Jump to content

User talk:Donner60/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Archive 17 starting with closed talk page threads after April 12, 2018 through July 27, 2018.

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For the obnoxious edit war with the IP you had to endure tonight! Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 03:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball career times on base leaders

Re: the career times on base leaderboard. Here you can see the leaderboard from which Wikipedia's is sourced—https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/TOB_career.shtml. I don't have a source that will tell you it excludes IBBs, but if you follow the links to the player pages it's readily apparent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.96.8 (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

It would be helpful to add a footnote to that effect (without saying you don't have a source, just explain the facts). I won't revert your further edit but someone else might if the edit is not sourced or explained. Thanks for the message. Donner60 (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Indiana Pacers

Granger The Granger era did not end until the '13-'14 season when he was traded

PG The PG era did not begin until the '13-'14 season, '12'13 at the earliest 'due to Granger injury'.

We Grow Basketball Era The current era is not about an individual. The focus of the team as a collection & is not the '2017–present: The Victor Oladipo Era' it is the '2017–present: We Grow Basketball Era' as shown below.

Grow

NBA Slam Dunk Contest

    • Winners If there is a better way to format the winner bullet please do so, I am not well versed when it comes to scripting

NBA All-Star Weekend

NBA All-Star selections|Slam Dunk Contest

NBA All-Star East Head Coach

NBA Slam Dunk Contest

Thanks for the explanation. I struck my original message on your talk page and left your later edit in place. I left a more detailed reply and some helpful Wikipedia page links on the page as well. Donner60 (talk) 11:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

National Fascist Party

Hello. I was reviewing the page of the Italian Fascist Party and it's history, and I am very knowledgeable in the party's history. I noticed under the "Political Position" of the party's description, it was listed as "Far-Right". There is a wide misconception in regards to the political position of Italian Fascism, and the correct "Political Position" should be "Syncretic". While the National Fascist Party did demonstrate Xenophobic and Oppressive views, views that are considered to be aligned with the Far-Right, these views were not the sole views of the party. Mussolini and his Fascist counterparts did in fact take political ideas generally found on both the right and left and combined them to make them into the ideals of the National Fascist Party. Mussolini and many of the members of the National Fascist Party were actually apart of the popular Italian Socialist Party, who left after a series of internal conflicts with Ideals. Socialist, as well as many other political beliefs, were selected and combined to be the basic principles of the Italian Fascist Party. That is why I made the change of the Political Position to be "Syncretic". Also, I would like to add one more ideology to the category "Ideology" to the page. That category being "National Syndicalism". National Syndicalism is one of the most important ideological belief of the National Fascist Party, as the party was striving to implement National Syndicalism into Italy and it's economy. This ideology is one that makes Italian Fascism to be what it is. I would strongly encourage the addition of these ideologies, as they are historically accurate descriptions of the National Fascist Party. I do apologize for any confusion. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.193.203 (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I do apologize for forgetting to sign and add links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Fascist_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_syndicalism

Stewart Devry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.193.203 (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I find the explanation satisfactory but I think it would be better to add a source or a link providing an explanation as you now suggest. I left some helpful Wikipedia page links on your talk page and struck my original message. Donner60 (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Syncretic as defined by Vocabulary.com: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/syncretic

Syncretic Politics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretic_politics

Although it is very difficult to understand, Italian Fascism is inherently a syncretic ideology:

https://thelinknewspaper.ca/article/what-is-fascism-anyway/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.193.203 (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Double Bind:

After 25 years tracking master-slave system behaviours at the personal, family, group, team, organisational, institutional and media, government and community levels of system as a Change Analysts and paradigm shift specialist I have measured the double-bind process as one of the controls that Master-Slave systems use as a status quo chock. Another status quo maintenance process is that of over-personalising systemic control processes, reducing system issues to personal problems.If you remove the entry, then you are merely reversing the system level of understanding of double binds as a system control function, taking readers back to a personal process of pain. The references will not be available to the public for two years. You can link to the reference at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.116.163 (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

When the research is published in a reliable, verifiable, third-party (neutral) source, it can be added to the article, provided it does not remove verified existing or equally factual text. See Wikipedia:Verifability and Wikipedia:No original research
The edit changes the meaning of the term as I read it. If the text is to be an additional definition, it should be styled that way when it can be verified.

The following quote from a Wikipedia guideline page is relevant here: "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a reliable source; what counts as a reliable source is described in Wikipedia:Verifiability."

Helpful information about editing Wikipedia can be found on various Wikipedia guideline and policy pages including: Help:Getting started; Wikipedia:Introduction; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style; Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources; Wikipedia:Citing sources; Help:Footnotes; Wikipedia:Verifiability; Wikipedia:No original research; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; Wikipedia:Notability; Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons; Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; Wikipedia:Words to watch; Help:Introduction to talk pages; Wikipedia:Copyright Problems and Help:Contents. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks a bunch for thanking my edit. I always love it, it's a little bit of encouragement for me, a newbie to the wiki myself. Rock on. UnsungKing123 (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I made a mistake, not quick enough to hit the button and caught your correct change. So I am glad you were diligent and didn't make a big deal about it. Donner60 (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Emancipation Proclamation

HI! I am sorry for not citing my source. It was fine that you deleted it. 47.187.101.65 (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)−

Podolia

It does make them seem responsible via written association, not to mention the fact that the lines are completely irrelevant to the article's subject matter.

Hi

The information written by Quisqualis is false and fake.. Kafanchan don't have an Emir.. We only have Kings which are known as sarki. So the Emir written on the Kafanchan info by Quisqualis is known as Sarkin Hausawa just as we have Sarkin Kaninkon and Sarkin Fanstwam.. Secondly Kafanchan metropolis is not dominated by Hausa Fulani.. We only have a small scale of Hausa people living in the center of the town which are not even upto 10,000 out of the 83,000 people stated in 2006 so you see that Kafanchan is a 90% percent Christian dominated town, Kafanchan has never been conquered by the Fulani people so.. So there is nothing like Usman Dan fodio flag in Kaduna.. We only have small Hausa traders who migrated from the Northern Kaduna some years ago.. And our people gave them lands to stay so they are just visitors.. I was born in Kafanchan I stayed in this town for about 25 Years..so I will want you to warn Mr Quilquls or whatever his name is to stop writing wrong information about Kafanchan if not this could Spark Religious Crisis.. Please warn him.. Thanks Dankafanchan (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I have done some research on this. I could find few sources, almost none that are current, and none with the kind of detail needed. I think you both may be partially correct based on what I have read. Since I have only one edit to the page, and many edits have been made since then, I do not see how I can warn Quisqualis. The fact that edit war charges have gone back and forth also complicates this matter. I am not an administrator, only an editor. Under the circumstances, I do not see how I can be productively involved. I suggest you look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to consider what steps you might take. Donner60 (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Huggle Errors

