User talk:Donaldwpmiller

MOS:SURNAME
Thanks for your contributions to Cowboy Junkies and welcome to Wikipedia! Please be aware that Wikipedia's usage of article subjects' names is more formal than in most circumstances and we don't refer to subjects by their first names (unless necessary to prevent ambiguity between family members, for example, which isn't an issue here). It's indecorous and overly colloquial to refer to the band members by their first names; I'd ask that you consult MOS:SURNAME and make appropriate corrections. There's a fairly steep learning curve with respect to Wikipedia's style manual, so don't be discouraged by indications that you're not in compliance with it; we all were new once! If you have any questions, the quickest way to get answers is to go to WP:TEAHOUSE, where the editors are very experienced in answering newcomers' questions. All the best -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  22:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Boulder Theater – Boulder, CO.png
Thanks for uploading File:Boulder Theater – Boulder, CO.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Cowboy Junkies Wikipedia Image small.png
Thank you for uploading File:Cowboy Junkies Wikipedia Image small.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

To whom it may concern, I placed a lot of effort into making the article about the Cowboy Junkies a good one. It was very poor when I began. Kind of like the image someone keeps replacing on the article. Blurry. I suppose Wikipedia was hassled by the corporations into changing its policy about images. Nevertheless, the one I uploaded, it seems to me, clearly falls within the scope of "fair use." Regardless of who owns the image, I made it sooo small as to be worthless to anyone who would attempt to enlarge it. I believe that to be "fair use." I don't like having the blurry unattractive image on there because I believe it reflects badly upon my efforts and upon the music group, Cowboy Junkies. Thanks for any assistance you might be able to give to replacing the image. Donald MillerDonaldwpmiller (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Chief Joseph issues - please don't put your name in articles or personal comments in references, NPOV, sources
You wrote " Yet, this in no way should diminish Chief Joseph's thoughts or the beauty of the speech, for it is common practice for modern day US politicains to have speechwriters: Pat Buchanan wrote for President Richard Nixon. Christopher Buckley wrote for President George H. W. Bush. James Fallows wrote for President Jimmy Carter. Jon Favreau wrote for President Barack Obama. Therefore, it is profoundly unfair for anyone to diminish Chief Joseph's sentiments because a speechwriter may have altered some of his words." Please read original research. You would need sources meeting WP:RS that specifically discuss Chief Joseph. And unless you were quoting someone, language such as "it is profoundly unfair" is against our basic policy at WP:NPOV.

You deleted " Still, some modern scholars argue that contemporary coverage, as well as Joseph's own speeches and writings, may have distorted the true nature of his thoughts and given rise to a "mythical" Chief Joseph, a "Red Napoleon" that served the interests of the Anglo-American narrative of manifest destiny." Now I admit this should have been sources and it can be sources, but the fact that you don't like it isn't a reason to delete it. Our articles should represent what reliable sources say about a subject in proportion to their significance (ie if only one person says it, it probably isn't encyclopedic).

We never use our own articles as sources, if only because they change too much and of course anyone can edit them. Doug Weller talk 16:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Reply to my intention behind my, admittedly, poorly written statement
It wasn't a case of my not liking it. It is a case of holding Chief Joseph to the same standards as we use toward our own leaders (presidents). My writing is clearly bad, and as you mentioned unsuitable for an encyclopedia article. Clearly, I should have placed that information about nearly ALL of the US presidents have writers in the reasons for editing box. (Still, I don't see why an experienced (or better writer) than myself can't help out with it. Isn't that what I'm attempting to do by volunteering for Wikipedia?)

I may have another look at the article and see how I can do a far better job of it than the very poor one I did. I think my intention is clear, though: that just as Thucydides wrote speeches from memory of the people he chronicled, the notion that the person who wrote out what Chief Joseph said was intended - at least by the person who wrote it down - to convey the chief's intention and the spirit and tone of his speech. Donaldwpmiller (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Reverted one recent edit of Cowboy Junkies articles
I reverted your recent edit to Cowboy Junkies, where you threw away a month of editing you did in April and May of 2018, because the reason you reverted the edits and other intervening edits was not explained. If you have a good reason to decrease the knowledge available in Wikipedia, please let me know and I might agree and allow the article to be devolved, but as it is I support more knowledge over less. Wikipedia would not allow me to just use undo your edit because of intervening edits by you, so I am letting you know of the reversion and asking why you did it. Mburrell (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I reverted the article about the Cowboy Junkies because of
their apparent indifference - or even hostility toward - the edits. For instance, they blocked me on Facebook after I asked for a photo of the band to use on Wikipedia. I've vistied their Facebook page since then, but the indifference toward me - and evidently everyone else - was offputting. The occasional "like" to someone's comment, but that's it. The band's singer described a seven hour flight where she was seated behing Bono, of U2 fame, for seven hours and didn't say anything to him. Upon landing, he noticed her, asked why she didn't say anything, and "went on and on and on" about how he was a huge fan of her band. In my opinion, the Cowboy Junkies are very strange people, and I regret having had anything to do with them. But fine with me if you want to use my edits. Mburrell (talk) 15 May 2019 Donaldwpmiller (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)DonaldwpmillerDonaldwpmiller (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fork in the Road, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uncut ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Fork_in_the_Road check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Fork_in_the_Road?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Use an article's talk page to make general comments
I noticed your recent edits to Goal setting. All you did was add spaces to the end of paragraphs, which were unnecessary, and then you wrote commentary on the general state of the article in the edit summaries. This is not how to share general criticism of an article. To share general criticism about an article, go to the article's talk page (in this case, Talk:Goal setting), then click on the "New section" link at the top of the talk page, then enter a subject/headline, then write your comment concisely and sign the comment with four tildes (like this: ). That is the proper way to share general criticism, because then other editors can respond to your comment and strategize about how to improve the article, if necessary. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:JoelOsteen
I went to Wikipedia's Joel Olsteen page as a user and with no intention of editing. Yet, when I read the article, I thought it needed improvement. Full disclosure: as an individual I do not have a favorable opinion of Evangelicals. On social media, I often refer to them as the Evangelical American Taliban. However, as a Wikipedia "journalist/editor" I strongly believe in being truthful,accurate, and fair. Indeed, I believe Jim Lehrer has the best journalistic guidelines anyone could hope to attain:


 * Do nothing I cannot defend. * Cover, write and present every story with the care I would want if the story were about me.
 * Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story. * Assume the viewer is as smart and as caring and as good a person as I am. * Assume the same about all people on whom I report. * Assume personal lives are a private matter, until a legitimate turn in the story absolutely mandates otherwise. * Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories, and clearly label everything. * Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes, except on rare and monumental occasions. * No one should ever be allowed to attack another anonymously. * And, finally, I am not in the entertainment business.

Back to Olsteen. It is my opinion that the section on Hurricane Harvey is unfair. Loaded words, like "supposedly" appear in it, and, in my opinion, it is presented as if it is a forgone conclusion that Olsteen was malignant in his responce to an - at the time - still occurring weather event, which he wasn't.

I would rewrite that entire section in order to be fair to Olsteen, for he is still believed to be someone who refused to open his church to those in need, a belief not supported by the facts, and in direct conflict with them.

That said, it takes a lot of work to write a decently good report, and I don't want to attempt it if it has little chance of being used. (The section I ommited about a group that sued Google, TIDAL, Microsoft, and Olsteen (which was thrown out of court) is being held for evaluation. Just on a quick glance, it seems to me to be irrelevant in an encylopedia entry. Donaldwpmiller (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)