User talk:Donner60

New messages

Please put new messages at the bottom of the page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notifications

I occasionally get one. I fix the link, then delete the message, as it states is permissible. Donner60 (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Alfred E. Jackson

Orlady (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC) 16:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence

You edit with passion & adequate references, and your extensive service to Wikipedia speaks volumes of your tenacity to keep Wikipedia credible & fortuitous as a reference source. Your edits are in keeping with the proper Manual of Style of Wikipedia, the Policy on Good Faith Edits, and the heritage of the United States Military. Keep up the great work! Bullmoosebell (talk) 07:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This barnstar is, in no way, in gratitude for your explanation, though appreciated (with humble apologies for any abrasive manner in which I bestowed my retort, you simply replied faster than I could award you). What you do deserves proper adulation for your service to this wonderful Nation by providing accurate and adequate information of the great citizens that have preceded us all. Bullmoosebell (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, in my experience, I've included the ability to email an editor directly (see the link on my user page) to avoid potentially embarrassing discussions. In other words, there are some instances where you & I would appreciate discretion (discussions offline rather than on a talk page where any editor can view history, even if deleted). I would like to work with you on future matters and appreciate your advice on my edits in the future. Feel free to email me through my talk page (or the "@yahoo.com" link on this paragraph).

As you know, there are MANY editors on Wikipedia. Many prefer to disregard the Manual of Style and blatantly ignore the punishment put forth by Wikipedia that they, just a day prior, were punished for that which they were barred from blocking (see Searcher 1990). So please understand my apprehension to allowing edits that encroach against what we both are striving to achieve. Bullmoosebell (talk) 10:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the dialogue. I'll look into what we discussed, and feel free to take the initiative on the issue you presented, if you have the time. Currently, my dance card is full to the end of the year and I fear I'll be enveloped with a lot of work. My suggestion is to find the Admin that blocked said user & present the circumstances. Thanks, again, for your diligence. Keep up the great work! Bullmoosebell (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue was looked into. It appears many of the edits included proper references. Still, there are admins watching this/these user/s to keep them honest, IAW Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Bullmoosebell (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Your vigilance has not gone unnoticed. The powers-that-be are in knowing of what needs to be known, so it's in their hands now. I really, truly appreciate the hard work you've done. Beyond in keeping with the honor and integrity of Wikipedia, you've bettered yourself and other editors, myself included. You spoke words previously, about being enlightened on certain edits. As a result, I have re-checked my edits, even a few of my previous edits, to ensure they are IAW (in accordance with) the policy that Wikipedia adheres to. I wish more Wikipedians could conduct themselves as you do. Sincerely, I look forward to working with you in the future. That's to mean I will be presenting future discussions for your interpretation. And, if you feel my assistance necessary, feel free to drop me a line or email me directly (bullmoosebell@yahoo.com) Regards, Bullmoosebell (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	You've gone through much toil and hard work to keep the integrity of Wikipedia, while associating the proper channels and adherence to good faith edits. Seemingly overdue, you've earned the Barnstar of Defense. Bullmoosebell (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Your recognition is most gratifying. I think you are way ahead of me on this count. Donner60 (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for William F. Perry

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! Bullmoosebell (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Upper Wolfsnare

Hi. THanks for the review of the DYK nom. I've posted the alt, slightly modified, as ALT1. Could you check it and post another tic mark below it so people don't wonder if it's still pending? Thanks. PumpkinSky talk 10:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Done! I posted this further review/comment on the DYK nomination page:

Great. I think ALT1 is complete, meets all the criteria and is ready for promotion to the queue. Donner60 (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Donner60 (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Wilburn Hill King

Yngvadottir (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Levin Major Lewis

Yngvadottir (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

George von Amsberg

Thanks for the extra info on George von Amsberg. I left the main comment there to keep the history together, but thought I'd drop a quick thanks here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awun (talk • contribs) 08:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Triple DYK

Thanks for reviewing and glad you liked it! Gerda proposed alts, can you look over, pick a preference, and put another check when they're good to go? PumpkinSky talk 09:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You can also leave the preference to the prep builder ;) I suggested an alt pic, to make choices harder ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I like alt 2 and the alternate, cropped image better. I have left a further review/comment. Donner60 (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Precious

	hero of reviewing
	On your second Wiki-birthday, thank you for your collaborative reviewing for DYK, unafraid of a triple nom, seeking contact with all editors, commenting with precision, - you are an awesome Wikipedian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on 2 years at wiki!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Moses Wright Hannon

Yngvadottir (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for William Henry Chase

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Template:Did you know nominations/List of number-one R&B singles of 2011 (U.S.)

