User:Donner60
User:Donner60.
This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any other site than Wikipedia itself.
If you have a message for me, please leave it at the bottom of my talk page, not on this page. Thank you.
My computer has been down for several days and I have some problems to clear up as a result. I am back online but will have limited time online for awhile due to recovery from the problems caused by this and due to other real life obligations. I hope to be online at least briefly most days. Donner60 (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
 | This user has been the victim of an unintentional block. |
 | This user is not an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify) |
 | This user has been identified as an awesome Wikipedian. |
 | This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award. |
|
|||||||||
 
| |||||||||
|
|
New Vector Skin. I am using the old one for viewing and editing, which better suits my viewing of pages with its larger margins and size. If you view this page with the new vector skin, you will see the user boxes scattered about instead of in tidy lines of four and more lines of text. I may change the layout to fit the new skin but I can't make it a priority. To the extent I can be online, as noted in the next paragraph, I have several articles that I am editing or revising and will have limited time here. I suspect my using the old skin will only affect this page and a limited number of readers who I hope and assume won't mind the appearance in the new skin. Also, there is an option to switch between the skins that can clear up viewing some pages. The new skin is not without some merit. I do like the new simultaneous side-by-side preview pane which makes it faster and easier to find errors in an edit. It especially helps for getting those pesky ISBNs correct.
Further details or comments about the information in the user boxes are in the collapsible sections below or in sub-pages. I created sub-pages to store information which had become too long for a user page or which might have been making the page hard to save. Some of the other sub-pages may be getting stale. I may delete them entirely or reduce them in size. If reduced, I may add some information back here.
The lists of my books in various sub-pages are especially useful for research and for having citations in at least one of the proper forms available.
Some of my earlier articles were rated start by the rogue editor Wild Wolf, since indefinitely blocked. Wild Wolf was rating several articles per minute at times and was merely checking off at least one point as deficient although he obviously wasn't reviewing them. Since these were written many years ago, I think I should now ask for reassessment only after I have time to review them to see if they have deteriorated and now need work.
My content creation and improvement/addition work is usually in military history, including military biographies, articles. Most of these are American Civil War articles. However, in late July and August 2020, I created seven new articles on members of the earliest sessions of the Virginia House of Burgesses. I had created some articles on other Burgesses several years ago. I intend to start at least brief articles on all the members of the first session in 1619 and others of interest. I also have added a few articles on early railroads, the American Revolutionary War and some random biographies, including a World War II/Korean War general.
I have decided to work more on content creation and improvement for the foreseeable future with little if any use of Huggle. My place in the list of editors by edit has been falling even as I become more active again after a time of limited activity due mainly to health issues. I also had other real life business and computer problems, including Huggle not working. Content work may be more useful and satisfying for now. So the declining edit count now is not a result of low activity as it was just before and in peak covid times.