Huggle showed vandalism to the same page four extra times a few minutes ago. After four reverts, I realized something was wrong. Oddly enough, my reverts edited away several vandalisms but left the wrong type of message since it was repeating the same warning 1 or 2. I changed those messages as quickly as I could to make them coincide with the type of vandalism or disruptive edit actually reverted. Now Huggle seems to be functioning correctly again. Strange occurrence. Posting this in case anyone is curious about those edits and odd reverts about unexplained content removal when a different type of edit was really at issue. Donner60 (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

National Taiwan University

Hi, 

 I am concerned that you remove my added content with "reliable" citation sources, do you have a standard on
  reliable media sources in Taiwan? Please set the standard before making such a comment.

 I also concern that you are responding to me almost in real time, are you being sponsored with personal
 agenda or third party on censoring the comments?

Being anonymous as there is serious political interest in this.

You did cite a source in your first edit, but not in your second which makes a definite, but unsupported, allegation. The citation does not support the comments you added which seem to be your personal interpretation. The standard is the same for anything added to Wikipedia.
The following quote from a Wikipedia guideline page is relevant here: "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a reliable source; what counts as a reliable source is described in Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. See also Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
Please also see Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith which states "editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such."
I have been an editor and rollbacker for Wikipedia for many years. I have no personal interest in Taiwan, the University or the article. It just happened to show up as I was reviewing and editing changes to articles. Through use of a program named Huggle, which is no secret and about which there is an article, editors can see changes to articles in real time and as fast as they can switch to a new page - if there are too many at once, they will go into another editor's queue. Huggle users can take action through one click if they believe the addition or deletion does not meet the criteria for verifiability or has certain other problems, including vandalism. You have made serious allegations that are certainly reasonably questionable and not supported by a reliable, verifiable source. That is all there is to it. This is not to say they are untrue but that there needs to be evidence to support serious allegations. The Taipei Times article likely could have been a reliable source, but it does not say what your edit says. Donner60 (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Jeff Berwick page

Hi Donner60,

My change about Jeff Berwick was not a test, Jeff Berwick is a citizen of Liberland, we name the citizens Liberlanders. Here is Jeff Berwick himself showing his passport : https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155462144280041&set=a.10150178427930041.343779.517275040&type=3&theater So why this rollback? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.179.251.180 (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page considering you have now shown Berwick making the claim. I added some helpful Wikipedia page links. Donner60 (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Taken(film) section television series

Hi Donner

The correction i made was not a mistake, Unless you are saying this site is wrong https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5052460/fullcredits or this website who related news about the show http://tvline.com/2017/06/21/taken-season-2-cast-leaving-spoilers-nbc/ . Because Micheal Irby portrayed Scott and Jose Pablo Cantillo Portrayed Dave. There was no Sam and Bernie in the first season.

Devils28 (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)devils28

You are correct. I may not have looked at those sites. Regardless, I did check a source but I either misunderstood the article or source that I did look at or it was preliminary and inaccurate. (Imdb actually is not considered a reliable site by Wikipedia because it is user written and the oversight is not obvious. I don't actually view it that strictly because I haven't found mistakes when I checked certain facts but some editors do view the limitation on its use strictly.) I rolled back my edit and struck my message on your IP address user talk page. Donner60 (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Arthur Manderley

Hey! I wanted to tell you that this article is invented from scratch, I do not know how to make it aware, it was created a few days ago from scratch (This is the alias of Benjamin Charles-Lemaire: to see the link history/page on this person, he had exactly the same alias on his record) by shock puppets very many! Source links are all wrong, just a blog created for the occasion, has never created movies that was taken over by Steven Spielberg or taken over in 12 countries... Everything is credited by a blog, a YouTube, the link to the twitter does not work etc...The sources are not reliable because it is a fictional character. TY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.171.241.246 (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I suggest you put some of your reasoning on the article's talk page. Also, see Wikipedia:Deletion process and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. As an IP user, you may have to ask for help at the Wikipedia:Teahouse or Wikipedia:Help desk unless you become a registered user. If you are a new user, you might want to ask for help anyway. Help:Contents also provides many useful links. Donner60 (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Be careful : sockpuppet opened for this user. 2 others users with same behavior were banned 2 days ago for doing the same things, trying to make delete related articles. Admin are warned, and will invest of these IP. Might be the same guy. Mamougnia2000 (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
{{ping|Mamougnia2000}} Thanks. It is surprising the lengths some disruptive editors will go. Note that I did not rollback my own edit or state that I would help his effort in any way. Even if one is assuming good faith, this is not the kind of thing a mere reviewer would usually want to get involved with. I am glad I simply left some suggestions of links which give ways to proceed if he wants to seek deletion. If he is a sock, he almost certainly will not follow them. If he does, I hope adminis or other users will monitor what he is doing. If suspicious edits come again while I am reviewing, I will question or revert them. I have been warned a few times about this type of problem and I am always glad when another editor has an eye out for this sort of thing and will advise others. Donner60 (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@Donner60: (!) Manougnia aka Martingally or Tifftiff1234 or Plantinaute or 77.136.17.168 etc. Are just as much sockpuppet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mamougnia2000 That insinuates that other contributors are in its place, this is the first time I see a mythomaniac persevere as much in his lies, if the articles were all deleted on his own page because there was only advertising, links to YouTube accounts, twitter, imdb... Create by the only contributor who has also been blocked on very many occasions, for the sole purpose of being the one and only contributor on his pages for promotion, Arthur Manderley being a fictional character and the alias of his real name Charles-Lemaire which was also deleted for lack of notability. The administrators saw that my proofs were serious, true and the IPs on my person it's just an account that I could not use anymore and it was even indicated in the sockpuppets inquiry! The other 3 different IPs are of him and dares to blame the other contributors, to each contributor he makes a report. But, don't forget that he too was blocked each time and then these items removed for not his purportedly! Always acting towards the directives of WP (evidence of big newspapers, no social networks made for the occasion, and made false translations of articles concerning a namesake in English of French). Thanks--37.169.55.192 (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Being unable to ping you, I also left the following on the IP user talk page: The bottom line actually is this: The article has been deleted. I am a reviewer/editor not an administrator. Since the article no longer needs editing or review, the other matters you raise are beyond what I do or can do. I don't see any context in which I would be involved or need to know all the other details that are being written about or that I could do anything about it. It also seems so complicated that I am no longer even able to follow whether there is still a controversy or what exactly it continues to be. If there is something that needs to be done at the present time, it needs to be done by an administrator. You should look to the appropriate noticeboard to get administrators' attention. This seems to now be something that just becomes more complicated by adding me into something I am not understanding at this point or appear to be able to do anything about. I hope you can straighten this out to a proper resolution with someone who can doing something about this. Donner60 (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Kamal Hosni

