This user has autopatrolled rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Donner60

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Friendly talk page watchers are appreciated. They may respond to questions on or edits to this page, especially when I am unable to respond quickly or when an additional response to an edit, question or comment would be helpful.

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)


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

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[edit]

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

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

Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes. • Wikipedia:Vandalism. References to Wikipedia policies, guidelines, instructions, include:
Wikipedia:Manual of Style. • 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:Manual of Style/Words to watch. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Relative time references. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Puffery. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Editorializing. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articlesWikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. • Wikipedia:Handling trivia. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context.

• 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[edit]

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)

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)

Disambiguation link and bracket bot notifications[edit]

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)

HI01 Congressional race and candidate pages[edit]

Hi Donner60, I noticed your edits on Donna Kim wiki and attempted to revert the entry back to your copy of it. The user Progresshawaii (user account created July 1 2018) added negative content to both the Kim and Ing wiki and I attempted to roll both back, as the timing is very suspect. Is there a way to temp freeze the HI01 congressional candidates wiki pages? Am concerned that they are being manipulated for political purposes. Thanks for your diligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

A quick reply now. As of the time of this writing, your edit to the Kim article is intact. Your concern seems justified, at least that was how I saw it. I am not an administrator so I cannot place a page under protection. A request to Wikipedia:Request for page protection will probably be the only way to handle this, but I will consider whether any other reports or actions could be appropriate. I need to consider how to word a request if I am to make it. There does seem to be a conflict of interest here in addition to biased, and apparently in part erroneous, editing. Although it might be frustrating, it also might be necessary to wait to see if there is another instance of the biased editing in order to make a convincing argument for page protection. I will consider that.
I think that even though you are editing through an IP address and not a registered account that you could make a request for page protection. I think it would be better to have an account name even if it is not required. Also, the instructions and formatting need to be followed carefully. Needless to say, I am not online most of the time so I can only look at the article from time to time.
I will write a further reply after I look into this more. In the meantime, if you have a further comment or if you seen another instance of such editing of the articles, please let me know so I can take it into account. Donner60 (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Donna Mercado Kim and Kaniela Ing articles unchanged to this time. So still no need for fast action. Donner60 ([[User

talk:Donner60#top|talk]]) 01:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for following up. In discussion with MPS1992 about 'controversy' sections, in general. There are 6 HI01 candidates, and 3 of 6 have had 'controversy' section in their respective Wiki. It seems like bad idea to include this section in BLP. Appreciate your input 06:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC) Santiago — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiago terrain (talkcontribs)
I agree and have removed most of the controversy sections as to Chin. This seems only fair since Ing and Mercado are attacking him and the controversy sections of their articles written by political opponents, and apparently biased and undue weight and not really proven, have been removed. They have stayed that way for several days. I am leaving part of the Anti-Gay Speech and Conversion Therapy section. This part is the admitted, though quite old, part of the allegation and reply and recent actions, so it is not necessarily now unbalanced. I cannot judge whether it too should be removed because Chin seems to admit it but says he has changed his opinions and points to more recent actions. That seems fair but probably it should be removed as using Wikipedia as a soapbox or political debate forum. Certainly the part that I removed where Ing in effect calls Chin a liar, and their argument, does not belong. But I think someone else should weigh in on removing the remaining text. Wikipedia certainly should not be used for political campaigning, argument and unproven and possibly untrue allegations meant to influence elections. Unfortunately, I think some of that type of thing gets into articles. Maybe a proven charge before a neutral court or commission could remain. But this Hawaii race seems to be especially dirty with charges back and forth and no real proof. Wikipedia is not a forum or a soapbox so these unverified charges should be removed under my reading of the guidelines. I lean toward removing the rest of the section under these principles and because the controversies in this race have been mostly eliminated from articles, but I must admit to having a little doubt. Maybe someone else who could review or has reviewed the articles can follow this logic to a conclusion. Please note that although I am a reviewer I am not an administrator. By the way, is there anything else of the same nature in any other articles about this race or were the Kim, Ing and Chin articles the only ones involved? Donner60 (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Wow, you set a high bar on reviewing, thanks for integrity. I am new to edit and review, but think it's more important than ever to have Wikipedia as neutral, impartial platform.

The Hawaii politics are especially layered, and like you said: dirty. There's so much backstory, but in short, the usual issues and players in D vs R are all within the D party here. Power brokers and old players move the political levers deftly on Oahu and there is very little journalistic integrity to check. Not sure that part is nefarious, more likely it is a reflection of absence of that industry here.

This year things are especially interesting with 6 viable D candidates, including one former R (Beth Fukomoto) who will draw the Republican vote that is usually not in play for D candidates... Consider the influences of tourism, military, high homeless, health disparities, origins of statehood, Hawaiian language ban, fruit plantation culture, and the Big 5 'original founding families' -- just to name some, but far from all. The primary election Aug 10 is the 'real election' here since whoever wins the Dem primary will win the general election in November.

The other candidates in the race, Ed Case and Beth Fukomoto, have been unscathed as far as I can tell on Wiki. There is a 6th contender, Ernie Martin, but I don't think he has a wiki. There are a lot of red flags in the edit histories of all the candidates, and again I'm new to all this, but already I noticed too much overlap to dismiss.

Feeling the need to cite sources here, but hope you don't mind extemporaneous, free flow talk. Have to run... but thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiago terrain (talkcontribs) 23:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the further information. Glad to hear that this seems to have been the extent of the disruptive, partisan editing. With any luck, there will not be any more. I was somewhat surprised, though I should not have been, that this is all taking place between Democratic Party candidates. I realize from your comments that they are far apart in their views, however. Also in their ambition, apparently. Donner60 (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Aloha. I am in over my head with the Ing page. The other candidate pages i.e. Donna Mercado Kim and Beth Fukomoto seem to be resilient to the re-adding of the controversy sections, but multiple editors keep adding 'controversy' to Ing. I don't want to add 'controversy' to the other Wikis and I don't want to keep un-doing the additions to Ing. I have added talk to user JC7V7DC5768 discussing as much, but am unsure how to address it each time it comes up. Perhaps a workaround would be a separate Wikipedia article HI01 2018 election? Santiago terrain (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Santiago
@Santiago terrain: The other user has replied to you that he/she will not object to the removal of the section following your comments on the user talk page. It would certainly be the easiest course to remove that section, pointing out in the edit summary that the existence of this material, since Ing is not charged with violations, may compromise the neutral point of view of the subject in an election where other candidates' controversy sections have been removed from their articles. If that is too long and you cannot shorten it, you could summarize and point to the article talk page where the more complete explanation is placed.
This comes from your very research on Wikipedia policy which you put on the user's talk page. If this does not work, maybe something else can be considered.
The neutral point of view template reasoning is the best here because whoever wrote the section seems to have tried to make it more palatable by pointing out that Ing has not been fined or charged with any violations. This makes it a little harder to claim that it is overtly biased or in error.
A page protection request might be possible, but this is perhaps a closer case and might depend on whether the administrator who handles it accepts the neutral point of view argument under the circumstances or thinks the addition is not biased or erroneous or may be of trivial significance as written - which would not seem to be a good conclusion. I think it would be worthwhile to try to handle this as suggested and not escalate it to the point that others need to get involved. It may still be controllable. Of course, the problem essentially goes away on August 10.
I think the existence of this section in the Ing article and the absence of such sections in the others does raise a question of neutrality when it is remembered that these are candidates for election and competing interests seem to be responsible for these edits. I am not an administrator, as you know, so I can only make suggestions and the same type of edits or deletions that you can make, not decisions.
I see that my edits to Kim were undone and then put back in, which may be a good sign with respect to possible additional changes to the Ing article by other users. Donner60 (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again for your sage advice and input. I'm really glad to see the Ing article is now protected. It was mentally exhausting to keep up with the tit-for-tat, even if I wasn't actively editing, I was still monitoring and ringing hands. Biographies of living persons are repositories or accounts of someone's life, not really appropriate place for 'news' IMO, whether it is Ing or the others. It is increasingly difficult to sift through news stories and even vet sources and reports, etc. -- news is better suited elsewhere, let people dish it out on another forum. There are plenty of BLP wiki of very controversial people that do not include a 'controversy' or news sections, HI01 candidates aside. Just seems like slippery slope to include, in general. Mahalo Santiago terrain (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
@Santiago terrain:. Thanks but I don't deserve any credit for the protection. I was unaware of an arbitration decision that would have resulted in a page protection if this had been reported under the circumstances. The caution that I suggested which might have applied under normal circumstances could have been bypassed here, at least after the disparate treatment became obvious. Someone was aware of it, however, and reported it for protection. (Perhaps it was even you as it turned out?) In any event, you have done a good job in keeping on top of this and in making the effort to be sure that all these candidates are being treated consistently. I am surprised the protection is a period of one year but that may have to do with the arbitration decision, which applies generally to articles about living politicians, not just in this case. Still, anyone with 500 confirmed edits can still edit the article. I am not sure if there are other conditions for extended confirmed users, such as not having recent blocks, because I have not seen this come up while I was editing. Donner60 (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Not true.[edit]

