User talk:Donner60

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

Please put comments or questions on new subjects at the very bottom of the page, use a new section heading, refer to the exact title of an article and sign your message with four tildes. That will help me to see that there is something new on the page and will point me to the right article and person to be concerned with. This will allow me to reply faster. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User Talk page policies and guidelines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please put messages, questions or comments at the very bottom of the page, i.e. after every other item on the page. If you put them here (immediately before or after this paragraph), I may either not see them or at least not see them very promptly. That will delay any reply from me to you. Please add a section heading, identify the article you are concerned with, and use a link, (if your question or comment refers to a specific article), probably putting the article name in the heading, and sign your edit with four tildes (~~~~) so I know to whom to reply.

Often I will reply on your talk page and may note or summarize that reply on this page. If you do not get a reply on your talk page, check back here. I may put brief replies here, especially if they do not seem urgent. Keep an eye on this page because I may just reply here, especially if the answer seems simple and does not seem to be time sensitive. If you have a user name, I will try to remember to ping you if I just leave a return message here. As far as I know, IP addresses cannot be pinged. When I notice a question or comment that was not placed at the bottom of the page, I will move it to the bottom of the page and provide a heading if there is not already a heading. Donner60 (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disambiguation link and bracket bot notifications

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

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIV, October 2020

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content
Book review: Nick-D on Franklin Roosevelt in World War II and Hog Farm on the Battle of Chancellorsville

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Englishman

Hello,

The edit on the Korean Englishman page was deleted because of the lack of source. I did not mention the source because it was coming from their main YouTube channel. The direct link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gQzvV_yGMM

There are plenty of other sources like this one: https://www.allkpop.com/article/2020/10/josh-of-the-popular-youtube-channel-korean-englishman-feels-responsible-for-his-wife-gabiekooks-actions-and-states-he-will-stop-his-activities

Regards 125.237.38.145 (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I struck my original message to you because you were in good faith. Please insert a source into the article. I left links to some helpful Wikipedia info and guideline pages on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 California Proposition 22

Hi Donner60, I think you made a mistake in reverting my edit. I edited 2020 California Proposition 22 without adding a source because there are already sources cited in the article documenting the statement I made. The statement is: "The companies have also forced their workers to support and promote the legislation: Uber sends its drivers in-app messages forcing them to click on either "Yes on Prop 22" or "OK", Instacart ordered its workers to place pro-Prop 22 stickers in customers' shopping bags, and DoorDash forces delivery drivers to use bags saying "Yes on 22".<ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-10-23|title=Uber drivers sue, say company 'coerced' them to support Prop 22|url=https://www.cnet.com/news/uber-drivers-sue-they-say-company-coerced-them-to-support-prop-22/|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-10-24|website=CNet|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-10-20|title=Gig Companies Are Making Their Workers Promote Prop. 22|url=https://www.kqed.org/news/11842964/gig-companies-are-making-their-workers-promote-prop-22|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-10-24|website=KQED|language=en-US}}</ref>". Someone else edited this to say that the companies "encouraged" workers to support and promote the legislation. But the sources already cited in the article document that the workers were not "encouraged" to support and promote the legislation, but forced to do so. So I believe that the original wording was accurate. Could you please revert your change? Thanks.2604:2000:2B82:B700:B960:4BDF:FB0A:6AAF (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I rolled back my edit and struck the message on your talk page. Thanks for the explanation. Donner60 (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added no wiki to keep footnotes in this section. Donner60 (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Cole

"You removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Donner60 "(talk) 01:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I am a heavy contributor to Wkipedia and have been here a lot longer than you have. The article was written by BLM. Stop editing my corrections before I am finished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs Shafransky (talk • contribs) 01:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right. You have 10 edits and have been editing since yesterday. I suggest you finish and justify edits and not make them piecemeal - if in fact that is what you are doing. I also suggest you see Wikipedia:Civility before you leave further messages that stray even further. Otherwise, giving some actual sourced information or backup instead of simply making unsupported assertions would be preferable.

Since your edit is simply untrue, I would simply delete this as vandalism but I will leave it for a brief time due to the fact that I have added a reply. Donner60 (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not untrue and I have been trying to edit for three hours.

My edits are completely true. The original article was written by BLM supporters. And apparently has been hatcheted by BLM supporters.

Instead of being uncivil, WHY DON'T YOU HELP ME? This is disgraceful after all the money I have contributed to Wikipedia.