Sorry Don't Know How To edit or use commands :( Oofimadog —Preceding undated comment added 23:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I left links to helpful Wikipedia style, policy and guideline pages on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 MILHIST Backlog Drive

 Military history service award 
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded these stripes for your efforts during the April 2018 MILHIST Backlog Drive. Thank you for your contributions. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Ayşe Sinirlioğlu

Donner60, can you please complete your review, including signing it? DYK isn't set up for anonymous reviewing. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the omission. I've been around long enough to know to sign every message or comment but I am sure I have missed a few over the years. Thanks for the prompt alert and I hope this did not result in any delay or significant problem. Donner60 (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

AIV

This really needs to stop--it's bed time, and every time I glance at Recent changes I see more vandalism or another one of those reports from you... Drmies (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

{{ping|Drmies}} True. I have only reported two or three of them, however. By the way, a few days ago one of them apparently (unsuccessfully) tried to get into my account from a device unknown to Wikipedia/Wikimedia according to a notice I received. There is no telling what some of the vandals will try. I seriously thought about telling you and a few others about this. (You came to mind because you have noticed vandalism to my page in the past.) I thought maybe if all kinds of weird behavior was coming out of this account, someone might suspect it really wasn't me. Since you left this message, you must have had some vibe to see what was on my mind. Donner60 (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Donner, go check ANI or AN--there may still be a thread about a set of hacking attempts. They tried it with me and everybody else I know (except for {{U|Kelapstick}} so it was probably him)--tens of thousands of attempts. Sorry, you're not special, haha. And neither am I. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
True story, I have not had a notification of a break in attempt on my account (ever I think). Not even when you tried Drmies. I think I had a wrong password one time (I think that was a thing at some point), but that was all me. --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I've had it before, once or twice. I still wonder if they managed to break any in this latest wave of attempts. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
{{ping|Drmies}}, {{Ping|kelapstick}}. Thanks for the interesting info. Here I thought I was being singled out and might even soon find all sorts of weird things coming out of my account if a further attempt was successful (more than usual, anyway). Now I find out that kelapstick is the special one. Donner60 (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh he's special alright. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents - The Hague

[A Syrian refugee armed with a knife stabbed and injured at least three people in front of a café in The Hague. The attacker shouted "Allahu Akbar” in the attack.[36]]: The problem is that the source says that the "Allahu Akbar" scream has not yet been confirmed. See also: This source (in german) says, that it is not clear if the attacker or another person shouted "Allahu Akbar": https://www.derwesten.de/panorama/angriff-von-den-haag-polizei-schliesst-terrormotiv-nicht-aus-id214217499.html Sokrates2987 (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

{{ping|Drmies}} Thanks for handling this and straightening it out. I am glad I was at least a little cautious and only undid the edit, with mention of the one source, and did not revert the edit with a message to Sokrates2987. It shows that with respect to current incidents, one must be wary of relying on one source (the one that was cited and the one I checked). That template on "in the news" articles about changing info and early sources often being wrong is certainly applicable in many cases, including this one as it has happened. Donner60 (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Hayley Holt

Regarding Hayley Holt - my sources were - https://www.nowtolove.co.nz/lifestyle/career/hayley-holt-on-staying-sober-and-maintaining-her-sanity-36214 and https://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv-radio/tv-guide/102709518/hayley-holt-talks-history-dancing-and-the-commonwealth-games. I now can't be bothered re-writing what I wrote as I will still in the process of completing it so thanks for deleting what I wrote BEFORE IT WAS COMPLETED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.153.247 (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

So why didn't you cite them? See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. You added some serious apparently negative content to a biography of a living person, which if false would not only be contrary to Wikipedia policy but unfair to the person who is the subject of the article. Unsourced negative content added to such articles is subject to immediate deletion. You did not leave a edit summary with any indication your editing was unfinished. You can get your content back by undoing my edit but I would advise you to do so only if you add the citations because another editor may well take the same view of it. (Besides leaving an edit summary message that you are unfinished and that citations will be inserted presently, you might also make all your edits offline and then insert them at the same time to be sure partial contributions are not misconstrued.) You might read some of the other Wikipedia guideline pages such as Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. I also suggest you read Wikipedia:Civility. Donner60 (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit to article titled The Pequot War

Link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pequot_War

Specifically the "Causes for war" section.

I replaced the entire last paragraph of this section with the text as follows:

These conditions escalated into war when, in July 1636, the corpse of an English trader named John Oldham was discovered off of Block Island. There had been other similar attacks, and Grandjean muses, “why a few such episodes escalated into Indian war remains one of the riddles of early American history.” In contrast to previous scholarship asserting that Oldham was a respected trader,<ref>Cave, ''The Pequot War'', pp. 104–105.</ref> Grandjean clarifies that Oldham in reality had a questionable reputation in Plymouth. Thus, she proposes the distinct possibility that these incidents were blown up by the colonists to justify organizing an attack (and thus have a chance to take Pequot wealth and land).

Actually, I did a little further editing and came up with this now, which is more accurate to Katherine A. Grandjean's essay (cited in the penultimate paragraph), which I drew from for this paragraph:

These conditions came to a head when, in July 1636, the corpse of an English trader named John Oldham was discovered off of Block Island. This was the latest in a series of attacks on English seaman. In contrast to previous scholarship asserting that Oldham was a respected trader,<ref>Cave, ''The Pequot War'', pp. 104–105.</ref> Grandjean clarifies that Oldham in reality had a questionable reputation in Plymouth, but that he (and other traders) served an important economic role for the now starving English. It is likely that the increasingly dire economic straits these men faced drew them to warfare in a desperate attempt to avoid starvation in the winter, and that any rationale of exacting revenge for Oldham's death was simply a tactic to convince the Englishmen to organize an attack.