Thanks for reviewing :) Aaron • ^{You Da One} 10:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

RE:Did you know nominations/James Cameron (Union colonel)‎

I also forgot to notify you about my reply here, but that was only because I gave it a green light for the first time. Truly the best referenced DYK I've seen so far. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 09:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for James Cameron (Union colonel)

Yngvadottir (talk) 08:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Francis Marion Walker

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Congratulation on a fabulous article. Miss Ivonne (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Johnson Henderson

Orlady (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Gilbert S. Meem

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for cognitive vulnerability

Hey! This nomination template has been looked over and since the reviewer suggested a hook, ONLY THE HOOK needs to be looked over by another new reviewer. The rest of the article has been surely taken care of. If you have the time to just check it out, please do so. Thanks. Khyati Gupta (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks! After the article gets a check mark, doesn't it need to be archived by an administrator?Khyati Gupta (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Reuben Walker Carswell

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Joseph H. Tucker

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for William Henry Harman

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Find-A-Grave links

Hello, and thanks for your work in finding correct references for the (ancient) Find-A-Grave links!

However, I wonder if you could deal with those in a typical Find-A-Grave fashion instead of fixing the names? The standard procedure I've been following is:

• Create a redirect from the old name to the new name (this makes search in wikipedia work better, and leaves a record of what was done)
• And then, delete the name from Find-A-Grave's lists

Find-A-Grave is a list of people who might be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, but aren't there yet. Once they're there, there's no further value in the listing.

Have fun on Wikipedia! --Alvestrand (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Replied on Alvestrand page. Followed suggested procedure for all the changes before and after date of this note. Donner60 (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Jeptha Vining Harris (Mississippi)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Chambersburg Raid

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your remark on my George Wythe comment

The page still isn't done, but I hope it's in better shape now.Jweaver28 (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the Baptist article - I was working two screens and meant to modify the Baptist Successionism article, not the Baptist article.

Response on your page to the effect that I thought it appeared to be a mistake that would be fixed at some point but that I thought it would be best to restore the main article and let the person or persons who wanted to work on them carry on from there. Donner60 (talk) 09:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Belated greetings :)

Mediran (t • c) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hey Donner60! I hope you had a very Merry Christmas! Also, I wish you to have a very prosperous, bountiful and of course a very Happy 2013! Mediran (t • c) 11:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Charles W. Adams

(X! · talk)  · @954  ·  12:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Most recent items archived

The most recent items archived were added January 16, 2013. Donner60 (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Phantom time hypothesis

You've done something I've done, reverted here to earlier IP vandalism. That makes 2 editors today who did that! Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I put a little longer reply on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Cardinals

A look at google images indicates the Pelicans did, at one time, use a logo similar to the long-standing Cardinals logo. But that doesn't mean they used it in 1887 (and in fact I would be surprised if they did), and in any case the IP didn't provide a link. It's an interesting similarity, coincidental or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

If you google image [new orleans pelicans baseball], you can see some examples. This,[1] for example, which is supposedly from 1942. The thing I wonder, though, is whether they were a Cardinals farm team. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

