Jump to content

User talk:Donner60/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Archive 4 starting with threads from June 2013.

Invitation to a Wicnic in Gainesville on Saturday, June 22nd

Greetings!

Seeing that you've edited the article on Gainesville on Wikipedia, I'm inviting to the North Central Florida 2013 Great American Wiknic that will be on Saturday June 22, 2013, commencing at 1:00 pm, ten blocks north of UF campus in Gainesville,.

If you're able and inclined to come, please RSVP at at this URL.

Type to you later, Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Donner60. You have new messages at WikiPuppies's talk page.
Message added 04:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiPuppies bark dig 04:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for protecting the Salem, MO from vandals. How can we report or block IP 108.239.141 for vandalism? Thank you again! Taram (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For the quick anti-vandal reverts

Taram

Salem, Missouri vandalism: Reply

Thanks for the barnstar!

Also posted to your talk page:
Disruptive vandals can be reported and blocks or sanctions requested at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.
In this case, the vandal has only one recent vandalism and warning. He has only three vandalisms overall. The following guidelines are shown on the AIV page:
Important! Please remember the following:
1. The edits of the reported user must be obvious vandalism or obvious spam.
2. The user must have been given enough warnings to stop their disruptive behavior.
3. The warnings must have been given recently and the users must be active now, especially for unregistered users.
4. Requests for further sanctions against a blocked user (e.g., talk page, e-mail blocks) should go to AN/I, as a bot automatically removes accounts here that are blocked.
In this case, we would expect an administrator to conclude that this was one passing act and that the vandal will not strike again, or not do so any time soon. So it is likely that no administrator will take an action against this user address even though the vandalism was egregious. If the vandal comes back about three times in the near future or is threatening or posts especially vicious material about a living person, they may act at that time. I would advise not filing a report based on the one recent incident but do so if you see that the vandal continues his disruptions. Donner60 (talk) 08:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Obama Timelines

Thanks for your Vandal Patrol. It is much appreciated. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Oops!

Sorry, misclicked and blocked you by mistake. Obviously you're not a vandal. Trout me as you wish. DMacks (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the block. I was on anti-vandalism patrol and was shocked by the message. I assumed that somehow there had been a mixup between me and someone whom I had been warning. I have never been blocked. Will this show up as a block on my record and, if so, can that be removed? Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
(copied from my talkpage) It is in your block record, along with the one-minute-later unblock with my note "crap, wrong button.sorry!". There is a way to hide blocklog entries, but I was advised by several other admins that this would not be a legit case for using that mechanism. The block/unblock cycle would still be there, just with less detail, whereas now it's very clear that you did not do anything wrong and that the block was a mistake). DMacks (talk) 02:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. This talk page item now also shows the mistake. Donner60 (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Van Nuys High School Alumna: Erika Eleniak

Please update van nuys high school alumni to include Erika Eleniak. I tried but it wouldn't let me. Thanks. Sean Daniels — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seadansr (talk • contribs) 19:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I have added Erika Eleniak to the list of alumni of Van Nuys High School. Since Wikipedia has an article about her which states she is a graduate of Van Nuys High School, that is appropriate. I can not see why you were unable to add her. I can only say that these types of additions are often reverted unless the person's notability is established by a link to a Wikipedia article about him or her. Names are sometimes allowed in the absence of an article if a link to a reliable, verifiable, neutral source is provided. Obviously that is not necessary in this case. Good luck with future editing. Donner60 (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Donner60. You have new messages at Ibadibam's talk page.
Message added 23:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ibadibam (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Paula Hitler

How about you don't block conclusive evidence when im simply posting things that can be found in public records. Thanks...Leave hitlers family alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.55.214.240 (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Removed vandalism warning, was good faith edit. My mistake. I thought reference was to the celebrity John Ritter but there is no link and this is a apparently different individual. Removal by strikeout is recommended procedure. Donner60 (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

How about stop slandering Germans? If Hitler's intention was to exterminate the Jewish people, explain why the LEAST number/percentage of Jews were murdered in the nations where Hitler's military had the greatest presence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Holocaust_deaths

19% in Italy 30% in France 25% in Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.70.196.236 (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply left on user talk page: I have no idea what you are talking about in your message about slandering Germans. Your comment is placed under the Paula Hitler topic. Quite clearly I had undone my reversion of the edit to Paula Hitler very quickly when the mistake about the name of her husband was pointed out to me. The edit that inserted the name and my mistaken reversion had nothing to do with the numbers or percentages of people killed in the Holocaust (unless something else was inadvertently carried along because it was part of the same edit). My problem with the edit was that it seemed that the person who made it (a different IP address, but perhaps still you?) had put in the name of her husband which I thought was wrong. I mistook that addition for vandalism because it was the same name as a later celebrity. That is a type of vandalism that is seen from time to time. I pointed this out in the reply to the IP user who made the edit and pointed out how I had come to make the error. In fact, the two people just happened to have the same name. I have edited no article coming from your IP address since the edit about which the messages above were exchanged. Donner60 (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Declined speedy delete

