Jump to content

User talk:Donner60/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Archive 5 starting with threads from January 2014.

Cul-de-sac

Hello Donner60, regarding last editing of "cul-de-sac", please not that it is not vandalism, I wanted to correct the french>English translation, as it was flase, I think bottom is not correct it's more translated by "derrière"; "cul" really mean "ass" in my language. Anyway, it's not a big issue. Have a nice day ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.173.199.173 (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. Sorry about the translation misunderstanding. I deleted the notice on your user talk page and put the following message there:Deleted notice in the method suggested by guidelines. Good faith edit. User explained to me that it was a proper translation - although it comes out rather strangely in English. Sorry about the misunderstanding. Donner60 (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Tunisia

Please explain why you consider the last change vandelasim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.235.110 (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You removed content which was supported by references. You removed references to the Turkish people, which appears to be without foundation in the sources and appears to be biased. You left no explanation in the edit summary or on the talk page with a note in the summary to look on the talk page. Of course, I would consider a reasonable explanation. Also left on your user talk page. Donner60 (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Great to meet another vandal-fighter on this wiki. It's my tradition to give barnstars to random vandal-fighters and excellent editors that I run into. I noticed that you aren't a rollbacker yet. Have you considered nominating yourself for rollback permission? I'm sure you'll make very good use of the tool! K6ka (talk | contribs) 03:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

problem with history?

really what's your problem with history? Official name is FYROM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.12.161.120 (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia article is entitled "Republic of Macedonia". Disambiguation page should point to that, not through a redirect page. Fyrom is mentioned in the article, as an abbreviation, so your point is covered to the extent it should be. Donner60 (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

article Macedonia refers on Fyrom which refers on Self-proclaimed republic of macedonia, so is also correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.12.161.120 (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your page, I am not going to continue on this. I'll leave it to someone else to figure out. Donner60 (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Cave of Zeus

I am the user that tried to correct the page "cave of zeus"!I had no intention of vandalism as i was accused i only wanted to correct a wrong article!The cave of zeus is not located on mount Ida but on mountain Dikti(Hesiod,Agathocles,Apolonios o Rhodios,Aratos,Arrianos etc) I am really sorry if i didnt have the knowledge to properly correct it but my intentions are pure!Please help me!

Left this on your talk page:

I deleted the above warning because the edit was a good faith attempt to add a different mountain, which may be just as correct, or more so, than the one I was familiar with. There are apparently three alternatives for the location, not just the one I knew about and considered correct. Your change was one of the three. I should have checked it a little further and left your edit. Sorry about the misunderstanding. I will revert my edit. Donner60 (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I was a bit puzzled by this. For one thing, the images on the article can only be of one cave (and indeed, the lower image seems to be of the Turkish cave the page was originally about). If there are multiple caves of Zeus, shouldn't the article reflect that?
I think that if all three are possibilities, the article should reflect that. If one of the possibilities is more accepted than the others, the article should say that. If all three possibilities are supported by reliable sources, even if one is more commonly thought of as correct, they all should be mentioned. I am not an expert on this. Initially, I was familiar with the Mount Ida possibility but not the others. The others seemed to me to be supportable enough that I should leave the change. If someone who is more familiar with the sources thinks otherwise, they can present their view and references. For now, I would support mentioning all three possibilities, with sources, and having pictures of all three caves. Again, if one is more commonly accepted, that can be noted. (I would expect this to be Mount Ida, but again, I am not an expert and have not done enough research to be firm in my conclusions.) On the other hand, if one or two of the possibilities are far-fetched with little or no reliable support, that one or two should be excluded. I know this is not decisive but I think it is the best I can do without doing more in-depth research. Donner60 (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Donner60. You have new messages at K6ka's talk page.
Message added 12:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

K6ka (talk | contribs) 12:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Constructivism (philosophy of education)

Hi Donner . . . I'm doing meat ball surgery on the Constructivism (philosophy of education)article and you reverted my edits before I had moved all of the text . . . please be patient, the information will return in a better organized format. Stmullin (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, sorry for the impatience. Donner60 (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Oatmeal

Donner: I have NO IDEA how to "leave a message at the bottom of the page" but this is the closest I can come to "the bottom of your page."

Re: Your message to me about not making any changes. On my first and only visit to the "Oatmeal" page, I found the reference section to be a mess that I could not use.

However, after I TRIED a couple of things that did not correct the problem, I returned the page to its original condition.

I have NO idea how to fix it (or to find anyone else to fix it) since there is no sense of "hierarchy" or "responsibility" on Wikipedia.

I did not cause the mess. I tried to fix it and didn't do any harm. Please find the person who messed up the reference section of "Oatmeal" and tell THEM to not post messes.

HOW can I find someone to "fix" something that is wrong, when there is no channel of information for doing so?

I will add the wavy lines, but I have no idea what they do either. [WHERE is a sensible (user friendly without jargon) tutorial about how to add corrections to this site?] 71.222.15.136 (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Message left on your user page; I will leave links to tutorial or guideline pages after I look at the article.
Notice deleted in the form recommended by the guidelines. Your edit was only a partially successful attempt to fix earlier problems that was caused by an earlier edit. It appeared to be a nonconstructive edit because it did not fully do what you intended. I have done that a few times myself even though I am usually sensitive to that possibility. Since this is a similar situation, I should have spotted it but missed it here. Sorry for the mistake. I will try to restore the article. Please do not let this discourage you from making contributions to Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The language link should no long appear in the article because these are now found through Wikipedia:Wikidata. I assume this was not included in your attempted edit but I will remove it from the article.
I cannot see exactly what you were trying to do. The references are in the form of footnotes. Some articles list the references used (almost always in alphabetical order by author) as well as the inline citations. This article has no such list. Maybe it should have. References not used in an article but pertinet to its contents are usually put in a further reading section. I cannot make further changes because I do not see the problem. The following help pages should provide some guidance for edits you may wish to make.
Working with the Wiki code and learning various formatting and editing techniques, guidelines and policies can be a little daunting at first. With a little reading and study and some practice (in a WP:Sandbox usually), you can learn to use the code and edit correctly. You may need to look up some items from time to time if you do not often use them.
These pages can give you considerable help in getting started: Wikipedia:Introduction; Help:Getting started; Wikipedia:Five pillars; Help:Editing; Wikipedia:Article development; Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. See also: Help:Introduction to the Manual of Style; User:Tony1/Beginners' guide to the Manual of Style; Wikipedia:Writing better articles; Wikipedia:Styletips and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Reading schedule.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask your question on your talk page and then place {{Help me}} before the question.
Good luck. Donner60 (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Chicago