And to no real surprise, the Pelicans were indeed a Cardinals farm team in the early 1940s.[2] Random team pictures from earlier don't show that logo, which is not definitive, but I think we have a trend here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I put a few comments on your talk page, which I think you have probably seen. The last one more or less wraps it up so I repeat it here: I think you have solved the riddle. The Pelicans had that similar logo because they were a Cardinals farm team. Hardly a reason to say that the Cardinals stole the logo from the Pelicans. It certainly would seem there was co-operation and a common interest. More likely that one team copied the other with consent, probably the opposite of that stated by the IP poster. That makes be feel even more confident about my edit on the Cardinals page. Donner60 (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. And it's kind of a nifty story, if we could find more evidence. However, the minors are not nearly as well-documented as the majors. One would have to find someone who's a team historian or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit to "Avraham Friedman"

Concerning this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:65.79.36.130&redirect=no#February_2013 Why was it considered vandalism? A lecturer in a Yeshiva is called a maggid shiur, so I don't understand why it was a bad edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.36.130 (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not understand the idiom. It appeared to be a slur to me. Donner60 (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Dam Edit

I know it sounds ridiculous, but that was genuinely not vandalism. Tonights new episode of Top Gear genuinely did have the crew burning rubber to create a giant Penis on the base of the Dam. Regards, Dan (no username) 22:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Not shown in U.S. yet, of course. It does sound ludicrous but I suppose anything is possible on tv these days. I suggest not restoring the edit the until after it is shown. Donner60 (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Well, if anything came from this episode it's that I ended up reading up on the L.A. River. I never did understand why it was culvurted. 22:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.250.2 (talk)

A cookie for you!

Thank you for promptly responding to the inappropriate edit on the Summary Execution page. You are a very diligent editor! Netrogeractor (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Loan to Value Ratio

"the likelihood of a lender absorbing a loss in the foreclosure process increases as the amount of equity increases"

The last word is clearly incorrect. As equity increases, the positive difference between the asset value and the loan balance becomes continually greater, and thus the likelihood of loss in foreclosure decreases. The sentence may have read that way for a long time, but it's wrong.

See page 4 of the link below, from which this paragraph was apparently pulled verbatim, save for the typo/error at the end

http://www.stonehedgecapital.com/4.swf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.254.233.43 (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks, sorry I got that wrong. Donner60 (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Philip Ludwell Sr. and Jr.

I have a more recent source (Jon Kukla, Speakers and Clerks of the Virginia House of Burgesses, 1643-1776, Virginia State Library, 1981) that directly contradicts Lyon Gardiner Tyler on which Ludwell was actually Speaker in 1695-6. It does include a direct quote from Edmund Andros about Ludwell Sr.'s election as a Burgess that year, calling him the "Reputed Governor of Carolina". This quote is dated 18 April 1695, the day before the election of one or the other Ludwell as Speaker.

Personally, I suspect Tyler got this wrong, but without other sources independent of both of these, I'm not going to make any changes at this time. Still, there's a problem here. Rklear (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Also on your talk page: Thanks for the information on the Ludwells. Obviously one of the sources has it wrong. Tyler says Ludwell Sr. procured the speaker position for Ludwell, Jr., making him the youngest person to hold it. I occasionally have seen more recent sources clearly get a fact wrong so even though it is usually a good bet to rely on the most recent sources, they are not always correct. I can't say which is right here, of course. Some more research is required. I hope something that might tip the balance can be found without having to spend too much time on it. I should add, however, that the quote you cite is somewhat persuasive. Donner60 (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I posted a request for further sources on the Philip Ludwell talk page and mentioned it at WP Virginia. Rklear (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Stanford Hall Rector

Stephan Johnson is no longer the rector of Stanford Hall. Bill Daley (https://law.nd.edu/directory/rev-william-dailey/) is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.254.249.73 (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that got caught up with another edit but I will change it if you have not done so already. Donner60 (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

reverting too fast?