Greetings! I've declined your request to speedy delete User:Tamboclass. You tagged it under criterion A1, an article providing little or no context. However, that criterion applies only to articles, not user pages. Thus, Tamboclass's user page is exempt. —C.Fred (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Placed on C.Fred talk page: I am sorry about my mistake on tagging the Tamboclass user page as if it were an article for speedy deletion. I have tagged articles for speedy deletion in the past. I do know not to tag a user page and should have realized that. I simply was not diligent enough to notice that it was a user page, not an article. I really goofed on that one. I will be more alert. I also will apologize to the user. Donner60 (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Apologized to user; deletion template is gone; I would have taken the second paragraph off the talk page or deleted it but it is a template so all I could do is add another paragraph of apology. Note to self: no more tagging today despite the wake-up call which should place me on alert - but maybe some other work can be done usefully. Donner60 (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Back on track. Just got one right. Talk:Tom Crick tagged for speedy deletion. Was set up as an article talk page, but no article. Just one sentence on the "talk" page containing profanity. Has been deleted. Vandal also vandalized Notorious (1946 film) with profanity and my talk page. Still not reported to AIV since only 3 warnings. Donner60 (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Slim Jims

How is Slim Jim's addition of pork to their traditional chicken and beef sticks trivial? Kosher Jews and Muslims don't eat pork and a number of people on Twitter have messaged the account in protest [1] 99.108.9.237 (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I see your point and would not object to your restoring the text. Can you find a source in addition to Twitter? I understand that Twitter protests are part of the addition but Twitter is not supposed to be used as a source. See Wikipedia:Twitter. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I've had trouble finding much via Google because I think it's such a new addition. I've noticed the changeover just in the past 2 months with Target and Walmart getting the new products mixed in with the older ones, and now the non-pork versions are completely gone. I personally messaged Con Agra through their website and they apologized about the change but not much else. I understand your point and will keep an eye out for new things online that are more concrete. Also sorry if I messaged you incorrectly through your Talk page. I'm a very casual editor and it was my first time interacting with another user.99.108.9.237 (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
No problem. I know the protocol for messaging but it is confusing even if one is used to it. So I usually post on both pages unless someone makes clear their preference - which most people do not. As for the place on the page, when I have the message at the top, I can find it. As to the edit, I am sorry I did not think it through. I should have realized the significance. The twitter reference did throw me off focus a little. If you have not put it back, I will but I ask you to be on the look out to add another reference since someone else is likely to make that point. Donner60 (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. No worries, I realize it probably comes off as just a tidbit at first. I've found some complaints in Amazon reviews from recent orders because they received the new product without Amazon listing the ingredient change, but nothing else concrete yet. I'll keep an eye out for something more substantial and update accordingly. Also thank you for changing it back as I haven't done reverts before. I'm still learning stuff even after 20 years on the net, haha. Take care. 99.108.9.237 (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Chambersburg, PA

I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly because I'm not well-versed in how to make edits/posts in Wikipedia, but I just wanted to reply to your message about the Chambersburg, PA article. The part I removed was due to its subjective political and cultural statements that were outside of the quote, which paint an emotional picture of the town based on whoever edited that part of the article, instead of an objective and factual and cited assessment of the town's politics and culture. I couldn't figure out how to add my statements onto it even though i read before that's what i was supposed to do, so sorry about that. i just wanted to get rid of the information that was apparently put into the article by another amateur, but without citation or fact: So I just felt like the right thing to do was remove that part altogether. Thanks for writing me about it, though!

I deleted the message on your user talk page because you have explained your rationale to me. The line out is the preferred method since it would remain in the edit history without explanation otherwise, even if blanked. I see your point now. It appears to be reasonable and in good faith. If you wish to restore your edit, please go ahead and I will not object. If you have any problem with it and wish me to restore it, please let me know. I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia and will not be discouraged if a user such as me questions an edit and asks for an explanation or a reference. It happens to all of us. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Kevin Hart

Donner60, hi my name is V, i hope this is where i contact you. Few minutes ago you deleted my edit on Kevin Hart's page, you wrote to me "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edit to Kevin Hart (actor) constitutes vandalism, is contrary to the guideline about negative comments about living persons and has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)"

I was listening to a radio show earlier today and they were talking about this very same subject, that is why i decided to make this update.

That was actual Tweet by Kevin Hart, i provided the source for it. There was no vandalism involved what so ever. Please Google that Tweet he made, or see the link i provided you with. This Tweet was retweeted over 4000 times, if you saying i somehow endangered Zimmerman by providing his address i am sorry..............but Hart did make that Tweet.

[2]

This is his own Twitter feed. Please look into this and see that these are facts.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.185.163 (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

You persuade me to delete the warning. I accept, for the purpose of your good faith, that it is true. However, I do not think it is relevant to Hart. It is one of many comments he might make. It is about a recent event that will fade. And it is not an especially favorable one. Every comment made by a celebrity is not necessarily notable. If people want to see that, they can go to Twitter. (Also, see (Wikipedia:Twitter) Re-publishing a threat against Zimmerman or a suggestion that he will be hurt is like we are encouraging that, putting out the information, endorsing it. That would still be contrary to the living person guideline even though he is not the subject of this article. Donner60 (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

John Green

Hello. I don't have a wikipedia account, but I just received a new message from you saying if I keep vandalizing I might be banned. Apparently I vandalized an article for someone named John Green (I was brought to the disambiguation page when I clicked on the John Green link). I have no idea who John Green is or what this supposed edit is. I can't remember the last time I edited something on wikipedia. Just looking for a little clarification. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.86.84 (talk) 04:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

A look at the page history shows that you made this edit to that page on June 30: "OK so there is one thing you all left out. John Green is made entirely and only of awesome. Just sayinn" Donner60 (talk) 04:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

How odd. I never wrote that. Not sure how you track unregistered users, but it's very weird I got a message for that. Not sure how you track unregistered users, but multiple people use my wifi from multiple devices so that could have led to it. Sorry for the confusion and thanks for the clarification! Also, was this edit made to a specific John Green page or the disambiguation page? Thank you.

