User talk:Donner60/Archive 18

Archive 18 starting with closed talk page threads after July 28, 2018 through December 31, 2018.

Your reversal to my edit
Scott Taylor is known as "fuck man" on this radio program. I'm not trying to vandalize Wikipedia or act like a comedian.


 * I will accept your explanation because I suppose something like this is possible. I struck the original message on your talk page. However, I think it would be better to cite a source if you can; otherwise others may question the edit or think it is a joke or vandalism. Donner60 (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Your reversal to my edit
Mount Litera Zee School has been awarded as best school in India by Green school Awards and By Brainfeed Magazine... The awards is presented by Cabinet Minister of India. and Brain Feed award was presented by Kiran Bedi First Women Police Officer of India now Member of Parliament

The website link is here http://www.greenschoolsprogramme.org/schools/gsp-award-2016-2017/agenda-2016-17/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.39.98.60 (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Please add it to the article with the edit. I struck the original message on your talk page and included helpful Wikipedia guideline and policy page links. I highlighted the links to citing sources and help (with) footnotes. Donner60 (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Ron Hevener
Mr. Hevener is a controversial author and you are publishing commentary and links to stories that were not accurately researched. This could result in readers assaulting Mr. Hevener and causing him harm or personal injury in other ways. That is far from neutral reporting. Mr. Hevener was not present at the trial and was never sentenced. Your article makes it appear that Mr. Hevener didn't take this matter seriously and that is not true. The links you are connecting to don't mention the fact that no authorities ever seized any animals from Mr. Hevener's personal care at home -- and they never questioned or doubted his treatment of the pets he cared for himself. What you are reporting and linking to is no more than copying and pasting information that is biased and could be interpreted as self-serving. By publishing the information I (and others) believe should be deleted, you are leading the public to believe that Mr. Hevener harmed animals intentionally -- at a property he did not even own or live at. You may be linking to stories that hit the news, but you are publishing material that is inaccurate, one-sided, and it is not balanced. Mentioning a person's legal matters, and linking to sources that are not completely truthful, can be actions that harm someone's reputation and personal safety. Is that the kind of reputation Wikipedia wants to have? Please remove your biased information regarding Mr. Hevener's personal legal matters, especially when he is considering legal action of his own.

Adelia Audi 23:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)Adelia Audi (talk)


 * I have replied on your talk page. In summary, while I will not revert your edit further, I will not restore the previous text myself and I cannot speak for other editors. I am not an administrator and this is not the noticeboard so no final resolution can be made if this continues to be controversial and is considered questionable by other editors. You seem to have an argument which may be good enough under Wikipedia guidelines about living persons biographies which is why it suggests to me that I should exercise discretion and not continue with editing this article. I note that your assertion that the news articles are inaccurate are based on their incompleteness and not on public facts. So I think you should take this to the noticeboard for a more conclusive resolution. I also strongly suggest you read No legal threats. Donner60 (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Aurora Memorial
Thanks for your attention to my addition. I hit publish before finishing the edit and adding the cite. Should be acceptable now.


 * Thanks. I struck the first message on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

You mentioned me on a talk page.
You talked about me on an IP users talk page, and you said I reverted one of your edits or something. But in doing that it did something else. What exactly happen? Lakeside Out!-LakesideMinersClick Here To Talk To Me! 14:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I replied on your talk page. In short, your edit caused me to re-examine whether the user was clueless rather than disruptive and had some support later in that article and a few others. Other users came in to note that they considered the edits disruptive and that Cluebot had reverted an edit and reported the user (no later block, however). You were not really involved other than triggering my further look. I only mentioned that because I had made a comment on your talk page about the revert. The matter seems to have been concluded. Donner60 (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Christianity
"Your recent edit to Christianity seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now." How so? The content should have been under criticism. "Christianity's limited tolerance of Jews was not new" - Is this neutral? The content is also not consistent with the historical context of the previous subsection, which is why I removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiGuide (talk • contribs) 04:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It appeared to me that it was a sourced statement, appropriate for the time period being discussed at that point in the article (Middle Ages). However, your comment prompts me to consider that it may not be appropriate for the context of the article as a whole and certainly not for Christianity as a whole over its entire existence, which is perhaps being unfairly implied. Whether this should be handled by complete deletion or rewriting could be considered. However, given that this is a legitimate subject of disagreement and a matter of context, and that your comment raises legitimate grounds for different interpretations, I will not edit the article further (except if I see vandalism to the article at a later time, of course). Donner60 (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Red-Eyed tree frog edit
Hi donner, I saw you removed my edit on the Agalychnis Callidryas wiki page. I feel that you removing my edit was very unnecessary. I added helpful content so readers would be able to get a more detailed description of that species. I have studied frogs for over 9 years and I know what I am talking about.

thanks, IWik1029384756 IWik102934756 (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Please verify the information. Also-I can fix the repetition issue :) -IWik1029384756 IWik102934756 (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the question. As someone who is changing the article, it is up to you to add the information (source). Donner60 (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh! (I'm new so that was my first edit) how do I put source? Also I just saw the repetition issue. IWik102934756 (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Added to my last message on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * For the record, the user put the source in the article, for which I thanked him for his good work. Donner60 (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Sushmita Banerjee
You are wrong that Sushmita Banerjee is a living person. She is dead. Let me restore my edit.
 * Your edit was completely unreferenced and full of neutral point of view issues. Not gonna happen ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Donner60 - You got it. I got your back ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Pershing High School
Thanks for fixing my botched link and for finding the ref. Meters (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I happened to be looking at that at about the same time because at least one of the additions looked right and I suspected the others were without articles and unsourced. I found the right link at about the same time. I have been helped out many times by editors, including you, to get the correct edit. If I can help complete a revision on occasion I appreciate the chance to help. Donner60 (talk) 03:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Donner60
I am new to wikipedia and I am unsure of how to use it. I recently made an edit to the page "Recrystallization (chemistry)" and I did not mean for it to get added to that particular page...I deleted the edit, but now it looks very confusing and there are so many unnecessary edits that don't belong on that page...are you able to remove my edits from that page? Clairemchem (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Noted on your talk page that I am having keyboard problems and will get back to you soon. Donner60 (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Answered on your talk page. In short, original text seems to have been restored so I see no issue. Donner60 (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to summarize an article I read and make a new page under that category but i realized you cant do that afterwards but somehow when I was in edit mode it copied the original article, which isnt my work and it posted it. I quickly deleted it because i dont want to copyright anyones work and also because the information isnt relevant to that page. I know the article is in its orginal conditon but i was wondering if you would be able to delete the edit history of the adding/removing content just so i dont confuse anyone if they look in the history. Clairemchem (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I also dont want to make it look like im trying to take credit for someone elses work, so if you could just delete those edits from the history so i can start fresh that would be very helpful. Thank you. Clairemchem (talk) 03:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not an administrator; only administrators can delete edit history. But I am quite sure they will not do that for what amounts to a mistake. It is clear that you had second thoughts and deleted the text. That shows your good faith. I would not worry that it looks bad. It was fixed by you, that is all that counts. As long as your further edits to the page are good ones, no one cares about the old ones. And only a few people who are interested in the article are even likely to look at the history and they won't be looking for an addition which was retracted by the person who wrote it without anything else intervening. Donner60 (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Donner60
hey Donner,

i just noticed your comments on my edits on Gnash, Olivia and Eden.

i didn't realize that each change needed a citation. i have only revised one thing because i found the citation as of now. i hope that is ok.

i am still learning to use wiki but i am enjoying the program. i am sorry if i was being problematic. i just want to be involved.

i have been learning by making mistakes. maybe you could help me learn more about this program?