Just a note to say I completely appreciate your work reviewing anon changes and wonder if you can figure out how to reduce the rate of false positives. In this case, an anon correctly deleted Tamil from a list in Indo-European languages (Tamil is Dravidian, not IE), but you reverted this saying "unexplained deletion". Benwing (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I see you are an expert in linguistics and are active in editing. I don't see too many edits in the language area but I will leave any that I do see that are not clearly pure vandalism alone. I will trust that you or someone with more expertise will take care of them. I see so many vandalisms with respect to Tamil and India on a wide variety of topics, I suppose I assumed this was just one more. Usually I don't make assumptions because the vandalism is clear or I know the topic or I check some sources in the footnotes. Sometimes the sources are not online of course. I have reverted thousands of vandalisms over several months and made only a few mistakes, all of which were corrected promptly. I will be cutting back on recent changes patrol soon and will return almost exclusively to creating content. If several members think I should stop this activity now, I certainly will. I started it out of curiosity on another aspect of wikipedia and found there was quite a lot of vandalism. I think over time I may make a better contribution with content creation and editing. I do take your point if you mean that I should always check on the basis or sources of deletions that could be credible. As I noted, I usually do, but occasionally one can think something appears suspect but on closer look, it is valid. Donner60 (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not at all suggesting you stop doing this. This kind of patrolling against vandalism is extremely important in Wikipedia and I really appreciate people like you who put in the time doing a never-ending task. In this case, there was indeed Tamil-related vandalism but the anon was actually correcting vandalism done by another anon, who incorrect stuck in the reference to Tamil in the first place. I guess in deletions like this you could potentially check the previous edits to see whether it's vandalism or an attempt to revert vandalism. But I understand there will always be mistakes. (Ideally there would be an "annotate" function automatically showing the source of particular text, as already implemented in revision-control systems like Git ... Maybe one day.) Benwing (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That would be helpful. I have seen some control on certain chemical formulas. I wish verified versions were available on all chemical formulas and mathematical equations. I see changes to equations in math or science articles that clearly have been written some time ago and ought to be reasonably settled. I believe these changes are quite possibly invalid. I don't touch those, however, because I have no knowledge in the area and I can not be sure there was not a typo or other mistake in the existing article. Such changes often do look suspicious. It would be a shame if the work of those who contributed such high level math and science knowledge is being easily vandalized because most reviewers may be baffled by the changes. Thanks for your comments; sorry if I was a little petulant as we get into the late night hours. Donner60 (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks again for the recent-changes patrolling. Benwing (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

Yeah, I guess that applying the knowledge I received in medical school to an article on estrogen was inappropriate. My bad. Glad you reverted that sentence to the nonsensical original version which claims that the effects of estrogen in human psychosexual development do not apply to humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.231.86 (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. Of course, since you don't have a user page or any identification in the summary or otherwise, for all I knew, you could be a 10-year old. I am amending my initial comment, however, because your misspelling of rodents may have thrown me off. A new user throwing in a misspelled word often is vandalism. There are dozens if not hundreds of vandalisms every hour and only a few people watching them at any given time - although Clue Bot picks up quite a lot of it at all times. I also suggest you use the edit summary. A brief comment might have brought a closer look and I would have easily seen your point. I removed the vandalism warning because obviously your edit was intended to correct a prior mistake. Donner60 (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I corrected the article with your intended edit. Donner60 (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC) (Note: initial change to article was "rodnts.") Donner60 (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism reversion

(Added a section heading here because the following was a different topic and discussion from that above. Donner60 (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC))

Pardon my lack of knowledge on where to put this thanks, but under Vandalism seems as appropriate as anywhere. I wanted to thank you for deleting the vandalism to Andrews University and the Blue Angels. Those edits were made by my twelve year old son, who had added himself by name to both articles. I have spoken to him about what he has done and how the Wikipedia operates. He was not aware of the ramifications of his editing. My thanks to your diligence in catching those edits. He may have been influenced in part by the dismissive attitude one of his language arts teachers holds towards the Wikipedia. Danaleeling (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Also put on your talk page: Thanks for the kudos. I am sorry to hear about teachers with a dismissive attitude toward Wikipedia. It does have shortcomings but it is still a work in progress and its content is entirely the work of volunteers. In some subject areas, some articles are yet to be written. Others were "starter" articles that no one has gotten around to filling out. Some content is erroneous but it is really a small percentage. Vandalism, unfortunately, is a problem. Some of the errors and problems - quite a few from my experience - are due to vandalism. Articles were correct when written but errors have been inserted. The most obvious vandalism is caught almost immediately by ClueBot and individuals who check recent changes. Unfortunately, even several individuals working at one time cannot read every edit. The worst vandalism is that which sounds plausible. If no one who looks at it is knowledgeable in the subject and no suspicion is raised, it might be awhile before it is caught. It just so happened that I was watching recent changes of IP users at the time and I tend to omit the biography articles so I happened to see those. I would not be too hard on a 12-year old who did not understand the seriousness of changing information that others would like to rely on. I think many of the errors come from those who are several years older, who really ought to know better. I hope you will contribute to wikipedia and that your son will decide to do so as well. If not now, in a few years he may have some areas of interest in which articles need to be written or revised. Donner60 (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Tucson artifacts