It was on the disambiguation page.
If multiple people use your wifi from multiple devices it is entirely likely that one of them made the edit. The edits for unregistered users are shown as coming from an IP address for a computer or device. Of course, there can be no identification of who the individual user is but it can be assumed that one user is either the sole user or responsible for the device. Many people have this situation. That is why Wikipedia recommends that users register. Even if the device owner could not get other users under control and the IP address were banned, the registered user who had a password could still edit after logging in as long as no vandalism came from that account. I suggest you choose a user name and register if you are uncertain about other users of your computers/devices. (I am not an expert on these numbers but I assume that given the number, the edits came from a computer.) Donner60 (talk) 06:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yet another question about blocking and the three re-vert rule...Help!

Hi Donnor60, I am a bit gun shy about editing after dealing with Qworty some time ago. I have a question again about Salem Missouri and the three revert rule. I just want to keep the peace while allowing people to find knowledge with appropriate citation (esp not primary) and remain completely neutral. That is all. Anyway, GreyWanderer of the WP Missouri Project had written the page so that it was neutral. A few sentences were added when new events passed that were significant for the small town. Tonight, an editor going as Gtwfan52 blanked sections at the Salem page five times and I tired to kindly return them asking for discussion on the talk page. She did finally go there, but then she kept blanking 2 sections on the page (one which the head of the ProjectMissouri had rewritten). So, I put the statement "Hello, I'm Taram. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Salem, Missouri, because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Taram (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)" on her talk page and she reverted it. Then she put a statement on my talk page saying I am in violation of the 3 re-vert rule and added an insult. I thought the revert of my warning to her was interesting. What should I do? in her insult, she said that she was " done with this for the night, but I will be back tomorrow and get a WP:3O." What should I do? I am sorry to bother you about this. Thank you so much for your help! Taram (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure I can help. I can offer my opinion for what it is worth.
If I were in your position, I would undo your last reversion. You rightly offered to bring the question to the talk page. I think that you should carry on some discussion on the talk page to resolve this before proceeding with further editing. Although this leaves the article without the current events, I think, or at least hope, it should not take long to come to a resolution. It may be that neutral third parties will need to decide this as Gtwfan52 has suggested. By the way, since I discussed this article with you previously, even though it was on a different matter, I suppose that under the guidelines, I technically might not be considered neutral.
It seems to me that edit warring may be occurring on both sides because your last edit is contrary to your offer to bring the issue to the talk page. On the other hand, the content is neither vandalism nor in violation of any mandatory policy. Gtwfan52 has the right to challenge it under the guidelines but given that these guidelines are not absolutes, that is there is not really a clear all or nothing standard on this type of text, if there continues to be a dispute, Gtwfan52 can not dictate the result but must try to reach consensus. I don't see that this editor is refusing to do that. I think you should put this back to square one and not put yourself in a bad light by undoing your edit. At that point, I think it would be rather pointless to talk about edit warring and three reverts. I would consider you on an equal footing. I think you did not clearly understand Gtwfan52's point at the early stages of this so that earlier reversions could be seen in good faith.
I have not seen "recentism" or even "trivia" used much to remove content when it is clearly not vandalism and is well sourced. I have thought of it as something that was used mostly to keep out articles on topics that will soon fade into an obscurity. But then again, I am not an administrator. I have looked at the guidelines on notability, recentism and what is includible in an article. Recentism does come into consideration when the content will either fade into total obscurity or when undue weight is given to recent events that may seem important now but will not be in the future, maybe in the not too distant future. So my reading of the guidelines is that this is not an absolute, but it is a consideration.
I have seen many articles with current events and information about elections and local officials. I could be wrong but I think these types of things are put in articles about Massachusetts towns quite often. Of course, that does not mean they should be but it also says to me that reasonable editors could look at these things from an "inclusionist" rather than a "deletionist" point of view.
With that being the background and maybe the standard for making a decision, here is how I would look at the three issues. Internet access and filters at libraries have become issues in many places. After some controversy, often played out in part in the press, the matters get settled and everyone continues with their lives. I would say that this controversy was of only temporary and local interest, in part because it was settled. It did not become a precedent or some national news story. Whatever local importance it had should soon fade. I would agree that it is recent news and in a few years will not be of any importance or interest, maybe not even to the residents.
Under most circumstances, I would think the dog bite story would be the same. Here, I think a sentence or two and some citations in a footnote are properly included because this got over the top media attention beyond the town. On the other hand, it will fade. By this I mean it deserves some mention because of the outside attention but not at great length because it almost surely will fade as well.
I think the election of a local resident of a small town is notable and I would not quarrel with including it in the history section. It might help if it could be stated definitively that this person is the first local resident to be elected to Congress. A few words could be cut but I don't see it as overly long or as giving undue weight to a recent event. I have seen statues in small towns dedicate to governors or other politicians from long ago simply because they were local residents. There are mentions of such historic figures in Wikipedia articles as well. If someone could point out that this is inappropriate for a history section under the guidelines, I would back off but if holders of significant offices from long ago can be included in articles, I don't see why a recent person can not be included. Such mention still would be appropriate for a notable resident section even if it were removed from the history section. I don't see how it could be excluded from the article altogether.
This may be more than you want to hear. I might write this a little differently after a little more thought. But I think the best thing to do is to take the edit war, revert issue off the table and try to work out a compromise based on reduced text and maybe moving the content about the Congressman to a notable resident section, with a sentence or two about why he is notable. Donner60 (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

hero of reviewing
On your second Wiki-birthday, thank you for your collaborative reviewing for DYK, unafraid of a triple nom, seeking contact with all editors, commenting with precision, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 186th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal

