User talk:Donner60/Archive 14

Archive 14 starting with closed talk page threads after November 1, 2016

Messages on SineBot's Talk Page
I notice that you've been reverting SineBot's edits to your talk page and giving it vandalism warnings. Is this intentional? R. A. S immons Talk 22:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

No. I was trying to revert the vandal who did not sign his vandalism and did not notice the sine bot edit in between. It has happened before so I should be aware of it but I skipped over it this time. I am glad you pointed it out. Donner60 (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted the edits to the sine bot talk page and noted that I had quite a few vandalisms to my pages over the past few years (664 by my count) since I have done a large amount of vandalism review over that time. All four of the reverts were via Huggle; I soon noticed and reverted the vandalism as well. I did not know the messages were being left on a sine bot page. I wrote that I will be more attentive to this each time in the future. My user page has just been semi-protected by administrator DeltaQuad on her own initiative when she noticed the recent, and persistent, vandalisms. Some vandals really don't like editors who revert their work. Donner60 (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, you have my condolences. I hope you don't have to deal with it any further. R. A. S immons Talk 03:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * . Thanks. I am sure I will if I continue to do vandalism review since my user talk page is not protected. I don't mind much. It just gives me a higher number for my user box. On the other hand, it can be a little annoying, for a short time, if the vandalisms come too fast to keep up with and I have to take more than a few moments from reviewing to deal with it. It is also an annoyance if someone vandalizes one of my pages when I am offline and it stays on the page for awhile. That doesn't happen much because someone usually sees it and reverts it rather soon. I do the same for others if I see such edits come up on Huggle. Donner60 (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I can keep your page on my radar as a bit of added protection in case any vandals get past. It does seem to be a bit of a high-risk target. I doubt I'll be much more effective than anyone else, but I do what I can to keep disruption to a minimum around here and invading userspace is really not cool. You're a great vandal fighter; don't let them get you down! R. A. S immons Talk 13:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I appreciate it. I do create content from time to time. John F. R. Seitz is my most recent article. That can keep me offline some but then again, I will do less patrolling at those times. I keep thinking I will tilt back to more content work as I did in my first two years or so but I have done that only occasionally recently. I think anyone who will watch the page even now and then is a great help. Donner60 (talk) 04:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Ecosexuality
Please nominate the article for deletion if you feel my edits were not constructive, because that article is literally the most unintelligent thing that I've read on wikipedia since you guys falsely accused that one dude of murdering John F. Kennedy. I think my IQ has gone down 20 points after reading it. At the very least, can you please keep the Snoop Dogg quote in there, because it makes much more sense than whatever that article says.

In all seriousness, none of those sources are WP:NPOV, a quarter of them are self-marketing, and almost none of them are tertiary sources, some of them are primary to boot. I'd do the work myself, but I literally can't take the article seriously and if you're checking where my IP address says I am, you'd know I'm very high right now. 128.138.65.123 (talk) 04:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I wish you were being serious. I doubt that anyone that is not connected with this movement is likely to take the time to edit it for basically (in more measured terms) the reasons you so colorfully express. Certainly serious sourced criticism can be included in an article. You seem to be clever enough to realize that the sarcasm. mockery and tongue in cheek edits cannot be considered serious criticism, even if the article seems to be unintelligible enough to invite such criticism. I saw one of the outside sources or a separate report recently and it too did not seem to me to be a model of clarity. As odd as it may seem, the article has sufficient outside sources to appear to be notable. I suppose that if the problems noted in the banner are not addressed in due time someone might be able to put the article up for deletion with some hope of success. Seeing how long that period has been for other articles, it may be too soon. Maybe you should get an account and look into doing it yourself. That effort might be as difficult to process as trying to edit a rather obscure text. I assume defenders would show up as well. Donner60 (talk) 05:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Moved from an old edit far up the page
You sent some messages to me. I'm not sure of my username, so someone must have hacked my account or something, but I've never edited anything on Wikipedia in my entire life. I noticed you told me I made edits on stuff and I didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.159.158.170 (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The edit was made in 2015. It came from your IP address but someone else may have had that address in 2015. Your computer could have been hacked at that time if you were in a public place and someone tapped into your network or if you logged on to Wikipedia, left it open, and walked away for awhile when someone else could use it. There are in fact a few reasons why this could have happened. Since you apparently have not seen this before (unless you let it go for well over a year_, I suspect you just got a new computer or at least a new IP address. In any event, it was one edit and it was so long ago and such a mild thing that I would not worry about it even if you did do it. Just be sure to protect against unwanted access to your computer in the future and you should be fine. Donner60 (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Wrong revert
The Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts existed in Kosovo, which at that time was Yugoslavia. It has nothing to do with the country of Albania and should by no reason be listed under Albania. The members were "ethnical" Albanians living in Yugoslavia at that time, but they are Yugoslavian citizens. You are confusing the usage of "Albanian" as an ethnicity with the name of the "Republic of Albania". Ethnic Albanians were citizens of several Balkan countries outside the Republic of Albania, including Yugoslavia. Therefore, the correct citizenship qualification of this group is Yugoslavian. 31.18.251.226 (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Then the proper thing to do is to explain that in the article, not to delete the content which is well sourced. Donner60 (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Did I delete it? I did put it under Yugoslavia. 31.18.251.226 (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Your edit summary explained your edit but the editor who reverted your new edit probably did so because you did not place that explanation in the text under Yugoslavia or in a footnote to that text, which might be even more appropriate. No one is going to look back at edit summaries for that explanation, so it should be somewhere in the text. I don't think it is extraneous to the content. There is a source which identifies 7,000 Albanians. If there is a further explanation, it needs to be made directly. Otherwise, people who are familiar with that sourced information are going to see it as a deletion of content and attempt to skew the record toward a certain point of view. Donner60 (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Henri GOURARIER to Henri Gourarier
I have no idea how i can change the title could you do it please ?--Gotrunk (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Done. Donner60 (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Source
Hi there, how do I provide a source on a wiki entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obbly (talk • contribs) 03:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Information placed on your talk page at the same time you were asking the question. Just click on the links. The various pages are detailed but the explanations can be found on the pages for different types of referencing and two alternate formats. Donner60 (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Update in Advanced SystemCare

