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

Bishop McLaughlin Catholic High School

BMCHS is geographically located in Hudson, Pasco County, Florida. Check any map. It only has a Spring Hill, Hernando County, Florida mailing address because that is the closest servicing Post. Office. However, BMCHS is in Hudson.

If you want to describe it that way in the article, that is ok. If you want to make a change in the full address in the infobox, you have an address which is contrary to the one on the school's web site. Do you really want what seems to be an incorrect mailing address in the infobox? Donner60 (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Deleting why

Why you delete my page named Prem Khan (actor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Washim Rahman (talk • contribs) 2016-01-05T07:25:58?

I have not deleted the page nor put it up for deletion. I simply restored the speedy deletion tag. User:Ninney attached that tag. You can see what the various letter and number combinations mean at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. You can also ask User Ninney. I am simply following the Wikipedia guidelines that authors of pages are not permitted to remove speedy deletion tags from the pages they create. See the fifth paragraph of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Donner60 (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Washim Rahman: Because It is a page that was previously deleted or is substantially identical to the deleted version. Refer Washim Rahman and Prem Khan. My humble request not to remove deletion tag else you would be blocked from editing, wait for the deletion discussion. User Donner60, never marked your page for deletion and had just reverted the Removal of a speedy deletion template. -Ninney (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Alberta Legislature Changes

Hey Donner60, I was changing the Legislative Assembly of Alberta page to add the addition of links for each MLA in the seating chart. It was just making the chart more accessible and easy to use. Wondering if you would be able to allow my changes to be put back and allow me to continue on the chart? Thanks!

I left this message and some useful links to Wikipedia guideline and help pages on your talk page: I am striking my previous message and I rolled back my reversion of your edits. When only viewing the change through the Huggle program, it appeared to me that you had removed the colors. I now see that you were making a series of changes and you have left a message stating you were updating the chart. Sorry for the inconvenience and I hope you will continue to add useful edits to Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

No New Friends

No New Friends

Humbly, this is Robert Bullock & this is correspondence concerning the 'No New Friends' edit. It's safe to place that edit on the page & feel free to contact who you need to to verify. It was not a test & indeed, I am the one who sent the original track to Mr. Michael Blackman (A&R) at Young Money Records for Drake & it was approved by his manager to let "in-house" producers Boi 1-Da & Noah '40' Shabib & also "Vinylz" to touch-up & re-use. I made the original track entitled, "Track 13" in 2004. the agreement between Mr. Blackman & I, though it didn't go as planned, went through in 2013. Please e-mail me with any further questions. Rbullock16 (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

You inserted reference tags with no content; you left a stray link "rb2016.wix.com" which turns up nothing, and you do not otherwise provide a source for your edit. As further information, Wikipedia is not a blog or forum. It is an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable, third-party sources. It does not publish personal opinions, commentary or unsourced information likely to be challenged or disputed. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Also see: Wikipedia:Five Pillars, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Help:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For further information about contributing to Wikipedia, see: Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. 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. See Help:Introduction to talk pages, Help:Using talk pages and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

'No New Friends

	'No New Friends
	Forgive me, Donner. I'll go up & get the situation rectified, by litigation if necessary, then the original "editors" can sort out their "blog/forum" talk that is already on this page because though it can be "verified", it isn't accurate. Thanks for your time. Rbullock16 (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I have asked an administrator (GB fan) for an evaluation of this and what should be done (including reporting this to AN/I). I noted my above findings or lack of findings and a few more details from a search. I think it may be handled without requiring a report. This may be a bluff because the only web site I found that shows the producers was in accord with the article and did not mention a Robert Bullock, http://www.lilwaynehq.com/2013/04/dj-khaled-no-new-friends-feat-lil-wayne-drake-rick-ross/. A search for Robert Bullock produced no claim or controversy about any role as a producer and only a single Twitter entry from a young man claiming to be a music producer, among other things, but with no details. Nonetheless, I thought it would be best to disclose this and get some authoritative advice or action. Donner60 (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Followed up in new section below.