A courtesy note to let you know that I have closed the merge discussion of Imperial and US customary measurement systems into Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems with a result of No consensus. Martinvl (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


DYK for Battle of Fairfax Court House (June 1863)

The DYK project (nominate) 20:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Maranatha

Hi there, I had a question about the additions I had to the article on Maranatha that were rejected for no published sources. All the research for this article was from the Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew English Lexicon, Liddle and Scott Greek Lexicon and the Encyclopedia Britannica. I believe all these are published sources. I didn't just pull this stuff out of the air. So what do I have to put in links or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.28.215 (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. You have to put in citations (footnotes) to the pages of the sources supporting the new text. Open edit source (not edit) and put in a footnote for each paragraph or possible controversial statement if possible. First put the tag (ref - removed). Then the citation. Then the closing ref tag (removed). For repetitive notes, you can make the first ref tag (example removed), for example, then the rest of the citation. For further citations to the same footnote use only (example removed). Be sure to add the extra / character or it won't work right. I should add, I am not sure how to do this in Visual Editor. It may not work the same way. (Also put on your talk page with examples Examples removed here because they were messing up further edits.)Donner60 (talk) 07:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Chambersburg, Pennsylvania quote

I put back the quote in the Chambersburg article (together with the preceding paragraph, but not the following paragraph) as I think it gives a fair opinion of the area's culture from a well known journalist. It is not my opinion, rather it's the opinion of a reliable source. I started a discussion on the talk page, which is the best way to handle this IMHO. I'm guessing that the deleter thought that this is some type of insult to the residents of Chambersburg, but it most definitely is not. FWIW David Brooks (journalist) is a Republican commentator, commenting on a highly Republican area, and I'm sure that he had no intention to insult. Again FWIW, I have lived in the area (and am a Democrat), and thought the quote and preceding paragraph (fairly summarized from Brookes's article) captured the overall culture of the region. Donner60 (talk) 07:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. I had put it back but then acceded to the deleter's explanation. I obviously don't feel strongly enough about this to argue for either position and will go with the best argument or consensus, essentially meaning I will leave it to others to decide. Donner60 (talk) 07:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Kirchner

Sorry ... I meant to undo the POV edits plugging the orignal research on "the road to the money K." I did not see that I was adding an extraneous word to his name on the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.14.0 (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry that I did not look further back in the edits to see where the problem originated. This sort of thing can happen when there is an intervening edit that is missed when edits are reverted. I have left something in an article unintentionally a few times. I deleted the notice. I would say go ahead and make the changes but please be careful not to inadvertently reintroduce a problem from an earlier edit. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Help editing

Hello ,

Can you help sourcing this page [LCT] ?

Thanks--Uskudargideriken (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I note that User:Uskudargideriken was blocked after this message was left. So I am not sure whether any reply will be seen regardless of where I might leave it. I took a quick look at sources before I discovered the user was blocked. Most of them seem to be from the user or previous user whose work would not be accepted at Afd. Also, this is way out of any area of expertise I might have. Frankly, after a quick look, I can say that I probably would not be able to understand anything written about this or to evaluate the source. Sorry. Donner60 (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Zola Jesus

Thanks for reverting a good change on the Zola Jesus page. I know Nikki, I dated her and we lived in the same town. SHE WAS BORN NIKKI ROSE HUMMEL not this other bullshit she made up and you guys support. (personal attack removed)

I am impressed by your command of the language and persuasive abilities but that really isn't enough to change something that has at least one cited reference. So how about citing a reliable source for the change instead? At least one of the references gives the name you object to. Your assertion alone does not top that. Donner60 (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Duncan Bender

Obviously you've never visited the county seat of Essex, NY. (That's Elizabethtown, ya know?) Now, if you had ever been here, you most certainly would know of Duncan Ames Bender. While he may not be "notable" to a majority of the world, or even you, sir, he is in all reality a living legend. As I stated before, though you may not know him, everyone from this town does. So, if you wouldn't mind doing your fact-checking before deleting an edit based on no written citations, contact someone from the area. Good day to you, sir! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.43.211.138 (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Dissustainable

My Internet searches provide unsatisfying results. What's the difference between non-sustainable and unsustainable? Blackguard 06:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Not much I would say. The potential problem with "non-sustainable," is that it links to the concept of and article about environmental sustainability. The previous editor had deleted non-sustainability altogether, which prompted me to find a similar word that might not link to a narrower concept of sustainability, although the exact reason for the deletion was not given. The opening sentence of the article on sustainability can be read as somewhat more general, but the article really points the word to a different, and more specific concept. I thought unsustainable would mean about the same thing without having to link to an article on a concept which was a bit narrow, if that makes any sense. Perhaps just taking the link out would work as well. I do think some sort of modifier along those lines is needed in the pyramid scheme article. Otherwise, it sounds as if a pyramid scheme is just a sort of ongoing business concept, albeit a dishonest one. (I'll add that I would not have changed the word but for the prior deletion bringing the link to my attention.) Donner60 (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
That makes sense, and you're right, the article should not have linked to sustainability. Thank you for clarifying. Blackguard 06:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

vandalism ???

Hello - My ip address is shared by many other users, and I get message saying my edits are vandalism, etc. All my edits have 1capybara (talk)1capybara, other edits from this ip arent mine! 1capybara (talk)1capybara —Preceding undated comment added 05:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

As long as you are logged in with your user name, you should not see those warnings, much less be subject to them. The warnings only apply to the IP and edits made while you are logged in are in a different category. I do not know why you saw the message if your were logged in. Are you sure you did not see them while you were logged out? Obviously there are no warnings on your user talk page or in its history, and that is all that really counts. Donner60 (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, that is when I was logged out :) 1capybara (talk) 05:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Camp Douglas

Thanks for your note on my edits to Camp Douglas - glad to help. You really mastered so much material and gave a clear picture of what went on, through a range of activities. (Thinking, from "the sublime to the absurd", did you come across any material related to chaplains or provisions for worship? Just curious.)