Like the previous poster I have no idea how to leave a message at the bottom of the page, so am doing my best. I'm somewhat irritated at being accused of vandalism on the "Chicago" page, and have no recollection of making a modification to it. As a New Zealander aged 64 I have no knowledge of American cities and would not change information on something I'm not familiar with. The only possible thing I might have done is correct the grammar of a sentence. Is it possible that this is where the issue lies? Please also note that my name is AKLD GUY, which reflects my city Auckland. This name is sometimes read as AKID GUY, and if that name exists he may be the culprit. Akld guy (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC) Akld guy Tue 11 March 18:32 NZ summer time

Also posted on your talk page. I am sorry about the vandalism message because it was meant for someone who posted an edit from an IP address, not from your user account. This can happen if someone else uses your computer or if your signal is hijacked in a public place or for one or two other reasons, as I recall. I had a circumstance a few months ago where we could not determine why a message which was not intended for a user found its way to their computer. I apologize for the mixup. Please be assured that although such things occur, they do so very rarely. Human editors also make mistakes and I acknowledge that I have made a few. Please do not be deterred from using or posting on Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Heath Ledger

You censored/removed my edits why? I was correcting information about someone's death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.66.2 (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You removed information about his death and rewrote the article as if he was still alive. Donner60 (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

He IS still alive. This article is crazy. Prove to me he's dead without using internet sources as they are not viable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.66.2 (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Pyrenees

im not sure why you deleted my edit , it is a FACT! a Pyrenees is very active and while in a create they will attempt to get out in doing so can kill them , that is why most pet shops ask people to not use collars on them in a create , i do understand the dedication to the death of a Pyrenees that happened this way not being on the page , but to remove the whole thing is crazy

Apparently you are referring to a crate and crate training. Your use of the spelling "create", a totally different word, confused me and I could make no sense of your entry or its intended meaning. Also, you tube is not a reliable source. You could probably add a sentence which properly states your intention without the source. I would simply put it after upkeep without the new section. It is not enough of a separate topic to have its own section. Donner60 (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

ok , sorry for the miss spelling , i do understand about the you tube and i will try to word it correctly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kampbyll (talk • contribs) 03:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC) ok i can't win , because i didnt word it correctly and you called me on it , and i went back to do it again , Fraggle81 deleted it again saying "good faith" although we had already resolved the problem , i can't win , im just about out of idea's — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kampbyll (talk • contribs) 04:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll look at it again to see if I can suggest anything. Donner60 (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of rewriting it. If it is inaccurate, however, you should change or delete the inaccuracy. I hope the current wording would be acceptable to anyone who looks at it. I am a little concerned that someone might tag this as needing a citation. But I still think it is better without the you tube citation because you tube videos are not considered reliable or authoritative by Wikipedia. So another source would be needed if an editor insisted on it and deleted the content rather than just tagging it. Donner60 (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you again , you worded it perfectly , im sorry for any mis understanding and i hope you have a great day Kampbyll (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Gong Hyo-jin

My edits were not unconstructive. TenAsia has recently revamped their website, rendering some of the references on Gong's page dead links, so I painstakingly replaced them with links from Asiae.co.kr (a sister site of TenAsia). For example, the article "Lee Sun-kyun says not pressured by new image in Pasta": [1] vs. my edit [2]

I deleted the section Variety show appearances because I did not consider one guest appearance relevant (as opposed to MC/hosting gigs, or being a regular cast member on a show). Korean actors make multiple appearances on variety shows and talk shows to promote their latest projects, and you don't see every Tonight Show or Late Show guesting listed on an American actor's wiki page. 203.215.117.228 (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. Obviously, I did not understand your edit. I am sorry about the mistake and will delete the notice. Donner60 (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

WARANGEL

hi you reverted my update on the warangel page's information by now it is written that "is distributed locally by Hasbro Italy." but it's not true as of warangel's officiale website http://warangel.it/USA.html and http://warangel.it/WAbox.html "On 2001 the Warangel Card Game was distributed in Italy by Hasbro. Since 2007, Warangel is available with the incredibly successfull service Create YOUR Warangel. Thanks to all gamers that wrote during these first 17 years of life of Warangel, with their enthusiasm, ideas and hints. For any order or information about your customized copy of the game, just write here, you are welcome anporaz@libero.it" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.90.21.72 (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the notice on your user page because you have sourced and explained the edit above. I also am undoing my reversion of the edit. Donner60 (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Robert Beasley (burgess)

The article Robert Beasley (burgess) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A Minor politician with no demonstrated notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Message about September 18, 2013 notice

188.25.106.177 I did not edit anything...get your facts right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.106.177 (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

With regard to your message of today, the message on the user talk page for your IP address with regard to an edit from September 18, 2013 came from a computer with this IP address. I could not have posted the message unless it was a direct ping back to this IP. There are several possibilities which could exclude you (the person who left the message on my user talk page) as the person responsible for the edit including a previously assigned IP address that has now been reassigned, another person using your computer, someone hijacking your wi-fi signal in a public place and perhaps a few others. Since you are just getting around to commenting on this seven months later, I would be inclined to think the message was left under one of these circumstances. Donner60 (talk) 09:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

nonorofics

was already there, I just connected links BE CAREFUL68.100.175.63 (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. I am sorry that I missed the fact that the honorific was already on the page. It was connected to or embedded in your link edit. I should have carefully looked at that because I ended up removing the wrong edit. Thanks for reminding me to be more careful. Certain edits do require a little more care to review and this was one of them. Donner60 (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Get Me Bodied