To do
|
|---|
|
Highest priority; priorities more or less in this order unless a task can be done quickly |
Military History Project
| ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
To help find important pages at the wikiproject military history; have also bookmarked these and a few others. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Template:WikiProject Military history/doc full project banner including task forces {{WikiProject Military history}} project banner {{WPMILHIST}} project banner {{WPMILHIST|class= |b1= |b2= |b3= |b4= |b5= }} a version of class banner {{WikiProject Military history|class=|list=|A-Class= |no-task-force= <!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist --> | b1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = <yes/no> | b2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> | b3 <!-- Structure --> = <yes/no> | b4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> | b5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> <!-- Task forces (general topics) -->|Aviation=|Biography=|Culture=|Films=|Fortifications=|Historiography=|Intel=|Land-vehicles=|Logistics=|Maritime=|Memorials=|National=|SciTech=|Weaponry= <!-- Task forces (nations and regions) -->|African=|ANZSP=|Balkan=|Baltic=|British=|Canadian=|Chinese=|Dutch=|French=|German=|Indian=|Italian=|Japanese=|Korean=|Latin-American=|Middle-Eastern=|Nordic=|Ottoman=|Polish=|Roman=|Russian=|South-Asian=|Southeast-Asian=|Spanish=|US= <!-- Task forces (periods and conflicts) -->|Classical=|Medieval=|Muslim=|Crusades=|Early-Modern=|Three-Kingdoms=|ARW=|Napoleonic=|ACW=|WWI=|WWII=|Cold-War=|Post-Cold-War=}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| {{WikiProject Military history|class=B|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes||WWI=yes|WWI=yes|Cold-War=yes}} }} {{@MILHIST}} ping co-odinators {{WPMILHIST Academy}} Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators Coordinator talk page Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Becoming a coordinator Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Military history articles by quality log Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest/Entries User:Evad37/rater Rater helps fill in assessments and other parameters for WikiProject banners. Find it in the "Tools" dropdown menu on the default Vector (2022) skin. Use Alt+5 to open Rater (on Windows, or a similar combination for other OSs) without using the dropdown menu. Rater is available from either the page itself or its talk page, in all namespaces, apart from Special pages and base User and User talk pages (but is still available for userspace drafts in subpages). B-class criteria
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Scope. 8 broad areas. 2. Military personnel, including both leaders and common soldiers, as well as other people involved in military affairs.[Note 3] Military service does not in and of itself place an individual within the scope of the project—particularly in the case of service in modern militaries. To qualify them, an individual's military service must have been somehow noteworthy or have contributed—directly or indirectly—to their notability. {{notaround|3=15<second number is day> month, year}} left Wikipedia template User:Donner60/Military History Project duplicates review alerts for now; maybe add to this or remove it Draft for November 2024 Bugle
|
Format; Lists; Vandalism to this page: Semi-protection
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The somewhat makeshift collection of user boxes to start the page was a small group at first. Through additions, it became longer. I found that I could not readily disentangle the cross full page grouping. Perhaps it is the combination of conventional, reconstructed and custom boxes. Maybe I just haven't taken enough time to find the right formatting. Now, it does not seem worth the time to change the page to place the user boxes in a column or two. I may try to do that some day or place them all at the bottom of the page, as some users have done. Since most of my content is in collapsible lists, that placement of user boxes at the bottom seems to me to be much the same as the current format. I would rather not hide them in sections because much of my information about what I do and have done here is in them. I had adjusted the format enough so the user boxes didn't scatter around the screen but I suppose they may not display quite as well on screens with narrower margins and, as noted above, will probably scatter again with the 2022 vector skin discussed above. I now use collapsible sections to keep a compact first look at the page and the content topics. Over the years, lists of my articles, activities at the project, research library and other matters related to the project have grown. I have created sub-pages to keep this content because this page had too many bytes and even as revised had sometimes still been hard to save. I had to split some of the original sub-pages for this reason but perhaps that is better anyway. Most of my books used for research are listed on some of them. I occasionally have been interested by lists (including the lists about my activities here). Many years ago I bought a book entitled: The Book of Lists by David Wallechinsky, Irving Wallace and Amy Wallace; New York: Morrow, 1977: ISBN 978-0-688-03183-1 (which became a #1 bestseller). I have created (italics) or largely expanded some lists here at Wikipedia including: List of American Civil War generals, List of American Civil War generals (Union), List of American Civil War brevet generals (Union), List of American Civil War generals (Confederate), List of American Civil War generals (Acting Confederate), List of members of the Virginia House of Burgesses, Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War, Bibliography of the American Revolutionary War, and Bibliography of the American Civil War. The number of times my pages have been vandalized in the user box is the number of separate edits by vandals. A few vandals made several edits before their vandalism was reverted. So, I have added all or most of the vandalism edits to my pages to the userbox count. Thanks to User:DeltaQuad, now AmandaNP, for keeping this number stable by semi-protecting this page on October 31, 2016.