I eliminated the previous final paragraph because the proposal Alfred A. Cave makes in his book, that a feud between Narragansett-allied Indians and English traders is to blame, is an outdated (1996) and somewhat simplistic view of the factors at play in this event. Grandjean's 2011 essay acknowledges the economic factors that a major contributor from the start to the end of this war, which is a view much more in line with the events that followed, particularly in the desperate Mystic Massacre, and more in line with the concluding paragraph in the "Historical accounts and controversies" section.

Do I simply need to try again, now with the edit summary?

Also, thanks for your time. I think this is my first edit!

rkamradt1Rkamradt1 (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I may end up with a view similar to the one I put on your talk page and then quickly deleted. Of course, it is in the history. I think it would be fair for me to give this a little more consideration. I struck my original (template) message because of your good faith explanation here. I am still troubled by the dismissal of not only a recent account, but all previous accounts, including those of the colonists, as outdated. I also think that crucial facts have also been deleted. You have added a little more here that I also need to take into account before I give either a very similar response or a revised one. I will do that as soon as I can. Donner60 (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I have left a reply on you talk page. I have concluded that Grandjean's account is suspect and appears to be skewed, at least concerning the Oldham incident, at best. So I have said that it would not be in keeping with a neutral point of view to delete the facts and text based on the Cave book, far from a whitewash and outdated, and replace them with apparent speculations by Grandjean. Perhaps Grandjean's view could be briefly added with care, but I don't see how it can be definitive. I hope you will consider the longer reply and will continue to contribute to Wikipedia. I know how some early criticism can be disheartening but I also know it can be shaken off and many other later contributions to the project can be made. You are making a good faith effort to make a positive contribution and I want to express that observation. Donner60 (talk) 09:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Pin-ups for Vets

Thanks for the message. I must have accidentally deleted something. Thanks for putting it back in order. Schickdavid3 (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

An old edit of yours is being challenged

It's this edit[1], specifically the bit about more than 1,500 men being unaccounted for. I realise it's 8 years old! See the edit summaries here, the latest one is the challenge. I can't find it on p.257 of Levy. You'll see I've had a couple of problems with some of the current editing. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

{{ping|Doug Weller}} I am sorry that this has resulted in controversy. I may comment further on that after I a look at the edits in question and current issue. I will do that tonight, or if it takes some digging to see if I can find a reference, within a day or two. I'll make two preliminary comments as information. (1) That was one of the first two or three articles that I worked on before writing my first article, as I recall. I put a considerable amount of information into the article but I may not have done in it as precise way as I think I would now. I would have hoped that I made no real mistakes. I am in the process of rewriting another early contribution which I have recently viewed and (cringe) realized it can be done better, maybe even made shorter. So I would not be surprised if this article could use some editing, over above that which has been done in recent years. (2) I have accumulated quite a few books about the Civil War in the last 8 years and had many before then. The Levy book is one of the few, or maybe the only one, I have ever checked out of the library, read, used for article references and returned without thinking I would need it again. So I cannot check the citation easily, but that seems unnecessary since you apparently have it. I assume I got the wrong page number or maybe even used the wrong source when typing up the edits. I will look at whether I have another source available for the point in issue, a couple of which are about Civil War POW camps. Donner60 (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

{{ping|Doug Weller}} Sometimes I leap before I look in order to record a quick response to show I am paying attention. I should have looked at the diff and the article right away because the page you mention here differs from the one after the content you mention. Also, the diff you cited seems to be unrelated to the 1,500 figure or refer to Levy on page 257 or 357 and does not seem to be currently at issue.
My comment about not having the Levy book available is relevant to this message, however. Also, my comment about my editing being an early effort that could have done better, or now could be done better, is accurate even if a side point. Luckily, a number of later edits have cleaned the article up to some extent.
The only reference I see in the existing article to Levy, page 257 concerns an unrelated matter, the "Chicago conspiracy." I see a reference to Levy, page 357 with respect to the 1,500 unaccounted for in the text about the number of burials in the cemetery. It is after the next sentence but also could have been the source of the 1,500 figure in the previous sentence. Is the missing reference perhaps on page 357 - or is it not there either? I noted in the last message that I did not have the Levy book any longer but that it appears you do so you may be able to check it.
You did not ask directly about the current controversy in the recent edits but I will look at some of my later book acquisitions to see if I have anything that may provide some clarification. I think I would not have written that information as a footnote now because it seems to have some direct bearing on the content about the camp. I may have thought it was something of a side issue and would not fit well in the text. I probably thought it should be supported by citations and would not be controversial. Donner60 (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I hope you understand I wasn't being in any way critical. That was a long time ago and I'm sure both of us made edits we'd do better now. I was looking at the Amazon version that's is searchable, I don't have the book. I'm going out with my dog right now and will take a look again later. In a rush, Doug Weller talk 08:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
{{ping|Doug Weller}} The criticism is self-criticism. I am not saying my work was trash but that I see some improvement and more familiarity with adding content might have made the added text clearer and possible shorter. Some errors were trivial formatting errors or may have arisen from later changes (e.g. magic links). I realize there is "no deadline" in Wikipedia. If possible, I prefer not to let things go unfinished for long when my prior editing is involved because I feel some responsibility to clarify or settle the issue and because I feel some concern that I might forget to finish. From previous interactions, I know you would not be impatient but I have in mind that some people can be. On the other hand, I suppose partial responses can raise further questions and defeat the purpose of saying something to the effect "here is some info and I am working on it promptly." More on this than needed already so I will let it go from here.
Now I see that the 1,500 figure is raised in the last edit summary although it seems not to have been raised with respect to the prior edits about Johnson Island. It deals with the number of burials but rather than being unrelated, perhaps has some bearing on the accuracy of the previously stated number of prisoner deaths. So I will look at that as best I can. If the Levy book is the only source and neither of us has access to the relevant page(s), I may need to stop at the library soon and see if the book is still available there. This could be a week or more from now. If the book is on Questia I can no longer access it there because my subscription has lapsed. The more recent Wikipedia requirements for a subscription are a little more detailed and complicated as I read them so I have been trying to get by without the additional resource, although I have increased my content contributions recently. Donner60 (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
One of the problems with some WIkipedia articles is that people try to source statements without checking to see when they were added to the article. I can find a source for the 1,500 - but it's dated 2015 and I'm sure it's just copied our article. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