Hi dear friend. Could you please paraphrase this clause "Get Me Bodied" thanks a million. Alborzagros (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Your request is puzzling. That is the name of the article. I don't see how it can be paraphrased. Donner60 (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
what is closest meaning? Is that about dream? sex? make love? thinking? Alborzagros (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Let me start by saying that I had never heard of this before, never heard the song or seen the video or read the article, and don't know the lyrics. I now have read through the article but it certainly does not make it clear what this is about - except that it has to do with going out dancing. I can only guess as you did but I would add one more guess to your possibilities: something about finding a dance partner. I suppose it is not meant to be that tame. Sorry, that is about the best I can do. Donner60 (talk) 05:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you of your perfect and informative answer. Alborzagros (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Tel Aviv map

The map of Israel in the Tel Aviv article is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.157.195 (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page as follows: Remove notice in manner prescribed by guidelines. Edit has been explained as a good faith effort to correct an error. Thanks for the explanation. Sorry for the mixup. Donner60 (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Sure, but for your knowledge, the map is wrong because the Judea and Samaria and the Golan Heights are 2 areas that are Israeli, meaning Israel has a full control over them, and those areas are missing from the map. it's like showing a US map without New York or Washington DC. it is a part of the state.
Thanks for the further explanation. It would be good to put in a correct map if you can do it. Donner60 (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your understanding. sadly I have no idea how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.157.195 (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject!

Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us jumpstart the project and get it going. Our energy is all it needs.

Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.

  • Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
  • You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
  • You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
  • We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
  • Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
  • Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
  • To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation! DiptanshuTalk 12:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Patriarchy

Qeustion: i comented on the patriarchy what did i do wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.187.225 (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources. You added content by a person who is not identified and from a source which is not identified and can be checked. This was a substantial addition. If it can be verified as reliable and neutral and in line with accepted scholarship on the matter, it could be considered a valid addition. But without knowing who the person who made this up is, their credentials or expertise and whether this is what they said, it is questionable and may contradict other sources. The guidelines page will explain this in more detail. Please provide the identification and the sources if you wish to make this addition. Otherwise, it is just a personal opinion of an unknown person. Donner60 (talk) 05:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent CSA edit thanks

Thank you for your recent edit at CSA, defending WP from neo-Confederate disruption. They have captured the Blood Stained Banner with the slogan "since 1865" and have it administratively protected. I have not figured out how to reverse it there, although I defend some some pages against them such as CSA, RE Lee and Jeff Davis, maintaining the First National Flag with thirteen stars as the flag of history, versus the Stainless Banner which only officially flew over the Capitol in Richmond, or the BSB which was never fabricated during the life of the Confederacy, but passed as a resolution by a rump session immediately before the last evacuation from Richmond.

Nevertheless, the historic CSA, the subject of our encyclopedia article, ended in 1865. In Jefferson Davis' Short History of the Confederate States of America, p.503 it is said that the Confederacy “disappeared” since 1865, --- in the words of Jefferson Davis.

Thank you again for defending the article from unsourced disruption. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Glad to help. History is my main area of substantive contribution. I will also note this on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Why change my Lockerbie edit?

Made my first Wikipedia edit ever and did the dramatic change of switching 1982 to 1988 on the Pan Am 103 mention. Two minutes later you switch it back. Why? It takes 15 seconds to google it and see I'm right. No harm meant by this; just saying.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.238.150 (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention so I could remove the notice. I am sorry for the mistake. I cannot account for it several weeks after it was made. Perhaps I could not have done so at the time. In any event, your edit was correct and my reversion to a prior incorrect edit was wrong. Luckily, my error was caught within 45 minutes and in turn reverted to your version. Please do not be discouraged by this. I am sorry the message remained on your talk page but at least your edit took effect within the hour. I left a similar message on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 06:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

"Contextual significance" operative definition

I don’t mean to get abstruse on you, but I have run into pushback concerning what “contextual significance” means in WP:NFCC #8, so I would like to try out my understanding. It is currently related to an RfC but I’m not supposed to “canvass”? So this inquiry is for background information only. I may need a sort of vocabulary lesson from a friendly resource, an operative definition for use at WP.

I have uploaded File:Virginia ratification 1988 U.S. stamp.1.jpg at History of Virginia on stamps#Revolution and Constitution. The accompanying narrative begins with a description of the colonial Capitol building where the vote took place, a concrete description of the stamp’s design. But editors objecting seem to desire some sort of literary criticism of the stamps themselves for stamps which are non-free content, such as those issued by the USPS beginning 1978. But that seems to me too restrictive, and too narrowly focused on the stamp design, not the stamp itself.

From my historical background, "Contextual significance”, — which all agree is required in some sense — in this case, in my view, comes from viewing the larger cultural-historic milieu apart from the explicit significance which comes from the specific event. The explicit significance of a Ratification Convention is the approval (Virginia) or rejection (Rhode Island) of the Constitution as proposed.

The contextual significance of a Ratification Convention is the meaning of the resolution (pro or con) to the debate in other states, or to the geographic continuity of the proposed Union, or to the subsequent adoption of the Bill of Rights.