VeggieTales is not cancelled. That's not true! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

What is your source or is this just your wishful thinking? Donner60 (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

ACW Barnstar.png The American Civil War Barnstar
For longstanding high-quality contributions to the improvement and expansion of American Civil War articles. ...GELongstreet (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@GELongstreet: Wow! Thank you. I think this is quite an honor coming from someone with such a great record of consistent, high-quality contributions to such articles. Not only do you make the substantive contributions but you are tireless in noticing and fixing the errors and omissions, including formatting, that many would not catch. Also, you keep an eye out for vandalism and other disruptions. This is a morale boost and an encouragement. Thanks again. I look forward to working with and communicating with you in the future. Donner60 (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Overseas animation for Warner Bros. Animation[edit]

What's the big deal about? I have a clear evidence about Kangaroo Jack: G'Day U.S.A.! (2004), a traditional (hand-drawn) animated sequel to the live-action film Kangaroo Jack (2003). Although both Australia and Las Vegas may be example settings for this movie, I believe there is no Australian studio or company as the sequel's production involvement, compliments of Warner Bros. and Castle Rock Entertainment. According to the closing credits, it notes that the animation was done overseas at Startburst Animation, a defunct South Korean studio. Also, when I was watching Batman: Under the Red Hood (2010), I learn from the credits that it was animated by the Answer Studio — a Japanese animation studio — who is responsible for its work on Ciro Nieli's Super Robot Monkey Team Hyperforce Go!. Every detail of these two movies on this Wikipedia are mistaken, and the current edit changes must be undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I left this message on your talk page: Your explanation convinces me that either the source I looked at was incomplete or I did not see the information. Sorry for the inconvenience. Note to anyone looking at this page. I have struck the above messages because I am now convinced they were in error. Please disregard them for any purpose. I left an additional message suggesting an explanation in the edit summary or on the talk page (referred to in the summary) if too long when reverting my reverts. Donner60 (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I accept your apology for the mistakes we're both involved in. At least, when you watch any television program or film that Warner Bros. Animation has produced, you should search the closing credits for which international studio or company that did the animation overseas; especially different animation studios found in Asia, and the names of their animators. For another example, TMS Entertainment (formerly called Tokyo Movie Shinsha) animates the opening sequences for Tiny Toon Adventures and Batman: The Animated Series, as well as their episodes. Additionally, after pre-production, all of Hanna-Barbera's TV shows and movies were outsourced to all other active or defunct Asian animation studios including Taiwan's Wang Film Productions, Australia's Mr. Big Cartoons and the Philippines's Fil-Cartoons, as well as Japan's Mook Animation, Toei Animation and even Tama Production — the studio behind the animation for several episodes from the first season of The Pirates of Dark Water. We also want to identify these Asian studios who did the overseas animation work on other projects from many Western studios including The Walt Disney Company, Warner Bros., Universal Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Paramount Pictures and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed (and civil) explanations. If everyone proceeded in that fashion, many disagreements on Wikipedia could be avoided or at least resolved to a satisfactory conclusion. I also note that some of the original studios are defunct or had a change of name. This could make it more difficult to identify and credit the proper studios. Donner60 (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Cop Killer (song)[edit]

Hi, I'm not sure how to comment properly on your talk page so I've just put it at the bottom. I edited the Cop Killer (Song) page by adding the word "abusive" before the word "police officers" in the sentence 'Ice-T encountered controversy over his track "Cop Killer," which was alleged to glamorize killing police officers.' My source is the first sentence of the lyrics and the fact that none of the proceeding lyrics contradict the angle that Ice T is referring to abusive police officers and not all police officers. I'm not insisting on keeping my edit because the sentence in question is clearly only mentioning the allegation and not describing the song itself.

I struck my original message on your talk page, added a comment/suggestion and some helpful Wikipedia guideline and policy page links. Donner60 (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Huggle message[edit]

Hello. I just want to let you know that in the coming version of Huggle (3.4.5), there will be a new feature of editing pages directly inside Huggle using an edit form. The edit form functions same as the web one. The default shortcut for this is E and the shortcut for "Edit page in browser" (which previously was E) has changed to Alt+E. If you want more non-automated edits or you prefer editing pages in the browser, you can swap the shortcuts of the above. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or Petrb. Thank you. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 01:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day[edit]

Edit day.svg Happy First Edit Day, Donner60, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Kpgjhpjm 03:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks! I always appreciate your thoughtfulness. I even have a smile when I see a comment by you, such as at RfA. Not only are you a great contributor to the project, but Chief Morale Official - even if I don't have any authority to appoint you. Donner60 (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


See this blog from 2013 for a lively discussion of SD-WAN which pre-dates the origin claim made in the sd-wan page: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I have commented on this and left guideline and policy page links on adding or linking sources on your talk page while you were leaving this comment. Donner60 (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Casper van Dien[edit]

Casper van Dien remarried in June of 2018. My edit was removed. The marriage is featured on the Instagram pages of both van dien, & his new wife, Jennifer Wenger. I’m not sure how to post social media account app links, & I didn’t see any articles about their marriage. Jjllmont (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I left information and links to helpful Wikipedia guideline and policy pages on your talk page. I hope that will be a satisfactory reply. Donner60 (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Bill Browder revert[edit]

Although I agree that the revert about Bill Browder being the grandson of the Chairman of the Communist Party USA,, you made should have occured, but reversion for different reasons, the information you reverted is sourced in the wikipedia page under the Family Background section. My reasoning for the revert would have been that that statement was best suited in the Family Background section. P37307 (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@P37307: I agree. I should have checked further in the article - usually unnecessary but advisable when the edit is not poorly written or clearly wrong on its face. Thanks for the heads up. I am glad the result would be the same. Donner60 (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Religion in Russia[edit]

Okay, you are right. I not intended to be partial, what do you think replace 'nonsensical attitude' by somethink like this: 'It may seems to be a contradiction, a ban of the actitivities of Jehovah's Witnesses as news reports in' — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I answered with a suggestion on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Decision tree learning[edit]

The initial removal of "Decision Streams" was indeed explained (it refers to a recently published paper with zero citations). However, the article was once again reverted to an older state with "Decision Streams" included, which I just undid. BustYourMyth (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Steve King[edit]

Hi, Donner60. Thank you for the feedback, and I agree that Wikipedia should absolutely strive for factual accuracy and neutrality. The disputed passage is a neutral statement of fact, clearly reflected in the plain English meaning of Steve King's numerous public comments and, furthermore, highlighting a political position by which King is best known to the American public. I'm sure that this discussion will play out further on the article talk page. Hoggsbison47 (talk) 04:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Santiago Maldonado article[edit]

Hi, I did the last edit (it seems I wasn't logged cause it appears just mi ip?),; it did had a source; is an article from the CELS, ( I just copied the info and source of the spanish article.