If you bothered to check them out, my revisions are accurate. I wanted to add information about how no one realized Officer Mensah is black. They assumed the officer was white. There was no racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs Shafransky (talk • contribs) 03:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added this to your talk page: "I am striking the above message because I accept your second explanation as in good faith and will note that on my talk page. I am sorry this has produced a misunderstanding. Please be aware that editing piecemeal without explanations in the edit summary or a note in the edit summary to look at a more complete explanation on the talk page can lead a reviewer to think that your partial edit is all that you intend to make and it does not comply with guidelines. I have not further edited the article after your first message." I also added helpful links to Wikipedia guideline, policy and help pages. Donner60 (talk) 03:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NFAC

If a user posts a claim, they have to provide support for that claim specifically the inclusion of "Black Nationalism" in the description of this group. Also actual proof of a connection to Black Jerusalem as opposed to a article that has nothing but innuendo and no specific sources. These statements would be no better than hearsay or gossip. "In one sense it (NFAC) echoes the Black Panthers but they are more heavily armed and more disciplined... So far, they've coordinated with police and avoided engaging with violence," he said... And while Mockaitis said NFAC has made some questionable comments, including challenging White armed groups during a Georgia rally, he does not believe the NFAC has an overtly racist ideology." Source: https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/25/us/nfac-black-armed-group/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightinkarma (talk • contribs) 01:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My reverts had to do with the substitution of "self-defense." Other edits made at the same time may have been carried with it. I suggest you make the changes separately with justification or explanation of them in the edit summary and by citation where needed. Donner60 (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My deletion of "Black Nationalist" group and other heresay was that Whomever started the page didn't cite a single article proving such separatist intent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightinkarma (talk • contribs) 04:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gender bender

I feel like you quickly did away with my findings instead of researching them first. Please come back to me with your research! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C0:C280:88F0:7C75:2923:8365:D544 (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You cited nothing in support of your edit. The subject is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. The entry was completely out of context. Donner60 (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And this: From Wikipedia:No original research: "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a reliable source; what counts as a reliable source is described at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources". From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an Wikipedia:Citing sources#Inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" and "Articles must be based on reliable, third party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Donner60 (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Bretton

https://www.hellomagazine.com/film/2020060591034/not-going-out-star-sally-bretton-husband-and-kids/

She's 43. She looks 43 to boot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.88.176 (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imdb, though not necessarily free from editor or an approved source, shows a birth date in 1980. https://www.celebsages.com/sally-bretton/ says she's 40. https://biographypedia.org/sally-brettons-biography-husband-children-net-worth/ gives your date. Maybe you should just cite that if you think it is right. Donner60 (talk) 06:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

kamakshi amman temple

yes,i had changed a little bit. The story is an stone inspriction placed at the temple site,right behind the sanctum sanctoram,where the Lord resides. i am afraid,that our puranas and texts are inumerable to have all the sources uploaded already. still i can try posting a reference image from the text,giving us this information.

Shastha ,son of Kamakshi was breastfed in this temple. The diety is often called Apithakuchalamba,one who has not breast fed directly.but in Brahmanda purana,we have a reference text,which says that lord shastha is the only one son out of her three sons to have this privilege.

The stone inscription outside,further states that,the lord Shastha was filled with gold (pallava king) to rectify a draught. i have many more edits ,i shall try to post the photos of the text,where i am citing from. Indian scriptures are too voluminous for everything to be hosted in the web :) by adding on to the edits,i am just increasing the scope of knowledge and in-depth research for people surfing about the temple.kindly consider.

I struck my original message on your talk page because you are in good faith. However, you do need to provide a reliable, verifiable, third party source. If the scriptures or relevant excerpts are on the web, that can be cited. If not, you can cite to the pages from a print edition following the guidelines for full citations and footnotes in the links I put on your talk page. You can add images if they are free from copyright. This is discussed at Wikipedia:Copyrights. I have left some further comments and links to helpful Wikipedia guideline pages on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You popped up in a page while i was viewing one

It said "Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Maharlika Pilipinas Basketball League, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! 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) 07:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)"

I'm confused~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.32.105.90 (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I left some helpful links to Wikipedia guideline and policy pages on your user talk page. See especially Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources and Help:Footnotes. Donner60 (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypto

Respected Donner60,

I need to discuss about a user named 125.160.98.148 who is making Unsourced and unexplained edits on Apocalypto's Wikipedia page. This user claims that 20th Century Fox is an international distributor for Apocalypto. However, (according to the region I live in) this might not be true. Upon looking this user's IP address up, I found out that this user is from Indonesia (hinting that his edit is possibly true only in Indonesia). Whenever I revert his edits, he changes them back. Please do look into this matter so I can find out if his edits are true or vandalism

Thanking you, 110.44.102.123 17:34 (UTC), 6th November 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.44.102.89 (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. In case you are not available, please suggest another Wikipedia who can solve this problem.