The text adjacent to the image reads, in part, from two third-party reliable sources, "Virginia was substantially the largest of the thirteen states, with territory cutting west through to the Mississippi River. Without approval of Virginia and New York which likewise cut the other state territories in two, the agreement of the others would have had little effect.[27] Virginia was home to leaders supporting the Constitution such as George Washington and James Madison, and those opposing such as Patrick Henry and George Mason. Only after a promise for a Bill of Rights did Virginia narrowly ratify.[28]”

Any one of the three, sourced from the Smithsonian’s National Postal Museum Arago, or the University Press of Kansas’ “Cradle of America” by Wallenstein, would qualify for contextual significance, in my opinion. But others not only disagree, they deny there is any "contextual significance" imparted, "zero” at all. Any observation, explication or critique on “contextual significance” in this case is welcome. Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The article is about the depiction of important persons and events in Virginia history on U.S. postage stamps. This stamp shows how the Postal Service depicted a notable event in Virginia history, the ratification of the U.S. constitution. It was issued for the bicentennial of the event but that fact is not shown in any way on the stamp so the stamp is not about the bicentennial event itself. (I would suppose stamps were issued for all 13 states.) Without a picture of the stamp, all you can have is a description. It certainly adds significantly to the context, and to the education value of the article, to show the actual image. It increases the understanding of the reader as to how the Postal Service depicted the event on the stamp. The image is used to show how the Postal Service depicted the event on the stamp, not as image to support an article or story about the event itself.
Contextual significance relates to the article topic, particular kinds of stamps. These are stamps that show persons and events in Virginia history. It is not about the events themselves. The events must be described briefly in order to show that the stamp in fact depicts a notable, historical event. Otherwise, all you would have is a collage of stamp images. But the stamp is not meant to support a description of the event, except in the broad sense that the image on the stamp has to have some relation to it or the stamp itself has no meaning or context. You in fact are identifying the stamp and the context in which it was issued, not the event shown on it.
I think you are correct. I have put my thoughts on this into my own words with an eye on the contextual significance point and some of the other points made in the WP Non-free content article. That's how I understand the point and can best describe it in this situation.
I hope this is of some use to you. You can certainly use these ideas or any point you can make from them. You asked for my opinion, not any sort of participation in the RfC. I think I should refrain from participating directly so no accusation of canvassing could be made. Donner60 (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language
The Cure Award
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

DYK for Anna Strong (spy)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Deleted

Full disclosure when threads for this period are move to archives in about two weeks: May 15, 2014 I thought I might as well clean the slate entirely by deleting the other parts here of a corresponding thread that another editor deleted on his talk page.
May 21, 2014 I deleted a note about assuming good faith when I reverted a speculative, original research and POV edit of an IP editor - which the commenting editor acknowledged was original research and rewrote. I didn't see that retaining the obvious good faith point or any reply to the note generally would be useful. Donner60 (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Fire (element)

You were quite right to revert this edit but just so you know (as your edit summary seems to indicate you don't) I think what the editor meant was that the element fire is associated with the suit of swords of the minor arcana of the Tarot cards. SpinningSpark 13:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I am glad the reversion was correct. You are quite right that I did not know about the association with the Tarot cards. Donner60 (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
There is continual edit warring in all these "element" articles by adherants of different groups of Wiccans over which is the correct association of the element with suits/gemstones/compass points/seasons etc etc etc. None of them ever provide a source so delete on sight is the correct response. If only someone would do a scientific study to establish which method of reading the cards actually works.... SpinningSpark 09:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I suppose it should be no surprise that these types of edit wars spring up but it seems odd nonetheless. I am glad to know about this. If I come across other such edits I will not have to doubt about whether they are acceptable. Donner60 (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Chlorothiazide

I am confused as to why you reverted the change to chlorothiazide. Please check uptodate.com or any pharmacological source to determine its true half-life, which I had corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.225.15 (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page, accepted good faith edit and returned it to page, deleted nonconstructive edit notice, added welcome template references. Donner60 (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar thanks

Thank you for the compliment about my maps. I noticed you selected the elderly photograph of Hotchkiss--that's more apropos than you may know. :-) Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I know you are retired, if that is what you mean. On the other hand, I have seen what great shape you are in from your web site. Donner60 (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS

"The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability. This requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." I see you are not demanding citations for quotes, but for material that in my view would not be challenged by a reasonable person. Or do you seriously believe that Hudak did not announce that he is resigning? If you seriously believe that, then say that on the article Talk page. Because it is a waste of everyone's time to remove material that helps readers by informing them and no one seriously doubts its accuracy. If you SERIOUSLY wish to question the facts here, then let's see that challenge written down, at which point a citation can provided to satisfy your doubts.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page with apology for not being more specific and a few further remarks. Donner60 (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The bottom line here is that not every edit without a citation to a source is "nonconstructive", as you saw fit to instruct the editor. Is it better with a citation? Of course, unless it is in the intro and is merely repeating the article body (where there is a cite), or the information is not likely to be doubted by any reasonable person who has been keeping up on the subject to at least a basic extent. I would suggest adding "citation needed" when the MAIN objection is simply that a source is needed. Removal should be limited to those cases where there are additional problems with the material, as I understand policy anyway.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
You are correct that I should have used the tag here. I have added the "citation needed" tag on many occasions when I realize that the only problem or potential problem with an edit is that it seems dubious and should have a citation to support it. Here I saw something I thought was a typically nonconstructive edit and acted accordingly when, indeed, I should have thought about it a little more. If I had, I probably would have realized this was actually a "citation needed" situation. So your advice is good; I just misinterpreted this instance. Donner60 (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitz@gmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding Desiccated Thyroid Extract article

