluated. Donner60 (talk) 11:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Unusual editing pattern

Hello Donner60, thank you for your recent edits to the North Carolina article. This appears to be a roaming vandal affecting United States-related articles and I wanted to initially bring it to your attention.

• 69.242.220.43 (talk · contribs) - Comcast, Detroit, Michigan
• 2601:406:4101:B8A7:C428:B9A0:6B05:6CD2 (talk · contribs) - T-Mobile, Brea, California
• 52.2.17.201 (talk · contribs) - Amazon AWS, Ashburn, Virginia

This has the appearance of being either a coordinated event or a single actor with access to multiple networks. If you see any additional evidence of this pattern please email me or contact me at my talk page. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I will keep it in mind. Donner60 (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Boxes

Are those userboxes with CSD counts automatically generated? Cause I would love to get my hands on that. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 04:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Allthefoxes: No. I put the box together myself and it must be changed manually. Please feel free to copy it if it is useful to you. I don't know whether there is a similar userbox template like it that has numbers that are automatically generated somewhere but I could not find one when I wanted one like it, probably a couple of years ago. Since a list can now be generated using Twinkle, perhaps someone has made such a box but if it is not on the general userbox template pages, I would not know where to find it. (Occasionally I have seen templates or examples on other pages but I have not kept any links to those because they are usually just single examples of unusual boxes.) Donner60 (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Donner60 thanks for the advise it helps a lot keep up the good works God Bless.

Your welcome. This must have been on a user talk page under your IP address because I see nothing on your user name talk page.

Mathew Kline kader

Why does my revision of this phony keep getting reverted when the article he wrote on himself stays intact. He is obviously a phony, has not won any championship as he claims eh has and I am just writing the truth. Feras Al Atal (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I put this on your talk page: In response to your question, user pages are different from regular articles. Within certain limits set forth in the user page link, users can put anything on their user pages as long as it is in line with the Wikipedia project and not something like advocacy, promotion, advertising, obscenity, libel, slander, violation of the biographies of living persons policy or extreme vulgarity. Also, what someone can do about anything on another user's page is limited and should follow certain procedures. See the section on Wikipedia:user pages#Ownership and editing of user pages for information on what you can do and how you should handle this if you think the content that you find objectionable in fact violates Wikipedia policies and guidelines on user page contents. Donner60 (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Hello Donnor, can I edit what people did on wikipedia pages? If so respond thank you so much! Iron Camaro (talk) 11:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Assuming you now wish to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia (earlier vandalism/personal attack on this page has been removed), I suggest you read the following helpful Wikipedia guideline and policy pages and pages linked from those pages as you need further guidance: Please also note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a forum. Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style; Wikipedia: Five Pillars; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Help:Footnotes; Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; and Wikipedia:Civility. Donner60 (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Lawful Officer

In order to lawfully be an officer, you must be elected by the state. Any policeman or woman not elected is merely an employee. Paragon845 (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

OK. And this relates to? Donner60 (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

donner 60 why did u delete my message.

did you read it if so please reply or use my talk page thanks reginald

Reginald desoto (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You replaced Uyghurs with a racial slur. If you post more such ridiculous comments or questions on this page, I will consider them vandalism. Donner60 (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

donner 60 please read the provided references in that page. All information ar valid.

Cheers Todai2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Todai2015 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

But why does your edit end in the middle of a sentence? Assuming this is just a mistake, I suggest that you complete the edit and perhaps even end with another citation so that it does not appear questionable. Donner60 (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Ernest Everett Just

Donner60,

I would like to run this by you. Its my addition to the Ernest Everett Just page and I'm making this addition as a final project for college. If you could please read this and respond ASAP with any concerns as this is due in a few days. Thank you.

During his career, Ernest Everett Just published more than 70 papers in his own and related fields, he published two books both of which were crucial and heavily influential in the world of biology, and he received a NAACP award for his contributions to his work and race. When it came to his work not many were as dedicated and talented as him, he was called “a biologist of unusual skill and the greatest of our original thinkers in our field”, he was highly regarded by coworkers both white and black and in multiple countries[1]; but he is not taught about in American curriculums today. Everett Just was simply born at the wrong time; he was in his prime during a time in science when many theories were not able to be proven and/or supported by numerous pieces of evidence simply because of a lack of high-tech equipment, like what we have today, and as a black scientist in the early to mid 20th century he struggled to find research opportunities in the United States to further his work. Just was a prominent figure in a popular and widely discussed field, he was at the peak of his career during a time of economic (The Great Depression) and social (Jim Crow Laws) despair in the United States, and then his ability to continue his work was drastically shortened because of World War II and serious illness, which would sadly lead to his death.

Just is not taught in American curriculums for three reasons: He was not afforded the ability to work with high-tech equipment like scientists today, he was unable to continue his work in the United States causing him to often be forgotten, and he held holistic views which he firmly believed in even though many of his American peers believed in the exact opposite. He is often forgotten by the masses because during his career his work and theories were hard to prove because of a lack of technology. One of the biggest marks against Just was that he had a holistic point of view about life. Just believed that the overall being was the most important thing and that everything in this world, especially people, can’t be defined by one or two elements like an inanimate object, and that people are affected by more than just their biological makeup[2]. Just believed that the genetic makeup, alone, was not the only element that affected living things but that the environment that the subject lives in has the same amount of input and effect on the makeup of the subject. What didn’t help Just was that his beliefs were in something that the majority of people in his field disagreed with; many of his fellow American biologists believed that humans can be categorized, only one element describes and affects their development, and that they need to be categorized in order for our society to be able to successfully carry on over time. Just did not believe that to be true. Just didn’t believe that was how life needed to or should be because if it were then someone like him, a black man, would not be able to hold the job that he did because he would be deemed not intelligent enough to handle the work and he would just end up being a criminal or someone’s help, even though there was a lack of solid evidence to prove that. Unfortunately for Just he would not see the time where the majority of people in our country, following WWII, would discourage with these eugenic beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcampbell30 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I saw your response and I really appreciate the feedback. I went back and made the edits to the page like you suggested if you want to take a look again. As for leaving it up for a short time is a great idea to me and I am perfectly fine with it. Essentially I just need it up until the 20th of December because grades will be finalized by then. I understand that a week in the internet world can be an eternity, but I believe that recent edits should make it an acceptable addition.