 * That would be fine if you did it in a non-promotional, matter of fact manner. See What Wikipedia is not and Words to watch. Donner60 (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Wrong revert Myron Ebell
I stated on Myron Ebell's wiki page that he is not a scientist. I cited Bell's own bio which states he has a Master's degree from London School of Economics and LSE's website which states it only teaches economics and politics, not the natural sciences, so please leave my edits alone. I am a doctoral student and if you check my IP address you will see it is from the University of Toronto - thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.51.156.148 (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Noa Nadruku
The addition that was made to this page is true and correct and is not a test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.19.191 (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * See the further information I put on your talk page. You offer your personal opinion that certain young rugby players will be stars. That is speculation (also could be considered original research). The message I wrote to you just a few minutes ago was: ":Please see What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a blog, forum, fan site or advice site. It is an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable, third-party sources. It does not publish speculation, predictions, rumors, personal opinions, commentary or unsourced information likely to be changed, challenged or disputed. See also: Five Pillars, Identifying reliable sources, Help:Footnotes, Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view and What Wikipedia is not in general. For further information about contributing to Wikipedia, see: Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Simplified ruleset; and Simplified Manual of Style. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

hello
I go to Franciscan University and I don't understand why you removed my comment. Are you a vigilante??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.244.94.59 (talk) 03:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Seriously. If you can add a reliable source, I will reconsider my edit. Donner60 (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Deon Figures Death
Cannot confirm cause of death, please provide source used to establish he is deceased. Trisueh (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I also cannot confirm that he is deceased. The date of death in the infobox was added on that same date (7/10/16) by an IP user who has only made that one edit. It seems to have been vandalism which the user did to see if he could get away with it. And he did until you spotted it. I have removed the date of death from the article. By the way, anyone can remove false text of this nature from an article if the information cannot be confirmed. This is the kind of thing that is easy enough to confirm. If a sports figure had died this year, there is no reason to doubt that it would have shown up in search. If you make such edits, be sure to note in the edit summary that the removed text appears to be false and could not be confirmed by an internet search. Thanks for catching this.  Donner60 (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Clint Dempsey
I do not understand what you meant on the clint dempsey page. It appear to be a test?? {if no reason is given I will contact the administrator) mls.com


 * You changed that he "plays for Seattle" to he "played" for Seattle. Athletes in pro sports are injured and out for the rest of the season. That much could be put in the Dempsey article - in fact it was already there. Since we don't know if Dempsey will pay for Seattle again (if at all), it is not proper to say he "played" for Seattle. Players are not shown as having played for a team, in the past tense, if their future is undetermined and they still could return to their team, in other words, they are not out of contract or haven't been released or could resign with the team.


 * Your other edit "It is unknown I found Dempsey will return with the Dounders next season" is based on that fact. That is an exact cut and paste quote which shows a sentence which does not measure up to Wikipedia standards of clarity and is unencyclopedic because it is not written entirely in the third person. Assuming it is reasonably read to say that his return is unknown, I also put some further explanation on your talk page starting with What Wikipedia is not, which refers to this sentence. Many things are unknown. Wikipedia does not put them into articles unless they add information or value, which this does not - which is true of most unknown, thus the crystal ball section. I suppose you could work this in to an edit about whether his physical condition will ever allow him to play again, but that is not what this sentence says. Of course, all the information about his condition and being ruled out for the rest of the season was already in the preceding paragraph when you added your edit so not only is it crystal ball, but it adds nothing to the article.


 * Also, using open and close ref tags with nothing in them does not add or highlight anything. It would be counterproductive on a talk page if they did, because it would move the text out of this item to the bottom of the page. Donner60 (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Left Wing
You deleted an edit I made that was not a test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.100.53 (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Responded on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Bin Laden Issue Station
Bin Laden Station; Donner60 it might be wise that you removed the addition. The source that stated that Bin Laden refused to take control of the station is CIA 1996. All of the other information is correct, and exact and sheds light on the 9/11 attack; where 3 of 4 RU-95's [Russia Ukraine suitcase bombs [100lbs and 1.6 kiloton implosive weapon]] were detonated what looks to be by Latter 5, because the motion sensors failed. The FBI took control of the pentagon that afternoon more than likley under the control of Coolnan. See TWA Flight 007 for more details and possibly the key to the Oklahoma City Bombing. [aircraft history of TWA 007] For clarification you can use; CC Earl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:B00:80F8:8896:F5FE:C232:95F6 (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Read. Donner60 (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Did wires get crossed?
Hi Donner60. In looking at things I see that removed the "i hate you" message just above with this edit. Then you restored it with this one and then you left a message on Sro23's talk page about civility. Thus, it was "Perfect is the word" who was being a troll not Sro23. I see that "Pitw" left several attacks in a short period of time so I think that your "Huggle" may have gotten things the wrong way round in dealing with them. You and Sro23 are two of the best vandal/troll fighters that I know and I would be a bummer if you got out of sorts with each other. If I have misread things then my apologies and you are free to remove my post. Best regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 05:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

You are quite right. I just finished deleting my mistaken message on his talk page and apologizing for mixing this up. I think we were both editing at nearly the same moment and he got there first. As you noted, I was using Huggle to delete the vandalism by that persistent vandal. I had deleted several instances already. I suppose that since the Huggle edits are queued, it could be possible that a slight delay in seeing the edit could cause such problem. Usually, I would expect a notice about a later edit having been made. I hope that I did not miss one but I suppose I was becoming exasperated after about four instances and may have edited over it. In any event, I do regret the mistake. Also, I much appreciate you bringing this to my attention. Although I did catch it (reasonably soon, I think), I very well might have missed it at least for some time or even signed off without noticing it. Sro23 is great at anti-vandalism and has reverted vandalism to my talk page on other occasions. I very much appreciate his diligence and help. Donner60 (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I am so glad that things have gotten cleared up. I surely do understand the exasperation that you went through. Bottles of Troll-be-GoneRegisteredTM.svg are just right for situations like this one. Holiday scents are now available :-) MarnetteD&#124;Talk 06:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Vanilla is one of my favorites. Donner60 (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Mmmmmm - good choice. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 06:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * . Perhaps it is worth mentioning that Sro23 has a userbox which states that he/she has not revealed his/her identity (or species!). I rather automatically referred to Sro23 here as "he" but I was more circumspect on Sro23's talk page after having glanced at Sro23's user page. I don't like to use the plural for a single person, though I have done so on occasion. Donner60 (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Clemson-South Carolina rivalry
I live within walking distance of clemson and its only 113 miles from my house to thr university of south carolina. You stated in wiki that the two are 132 miles apart. just want to let you know your 15 miles off. Unsigned from: User talk:69.59.112.149