again, i sincerely apologize. Liora


 * No problem. You were in good faith and could not have known about the two different issues: claims of relationship of living persons (citations); apparent contradiction of Eden edit with a quote from him about his childhood in London. I struck the original messages on your talk page and expanded a bit on the reasons. Donner60 (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Donner its me again
thanks so much for striking the notices, its my bad i should've done more research but i find the whole online encyclopedia thing to be a bit much, even for a computer nerd such as myself haha.

i am trying to add a photo to a new article ive written for a singer ive seen who's music i enjoy and who's gaining some notoriety recently but im having trouble. originally the issue was that the photo was all rights reserved, but then i spoke with her on her facebook page and she said she would change that (and also how excited she was that i was making her a wiki page lol) she wrote underneath it creative commons 2014 license with an HTML link and i re-uploaded, thinking in good faith that now it was not a violation of wikipedias policies as she had applied for a creative commons license using the link i sent her that i found on wiki itself.

what am i doing wrong? i am so confused.

im asking you because you seem super kind and generous and genuinely interested in helping others and so i feel you will be the biggest help to me

sorry that im babbling. just need some help navigating this site.

thanks again, Liora


 * Have you tried Upload wizard? From your message, my guess would be that you need to show that the copyright has been released, in whole or for your upload. You will probably need to be able to cite some public source (Facebook or something showing the creative commons license or whatever - though Facebook is not considered a reliable source, something like this from a person's Facebook page might be good enough). Again, I can't be sure, but my guess is that something else needs to be cited. The upload form has a few boxes where it seems that some sort of reference can be provided. I am sorry to be a little vague but I have not used this myself and have only referred to it a few times. See also Images which has links to other helpful pages such as Uploading images.

Neutral point of view
I have written a few sentences about this. Some users post some comments about civility, no personal attacks, and types of comments or questions that are proper or not at the top of their user pages. That might be a good idea but since I wrote the comments mainly to record my own thoughts after current edits, I archived them. Later, I have decided to add here mostly the same thoughts: that a biased, snarky, negative opinion added into an article (especially for an obvious political POV purpose) has no place in Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia not a blog or a forum. There are plenty of those on the web to place such comments. Neutral point of view. The fact that such an opinion is based on an opinion piece in a newspaper (regardless of which newspaper) is no support for the edit. That opinion piece is not a reliable source. See also No personal attacks, Civility. Those pages have good advice. If you want an answer to a legitimate question, not just an argument to have an edit accepted which is against a Wikipedia policy, don't start out with unfounded accusations, threats and other incivility which shows you aren't here for a legitimate purpose and won't listen to contrary explanations in any case. This is added in the event someone is inclined to do that again and will be archived in about a month. Donner60 (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Fetal mortality
Hi Donner—this is regarding Human sex ratio. The source already linked in footnote 2 says in its abstract that "total female mortality during pregnancy exceeds total male mortality"; therefore the phrase should read "Due to higher female fetal mortality" rather than "Due to higher male fetal mortality". Thank you. 24.67.194.5 (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I struck my original message on your talk page. :Thank you for your message. Please correct the article and refer to the source in your edit summary. Repeating or referring to the footnote again may be useful but is probably unnecessary. I think that in part it looked like a questionable change so just noting the source should be enough to show the edit is correct. I left some helpful Wikipedia page links on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Operation (Game)
Excuse me for the info I put in. I didn't think it was wrong or right. I'll try to keep my theories out of articles. Somari How (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * That would be best. See Original research. I note that the third of your edits was the one that I found problematical and in need of a citation if it were to remain. I have left further comments and helpful Wikipedia page links on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Antonio Marziale
Good morning, I'm sorry to bother you but I saw you changed my note on this actor. He is an Italo-American, he said in an interview in the end I wanted to ask if I could use these sources on Wikipedia Italy. Your Sincerly. ThatLittleBich Thatlittlebich (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

paranormal investigations
your facts are unfair and critical of a field that you do not understand. If you do more research than please post what you have found instead of your opinion. To put it boldy you are calling all paranormal investigators "quack pots" and this is simply not true. Leave the history of paranormal investigation on the page but take down the opinion in the forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.204.144.84 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have explained this on your talk page. I suggest that you follow my advice, including reading the various Wikipedia policy and guideline pages and adding sourced contrary text if you have any. I don't view the text as opinion, but even if it is, it is well sourced. If you remove it, it will almost certainly be restored by me or another editor.


 * Not that it matters, but I watched Ghost Hunters for many years, since I found the investigators likable and the content entertaining and diverting. So I think I understand the field well enough. I began to lose interest when Grant left and I don't watch much television now.


 * Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. See Verifiability Under Wikipedia guidelines, the burden of proof in removing sourced content or in adding new content (with adequate sourcing) is on you. Donner60 (talk) 03:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

About Ikuyo Fujita's Article
Hi. I am an original writer of this article. I noticed that people are playing with the article and I am a little annoyed by it.

The person tagged in the article seems a vandalist: I don't think that he read the articles before he put the tags since he is putting 100s of tags a day. I will talk to him to take it off.

If he is not cooperative, I will take off the tag by myself. I would appreciate if you could give me any advice.

Thanks

Samuel1496 (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

So it was my mistake in the final analysis that the template was still on the article. I gave an explanation in the edit summary for the edit removing the template of why the three reasons no longer applied or did not apply in the first place. Then I added a null edit so I could place another edit summary noting that the user who had placed the template had removed it and I inadvertently restored it when reverting a later unconstructive edit. Thanks for bringing this to my attention so I could fix it. Donner60 (talk) 05:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Donner60. We need more good people like you in the Wikipedia community. Samuel1496 (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Bradley Roby
I am his mother and I corrected the incorrect statement that his father was not in his childhood. This is not correct. Also the legal issue you listed is not correct. The charges in Bloomington was dropped and he did not to a pretrial deversion so please remove that incorrect information. I should know because I paid for a lawyer to clear his name. Don't be so quick to believe what the media writes.


 * I will assume you are who you say you are although there is no way to verify that. And that is part of the problem with any edit made by an anonymous user.


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


 * Your assertion that the citations are not believable is not credible. If you have a reliable, verifiable sources, either cite them as refutation in the article or delete the content with an edit summary that it is incorrect and state that you will cite the articles on the talk page; then do so.


 * If you wish to make the argument further, you may be post your claim and back up on Reliable sources noticeboard or Teahouse and follow the advice given by other editors there. Donner60 (talk) 02:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

LU Season IV
Well I don't know how to support my changes with a citation of something that aired less than an hour ago, but everything I wrote happened on the air tonight. Seems pretty pointless because it will be changed eventually by someone. The story's of characters on this show change week by week and many characters are being killed off or having their characters re written and names changed. This is why there is no point of logging in on Wiki, people will just scrap something you put thought into writing. Even people who work for this show and are waiting to update the characters page the day it airs get screwed over because you allow the page to keep spoilers of things that wont air till next year but not things that have already aired and need to be updated. Why?


 * Why? Because bogus unsourced information is put on Wikipedia every minute of every day. I cannot tell you why spoilers from episodes are in articles other than to say people interested in those articles are not monitoring them. Editors such as me monitor changes in real time and if the bot does not show us current changes, we will not see them. Under the circumstances you describe, I think your edit is reasonable and I will not revert it again, but I cannot speak for anyone else, and sources should be put in eventually to show it is not the very type of bogus information that you are concerned with. Donner60 (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank You, and I understand that is very reasonable. Yeah I can't even imagine how much can change in real time on here. Thanks Again you sound like one of the good sensible Monitors. Take Care Sir.