Bataclan (theatre)

Hi Donner60, you removed my information regarding the Paris Attacks but there is still no evidence that this was an attack that killed people. It is all based on hear-say and dubious eye-witness accounts. The video's released don't really say or show anything beyond what looks staged. Do you work for MI6? Where can I find more CCTV footage, police cameras etc? I don't think it is right to mislead people. isn't wikipedia meant to be a reliable website?

Placed on your talk page: See this: http://www.reuters.com/news/picture/bataclan-attack?articleId=usrts6x0k. Seriously? I will regard any more such time-wasting posts as the one you made to my user talk page as vandalism. - See also November 2015 Paris attacks. Donner60 (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Chuck Tingle

What exactly is not constructive about adding a recently-published book (with citation!) to the bibliography section of an author's page? Archedeyebrow (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Given the titles of his other publications, I will take your word for it - but you should give full publication information not to have questions raised about such additions. Quite obviously this article could be a target for bogus entries. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Help:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Help:Referencing for beginners. If you are not familiar with them already, please see also Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Notability,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 for useful information on editing. Donner60 (talk) 04:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Try a smile!

I left this reply on your talk page:

"I appreciate the further explanation and the working link. I wish the link had worked initially because that would have prevented much misunderstanding here and narrowed our discussion. Since I could not find your page or other information in an independent search, I suspected your claim may not be valid. I note that you are a legitimate producer and do have a claim to some credit for the original music. However, as noted, I could find no independent verification of those facts. That is not to say there is none but Wikipedia does require sourcing for claims likely to be disputed and does not accept blogs or web sites of the subjects as reliable (neutral) sources.

"FWIW, you obviously are not the person I discovered with the Twitter account under the same name who claimed to be a producer in their only entry.

"I brought up your second comments to an administrator because of Wikipedia's policy on legal threats. I probably was not entirely clear but I thought your point was that you would pursue the people who were not giving you the credit you deserve. However, this was too important to let go if in fact you meant something else. On the other hand, I thought I would be cautious about this and not open it up to everyone on Wikipedia who decided to look at the noticeboard.

"I hope you get the credit you deserve and can add something to the article when you can source it independently." Donner60 (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thanks for all your help, time & courtesy; It's much appreciated! Best, Robert Bullock rbullock.com Rbullock16 (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't making a test edit.

You sent me a message saying I was probably making a test edit to On the Origin of Species but I wasn't. --2605:A000:D141:3800:9450:4878:E749:C80 (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Then it was an unsourced factual error. If it was intended as such, it was vandalism. Donner60 (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: No New Friends

The Original Barnstar

Hey again, Donner60, this is Robert Bullock. There was one thing that puzzles me; simultaneously as we were discussing me getting credit on the drake song, 'No New Friends', a guy named 'Allen Ritter' got a Wikipedia pass & has his name added & accredited. That's strange that he would do it now, plus he's not listed under 'Background', or 'Track Listing' under 'Producers, or under 'References'. As I move to earn my deserved credit, I ask that this is looked into with the same due diligence that went into reproving me, as the producers list has went from 2 (Boi 1-Da & 40) to 4 now. Humbly, Robert Bullock Rbullock16 (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Rbullock16 (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I removed Allen Ritter as a producer for No New Friends because he apparently was one of the writers but not one of the producers. I cite the source in the edit summary, namely http://istandardproducers.com/interviews/vinylz-no-new-friends/. I don't think it is worth citing in the article unless someone challenges my change. Donner60 (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the Laurens article