|
Sub-page lists: DYK awards and articles moved; On this day articles; Barnstars and Barnstars awarded link
|
|---|
|
Template awards for my DYK articles and a list of DYK articles that I have reviewed have been moved to User:Donner60/DYK. I have retained the text of my DYK articles in a section below as well. My On this day Articles: A March 29 anniversary from two articles that I rewrote and substantially expanded (Appomattox Campaign and Battle of Lewis's Farm) appeared in the "On this day" section of the Main Page on March 29, 2015: An April 1 anniversary from an article that I substantially expanded, Battle of Five Forks although stated in an April Fool way, appeared in the "On this day" section of the Main Page on April 1, 2015: 1865 – American Civil War: Ordered to hold five forks, Confederate General George Pickett (pictured) instead lost almost 3,000 A June 1, 2022 On this day anniversary article: 1861 – The first land battle of the American Civil War after Fort Sumter took place in the village of Fairfax, Virginia. When I thought to check the latter two articles at a later date, not long after they were used in the On this day section, I had contributed 84.6% of the text of Appomattox Campaign, 89.7% of the content of Battle of Lewis's Farm and 91.8% of the content of Battle of Five Forks. So I think it was fair to include them. Despite the addition of some irrelevant content about re-enactments and commemorations added by another editor, my contribution to the article was still 83.0% of the content at the time of the later post on this page. An April 1 anniversary from an article that I substantially expanded, Battle of Five Forks again appeared in the "On this day" section of the Main Page on April 1, 2019: "1865 – American Civil War: The Union Army inflicted over 2,900 casualties on the Confederates in the Battle of Five Forks." The page history still showed that the great majority of the article was written by me as of the date of the on this day posting. Barnstars Awarded and Given Moved to User:Donner60/Barnstars |
My reports to AIV; My Welcomes/Advice Links Placed
|
|---|
|
AIV Reports: I am keeping the following summary text and statistics on AIV reports here and on User:Donner60/AIV Reports 2. I have stopped updating them on User:Donner60/AIV Reports since they would logically be with the latest reports. Introductory paragraph to AIV Reports statistics: As of November 17, 2024 I have made distinct reports on 1721 vandals/disruptive users to AIV; so user box shows 1720+.; 1692 resulted in blocks; (plus 1 user not blocked on my report but blocked by another administrator 2 days later). I noted in detail the reasons that no action was taken on most of the reports here and on the last AIV Report page. I am deleting those reasons here and may do so there or cut them back. Most were reports that were not acted upon were considered stale and/or where there was no further vandalism by the vandal, not where there was a problem with the report. Most of the stale reports were made on Saturday nights where little or no action had been taken on the all of the reports for several hours. Two were in cases where page protection was placed on the pages the vandals were acting on. Even so, as of November 17, 2024, in round numbers 98.5% of my reports over the years have resulted in blocks and the others were not declined because they were wrong but due to technicalities, usually because they were "stale." I occasionally will simply undo an edit which is merely wrong, with explanation, or, probably less often, add a clarification or a reference. Disruptive editing and other reasons for reverts are among reasons listed by Huggle and can harm articles as much or more than outright vandalism. Template warnings are tailored to the reasons. I try not to use a vandalism template when a more specific and accurate one should be used. However, the first template warning for "vandalism" covers an edit not being constructive. So I think this can be appropriate for several types of bad edits without an outright claim of vandalism. I think that reporting a user who has fewer than four plus one vandalisms (etc.) can be premature, especially if the user has no previous block or long history of vandalism barely evading blocks. There are situations where reports are appropriate when there have been fewer than four warnings, such as serious vandalism to biographies of living persons. I try to avoid Huggle false reports because of escalations of templates or failure to take into account an intervening block. I have added up to four manual warnings plus one vandalism before reporting a user to AIV when I see new vandalism after one block or prior warnings that are not recent and Huggle might place a higher level template. While I feel that