Given the mostly extremely short tenures of the commanders of the camps, it must have been difficult for them to achieve any improvements, even if they wanted to. And there seemed to be conflict between the ideas of decent treatment and some punishment of the enemy. The short tenures struck me because you were so clear on their dates. Yes, I had seen the info in the Hoffman article, too, about his being a POW himself - that's what made me attuned to emphasizing when he took his position as Commissary-General. It's always hard to know where to draw the line on what you include (the brevet ranks, for instance.) I think it was good that you looked for other sources beside the History Channel - for one thing, including sources that people can read themselves can lead them into really thinking about a topic. Anyway, congrats again on an excellent article -Parkwells (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

removing {{transcludes}}

This page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoionization_mode begins with these transcludes: {{Multiple issues|context = October 2009|refimprove = December 2007| {{underlinked|date=December 2012}} {{essay-like|date=May 2013}} }} {{original research|date=May 2013}} which I believe should be removed - I have added multiple links, and the other comments are "maybe" from ppl unfamiliar with the subject who don't really understand this page. I can remove these transcludes, but.... is it okay for me to do so, or not polite or ???1capybara (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the bottom line on the templates is that there is only one footnote (inline citation), It probably would take at least 25 in a technical article such as this to verify the content. That might satisfy anyone who put the templates in or think they are justified. Some of the other points made in the templates more or less follow from the lack of citations. There are several references (which I did not try to check), which is good, but they do not directly support the points made in the article. People want to go to the specific pages in the articles, not have to read the entire article, in order to see that the text is supported. I would not remove the templates unless the article has inline citations which in turn could be viewed as taking care of the other issues. I have only removed a few such templates and only when there is a minimum of one citation per paragraph. Even though some additions have been made to the article, I would not remove the templates because I think the citation issue must be satisfied first. By the way, I am not an administrator so I give this opinion based on my experience. Donner60 (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

*Edit Help required, no Vandalism!: Jess Mills edit problem

I correctly edited the "As Featured Artist" on my sandbox and it looked perfect. As soon as I added it to the main Jess Mills it put it on the bottom instead of the appropriate section. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mceyedol (talk • contribs) 20:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I was "offline" yesterday and most of today so I am just able to reply now. I am sorry you had problems with your edit and that it was tagged as vandalism. I now see that the end of your table had the characters |-|}. It should have been |} to end the table and prevent the persondata from showing up in the text as part of the table - and putting text below the external links. That seemingly simple difference caused the problem. Somewhere in the Manual of Style you will find some guide for constructing tables. I haven't kept much in mind and often copy and change an old one to create a new one. One thing I have learned is the characters needed to close one. Any other characters will cause something strange to come out, even though you did not put it there, it was not your intention and it does not show up on the editing page. A strange quirk of using this code, I guess. I made the change so I think it looks ok now. Good luck with further editing. Donner60 (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Reinforcements

It looked like you needed the backup; this guy has an impressive persecution complex and no concept of geography, but I figured it would take a double-teaming. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 04:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

CUSACK

Hi Donner60, I've noticed that the entries you removed from the CUSACK history piece on 13 April 3013 has reappeared on 22nd September 2013. It still does not have an information source against it. Regards C.Cleeve — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.Cleeve (talk • contribs) 19:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Left on user talk page: I have reverted the Cusack edits and left a note on the talk page of the IP user that sources are needed for such extraordinary claims. I do not doubt the possibility of an Irish family independent of Norman background, but without a source, it does not fit. The IP address is different from the earlier one but I still think it needs a source. I have no idea what the RL and L numbers in the edit mean but I suspect they are from some sort of genealogy chart. That may not be a reliable source but even that is not cited. The edits do not appear to be vandalism in and of themselves but they look suspiciously like someone is trying to embellish their family history. I still think that if someone has a basis for these additions, they ought to be able to cite it. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Dean Gaffney

You did something I've done, not looked at the history when reverting, as you reverted back to more IP vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Posted on your user talk page: Thanks for catching my reversion to prior vandalism. I usually try to keep that possibility in mind or at least glance at the finished product as a double check. I am afraid that even after having become aware of the problem some time ago, I have missed this a few times (out of many). I know we need to strive for no mistakes rather than a very few. I think biography articles may be somewhat more susceptible to multiple vandalisms within a short period of time if the person is living and has some "anti-fans" for lack of a better word. It seems I just missed it this time. A reminder is good to have on such occasions. Donner60 (talk) 06:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

University of Phoenix

I do not believe that my entries for the University of Phoenix are incorrect or unverifiable. I have been researching this field for a significant amount of time.