Agustin6 (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Donner60 (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


I hear that Kidyamaka is seeing a girl in Texastamika tellez. It’s all over Instagram UserLAC2314779 (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Instagram is not a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, especially the section "Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site." Also see Wikipedia:Verifiability Donner60 (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for the feedback and removing the content as it lacked the citation in the world of fake news.

In relation to Nargis's real cause of death being UTI following are the sources

Following are the sources 1) 2) 3)

Are they acceptable? If yes, I will go ahead and re-instate the fact or leave it as it for people to believe what they had always believed. No harm done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silveryline (talkcontribs) 04:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page that I think you should use the second two. Donner60 (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

New Friend[edit]

Thank you by helping me be gooder Wikipedia editor. I want get better, make readers very much smart. I see your page and how hard you work and think we get along nice. You looking for new friend? You come me casa! We play counting game and eat tasty stew. See you soon, new friend! Senorpedia (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, "You come me casa" confirms for me that Senorpedia was a troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson:. Thanks. The message is rather suspicious. Donner60 (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Your reversal to my edit[edit]

Scott Taylor is known as "fuck man" on this radio program. I'm not trying to vandalize Wikipedia or act like a comedian.

I will accept your explanation because I suppose something like this is possible. I struck the original message on your talk page. However, I think it would be better to cite a source if you can; otherwise others may question the edit or think it is a joke or vandalism. Donner60 (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Your reversal to my edit[edit]

Mount Litera Zee School has been awarded as best school in India by Green school Awards and By Brainfeed Magazine... The awards is presented by Cabinet Minister of India. and Brain Feed award was presented by Kiran Bedi First Women Police Officer of India now Member of Parliament

The website link is here — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add it to the article with the edit. I struck the original message on your talk page and included helpful Wikipedia guideline and policy page links. I highlighted the links to citing sources and help (with) footnotes. Donner60 (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Ron Hevener[edit]

Mr. Hevener is a controversial author and you are publishing commentary and links to stories that were not accurately researched. This could result in readers assaulting Mr. Hevener and causing him harm or personal injury in other ways. That is far from neutral reporting. Mr. Hevener was not present at the trial and was never sentenced. Your article makes it appear that Mr. Hevener didn't take this matter seriously and that is not true. The links you are connecting to don't mention the fact that no authorities ever seized any animals from Mr. Hevener's personal care at home -- and they never questioned or doubted his treatment of the pets he cared for himself. What you are reporting and linking to is no more than copying and pasting information that is biased and could be interpreted as self-serving. By publishing the information I (and others) believe should be deleted, you are leading the public to believe that Mr. Hevener harmed animals intentionally -- at a property he did not even own or live at. You may be linking to stories that hit the news, but you are publishing material that is inaccurate, one-sided, and it is not balanced. Mentioning a person's legal matters, and linking to sources that are not completely truthful, can be actions that harm someone's reputation and personal safety. Is that the kind of reputation Wikipedia wants to have? Please remove your biased information regarding Mr. Hevener's personal legal matters, especially when he is considering legal action of his own.

Adelia Audi 23:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)Adelia Audi (talk)

I have replied on your talk page. In summary, while I will not revert your edit further, I will not restore the previous text myself and I cannot speak for other editors. I am not an administrator and this is not the noticeboard so no final resolution can be made if this continues to be controversial and is considered questionable by other editors. You seem to have an argument which may be good enough under Wikipedia guidelines about living persons biographies which is why it suggests to me that I should exercise discretion and not continue with editing this article. I note that your assertion that the news articles are inaccurate are based on their incompleteness and not on public facts. So I think you should take this to the noticeboard for a more conclusive resolution. I also strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:No legal threats. Donner60 (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Aurora Memorial[edit]

Thanks for your attention to my addition. I hit publish before finishing the edit and adding the cite. Should be acceptable now.

Thanks. I struck the first message on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

You mentioned me on a talk page.[edit]

You talked about me on an IP users talk page, and you said I reverted one of your edits or something. But in doing that it did something else. What exactly happen? Lakeside Out!-LakesideMinersClick Here To Talk To Me! 14:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. In short, your edit caused me to re-examine whether the user was clueless rather than disruptive and had some support later in that article and a few others. Other users came in to note that they considered the edits disruptive and that Cluebot had reverted an edit and reported the user (no later block, however). You were not really involved other than triggering my further look. I only mentioned that because I had made a comment on your talk page about the revert. The matter seems to have been concluded. Donner60 (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


"Your recent edit to Christianity seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now." How so? The content should have been under criticism. "Christianity's limited tolerance of Jews was not new" - Is this neutral? The content is also not consistent with the historical context of the previous subsection, which is why I removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiGuide (talkcontribs) 04:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

It appeared to me that it was a sourced statement, appropriate for the time period being discussed at that point in the article (Middle Ages). However, your comment prompts me to consider that it may not be appropriate for the context of the article as a whole and certainly not for Christianity as a whole over its entire existence, which is perhaps being unfairly implied. Whether this should be handled by complete deletion or rewriting could be considered. However, given that this is a legitimate subject of disagreement and a matter of context, and that your comment raises legitimate grounds for different interpretations, I will not edit the article further (except if I see vandalism to the article at a later time, of course). Donner60 (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Red-Eyed tree frog edit[edit]

Hi donner, I saw you removed my edit on the Agalychnis Callidryas wiki page. I feel that you removing my edit was very unnecessary. I added helpful content so readers would be able to get a more detailed description of that species. I have studied frogs for over 9 years and I know what I am talking about.


IWik1029384756 IWik102934756 (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Please verify the information. Also-I can fix the repetition issue :)


IWik102934756 (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. As someone who is changing the article, it is up to you to add the information (source). Donner60 (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh! (I'm new so that was my first edit) how do I put source? Also I just saw the repetition issue.

IWik102934756 (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Added to my last message on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
For the record, the user put the source in the article, for which I thanked him for his good work. Donner60 (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Sushmita Banerjee[edit]

You are wrong that Sushmita Banerjee is a living person. She is dead. Let me restore my edit.

Your edit was completely unreferenced and full of neutral point of view issues. Not gonna happen ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Oshwah: Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Donner60 - You got it. I got your back ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Pershing High School[edit]

Thanks for fixing my botched link and for finding the ref. Meters (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Meters: No problem. I happened to be looking at that at about the same time because at least one of the additions looked right and I suspected the others were without articles and unsourced. I found the right link at about the same time. I have been helped out many times by editors, including you, to get the correct edit. If I can help complete a revision on occasion I appreciate the chance to help. Donner60 (talk) 03:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Donner60[edit]

I am new to wikipedia and I am unsure of how to use it. I recently made an edit to the page "Recrystallization (chemistry)" and I did not mean for it to get added to that particular page...I deleted the edit, but now it looks very confusing and there are so many unnecessary edits that don't belong on that page...are you able to remove my edits from that page? Clairemchem (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Noted on your talk page that I am having keyboard problems and will get back to you soon. Donner60 (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Answered on your talk page. In short, original text seems to have been restored so I see no issue. Donner60 (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to summarize an article I read and make a new page under that category but i realized you cant do that afterwards but somehow when I was in edit mode it copied the original article, which isnt my work and it posted it. I quickly deleted it because i dont want to copyright anyones work and also because the information isnt relevant to that page. I know the article is in its orginal conditon but i was wondering if you would be able to delete the edit history of the adding/removing content just so i dont confuse anyone if they look in the history. Clairemchem (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I also dont want to make it look like im trying to take credit for someone elses work, so if you could just delete those edits from the history so i can start fresh that would be very helpful. Thank you. Clairemchem (talk) 03:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not an administrator; only administrators can delete edit history. But I am quite sure they will not do that for what amounts to a mistake. It is clear that you had second thoughts and deleted the text. That shows your good faith. I would not worry that it looks bad. It was fixed by you, that is all that counts. As long as your further edits to the page are good ones, no one cares about the old ones. And only a few people who are interested in the article are even likely to look at the history and they won't be looking for an addition which was retracted by the person who wrote it without anything else intervening. Donner60 (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Donner60[edit]

hey Donner,

i just noticed your comments on my edits on Gnash, Olivia and Eden.