{{ping|Doug Weller}} I have re-written the entire section. I think it is clearer, simpler, has all the relevant information and is more like it should be. The lengthy footnote comparing the prisons and death rates is gone. I have a comparison with Elmira only in the text. Let me know if you think anything more needs to be done with this. Donner60 (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That looks a great improvement. Doug Weller talk 16:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Revert of Edits to LVOA-C

Hullo, Donner60! This is a fellow (friendly) Wikipedian wondering why you reverted an edit on LVOA-C without notifying the user that his information was reverted. Why did the user not receive a notice? By the way, I love your user page format!  :) - zfJames Please ping me in your reply on this page (chat page , contribs) 23:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

{{ping|ZfJames}} I reverted one edit on that page at 3:29 and my message about blanking the page was delivered to the user talk page at 3:29. So unless I have missed something, I think you have made a mistake (unless the history pages are wrong for some reason). I made a couple mistakes myself last night, lack of clarity in a couple of messages that I left which had to be revisited. I may have very occasionally not delivered a user talk page message when reverting an edit when the cursor slipped over to the next column (rare, I think), where I intended to leave a special message or perhaps when I reverted a second instance very quickly and decided to give the already warned user another chance. Of course, some vandals/disruptive editors will delete talk page messages and you would need to look in the history to be sure that a message was not sent. It happens less often than I might have guessed but it does happen. If I undo an edit, I almost always treat it as a regular undo edit and depend on the edit summary to show the reason.
That is the first compliment I have ever received on the user page layout. I don't recall any specific criticism but I do recall a few negative comments about similar user pages in RfAs. Frankly, I have put it together in a way that I have found difficult to change and did not want to spend a lot of time on revising it. Otherwise I might lay it out a little differently. Happy editing. Donner60 (talk) 01:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@Donner60: Sigh... I am pretty tired today. Clearly I am either (a) tired or (b) blind because I see exactly what you meant. Whoops! Sorry for that!
Hey, I like it! Your page has some style that's harder to catch on pristine, everything-is-in-the-perfect-place user pages. It could probably be easily reorganized with some well-placed <div> tags using 'float' CSS.  :) - zfJames Please ping me in your reply on this page (chat page , contribs) 01:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Henry Boynton Clitz

On 11 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Henry Boynton Clitz, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Henry Boynton Clitz, Commandant of Cadets at West Point from 1862 to 1864, disappeared in 1888? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Henry Boynton Clitz. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Henry Boynton Clitz), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Wood - Nyssa sylvatica

I have added a citation for my comment about quality of black gum wood for railroad ties. I hope this is acceptable and I have removed your request for citation. Please let me know if I need other citations. Warm regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:483:4500:BD:D0AB:772E:9225:6A67 (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Since there was a citation needed template already on the article, I thought it would be good to have a citation for added material. Perhaps no one would have questioned it but I think it is a fact that a reader might want more information on. I thought it was valid which was why I tagged it rather than undoing it. I would guess there are more citations than when the template was on the article. If it is a subject of interest to you, I would just suggest you watch it from time to time to see if any more tags show up and you can provide the citation. Donner60 (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Islandia, New York

I'm not sure where the citation is needed. I thought I included one for the Mayor's comments. It's my first edit so maybe I missed it. I've gone back and added it. If I am still missing your point please give me the specific instance so I may address it accordingly and correctly. Thank you! Gamzilla. Gamzilla (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Replied with suggestion and helpful links on you talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Justus McKinstry

On 20 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Justus McKinstry, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Union Army general Justus McKinstry, who recommended the appointment of Ulysses S. Grant to his first important command, was soon thereafter cashiered? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Justus McKinstry. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Justus McKinstry), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Tottenville Highschool

http://www.silive.com/news/2016/04/april_fools_day_joke_or_could.html Here is the citation as needed the only thing i messed up on was the date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangnabbit6968 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

As an April Fool's joke it has no place in an article that contains significant facts of long term importance or interest. Thanks for providing the reference but even with the reference, it is more like a blog entry, which Wikipedia should not contain. Donner60 (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Sheena Monnin

The article prior to the edit was flagged for being too subjective. I am revising to the more objective and neutral edit I made. The tone of the article is neutral. Ms. Monnin is best known for her involvement in a lawsuit with the Miss Universe Organization after resigning her title as Miss Pennsylvania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdfghuij (talk • contribs) 03:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You have removed much content about her career and other matters that was sourced and does not appear to be negative. I don't see how all of that can be subjective (unless some of it is shown to be false). Donner60 (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Little Boxes by Malvina Reynolds

The song received renewed attention when, to the exclusion of major events such as the World Wars, it was featured in the College Board's 2018 Advanced Placement US History Exam. Here are the citations: https://www.albert.io/learn/ap-us-history/political-and-moral-division-kc-83ii/little-boxes/little-boxes-all-the-same?page=1 https://www.reddit.com/r/APStudents/comments/8ip8i5/malvina_reynolds_little_boxes/ https://www.buzzfeed.com/OfficerLollipop/15-tweets-you-can-only-get-if-you-took-the-apush-e-1qilu?utm_term=.ejeALxGkK#.nmx54adZ8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.0.97 (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Put it in the article when restoring the content. See Help:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Citing sources if you are unsure of how to do it. Donner60 (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is for your tireless work reverting vandalism tonight. Thanks for all that you're doing to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia! OhKayeSierra (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@OhKayeSierra: Thank you. You are doing a great job today and tonight as well. There seems to be a very high level of vandalism today despite the lower level shown by the bot. I have had a high number of edits in only a short period of time as a result. Donner60 (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Portrayal of East Asians in American Film and Theatre

Hi, I think it is important to include the word "racist" in this article. Though, reflecting back, I may not have placed it in the best place. I should add it where the discussion of Yellowface begins. Here are a few source: (less reliable) here and here (see page 45 where yellow face's connection to racism and xenophobia is mentioned). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.7.120 (talk) 03:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that you put the word later in the article with a sentence that says something to the effect that the treatment of East Asian actors has been considered racist by some commentators (authors, and/or whatever seems appropriate) and cite the sources. If you wish to have the Wikipedia article itself outright declare that racism must be mentioned in the first sentence, I think that could be opposed as undue weight and not universally accepted. You would much more likely have other editors weigh it. If you wish to insist on putting this in the first sentence, even with a source, I think you should put it up for discussion on the talk page and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film first. Donner60 (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Gamzilla (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Embedding graphics (Islandia, New York)

Hello there: you had mentioned adding a photo to back up my assertion that Honeysuckle Pond had pretty much dried up last year. While I appreciate all the links you provided, it just confuses me more when I try to figure the process to embed a photo. I even read through the code of a page with graphics in the body. I can see a pointer to the picture, but not a link or path. Simply, I would like to know:

1) How/where do I upload a photo to Wikipedia? (Btw, I tried an upload at a page one of the help links lead me to, but it came back as violating copyright laws. I took the photo myself on my phone!) 2) How do I embed it into the body of an article? Plain versus WYSIWYG.