Hey! Thanks for looking at the Laurens article; the silliness there is getting a little ridiculous. That said, just wanted to FYI that you went one revision too far back, and undid my large improvement (adding citations, taking out unsupported stuff). I fixed it and added another citation which might calm the silliness, so no action needed on your part, just FYI. —Luis (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Also left this message on your talk page: Thanks for your note and your patience with my long revert. I saw that some bad edits had not been taken out by the previous reverts. I tried to avoid taking out any good edits but I realized some of the several bad January 8 edits were part of a series of bad edits that had not been fully reverted. It seemed to me that I needed to take out everything that was added on January 8 and go back to the last edit of January 7 to get a good version. I should have been a little more diligent and checked every one of the January 8 edits individually, not just the last several plus the summaries. I am glad that you were able to restore your good edit and I thank you for your understanding. I have not run into such a stream of bad edits very often but this is a good reminder to review every edit if such a situation occurs. Thanks, again. Donner60 (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

My edit on the Graham Chapman page about his adopting John Travolta as his son

Hello. I'm Steve. I was going to undo my last edit concerning Graham Chapman's adoption of John Travolta as his son, but I can see that you've already completed this. Thank-you.

IP edit at the LHC

Hi Donner60, sources were not an issue with this edit, the cancelled Superconducting Super Collider is linked in the article already and the existence of the project is trivial to verify. Even with a source, I don't think the added text there is useful, however. --mfb (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mfb: Thanks. It also seemed to me that the edit "North America tried to build one but failed" was not accurate. The United States refused to continue to fund the project, which I think is rather different than trying to build the collider and failing. I should have used a specific message instead of a template or perhaps "editing test" or "factual error." I did briefly puzzle on how to characterize an edit that I thought was unnecessary at best and appeared inaccurate as well. I used that template since I thought that the statement could not be sourced because it was wrong. However, the fact that there was a project that was left incomplete for budgetary reasons made this reason unsatisfying, or perhaps questionable, as well. Occasionally an edit is not useful and perhaps not accurate but none of the templates in Huggle is a completely satisfactory explanation for the revert. In that case, a special message is no doubt better than a template and taking a little more time to prepare one is useful. I am glad that you concur that the edit could be properly reverted. Donner60 (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do not be a bully

This is not vandalism. I said I would be adding references and I did. Qrx24 (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You added no reference for this questionable statement and left a bold ref tag error on the page with the edit you did make: "At that time, he changed his professional name to Puck because he thought his surname was hard to pronounce. He playfully picked a swear word that began with the letter F but changed the first letter to prevent it from being obscene." You may be correct but this is not the kind of edit you can repeatedly insert to a biography of a living person after you have been questioned about whether there is a reliable source. I will add some other helpful links to your user talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Qrx24 (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I just added another reference. Qrx24 (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding my "edits"

Monsieur, I made no edits without logging in (as shown there). IDK who did it but it certainly was not me, for I log in before making any edit. My profile is by the ID shockwave643 . I am terribly sorry for any inconvenience regarding the edits made without logging in, for the one doing it may be one of the people I know very well. 103.28.254.137 (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The edit you refer to was made on October 2, 2014. That was the only disruptive edit from this IP. It could have been someone else if you have a shared computer, shared ID or your wireless connection was tapped into. Since there was only one and it was over 15 months ago, it is nothing to be concerned with or worry about. Donner60 (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Sam Hogar

Re Sam Hogar The nickname added is a very widely known nickname used to refer to him. This is a constructive edit as it makes his page more complete. The addition was factually accurate. Are we allowed to add citations to the sidebar there? I will do that if so.

Yes. I have replied on your talk page and added some links to helpful Wikipedia guidelines, format and policy pages. Donner60 (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe this external link is important

This link goes to the Official Ames Brothers Facebook Fan Page which is an Open page that is dedicated to the Brothers with active visitors and many videos of the Brothers which highlights their career over the years. I think it's important for people to know it's out there. it's not for monetary gain, advertising, or any personal gain. It's just informative information and open discussion for people who are fans can communicate. I am the son of Vic Ames of the Ames Brothers and I believe this should be allowed to stay. I Don't see it any different then the Hall of Fame posting. Maybe I should reword it like "The History of the Ames Brothers" or something like that. I invite you to take a look at the page and then see what you think. Thank you. The link is: https://www.facebook.com/Ames-Brothers-232809813495584/?ref=hl

