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, search

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)

Due to Real life, I may be online less often or for shorter periods of time than usual or working on less time-consuming matters for the near future. If I expect to be offline for more than 3 or 4 days, I will try to post a notice concerning the expected time away. Donner60 (talk) 06:58, 31 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]

References to Wikipedia policies, guidelines, instructions, include:
Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Wikipedia guidelines on twitter, facebook: Wikipedia:Twitter. Wikipedia guidelines, policies on external links: Wikipedia:External links. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which includes not a dictionary, a publisher of original thought, a soapbox or means of promotion, a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site, a directory, a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal, a crystal ball, a newspaper, or an indiscriminate collection of information. • Wikipedia:Verifiability. • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. • Wikipedia:No original research. • Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. • Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. • Wikipedia:Citing sources. • Wikipedia:Notability. • Wikipedia:Image use policy. • Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes. • Wikipedia:Vandalism. • Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles.

User Talk page guidelines[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Please put messages, questions or comments at the very bottom of the page'. If you put them here (immediately before or after this paragraph), as some people have done, I may either not see them or more likely not see them very promptly. That will delay any reply from me to you. To clarify, your message, question or comment should not be immediately below this message but at the very bottom of the page after every other item on the page. It will help me to understand what you are talking about to add a section heading, identify the article you are concerned with, and use a link, (if your question or comment refers to a specific article), probably putting the article name in the heading, and sign your edit with four tildes (~~~~) so I know to whom to reply. Keep an eye on this page because I may just reply here if the answer is simple and does not seem to be time sensitive. Usually I will reply on your talk page and may note that reply on this page. If you do not get a reply on your talk page, check back here. I may put brief replies here, especially if they do not seem urgent. If you have a user name, I will try to remember to ping you if I just leave a return message here. When I notice a question or comment that was not placed at the bottom of the page, I will move it to the bottom of the page and provide a heading if there is not already a heading. Donner60 (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If you put a question or comment on this page but not at 'the bottom of the page despite the above request, and can not find it, I have moved it to the bottom of the page with an appropriate heading if there was none. If your edit was disruptive, vandalism or abuse, and you do not find the edit, it is because I have deleted it. In most cases, I will also put another warning on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC) ..................….

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)

Not me[edit]

You sent me a message saying that I edited or vandalized a page called KnightOwl; however I made no such edit. This is a private computer. Is it possible someone spoofed my IP address? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I left this message on your user talk page: Yes, I believe it is possible that someone could spoof your IP number although there are a few other possibilities. What I think is more likely is that someone may have latched on to your computer or network connection while you were on line or your connection was in range, possibly in a public place. If someone had access to your computer in any way and used it to edit Wikipedia, your IP address would show up. There have been a few incidents where it appeared that the owner of an IP address did not make an edit but it was generated from his/her IP address in some way. This is not a Wikipedia glitch because an automated program picks up the IP address from which the edit originated - but that does not mean some interference was not possible. In any event, I am assuming that your message was in good faith and am deleting the above messages. Donner60 (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thank you for undoing the changes to my userpage.Jllm06 (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Donner60 (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


Hi, regarding that revert you spoke to me about: I did further research and found that I was inaccurate. I will leave your revert as it is and not make any more edits. Thanks! :)

DrForbidden (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)DrForbidden

I have indirectly determined which edit you were talking about. Indeed you were mistaken as I assume the source, not to mention other sources that I have read just yesterday, showed the existing text was correct. Making a good faith mistake is no reason not to continue to contribute in general. Only you know whether you can make any further constructive contributions to that article. Donner60 (talk) 07:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Methane entry[edit]

Regarding the deletion of Goodland and Anhang (2009) from the Methane entry --- from page 14 of their article: "Further work is needed to recalibrate methane emissions other than those attributable to livestock products using a 20-year timeframe." Given that the FAO originally used the 100-year GWPs, this indeed means that Goodland and Anhang are using the 20-year GWP for methane from livestock and the 100-year GWP for methane from all other anthropogenic sources.This is obvious if you follow their adjustment. OnceJolly (talk) 04:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