i didn't realize that each change needed a citation. i have only revised one thing because i found the citation as of now. i hope that is ok.

i am still learning to use wiki but i am enjoying the program. i am sorry if i was being problematic. i just want to be involved.

i have been learning by making mistakes. maybe you could help me learn more about this program?

again, i sincerely apologize. Liora

No problem. You were in good faith and could not have known about the two different issues: claims of relationship of living persons (citations); apparent contradiction of Eden edit with a quote from him about his childhood in London. I struck the original messages on your talk page and expanded a bit on the reasons. Donner60 (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Donner its me again[edit]

thanks so much for striking the notices, its my bad i should've done more research but i find the whole online encyclopedia thing to be a bit much, even for a computer nerd such as myself haha.

i am trying to add a photo to a new article ive written for a singer ive seen who's music i enjoy and who's gaining some notoriety recently but im having trouble. originally the issue was that the photo was all rights reserved, but then i spoke with her on her facebook page and she said she would change that (and also how excited she was that i was making her a wiki page lol) she wrote underneath it creative commons 2014 license with an HTML link and i re-uploaded, thinking in good faith that now it was not a violation of wikipedias policies as she had applied for a creative commons license using the link i sent her that i found on wiki itself.

what am i doing wrong? i am so confused.

im asking you because you seem super kind and generous and genuinely interested in helping others and so i feel you will be the biggest help to me

sorry that im babbling. just need some help navigating this site.

thanks again, Liora

Have you tried Wikipedia:Upload wizard? From your message, my guess would be that you need to show that the copyright has been released, in whole or for your upload. You will probably need to be able to cite some public source (Facebook or something showing the creative commons license or whatever - though Facebook is not considered a reliable source, something like this from a person's Facebook page might be good enough). Again, I can't be sure, but my guess is that something else needs to be cited. The upload form has a few boxes where it seems that some sort of reference can be provided. I am sorry to be a little vague but I have not used this myself and have only referred to it a few times. See also Wikipedia:Images which has links to other helpful pages such as Wikipedia:Uploading images.

Neutral point of view[edit]

I have written a few sentences about this. Some users post some comments about civility, no personal attacks, and types of comments or questions that are proper or not at the top of their user pages. That might be a good idea but since I wrote the comments mainly to record my own thoughts after current edits, I archived them. Later, I have decided to add here mostly the same thoughts: that a biased, snarky, negative opinion added into an article (especially for an obvious political POV purpose) has no place in Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia not a blog or a forum. There are plenty of those on the web to place such comments. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The fact that such an opinion is based on an opinion piece in a newspaper (regardless of which newspaper) is no support for the edit. That opinion piece is not a reliable source. See also Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility. Those pages have good advice. If you want an answer to a legitimate question, not just an argument to have an edit accepted which is against a Wikipedia policy, don't start out with unfounded accusations, threats and other incivility which shows you aren't here for a legitimate purpose and won't listen to contrary explanations in any case. This is added in the event someone is inclined to do that again and will be archived in about a month. Donner60 (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Fetal mortality[edit]

Hi Donner—this is regarding Human sex ratio. The source already linked in footnote 2 says in its abstract that "total female mortality during pregnancy exceeds total male mortality"; therefore the phrase should read "Due to higher female fetal mortality" rather than "Due to higher male fetal mortality". Thank you. (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I struck my original message on your talk page. :Thank you for your message. Please correct the article and refer to the source in your edit summary. Repeating or referring to the footnote again may be useful but is probably unnecessary. I think that in part it looked like a questionable change so just noting the source should be enough to show the edit is correct. I left some helpful Wikipedia page links on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Operation (Game)[edit]

Excuse me for the info I put in. I didn't think it was wrong or right. I'll try to keep my theories out of articles. Somari How (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

That would be best. See Wikipedia:Original research. I note that the third of your edits was the one that I found problematical and in need of a citation if it were to remain. I have left further comments and helpful Wikipedia page links on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Antonio Marziale[edit]

Good morning, I'm sorry to bother you but I saw you changed my note on this actor. He is an Italo-American, he said in an interview in the end I wanted to ask if I could use these sources on Wikipedia Italy. Your Sincerly. ThatLittleBich Thatlittlebich (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

paranormal investigations[edit]

your facts are unfair and critical of a field that you do not understand. If you do more research than please post what you have found instead of your opinion. To put it boldy you are calling all paranormal investigators "quack pots" and this is simply not true. Leave the history of paranormal investigation on the page but take down the opinion in the forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I have explained this on your talk page. I suggest that you follow my advice, including reading the various Wikipedia policy and guideline pages and adding sourced contrary text if you have any. I don't view the text as opinion, but even if it is, it is well sourced. If you remove it, it will almost certainly be restored by me or another editor.
Not that it matters, but I watched Ghost Hunters for many years, since I found the investigators likable and the content entertaining and diverting. So I think I understand the field well enough. I began to lose interest when Grant left and I don't watch much television now.
Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. See Wikipedia:Verifiability Under Wikipedia guidelines, the burden of proof in removing sourced content or in adding new content (with adequate sourcing) is on you.

Donner60 (talk) 03:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

About Ikuyo Fujita's Article[edit]

Hi. I am an original writer of this article. I noticed that people are playing with the article and I am a little annoyed by it.

The person tagged in the article seems a vandalist: I don't think that he read the articles before he put the tags since he is putting 100s of tags a day. I will talk to him to take it off.

If he is not cooperative, I will take off the tag by myself. I would appreciate if you could give me any advice.


Samuel1496 (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Samuel1496: I removed the template which I had inadvertently restored when I reverted a bad edit by the previous editor. So it was my mistake in the final analysis that the template was still on the article. I gave an explanation in the edit summary for the edit removing the template of why the three reasons no longer applied or did not apply in the first place. Then I added a null edit so I could place another edit summary noting that the user who had placed the template had removed it and I inadvertently restored it when reverting a later unconstructive edit. Thanks for bringing this to my attention so I could fix it. Donner60 (talk) 05:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Donner60. We need more good people like you in the Wikipedia community. Samuel1496 (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Bradley Roby[edit]

I am his mother and I corrected the incorrect statement that his father was not in his childhood. This is not correct. Also the legal issue you listed is not correct. The charges in Bloomington was dropped and he did not to a pretrial deversion so please remove that incorrect information. I should know because I paid for a lawyer to clear his name. Don't be so quick to believe what the media writes.

I will assume you are who you say you are although there is no way to verify that. And that is part of the problem with any edit made by an anonymous user.
The following quote from a Wikipedia guideline page 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."
Your assertion that the citations are not believable is not credible. If you have a reliable, verifiable sources, either cite them as refutation in the article or delete the content with an edit summary that it is incorrect and state that you will cite the articles on the talk page; then do so.
If you wish to make the argument further, you may be post your claim and back up on Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard or Wikipedia:Teahouse and follow the advice given by other editors there. Donner60 (talk) 02:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

LU Season IV[edit]

Well I don't know how to support my changes with a citation of something that aired less than an hour ago, but everything I wrote happened on the air tonight. Seems pretty pointless because it will be changed eventually by someone. The story's of characters on this show change week by week and many characters are being killed off or having their characters re written and names changed. This is why there is no point of logging in on Wiki, people will just scrap something you put thought into writing. Even people who work for this show and are waiting to update the characters page the day it airs get screwed over because you allow the page to keep spoilers of things that wont air till next year but not things that have already aired and need to be updated. Why?