I should add these thoughts because this has been a large (though not the only) area of my activity in recent years, this is not in direct response to anything directed to me. I think a look at my talk page would show that. Welcomes; Informative Messages: I have left many extra messages on user talk pages which have early template messages, usually from me. I have put these extra messages on the pages of users whom I think are making mistakes because of lack of knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines, styles and policies and possibly not intentionally vandalizing or disrupting the encyclopedia. I may think they could be good candidates for encouragement to become a productive user or not make guideline or style mistakes. I hope at least a few disruptive users become constructive contributors when the information is considered. The pages on which messages have been left are listed at User:Donner60/Welcomes. Most of these messages have advice with links and other tips but without the welcome language I used on the first messages. I decided to keep the welcome title rather than rename or move the page. Since the list was getting long, on January 19, 2016, I moved it to the User:Donner60/Welcomes sub-page to reduce the bytes on my user page. Since the first Welcome sub-page in turn was getting long, I decided to create a second sub-page User:Donner60/Welcomes 2 listing messages starting January 1, 2020. I ehave made no further edits to the first Welcomes page. I decided to discontinue this list as of June 30, 2021, although I will continue to leave such welcome or informative messages under similar circumstances. Continuing the list just reiterates the above points and the fact that I have left a large number of such messages. Now it seems to be wasted time and unnecessary edits to continue the list. Most messages were placed on talk pages of IP users. If those users register, there is no way for me to track whether they have become an active, productive user. I hope at least some of them will do so. |
Sub-page lists: My AfD reviews; My Speedy Deletion reviews
|
|---|
|
Individual Articles for Deletion (AfDs) reviewed and Ivotes Speedy Deletion nominations, results/CSD Log: Prod: Treaty of Andernach (1059) deleted 11/11/24 |
Sub-pages, most in this section are My Libraries (Bibliographies); Reference Use; And Sandboxes
|
|---|
|
I have created My Library (bibliography) pages so that I can more easily find research and references in my books to add content or citations to articles or to create new articles. The titles are shown in Chicago Manual of Style format. Note from Wikipedia:Citing sources. July 17, 2016: "While citations should aim to provide the information listed above, Wikipedia does not have a single house style, though citations within any given article should follow a consistent style. A number of citation styles exist including those described in the Wikipedia articles for Citation, APA style, ASA style, MLA style, The Chicago Manual of Style, Author–date referencing, Vancouver system and Bluebook." I use the Chicago Manual of Style format because I found it easier to understand and edit when I started contributing to Wikipedia. It can have one or two more pieces of information than those in other formats. In 2018, "magic links" have been deprecated and the advantage of automatically checked ISBNs can be attained by using the correct format for ISBNs and still use the Chicago Manual of Style format. Wikipedia:Book sources and Help:ISBN are pertinent Wikipedia pages. I have split the library into several pages because one page became too long to save easily and because I have added some topics that I occasionally use. In turn, I have added sections to pages with many titles for easier reference and to more easily save sections. In some cases I moved and renamed previous sub-pages that I was not using and did not really need to keep. I had shown them with the titles but have now omitted them as superfluous. User:Donner60/Military History Library. Includes books on all wars in which the United States has been a party through the Korean War (and one book on the Viet Nam war) unless included in one of the separate pages shown next. User:Donner60/Colonial era bibliography. User:Donner60/American Revolution Library. User:Donner60/American Civil War Library. User:Donner60/American Civil War Library References, General Topics. User:Donner60/American Civil War Library Biographies, Memoirs, Overviews. User:Donner60/American Civil War bibliography from Internet. User:Donner60/World War II Library. User:Donner60/Ancient, Medieval and Miscellaneous History Library. The miscellaneous history is mostly European history and in fact is almost all early and medieval history. User:Donner60/General and Miscellaneous