110.44.102.144 17:30 (UTC), 6th November 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.44.102.89 (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I put an explanation and comments of what I found and did on your user talk page. I added thoughts about what you might possibly do to resolve the issue if it continues to be a problem. Donner60 (talk) 08:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can my language disruptive?

Chinese and Tamil are not official languages of Malaysia, only Malay is recognized in the constitution. Why did you put Chinese and Tamil names in every towns in Malaysia of which has nothing to do with them? Malay language whether it is written in Jawi or Latin are the only language recognized in the constitution of Malaysia. It looks like you didn't know anything about Malaysia, I advise you to not interfere! I am doing what it needs to be done!

Imagine if UAE towns and cities put Tamil or Hindi or Tagalog transliteration despite having no history whatsoever over the naming of those places? Why didn't you block those who put Chinese in Malaysian cities? Why am I who's only doing what is constitutionally right is disruptive and wrong and vandalism? YOU TELL ME!

See Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. So you think it is proper to come on to my talk page and threaten me. Wikipedia does not need users like you if that is the way you are going to behave. Sources indicate that various ethnic groups use various languages. Why are you trying to hide that? Where did this information come from that only now it needs to be changed? It is information about what the people actually speak. Certainly the official language or languages can be shown as such and no language that is not official should be shown as official. What various groups actually speak is a separate matter. Offer a reason based on the Wikipedia Manual of Style or other Wikipedia guidelines. I had actually stopped reverting those changes and from this point, I will leave it to others to deal with. My stopping the changes has been to show that intent and perhaps suggest you might be able to justify your actions on a more appropriate Wikipedia basis. Try not to bully and attack other editors. You will find people more congenial and co-operative that way. Donner60 (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zip-line edit

Hi, I'm Gizz101. I will include a summary when I next edit. The reason was that the content was only relevant to American safety laws and was therefore too broad for the topic this edit to Zip line Thank you. Donner60 (talk)

Thanks for the explanation. I struck my original message on your talk page and added some helpful links to Wikipedia guideline and instructional pages. Donner60 (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is calling text as "myth" a neutral point of view?

Hello, I'm Donner60. 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 Mahabali 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. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 04:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Blessed Donner 60, Namaste! Are you saying that calling the ancient history or sacred text as "mythology" is neutral point of view? To most of us who read the sacred texts and understand our history, it seems very biased that "others" judge our texts as "myth". What proof do they have? A lie cannot become the truth just because 1000 people say it.

What I wrote is NOT my personal point of view. The word "itihaasa" in Samskrtam language means "It thus happened". So, if something is an ancient history, it is incorrect to call it a "myth". Was this page written by experts on the subject? A lot of the story was also incorrect. I just corrected just one point in that.

Please, a humble request from us is "Stop calling our sacred texts as "myths". We cannot call Lord Jesus as myth. He really existed 2000 years ago. Kings like "Prahlada" and Mahabali" lived 6000 years ago. How is that a myth?

Thanks for allowing me to write my point of view. Infinite Love, Shanthi Shanthi Yogini (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answering on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 07:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, November 2020

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content
Book review: Nick-D & Hawkeye7 look at two aspects of 20th Century warfare
Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Unknown Soldiers

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why what wrong have I written

Why what wrong have I written Urdureporterchina (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that you have "written" anything. You have deleted sourced content, which I have checked, which reports that Pakistan has added Diwali as a holiday. You don't give any reason for the deletion and you do not cite in the edit summary or with a note in the summary about a longer explanation by you on the article talk page that an reliable, verifiable, neutral, third party source showing this has been repealed, which you also identify, exists. Donner60 (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Leave a citation

sorry, didn't know i needed one, does it count if im the citation, like an eye witness account? Dan Landersoni

The short answer is you do for that type of edit (and I am guessing which one because you did not identify it under this user name or the ip address initially) and no an unsourced, unverified and unverifiable account is not a proper reference for reasons I explain on your talk page with quotations from Wikipedia guideline and policy pages. Donner60 (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The change of signature to a name led me to place the reply on what turned out to be an article page under that name, not a talk page. I have asked that it be deleted as a mistake. I will reply again on the IP address. Donner60 (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of the particular edit on "Taino" that I made of which you took down, sorry.