Thank you for your continued patience, help, and understanding.

Gamzilla

{{ping|Gamzilla}} I must say that I have not uploaded any pictures myself so I can only refer to the Wikipedia or Wikimedia pages that talk about the process. All of the pictures I have used over time have come from Wikimedia Commons.
Have you tried to upload the picture to Wikimedia Commons (link on main page of Wikipedia) and using the page Commons:Upload on that site? It should allow you to claim the picture as your own work. Note that there is a link to ask for help near the top of that page. When a photo is on Wikimedia Commons, you only need to include the file number and a caption to put it into a Wikipedia article. The edit page of any article with a picture should show the format used to transfer a picture from Commons.
The page Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects in Wikipedia refers to the page in Commons and also provides alternate suggestions and ways to get help. So you should look at that.
If all that fails, I would ask the question at the Teahouse. If you need to give up, I think a footnote reference would suffice.
If I ever need to upload a file and can't do it, I would need to go to these pages and find help if it did not work. So I hope you can do this and be able to help others in the long run. Good luck. Donner60 (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

107.242.117.10

Hello, I am the current IP holder and I did not edited any thing on those pages, which was presented here. Some one was using the same IPas main.107.242.117.10 (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Iggy (Swan) has answered on your talk page. It is also possible that someone could have latched on to your connection if you were using your computer in a public place or if your wi-fi connection spreads beyond your home. Since these edits are quite recent, it does appear unlikely that it happened due to changing IP addresses but that too may be possible. Donner60 (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Right-wing_populism

Right wing populism. I included the link as it is a live video conference with Dinesh D'Souza at www.yaf.org. I think good articles should tell both sides, and correcting political err's and errors are important. Nobody remembers the Nazis (NatSoc) were socialist. Wasn't that a clever name change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.7.85 (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

You are right about the Nazis and the name. Since you have explained your edit, I assume you are in good faith. I am not sure whether this makes the edit appropriate for the article but I cannot give it enough time to consider it further. Some other editor can look at it fresh if they think they should. Donner60 (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Razan al-Najar

You say that you removed my edited to the page for Razan al-Najar in the name of "keeping a neutral voice", yet the paragraph that I removed was based entirely on incredibly biased sources.

This is the page for a Palestinian nurse who was volunteering to save people's lives. She, while clearly uniformed as a medic, was (most likely) shot and killed by an IDF soldier. The IDF tried to cover their tracks by editing a video of her saying she "acts as a human shield to save the injured" to just saying she acts as a human shield. As well as claiming she had connections with Hamas, when there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim.

You cannot tell me you added that paragraph back in the name of having a "neutral voice" when the sources given are themselves INCREDIBLY biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sufjanfan2 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome to try it again with another editor as far as I am concerned. However, I think you need to leave the other side of the story, with its citations, in the article, and not to make any conclusions, for it to be neutral. Let both sides speak for themselves. As I noted, I think that if your addition is to be included, you must refer to both views and citations. Donner60 (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I wan't to talk. NOW

could you please stop changing my edits on larry because he is made of takeout boxes not rocks so just stop. If you say I'm being rude this is as nice as I can be when I'm already this annoyed.

Since I only edited this article once on May 28 and there have been many edits since then, you either have the wrong user with respect to a current edit. This is ancient history and no longer relevant to me. Donner60 (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

if its no longer relevant to you then why do you care when I change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TANKDEATHWALL (talk • contribs) 00:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I have not said that I do not care but that the old edit is not relevant. Maybe relevant is the wrong word; I was trying to point out that with so many intervening edits, I was not going to go back and unravel what has happened in the meantime to give another look at your edit. The context has probably changed and you may have something different in mind, including citing a source or giving a more specific, verifiable reason if the edit is at all questionable. So I am not sure how you come up with the conclusion that I "care" about it and are here to go over it again.
In the sense of whether I am watching you or that particular article, I am not. On the other hand, if I am editing and a new edit appears to me in the random way that edits are shown to me in real time when I am reviewing, and is not within the Wikipedia polices or guidelines, I will revert it. If I do, in this case, I will try to remember you and the article and give you a very specific reason, not a general template reason, if that seems necessary for a full explanation. Otherwise, some other editor will very likely be the one to look at any further edit that you make. So take into account the reason given in my old message when making any further edits to that article. Donner60 (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

You corrected something that was already correct

I edited the EC Glass athletics section of their page, adding that they won a State Championship in 2018, which they did. I have no way of verifying that this was real, except for newspaper articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavarisgod (talk • contribs) 02:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You did not cite a reliable source for your addition. If there are newspaper articles that support the content you added, cite them. See WP:BURDEN. General Ization Talk 02:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I have left essentially the same message on your talk page and have added some other useful Wikipedia guideline and policy page links. Donner60 (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Balhae Discussion