 * I reverted vandalism to the page. I did not put the distance between the two universities in the article. It was there already. If you wish to put in a different distance that is more accurate, go ahead. Be prepared to cite a reliable, verifiable source, however, because a change might be questioned. I put the previous sentences and helpful Wikipedia page links on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

FCB Joker
Hi donner, the page i made was homemade and not a test, I self lerned the keywords and did experiments. Can you explain more about it? P.S. If I made some mistakes, please feel free to tell me.Donner60 (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I already explained it and left some helpful page links on your user page - and you deleted the message and the links - which leads me to doubt whether you are here to add productively to the encyclopedia. Another possibility is that you may be very young, and not to be critical or offensive, that you may not understand what redundancies, out of context additions and productive contributions overall would be. I suggest you go back and start over with the comments and links I have already made. By the way, I also don't understand how you could have done experiments, and even if you did, how that would help to overcome the problem with your edits. As I noted, the topic is covered in other articles, which I cited. The information did not belong in the article where you put your edit, especially in the context of where it was put. The information is also sourced in the other articles, which would need to be here to show the progression is correct as well. This is a moot point in terms of the edits being discussed but would be important if such additions are made to other articles where they might be missing and helpful. Donner60 (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Im sorry Donner, well im young, 12. Sorry I deleted them, can you please send them to me one more time? Sorry.FCB Joker (talk) 03:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I am encouraged that you are taking an interest in these topics and that you are trying to contribute productively. I have restored the prior comments and added some further thoughts on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Tiny Rascal Gang
Hey sorry I edit the Asian gang called TRG because on Tiny Rascal Gang because I wanted to edit your page because they are also rival gangs with Bulldogs and The east side Longo's because they were bullied by them back in the days thats why I wanted to edit your page Alvin Johnson (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I put some comments and helpful Wikipedia page links on your talk page. You may have some reasonable content to add but you need to do it in the proper format and with sources. Donner60 (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Arkansas misrepresentation
The stories you are referencing regarding the Food Service incident are inadequate. Meadors had left the State and misinformation was allowed to be expanded upon repeatedly. He was out of country and accepted a FOI fine, so he would not have to fly back to the States. Pointer22 (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I suggest you put that explanation in an edit summary, at least in part. Since that line will not likely have enough room, also refer to the talk page and put the full explanation there. Also back it up with citation of a reliable, verifiable source. See also Help:Footnotes. Otherwise you are replacing sourced content with just your own word. If for any reason I am missing something, let me know. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

There were back in 2003/2004 some articles that were more correct, i.e., the Chairman of the Board Was he individual who fail to tell the Board. The President never discussed the issue with the Food Service people. The VP for Finance and Board chair were the University people involved. Meadors wasn't copied on the letter to the VP regarding the offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointer22 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I see that you did not take my advice and made the edit several more times and have been warned about it several more times. What you are saying here is that you really can't back up your edit except with some vague memory of articles that are 12 years old, and that you apparently can not find to cite. Under those circumstances, you should leave the page alone unless you can come up with a source that backs up your rationale. Donner60 (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I see that the controversy started in 2009 so I can understand why no articles from 2003/2004 on the subject can be cited to support your position. Donner60 (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Martial Law in The Philippines
Hi Donner60, my edits were not tests. I was improving the information regarding our history based on the cited sources since I noticed some editors who are very selective on the information that they include in the article. I will be reverting my edits back again, however I will improve the sentence construction, I just noticed that I misplaced the comma. Feel free to contact me at my page if you think that my edits are unnecessary before reverting the edits, I will be happy to discuss it with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lammarck (talk • contribs) 04:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I put an additional comment explaining my revert on your talk page, possibly at the same time as you left this message. An improvement in the sentence would no doubt suffice. Donner60 (talk) 04:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

2015 Egyptian Air Strikes in Libya
Hi donner, why u revert my page which is 2015 egypt airstrikes in libya? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.133.247.240 (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I made a mistake. I explained it on your talk page as you were leaving this message. I thought your change resulted in a removal of the flag but in fact you restored it and I ended up removing it. I rolled back my revert of the edit and struck the original message on your talk page. Sorry for the mistake. Donner60 (talk) 06:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

edit to film Jack the Ripper 1959
This was not a mistake. The link I removed referred to a generic listing of Jack the Ripper references, rather than the specific 1959 film it should have linked to. I just fixed the link so that it goes directly to the page it's supposed to. (User talk:FVerzyl) 05:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.129.15.71 (talk)


 * OK for that but what about deletion of the notes on the top of the page? Donner60 (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Collegiate School
Hi Donner,

I made an edit to the Collegiate School page. It was about a racial affinity group called Jamaa. I go to Collegiate School and I feel that you should put the edit back up. If there are any sources I can provide you, please let me know. Thanks, Zengatang02 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zengatang02 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You do not need to let me know. Rather, put them in the article. I will put some helpful Wikipedia page links on your user page about reliable sources and footnotes. Donner60 (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Removed Stuff
You said I could drop by. The issue is that many of the statements that were removed were outright false or ignored key information. I mentioned it on the talk page but here it is 1.) Cooper was wearing a BROWN prison jacket rather than a green one so the button shouldn't have been green. 2.) The button was only found after officer Steven Moran claimed he never entered the room when in fact he had (his prints were on the closet door) 3.) The "blood" could just have easily been bleach (luminol reacts to bleach and Bilbia admitted that she HAD used bleach to clean the place. The hairs are more difficult but since the family used the house back when Mary Howell was the occupier the hair could have come from that time. 4.) There were key differences between the two ropes (one had a center cord) and the Ryens weren't tied up so it may well have been planted 5.) The hatchet didn't neccissarily come from the house; Peggy Ryen had black paint in the hatchet wound on her head, implying the blade had black paint on it. The Hatchet from the house had no paint. Add that each employee described it in different places and it becomes more murky. Add in the fact that Mary Ann Hughes directly asked the employees what they were telling Cooper's investigators and they may have unintentionally had their impartiality tainted, while the fact that the sheath was only located AFTER Moran entered the room and reported nothing (leaving his prints on the closet door) leaves the possibility that Moran planted the sheath during his search. 6.) That was never mentioned in the transcript; only a hatchet was reported missing. 7.) The blood stain was subjected to improper testing by Daniel Gregonis (who was forced to admit he had committed perjury.) Gregonis also checked out A41 (along with cooper's saliva and blood) for 24 hours in 99, more than enough to plant evidence if need be. 8.) The first print was only found after Baird (who was later fired for stealing heroin) got his hand on a set of pro keds. The second print was only noticed after officers had trampled it and after the deputy who first sketched the prints was told to look again. 9.) Incidentally Lee Furrow's stepmother lived in Long Beach (less than 4 miles from where it was deposited) 10.) The cigarettes were only found on the third search AFTER the officers failed to process tobacco and cigarettes from the house. 11.) The hair was not only never identified as pubic it was only found later.