Hi Donner60, I noticed you contributed to the Desiccated Thyroid Extract article and are a top medical Wikipedia contributor. I am working on improving it for readability and usefulness and am having a difficult time finding a verifiable source for the drug ingredients of all three brands (Westhroid, Naturethroid, and Armour Thyroid) of desiccated thyroid extract. In your opinion, would information from RLC Labs (the makers of Westhroid and Naturethroid) be considered a verifiable source? Your feedback would be greatly appreciated. Also, if you do not have time, could you refer a few users that I may ask? Many thanks! Presto808 (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I am just an editor, researcher and vandalism reverter, not an expert in the field. The experts, together with some information on their fields of concerntration, can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Participants. Nonetheless, here is a little information from my research. I do have a personal interest in thyroid hormone replacement drugs, but that is a coincidence.
I think the information from RLC Labs would be a reliable and verifiable source. Prescribing information for Naturethroid is available on line at http://www.nature-throid.com/images/Nature-Throid-PI-Rev041121-03.pdf and shows the inactive ingredients. Of course, it does not show the proportions of these ingredients but I don't know why that would be important. Some quick research showed that Westhroid is the same as Naturethroid, although that was not always true. These are made from pig glands, which is information which can be widely found on the internet.
Armour Thyroid has the same active ingredients but slightly different inactive ingredients.
A couple of online sources, but the first is from High Beam so a subscription is needed if the information is not otherwise available on line:
Milner, Martin. Hypothyroidism: optimizing medication with slow-release compounded thyroid replacement.(Disease/Disorder overview). In "Townsend Letter: The Examiner of Alternative Medicine," February 1, 2007. Retrieved June 29, 2014.– via HighBeam Research (subscription required)
"USP dessicated thyroid or Armour Thyroid is made with a ratio of four parts of T4 for every one part of T3. This ratio is comparable to those in the human and porcine thyroid glands, which produce 75% T4 and 25% T3. One grain of Armour Thyroid contains 36 [micro]g of T4 and 9 [micro]g of T3. The T3 is released all at once, not slowly."
Quackenbush, Kate. Finding A Natural Hormonal Balance in Natural Practitioner — January/February 2013. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
"The main natural approach to treatment for hypothyroidism should be the use of NDT, according to RLC Labs’ Jinn. Two of the company’s staple products, Nature- Throid and Westhroid, are Prescription Versions of NDT, which currently falls under the federal monograph of Thyroid USP (under the specification of United States Pharmacopeia). “Under Thyroid USP, the desiccated thyroid gland is derived from pigs and the specific levels of T3 and T4 are very carefully monitored and tested to ensure consistency and reliability from batch to batch (the exact same consideration as the prescription synthetic thyroid medications),” Jinn said.
"RLC Labs also offers two dietary supplements, a-Drenal and i-Throid, which were designed to offer complementary support to the company’s principal hypothyroid drug. The main ingredient in a-Drenal is the desiccated adrenal gland, and various adaptogenic herbs, like cordyceps, ginseng and rhodiola, along with pantothenic acid (B5) to aid in combating adrenal fatigue. Meanwhile, the function of i-Throid is to offer main ingredients (iodine) in a solid dosage from the traditional Lugol’s solution therapy.
"In spring 2013, RLC will also be introducing Westhroid-P, which will incorporate the same Thyroid USP with only two inactive ingredients, inulin and MCT (medium chain triglycerides), for the ultra-sensitive patients."
Dai Jinn is chief science officer with Arizona-based RLC Labs, Inc., a company primarily focused on thyroid issues.
I hope that is helpful to you. Donner60 (talk) 06:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi again Donner60, thank you so much. If it is alright with you, I will reach out to you again for more help regarding other questions and feedback of the Desiccated Thyroid Extract article. I will be conducting more research this week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Presto808 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
If I can help, I certainly will. Please remember that I am not an expert in the drug/supplement field. I can only help with any sources that I might find that might be helpful or with general questions about citations. Donner60 (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Gruesome First Minnesota

Hey, were I a wounded Union soldier at the Plum Run thicket on the afternoon of July 2... ...I'd 'go dingo' on the leg of a passing Rebel before I died.Donaldecoho (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Replied at a little more length on your talk page. In summary, I think we agree it could have happened, but did it, and is there a reliable, verifiable source for it? The person who added the statement did not provide a reference and has not added one for about three weeks thereafter. Donner60 (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
So sorry. I was mocking the 'gruesome assertion' and agreeing with your edit(s)Donaldecoho (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
No problem. It's been a few weeks but I remember trying to come up with a word or phrase to go along with my thought that the point really ought to have a citation. Edit summary limits don't allow much space to explain. "Gruesome" was the best I could do at the time; I might have thought about younger or sensitive readers. If it is a fact, it's a fact and might well be included regardless of sensitivities. Something similar apparently happened at Sailor's Creek. I took it as a good-natured mock but wondered whether it also might have had to do with my asking for a citation. I thought "go dingo" was funny. Donner60 (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Informal note

Hey, I notice that you have HighBeam access and you seem to have a few topicons. That being said, if you are interested, I've created {{Wikipedia:HighBeam/Topicon}}. No reply to this message is necessary (and I won't see it unless you ping me), just wanted to let you know it was available. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Jefferson Finis Davis

Thank you for that correction.

I had assumed the Encyclopedia Britannica was correct in listing his middle name as "Finis" but after reading more into the matter, there is no solid evidence of what his middle name actually was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.5.217.165 (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Your welcome. The real thanks goes to those who found the information. Occasionally the Encyclopedia Brittanica has gotten a detail wrong. Donner60 (talk) 03:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The Creature from Jekyll Island

Excuse me; how is a plot summary from jekyll's island an unconstructive edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.176.137 (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted my notice as possibly unfair. However, I am not sure the edit is proper. At least one other editor has made a reversion and added comments on your talk page. I also add some comments. Donner60 (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

He reverted a subsequent comment; asking how this edit was unconstructive. I'm not used to wiki's chat system yet. I'll forward your comments to him, since he is citing you as the main objection i.e. another editor reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.176.137 (talk) 06:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that I did not state that I thought the edit was proper, only that it was unfair for me to characterize it as vandalism at that point. Donner60 (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Apollo 17

Actually, despite 168.186.250.8's too-cute way of introducing the mouse experiment on Apollo 17 (seeing as his first edits were these [3] [4], it was hard to take him seriously), it appears that the Bio-core experiment he describes was included, or at least was planned. See "NASA Press Release no. 72-220K (Apollo 17)" (PDF). November 26, 1972. pp. 62-63 (106-107 in PDF document). Retrieved July 14, 2014. If we can find verification the planned project was retained in the mission, I would not be averse to adding it to the article in an appropriately encyclopedic way (i.e., absent the nonsense).