Regarding revision of my edit on fashion design

Maybe i didn't make my reasons clear in the edit summary. I thinks it's probalamatic to have the sub-topic "Star system" solely consists of quotes and extrapolations from a single source. Presumably this is because the idea of a 'star system' - a term not explained in the text - is a creation of the author being quoted which makes the topic NPOV. I noted unencyclopedic language and badly structured because it's unusual for a whole sub section to be composed just of quotes without any context or analysis or even attribution of the author. As is stated in the text itself, "a conception of a designer as a 'creative genius' disconnected from social conditions is central for the working of the fashion system" and yet this 'central conception' is not defended and is only ever mentioned immediately before it is dismissed as a myth. Perhaps the viewpoint of the author and his 'star system' could be condensed and integrated better into the article somewhere else but I'll leave that up to you. 216.121.240.125 (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC

Thanks for your explanation. I see your point. I am sorry that I caused you to have to explain it in more detail. I was somewhat misled by the fact that there was a source for the content. I should have looked at it more carefully because your edit summary was enough to show your point. I am removing my warning (by the preferred method of strikeout) because it was inappropriate. I am sorry for the mistake. I think I will just restore your deletion since I don't think I can write anything that would not depend on the single source already given.Donner60 (talk) 06:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Fanta

Apologies- Meant to open Snopes link and hit revert instead. Sorry - fixed it I think..-- 🍺 Antiqueight confer 21:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem. The important thing is ultimately to get it right. Donner60 (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

  • i would just add that I kind of hesitated to do this because there are several discussions here on your talk page where you seem to be unsure of exactly what is vandalism and what is not. Please be careful with this tool and be sure you are fully familiar with the guidelines for its use. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Dog Intelligence

Donner60, you recently changed an edit that I made to the article "Dog intelligence" - it seems that the present text "can not feel complex..." is inconsistent with the contents of the 2008 BBC press piece, the referenced PNAS article therein and recent neuro-imaging work on canines published in PLoS One (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%253Adoi%252F10.1371%252Fjournal.pone.0038027). Further, having read the PNAS and PLoS articles I believe the usage of "concluded" is too strong given that state-of-field at this time. Further, I suggest that the term "recent" should be omitted with reference to citation [7]. I believe the text should read: "Studies in PNAS and PLoS One suggest that dogs may feel complex emotions, like jealousy and anticipation. [7][11]" with [11] being added as a reference to the PLoS article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1:A680:56B:2C89:37CD:DC5:9376 (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You have sources to back up your change. Please go ahead with it. Sorry for any inconvenience. Donner60 (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
If there is an article you wish to link to put two brackets <no wiki>[[</no wiki> before the title of the article and two close brackets <no wiki>]]</no wiki> (without the no wiki signs) after the title of the article. Be sure you have the title exactly correct including capitalization. Donner60 (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

huh?

You reverted and section blanked a sourced, cited section on the Battle of the Bulge with little explanation and no suggestion on improvement. Why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.251.229 (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This section was stated in the form of personal commentary and conclusions, not entirely facts. Wikipedia standards require that facts be stated in neutral language. You can try it again with that in mind. If you really want suggestions, I can see if I can suggest some language. Donner60 (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the changes in the revision history, which is very unusual. I don't think I can do anything unless you make the edit again. Donner60 (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Cool. I was more perplexed than anything, normally when a section gets added, the initial language is modified to improve it. Blanking, I understand, is only utilized in patent vandalism, especially if it is sourced. I can put it back in the article and you can alter lanuage you find objectionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.251.229 (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
That should work. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 05:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit that I misread this in two respects. One was the reliance placed on a you tube video, which normally is not considered a good source. The other was a misreading of the sequence of the second paragraph in which I thought the Nazi actions were being attributed to the actions of the white officers. This is not what it says. I am glad I did not leave a vandalism message (although that is not what I thought was an issue here). I apologize for my misinterpretation and the inconvenience. I left the article as it was except for making a few minor spacing changes. I did that in order to put an edit of mine last which I believe will tip off the bot that the prior edit was good. Otherwise, I think the bot could come along and revert the edit as identical to the one already reverted. Donner60 (talk) 05:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. though when you made the spacing changes, the section still got deleted. Can you put it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.251.229 (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I see the section on my screen. Did you refresh the page? If not, the old page may still be on your screen. Donner60 (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For reverting the vandalism done to Mummy (and just being generally awesome)! -- Saint Soren (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Characters in Romeo and Juliet

Hello I did no mean to Vandalise I didn't even know what I was doing how can I fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.2.11 (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Prior text is restored. If you were simply testing to see how editing works, it was successful. Please be more careful with future edits and explain them in the edit summary. If you had a good reason to remove this character, you should also explain that in the edit summary and if a longer explanation is needed, on the talk page. You are certainly welcome to make constructive edits in the future. Donner60 (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much But I don't want my ip address showing how can I erase? Yes I did refresh the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.2.11 (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2013‎ (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You can't remove your IP address. When you edit without an account, it's saved permanently in the page history, and users' requests to hide their own IP address are specifically listed as insufficient reason to hide them. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure that I can't do anything? Can I be tracked with ip? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.2.11 (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I know of nothing that can be done but I don't think that one unconstructive edit should make any difference. If you edit again, that will be added to the edit history under this IP address. IPs can be tracked, at least to a general location, but I don't know why anyone would want to do it except maybe to confirm persistent vandalism. Donner60 (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

CUSACK ancestry

Hi Donner60, firstly thank you for your previous advice and corrections. There is a list of ‘Notables Moderns’ at the end of CUSACK and I thought that I would give the readers of those pages an insight into the ancestry of those of that surname so I went and added – ‘Norman-Irish Cusack ancestry’ however ‘SummerPhd’ has come back to say that I was incorrect and has removed these references. Did I do wrong in trying to give those ‘names’ readers an opportunity to extend their knowledge? If not acceptable should I have done/worded the inclusion differently? Your advice will, as always, be gratefully received. C.Cleeve — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.Cleeve (talk • contribs) 15:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Putting the information in a full sentence or perhaps as a clause at the end of a sentence would have been better form. This is a minor issue, of course. The main problem here is that there is no reference to the person(s) being "Norman-Irish." They are listed in the Notable Modern Cusacks section but I don't think the article establishes that all Cusacks were or are of "Norman-Irish" ancestry. Without citing a source that definitely links a modern person to a "Norman-Irish" lineage, it is technically correct to challenge the addition of that fact. If there is no definite source among those cited in the Cusack article or otherwise, I think another approach, or perhaps compromise, would be to find a stand-alone word "Cusack" in an article on an individual person and link it to the "Cusack" article. The reader could then see the information presented there and draw their own conclusion from it. Donner60 (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Donner60 - Thank you for your suggestion. C.Cleeve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.131 (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Linocut