Why? Because bogus unsourced information is put on Wikipedia every minute of every day. I cannot tell you why spoilers from episodes are in articles other than to say people interested in those articles are not monitoring them. Editors such as me monitor changes in real time and if the bot does not show us current changes, we will not see them. Under the circumstances you describe, I think your edit is reasonable and I will not revert it again, but I cannot speak for anyone else, and sources should be put in eventually to show it is not the very type of bogus information that you are concerned with. Donner60 (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank You, and I understand that is very reasonable. Yeah I can't even imagine how much can change in real time on here. Thanks Again you sound like one of the good sensible Monitors. Take Care Sir.

The Legend of the Condor Heroes[edit]

Hi, thank you for your effort in monitoring the article. I corrected a typo in the first line of this article about the author because they got his name wrong. His family name, according to his page which is also on wiki, is Cha查 not Chan陳. Please note. Thank you.

OK. I will not revert it again. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Irwin lampert[edit]

I am irwins grandson named Max and I asked everyone if I can use there name. Maxlampert022108 (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I will assume good faith and not revert your further edit even though it is still inappropriate with a public, reliable, verifiable source. That is because there is no way to verify your identity and that you have the permission, although I suspect, starting with that user name, you probably do. Even though I will leave it as is, others may revert the edit for the same reason. Donner60 (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Flat disk ?[edit]

The ancient Persians knew the earth was round ! Much reference to this , so please change it ! Psilo86 (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Please read the passage more carefully. It is not about what ancient Persians or Persian scientists or astronomers knew, it is about the Zoroastrian legend about the creation of the world. That is very different and in that context the article is correct. Donner60 (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Higher education in the United States[edit]

Seriously? ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 02:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Abelmoschus Esculentus: I did not notice that the IP made more than 2 edits. That was not the version I thought I was restoring. I think everyone makes an occasional mistake. After my edit, the IP in fact restored the version I thought I was restoring so it worked out even before I could respond. Donner60 (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok thanks for the reply. No problem with your mistake, just a reminder. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 02:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


I am the source expert from the US Air Force Weapons School. How do I source that? Hg471448hg (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Hg471448hg: Is there no mention anywhere on the internet or in any sort of publication about this? If so, please put it in with the edit. If not, even if I do not revert adding it back (which I will not, since I will assume you are in good faith), someone else may revert it since it appears suspicious (in part because it is also the name of a 2015 movie with at least some graphic content)? Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability to see why personal knowledge is not a good source for edits that may be disputed or questionable. (See also Wikipedia:Citing sources and Help:Footnotes to complete the guideline, help and policy pages on sources and citations.) Donner60 (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks For Understanding[edit]

I appreciate it. (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. It was my mistake so I was glad to fix it as best I could. Striking it shows it was my error. Deleting it would leave it unexplained in the edit history. Donner60 (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For always being right on top of the crazy amount of vandalism that constantly exists on Wikipedia. Thank you for your work! SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 23:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I left a further note on your talk page and apologize for my tardiness in thanking you. Donner60 (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


Donner, Per your message, I read the message to me 142957487 from Melcous (talk) 00:16 11 August 2018. I decided that I could not meet the two or three major requirements cited (which I had not recognized when I created this page years ago -- I am a novice at Wikipedia). So this page needs to be deleted. I found on your Deletion Policy site that "Page blanking can be performed (or reverted) by any user, but only administrators can perform deletion." So I blanked the page, and I requested that the un-needed page be deleted. I am sorry to have troubled you. Alanrprice (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)AlanAlanrprice (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I saw the blanking while looking at edits in real time. I reverted and left the message about pages that dealt with subject of page deletion so you would be able to follow the guideline procedures. Since I am not an administrator I cannot delete the page. I hope you are able to accomplish your objective, which appears to be possible under one of the guidelines. Donner60 (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

White Brazilians[edit]

The page has been vandalized. Please, could you help me restore the content to the 29th of July? Augusto Schlickmann 1993 (talk) 03:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I put this reply on your talk page: Thanks for your message. It was obvious to me that my edit was mistaken so I rolled it back. However, you asked that the text be rolled back to July 29. Are there additional errors that my rollback did not remove? I see there was a big removal of content after July 29, for example. Please reply on my talk page so I will be sure to see your reply. Donner60 (talk) 03:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The opening text, the main paragraph was vandalized during the first week of August, and the graphic box that summarizes the minority languages and religion contains crass editing errors. You can see the coding errors exposed in the page. I don't know how to revert it to the end of July when it was correct. I'm new in town Augusto Schlickmann 1993 (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I have restored the July 29 version. I have been using Twinkle, Huggle and rollback for several years and I cannot remember whether someone not using those tools can restore a previous version or not - other than to undo the last edit. You can find this out by going to the history page of the article and clicking on "prev" for the edit to be restored. You almost certainly did that to find the last clean version. If the version information at the top of the page shows [Restore this version], you can click on that. Then an edit summary box will appear where you give the reason for restoring the previous version. Click where indicated when you add the reason (such as: last clean version; later edits did not revert all vandalism) and that version will be restored. My guess is that option is available to all users but perhaps may not be obvious to new users.
Thanks for finding this. It is not always obvious that multiple vandalisms or factual errors have been inserted when they occur over several days. Donner60 (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Yep, I couldn't find the option. Probably cuz I'm a new member. Augusto Schlickmann 1993 (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey man! Thanks for the invitation

It has been vandalized again. I was going to correct the religion info box but I didn't have enough time. The American census classifies Jews and Levantine Arabs, MENA people as white, non-European but Caucasoid. I don't know why people consider it controversial. It's just a historical article and it includes Linguistics Augusto Schlickmann 1993 (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Augusto Schlickmann 1993: I tried to look at the sources but they are in Portugese and I cannot interpret them. The numbers are changed, of course but as I looked at numbers in one source, they did not add up to either the old or new numbers. That also made me question whether I am misinterpreting the sources. I think this is beyond what I can interpret and so is beyond what I should restore since I can't really point to the sources. It seemed that several edits had garbled the content before but this is now a controversy over whether a new edit is more accurate than an old one, with foreign language sources as citations. I did wonder whether different dates could account for some or all of the difference but this is just a thought.
I suggest you try to get help from someone who may understand the sources and can interpret this better. Wikipedia:WikiProject Brazil or perhaps Wikipedia:Teahouse would seem to be the best pages on which to seek help or a review of this situation. There are some other alternatives at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution but they probably are only useful after you have tried more mild terms of resolution such as working it out with the user who is posting the differing content or taking it to one of the suggested pages. Donner60 (talk) 04:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Rory234098[edit]

Guess ClueBot didn't read "only warning" in my comment... Drmies (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: No, I think that sometimes it is very mechanical. I was about to report that user because of the personal attack on my talk page plus the prior vandalisms and warnings when Someguy1221 noticed the vandalisms and blocked the user. A milestone, by the way, 800th vandalism to one of my pages. Donner60 (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Bravo! I'm sure there's a badge for that. Unfortunately. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Wright[edit]

So I just need to add a link Cade1804 (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I left this message and helpful Wikipedia policy and guideline page links on your talk page: Keep in mind that You Tube is not considered a reliable, verifiable, neutral source by Wikipedia. Here it would either by a primary source or an involved or self-published source and would not be an acceptable source. If you can find a source in a newspaper or some other neutral source, you can try to add it back but don't be surprised if it is reverted by another editor. Frankly, I think the incident is too trivial to be in a biography which is intended to cover significant events in a person's life and career. And neither Cultaholic or Adam Pacitti have a Wikipedia page so the whole thing does not seem notable. So that could be another problem. Donner60 (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