The Legend of the Condor Heroes
Hi, thank you for your effort in monitoring the article. I corrected a typo in the first line of this article about the author because they got his name wrong. His family name, according to his page which is also on wiki, is Cha查 not Chan陳. Please note. Thank you.


 * OK. I will not revert it again. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Irwin lampert
I am irwins grandson named Max and I asked everyone if I can use there name. Maxlampert022108 (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I will assume good faith and not revert your further edit even though it is still inappropriate with a public, reliable, verifiable source. That is because there is no way to verify your identity and that you have the permission, although I suspect, starting with that user name, you probably do. Even though I will leave it as is, others may revert the edit for the same reason. Donner60 (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Flat disk ?
The ancient Persians knew the earth was round ! Much reference to this, so please change it ! Psilo86 (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Please read the passage more carefully. It is not about what ancient Persians or Persian scientists or astronomers knew, it is about the Zoroastrian legend about the creation of the world. That is very different and in that context the article is correct. Donner60 (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Higher education in the United States
Seriously? ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 02:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

That was not the version I thought I was restoring. I think everyone makes an occasional mistake. After my edit, the IP in fact restored the version I thought I was restoring so it worked out even before I could respond. Donner60 (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for the reply. No problem with your mistake, just a reminder. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 02:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

APKWS
I am the source expert from the US Air Force Weapons School. How do I source that? Hg471448hg (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there no mention anywhere on the internet or in any sort of publication about this? If so, please put it in with the edit. If not, even if I do not revert adding it back (which I will not, since I will assume you are in good faith), someone else may revert it since it appears suspicious (in part because it is also the name of a 2015 movie with at least some graphic content)? Please see Identifying reliable sources and Verifiability to see why personal knowledge is not a good source for edits that may be disputed or questionable. (See also Citing sources and Help:Footnotes to complete the guideline, help and policy pages on sources and citations.) Donner60 (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks For Understanding
I appreciate it.68.47.65.239 (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. It was my mistake so I was glad to fix it as best I could. Striking it shows it was my error. Deleting it would leave it unexplained in the edit history. Donner60 (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. I left a further note on your talk page and apologize for my tardiness in thanking you. Donner60 (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

PAGE BLANKING, PER POLICIES - PLEASE DELETE THIS UN-NEEDED PAGE - THANKS -- ALAN R PRICE
Donner, Per your message, I read the message to me 142957487 from Melcous (talk) 00:16 11 August 2018. I decided that I could not meet the two or three major requirements cited (which I had not recognized when I created this page years ago -- I am a novice at Wikipedia). So this page needs to be deleted. I found on your Deletion Policy site that "Page blanking can be performed (or reverted) by any user, but only administrators can perform deletion." So I blanked the page, and I requested that the un-needed page be deleted. I am sorry to have troubled you. Alanrprice (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)AlanAlanrprice (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. I saw the blanking while looking at edits in real time. I reverted and left the message about pages that dealt with subject of page deletion so you would be able to follow the guideline procedures. Since I am not an administrator I cannot delete the page. I hope you are able to accomplish your objective, which appears to be possible under one of the guidelines. Donner60 (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

White Brazilians
The page has been vandalized. Please, could you help me restore the content to the 29th of July? Augusto Schlickmann 1993 (talk) 03:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I put this reply on your talk page: Thanks for your message. It was obvious to me that my edit was mistaken so I rolled it back. However, you asked that the text be rolled back to July 29. Are there additional errors that my rollback did not remove? I see there was a big removal of content after July 29, for example. Please reply on my talk page so I will be sure to see your reply. Donner60 (talk) 03:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The opening text, the main paragraph was vandalized during the first week of August, and the graphic box that summarizes the minority languages and religion contains crass editing errors. You can see the coding errors exposed in the page. I don't know how to revert it to the end of July when it was correct. I'm new in town Augusto Schlickmann 1993 (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have restored the July 29 version. I have been using Twinkle, Huggle and rollback for several years and I cannot remember whether someone not using those tools can restore a previous version or not - other than to undo the last edit. You can find this out by going to the history page of the article and clicking on "prev" for the edit to be restored. You almost certainly did that to find the last clean version. If the version information at the top of the page shows [Restore this version], you can click on that. Then an edit summary box will appear where you give the reason for restoring the previous version. Click where indicated when you add the reason (such as: last clean version; later edits did not revert all vandalism) and that version will be restored. My guess is that option is available to all users but perhaps may not be obvious to new users.


 * Thanks for finding this. It is not always obvious that multiple vandalisms or factual errors have been inserted when they occur over several days. Donner60 (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Yep, I couldn't find the option. Probably cuz I'm a new member. Augusto Schlickmann 1993 (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey man! Thanks for the invitation

It has been vandalized again. I was going to correct the religion info box but I didn't have enough time. The American census classifies Jews and Levantine Arabs, MENA people as white, non-European but Caucasoid. I don't know why people consider it controversial. It's just a historical article and it includes Linguistics Augusto Schlickmann 1993 (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The numbers are changed, of course but as I looked at numbers in one source, they did not add up to either the old or new numbers. That also made me question whether I am misinterpreting the sources. I think this is beyond what I can interpret and so is beyond what I should restore since I can't really point to the sources. It seemed that several edits had garbled the content before but this is now a controversy over whether a new edit is more accurate than an old one, with foreign language sources as citations. I did wonder whether different dates could account for some or all of the difference but this is just a thought.


 * I suggest you try to get help from someone who may understand the sources and can interpret this better. WikiProject Brazil or perhaps Teahouse would seem to be the best pages on which to seek help or a review of this situation. There are some other alternatives at Dispute resolution but they probably are only useful after you have tried more mild terms of resolution such as working it out with the user who is posting the differing content or taking it to one of the suggested pages. Donner60 (talk) 04:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Rory234098
Guess ClueBot didn't read "only warning" in my comment... Drmies (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I think that sometimes it is very mechanical. I was about to report that user because of the personal attack on my talk page plus the prior vandalisms and warnings when Someguy1221 noticed the vandalisms and blocked the user. A milestone, by the way, 800th vandalism to one of my pages. Donner60 (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Bravo! I'm sure there's a badge for that. Unfortunately. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Wright
So I just need to add a link Cade1804 (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I left this message and helpful Wikipedia policy and guideline page links on your talk page: Keep in mind that You Tube is not considered a reliable, verifiable, neutral source by Wikipedia. Here it would either by a primary source or an involved or self-published source and would not be an acceptable source. If you can find a source in a newspaper or some other neutral source, you can try to add it back but don't be surprised if it is reverted by another editor. Frankly, I think the incident is too trivial to be in a biography which is intended to cover significant events in a person's life and career. And neither Cultaholic or Adam Pacitti have a Wikipedia page so the whole thing does not seem notable. So that could be another problem. Donner60 (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Codeacademy
Hello. "Name" parameter of Infobox company template should be legal name, right? If you object my edit, may be the infobox should be changed to website then Ryzac, Inc. added as the owner of the website? 114.124.246.253 (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The explanation of parameter I copied from Template:Infobox company: "The full, legal name of the company, correctly reproducing punctuation and abbreviations or lack thereof." 114.124.246.253 (talk) 03:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Answered on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also added that parameter "Parent" can be added to infobox.Donner60 (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I want to ask a question. Is the article about company or website? If it is about company, then we should use Infobox company and stick to the documentation of the Infobox company (name parameter should be legal name).


 * For example. If the company trading name (popular name) is Kodak but the legal name is Eastman Kodak Company, the article name may be Kodak but the parameter name should stick to the infobox documentation, legal name of the company, Eastman Kodak Company.