[SFX: more googling]

Looks like it was performed as planned. See Apollo 17: Preliminary Science Report. NASA SP-330 (1973), chapter 26 (pp. 451-463 in my copy of the PDF), avail from here or here. TJRC (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it should be added. Will you do so? I think I will delete the last warning on his talk page and add a note. Donner60 (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll try to read the full section 26 tomorrow and add something. TJRC (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. (It is getting very late here tonight and probably also where you may be.) I wish the user had been more mature about editing the article at the outset. He could have saved himself and others some trouble. Donner60 (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
My initial take: [5]. I'm sure it could be improved (at the very least, it would be nice to have the brain findings documented). TJRC (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I found and added the information on the brains (no significant effect). TJRC (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I just looked at the IP's talk page. The unblock request has not been acted upon. It seems as if the 24 hours will run, or nearly so, before the administrator acts on the request. I am not sure whether other administrators become aware of unblock requests and another administrator could step in. It seems increasingly unlikely. Maybe a large number are on vacation. Perhaps our comments will help the IP straighten out. Donner60 (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Your birthday here

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

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

Two years ago, you were the 186th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Time flies. Donner60 (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, Donner60, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Anastasia (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Donner60 (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

RE: List of solar storms

History of Hydro-Québec is already covered in March 1989 geomagnetic storm. 99.112.215.201 (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It looked out of place but I missed the earlier mention. That makes sense. I suppose the inclusion in the "see also" section would be considered superfluous by some but I am not concerned much either way as long as it is relevant. Donner60 (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Because the IP user has been blocked as a sockpuppet, I added the following to the IP user talk page: In view of this block, I re-examined the List of solar storms article and the proposed see also link to the History of Hydro-Quebec. That link is in fact superfluous because as the user noted, the event is already listed in the article. Also, there is a link to an entire article about the storm which affected Hydro-Quebec. The history article merely briefly mentions the storm and links to the longer article. So it is a somewhat relevant link but it is not really useful and is quite unnecessary in view of the more specific article. I should add that this user did not add the link that I reverted so his comment was useful. Donner60 (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 7

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 7, June-July 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • Seven new donations, two expanded partnerships
  • TWL's Final Report up, read the summary
  • Adventures in Las Vegas, WikiConference USA, and updates from TWL coordinators
  • Spotlight: Blog post on BNA's impact on one editor's research

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Rollback?

Hi I noticed your good work reverting vandalism. Would you like the rollback feature to be added to your account? It could create reverting pesky vandalism even faster. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 05:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

Hi Donner60. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! —GFOLEY FOUR!— 05:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't intend to mess up, of course, but I will go back to Twinkle if I can't handle it. Donner60 (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Alien abduction

The IP seems to be trying to make an article here but doesn't know the ropes. I wouldn't know how to help him/her and I'm packing it in for the day. Know any where he/she can get help making a stub? SlightSmile 02:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The immediate problem would be the need for a source. All other persons listed in the article on Alien abduction have articles. Presumably, they have sources. The IP tried to add this name but I reverted due to lack of an article and lack of a source. I wonder from the attempt whether the IP is a non-English speaker or a rather young person. I will look quickly for a source. Otherwise, I will place a welcome template. There would no reason to spend further time on this. If this were a notable incident, alien abduction buffs might have put up an article by now. Donner60 (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks SlightSmile 03:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I found nothing about this on Google or High Beam. I think it is a hoax or a prank, possibly involving someone the IP knows. It should be deleted. Meanwhile, I left a welcome template - although I have second thoughts about that now. Donner60 (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
How did I not catch that! Really time to say good night. SlightSmile 03:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Easy enough to assume good faith. By the way administrator FreeRangeFrog already has deleted the page. Donner60 (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Pablo

Hi how can we edit Ganguli page? I tried editing. Why did you delete? Can you add a photo please to the page? What's his career update? Couldn't find anything on his Wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.174.190 (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Added to your talk page: You removed a large amount of material in your two edits. If you were attempting to add material, you were going about it in the wrong way, as you seem to be aware. I did not delete material; rather I restored it by reverting your edits. I suggest you study the material at the links in the welcome message above for directions on proper editing. Donner60 (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

How can his fans see photos of his work and his life? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.174.190 (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion transferred to User talk:discospinster. Donner60 (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich

You never exactly clarified how you thought my contributions to that article were NOT constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.254.222 (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced, unencyclopedic language, unnecessarily repeated several times. Donner60 (talk) 04:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
And you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.254.222 (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ferguson Timeline page

Hi, this is Starchild, just responding to your note. Excuse me if this goes in the wrong place, I'm not that familiar with all the protocols -- hopefully you will see it. You were asking why I deleted the material -- it's because the material I added to the timeline about the Libertarian Party issuing a press release was deleted -- presumably people did not feel it was important enough to include. I can see that argument, but if that's the operative logic, it seemed to me Al Sharpton making another appearance wasn't that important either, hence my deletion. It was not a mistake, but sorry I forgot to take time to explain the edit. Hope you will either re-delete the material I deleted, or put the other material back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarchildSF (talk • contribs) 10:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Left on Starchild talk page as well: Removed notice due to adequate explanation of edit. I have restored your edit. With this type of controversial article, someone else might make a similar or further edit. In that event, you may need to leave a message for them. Thank you for your explanation. Donner60 (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Last surviving Confederate veterans