Hello. "Name" parameter of Infobox company template should be legal name, right? If you object my edit, may be the infobox should be changed to website then Ryzac, Inc. added as the owner of the website? (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The explanation of parameter I copied from Template:Infobox company: "The full, legal name of the company, correctly reproducing punctuation and abbreviations or lack thereof." (talk) 03:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Answered on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Also added that parameter "Parent" can be added to infobox.Donner60 (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, I want to ask a question. Is the article about company or website? If it is about company, then we should use Infobox company and stick to the documentation of the Infobox company (name parameter should be legal name).
For example. If the company trading name (popular name) is Kodak but the legal name is Eastman Kodak Company, the article name may be Kodak but the parameter name should stick to the infobox documentation, legal name of the company, Eastman Kodak Company.
Another extreme case, the company trading name is Gojek or GO-JEK but the legal name is PT Aplikasi Karya Anak Bangsa. The name parameter should be PT Aplikasi Karya Anak Bangsa according to the documentation.
If it is about website, then change it to Infobox website and the name parameter is not the legal name. The name parameter is the title of the website. Then Ryzac, Inc., as the owner, is added to owner parameter (company, person, alias, etc). (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I have already mentioned the ways to add Ryzac to the infobox and the article. If you wish to change the title of the article, there are procedures for that. See Wikipedia:Moving a page. If you wish to write a new article about Ryzac, you can probably do that as long as it is notable and there are other things to say about it except codeacademy and you can find a few third party sources. You can create a redirect to send people who search for Ryzac to the codeacademy article if your concern is that people will search for Ryzac instead of codeacademy. Wikipedia:Redirects.
I think you have three choices, since you are obviously in good faith and believe in your argument. 1. Follow the ways I mentioned about additions to the infobox and article. 2. Make the change you want the way you want to do it. I will not revert it. See whether another editor steps in and reverts it for basically the same reason or it remains as you changed it. Maybe your argument is acceptable for certain types of articles about companies and products. It doesn't seem we can make further progress between us. 3. Seek another opinion such as at Wikipedia:Teahouse and see whether that is a satisfactory resolution. Since I am basically withdrawing from this at this point, there is no dispute between us and other ways to resolve a dispute would not be appropriate. I can't think of another way to handle a question that is not a dispute. Third opinions are a possibility, I suppose, but I think you need a dispute to use that option. Donner60 (talk) 04:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Your recent problematic removal of Peter Mandleson from an article[edit]

Hi, please dont do that again. (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

If you can support the edit with a citation to a reliable, verifiable source, including one which describes him as the "dark lord of spin," you can include him. Otherwise, it appears you are adding negative content about a living person, even if that was not your intention. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Help:Footnotes. Donner60 (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for being naughty[edit]

I am sorry i misbehaved and said epic nae nae on the sherbrook forest page! I hoep to find forgiveness, but now i am on negative 3000 good boy points and i really need god boy points! Im sorry i wont again do it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmcinneny (talkcontribs) 02:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Fine. I hope you edit in good faith and find satisfaction from doing so. Donner60 (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


I really didn't mean to say the last i said! I need not to be forgiven as i willy say sorry with actions not words! I hope to see you when i am very good at wikipedia anfd have helped many peoples. Sincerely, User thank you for listening.

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Great job reverting vandalism here. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 03:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Abelmoschus Esculentus: Thank you. This is very meaningful to me since it comes from a great contributor, not just to vandalism reversion, but to other areas of the project, especially noting your technical skills. Donner60 (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks for your kind words. I'm not experienced as you Face-smile.svg ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 03:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

User talk:[edit]

User is attacking me in my talk page for no reason and I haven't done anything. (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

This is very odd and inappropriate. But I am not an administrator so I cannot do anything about it. I suggest you place a request for help at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Donner60 (talk) 03:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 29[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 29, June – July 2018

Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you[edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts for reverting and protecting enwiki from Vandalism PATH SLOPU (Talk) 07:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Path slopu: Thank you. This is special since it comes from a citizen of India. I am often online at times where I see disruptive edits or vandalism to articles about India. I try to revert them when I recognize them and, if necessary, when I find a source to confirm or refute them. I have been surprised at times not to be able to find a source and need to leave a suspicious edit and go on to review others. I am sure that Indians have better knowledge about such sources so I am always glad to "meet" another editor from India who works on this project. Donner60 (talk) 08:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Yeah, every barnstar you receive is special Face-wink.svg ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 08:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
@Abelmoschus Esculentus: Indeed, they are. Yours and this one amount to about 10% of mine. I did take note that you live in Hong Kong and I do think it is great to get such greetings or plaudits from citizens (or residents) of other countries. This is a worldwide project. I especially noted that Path slopu was from India because, as I am sure you know, many problematic edits are made to articles about India. Good contributors from India certainly can help the project. As can good contributors like you from anywhere. By the way, and more importantly, I am glad you are watching my talk page. The box on my user page shows 802 vandalisms to my pages so some help with that is appreciated. An administrator, Delta Quad, took pity on me a few years ago and semi-protected my user page without even a request from me but it seems necessary to leave a talk page open unless perhaps the vandals get completely nasty.
Also, some times I get some questions (or complaints) that I can not answer quickly or maybe cannot answer completely. A quicker or more complete reply from a trusted user is always good. By the way, you may have noted that it is rather late where I live so I will be signing off for awhile in a few minutes. And answering the question below later today, or tomorrow UTC.
I know there is a template for talk page watchers or stalkers, but I thought I would create my own: Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson (Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce) seemed appropriate. Donner60 (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I am currently watching about 50 user talk pages, which about 20% of them are frequently vandalised or targets of long-term abuses (such as L293D, Favonian etc), 50% of them are my "colleagues" (you know, Huggle gang or vandalism fighters) and the remaining part are my adoptees, VIPs and learners I've helped which have potential in becoming a great contributor.
I don't really reply to every thread in my watched user talk pages that has no comments, but users who are busy in real life (Oshwah) really don't check their talk page (and ofc, edit Wikipedia) that often. This is the time when I reply to threads which I think Oshwah will have the same reply too. I won't say I'm nosy, but it will definitely making him smile :) ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 09:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
@Abelmoschus Esculentus: You have great energy and are doing a great service for other editors. Oshwah is an energetic and excellent administrator. I whole-heartedly supported his RfA and he has lived up to my expectations - and has been helpful to me personally on several occasions. Again, thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi greetings, Thank you for your kind words. I will also try to prevent vandalism in India-related articles. Thank you.PATH SLOPU (Talk) 08:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
No, you cannot prevent vandalism, you can only revert them! Face-smile.svg ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 09:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Eugene Roche[edit]

Hi there I recently made a change to Eugène Roche (Actor) you removed it. I don’t know what I can send you with the exception of personal photos, proof of guardianship ? In my Aunt’s obituary, it only states that my mother was predeceased before her. Eugene raised me with my Aunt. I don’t care that it’s on there but my siblings brought it to my attention and said I should change it.

Let me know.

Thank you.