 * Another extreme case, the company trading name is Gojek or GO-JEK but the legal name is PT Aplikasi Karya Anak Bangsa. The name parameter should be PT Aplikasi Karya Anak Bangsa according to the documentation.


 * If it is about website, then change it to Infobox website and the name parameter is not the legal name. The name parameter is the title of the website. Then Ryzac, Inc., as the owner, is added to owner parameter (company, person, alias, etc). 114.124.246.253 (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have already mentioned the ways to add Ryzac to the infobox and the article. If you wish to change the title of the article, there are procedures for that. See Moving a page. If you wish to write a new article about Ryzac, you can probably do that as long as it is notable and there are other things to say about it except codeacademy and you can find a few third party sources. You can create a redirect to send people who search for Ryzac to the codeacademy article if your concern is that people will search for Ryzac instead of codeacademy. Redirects.


 * I think you have three choices, since you are obviously in good faith and believe in your argument. 1. Follow the ways I mentioned about additions to the infobox and article. 2. Make the change you want the way you want to do it. I will not revert it. See whether another editor steps in and reverts it for basically the same reason or it remains as you changed it. Maybe your argument is acceptable for certain types of articles about companies and products. It doesn't seem we can make further progress between us. 3. Seek another opinion such as at Teahouse and see whether that is a satisfactory resolution. Since I am basically withdrawing from this at this point, there is no dispute between us and other ways to resolve a dispute would not be appropriate. I can't think of another way to handle a question that is not a dispute. Third opinions are a possibility, I suppose, but I think you need a dispute to use that option. Donner60 (talk) 04:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Your recent problematic removal of Peter Mandleson from an article
Hi, please dont do that again.126.209.58.177 (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * If you can support the edit with a citation to a reliable, verifiable source, including one which describes him as the "dark lord of spin," you can include him. Otherwise, it appears you are adding negative content about a living person, even if that was not your intention. Biographies of living persons, Verifiability, Identifying reliable sources, Help:Footnotes. Donner60 (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for being naughty
I am sorry i misbehaved and said epic nae nae on the sherbrook forest page! I hoep to find forgiveness, but now i am on negative 3000 good boy points and i really need god boy points! Im sorry i wont again do it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmcinneny (talk • contribs) 02:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Fine. I hope you edit in good faith and find satisfaction from doing so. Donner60 (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Oopsie
I really didn't mean to say the last i said! I need not to be forgiven as i willy say sorry with actions not words! I hope to see you when i am very good at wikipedia anfd have helped many peoples. Sincerely, User thank you for listening.

A barnstar for you!
Thank you. This is very meaningful to me since it comes from a great contributor, not just to vandalism reversion, but to other areas of the project, especially noting your technical skills. Donner60 (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and thanks for your kind words. I'm not experienced as you ~  Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 03:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

User talk:159.83.4.3
User is attacking me in my talk page for no reason and I haven't done anything.108.246.199.105 (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This is very odd and inappropriate. But I am not an administrator so I cannot do anything about it. I suggest you place a request for help at Administrators' noticeboard or at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Donner60 (talk) 03:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you
Thank you. This is special since it comes from a citizen of India. I am often online at times where I see disruptive edits or vandalism to articles about India. I try to revert them when I recognize them and, if necessary, when I find a source to confirm or refute them. I have been surprised at times not to be able to find a source and need to leave a suspicious edit and go on to review others. I am sure that Indians have better knowledge about such sources so I am always glad to "meet" another editor from India who works on this project. Donner60 (talk) 08:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, every barnstar you receive is special ~  Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 08:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, they are. Yours and this one amount to about 10% of mine. I did take note that you live in Hong Kong and I do think it is great to get such greetings or plaudits from citizens (or residents) of other countries. This is a worldwide project. I especially noted that Path slopu was from India because, as I am sure you know, many problematic edits are made to articles about India. Good contributors from India certainly can help the project. As can good contributors like you from anywhere. By the way, and more importantly, I am glad you are watching my talk page. The box on my user page shows 802 vandalisms to my pages so some help with that is appreciated. An administrator, Delta Quad, took pity on me a few years ago and semi-protected my user page without even a request from me but it seems necessary to leave a talk page open unless perhaps the vandals get completely nasty.
 * Also, some times I get some questions (or complaints) that I can not answer quickly or maybe cannot answer completely. A quicker or more complete reply from a trusted user is always good. By the way, you may have noted that it is rather late where I live so I will be signing off for awhile in a few minutes. And answering the question below later today, or tomorrow UTC.
 * I know there is a template for talk page watchers or stalkers, but I thought I would create my own: Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson (Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce) seemed appropriate. Donner60 (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am currently watching about 50 user talk pages, which about 20% of them are frequently vandalised or targets of long-term abuses (such as, etc), 50% of them are my "colleagues" (you know, Huggle gang or vandalism fighters) and the remaining part are my adoptees, VIPs and learners I've helped which have potential in becoming a great contributor.
 * I don't really reply to every thread in my watched user talk pages that has no comments, but users who are busy in real life (Oshwah) really don't check their talk page (and ofc, edit Wikipedia) that often. This is the time when I reply to threads which I think Oshwah will have the same reply too. I won't say I'm nosy, but it will definitely making him smile :) ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 09:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You have great energy and are doing a great service for other editors. Oshwah is an energetic and excellent administrator. I whole-heartedly supported his RfA and he has lived up to my expectations - and has been helpful to me personally on several occasions. Again, thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi greetings, Thank you for your kind words. I will also try to prevent vandalism in India-related articles. Thank you. PATH SLOPU (Talk) 08:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you cannot prevent vandalism, you can only revert them! ~  Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 09:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Eugene Roche
Hi there I recently made a change to Eugène Roche (Actor) you removed it. I don’t know what I can send you with the exception of personal photos, proof of guardianship ? In my Aunt’s obituary, it only states that my mother was predeceased before her. Eugene raised me with my Aunt. I don’t care that it’s on there but my siblings brought it to my attention and said I should change it.

Let me know.

Thank you.

Bernadette Roche Echo0816 (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * "Names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced." Biographies of living persons. Privacy and impersonation are concerns in adding names to articles. These are among the reasons for the policy on sourcing.


 * While you are most likely who you say you are, without a reliable, verifiable, neutral, third party, published source, there is no way to verify it. You do not need to convince me, however, and you should not provide any private, identifying information to me or by edit to a Wikipedia article. ("Public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses" should not be used as sources. Biographies of living persons.) You must verify to the reader that your name has a basis for being in the article. In Wikipedia's sense, material is verifiable if it can be directly supported by at least one reliable published source.


 * There is a source in the article for Eugene Roche's children. While it is not in an in-line citation for that point, if I click on http://www.filmreference.com/film/88/Eugene-Roche.html, I can see that there is public information that Eugene Roche had nine children and what their names are. But you are not mentioned in that article or other sources that I could find about Eugene Roche. A quick internet search revealed no connection for you to Eugene Roche. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, your relationship is both private and unverified without a published source.


 * This policy is stated on several Wikipedia policy and guideline pages. For example, in "No original research. "Main page: Verifiability. Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a reliable source; what counts as a reliable source is described at Verifiability."


 * "Wikipedia editors are not indifferent to truth, but as a collaborative project, its editors are not making judgments as to what is true and what is false, but what can be verified in a reliable source and otherwise belongs in Wikipedia." Verifiability, not truth.