The space limits blocked me from including all of the information but I felt that they were all legitimate points and undercut a lot of the evidence. I felt that they each handily addressed the claims — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.61.201 (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You cannot remove sourced information just because you do not agree with it or have personal counterarguments. If you can cite reliable, verifiable, neutral third-party sources for your contentions and place them in a separate section that indicates that these sources have raised questions about the case and final decision that may pass muster, if it is not given undue weight and is stated neutrally. If you cannot cite such sources, it is just your opinion or is original research or synthesis, covered on the same page. You have been told this already, at least in large part, but you apparently are not neutral with respect to this article and wish to make your removal of contents and additions and do not want to abide by the guidelines. In addition, your removal of content without providing any source for doing seems to show that you only want to undermine the other side of the case, which is reported and can be verified. Donner60 (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Would the dissenting judge's counterarguments be legitimate? Judge William Fletcher is the one who raised most of the arguments originally, and at least 10 other judges agreed with him in the belief that Cooper warranted a new trial so it seemed to carry weight. It was verifiable (Fletcher cited the documents in question) and the fact that 10 other judges felt cooper deserved a new trial grants them weight (especially since one of the three who tipped the scales against them all but stated that the only reason she was doing so was the AEDPA law). If I link to Fletcher's dissent would that be enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.61.201 (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as I am concerned, if you do not delete existing content, and the dissenting judge's points are online and can be stated accurately and neutrally, I think that would be good balance and a reliable source. Granting a new trial is not the same as a finding of innocence and I assume the judge writes with that distinction in mind. Since this is a public record, copyright should not be an issue. Facts as stated by the judge are what could be included, not conclusions drawn from them that the judge does not make in his opinion. Identifying reliable sources, Citing sources, Help:Footnotes, Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view are important guideline pages for preparing such content. Note that I make a few qualifications and that I cannot speak for any other editor. Donner60 (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

He does state he believes Cooper may be innocent, and he does specifically address the claims made by the prosecution. Given that he would have had access to the trial record this means he isn't just spouting nonsense without a source. 3 others signed concurring dissents and out of the 27 judges 11 total felt that Cooper deserved a rehearing. Of the 14 remaining, one of them felt that the AEDPA blocked them doing more but felt grave misgivings about the case (that there were a LOT of unanswered questions). I'm sorry if I broke the rules; I read Rymer's concurrence to judge fletcher and it boiled down to "shut the fuck up don't you DARE question the state." A lot of the arguments that I deleted were specifically dealt with in the dissent (and notably judge Rymer's only real argument was "don't rock the boat or question the AEDPA". That led me to believe that she was being naive.

Regards to your message
I believe the Secretary of State choice has been made and that is why I deleted the section. Sorry for not explaining this in the edit. Thanks for the warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Israeltefera12 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Not constructive?
Hi, You reverted my changes because I noted that many of the propositions on the "total war" page lacked sources. Pointing out that baseless claims are unsourced is not unconstructive. Undoing people's changes based on the fact that they point out baseless claims are unsourced is unconstructive. Please stop adding legitimacy to baseless claims. I'm just asking the authors of the article to point to a single source that supports their claims. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCA6:67E0:E0BE:8F96:DC0D:DF04 (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Many of the sentences you tagged are indisputably correct. In addition, there are 27 footnotes on the page and a more citations needed template at the top of the page. Tagging multiple sentences in multiple paragraphs is not constructive. I am not saying there is not a single sentence that is questionable and should have citations, however. You need to be much more selective about this. I have made some further comments and a few suggestions, along with leaving some Wikipedia page links, on your user page. Donner60 (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

RfA:Donner60
Hey,

I have come across your work several times on the wiki and did my usual review of your contribs that I do for any RfA Candidate. I don't know if anyones put the idea in your head or if you'd be interested but I think you'd be good to have the tools! Your vandal fighting work is awesome as is your content creation and the way you approach questions. Anyway, just wanted to throw it out there, if you go for it you've got my support vote and/or i'd be happy to nominate you! --  Dane talk  03:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliments. I appreciate the favorable notice of my contributions. My content creation has fallen off in the past few years but I have had three new articles and some additions to articles this year. The last one is somewhat long and did take awhile to prepare. I have noted on my user page for some time that I intend to get back to more content creation. I think I am close to spending more time on that. I actually have more than one article in process. I have seen several new administrators move away from much content work despite expressing the intention to keep that up. Since I have several possible articles in mind as well as in process, and know about other articles that need work, I don't want to tie myself down to an administrator's role at this time.


 * I have had RfA suggested to me once a year or two ago but I declined for much the same reason. I feel that I have too many other things to work on here without taking on the administrative work. I know that having the tools would make my contributions in some areas more efficient but the administrative work would take away time I would like to spend on other work here. (I also know that a successful RfA is not easy to achieve.)


 * I see that you have become quite active this year and are doing good work as well. In the current environment, I would not encourage anyone to try RfA unless they had well over a year of steady participation. I think you will get to the point, perhaps later next year, when you will have the experience and participation to take on the administrator's role. I hope you will consider an RfA then. I look forward to that and to supporting you.


 * Thanks for the offer and I will let you know if I become more interested in an RfA. Meanwhile, I hope to make other good contributions and to support good candidates at RfA. Donner60 (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Merry
Thanks! And happy holidays to you. Donner60 (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!
 We wish you a Merry Christmas, We wish you a Merry Christmas, We wish you a Merry Christmas, And a Happy New Year! May your holidays be filled with peace and joy. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Altamel (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

''Adapted from Xmas6. Spread the cheer by adding to their talk page.''