I'm sure you're aware of how the Mongols back during the Yuan Dynasty implemented their sociopolitical policies on other minor ethnicities under their rule. In regards to that, you've made statements upon the fact that the Mongols viewed the Koreans of Balhae and Goryeo a distinct sort since the third-class was separately consisted of Goryeo, Balhae, Jurchens, and the Northern Han Chinese. Yes, they in fact have. Nonetheless, these views were linked to the notion that put heavy emphasis on former affiliations rather than ethnicity for the case of the two kinsman. It's like how the Chinese that were part of Southern Song were handled in a different fashion to their northern counterparts that were in Jin (Jurchen) custody. While the Mohe tribes that were under the sphere of Korean administration (Goguryeo-Balhae-Goryeo) became the Jurchens, the ethnic Koreans of Balhae that weren't able to escape to Goryeo were dispersed throughout Liaodong. There, they were reigned by their new Jin-Khitan rulers. After the fall of Jin, the Mongols accommodated them into the third-class system along with their Southern counterparts of Goryeo that fought the Mongols for decades. You might have mentioned that Aguda, the Jurchen founder of Jin, once referred to the Balhae folks as family. In truth neither side have shared these views since his words were of political intents to use the dispersed Balhae remnants as human resources. Sizeable amounts of historical records (which I can provide if you ask) indicate that the Balhae people left in lands of their former kingdoms held deep resentment for the Khitans and Jurchens. Many were forced to fight in wars that had nothing to do with them as frontline troops. More were driven out of their homes out of coercion, discriminated from the Jurchens, backstabbed when some of them revolted against the Khitans. The Songmakkimun rather states that it is no wonder tons of the Koreans of Balhae took refuge in Goryeo. Spearthrower (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

{{ping|Spearthrower}} The problem that I saw was that your edit is not like your explanation here. You point out that there are differing points of view, and perhaps more importantly, records which you can cite for additional text. It seems that your edit would be within guidelines if both points of view are kept and citations provided citations for anything new or that tends to disprove or marginalize the other point of view are inserted. Only if completely rejected by historians should text be completely eliminated, and citations need to be provided that this is the universal and only acceptable point of view. I think you can make changes to the article considering your thoughtful explanation and access to sources. So I would suggest you give it another try along these lines. Thank you for the additional information. Donner60 (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Note that you must go about this the right way and that I can only speak for myself, not other editors. My comments are meant to be taken as a whole, with the provisos. Donner60 (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

No Geun Ri Massacre

You are requested to open or explain any evidence that the 7th Cavalry did massacre.

Can you say that the information is reliable without any doubt? Who submitted it to this site? Sckay99 (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

You can look in the edit history to see who put information in the article.
The citations showing the various facts and interpretations are in the article. Alternate points of view are given in the article. These include U.S. Army reports. Because there are alternative views from reliable sources, the article cannot be changed to fit one of the points of view or to eliminate one altogether. Neutral language must be maintained in line with reliable, verifiable sources, which may differ. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research.
A user could cite additional reliable, verifiable sources to add to the article as long as they maintain the balance of opinions. You have no sources for your changes which reflect a point of view which is not neutral, especially considering the long discussion of alternatives in the article.
I am sympathetic to the stress and misinterpretations the U.S. troops were under at the time and I would not pass judgment. But that does not mean that as an editor I can allow the violation of Wikipedia guidelines. The neutral wording and supportable alternate points of view must be maintained. I have no burden of proof since the citations are there and both sides are discussed. On the other hand, in inserting non-neutral language without citations, you do. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.".
The Verifiability page opens with: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight."
A user cannot change article titles without following proper procedures. See Wikipedia:Article titles#Considering changes.
You can start a discussion on the article talk page or try to get additional opinions from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history if you wish to try to reach an alternate consensus. Donner60 (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Celebrity

hello Donner60. I'm the person who just edited the Celebrity page- who put "other" in front of animals. I think this edit was completely justifed. The text without my edit went- Celebrity refers to the fame and public attention accorded by the mass media to individuals or groups or, occasionally, animals, I put in the word other in front of "animals," because humans ARE animals, in case you didn't know. I hope this helps. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.86.93.19 (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

That is not common usage, which is Wikipedia's style. You even indicated it was a mistake in your edit summary. Donner60 (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Civil War

Sir, you gave me no option for contacting you other than your talk page. The edit I made shouldn't need a citation as it is simply making that particular section consistent with the rest of the article (and it's linked source articles). RekaFil (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I have read the sources and your edit does not reflect what happened at the battle. Certainly, the Native Americans who sided with the Union took their families with them. They were endangered in part by the forces of Stand Watie and other Native Americans who fought for the Confederacy. The families suffered on the winter trek to Kansas, no doubt about that. But the Unionist Native American forces who fought the Confederates were not poorly equipped refugees. And the Confederates were majority Native Americans including Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek and Seminole. Chief Opothleyahola fought off the Confederates for four hours from 2:00 p.m. until dark at Chusto-Talasah. 460 Cherokee men from the Confederate force left or defected to the Unionists rather than fight them. The Chustenahala fight some days later involved hand to hand fighting. Stand Watie appeared near the end of the battle and his men chased the fleeing Unionists and their families. Trail of Blood on Ice covers the aftermath. If that needs to be expanded, then it should be - with proper sources. It is totally misleading to state that the Confederate force fought against poorly equipped refugees when they actually fought against an organized Unionist force. Considering who most of the fighters were, this could easily be characterized as a Native American civil war within the Civil War. Since the sources contradict your edit, you certainly do need a reliable, verifiable source to support it. You also need to indicate that it is not the only view of the Union force because that is certainly not what the sources cited on that page and The Civil War Battlefield Guide, edited by Frances H. Kennedy state. Donner60 (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

WLA

Sorry, it was a mistake, for % of Mexico i putted the reference. Cheers. --Nance 47 (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I struck the message on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Sturdza

Regarding your note that there is not a reference to Sturdza in the references, please check again:

Zad Rust, 'Teddy Bare The Real Story of Chappaquiddick'. Western Islands Publishers, Boston, Los Angeles, 1971.

It is not exactly attached, though, so how does one do that? I'm a little busy right now.

Also personally referenced but not posted, here is a New York Times article claiming the same:

https://www.nytimes.com/1974/08/25/archives/book-ends.html

"Zad Rust, which vaguely sounds like a European's idea of a Yankee name, turns out to be the pseudonym of Prince Michael Sturdza, former Rumanian royalty, diplomat and “the last Rumanian Foreign Minister,”

Actually, it is mostly a collection of news articles. I am not personally sure how much 'Zad'Sturdza actually put together the media sources, but would think that the New York Times article is correct in he being the official source. It remains a rather well known book in the field to this day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.70.4 (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. It was not apparent standing alone but I can understand now that it was supported by another reference. If something may be questionable and the reference is elsewhere in the article, it is often a good idea to repeat the reference (if you recognize the need, of course; otherwise it can be amended later). I struck my first message on your talk page and added some helpful links to Wikipedia guideline and policy pages. Donner60 (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

HI01 Congressional race and candidate pages

Hi Donner60, I noticed your edits on Donna Kim wiki and attempted to revert the entry back to your copy of it. The user Progresshawaii (user account created July 1 2018) added negative content to both the Kim and Ing wiki and I attempted to roll both back, as the timing is very suspect. Is there a way to temp freeze the HI01 congressional candidates wiki pages? Am concerned that they are being manipulated for political purposes. Thanks for your diligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.255.108 (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not true.