History Library includes general histories, railroads, religions, American Old West. User:Donner60/ACW References. American Civil War facts and sources for reference and future edits; some general article links. This was only a start and I now must consider whether it is worth gathering this reference material online, especially since I have added or used little or nothing from it in recent years. User:Donner60/Wikipedia article links. A few references, links, templates, and odds and ends; mostly project pages: editing, formatting, citations, style. I have not used this much in recent years and will think about some change or even deletion. User:Donner60/sandbox Main user sandbox for user from Wikipedia; the one linked at top of the page. May have a draft or content from time to time. User:Donner60/Sandbox Currently has a few templates. User:Donner60/sandbox 2. For development of drafts (articles or discussion points or positions). Has various Wikipedia guidelines and templates. User:Donner60/sandbox 3. As of December 1 2020, this has my American Civil War library full list in alphabetical by author for possible future additional reference. User:Donner60/sandbox 4. For drafts:currently 1st Louisiana Heavy Artillery Battery. (New) User:Donner60/sandbox 5. For drafts: currently Grierson's Raid. (Improvement) User:Donner60/sandbox 6. For drafts: currently Widow Blakely (cannon) User:Donner60/sandbox 7. For drafts: currently Battle of Atlanta, or part (Expansion, improvement) User:Donner60/sandbox 8. For creating American Civil War surveys and overviews from my books and a few other sources User:Donner60/sandbox 9. Currently, Battle of Arlington Mills rewrite draft |
Articles that I have created
|
|---|
|
This list started with the list generated by clicking the link in the "articles created" user box as of October 12, 2016. This has been rechecked occasionally. I should have numbered them in reverse order to start with. Now, in order not to have to recopy and format the list with the newer articles, I have added them to the top of the list using the reverse order. That is the reason for number 1 following number 112. The list started in order by date created with most recent first but numbered 1. I don't have the articles linked because I thought it would be a nuisance to have this page show up on the "what links here" list for each article. I asked for two articles which I had just started, Battle of Green River and Battle of Gravelly Run to be deleted. I recall starting these as redirects but then noticed there was more than one battle which had these titles as alternate names. These two now show on the list as deleted articles although I intended them only as redirects and then asked for deletion myself when I discovered they would not work as redirects. The log shows that I requested the deletions and the sizes of the pages were 41 and 36 bytes. In addition, I am now credited with a disambiguation page creation. It is a page that I started as a redirect and I don't think I should count it so I have reduced the number in the userbox by one. That is why, as of October 13, 2023, my pages created page shows 132 with 3 having been deleted. Subtracting the redirect > disambiguation page, as of this date I show 131 in the user box. When a long hiatus in the Wikipedia user article count list page started, I was number 4795 for articles and redirects created. The new list shows only articles created so I dropped down the list. It is revised once, occasionally twice, per month. My place in the table of articles as of a more recent date created is shown in the user box above. Most, perhaps recently all, of my articles have been checked for assessments. The rogue and now indefinitely blocked editor User:Wild Wolf assessed a great many military history articles as start and checked one of the criteria at random, often citations, as insufficient. He did this so fast and so carelessly that it is obvious that he did not read or check the articles. I am sure at least some of my start articles should be assessed B. Perhaps I will take the time some day to as for B level reassessment, since C is the highest level to which a user can now reassess an article which they wrote. I should check them to see if they have degraded more recently before asking. Articles created as of November 17, 2024: 131. Battle of Cassville 2016-05-20 (I created this as a redirect; User:Djmaschek found it was a separate battle and turned it into a good article. I really shouldn't have credit for creating this. On the other hand, I have turned four redirects into articles and added almost all of the content to a some stub or start articles and that is the way the count is done. So thanks to Djmaschek and my good luck, or good karma, as to listing this one.)