You deleted my reply on this page, and based on your deletion in the article, I must assume it is because you did not agree with it. Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines "Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request." I restore my comment with an addition.
I don't see how that supports your deletion of the reference to the article. Many academic articles on a variety of subjects contain isolated sentences calling for further research. I have read the article. It is a legitimate article and deletion is not supported while other articles on the same subject are being kept. Again, I must suspect that you are doing this to support a particular point of view and to leave the article unbalanced. Nonetheless, I think this should conclude our interchange as I am not going to edit war with you over this. Donner60 (talk) 04:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The "recalibration" is a trivial calculation which suggests that its the authors that have the agenda. In any case, I've left the reference to the article and added a further reference to a more recent study from the FAO. OnceJolly (talk) 05:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@OnceJolly: Thank you. I believe you have now handled the matter properly. Good luck in future editing. Donner60 (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[edit]

Hi, I noticed your comment on that IP's talk page here [1]. Unfortunately, he/she does not seem to take in consideration anything on his talk. He/she started adding (or changing) random unsourced birth/death dates few days ago, then randomly changing nationalities (English/Scottish -> British; England -> United Kingdom) or adding USA after an American state. Khruner (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Khruner: Thanks. I see the user was given a final warning but no one followed up on later edits. I assume some of these are improper. I will look at these a little later tonight/this early morning. If these edits are clearly disruptive, erroneous or vandalism, I will revert them and make a report. If some of these are not of the same nature as previous edits about which warnings were given and could be viewed as innocent mistakes or ignorance (non-judgmental), I will leave one or more additional warnings and explanations. I note that the last warning was placed by User:Favonian, who is an administrator, so I think a great deal of additional slack need not be given to the user. Donner60 (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I should add, now that I look at some of the earlier edits, that not all of this user's edits are necessarily contrary to policy and some of them seem to be correct, such as those adding exact dates. I had already checked some of them. So, I think we should still be cautious that this user's changes are not necessarily meant to be disruptive. I will try to be careful in evaluating this before I report the user. Donner60 (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
@Khruner: The user clearly was stepping over the line again and violating the placename guideline about the United Kingdom. With these new disruptive edits, I had the Huggle AIV report box open and was in the process of reporting the user. When I pressed the report button, I received a message that the user was already reported. So someone else had seen the disruptive editing and got in ahead of me, which is alright. It is good that the user is finally reported. Presumably an administrator will block this user and revert the other bad or unsupported edits. Donner60 (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Block applied and edits reverted by administrator Materialscientist. Donner60 (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, it was bedtime here. Good to hear, I guess now the user is plenty of time to ponders about his behaviour. Thanks, Khruner (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Your revert at Russo-Georgian War‎[edit]

About your edit here [2]: please note that your edit summary describing the edit you reverted as "unexplained" was wrong – the previous edit by Odabade90 [3] clearly had a talkpage link in its edit summary [4], which does point to an explanation of this edit. I'm not saying the edit was objectively good or justified (no opinion either way); I'd just like everybody to be extra careful to engage in constructive discussion before new revert-wars erupt on that article. Fut.Perf. 08:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: My revert was through Huggle; I can't say that I did not know that "unexplsined" was part of the template message, however, and this is a case where I should have paid more attention to that. I saw that sourced content, about an EU report, had been removed so I assumed it was an invalid edit, probably a non-neutral one.
Thank you for pointing out that this is no run-of-the mill content removal. NPOV may be what is really at the bottom of this, but it may be that further intervention by parties whose only knowledge comes from the appearance of the edit, despite being neutral and uninvolved, perhaps is not for the best. I see where my edit with the standard message could provoke users on one side of this obviously long-running contentious debate. So, I have undone my revert and have noted in the edit summary the existence of the talk page discussion and suggest involved parties should continue to work this out.
FWIW, I see in the history that this content has been removed and then restored by more than one other patroller/reviewer over the last few months.
In any event, I was trying to implement guidelines about removal of content, with a possible NPOV problem as the basis for it - which seems to be the case - but it seems my use of the template with the unexplained removal clause itself may be contentious. There may be nothing to be gained in the content of the article or resolution of an ongoing dispute by me becoming an involved party under the circumstances. If, however, I am misinterpreting your message or, more to the point, you suggest some other course of action, please let me know. I will be logging out quite soon, however, so any further response from me will not be immediate. Thanks again. Donner60 (talk) 08:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

America at a crossroads[edit]

Hi, I'm User What I wanted to say is that this isn't my opinion but a historical event. I didn't mean any harm, but I only wanted to report the facts so I edited it with a balanced, neutral point of view. If I made a mistake then please leave me a note on my talk page. Thank you. (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Four years ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
hero of reviewing
... you were recipient
no. 186 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