I will check this further. If it is not promotional, it is probably ok. I think your alternate wording would help. I am logging off now, but will confirm this later today or early tomorrow (UTC). Donner60 (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Just wondering if you've had time to check things out

Chris

Yes. I have just checked it. It seems ok to me. I can't speak for everyone who might look at it but I agree it is historical, not promotional, so more like a hall of fame type site. I will not further question adding it to the page. Sorry for the inconvenience. Donner60 (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

My posting is down again, do you know why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.112.124 (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You will need to communicate with User:Caballero1967 about this. Editors act independently and I had nothing to do with the latest changes. I suspect the reversion was for the same reason I originally reverted it. Since there is a little discretion concerning this (validity of external links), perhaps you can convince him that the links were not promotional or invalid and add something significant to the content. Donner60 (talk) 02:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is my recent edit to the page Arjun (tank) appears to have added incorrect information?

Why is my recent edit to the page Arjun (tank) appears to have added incorrect information? I edited it based on an very famous news paper article. Do you want some extra citation ?

I quickly read the citation about the Arjun tank but I saw nothing in the article about the munition. The article is mainly about the tank being phased out. I will look at it again, but that is why I reverted the edit. I will look at it again to see if I was mistaken. If you have another source, I suggest that you cite it. That would clear up the matter without having to look into it further. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 02:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. I clicked on the wrong citation. I have restored your edit. I am sorry for the mistake. Please do not be discouraged by my mistake. I have left this message on your user talk page and have also added some helpful link to Wikipedia guideline, policy and format pages. Donner60 (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank You

Edit to Curtin-Hammett Principle

Donner60,

I was not making a test edit. If you will look above at the provided graphic in the article, you will see that there is no such value as ΔG‡, only ΔG1‡, ΔG2‡, and ΔΔG‡. The correct value is the one that I changed it to, ΔΔG‡, the difference between the activation barriers. If it matters, I merely made the edit as I was studying for my preliminary exam in my chemistry PhD program and noticed the error.

Thank you for explaining your edit. I am sorry that I did not understand it and regret any inconvenience. I hope you will continue to edit Wikipedia. I have restored your edit. I added some helpful Wikipedia page links to your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hate Story 3

I have mentioned the source for my contribution to Hate Story 3 in the Edit Summary. 24.44.196.20 (talk)] —Preceding undated comment added 03:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. But subsequently an administrator has judged the edit to be inappropriate. I must defer and suggest that you discuss this with User:Cyphoidbomb if you wish to pursue it further. Donner60 (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Coconut

Hi. You commented on my edit on Coconut being a test run. I think my error was I had difficulty with linkinking the movie. Any advice would be appreciated. Mstheresa1969 (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I left this message plus some useful Wikipedia page links on your talk page: You had included a link for The Wedding Ringer in the wrong section: "References" instead of "In Popular Culture", and did not explain the use of the song or provide a citation. A citation would seem necessary because I did not see a reference about the song in the Wikipedia article on the movie. I added to the page what I think you intended to add. Please see that edit as an example. Donner60 (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

NAACP v. Button

Hi Donner60, I hope I did this right. Thanks for your message. I was trying to flag the sentence as needing clarification; it was a very confusing sentence and I could not even understand it enough to edit it for clarity without worrying I would change the substance. I tried to see how to flag that, and on a template page I thought I was instructed that I could type "clarify" or "what" after a sentence and it would flag it. I was wrong and need practice editing! 97.88.218.193 (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I struck my original message on you talk page because your message to me shows that you simply made a formatting mistake. You forgot to add the open {{ and close }}, which made it seem that you were just adding a random word. Please look again at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. I also added some helpful links to Wikipedia guideline, policy and formatting pages. Donner60 (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