Thanks for your work there. I don't think Cyclone Covey's self-published book should be there, what do you think? You might want to look at Bat Creek inscription (and see the talk page) and Los Lunas Decalogue Stone as well. Thanks Dougweller (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Changed my mind about Covey, but if you read FTN, see my latest post there on DNA Consultants if fringe stuff interests you. Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Lengthy comment left on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Edits to Selma

I fail to see how the edits to the page for Selma are erroneous and unhelpful. If you look around the page a little, you'll notice the Turkish and Arab people listed with the name Selma, and in this case it is an alternateive of Salma. I even linked the page Salma so that when one of you editors saw the change, you could also check the Salma page. I decided to take some time and edit the page to correct the error of the origin of the name, but thanks for continuing to be a lazy bigot and reverting any changes containing new and correct information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.51.11 (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

So Salma, Arabic, meaning peace or safety, is the same as Selma, German, meaning Aesir and helmet or protected by the gods. Sorry, I don't see it - and I think your less than civil approach shows some bias of your own. I would say that a hatnote referring to Salma, or a note in the other uses referring a reader to Salma (such as for Salma see...) or some other disambiguation could well be appropriate. There is nothing in the meaning of the words, or all of the examples given on both of the pages, to point to an equivalence. Referring to the Salma page itself only points up the inconsistent meanings of the two words. If you have a reliable, verifiable source pointing to equivalence, fine. If not, I stand by my change (which you might note I did not characterize as vandalism), without standing against the lesser changes I have suggested. I'll put this on your talk page as well. Donner60 (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you don't see it because you don't even bother to read or check any reversions you make, even after you get a note on your talk page. One name, two different meanings from two different languages. Selma is an alternate spelling of another name. Are you able to comprehend that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.51.11 (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to get into trading insults with you. That is contrary to the way wikipedia users are supposed to approach differences. I suggested you approach it in a slightly different way but you don't seem to have comprehended that. Go ahead and make your change. I hope you do it carefully and thoughtfully. I'll leave it for another editor to deal with if they wish to do so. If not, it will stand. If someone does, it is a further, third opinion.. Donner60 (talk) 06:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Donner60. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 05:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

new south

Could you explain to my why you flagged my edit to The New South article as vandalism? I'm not trying to be a pain but I actually don't understand since all I did was change the picture, so if you could just let me know that would be awesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.172.183 (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I made a mistake. I saw the change in the picture and the insertion of a name and initial and thought it had been tampered with. However, now that I click on the links, I see that the bottom line is the same. Sorry, I should have looked more closely and not made an assumption based on the change in the file name. I have undone my reversion so your edit is back as you intended. I also deleted the message on your talk page. Thanks for your courtesy and your contribution. Donner60 (talk) 07:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

FAU

I appreciate your editing the FAU page. Your actions restored a neutral tone to the article, but now the article is incomplete in that it fails to address the controversy surrounding FAU's naming its stadium. While it makes sense to edit out my comments (I know they were inflammatory and had absolutely no intention of posting them), if you get the chance I'd strongly encourage you to research this issue. You seem to have an interest in making sure that Wikipedia operates smoothly; since you also portray yourself as an authority on the proper dissemination of information, perhaps you should research and present your own information on the issue, rather than just working to suppress other people's voices.