Thanks! And happy holidays to you. Donner60 (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Rudolph noticed that your ping was a bracket short (happens to me all the time) so let me do the honors and add a new one so that  sees your thanks. Wassail dheers to you both. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am always glad to have a helping hand. It certainly adds to a more congenial atmosphere, especially when it comes with the spirit of helpfulness you have always conveyed. Also, I think it is much better to have a prompt correction. The alternative is probably to be embarrassed to see one has made a mistake several days later. You have bailed me out (and promptly) more than once in the past year and I really appreciate it. Donner60 (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words D. I am always glad to help when I can :-) MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Thanks! And Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you! Donner60 (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Donner, Have a great day :) – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 15:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. A very good place for greetings for this season. Close to the North Pole and all. Happy holidays to you also. Donner60 (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Happy New Year, Donner60!


Happy New Year! Donner60, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

SA 13 Bro (talk) 12:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Donner60!


Happy New Year! Donner60, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

– Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 12:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year
Thanks for all your help in 2016. Enjoy your holiday activities! Best wishes for your talk and the rest of 2017. - Certes (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Donner60!


Happy New Year! Donner60, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Linguist If you reply to me here, please add    to the start of your message 01:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year

 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message


 * Good one. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year Donner60!


Happy New Year! Donner60, Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 10:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy new year!
Many thanks, and same to you...and happy editing throughout the year! --17:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks Donner60 for the greetings, happy New Year to you too!! Khruner (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: Happy New Year, Espresso Addict!
Thanks! I wish you a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, too! Espresso Addict (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I hacked your talk!
I did an oopsie. I left Oshwah a new year's greeting. I copied your post, forgot to paste it and modified it. Mr rnddude corrected me and I then retrieved it from history My apologies on that! Have a Happy Year! Jim1138 (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for letting me know. All's well that end's well. By the way, cut and modify and paste activity can be tricky. Although I should have known better, I added a caption to about the first 15 messages I placed. The template already has a caption. When I finally saw what I had done, I had to go back and quickly remove the extra captions. I got about 12 of them but 3 persons had already deleted the extra captions from their talk page. I am sure that they took this in the spirit it was intended. Donner60 (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Especially tricky if you forget the "paste" part! Did you see my addition to Oshwah's page? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I did see it and I thought it was quite clever. Of course, choosing the proper arbitrary point in time adds another layer of complexity! Donner60 (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * More complicated? Not for me. I dumped the responsibility on Oshwah! Best wishes! Jim1138 (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Happy New Year to you as well. I'm only 2 days late, which by my own execrable standards isn't too bad... 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Sad News
I am posting this here as I see there was a message from you on my father's talk page. I am sorry to have to tell you that JohnCD will be making no further contributions to Wikipedia as he died unexpectedly of a heart attack on 30th December. I am not sure to what extent the administrators of Wikipedia actually know anything of one another as people, but if this news is of more than purely administrative interest to anyone at the site, he was strongly committed to his work for it, and my mother would appreciate any message from one of you. I am John's son and we can be contacted via his email address, jcdeas at gmail dot com for the time being. Robert Deas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.58.193 (talk) 11:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Quick reiteration from John's own account that this is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnCD (test) (talk • contribs) 14:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * O my, this is indeed sad news. I send my sincere condolences. I will reply to you by e-mail and will inform at least a few others here on the site. Donner60 (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , I am pinging you to advise you of the sad message that I received at the start of this section. If I am not mistaken, you have interacted co-operatively with JohnCD within the past year and are not administrators. I posted a notice on the administrators noticeboard and on the talk page in the miscellaneous section of the Village Pump. Administrator User:Nyttend has placed a memorial template on User:JohnCD's talk page and a notice on the bureaucrats noticeboard and has sought independent confirmation of John's death. Donner60 (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am adding you to the mailing list because you may have interacted with JohnCD in counter-vandalism or speedy deletion work. Donner60 (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * My sincerest condolences, although I did not know him personally. Quis separabit?  06:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You won't mind if I treat this with some scepticism, will you. How do we know the "news" is genuine? How do we know the son is "the son" and not an IP that has been going around claiming the deaths of all sorts of people? This is a serious claim and I think more verification is needed before we start holding a public obituary.  Cassianto Talk   11:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have responded on the adminstrator notice board talk page in detail as shown below. Donner60 (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , I am pinging you again to note that it appears quite likely that I have been taken in by a fake death news vandal since User:Someguy1221 has stated that the name given by the IP above has not been found to exist. I have been justly criticized for my gullibility and insensitivity in accepting this at face value and spreading the report. I have posted the message that follows on the administrator noticeboard. If my introduction here and the response does not give the whole picture, you may wish to read the whole thread there. I apologize for the waste of time and the upset but I sincerely hope that JohnCD is in fact good. My dear friends, because that is how I consider some of you and how I would like to consider all of you with whom I have not yet had contact, I am indeed mortified by my apparent lack of care and foresight, if not gullibility and insensitivity, and I sincerely apologize for this.
 * "Indeed I am embarrassed by my apparent gullibility (rather than appropriate good faith) on this. I hope that everyone will understand that I thought I was doing the right thing to provide notice. I did not know about the fake death news vandal, which of course would have made me wary. I did not think about the possibility that someone would make up a fake name so the fact that a name was presented led me to give the report some credit. I saw no history on the IP talk page, which I checked to see if it might be someone who was trying to gain some sort of revenge on me or on JohnCD. Of course, I now realize someone who was up to no good and was the least bit clever would have not made the mistake of using the same IP address. I now realize I should have waited for a short time or a few days and thought about this. I also should have asked a few people for advice and only informed a few people while asking for that help. Someguy1221 seems to have been able to check this and provides a basis for rejecting the report. That seems to be good or hopeful news.
 * I am glad that I referred to the message on my talk page rather than just posting a notice. This has given those who have seen the possible problem a chance to be advised of the basis for the report and to inject a note of skepticism; indeed to do an investigation.
 * I have been a user for several years and have tried my best to avoid drama and controversy though I suppose a few small glitches might be found in my history. This seems to have been an epic fail after all that time. My skepticism will be increased quite by this incident a bit though I may just shrink away in embarrassment over this. Your chastisements of me are well deserved but I hope you will understand I am most upset by likely being taken in and my mortification by the strong rebukes simply adds to the distress. Frankly, though, I will be most happy if the reports prove false and we find out that JohnCD is fine.
 * I hope the community can accept my sincere apology for apparently being taken in by this. I can only say that I will not be repeating the mistake if that it is. I will ping those who I notified through my talk page, correspond with Nyttend about this and post this on the Village Pump miscellaneous page if no one has adequately cover this. Since I keep odd hours, and ironically have some real life commitments over the next few days, I will be checking in only briefly and infrequently for a few days and not for quite a few hours just now." Donner60 (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , Mate, don't stress to much about this. These things happen. Surely John (if he is okay) will be able to realise this as well. We all have to remain vigilant about this fake death news vandal. Class 455  ( talk |stand clear of the doors!) 12:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * . Thank you. I try to avoid drama and be careful but now have had an epic fail. I have devoted much to the project in the last few years and really think it is worthwhile, but now I am so diminished, apparently damage of reputation with at least some people, and disheartened by my apparent gullibility and a few of the rebukes (deserved, but still somewhat strong and one or two a bit hurtful) that it may take awhile to recover. I will be most relieved if the reports were false. From the interactions I have seen on his talk page, I have reason to think that JohnCD will be understanding and sympathetic. That would be the best end and resolution of all. Thank you again; I will be offline for most or all of the next few days so I hope no one will take my temporary disappearance as anything other than being busy in real life. After that, I'll see what the situation is. Donner60 (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * ,, , , , , , , , , , . I posted this on the User talk:JohnCD page. I am resending this from here because it was deleted on that page by the IP who states that his report was not a hoax and mentions a funeral date on the talk page. While the best result would be that it is a hoax, I guess it may be an open question. In any event I am sending this message again from here rather than from the JohnCD talk page to be sure that you get it.