Moved from above: Donner60, your deletion of my addition to the article concerning linocuts comes across as exceedingly arrogant and ignorant, as well as somewhat puzzling. Consider that the first entry in this list is an obscure artist who neither has his own Wikipedia article nor a "reliable, verifiable, neutral source" as far as I can tell. One has to type his name into a search engine to find any information about him, which is something it seems you were too lazy to do with my addition - thus, I have done it for you: here is a reference to Mark Mulfinger from an art gallery - http://hamptoniiigallery.com/mulfinger/ - as well as an art museum in North Carolina - http://www.ashevilleart.org/artists/markmulfinger/ - plus, a news article - http://www.greenvilleonline.com/viewart/20130102/CITYPEOPLE/301020027/Mark-Mulfinger-captures-images-Westminster-Presbyterian - and his personal website - http://markmulfinger.com - If you take the time to look into these, you will see that this artist is more than qualified to be recognized in this list, and, I hope, cause you to kindly "allow" my addition to remain. Perhaps you can also refrain from making hasty edits in the future. Thank you, 

   -Thomas  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.118.9.93 (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Your ad hominem argument was not necessary to make your point and neither advances your position nor this collaborative and volunteer venture. Nonetheless, you have come up with a source for your addition so your substantive point could have been, and has been, made in any event. You did not put the reference in the article but I will not revert it on that technicality. Instead, I will insert the reference. You are correct about the first entry, it too should be deleted for the same reason. My ignorance and arrogance, as you put it, simply was an implementation of Wikipedia guidelines on notability. I suggest you consult Wikipedia:Citing Sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability for reference. Donner60 (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

William Burges

Dear Lord, does one have to stand watch over the article until midnight, to ward off the idiotic vandals? I suppose so, and thank you for doing so. KJP1 (talk)

Apparently so. Not the first time I have seen a featured article vandalized. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Er.. huh... VANDALISM?

(This revert of Very Large Array.) Could you explain in greater detail? I was about to combine the footnote I added with the pre-existing reference to the NRAO "Overview" page, and noticed it had been reverted. It sure didn't seem "nonconstructive" to me or I wouldn't have bothered. Clarification, please?

71.41.210.146 (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, oops! There's a bit of cut & paste spam copied from the original web site lower down than the intentional infobox edits. My bad! Is that what tripped your spam detector? Mind if I re-do it without that crap? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, please go ahead; these things can happen when someone like me sees a partial change before the entire change is made and takes it as a complete change. Luckily, it does not happen often but it can happen without ill purpose from either the writer or editor. My message on your page: My mistake. I jumped the gun. Go ahead and complete the work, which will undoubtedly fix what I thought I saw in the partial change. I apologize for the inconvenience and delete the warning. Donner60 (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
No, it was an outright error on my part, and intended to be a complete edit. I understand now what you were thinking, I was just very confused at first, because the deliberate part (which was described by the edit summary) seemed obviously non-vandalism. You might disagree, but I'd expect a little more detail. Thus my request for clarification, without too much accusation. I was trying to WP:AGF on your part. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation. Donner60 (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Battle of the Utus

Hello Donner! The anonymous troll is entirely uncommunicative and particularly insistent. Could you please assist me in watching this article? Just in case you have not added it to your watchlist. Best regards.--Dipa1965 (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's almost sure that the same user comes from 2-3 different ip's (always based around Cleveland, US). I would assume good-faith from him had he responded to our attempts to communicate. But he didn't. I always wonder what kind of people are persons like him, in their normal lives.--Dipa1965 (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Winfield Scott's "Peacetime Activities"

THANK YOU

Reverting vandalism

Thanks for reverting a vandalism edit to Body composition but note that vandals often make consecutive edits. I have now reverted the first edit.[1] Rollback can revert consecutive edits with one click. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. A problem can be that two separate users vandalize an article. One must be vigilant about that. Either way, thanks, because I missed one here. Donner60 (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
You're right. I missed that the last good version was even further back.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Assyrian Page - Anon Editor making incorrect changes?

Hey - You reverted several substantial edits by 81.111.12.105 a few days ago because of unsubstantiated date changes and etc. Since your last revert, he's made seemingly wholesale changes - I assuming you know more on the subject than I so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. I'm also going to post something on the Talk page. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Thanks. I will look at it. Wholesale changes to dates are very suspicious unless someone is referring to a different calendar system, which did not appear to be the case here. Donner60 (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Changed this comment to correspond with one left on your page: I have looked at the edits. The IP editor has added sources for his changes to the dates and for some other changes that he has made. Under those circumstances, without access to a differing source, I think we must assume the editor's changes are verifiable. Usually a wholesale change in dates, absent a different calendar system, would be very suspicious but I am not in a position to challenge sourced changes without a more reliable source. Thanks for bringing this up. Donner60 (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Donner60. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Regarding Recent Email