 * I am sorry to have to tell you that I can see no way to include any mention of you in the article - unless a proper reliable, published source can later be found to support it. Donner60 (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

My removal of two words from the Ghazal part of the English article Poetry
Hi Donner,

Ghazal is not native in Turkish and Azerbaijani literature, it has only been borrowed from Persian literature; and if you insist that borrowing and using mean having it, then you should mention the literature of Central Asian countries too, which also make use of ghazal as equally, if not much more. Therefore, I wish you redo my changes. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.197.126.177 (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation. I will not revert the changes if you restore them but I do not think I should restore them myself. I think the following would be better and more informative. Please explain the change briefly in the edit summary. I also think it would be good to mention the borrowing by others in the text or in a footnote. If I see your edit or you tell me about it, I will follow it with a null edit by me which will state that your edit is now explained.Donner60 (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Kosambi edit
Hey, you deleted an edit from the Kosambi page i just put in. I edited it to say the Alchon Huns sacked the city; i got this information from Wikipedia itself. If Wikipedia is not a sufficient source for Wikipedia, i suggest this to be a wasted exercise ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4063:2090:AAFB:F1B8:4A08:669B:D338 (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:WINARS ~AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 05:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Here are some problems with your edit. You did not link to the Alchon Huns article. Your mention of this in the edit summary gives some indication where you got the information. But in fact no one is likely to see that in the edit history. They will go to the article directly or through a link to see the contents of the article. They will have no verification of the source of the statement - not even the Alchon Huns article. And, as my friendly talk page watcher mentions: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. So a link to the Alchon Huns article would have been technically insufficient. But it would have led to reliable sources without having to do further research, as I explain next.
 * You added no footnote to disclose a source. The Alchon Hun article cited four verifiable sources, available on the internet through the citation links, that support the edit. Two of them are rather indirect but the other two are quite specific and provide good sources. These are Geography from Ancient Indian Coins & Seals and Monuments of Hope, Gloom, and Glory in the Age of the Hunnic Wars. Indian History at least hints at the event. These citations could be copied from the Alchon Huns article and repeated as sources in footnotes in the Kosambi article, which means the Wikipedia as source issue is never raised and readers can get independent verification of the statement without having to do their own research. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide the information, not to send readers off on a search.
 * See Verifiability, Identifying reliable sources, Citing sources, and Help:Footnotes. Donner60 (talk) 05:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You forgot Help:Referencing for beginners ~AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 06:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Good addition to these links. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Jack Lowden Edit
You literally just deleted my edit on the Jack Lowden page without explaining a reason and it can't be that this information is inaccurate because I know it to be 100% true and I even know they are together right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParksandRec1818 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You have received another and more specific reason from another editor. I have left an explanation on your talk page on the policy concerning sources. I cannot roll back my edit under the circumstances. You can retrieve your previous edits from the edit history (view history tab). I hope the explanation and links I left on you talk page will be helpful. I only will revert your further edits if I can cite a more specific reason. But that does not mean other editors will not revert your edits and you will need to work this out further with them. Donner60 (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

ResetEra Edit
Thank you for the response. I will re-edit it and provide a source. Let me know if you have any other questions, comments or concerns. 68.225.220.46 (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Mango Edit
Why do I have to provide a source for a nickname? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeetpole12 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Because you have added several and you are clearly making these things up. You admit as much in your latest edit summary. See What Wikipedia is not. Donner60 (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The Master's University
Hi Donner60. I admit I'm a newcomer so I don't know how things generally work. I removed a section on The Master's University's page a few minutes ago. You claimed that the edit was not "neutral." To my mind, however, reporting recent negative news coverage of a fully-accredited institution of higher education seems less than neutral. The edit appeared to be in bad taste with an eye toward discrediting the institution. Not only was it placed as the first section, it was lengthier than any of the other sections on the page, greatly skewing the tone of the article. It was, admittedly, unbiased, and nothing was said that wasn't true. But is it necessary to include here? Please let me know your thoughts and reasoning. AdCaelumEo (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi AdCaelumEo! Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm happy that you're here and I hope that you enjoy your stay and that you become a long-term and experienced editor here with us! Generally, we don't want to remove content from articles if they're well referenced and we have no reason to do so. If you believe that the content is disproportional to the rest of the article, we want to fix this by expanding the other content. This will grow the encyclopedia and the project. Otherwise, removing content that shouldn't go will do the opposite of what we want to do. I don't believe that your intentions were to insert bias or non-neutral changes to the article; I think that you were trying to help but just didn't know the right way to do so. It happens; we were all new here once and we all make mistakes while we learn how things work. If you have any questions or need help with anything, please don't hesitate to message me on my user talk page here. I'll be more than happy to help you. Thanks for the message, and I wish you a great rest of your day and happy editing :-).  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, and make sure that you go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial if you haven't done so already. It provides you with walkthroughs, guides, and shows you the location of important functions on Wikipedia. It'll significantly help you with getting started and becoming familiar with everything - definitely go through it :-). Best regards -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Oshwah. I'll do that. I've added a few things to the page, since I suppose I can't take things away... Is there anything objectionable there? Thanks again! :) AdCaelumEo (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had signed out but peaked back in and saw this. Great advice as usual. Oshwah is an administrator (and one of the best). He has great experience in reviewing and is helpful to anyone. I am glad he came by to give you some good advice. If you need further help, you will not find anyone better to ask. Donner60 (talk) 04:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wonderful. I'm not sure how active I'll be here (admittedly I created the account to edit pages within my limited interests, but that could change), but it's nice to know who is who and meet new people. Be assured that I will learn the rules...if a little slowly. :) AdCaelumEo (talk) 04:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * AdCaelumEo - There's no rush that should be felt regarding the pace in which you learn and understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. We were all new here at one time - making mistakes is a normal part of learning and is completely anticipated to happen as you grow and gain experience. You're going to bump some plates off the shelf and break them on the floor, and you're going to accidentally put a few dents into that nice car parked outside - it's okay that it happens; you'll learn and grow from those mistakes :-). So long as your limited interests aren't conflicts of interest, you're obviously welcome to edit articles that you're interested in... Remember, BE BOLD! If something looks wrong or broken, fix it! If it can be better, improve it! Don't be afraid to get your hands dirty! We encourage it! I hope that you'll be an active member of our community... we need awesome people like you to come aboard and make a difference here :-). If you have questions or need anything, you know where to find me ;-). I'm happy to hear that your experience with coming aboard the project and being welcome by users is a positive one.  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   05:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * HA! Me? One of the best admins? I wish...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not? Your contributions here are great (e.g. dealing with vandalism, helping others) and you have received too many barnstars!  —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 05:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh c'mon... there are way better non-admin editors than me (I'm not implying that admins have a higher "rank" or "status" than non-admins, because they totally don't at all). Nonetheless, I enjoy what I do here, and I'm glad to hear that what I do makes at least somewhat of an impact here ;-).  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You are correct that I should not have been the first to mention that you are an administrator in this context. That has little if anything to do with the facts that you are experienced, knowledgeable, diligent and helpful. Mentioning your knowledge and helpfulness would have been enough under the circumstances.
 * Any thought of administrators having any higher status than non-administrators is outside the guidelines and is not well connected to the point I was trying to make. And it is true that are many experienced non-administrators who are knowledgeable and helpful to others.
 * Your self-assessment is characteristically humble but I would only apply it to the obvious areas where you have little or no activity. You are among the best in the areas where I see you and in your help to others. Your energy and temperament are a significant part of that.
 * I am glad that you enjoy what you do here, and I am sure AE and others are as well. You help make the project better and give encouragement to others.
 * So do come back when you see I need help or a further comment would be useful. (As of now, I expect to be offline most or all of the middle third of September.) Donner60 (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Donner60! I appreciate your kind words very much - thank you :-). And I was just being silly above; I'm not sure what I said that made you feel that I was "being correct that you shouldn't have been the first to mention that I'm an administrator" - you can refer to me as whatever you want; I really don't care. I wasn't trying to imply that you were wrong in doing that... lol ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought you were being humble. I do think I saw something to that effect on a Wikipedia page somewhere but it may not have been quite that and I don't think it was a policy of any sort. I thought I might keep accuracy gnomes happy if I mentioned it. 2. I could barely type, much less spell, when I broke my ergonomic keyboard a few weeks ago. (Excuse is only good for a day or two, however.) Donner60 (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Donner60 - Your reply made me think that you might have misinterpreted something I said and thought that I was implying that you did something wrong by referring to me as an admin and it confused me. I meant "silly" as in "informal and not making any implications toward you like that" - I picked a stupid word to attempt to describe that... sorry :-). I meant everything I said in regards to how I feel about myself and the admin toolset. They're just a few extra buttons and absolutely nothing more. I gain no "status", "authority", "rank", or anything like that whatsoever with being an admin... in fact, I put myself below that of others, as it's my job to help and serve you :-).  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And what a bummer! Having to get used to a new keyboard (especially when you were perfect with what was your current one) can be a tad frustrating. I feel your pain...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course. :). Donner60 (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Second Epistle of John
Hi Donnor. When you read the passage it's clear that people were saying that Jesus Christ had not come at all, and that he was a myth. This makes complete sense to me, especially considering Judaism.