Hello Donner60, I note that the above article is again receiving what appears to be a mass of "original research". Did you ever get any advice from an administrator regarding this problem? As stated before, I am not a expert by any means on this subject - it's just an interest - but I am concerned by this mass of well-meaning original research. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to say that I have not followed through yet. I decided to research the matter. While I found references to the prior findings and a few sentences that point to them, I found nothing more on them. That gave me a little pause and I let it slip into the background. Still, I need to gather such information as I have and present it to someone for a further look. Rather than go immediately to an administrator, I think I will pose the question to a few editors who work regularly on American Civil War articles to see if we can get something of a consensus. Thanks for keeping up with this and giving me a nudge. Donner60 (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
All these "edits" appear to come from eastern Australia. Good that you intend to consult editors who work on American Civil War articles, although I still feel an admin will need to get involved. My own view is that whilst these edits are in good faith, they are original research - which Wikipedia does not allow. My own non-expert view is that the article should revert to the situation before the mass of IP edits. With best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I wanted to present the best case and slipped up when I found this would require more digging around than I thought. Regardless of that, it is original research and most of it is quite dubious. I don't think there is any bad faith which is another reason why I hesitated while searching for a definitive source. Still, it is outside the Wikipedia policy in any event. The early warnings may or may not have convinced the user of that. Also, I think most or all of the conclusions are speculative at best. No real correlation between common names in unit rosters and the "survivors" can be made and such additional sources as are mentioned don't seem to make the connection as well. Donner60 (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Further reply on my Talk page. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Comments to your draft communication to the IP editor on my Talk page. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Republican Primaries 2016

I was responding to your post. I had moved Former Senator Scott Brown to the Previously speculated area because it had been 6 months since the last media footnote. I just forgot to put the reason for the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CTU Almeida (talk • contribs) 21:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleted notice due to explanation. Donner60 (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Paranormal

I'm pretty sure mentioning the drake equation in relation to hypothetical concepts and paranormal phenomenon is relevant to that paragraph. I linked to the drake equation wikipedia page, which has many citations. I don't see how that would violate the 'no original research' guideline. Not everything on that page even has a citation and it has a hint of bias when mentioning POSSIBLE intelligent extraterrestrial biological/mechanical entities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.196.140 (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted the notice on your talk page in the manner prescribed by the guidelines. The edit has been explained to me. The rationale seems to have been a good one which I should have recognized. I am sorry for the mistake and inconvenience.
I have restored your addition but moved it to the section on Paranormal subjects. If you believe it should be in the introduction and not where I have placed it, feel free to move it. Donner60 (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: City of Glass

Thanks. The edit that I made was to remove a section of the article that did not contain citations and violated the NPOV policy. I accidentally deleted part of a reference tag which broke the page and made it appear to be unconstructive. Ehburrus (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I left the following message on your user talk page: I left the above message because the edit broke a reference tag. It has been explained to me as a mistake in an otherwise valid edit. In view of the fact that the problem with the edit was a mistake, I think the above message was unnecessary and it is unfair to leave it on the page. I have deleted it in the method prescribed by the guidelines. Donner60 (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Anna Maria Jopek

i did not vandalise any page, as i add more and more info and sources every time my changes are undo, without explanations, claiming the sources are wrong, while i did explain that sources are reviewed, i've got no response why the sources are wrong, and what sources should i use, claiming that i vandalised article after hours of rewriting and adding sources is offensive 66.102.129.154 (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the warning that was placed on your page by Huggle because after a review of the edits I believe it was not appropriate to leave a severe warning. I have further explained or commented on this on your user page. I had one revert on the page you edited and it was for technical reasons, which I may have misunderstood, although an edit summary would have helped. I think any further discussion should be with those editors who are more knowledgeable or involved with other issues concerning additions to the article. Donner60 (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you please

Hi Donner. Could you please move to change the name article for Crowned Marian images in the Philippines into Canonically Crowned Images since the article now contains other Papal recognized images from across other countries. It should not just be about the Philippines but other locations as well. Thank you. TreasureIslandMediaBoss (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I will look at this very soon. I am not sure that changing the name of the article will be the only possible action. For example, we might consider whether an entirely new article should be created with the content about other countries. A small summary of the images in the Philippines and a link to the current article might be included. A discussion on the talk page, if any one will look at it over a brief period of time, might be appropriate first. Someone might have a more recognizable name for a new article. I say this because many readers might not be looking for the word "Canonically", although I can think of nothing better at first glance. I am not sure I am the proper person to change the name but it does not have to be done by an administrator. Any autoconfirmed/confirmed user can do so if they have a good reason. Donner60 (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I left a further response on my your talk page. It now seems that you have moved this along. So I will consider my response above as obsolete and you can proceed as noted by Aristophanes68. Donner60 (talk) 09:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Ercan International Airport

I think this post is not accurate enough. I have tried to say that there is no Greek and Turkish part. It is Republic of Cyprus controlled areas and those which are not controlled by the Republic of Cyprus due to the Turkish invasion.

http://ec.europa.eu/cyprus/turkish_cypriots/index_en.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristidesz (talk • contribs) 11:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I placed this comment on your talk page: I will review this and the link you placed on my page. I note that the article Cyprus dispute says that only Turkey recognizes the separately held Turkish part of the island. Still, we must phrase these matters from a neutral point of view. I am not sure that working this dispute which is covered by its own article into the article on the airport is appropriate. Again, I will review this carefully to see if an edit such as the one you made is in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. In the meantime, I remove the notice above not because I think the edit was necessarily valid but because I think you made it in good faith. Donner60 (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Simon Kenton

My edits did have a citation. I attend this school and the page was outdated. I thought this was what wikipedia was all about. http://www.kenton.kyschools.us/school_NewsArticle.aspx?artID=55352&schoolID=3#sthash.KlJi0cfB.dpbs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:B601:9900:78E0:C2AD:123D:B68B (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I left this notice on your talk page: I am removing the notice from this page due to your good faith in making a newer clean edit to the page with a source. Your prior good edits got caught up with the one about sleeping in class. That was not sourced nor a good edit. I give you credit for realizing that by not inserting it with your new edit. Donner60 (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Michael Drake