Bernadette Roche Echo0816 (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

"Names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced." Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names. Privacy and impersonation are concerns in adding names to articles. These are among the reasons for the policy on sourcing.
While you are most likely who you say you are, without a reliable, verifiable, neutral, third party, published source, there is no way to verify it. You do not need to convince me, however, and you should not provide any private, identifying information to me or by edit to a Wikipedia article. ("Public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses" should not be used as sources. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid misuse of primary sources.) You must verify to the reader that your name has a basis for being in the article. In Wikipedia's sense, material is verifiable if it can be directly supported by at least one reliable published source.
There is a source in the article for Eugene Roche's children. While it is not in an in-line citation for that point, if I click on, I can see that there is public information that Eugene Roche had nine children and what their names are. But you are not mentioned in that article or other sources that I could find about Eugene Roche. A quick internet search revealed no connection for you to Eugene Roche. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, your relationship is both private and unverified without a published source.
This policy is stated on several Wikipedia policy and guideline pages. For example, in "Wikipedia:No original research#Verifiability. "Main page: Wikipedia:Verifiability. 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."
"Wikipedia editors are not indifferent to truth, but as a collaborative project, its editors are not making judgments as to what is true and what is false, but what can be verified in a reliable source and otherwise belongs in Wikipedia." Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth#Editors are not truth finders.
I am sorry to have to tell you that I can see no way to include any mention of you in the article - unless a proper reliable, published source can later be found to support it. Donner60 (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

My removal of two words from the Ghazal part of the English article Poetry[edit]

Hi Donner,

Ghazal is not native in Turkish and Azerbaijani literature, it has only been borrowed from Persian literature; and if you insist that borrowing and using mean having it, then you should mention the literature of Central Asian countries too, which also make use of ghazal as equally, if not much more. Therefore, I wish you redo my changes. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I will not revert the changes if you restore them but I do not think I should restore them myself. I think the following would be better and more informative. Please explain the change briefly in the edit summary. I also think it would be good to mention the borrowing by others in the text or in a footnote. If I see your edit or you tell me about it, I will follow it with a null edit by me which will state that your edit is now explained.Donner60 (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Kosambi edit[edit]

Hey, you deleted an edit from the Kosambi page i just put in. I edited it to say the Alchon Huns sacked the city; i got this information from Wikipedia itself. If Wikipedia is not a sufficient source for Wikipedia, i suggest this to be a wasted exercise ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4063:2090:AAFB:F1B8:4A08:669B:D338 (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) WP:WINARS ~AE (talkcontributions) 05:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Here are some problems with your edit. You did not link to the Alchon Huns article. Your mention of this in the edit summary gives some indication where you got the information. But in fact no one is likely to see that in the edit history. They will go to the article directly or through a link to see the contents of the article. They will have no verification of the source of the statement - not even the Alchon Huns article. And, as my friendly talk page watcher mentions: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. So a link to the Alchon Huns article would have been technically insufficient. But it would have led to reliable sources without having to do further research, as I explain next.
You added no footnote to disclose a source. The Alchon Hun article cited four verifiable sources, available on the internet through the citation links, that support the edit. Two of them are rather indirect but the other two are quite specific and provide good sources. These are Geography from Ancient Indian Coins & Seals and Monuments of Hope, Gloom, and Glory in the Age of the Hunnic Wars. Indian History at least hints at the event. These citations could be copied from the Alchon Huns article and repeated as sources in footnotes in the Kosambi article, which means the Wikipedia as source issue is never raised and readers can get independent verification of the statement without having to do their own research. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide the information, not to send readers off on a search.
See Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Help:Footnotes. Donner60 (talk) 05:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
You forgot Help:Referencing for beginners ~AE (talkcontributions) 06:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Good addition to these links. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Jack Lowden Edit[edit]

You literally just deleted my edit on the Jack Lowden page without explaining a reason and it can't be that this information is inaccurate because I know it to be 100% true and I even know they are together right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParksandRec1818 (talkcontribs) 21:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

You have received another and more specific reason from another editor. I have left an explanation on your talk page on the policy concerning sources. I cannot roll back my edit under the circumstances. You can retrieve your previous edits from the edit history (view history tab). I hope the explanation and links I left on you talk page will be helpful. I only will revert your further edits if I can cite a more specific reason. But that does not mean other editors will not revert your edits and you will need to work this out further with them. Donner60 (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

ResetEra Edit[edit]

Thank you for the response. I will re-edit it and provide a source. Let me know if you have any other questions, comments or concerns. (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Mango Edit[edit]

Why do I have to provide a source for a nickname? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeetpole12 (talkcontribs) 03:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Because you have added several and you are clearly making these things up. You admit as much in your latest edit summary. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Donner60 (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The Master's University[edit]

Hi Donner60. I admit I'm a newcomer so I don't know how things generally work. I removed a section on The Master's University's page a few minutes ago. You claimed that the edit was not "neutral." To my mind, however, reporting recent negative news coverage of a fully-accredited institution of higher education seems less than neutral. The edit appeared to be in bad taste with an eye toward discrediting the institution. Not only was it placed as the first section, it was lengthier than any of the other sections on the page, greatly skewing the tone of the article. It was, admittedly, unbiased, and nothing was said that wasn't true. But is it necessary to include here? Please let me know your thoughts and reasoning. AdCaelumEo (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi AdCaelumEo! Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm happy that you're here and I hope that you enjoy your stay and that you become a long-term and experienced editor here with us! Generally, we don't want to remove content from articles if they're well referenced and we have no reason to do so. If you believe that the content is disproportional to the rest of the article, we want to fix this by expanding the other content. This will grow the encyclopedia and the project. Otherwise, removing content that shouldn't go will do the opposite of what we want to do. I don't believe that your intentions were to insert bias or non-neutral changes to the article; I think that you were trying to help but just didn't know the right way to do so. It happens; we were all new here once and we all make mistakes while we learn how things work. If you have any questions or need help with anything, please don't hesitate to message me on my user talk page here. I'll be more than happy to help you. Thanks for the message, and I wish you a great rest of your day and happy editing :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and make sure that you go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial if you haven't done so already. It provides you with walkthroughs, guides, and shows you the location of important functions on Wikipedia. It'll significantly help you with getting started and becoming familiar with everything - definitely go through it :-). Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Oshwah. I'll do that. I've added a few things to the page, since I suppose I can't take things away... Is there anything objectionable there? Thanks again! :) AdCaelumEo (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@Oshwah: Thanks. I had signed out but peaked back in and saw this. Great advice as usual. @AdCaelumEo: Oshwah is an administrator (and one of the best). He has great experience in reviewing and is helpful to anyone. I am glad he came by to give you some good advice. If you need further help, you will not find anyone better to ask. Donner60 (talk) 04:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Wonderful. I'm not sure how active I'll be here (admittedly I created the account to edit pages within my limited interests, but that could change), but it's nice to know who is who and meet new people. Be assured that I will learn the rules...if a little slowly. :) AdCaelumEo (talk) 04:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
AdCaelumEo - There's no rush that should be felt regarding the pace in which you learn and understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. We were all new here at one time - making mistakes is a normal part of learning and is completely anticipated to happen as you grow and gain experience. You're going to bump some plates off the shelf and break them on the floor, and you're going to accidentally put a few dents into that nice car parked outside - it's okay that it happens; you'll learn and grow from those mistakes :-). So long as your limited interests aren't conflicts of interest, you're obviously welcome to edit articles that you're interested in... Remember, BE BOLD! If something looks wrong or broken, fix it! If it can be better, improve it! Don't be afraid to get your hands dirty! We encourage it! I hope that you'll be an active member of our community... we need awesome people like you to come aboard and make a difference here :-). If you have questions or need anything, you know where to find me ;-). I'm happy to hear that your experience with coming aboard the project and being welcome by users is a positive one. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
HA! Me? One of the best admins? I wish... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@Oshwah: Why not? Your contributions here are great (e.g. dealing with vandalism, helping others) and you have received too many barnstars! Face-smile.svg —AE (talkcontributions) 05:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh c'mon... there are way better non-admin editors than me (I'm not implying that admins have a higher "rank" or "status" than non-admins, because they totally don't at all). Nonetheless, I enjoy what I do here, and I'm glad to hear that what I do makes at least somewhat of an impact here ;-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@Oshwah: You are correct that I should not have been the first to mention that you are an administrator in this context. That has little if anything to do with the facts that you are experienced, knowledgeable, diligent and helpful. Mentioning your knowledge and helpfulness would have been enough under the circumstances.
Any thought of administrators having any higher status than non-administrators is outside the guidelines and is not well connected to the point I was trying to make. And it is true that are many experienced non-administrators who are knowledgeable and helpful to others.
Your self-assessment is characteristically humble but I would only apply it to the obvious areas where you have little or no activity. You are among the best in the areas where I see you and in your help to others. Your energy and temperament are a significant part of that.
I am glad that you enjoy what you do here, and I am sure AE and others are as well. You help make the project better and give encouragement to others.
So do come back when you see I need help or a further comment would be useful. (As of now, I expect to be offline most or all of the middle third of September.) Donner60 (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Donner60! I appreciate your kind words very much - thank you :-). And I was just being silly above; I'm not sure what I said that made you feel that I was "being correct that you shouldn't have been the first to mention that I'm an administrator" - you can refer to me as whatever you want; I really don't care. I wasn't trying to imply that you were wrong in doing that... lol ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
@Oshwah: I thought you were being humble. I do think I saw something to that effect on a Wikipedia page somewhere but it may not have been quite that and I don't think it was a policy of any sort. I thought I might keep accuracy gnomes happy if I mentioned it. 2. I could barely type, much less spell, when I broke my ergonomic keyboard a few weeks ago. (Excuse is only good for a day or two, however.) Donner60 (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Donner60 - Your reply made me think that you might have misinterpreted something I said and thought that I was implying that you did something wrong by referring to me as an admin and it confused me. I meant "silly" as in "informal and not making any implications toward you like that" - I picked a stupid word to attempt to describe that... sorry :-). I meant everything I said in regards to how I feel about myself and the admin toolset. They're just a few extra buttons and absolutely nothing more. I gain no "status", "authority", "rank", or anything like that whatsoever with being an admin... in fact, I put myself below that of others, as it's my job to help and serve you :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
And what a bummer! Having to get used to a new keyboard (especially when you were perfect with what was your current one) can be a tad frustrating. I feel your pain... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Of course. :). Donner60 (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open[edit]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Second Epistle of John[edit]