Hello, Donner60. I am not questioning your authority at all, I would just like to know which piece of information you took down so I can republish it with a citation. I don't want to create any unneeded conflict so I want to just make things right. Thank you for pointing my flaw out to me, I assure you that I will make the change, for know that I should and even if if I did not make the change you would simply just take it down again and I would have just complicated things. So, you need not worry about foul intentions. Farewell and take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.113.208 (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is obvious from the links in the messages about the edits on your talk page. Your additions were rather limited and none were sourced. I will add a comment on your talk page. Private communications are both unnecessary and contrary to Wikipedia guidance about editing matters, and these are routine, being on talk pages. Donner60 (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sending the information. I will be sure to add the information with the cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.113.208 (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Long time no chat!

Donner60! I hope you're doing well. It's been a long time since we've said hello. :-) Just wanted to leave you a message to let you know that I was thinking about you... Stay safe and be well. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Thanks. Good to hear from you. I haven't had as many edits as usual this year so I haven't shown up in as many places. I have written 13 articles: Classes 5 Bs, 4Cs, 1 start and 4 "unknown," which has taken time for only a few edits apiece, of course. I have researched at least 20 other topics, almost all biographies of American Civil War and Virginia House of Burgesses historical persons. If I could get moving on them, I would have a significant number of articles for this year (I guess). On at least some of them, I have not found a few key facts or citations that I think probably exist. One has to be careful attributing facts to some early Virginia colonists because there are some of these historical persons with the same common English name. Otherwise, I have either been distracted by real life or have not been energized enough to continue right away. I have also deferred further work on them temporarily as I thought I should get a few more edits in recent weeks so it would not appear that I was fading away. (Editcountitis?) My wife and I have been generally well. I have had some aggravating time sinks this year despite not getting out much due to the virus. I hope you will stay safe and well also. Donner60 (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donner60 - It sounds like you're still active here regardless of the amount of "edits" you make. :-) That's awesome, and I hope that you get to make time to go through with your plans and continue contributing here. I've been busy as well. I'm still quite active here, though not nearly as active as last year when I had much more time on my hands to spend contributing. I guess that's what happens when you land a full-time job in a busy career. ;-) I'm glad you're staying safe during these ridiculous times. I would have ever imagined one year ago that I'd have to wear a mask and stay far clear of other people just to go to the store and pick up milk, but here we are... At the same time, I'm not surprised either. We've had nasty plagues and diseases in the past that were much more deadlier than this (think Black Death), and we made it through. I just hope that, if anything, we learn from this as a global society and we implement better safeguards and policies in the future should a breakout like this start to be detected. I hope you stay safe and I hope you stay healthy. Keep in touch, have a great weekend, and be well. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 41

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 41, September – October 2020

New partnership: Taxmann
WikiCite
1Lib1Ref 2021

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Montpelier Vermont

I had sent citation links and page numbers / even Wikipedia of Timothy Bigelow is correct. Can you please confirm the citations were received and update the page with the correct information? Thank You Mbigelow (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am striking the original message on your talk page. I have noted the sources that you cite there. Obviously there is support for the change and your edit was in good faith. I will look at the sources to the extent I can access them and will promptly make the change (if you have not made it already) or suggest that you make the change with the added citations. Thanks for the additional information and explanation. Donner60 (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added to your talk page: I have verified the existence of the sources but not all the specific details. Please add the change with full citations to the sources. You can use the style in the Wikipedia links Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, Wikipedia:Citing sources or Chicago Manual of Style (author: last name first, title in italics, place of publication, publisher, year; OCLC or ISBN number; also if an internet citation: the http and date retrieved (date inserted into article). See also Help:Footnotes. Thank you for your patience. Donner60 (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hey, could you help me review and publish a page? Faits1789 (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Help

Could you help me with an article? Faits1789 (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I put the following and a list of links to other helpful Wikipedia guideline and policy pages on your talk page. It is better to seek help on article creation from those who are experienced in helping. The Article for Creation process which you used is the best way to do that. You can also ask for help at the Teahouse. Certain Wikiprojects may also have members who will help with articles or with questions on their subjects of expertise. Here is a link to a page where you can begin to narrow down the projects to the area you are interested in. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. See also Wikipedia:Wikiprojects and Help:Contents. Donner60 (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

) DMacks (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

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

A Disney Halloween

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revolver edit

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

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

I have quotated the source should be fine now,not trying to vandalyse