130. John Pollington 2020-08-12
Redirects to substantive articles: |
My DYK Articles
|
|---|
|
DYK from articles created: Template awards and DYK articles I have revied moved to User:Donner60/DYK. The following list is the DYK text of my DYK articles from the main page: September 16, 2023 DYK... that after the Battle of Lewinsville, the "Gray Ghost" wrote that he regretted "the glorious opportunity that I missed of winging their colonel"? May 20, 2018 DYK ... that Union Army general Justus McKinstry, who recommended the appointment of Ulysses S. Grant to his first important command, was soon thereafter cashiered? 4145 page views on May 21-22, 2018. May 11, 2018 DYK ... that Henry Boynton Clitz, Commandant of Cadets at West Point from 1862 to 1864, disappeared in 1888? 3652 Views in 12 hour posting 0:00-12:00 UTC on May 11, 2018. May 10, 2014 DYK ...that American spy Anna Strong signaled members of the Culper Ring during the American Revolutionary War with her petticoat? 2,937 page views on May 10, 2014. August 1, 2013 DYK... that in June 1863, at the Battle of Fairfax Court House (courthouse pictured), 87 men of the Union Army charged a division of at least 2,000 Confederate soldiers? 7,291 page views on August 1, 2013. Lead hook. May 17, 2013 DYK ...that Richard Buck opened the first session of the Virginia General Assembly at Jamestown, Virginia on July 30, 1619 with a prayer? 564 page views on May 17. December 30, 2012 DYK ... that Charles W. Adams, a Confederate colonel during the American Civil War, was a grandfather of Helen Keller? 1498 page views December 30; 205 page views December 31. October 17, 2012 DYK ... that Confederate Major General J.E.B. Stuart's Chambersburg Raid was his second ride around McClellan? 1704 page views October 17. October 1, 2012 DYK ... that Jeptha Vining Harris, a Mississippi militia general during the American Civil War, was the son of Jeptha Vining Harris, a Georgia militia general during the War of 1812? 989 page views October 1. September 22, 2012 DYK ... ... that Confederate Colonel William Henry Harman was killed at the Battle of Waynesboro, Virginia, the town where he was born? 973 page views September 22. September 12, 2012 DYK ... ... that Colonel Joseph H. Tucker, twice commander of the Camp Douglas (Chicago) prison camp during the American Civil War, was never mustered into the Union Army? 1503 page views September 12, 186 page views September 13. August 18, 2012 DYK ... that the 48th Georgia Infantry Regiment of Confederate Lt. Colonel Reuben Walker Carswell was in a brigade commanded by Carswell's mentor as a lawyer, Brigadier General Ambrose R. Wright? 569 page views. August 15, 2012 DYK ... that Virginia militia (Confederate) brigadier general Gilbert S. Meem moved to Seattle, Washington, in 1892 and was appointed postmaster by U.S. President Grover Cleveland? 1,033 page views on August 15, 2012. Overlap to August 16: 12. August 11, 2012 DYK ... that Confederate Colonel Robert Johnson Henderson's division commander persuaded Henderson to sign his parole at the end of the American Civil War as a brigadier general? 1,489 page views, August 11, 2012. August 5, 2012 DYK... that a brigadier general commission for Confederate Colonel Francis Marion Walker arrived at his headquarters the day after he was killed at the Battle of Atlanta in the American Civil War? 1,251 page views, August 5, 2012. August 4, 2012 DYK... that Union Colonel James Cameron, killed at the American Civil War First Battle of Bull Run, was a brother of U.S. Secretary of War Simon Cameron? 1,088 page views, August 4, 2012. July 23, 2012 DYK ... that on January 15, 1861, Florida militia colonel William Henry Chase demanded the surrender of Fort Pickens at Pensacola, Florida, which he had designed and constructed as a U.S. Army captain? 2,142 page views, July 23, 2012. July 20, 2012 DYK ... that Confederate General John Bell Hood appointed Colonel Moses Wright Hannon an acting brigadier general after Hannon's men seized more than 1,000 cattle from the Union Army? 1,477 page views, July 20, 2012. July 12, 2012 DYK ... that Confederate Army Colonel Levin Major Lewis was hit by a spent musket ball that stuck in his forehead at the Battle of Lone Jack in Missouri during the American Civil War? 6,369 page views, July 12, 2012. 7,191 page views July 12 and 13, 2012. July 10, 2012 DYK ... that Confederate Army Colonel Wilburn Hill King acted as a general officer for more than a year but was never legally promoted? 3,190 pages views, July 10 and 11, 2012. December 28, 2011 DYK ... that Alabama's first superintendent of public education, Confederate brigadier general and college professor William F. Perry, had little or no formal education? 2,430 page views, December 28 and 29, 2011. December 5, 2011 DYK ... that Confederate brigadier general Alfred E. Jackson was pardoned by President Andrew Johnson because of his kindness toward Johnson's family during the Civil War?" 7,600 page views, December 5 and 6, 2011. 8,401 page views between November 18, 2011 and December 29, 2011. DYK articles I have reviewed along with DYK icons for DYK articles moved to User:Donner60/DYK. |
Hoax article deletions/Page Protection Requests/UAA
|
|---|
|
Hoax articles existing in main space for a longer period of time than those usually tagged for speedy deletion. I found these, tagged them as blatant hoaxes, explained further on the talk pages and administrators deleted them.
