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)
I expect to be editing sporadically and for brief periods of time until mid-February due to real life matters and research and writing for at least one new article. For the remainder of February I will be on vacation, holiday if you prefer, and offline completely Donner60 (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- 1 New messages, questions, comments: Put at very bottom of page, see text of this section
- 2 Disambiguation link and bracket bot notifications
- 3 Sally Yates
- 4 A barnstar for you!
- 5 User:JohnCD
- 6 3D Printing edit
- 7 Ban, edit reverts
- 8 You can remove comments with swearwords from a vandal?
- 9 You missed some references from Michael Ignatieff article.
- 10 Surnames
- 11 March Madness 2017
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.,
:. 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.
<small>This topic was split off from [[#FOOBAR]], above.
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, your message, question or comment should not be immediately 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. Usually I will reply on your talk page and may note 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. If you have a user name, I will try to remember to ping you if I just leave a return message here. 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)
If you put a question or comment on this page but not at 'the bottom of the page despite the above request, and can not find it, I have moved it to the bottom of the page with an appropriate heading if there was none. If your edit was disruptive, vandalism or abuse, and you do not find the edit, it is because I have deleted it. In most cases, I will also put another warning on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC) ..................….
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)
- @General Ization: I wish I could but I wonder whether that could put me at 3RR or even a charge of edit warring in this particular case - unless I am being too conservative with my count. In my opinion this is clearly point of view editing as to both the deletion of relevant sourced content and the addition of rather far-fetched editorializing content and would fall within the exception to 3RR. Nonetheless, I worry about the possibility this could be construed as a content dispute rather than simply reverting removal of sourced content. It now also includes replacement of that content with rather clear point of view edits which could strengthen the restoration of the content.
- While simply adding back the deleted content for balance might be viewed more objectively than a reversion with a futher message if this became a controversy, I am not sure the pov pushers won't cause undue edit warring drama here. I am usually willing to stand by such appraisals as disruptive editing (restoring valid content either as a reversion of a disruptive edit or for balance) but in this case it may be best not to test the threshold in case it was not viewed objectively - which seems to be your thinking as well. I think it will either have to be settled at AN3 or wait at least 24 hours or have someone else step up, I think. I'd be willing to restore it after some time has passed and 3RR would be expired on the current edits, although I hope this can be resolved before then. Donner60 (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar|
|Donner60! How are you?!! It's been awhile since we've said 'Hello'! I'm leaving you this barnstar to express my sincere appreciation for your dedication towards reverting vandalism, as well as the time you spend towards this project. Your time and experience keeping Wikipedia protected is absolutely valuable and it should not go unnoticed. Thank you. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)|
- @Oshwah: Thanks. I am always glad to hear from you. BTW, I see your administrative work almost every time I am on line and you are doing a fine job, as I was sure you would. I will be on vacation and offline for about 11 or 12 days at the end of the month, as I have already noted on the top of the page. So I will have a period of inactivity later in the month until about March 1 or 2. Donner60 (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
3D Printing edit
In my edit to 3D printing I removed a single extraneous word in the following sentence: "Objects can be of almost any shape or geometry and are produced using digital model data from a 3D model or another electronic data source such as an Additive Manufacturing File (AMF) file."
If the file is called an Additive Manufacturing File, there is no reason to call it an Additive Manufacturing File file, as this is redundant. The parenthetical (AMF) is an insertion that does not affect the grammatical structure of the sentence. Thernefore, the sentence does not need the second 'file.'
- It is apparent that I misunderstood your edit. I struck my original message on your talk page. I apologize for the error and inconvenience. Donner60 (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
why? what did I get wrong?
Ban, edit reverts
what did I get wrong? How do I get my official edits to stick
- You are adding controversial assertions without citation of a reliable, verifiable source. If the statement is "accepted" as you wrote, surely a source can be cited. I suggest you review Wikipedia policy and guideline pages before you make further edits. Helpful information about editing Wikipedia can be found on various Wikipedia guideline and policy pages that I cited on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
You can remove comments with swearwords from a vandal?
This vandal *Roy Conli and Byron Howard; He it's blocked but he made edits with aggressive language, leaving commented editions with swearwords. I would be thankful if someone can remove those comments from his edits. You can look at his contributions, if you don't mind. (Idk idk idk because idk) Thanks. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)made edits commented with aggresive language with swearwords on
- I don't see these edits. They apparently have been deleted and only are visible in the history, if at all. I am not an administrator and cannot remove edits from history. If this bothers you, even though it does not seem to be visible, you might ask for an administrator to help, probably by a post on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I do see that administrator Zzyzx11 removed the edit summaries when the vandal was blocked. So there may be nothing visible now. Donner60 (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
You missed some references from Michael Ignatieff article.
...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!... http://magyaridok.hu/belfold/magyar-tanarokat-kuldenek-el-ceu-tol-1399330/
- All in Hungarian; the question becomes: do any of these sources support the specific addition that you made, which does not include any citations or directly refer to these? Donner60 (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- The reason why I put the translator links as well. Did you read them?
- It has been more than 10 minutes and the pages still just read "translating." The easiest way to handle this would be for you to add a citation which supports your addition immediately after the sentence, even if it is repetitive. The addition appears to be controversial without a citation. If it is in Hungarian and needs to be translated, then someone else can check it if desirable. Donner60 (talk) 04:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry I was not more specific. I was referring to your edit to Loudon Wainwright III where you changed Wainwright to Loudon. I think I assumed that since this message followed close after your edit, you would know which edit prompted my comment. Donner60 (talk) 06:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
March Madness 2017
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:
- tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
- updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
- creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.