VeggieTales is not cancelled. That's not true! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.79.121.76 (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

Overseas animation for Warner Bros. Animation

What's the big deal about? I have a clear evidence about Kangaroo Jack: G'Day U.S.A.! (2004), a traditional (hand-drawn) animated sequel to the live-action film Kangaroo Jack (2003). Although both Australia and Las Vegas may be example settings for this movie, I believe there is no Australian studio or company as the sequel's production involvement, compliments of Warner Bros. and Castle Rock Entertainment. According to the closing credits, it notes that the animation was done overseas at Startburst Animation, a defunct South Korean studio. Also, when I was watching Batman: Under the Red Hood (2010), I learn from the credits that it was animated by the Answer Studio — a Japanese animation studio — who is responsible for its work on Ciro Nieli's Super Robot Monkey Team Hyperforce Go!. Every detail of these two movies on this Wikipedia are mistaken, and the current edit changes must be undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.57.136 (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I left this message on your talk page: Your explanation convinces me that either the source I looked at was incomplete or I did not see the information. Sorry for the inconvenience. Note to anyone looking at this page. I have struck the above messages because I am now convinced they were in error. Please disregard them for any purpose. I left an additional message suggesting an explanation in the edit summary or on the talk page (referred to in the summary) if too long when reverting my reverts. Donner60 (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I accept your apology for the mistakes we're both involved in. At least, when you watch any television program or film that Warner Bros. Animation has produced, you should search the closing credits for which international studio or company that did the animation overseas; especially different animation studios found in Asia, and the names of their animators. For another example, TMS Entertainment (formerly called Tokyo Movie Shinsha) animates the opening sequences for Tiny Toon Adventures and Batman: The Animated Series, as well as their episodes. Additionally, after pre-production, all of Hanna-Barbera's TV shows and movies were outsourced to all other active or defunct Asian animation studios including Taiwan's Wang Film Productions, Australia's Mr. Big Cartoons and the Philippines's Fil-Cartoons, as well as Japan's Mook Animation, Toei Animation and even Tama Production — the studio behind the animation for several episodes from the first season of The Pirates of Dark Water. We also want to identify these Asian studios who did the overseas animation work on other projects from many Western studios including The Walt Disney Company, Warner Bros., Universal Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Paramount Pictures and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.57.136 (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed (and civil) explanations. If everyone proceeded in that fashion, many disagreements on Wikipedia could be avoided or at least resolved to a satisfactory conclusion. I also note that some of the original studios are defunct or had a change of name. This could make it more difficult to identify and credit the proper studios. Donner60 (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Cop Killer (song)

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

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

Huggle message

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

Happy First Edit Day

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

+

Precious
Six years!

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

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

SD-WAN

See this blog from 2013 for a lively discussion of SD-WAN which pre-dates the origin claim made in the sd-wan page: https://networkingnerd.net/category/software-defined-networking/page/2/https:/networkingnerd.net/category/software-defined-networking/page/8/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.28.254.130 (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I have commented on this and left guideline and policy page links on adding or linking sources on your talk page while you were leaving this comment. Donner60 (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.28.254.130 (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Casper van Dien

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

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

Bill Browder revert

Although I agree that the revert about Bill Browder being the grandson of the Chairman of the Communist Party USA, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Browder&diff=852013092&oldid=852013023, you made should have occured, but reversion for different reasons, the information you reverted is sourced in the wikipedia page under the Family Background section. My reasoning for the revert would have been that that statement was best suited in the Family Background section. P37307 (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Religion in Russia

Okay, you are right. I not intended to be partial, what do you think replace 'nonsensical attitude' by somethink like this: 'It may seems to be a contradiction, a ban of the actitivities of Jehovah's Witnesses as news reports in jw.org.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.159.56.170 (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Decision tree learning

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

Steve King

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

Santiago Maldonado article

Hi, I did the last edit (it seems I wasn't logged cause it appears just mi ip?),; it did had a source; is an article from the CELS, (https://www.cels.org.ar/web/en/presentacion/membresias/) I just copied the info and source of the spanish article.

Regards!

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

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

Kidyamaka

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

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

Nargis

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

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

Following are the sources 1) https://www.scoopwhoop.com/sunil-nargis-dutt-love-story/#.zashixf5r 2) http://www.freepressjournal.in/entertainment/nargis-and-sunil-dutts-love-story-is-nothing-less-than-a-fairy-tale-romance/1288220 3) https://www.dailypioneer.com/print.php?printFOR=storydetail&story_url_key=sanju-negative&section_url_key=sunday-edition

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

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

New Friend

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

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

Neutral point of view

The number of insistent POV editors seem to be increasing. They often are not persuaded by Wikipedia guidelines or special messages about them. For the record, a non-neutral (and basically irrelevant) negative, snarky, unencyclopedic parenthetical opinion inserted into an article that is in turn based on an opinion piece, whether found in what may be considered a reliable, verifiable source (for news) or not, is still a personal opinion or comment inserted for a biased purpose. It is not in line with [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]], unless I have missed something on that guideline page.

If I have made a mistake or overlooked something, or if there is more than one viewpoint, I will answer or help or leave further explanation and/or guidance. A look through this talk page and archives will verify that. But someone wanting to defend the type of edit described, especially after already being given a special message concerning what Wikipedia is not - and not apparently understanding neutral point of view, and who starts out with incivility, personal attacks and biased accusations based on no more that not being able to get their point of view into an article and not a look at my entire record, is not making the right approach. [[Wikipedia:Civility]], [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]].

While some users have a similar (usually briefer) message on the top of their talk pages, I have archived this comment immediately and am keeping it for whatever it may be worth for a future comment or reflection. While it is of somewhat general applicability, it was prompted by a specific situation, and really is just in the nature of a personal comment or musing and not something I think needs to go on the top of my user talk page at this time. Donner60 (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Donner60/Archive_17&oldid=884048625"