"In its article on the Second Epistle of John, even Wikipedia gets it right that, for some peculiar reason, the belief “that the human person of Jesus was actually pure spirit” was prevalent quite early in the history of Christianity. This sort of Gnostic lingo is a polite way of saying that early Christians perceived their savior as a non-corporeal, mystical, spiritual, allegorical and, ***ultimately, mythical figure.*** If Jesus has been a historical person and had done all manner of miracles and magic tricks widely seen “in the flesh,” there could be no logical reason for some of the earliest beliefs in him to be non-literal and spiritual."

http://freethoughtnation.com/belief-jesus-was-pure-spirit-prevalent-in-early-christian-history/

A mythical figure is just that, a myth. The passage 'means' 'do not be persuaded by those that say he never came at all'. The Jews. In fact when I read your interpretation of it, I had a hard time understanding what your interpretation was, as the passage seems clear to me. Not come in the 'flesh' means just that...that Jesus didn't come and that he was myth.

If he was a spirit, he could still be worshipped in a way as he is now? He does not exist in flesh any more. He is alive in real spirit. If he did not come at all, he would be considered as nothing!

"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess 'not' that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

Ie: he didn't come, it was a myth. I think this makes my edit quite appropriate if not the actual interpretation.

D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.97.62 (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I struck my first message on your talk page and have rolled back my edit to Second Epistle of John so that yours is now in the text. I completely misunderstood your edit. I thought it was meant to be what the Epistle said. Now that I have more carefully read the whole paragraph in context, I see that it was what the Epistle was trying to refute. Sorry for the mistake and the inconvenience for you of having to leave me a message. I am glad you did, so we could get this right. I also left some helpful Wikipedia guideline or policy page links on you talk page. Donner60 (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Formation of Italy
I recently edited the Italy article regarding the formation of the nation. In it, I added Ancient Rome (Kingdom, Empire, and Western Empire with dates). However, these were removed twice. I thought it was evident that Ancient Rome was important in the development of Italy, so I did not include any source, especially since no other nation article includes them in that section. The reason I made this edit was because other nations have ancient kingdoms and civilizations listed in their formation and are not removed, such as Iran, China, Japan, Greece, etc. Here is a good source: Roman Italy. I don't see why other nations are allowed to have their ancient civilizations listed, yet Italy cannot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:901:E7A0:DD4A:B31F:C02A:F1C2 (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The historic background from ancient times is in the article. It has not been excluded. You are adding entries to the infobox. Adding the Roman Empire lengthens the infobox, which is supposed to be a summary, but leaves a considerable gap between the Roman Empire and formation of the modern state, which itself has several entries. If you were to add every variation for Italy, the infobox would be as nearly as long (down the page) as the article. In some other countries, the development of the nation and its territory is much shorter and can be traced to ancient times with just a few entries. Infoboxes are supposed to be a summary and changes from the format should be discussed on the talk page or in the appropriate Wikiproject. These other countries can add a few entries and be complete and still arguably be within the guidelines


 * On the other hand, infoboxes have been a source of controversy and some variations apparently have been made and kept. Since you point out what you believe are apparent inconsistencies, and have reverted my edit without waiting for an answer, and due to the prior disputes over the interpretation of the infobox guidelines, I will withdraw from editing with respect to the infobox in this article, but I would not be surprised if other editors think the additions are inappropriate, and possibly incomplete, and not in line with general infobox guidelines. This should be worked out (unless your latest edit simply remains) with those who are more familiar with infobox guidelines. Donner60 (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I know the info was not excluded, but I believe it will be helpful if it was in the summary section. However, I will contact other users involved with my editing since you want to withdraw. Thank you, and my apologies for any inconvenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:901:E7A0:DD4A:B31F:C02A:F1C2 (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

notice
yes, I should have corrected the notice, but the template generated your name, twice! as in article  It is not doing it now. Hmains (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I did not notify you because I thought it was just a minor error of some sort and was not significant enough to bother you. It came up on my notices. When I looked at the user's talk page, I thought I should put that note on the page just in case the user thought to notify or question me about the edit - about which I would have known nothing without looking into it.


 * I have copied some of the templates from the Wikipedia template page into a Word document recently. Usually I just rely on the Huggle messages but occasionally I want to leave a message after a manual revert or to start a new sequence of messages if the warnings are old. Also, Huggle will sometimes give a message that all the warnings have been given and ask if one wants to give an AIV report but a look at the talk page shows the user is just off a block. Administrators will not always block for new vandalism unless some new warnings are given (or maybe if there have been several instances already). I assume you know this; I just thought I should explain why I copied some templates. I am glad it is not continuing. I hope I did not inadvertently insert my user name into the template when I was copying that one (or even others!). If so, it seems someone has fixed it. Thanks for letting me know what happened with the template. Donner60 (talk) 03:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Gusto
Hello. I want to ask you a question. What do you think the article about? If it is about software then be it. If it is about company then change the name of the article from Gusto (software) to Gusto (company).

If the article is about company then infobox company is the right option. In the documentation, name parameter is the LEGAL NAME of the company. In their website, the legal name is still ZenPayroll, Inc. not plain Gusto.

If the article is about software then we should use infobox software. The legal name of the company should be put in owner or developer parameter.

Precisely, what part of MoS did I violate? I don't know. 114.124.237.55 (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * What is the rule that states "The first use of the title of an article and the title in the infobox should coincide with the article title."? I don't find any in MOS/Infobox. But I do know that name parameter of infobox company is "The full, legal name of the company, correctly reproducing punctuation and abbreviations or lack thereof." 114.124.237.55 (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * My previous messages were not clear. I hope I have clarified them in a message on your talk change and that you can make the edits you wish, with perhaps a bit of a tweak. Sorry for any inconvenience. Donner60 (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

edits to Dana Perino
Hiya. Thanks for your message. What about my edits were "less than neutral"? It seems like you're trying to say something, but are saying indirectly. The edit I made simply added "Politifact rated her claim as 'pants on fire'". The reference itself for Perino's statement that climate science was "fraud science" was already in the wikipage. I didn't add the reference. I just quoted the relevant text from it to provide context. I did it to alert readers that climate change is a widely accepted, detailed explanation of how the Earth's atmosphere works. I'm not adding my own opinion here. I'm quoting directly from the reference. 136.62.254.174 (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Since your edit makes sense, I will not revert it if you add it again; I can only speak for myself, of course. Donner60 (talk)


 * Ok, thank you. 136.62.254.174 (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Cicada 3301
I am not understanding it. What does it do? I visited boards.4chan.org but got nothing. If you are pleased to help me. You can mail me safayethossain775@gmail.com. I will be waiting for you. Safayethossain775 (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about the subject. You will need to take your question to the Teahouse or a relevant Wikiproject, perhaps WikiProject Cryptography. You can also try to read some of the articles in the citations or expand your research. I only reverted the addition of "SSS" to a heading in the article. This addition is clearly not in accordance with the Manual of Style and it really does not make any sense in any event.