There's a lot of information out there! Let's work to make it available to people, rather than just deleting things we find unpalatable. To destroy information and to inhibit the production of meaningful discourse on a topic is to betray your own ideological persuasion, and Wikipedia editors are supposed to maintain neutrality.

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/02/173293418/florida-atlantic-donation-sparks-outrage-but-university-doesnt-budge http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/27/florida-atlantic-university-geo-group-fau_n_2774100.html http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/business/fau-flap-a-little-surprising-to-geo-chair/nWfWx/ http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/2/21/4011532/geo-group-fau-football-stadium-name http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=7767347-176828-264166&type=sect&dcn=0000950123-11-020922

Above are some links posted for you. As a student at the University, I admit that I can in no way view the issue objectively. But since you are so vigilant in your editing of other people's posts, and since you are so capable of discerning and delineating what counts as neutral, you seem like the perfect person to write the section on this issue.

Don't let the Wikipedia community down!

I have posted the following paragraphs on your user talk page. I see you have added to your comments. I applaud your acknowledgement of your interest in the subject. However, I must decline your suggestion that I write the article for you. I have many other things to work on as a volunteer for Wikipedia and otherwise. If you feel that you cannot do it yourself - and frankly your straightforward approach leads me to think you could if you put your mind to it - perhaps you can persuade someone who knows a little about the controversy but can maintain a composed way of stating it to take a crack at it. My earlier comment:

I have no point of view on this at all. You acknowledge that your edit was inflammatory and point of view. If there is a controversy, go ahead and describe it in matter of fact neutral terms with a citation or citations to one or more reliable, verifiable sources. Neither I nor any other regular editor has an interest in keeping out legitimate information but stating points in all capital letters and argumentative language doesn't work for an encyclopedic work.

Please note the following from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion

"WP:SOAP" redirects here. For the Soap Operas WikiProject, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:

1. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.

2. Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles.

Donner60 (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Donner60, I sincerely apologize that you had to clean up the effects of what was essentially just a bad mood on my part. And I very much hope that there are no hard feelings between us; you are a competent and hard-working editor from what I can tell and don't deserve snark from people like me. Sorry again! I should have thought much more carefully before posting any of this, but I hope you can forgive my oversight. I will certainly put in the requisite time to research write the article myself. Please know that any rudeness on my part was misdirected and uncalled for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.230.0 (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I don't consider your messages to be rude at all. I do sympathize with your thought because if you are like me, and I think like most people, you have probably unintentionally offended someone when they took something you wrote the wrong way. When people can not see your face or hear your tone of voice, all they can do is interpret the words - sometimes not really as intended. I usually have concern for that which often leads me to be overly wordy and explanatory. I think your suggestion was in good faith and if we were looking at rewording a sentence or two or adding a proper source, I would be glad to give it a try. Here, you have a longer, more involved and controversial subject that I would have to get up to speed on - and also to be sure I did not state it in a non-neutral way. I think someone who is familiar with it, even with a point of view, can present it just as well or better. I make mistakes as well. I hope not to make too many and to get them corrected promptly when I do. Good luck. Donner60 (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Pokémon (anime)

Were you seriously treating this as an edit done in good faith?—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I was going to post this on your page to be sure you got the message but that is all I left there because you prefer the threads all on the same page. I must say I don't understand your question. I reverted the previous edit because it removed links. Perhaps I did not understand it correctly but it appeared that either rendering might be correct so it seemed to me that the one that kept the links would be better. I put this in the edit summary, which I think was clear enough and can only be so long. Rather than make a puzzle of it, why not just say whether I was wrong and why - which I gather is what you think. You were not the original author of the change so it seems your interest is as someone who knows more about the subject. So it seems you may know more about this and may have a good reason to take another approach. If so, fine, I will yield to any change you wish to make to make it right. It seemed to me that removing links in order to put in an alternate spelling should not be preferred but if there is more to it and I got it wrong, go ahead and make it right. In fact, that would seem to be the simplest way to approach it without further discussion. Donner60 (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