"You can see on the administrator noticeboard that I have been justly criticized and chastised for probably being taken in by a fake death news vandal as User:Someguy1221 has been unable to verify that the name attached to the message is in fact JohnCD. If you wish to read these criticism and my explanation but mainly apology, please feel free to do so. While I am embarrassed and sincerely apologize for my lack of care, vigilance and sensitivity, I will be most pleased if in fact JohnCD is alive and well. The draft referred to above has been deleted by an administrator as unverified, as well. I hope it is not inappropriate to notify you here so that I get all the posters copied and, hopefully, to let JohnCD know about these notifications." Now note that followup message and my reply posted in conflict at the same time below. Donner60 (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I am sitting at my father's desk with a wry smile on my face as I read all this. Indeed, if he is somewhere watching he will be most amused as we try to satisfy the verifiability requirements he spent much of his last years defending. Unfortunately, it is all too true. John died of ischaemic heart failure on 30th December. The suddenness of his death led to the coroner taking charge and as he had no history of coronary illness a PM was ordered. These delays have meant that the death will not be officially registered in the UK under law until I go to the registrar on Monday morning at 9am UK time. Even then I don't know that an internet search will bring up any kind of official confirmation. As a matter of fact I don't know how exactly to verify this news to you, the most professionally sceptical people online. Alas, alack, if only it were not true. John is very sorely missed at present, and we have appreciated the warmth of the few messages that were posted on his talk page until the section was collapsed. I can be contacted both on my father's email and my own, robert dot deas at gmail. Robert Deas
 * It seems that by giving your message good faith, and notifying others, I have been seen to be insufficiently skeptical and careless. My reputation herein has been diminished and tarnished, perhaps beyond recall even if your message is true ironically enough. Your messages certainly sound genuine enough. I have been criticized and rebuked on the administrator noticeboard for being deficient in care, skepticism and sensitivity. I don't mind the rebukes. They may be justified and some note of caution is completely justified, though I do think one or two were rather harshly put. I was simply trying to do a good deed. On the other hand, I did not know that a fake death news vandal has been around the project. I hope you are not that person. In good faith, I again offer condolences and thank you for the followup, which I think you have done to ease my mind and embarrassment. Donner60 (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't be too harsh on yourself, Donner60. I'm inclined to think that the news is genuine in light of the latest comments at WP:AN, but even if it isn't (and I hope it's not), then you assumed good faith, as I hope all editors would in such a situation. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, it is all too true. I wish it were not. Is there a procedure for the formal notification of Wikipedia in a case like this? My mother was most appreciative of the messages on my father's talk page and I would love to undo the collapsing of them that Cassianto (sp?) caused. Robert


 * Donner60, nobody has critised you for this; as you say, it all seems genuine, but then so did this when this broke. The truth is, we have to be careful with advertising someone's death when the only information we had was a badly written message from an IP address. That IP could've been anyone; there was no checkuser, no email to WMF giving evidence, nothing. I'm sure the truth will out but I really wouldn't beat yourself up about it. After all, we are all told to AGF.   Cassianto Talk   13:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand from the guidelines for the Deceased Wikipedians page, here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deceased_Wikipedians/Guidelines that there is a procedure called checkuser by which family reports may be verified. Perhaps someone qualified to conduct this could do so, while those not so qualified could bide their time before making accusations of ill faith. Thank you. 92.24.244.137 (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Who's acting in "ill-faith"? There's a stark difference between "acting in ill-faith" and remaining cautious until verification has taken place. I don't know who you are but you are best to sit back for a while and wait for verification to take place.  Cassianto Talk   13:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The IP wrote that they were accused of ill-faith, not that other editors were acting in ill-faith. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I cannot do that myself but will pass it along to an administrator. Then I will be offline for most or all of the next two or three days. Donner60 (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hailing from the same neck of the woods as John, I have today spoken directly with his family and can confirm that this sad news is not a hoax. Keri (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Donner60, didn't mean to get you into hot water, but the message you left wishing my father a happy new year on his talk page suggested you had worked with him and we had no idea how to inform Wikipedia or who would even be interested so I just tried sending you a message. Logical thought would have suggested that verifiability would be an issue, but logical is not how we are feeling at present. My father was to all appearances in good mental and physical health and this is a terrible shock to the family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.244.137 (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My condolences at this difficult time, Robert. John will be missed as an editor here. And don't worry - Donner60 is not in hot water. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Robert and Cordless Larry for responding. I am finishing a presentation to be given in two days and am hard pressed to get it completely in order. So I have been offline and will not be online much, if at all, until later in the week. Robert, your message had an unfortunate ring of truth and a few of the circumstances led me to think it was true. On the other hand, I can see why a few people chastised me (on another page) for spreading the message widely before it could be confirmed. I have discovered a couple of hoax articles as well and have seen fake death reports on celebrities posted, though never on Wikipedia users and editors so I guess I should have handled the matter better while still giving you some good faith credit. I can accept that criticism. My pages have been vandalized almost 700 times. I have heard far worse, including death threats, but I have only taken one of the earlier messages seriously and would not do so today. Here, some seemingly sharp and apparently personal language from in house, so to speak, took me aback, not really the comments or criticism itself. Perhaps that wording was even justified, given the personal nature of the message and the possible hurt it might engender. Here again it seems I failed since I should have kept any personal thoughts or comments to myself, as I would expect myself to do. It's ironic how one can fall into something that would otherwise be avoided, and indeed go against one's own advice, under a given circumstance. It wasn't essential to the various postings and messages. I won't go on about that in turn, however.
 * In pulling back from my definite posting and reference to your message, I apologized for not being more cautious and sensitive. I noted, in line with comments, that spreading the message widely before it was confirmed was perhaps not the best course. I did not say that the message was a hoax although one person's mistaken information did point in that direction, which I did mention in trying to give full disclosure. Indeed, I hoped perhaps it was a hoax. But I tried not to deny the credibility of the message because it seemed to have backing. So I again offer my condolences. I hope you and your family received my e-mail as my expressed condolences there were sincerely sent. I send best wishes for the future, as well. I probably will send another e-mail with this message, more or less, if you do not indicate you have seen this by the end of the week. I would not blame you for not wanting to spend more time on this page. Donner60 (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Donner, I feel you did the right thing, emphasis on feel, - we call it Bauchgefühl. I was twice in the sad position to have to announce the death of a dear person (articles, not editors), - once I obliged, because the son of the deceased asked me, the other time I waited, and someone else did it. - Robert, please take my condolences here also. It must be tough. I lost my father last year and wrote about death's bonds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs)