 * This is not the kind of question that should be asked and answered privately. Wikipedia policy is that content discussions be available for viewing by others. Donner60 (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Have your say!
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Helmut Kohl
Hello there

Well you can do whatever seems to be correct but Germany is based on the fact to be an origin legal personality as World View community. Since 28.11.1918 this origin legal personality is occupied due to several occupying constructs not based on the 1871 constitution. The German Empire has lost the first World war. But the German Empire did not vanish as origin legal personality but it is still not capable of action thats for certain. The Weimar Republic, neither the so called Third Reich or Helmut Kohls Bundesrepublik Deutschland or what happens because of "foreign minister" Hans Dietrich Genscher on the 03.10.1990 is NOT the legitim heir of the origin legal personality. As you can see the second world war was a product of an illegal stateless dangerous clown, infiltrated by Edward Biernays, Hans Domizlaff, Bernhard Stempfle,  who once belonged to the Arnold Schwarzenegger Crew from Austria. You must analyse very very deeply what happened in between 1932 - 1934 in Germany ( THIRD REICH ) to figgure out the transformation from NAtionalSOcialism into NAtionalZIonism. Helmut Kohl was never a chancellor. This is only a very clever way for disguising the fact that the second world war from the third Reich was never a war from the origin legal personality neither it's still existing citizens. Kohl was a puppet on a string to the ones who fiddled about with Article 146 GG constitutional law of the BRD for the sake that Germany will never be able to get their official constitution from 1871 back. Kohl was never chanchellor he was called chancellor but he was the trustee of the Allied forces who still are not willing to sign a peace treaty according to international law. If that happens the heir can rise again and that heir is called Prince Georg Friedrich von Hohenzollern. Helmut Kohl's own son will not deny that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Kohl

He also knows who ordered Helmut Kohl after the 17.07.1990 to refuse a peace treaty according to international law. It has to do with the District of Columbia Organic Act in 1871 and also the Federal Reserve Act from the 23.12.1913. And John F Kennedy died because of that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya8J503VFqY

Helmut Kohl was a trustee from an occupied country - like America is occupied because of the District of Columbia Organic Act and the Federal Reserve Act. Nearly all countries are occupied from the ones who JF Kennedy mentioned in his famous speech about open society.

Please excuse me if my english is a little bit rusty. --87.128.101.202 (talk) 02:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a ultimate direct link to two facts happening in the year 1871.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_German_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Organic_Act_of_1871 And then you will end up by this two "fine" lads. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Mazzini https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Pike

And even President Woodrow Wilson was tricked by Edward M. House. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_M._House

Humankind has to face terrible facts belonging the ones behind this two terrible World Wars and the puppet master directing us into a well planned world war three. Helmut Kohl was member of the Order of B'nai B'rith and if you really want to come close you ask Jared Kushner what is planned at this Epi Center Adress in New York. 770 Eastern Pkwy, Brooklyn, NY 11213, USA

So Helmut Kohl was never a Chanchellor he was the one who had to fullfill the prophecy from Leonhard Cohen. First we take Manhattan than we take Berlin. Everything is of course "only" conspiracy in a lunatic fringe. But if you start thinking the other way round. Better do not dare.


 * A German sovcit?  Acroterion   (talk)   03:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Ohhh no we want to pay taxes but we know to whom our taxes run untill 1949. And we know that 80% of worlds tax literature is written in German. And we also do know why. Once America was also free untill this railway business has begun and privatiers took over something which based on the idealism of George Washington. The problem is not the constitution the problem is a money system based as FIAT MONEY which controlls America and refuses new brilliant modern alternativ technology for the sake of keeping everything as it has been. I really like the letter Q very very much. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML3qYHWRIZk         Yeah its "only" pathetic. DO YOU COPY ???


 * Despite the time you obviously have spent thinking about this and deriving your analysis, your theory is still contrary to Wikipedia policy and guidelines as original research and synthesis No original research. Reference to events and people long before and well after Kohl's term do not have any effect on his term in office and I see no reliable, verifiable source cited which shows they do Verifiability. Your conclusion that Helmut Kohl was never chancellor is simply contrary to well established facts in contemporary and later sources. You cite no reliable, verifiable source that shows otherwise. I am sure there are many web sites on which you can post your analysis. Wikipedia does not publish original research or opinions, commentary or editorializing and so is not one of them. ; ; . As information. 03:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I am telling facts which can be evidenced. Everything after 28.11.1918 is not based on the origin legal personality which is still existing but not capable of action. But because you are not able to read German its not necessary to evidence with plain facts, because you cannot understand them. Therefore I wish you all the best with your wikipedia which already has a structure of rules, or should I say guidelines like the Pirates in the Caribeans, for well paid system media. And in the deepest core of his inside Jimbo already knows who frauded him the most. ;-) --87.128.101.202 (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

STRATFOR: The main goal of the US-Empire ( Deep State ) is to prevent the alliance between Germany and Russia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFmfwqzWmHk

Yahweh
Where Yahweh comes from is from a guy that believes the Samaritans know the name of God but they never said the name. They call him "The Name". However, they worshiped Jupiter. Nehemiah Gordon does heavily research on where Yahweh comes from. Yehovah comes from Jewish sources and rabbis have claimed the name is Yehovah. No, the vowels are not the same as Adonai. If they were, it would be Yahovah


 * While this could perhaps be a matter of discussion in other contexts, it has no application to the use of the word in the article. See footnote 1 about how Yahweh is used in the article, starting with "While Yahweh is indeed the Abrahamic God, this specifically refers to the ancient ideas Yahweh once encompassed...." Making changes in this article would not result in reference to the proper term and meaning in context. As an aside, you cite a person as a source but do not provide a full citation or how that person describes it. You also do not indicate whether the interpretation is universally accepted (which I doubt) or a majority or minority view. That means both views would need to be given with sources. Such an explanation would appear superfluous in this article. Another aside, I think there are more sources that just a "guy that believes the Samaritans know the name of God", and that guy is not identified in any case. Donner60 (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Nora En Pure
Nora En Pure’s last name is no longer Niederer. Please could you advise how we can change it to Di Lillo? Many thanks. ROST1989 (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I have answer this and provided helpful Wikipedia page links on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

List of Magic Knight Rayearth characters
You reverted my entry, requesting sources. My entry contained two points: 1) that the word Fahren in German means "driving" in English and 2) that "Freude am Fahren" is one (of many) BMW marketing slogans in German. Regarding 1), since it is a fairly easy fact to prove by virtually any translation resource, I have cited but one English-German dictionary. This strikes me as an unusual practice for a wikipedia entry, however, especially one that deals with content in translation (i.e., anime and manga) in the first place. Regarding 2), I am somewhat at a loss on what to reference. Since it is a German langauge marketing slogan, it wouldn't be very difficult to cite articles in German (such as this: https://www.bmwgroup.com/de/marken/bmw.html) or provide pictorial examples of the slogan in use (such as here: https://www.racing14.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/BMW-Z4-Freude-am-Fahren.jpg). I question the value of the former on an English language article, and I'm not sure what copyright implications there might be if we were to attempt the latter. If you can provide further clarification on that, I'd be happy to reinstate point 2 but for now I have simply added point 1 back to the article. Thanks.