Hi Donnor. When you read the passage it's clear that people were saying that Jesus Christ had not come at all, and that he was a myth. This makes complete sense to me, especially considering Judaism.

"In its article on the Second Epistle of John, even Wikipedia gets it right that, for some peculiar reason, the belief “that the human person of Jesus was actually pure spirit” was prevalent quite early in the history of Christianity. This sort of Gnostic lingo is a polite way of saying that early Christians perceived their savior as a non-corporeal, mystical, spiritual, allegorical and, ***ultimately, mythical figure.*** If Jesus has been a historical person and had done all manner of miracles and magic tricks widely seen “in the flesh,” there could be no logical reason for some of the earliest beliefs in him to be non-literal and spiritual."

A mythical figure is just that, a myth. The passage 'means' 'do not be persuaded by those that say he never came at all'. The Jews. In fact when I read your interpretation of it, I had a hard time understanding what your interpretation was, as the passage seems clear to me. Not come in the 'flesh' means just that...that Jesus didn't come and that he was myth.

If he was a spirit, he could still be worshipped in a way as he is now? He does not exist in flesh any more. He is alive in real spirit. If he did not come at all, he would be considered as nothing!

"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess 'not' that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

Ie: he didn't come, it was a myth. I think this makes my edit quite appropriate if not the actual interpretation.

D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I struck my first message on your talk page and have rolled back my edit to Second Epistle of John so that yours is now in the text. I completely misunderstood your edit. I thought it was meant to be what the Epistle said. Now that I have more carefully read the whole paragraph in context, I see that it was what the Epistle was trying to refute. Sorry for the mistake and the inconvenience for you of having to leave me a message. I am glad you did, so we could get this right. I also left some helpful Wikipedia guideline or policy page links on you talk page. Donner60 (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Formation of Italy[edit]

I recently edited the Italy article regarding the formation of the nation. In it, I added Ancient Rome (Kingdom, Empire, and Western Empire with dates). However, these were removed twice. I thought it was evident that Ancient Rome was important in the development of Italy, so I did not include any source, especially since no other nation article includes them in that section. The reason I made this edit was because other nations have ancient kingdoms and civilizations listed in their formation and are not removed, such as Iran, China, Japan, Greece, etc. Here is a good source: Roman Italy. I don't see why other nations are allowed to have their ancient civilizations listed, yet Italy cannot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:901:E7A0:DD4A:B31F:C02A:F1C2 (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The historic background from ancient times is in the article. It has not been excluded. You are adding entries to the infobox. Adding the Roman Empire lengthens the infobox, which is supposed to be a summary, but leaves a considerable gap between the Roman Empire and formation of the modern state, which itself has several entries. If you were to add every variation for Italy, the infobox would be as nearly as long (down the page) as the article. In some other countries, the development of the nation and its territory is much shorter and can be traced to ancient times with just a few entries. Infoboxes are supposed to be a summary and changes from the format should be discussed on the talk page or in the appropriate Wikiproject. These other countries can add a few entries and be complete and still arguably be within the guidelines
On the other hand, infoboxes have been a source of controversy and some variations apparently have been made and kept. Since you point out what you believe are apparent inconsistencies, and have reverted my edit without waiting for an answer, and due to the prior disputes over the interpretation of the infobox guidelines, I will withdraw from editing with respect to the infobox in this article, but I would not be surprised if other editors think the additions are inappropriate, and possibly incomplete, and not in line with general infobox guidelines. This should be worked out (unless your latest edit simply remains) with those who are more familiar with infobox guidelines. Donner60 (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I know the info was not excluded, but I believe it will be helpful if it was in the summary section. However, I will contact other users involved with my editing since you want to withdraw. Thank you, and my apologies for any inconvenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:901:E7A0:DD4A:B31F:C02A:F1C2 (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


yes, I should have corrected the notice, but the template generated your name, twice! as in {{subst:uw-vand1|article}} It is not doing it now. Hmains (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hmains: No problem. I did not notify you because I thought it was just a minor error of some sort and was not significant enough to bother you. It came up on my notices. When I looked at the user's talk page, I thought I should put that note on the page just in case the user thought to notify or question me about the edit - about which I would have known nothing without looking into it.
I have copied some of the templates from the Wikipedia template page into a Word document recently. Usually I just rely on the Huggle messages but occasionally I want to leave a message after a manual revert or to start a new sequence of messages if the warnings are old. Also, Huggle will sometimes give a message that all the warnings have been given and ask if one wants to give an AIV report but a look at the talk page shows the user is just off a block. Administrators will not always block for new vandalism unless some new warnings are given (or maybe if there have been several instances already). I assume you know this; I just thought I should explain why I copied some templates. I am glad it is not continuing. I hope I did not inadvertently insert my user name into the template when I was copying that one (or even others!). If so, it seems someone has fixed it. Thanks for letting me know what happened with the template. Donner60 (talk) 03:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


Hello. I want to ask you a question. What do you think the article about? If it is about software then be it. If it is about company then change the name of the article from Gusto (software) to Gusto (company).

If the article is about company then infobox company is the right option. In the documentation, name parameter is the LEGAL NAME of the company. In their website, the legal name is still ZenPayroll, Inc. not plain Gusto.

If the article is about software then we should use infobox software. The legal name of the company should be put in owner or developer parameter.

Precisely, what part of MoS did I violate? I don't know. (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

What is the rule that states "The first use of the title of an article and the title in the infobox should coincide with the article title."? I don't find any in MOS/Infobox. But I do know that name parameter of infobox company is "The full, legal name of the company, correctly reproducing punctuation and abbreviations or lack thereof." (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
My previous messages were not clear. I hope I have clarified them in a message on your talk change and that you can make the edits you wish, with perhaps a bit of a tweak. Sorry for any inconvenience. Donner60 (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced[edit]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced[edit]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.