User:JohnCD's death
I have started a new thread and archived the old one. It was getting long, complicated and outdated or superseded. So I start this new one to be sure to tie up a loose end and advise persons who might yet have heard that User:JohnCD's death has been confirmed.

,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Sorry to bother you with another message about this. However, as far as I know, your last message about User:JohnCD's death may have been that the original message about his death was premature and could have been a hoax. In my haste to get back to preparation of a presentation which I gave tonight, I did not ping you immediately to tell you that User:JohnCD's death has been confirmed directly with his family by User:Keri and perhaps by other means. While I would have preferred that the report was a hoax and User:JohnCD was still with us, his son Robert also has confirmed the sad news in later messages with even more specific detail. The original condolence messages before the confirmation that were put in a collapsible section with a cautionary statement again show on JohnCD;s talk page and new ones are being allowed. From later messages on this talk page, the User:JohnCD's talk page or the administrator noticeboard, I see that some of the persons to whom the prior messages were sent must have seen the confirmation of his death. So I am not sending this message to them. To any others for whom this further message is superfluous, I regret any inconvenience in repeating the message but I thought it best to be sure you were up to date with this news. Thanks for your understanding. Donner60 (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Bill Lyon
He is my father that ran for governor of the state of Texas, Get your facts straight before telling me I'm vandalizing my own father! He wasn't born in 1886 to run for office in 2002! Turborobdog (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The article you are changing is about Bill Lyon, an Australian rules footballer. You cannot just change an article to make it about an entirely different person. That is vandalism. Please stop. Wikipedia has many articles about people with the same name. Separate articles must be created for each. Helpful information about editing Wikipedia can be found on various Wikipedia guideline and policy pages including: Help:Getting started; Introduction; Simplified ruleset; Simplified Manual of Style; Referencing for beginners; Identifying reliable sources; Citing sources, Help:Footnotes; Verifiability; No original research; Neutral point of view; Notability; Biographies of living persons; What Wikipedia is not; Words to watch; Help:Introduction to talk pages; Copyright Problems and Help:Contents. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * More importantly, you should spend some time reading the pillars of Wikipedia - specifically on cordiality, being courteous, your tone, the way you say things- you know, courtesy? Level C (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Alternative facts, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. - MrX 22:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * There have been several edits to this article in the past hour. Several edits back, all I did was revert the removal of a phrase and the citation that supported it. So I think you may have posted your message on the wrong page. (It's a little late to welcome me to Wikipedia, but I think you know that because we have interacted before, so it seems to be another indication that you left this message on the wrong page.) As with most Huggle edits, since this was a removal of sourced content including the reference without explanation, it appeared invalid so I did not look into the source. I now see the article, which I did not create or otherwise edit, has been listed on AfD. My very quick perusal just now suggests to me that the listing may well be justified. I am signing off for awhile but may come back to it later to see if I might post on comment on the AfD. That would be worth bringing to any user's attention who might give it serious consideration, of course, if no one would consider that as canvassing, and perhaps the possibility that this article should be deleted influenced your message here (without saying or implying it was your purpose). Donner60 (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, that mild warning should have went to the administrator who inserted the content. I know that you're not new of course. I'm just too lazy to type out a nice message when templates (mostly) do a better job anyway. Hopefully, my edit history and reputation are testament enough that I was not trying to canvas anyone. Anyway, thanks for helping with vandalism. Cheers.- MrX 23:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Still here but about to sign out for awhile. In retrospect I must apologize about my reference to canvassing, even though I wrote that I did not think it was your purpose. I should have known better given your long and constructive service to the project and not even mentioned it. Stream of consciousness, perhaps. I looked again at the article and see it is controversial and that you are trying to improve it. It may well be a topic that should remain if written neutrally with appropriate references. (It does seem like a rather generic term, but again, that is not considering the context in which it arose, apparently just today.) I may or may not have an AfD comment. I will quit my further stream of consciousness thoughts here because I suppose I am just showing that I have not looked at it carefully enough to express a knowledgeable opinion or AfD !vote. I am glad that I could note that my edit was a simple Huggle revert and that you did not judge it as a substantive edit. Though these types of reverts are correct almost all of the time, and further inspection would be a waste of time in almost all cases, the unexplained removal of sourced content and a reference could be proper in just the circumstance of your original message: where the reference does not support the text or is part of a synthesis. I suppose it could depend on the article and the context as well. Thanks for your followup message and best wishes. Donner60 (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Purcellville, VA
I am trying to add a new business to the Purcellville, Va page. Under the Notable Business section. I received your message that it was removed due to citation/sourcing. New to wikipedia and I've read through several pages trying to figure out what you want me to do, but am stumped. I was just trying to follow the format that was currently on the page by other local listed business. Please LMK, I'm happy to do whatever is needed, just not sure what. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacksRunBrewing (talk • contribs) 19:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * A little after the fact for the record: replied on user's talk page. Donner60 (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Jean Christophe Novelli
I didn't add any bare links to his page. I removed many elements created by a previous editor but did not add any links to anything so you are mistaken. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeeksBeak (talk • contribs) 22:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not a big issue and since you did not do this in other instances, I can accept your word for it. Perhaps your removal of content exposed a bare url inserted by the previous editor or just made it obvious to me when I looked at changes. In any event, someone should remove the bare url and keep it as a footnote if it is justified. I simply left a comment on your talk page and not a warning message so there is nothing to revert or strike on your page and this is not any sort of mark on your record. I am sorry if this appeared to be a big deal or was an annoyance. Donner60 (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Stripper
How was that vandalising anything, Imao?2001:56A:71B5:6300:1CC6:445B:6012:2286 (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Messages to the reader in the text are inappropriate and contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. See Sexual content. I was in the process of striking my message (your fourth warning) because after looking at this closely in this case I think your edit may have been well intentioned and perhaps you were unaware of the Wikipedia policy. However, considering your edits as a whole and any further edit, an administrator blocked your access for a period of time before I could post it. Donner60 (talk)