War on Terror propaganda

Since the article is moderated by pro-American editors would it be sensible to employ certain neutral non nationalist american editors ? there is no critique about how the US created havoc across the Middle East and supported various terrorists in the past from which this mess came from? Furtermore if India is worried about funds being used for Balochistan we need a counter argument about how they funded terrorist their in the first place. 2.219.97.149 (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Just for clarity, although I reverted some edits that were not reliably sourced several days ago, I did not edit or revert any of your recent edits, which are still included as far as I can tell. Also, it seems to me from looking at your edits that your concern is more about Balochistan and India's role, to the extent it has one. Wikipedia is based on a neutral point of view using reliable, verifiable and neutral sources. Although I am not sure this is what you mean, I cannot agree that anti-American propaganda needs to be included for balance if that is what you are suggesting. In any event, I am not an administrator or a member of any of the interested WikiProjects. I only watch current changes in articles as they appear if I am online and try to revert vandalism and to keep any questionable changes within Wikipedia policy. You already have added this issue to the talk page which is a proper way to get feedback. You might also look at the brief discussion about this very issue in Pakistan's role in the War on Terror. I think you would make more progress by taking this up with WikiProject Pakistan and possibly one or more of the other WikiProjects mentioned on the main article's talk page. Donner60 (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Steven Kerzner page

Tried reverting this page to an older version, only to get reprimanded by you. If you've seen the page, you'll understand why I tried to do what I did. There are a number of issues with that page, which should be rectified. Take a look at the page, and you'll see what I mean.

In response to your message, I struck my original message on your talk page. You were trying to fix problems with the article and the removal of the template seems to have been an unintentional by-product. The article is still a mess, as you suggest. It apparently has been this way since someone tried to add content to change it from a redirect. Under the circumstances, I think it is best just to revert it to the redirect and if someone can add some accurate, well-written content with a source or a few sources, they can do so later. It does not seem to me that anything can be saved. If you have a different opinion, please let me know. I also left a list of useful Wikipedia page links in case you are unfamiliar with them. Donner60 (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Users blanking pages they created

Hi. I saw that you reverted the blanking of Julio Cesar Ferreira by the person who created it. As long as others haven't made nontrivial contributions to the article, and especially in cases where the creator may be reacting to tagging of the article by trying to rescind it, the creator is permitted to blank it. This is treated as a deletion request, and the article can be tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD G7. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I am aware of that and I noticed it the first time it came by on Huggle, but not the second. Sorry about the mistake due to my inadvertence that time around. Donner60 (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Last surviving Confederate veterans

Hello Donner60 and trust you are well. Could I please refer you to the latest round of edits on the above page, as you are far more experienced in this than myself. I have previously reverted contributions from an editor which contained no real references and actually stated that one vet died in 1971!! Most of my edits have been reverted again, although not the 1971 death, but I can see no proper references. I would be grateful for your observations on all of this. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

David: Thank you for the alert. I occasionally looked at the page but not recently enough to see the new activity. I will leave a longer message on you talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Donner60, Many thanks for all your help and explanation on my Talk page. I think all we can do now is await any developments. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Donner60. You have new messages at Boomer Vial's talk page.
Message added 20:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Boomer Vial^Holla 00:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Claim of unconstructive edit

Compare the original:

In Japan and other East Asian countries, a person's ABO blood type ... is predictive of personality

to my edit, with my change in boldface:

In Japan and other East Asian countries, a person's ABO blood type ... is believed by many to be predictive of personality

The former states that in several east Asian countries, the ABO blood type predicts ones personality, whereas the evidence base in the article clearly indicates this to be a manifestation of 'scientific racism'. The latter clarified this by indicating it to be a popular belief; not something supported by evidence. I would be extremely grateful if you would explain how many edit was non-constructive? I would have added a reference for 'many', but the degree to which this is believed is addressed later in the article and so it seemed unnecessary.

I do hope your responses are as quick as your reversions. 86.8.54.48 (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)