{{ping|Gerda Arendt}} Thank you. You have made many wonderful contributions to the project. I always have appreciated the recognition from you and am flattered to receive this further notice. Donner60 (talk) 06:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Mouli Ganguly[edit]

Hi i accidentally removed some stuff then added it back while adding another row. Can u delete what u added now cuz i cant n i dont wanna mess it up. Thanks👍🏼😬 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, you have restored the previously deleted text. Since you are making the addition, I think you should check it to be sure it is correct. If I revert it to a prior version, the changes you have made since then will be lost. I appreciate your concern that something may be missing, but I don't see it. Since you are familiar with the filmography, I think that you are better able to correctly add anything else that is missing. Donner60 (talk) 04:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

West Coast Hip-Hop[edit]

You keep undoing my changes to West Coast Hip-Hop. The Oakland section says "known locally as Oaktown". "Oaktown is an antiquated term that natives stopped using around 1994. Oakland is referred to by natives as "The Town", because San Francisco is known as "The City". Due to gentrification and the rising influx of transplants relocating to Oakland, many newer residents have resurrected the term "Oaktown" however when one uses this term, it's a dead giveaway that they are in fact neither from Oakland nor grew up in Oakland. In addition you undid my changes to San Francisco. The City is not known locally as "San Fran". In fact, the term "San Fran" is universally hated among nearly all Bay Area natives. "Frisco" is looked down upon too, but rappers like JT the Bigga Figga and RBL Posse have referred to The City as "Frisco" in their songs. In urban cultures, SF is also known as "Sucka Free City", a phrase made popular by rappers Rappin' 4-Tay, San Quinn and JT the Bigga Figga. The slang term is what inspired the title of the 2004 movie Sucker Free City which was written by San Francisco native Alex Tse.

I have struck the original messages on your talk page because you have provided a reasonable explanation for the edits. I am sorry for any inconvenience. I will not further disturb the addition of these edits. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

SHS FC[edit]

Hi Donner60! I just wanted to let you know that the article was blanked by its creator. I went ahead and reverted your edit and added the G7 tag. Hope you're doing well, and I hope you have a great rest of your day. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Thanks. I missed that one so I am glad you caught it. And a good day to you as well! Donner60 (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem! I got your back! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


Sorry if my recent edit appeared to be unconstructive, but I was just trying to keep a bit of consistent terminology on A-League in regards to the word "soccer". Also, this is a shared IP address, so those other edits weren't done by me. (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The mistake appears to be mine. Thanks for pointing this out to me. I am striking the original message and the first sentence of the second one on your talk page. Sorry for the mistake. Donner60 (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


You just sent me a message saying you removed a link I submitted but I have never done such a thing? I have password protected wifi so I don't know what happened...It certainly wasn't anyone in my house, they would never be able to figure out how to use wikipedia... (talk) 08:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

That was almost two years ago on a different IP address. Someone else may have had it at the time or otherwise tapped in to your network, which is rare but not unknown. In fact, I am not sure how your message is showing up on a different IP address. Perhaps some technical thing may be amiss. Donner60 (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

the safety issue of Saccharin[edit]

please take a look on follow web page : which talk about Saccharin v Stevia Comparison , test result show Saccharin can cause high blood glucose levels !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I placed this on your talk page: At the risk of going on a little too long, I will expand on User:Jim1138's note. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Impartial tone. Encyclopedias do not use capital letters and numerous exclamation points in their texts. In addition to the referencing advice Jim1138 notes, see Help:Footnotes for proper citation style. (Reference to a doctor who appeared on tv is not a proper reference as it can not now be verified, nor can the doctor's credentials or basis for his remarks be examined. If he, or his position, has statements in a reliable, verifiable book or journal, that may provide a valid reference.) Also please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, including not a means for promotion and Wikipedia:Words to watch, such as puffery. Wikipedia is not a blog, forum, fan site, advice site or means of promotion. It is an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable, third-party sources. It does not include personal opinions, commentary, speculation or unsourced information likely to be changed, challenged, disputed or wrong. See Wikipedia:Five Pillars, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Help:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For further information about contributing to Wikipedia, see: Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. You may have something that could be put in the section of the article that you put your edit provided it is stated impartially, is properly referenced to a reliable source, and does not give undue weight to a particular position. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)