Redid the edit wtihout the words lame and stupid (just venting, couldn't help it). I have references regarding the problems with the investigation, but wikipedia reference format is inscrutable. Trying to figure it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.42.118 (talk) 05:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I have put some links on your user page which you might find helpful. The references in the article are not well done so they do not provide much guidance. I may edit one or two for style. Donner60 (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Gross World Product

I moved the content to the new page Golden Ratio of Interest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrielcwong (talk • contribs) 10:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I deleted the notice on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The mistake with Dinosaur Train

Hello Donner60, I am the one who just removed the Dinosaur Train character list, a few months ago, I had a discussion with Mz7 about this information, he told me we should remove any biographical information in the article and stick to real-world information. I did this, and another editor said I turned it into another cast list by doing this. I therefore decided to remove the entire list. Thank you - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I will remove the notice on your talk page. I see some consensus has been developed with respect to the content of the article. Please proceed as that has developed. e. Donner60 (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello Donner, I appreciate your concern. I deleted some of the topics that had nothing to do with spiritism but I thought I left a message there explaining why. However, I believe that I didn't really understand how a template is supposed to work. I'm going to look further into it and I apologize for any mistakes or inconveniences. I'm still learning how to work with everything here. Thanks again,

CaetanoNegrao — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaetanoNegrao (talk • contribs) 17:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem was with the edit to a template which refers to articles on the subject or persons or organizations connected with the subject. I think your point may be that the connection is not direct to the concept itself. However, that is not what this template is about; it is a determination by editors that those articles belong in that category. The category could be removed for any one of them individually if it is not applicable, with explanation. It is not proper to remove them from the category template directly. Since you said you will look into this, I think you are on the right track. Donner60 (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Lilly Wood and the Prick

Sorry but the band's name is Lilly Wood and the Prick. I have known them for years and they have never been called just Lilly Wood, but always Lilly Wood and the Prick, even on their Wikipedia page where the link leads you. In some English countries, they are called Lilly Wood and the Beast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BalaoGT (talk • contribs) 23:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I deleted the notice on your page. Sorry for the mistake and inconvenience. Donner60 (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

About POET edit

What I removed was a 'main article' link. That link was incorrect Cellulosic Ethaonol is not the main article for POET's Cellulosic Ethanol plant. There exists proper links to the Cellulosic Ethanol plant a bit later in the paragraph. The use of the 'main article' link was improper as it would indicate the linked article is about POET's Project Liberty plant. --66.41.154.0 (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It seems I misinterpreted this and will delete the notice on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit to page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Sampras#Post-retirement_activity undone

If you see this line, clearly the structure not only....but also should be applied, instead of only....but also. Thats why I made the edit which was undone. Please see to it. "The loss included only one of his 14 Grand Slam title trophies, from his first Australian Open victory,[41] but also included two Davis Cups, an Olympic ring and six trophies for finishing top in the year-end rankings." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulserver (talk • contribs) 07:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Left this message on your talk page: Delete notice in manner prescribed by guidelines. The confusing sentence structure prior to the edit has been pointed out to me. The edit was justified to clarify this. Sorry for the mistake. Please proceed as you have a better understanding of what you are trying to correct. Donner60 (talk) 07:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit to Isolation by Distance page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolation_by_distance

Hi Donner60. Could you please give me more clarification as to why you do not think that my contribution to the isolation by distance article was not constructive and why you reverted it back to it's original state? All of my statements were cited and my contribution was a significant expansion/improvement to the content of the stub. Thanks. Tennischick-jrj (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I left this message on your talk page: The reversion of the edit and placement of the above notice was clearly a mistake on my part. I only can assume that I must have intended to revert an edit to the previous page in the queue, not this article, and I slipped on to the next page, through touching the button to move the list forward, before making the edit. Simply put, I pushed the wrong button, probably twice in rapid succession. Please accept my sincere apology for the mistake. I have deleted the notice in the manner prescribed by the guidelines (which shows that I did it, and not you). And I restored your edit. Donner60 (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Mercedes F1 W03 ‎

my edit was right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:A500:708:2853:FF3C:379A:704C (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Placing the words "so cool" at the beginning of the article is personal opinion and not encyclopedic. Donner60 (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Nikos The Impaler

I added a source to my edit which was what was asked for when it was taken down the first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TypeONegative13 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Left this message on your talk page: :Deleted notice. Source was provided for latest edit. Title may look offensive but it is correct. Sorry for the inconvenience. Donner60 (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Just checking in...

What's up, Donner60? I'm not WikiStalking, but I just wanted to check in and see how you were. I see you got the rollback flag on 6 August. Congratulations! How are you finding Huggle 3? I have used both Huggle 3 and the older Huggle 2, so if you ever need help with both versions (I recommend you try both of them and get a feel of both of them, since, IMO, both have their own pros and cons), you can ask me. I can also recommend some other anti-vandalism tools, if you wish. STiki and Vada are more simplistic than Huggle, and Vada works right in the browser like Twinkle. The thing I like about STiki is how it monitors recent changes even when nobody is using the tool. It collects edits that it suspects are vandalism in its own server, and the next person that uses the tool will be presented with an edit from the server, where they can decide to revert the edit, classify the edit as constructive and remove it from the server, or pass it on for another STiki user to check. It's quite useful after a period of time when most recent changes patrollers (mainly those in the Western hemisphere) are asleep and vandalism may have collected and piled up. While other vandalism tools catch edits as soon as they are made, STiki will catch edits and save them for a human to give the final verdict later on, so it can easily access this pool of vandalism for a vandal fighter to drain the gray water out of.

Other than that, glad to hear you're still alive! Keep doing what you do best, for the encyclopedia! --k6ka (talk | contribs) 00:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Good to hear from you. I replied on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Donner60/Archive_5&oldid=1142973076"