I recently received a notice from you about a "Greek Chorus" vandalism I was purported to have perpetrated and have no idea what you're talking about. The only edits I've made are to Rene Bazinet and related pages. I've never even seen the page on Greek Chorus. If someone else is using my member ID without my knowledge and/or consent I'd appreciate you letting me know. Blythe Spirit (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Left on user talk page for above and below. Revised response:

I have just seen your message. I am sorry for the delayed reply but I just noticed it. I am sorry too that I need to amend my previous response, which I do within this paragraph. I did revert an edit by an IP user who put a run on capital A in front of a word and left several non-letter characters on the page all the way back in May. (I did not look that far back before and there seems to be no edit under this user name.) The letter could have been a typo but there was no purpose in putting in characters or signs on the page. So that would be vandalism. I left a message on the IP user's talk page back then. I assume you are one and the same since a nearly identical message was left on my talk page by the IP user soon after your message was left. You refer to an e-mail from me. I sent you no e-mail. If someone sent an e-mail from my e-mail address, they have hijacked my e-mail address. If they signed my name but did not use my e-mail address, I cannot account for it. I am sorry for the apparently mistaken e-mail message, if there was one, but it was not from me. However, I now assume you were referring to the message I left on the IP talk page. Donner60 (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

To be complete, I add that anyone could edit Wikipedia from your computer without logging in and that IP address will show up. So if someone else has access to your computer, that person could indeed have made the non-constructive edit referred to. And you would see the notice when you logged in later because it will show up later on that same computer whether your are logged in or not. Donner60 (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
====================================================

I'm the only one who can use my computer and apart from that I didn't really comprehend much of your message, sorry to say, Donner60. So, I'll just reiterate that I didn't edit, add, or delete anything in regard to the "Greek Chorus" page, either as Blythe Spirit, or while I was not logged on to Wikipedia, as an official member of this site. I sometimes forget/neglect to log-in and then anything I do registers as: 69.235.6.42. The fact is, I had never before laid eyes on the "Greek Chorus" page and didn't know it even existed, until I received a large, obtrusive -Warning- message, which appeared at the top of my screen, stating that I had vandalized the "Greek Chorus" page. The following message bombarded me when I entered the Wikipedia site to check on my previous 'work' concerning a page on René Bazinet. ("Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edit to Greek chorus constitutes vandalism and has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.")

Please understand that the only 'work' I've ever done, on Wikipedia, is in relation to the page on René Bazinet, i.e., a comprehensive summary of his career plus three images all of which I added... I would never vandalize anyone's work and was very shocked to have received such a message. If you did send me the message, then your assumption was erroneous and I'd very much appreciate never seeing another message like it, in future. Thanks, again, for your kind indulgence and compliance with my request. Blythe Spirit (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Left on user talk page as well:

I am sorry this continues to agitate you. I acknowledge that Blythe Spirit has not edited the Greek chorus page but my reversion and message related to an edit by the IP address. If you will look at the history of that article, you will see that an edit was made from 69.235.6.42 on May 8, 2013, which is the edit I reverted and described above. It would be impossible for me to make that up and I could not randomly pick out an IP address, tie an edit to it and then revert it and leave a message. It would also be a bizarre thing to do when there is more than enough vandalism to revert. The reply automatically goes to the address which posted the edit. So I am sorry but that edit was made from that IP address, which seems to be your IP address. I cannot account for it if you did not make it except to surmise that someone hijacked your computer in some fashion; the easiest and most logical way would simply be to use it but I am not enough of a computer expert to know if there is another way to post an edit under someone else's, or a fake, IP address. Be assured that if no such edits come from your user name (and I have no reason to think that would occur) or from that IP address, you will get no such messages. Also, I do not watchlist users or IP addresses. I only edit what comes up during a period when I am watching the current changes. Donner60 (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
One more thought that may explain this. I don't know how this is done but if you used your computer at a public place, someone could hijack the connection and send in a false edit that would show up as your IP address. I think the person could do this even if you were not logged in to Wikipedia. You would only need to have had the computer on. The person would not need to use your computer, only your connection. If that is the answer, it is quite unlikely to happen again but you might want to be aware of the possibility. Donner60 (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
===========================================
No, I don't go to public places with my computer and have no idea, whatsoever, other than some unexplainable glitch that could have caused this disturbing situation to occur. I just hope it -never- happens again. If it does, where or to whom should I report the problem for investigative purposes? Blythe Spirit (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Left on your user talk page:

!:Assuming this is a technical question (since someone has posted under your IP in a manner that cannot be explained by use of your computer or by hijacking your connection while you were using it in a public place - and is not identifiable to us otherwise), I think the proper thing to do is to report the problem at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). If the report should be made on a different noticeboard, I think someone would probably tell you. If you get no satisfactory reply within a reasonable period of time, let me know the circumstances and I will suggest trying one of the other noticeboards unless something obvious appears to me. Donner60 (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Donner60, I'll do that... :-) Blythe Spirit (talk) 03:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
==========================================================================================================================================

"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edit to Greek chorus constitutes vandalism and has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you." In reference to this message, I don't know what you're talking about. Before having received it I knew nothing about the "Greek chorus" page and therefore could not and did not contribute to or vandalize it. Please refrain from posting or sending me any further messages in future. If someone else is using my ID then kindly inform me and instruct me on how to report the situation to the proper Wikipedia officials. Thanks! 69.235.6.42 (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


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

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

Mediran (t • c) 08:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10
  1. ^ https://twitter.com/search?q=slim%20jim%20pork&src=typd
  2. ^ https://twitter.com/KevinHart2Reall/status/184733191498776578
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Donner60/Archive_4&oldid=1139179634"