And of course, the change was also inconsistent with the title - an important point that I probably should have made in the summary and noted in my comment here. I am not trying to be snarky in any way. I was doing a recent changes patrol; this looked wrong and not preferred; I saw the alternate spelling somewhere in doing a quick check so I thought the person might have a thing for an alternate spelling that might be correct, so the way I approached it - as an unconstructive change and not as an expert in the area - seemed right. Donner60 (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

An IP vandal changed "Pokemon" to "Pedomon" and you just let it pass as a mistake by a new editor. That is what is confusing me. I would hope that in the future you recognize blatant vandalism for what it is.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I usually do as I will further note. I hope that you can credit me for at least getting the result right and correcting the text - I was initially afraid you were saying I got the substance of it wrong. I wrote the rest of this while you were adding your comment and perhaps I could have cut it. It may be a little wordy but it makes the point I just made a little better so I hope you will excuse if I just leave most of the comment. I am about to sign off and have a busy schedule later today and probably tomorrow as it is shaping up.

I can't cite chapter and verse but I am sure I saw the alternate spelling somewhere in the article, or another article or in one of the sources - just on a brief look which I guess must have been wrong or misinterpreted. So I think that confused me a little on the intent, but not enough to think the change should stand. I did think I should revert the change as unconstructive. So the bottom line seems to be that I got the revert right but did not recognize that the IP user's intent was bad or perhaps to put it another way, that he or she was a vandal. I am usually not shy about tagging vandalism, although on a few (recent) occasions I have had complaints about that being too harsh or even wrong. I actually do not believe in coddling vandals when the vandalism is obvious, which it usually is. (I am not an expert in this field, obviously, and this was a little more subtle than some instances, in my view.) I have seen quite a few instances where I thought notices, even first ones, were a bit soft. So I am glad the result was right even if I did not recognize the intent to be as bad as it apparently was. My main interest was to get the text right and I think that was accomplished. If I had fully recognized the vandalism, or been a little less hesitant at that particular time, I would have noted it. You may have noticed that I did not go so far in the other direction as to use the good faith reversion template. I assume I would not have much occasion to ask but I hope that since you are an expert in this area, you will be open to a question if I see something suspicious in an article in this field but am hesitant about how to interpret it. Another reason I won't have much occasion to ask is that recent changes patrol is a somewhat thankless, though necessary, job where a few mistakes are bound to happen - and to be called out and criticized, even if one is willing to correct them and even apologize if necessary. I do intend to cut back on it in the next month or too, if not cut it out altogether, and go back to content creation and editing, and watching some articles only in my areas of interest. I may have had enough experience in the area - and there does seem to be a number of people willing to work diligently on this type of review most of the time. Donner60 (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I should perhaps apologize for my tone. Your action was correct in the end but the means by which you treated were not up to par. In the future, take a slightly closer look at the edit to see if it was done in good faith or not.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Taking a quick look in I saw your further note. No problem. I appreciate your concern for the project and the area you spend so much time on. Vandals irritate me as well, or I would not have spent most of my wikipedia time in the last five months on recent changes patrol. If I see it that way, and I usually do, you can be sure I will call it that way. (I do want to do more on content creation and editing but probably won't give up recent changes patrol altogether, at least for the time being.) Donner60 (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC) 18:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

John Smith (explorer)

I agree with you - I cannot find any information or credible source which names John Smith's siblings. There were at least two John Smith's at Plymouth (not related). Mugginsx (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be reverted. It looks like the type of insidious vandalism that the essays warn against as the worst kind. That is, it looks like it may be credible so editors are reluctant to revert it, as I was, even though it is suspicious to someone with some familiarity with the subject. It might take a good amount of research to come to a firm conclusion that it is wrong. The names sound perhaps right, one or two perhaps a bit off for the time. At least I tagged it for a citation needed; but perhaps with a closer look, it should be reverted with a note that it should only be added if there is a reliable, verifiable source. Donner60 (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I reverted it. I looked here: http://www.americanancestors.org/.../PDF_Archive/smith_john.pdf and here: http://www.americanancestors.org/pilgrim-families-john-smith/ as well as mayflower.com and it is in none of those references. Mugginsx (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)