JFK Conspiracy Theories/Jacob Rubenstein
I don't understand the "test" wording. I was trying to improve the page. 47.137.191.83 (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You are not improving the page by changing the name of Jack Ruby as he is commonly known and known to history to Jacob Rubenstein. This also appears to be a change to further a purpose other than providing information. Donner60 (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Sally Yates
Could you restore this removed text? I'm at 3RR. I filed a report at AN3. Thanks. General Ization <font color="#000666">Talk


 * I wish I could but I wonder whether that could put me at 3RR or even a charge of edit warring in this particular case - unless I am being too conservative with my count. In my opinion this is clearly point of view editing as to both the deletion of relevant sourced content and the addition of rather far-fetched editorializing content and would fall within the exception to 3RR. Nonetheless, I worry about the possibility this could be construed as a content dispute rather than simply reverting removal of sourced content. It now also includes replacement of that content with rather clear point of view edits which could strengthen the restoration of the content.
 * While simply adding back the deleted content for balance might be viewed more objectively than a reversion with a futher message if this became a controversy, I am not sure the pov pushers won't cause undue edit warring drama here. I am usually willing to stand by such appraisals as disruptive editing (restoring valid content either as a reversion of a disruptive edit or for balance) but in this case it may be best not to test the threshold in case it was not viewed objectively - which seems to be your thinking as well. I think it will either have to be settled at AN3 or wait at least 24 hours or have someone else step up, I think. I'd be willing to restore it after some time has passed and 3RR would be expired on the current edits, although I hope this can be resolved before then. Donner60 (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood, and yes, I'm also treading carefully on this one. So be it. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"><font color="#006633">General Ization  <font color="#000666">Talk   04:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. I am always glad to hear from you. BTW, I see your administrative work almost every time I am on line and you are doing a fine job, as I was sure you would. I will be on vacation and offline for about 11 or 12 days at the end of the month, as I have already noted on the top of the page. So I will have a period of inactivity later in the month until about March 1 or 2. Donner60 (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

User:JohnCD
Thank you for letting me know about Mrs Deas' email. Nyttend (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

3D Printing edit
In my edit to 3D printing I removed a single extraneous word in the following sentence: "Objects can be of almost any shape or geometry and are produced using digital model data from a 3D model or another electronic data source such as an Additive Manufacturing File (AMF) file."

If the file is called an Additive Manufacturing File, there is no reason to call it an Additive Manufacturing File file, as this is redundant. The parenthetical (AMF) is an insertion that does not affect the grammatical structure of the sentence. Thernefore, the sentence does not need the second 'file.'

I was not aware that I needed to post an edit log for fixing grammatical errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.146.230 (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It is apparent that I misunderstood your edit. I struck my original message on your talk page. I apologize for the error and inconvenience. Donner60 (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ban, edit reverts
what did I get wrong? How do I get my official edits to stick


 * You are adding controversial assertions without citation of a reliable, verifiable source. If the statement is "accepted" as you wrote, surely a source can be cited. I suggest you review Wikipedia policy and guideline pages before you make further edits. Helpful information about editing Wikipedia can be found on various Wikipedia guideline and policy pages that I cited on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

You can remove comments with swearwords from a vandal?
This vandal * made edits commented with aggresive language with swearwords on Roy Conli and Byron Howard; He it's blocked but he made edits with aggressive language, leaving commented editions with swearwords. I would be thankful if someone can remove those comments from his edits. You can look at his contributions, if you don't mind. (Idk idk idk because idk) Thanks. 79.152.75.100 (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see these edits. They apparently have been deleted and only are visible in the history, if at all. I am not an administrator and cannot remove edits from history. If this bothers you, even though it does not seem to be visible, you might ask for an administrator to help, probably by a post on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I do see that administrator Zzyzx11 removed the edit summaries when the vandal was blocked. So there may be nothing visible now. Donner60 (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok. The problem has been solved. The vandal comments have just been erased, thanks anyway. 79.152.75.100 (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

You missed some references from Michael Ignatieff article.
...but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so!... http://magyaridok.hu/belfold/magyar-tanarokat-kuldenek-el-ceu-tol-1399330/

http://www.origo.hu/itthon/20170210-kozep-europai-egyetem-soros-gyorgy-elbocsatas.html

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=hu&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fmagyaridok.hu%2Fbelfold%2Fmagyar-tanarokat-kuldenek-el-ceu-tol-1399330%2F

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=hu&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.origo.hu%2Fitthon%2F20170210-kozep-europai-egyetem-soros-gyorgy-elbocsatas.html


 * All in Hungarian; the question becomes: do any of these sources support the specific addition that you made, which does not include any citations or directly refer to these? Donner60 (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The reason why I put the translator links as well. Did you read them?


 * They did not come up but perhaps I was not patient enough. I will try again. Donner60 (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It has been more than 10 minutes and the pages still just read "translating." The easiest way to handle this would be for you to add a citation which supports your addition immediately after the sentence, even if it is repetitive. The addition appears to be controversial without a citation. If it is in Hungarian and needs to be translated, then someone else can check it if desirable. Donner60 (talk) 04:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Surnames
The section involved multiple people with that last name. I had to actually click on the links to the albums to see who was being talked about. --ShorinBJ (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry I was not more specific. I was referring to your edit to Loudon Wainwright III where you changed Wainwright to Loudon. I think I assumed that since this message followed close after your edit, you would know which edit prompted my comment. Donner60 (talk) 06:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)