User names (Usernames) for administrator attention: 13 reported and deleted or blocked as of 'November 17, 2024: Asseaterr420 blocked indefinitely by Paul Erik August 17, 2016. I have made few page protection requests because usually by the time I decide that vandalism to an article is by more than one user and regular countervandalism reverts and reports are insufficient, someone has already made a request. As of November 17, 2024, I have made 27 page protection requests, 27 granted or users blocked. So the user box shows "more than 26." (Plus 1 reported but withdrawn due to no further vandalism after over 30 minutes.)
|
One-minute mistaken block
|
|---|
|
I have no blocks except for the 1-minute (49-second as shown on X-tools as of November 2017) block by mistake described in talk page items shown below. Especially as long as this is the only instance in which it even appears at initial glance (as on the contributions page if one does not click on the link) that I had a block, and despite the triviality of this, I thought I would note my clean record to date (November 17, 2024) by keeping the user boxes above and the following discussion about the mistaken block on this page. This is evident if one clicks on the block log; it also is explained below. This may seem trivial but it is a matter of personal pride to have a clean block log as long as it exists. One is obviously excluded from certain considerations or lists if a bot or search turns up a block, even a very brief, mistaken one. I was pleased to see in November 2017 that the edit count page showed my "1 block" as 49 seconds rather than 31 hours. Anyone who sees that will now know that a block of such short duration must have been a mistake. While it does not entirely remove the problem that the "block" might still turn up and be counted despite the mistake, as it was in Enterprisey's tool (Asynchronous Admin Score) as of November 2017, although with diminished impact due to its aging. This happened several years ago and probably does not matter much but it seemed like an undeserved scarlet letter that one must continue to live with when I revised this section in 2018. Donner60 (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2018 (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)
|
RfA/RfB Participation
|
|---|
|
I started to participate in RfA and RfB !voting and comments in September 2013, more than three years from the date I started editing. I have read all of the RfA pages from 2010 to the most recent date for my !votes shown below. Of course, I have read many of these pages after the RfAs were closed. These included the RfAs which ended before I began to !vote, those which have been snow closed and some which I have missed for various reasons. In a few cases, I simply could not decide whether to support or oppose. Most of the RfAs in which I did not participate were because I was offline or simply missed. I !voted neutral on a few of the earlier RfAs in which I have participated when I wanted to lend encouragement to a candidate whose RfA appeared bound to fail or I wanted to make a comment. I now think neutral !votes are not often very useful, and a separate section for comments is now provided so I will rarely if ever post a "neutral". I have opposed a small number of the RfAs in which I have !voted. I might have opposed a few others but I think pile-on opposes are not useful if an RfA is certain to fail. I infrequently may add a support !vote to RfAs, rather than a neutral, even if I see the RfA is likely to fail if I think the failure to pass is especially unwarranted or perhaps that there is enough time and good reasons for a late surge of support. I do !vote early when I see the RfA early and know or can easily check a candidate's demeanor and body of work. I have rarely, if ever, changed an !vote. In cases where new information might have persuaded me to change a support !vote, that new information will usually quickly swing the percentage to a different result and make a change in my !vote to oppose superfluous or unnecessary. There have been a few RfAs where it became obvious to me from later disclosures that the rationale for my !vote was probably incorrect and I should have !voted the other way or abstained. Usually I remained unaware of the swing in support but I might have seen a few where the result had become a foregone conclusion. A main consideration for me in deciding whether to support an RfA is the demeanor and attitude of the candidate in dealing with others. I also consider whether the candidate's work overall shows that the candidate is trustworthy, competent and would likely use the tools carefuly. I don't expect a candidate to have never made a mistake. It seems that opposition is some times based on a few actions or incidents, often well in the past and some times out of context, which are not representative of the candidates whole body of work and interactions. Otherwise, I have seen enough variation in good candidacies that I have not set out a number of strict minimum criteria in a variety of areas which I expect to be met in every case. Of course, more than a little experience over a short period of time is needed to give some indication of a candidate's abilities, competencies, demeanor, interactions and trustworthiness. Except in rare cases where a candidate brings a good track record and some needed skills, some article creation/content work should be included in a candidate's history. As of November 17, 2024: Neutral: (8) Opposed: (6) RfBs Supported: (10) Neutral: • none Opposed: • none |
References added to articles with an unreferenced template or no references but no template
|
|---|
|
Because I noticed that there is a drive this month (January 2016) to add references to unreferenced articles, I decided to add references to some of these articles and to make a list of them. Although I am reasonably sure that I have added references/citations to a few unreferenced articles in the past, I did not keep track of them. As far as I know it would be very difficult and time-consuming to find these (few) articles now, even if I made a note describing the edit in the edit summaries. So I start the list from this date. Donner60 (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC) Perhaps I will add to the list but I have mainly ignored it and probably had little to add because my later additions have been to articles that already have some references. Donner60 (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• 18 January 2016 Transkeian honours system • 18 January 2016 Cedar Island, North Carolina • 18 January 2016 Thermopause • 18 January 2016 Barnaby Woods Removed unreferenced template because references present • 18 January 2016 Savoy Estate (infobox items referenced; stub article) |
Information
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The first law for the historian is that he shall never dare utter an untruth. The second is that he shall suppress nothing that is true. Moreover, there shall be no suspicion of partiality in his writing, or of malice. - Cicero My object in mentioning and refuting this story is, by a conspicuous example, to put down hearsay, and to request that all those into whose hands my work shall come not to catch eagerly at wild and improbable rumours in preference to genuine history. - Tacitus, Annals, IV.11 |
Not around template
|
|---|
|
From the page Template:Not around "This template may be used on the talk page of a Wikipedia user who has been a longer-term contributor but has not been active on Wikipedia in the past few months/years. "It is not intended to be used on user pages, or on talk pages of editors who have announced their departure (as the goodbye message is there for everyone to see). Rather, it should be used to inform editors that the user in question has not been active for a long time, and that they may not reply to any messages or questions. "It is generally not advisable to add this template to the talk page of any Wikipedia user who has stopped editing for a short amount of time. Wait at least three months before listing someone who has simply ceased editing." Note: Unless I have miscalculated, I wait for a user not to be around for at least a year before placing the template on the user talk page. I may wait longer if the not around time is a little more than a year or if there is a clear pattern of occasional editing (e.g. not just 14 months ago for the only time in several years). I am not on a long term project to place these templates. Most not around users are from just a few pages, and from some early posts on those users' talk pages. My aim is to save users time in trying to contact people who have left Wikipedia and are very unlikely to respond. Also, I don't know if bots might spot these, which might have the presumably good effect of pruning a mailing list. |
Recentism, Presentism, Relative Time References
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
Some editors employ the Recentism tag {{Recentism}} at the top of articles to warn the reader that the content may be tilted toward recent perspectives.
|