 * I am persuaded by your explanation and thank you for it. I have left extended comments and helpful Wikipedia page links on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop
I am adding information obtained by a student that is first-hand information and is reliable. I do not appreciate you editing my additions. I have gotten this information from the band director himself, but he did not want to be quoted and put in as a source. He did not want to brag about his accomplishments, so I added them. CheddwardDZ (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "First hand information" for which no published source is cited is not a reliable source per Wikipedia policies. You may not use such sources, and content without reliable sources will be removed.  See WP:BURDEN.   General Ization  Talk  03:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I will cite it, but from now on, I want you to leave my edits alone. CheddwardDZ (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * If you continue to violate this or other policies, you will continue to be warned and/or your edits that do so will be reverted. No editor is permitted to ignore our policies here.  General Ization  Talk  03:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Unfinished creative work
82. what, my dear Donner60, makes you decide in 59 seconds flat that my very accurate comment on a remark about Gustav Holts' composition 'the Planets' was off the mark? Are you a robot? Or just confused about the difference of stars' movements in the mythical and/or physical meaning?Sintermerte (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Answered on you talk page as follows, this edit appears to be your personal opinion and conclusion. It is unsourced. Citations of reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion. It is also necessary to write in neutral language showing that the prior text is a minority or fringe opinion and not simply a conclusion that it is "nonsense", which perhaps it is but that way of expressing is not in line with the guidelines. See No original research, Verifiability, What Wikipedia is not and Manual of Style. Donner60 (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

"It is unsourced. Citations of reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion." I am not voicing "merely" an opinion. It sounds as though you would rather accept a comment loaded with "verifiable sources" about Pluto (cartoon - Walt Disney) than an on-the-mark observation about the difference between astronomy and astrology (which you then remove from the article). Holts' composition is a work of art, not astrophysics.Sintermerte (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)thank you


 * I have stated my reason. If you can not, or will not, produce a source and want to insert it again, I will let it go and see if another editor weighs in. I don't dispute your conclusion, actually but am suggesting the guidelines apply. See Civility and No personal attacks, by the way, even though I will otherwise ignore your unwarranted insult, especially since it is not a true like for like comparison. I did not make up the rules and guidelines. I do continue to suggest that you will have a better chance in inserting the material if you moderate its tone and write it in more measured and encyclopedic language. Donner60 (talk) 03:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Banica River
I've edited the Banica River page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banica_River) because the information there is factually incorrect, it states that:

- the Banica River is a tributary of the Okoy River

- it flows from Lake Balinasayo

I don't know who made this up, but both "facts" are completely wrong.

Okoy River is to the north of Banica River, separated from the Banica River, and there is no physical connection between the two. This is easy to verify on Google Maps, and I've also been personally there on location to see that the two rivers are not connected (I've been living in Dumaguete for 3 years).

Second, none of these rivers (neither Banica nor Okoy) has its source in Lake Balinasayo. Who made this up? Lake Balinasayo is one of the two Twin Lakes and is located far away in Sibulan. Moreover these are deep crater lakes with no outflow.

Can we correct this information? It's totally wrong.


 * I struck the original message on your talk page. Please cite a source when making the change. I also left links to helpful Wikipedia guideline, style and policy pages. Donner60 (talk) 05:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ... sources with correct information are hard to find (apart from the fact that this information is easy to verify via Google Maps), however I found two articles which refute the idea that Banica is a tributary of Okoy, or that it has its source in Lake Balinasayo ... actually, Banica River (or rather a tributary of Banica River) flows from the famous Casaroro Falls in Valencia, as can be seen on Google Maps, and as can be concluded from these articles:

http://dumaguetemetropost.com/more-on-banica-river-problem-p2304-96.htm

https://www.facebook.com/southpacificphotoworkshop/posts/1571584106392684

I see that the incorrect information that Banica is a tributary of Okoy or even that Okoy is the "source" of Banica gets replicated all over the internet, which is annoying. I'll go ahead and correct the page, adding these sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoduma (talk • contribs) 05:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Cambridge Ny Removal
Why don't you ask people to provide citations (citation needed Mark) rather than assuming since its incited its untrue? There's plenty of other incited people there. Lifelikeme (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * There is no article about the person so he must be presumed not to be notable. This can be overcome by a citation that satisfactorily shows his notability. Since you know about that, I assume you can provide a citation that is reliable, verifiable, neutral and third party. If so, I would be glad to strike the original message on your page. The burden is up to you to provide the citation Donner60 (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * There are Wikipedia articles about the other people shown as notable in the article. Since there are articles about the persons, there are sources in the articles which show their notability. In such cases, repeating the citations or adding new ones is not necessary to show notability in another article. Donner60 (talk) 03:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Nathan Peterman
Why do you have to undo edits that was hillarius. Th3BigBlue13 (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Because this is an encyclopedia, not a blog, forum, message board or joke site. See What Wikipedia is not. I am sure there are many sites where you can post "hillarius" edits. This is not one of them. Donner60 (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Citation on Boardgame definitions
It's hard to cite something in such a small genre.

The best I can do is point out the fact that Risk Legacy, Pandemic Legacy Season 1 and Season 2, Seafall, Charterstone, Ultimate Werewolf Legacy, The Rise of Queensdale, and Betrayal Legacy are all games which have rules-stickers modifying and expanding the rules of the games over time. Gloomhaven does not. The defining of a such small genre of board games is very difficult in the early days, such as right now. It would be like trying to define the traits of Industrial Music before Tool, Funker Vogt, or Wumpscut. Also, Rise of Queensdale really should be 2018 for year-published, since it's out already.

I can't give a citation because it's a matter of semantics and pedantry, of identifying the one trait which is unique to games intended as Legacy games and which is lacking in games not intended as such. 50.35.81.108 (talk) 06:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Turns out, I don't know how to add a citation, so uhh... https://boardgamegeek.com/article/22384092#22384092 That's the designer/creator of Gloomhaven, Isaac Childres, saying he has "qualms about people labeling Gloomhaven as "legacy" in the first place". He doesn't agree with it. The public has decided on it based on the current accepted definition of "Legacy Games", my point is that said definition is incorrect. Games intended to be Legacy have a trait which the likes of Gloomhaven lacks, and since Gloomhaven's creator didn't intend Gloomhaven to be a Legacy game, that means this trait, rules-stickers, is a Defining Trait of Legacy games. 50.35.81.108 (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I replied to your original message on your talk page. I added helpful Wikipedia page links which can show you how to add footnotes, etc. See Help:Footnotes to start. Donner60 (talk) 06:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Kevin Fagan
Yo you needa stop changing the stuff on Kevin’s page. I know Mr. Fagan because I play football with his son. Thanks Bye Michaeljmiller22 (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I have left a message on your talk page. You must stop violating Wikipedia guidelines about information about minors and information which can be included in biographies. Also, you are not a reliable, verifiable source. A reader cannot check on who you are or on the information you are adding. See Verifiability. Donner60 (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Steve Watkins issue
Thanks for the information. I am only reverting the accounts removing this negative material because the material is sourced. If there are reliable sources, I believe the material should remain. Are the sources unreliable? 24.5.8.227 (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * If you add the text and references again, I will not revert it. That will result in a third opinion. Either no one else will edit it or someone else will wish to contest it - and I will leave it to you and others to resolve. Donner60 (talk) 03:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ambox notice.svg There is currently a discussion at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding Steve Watkins (politician). 24.5.8.227 (talk) 03:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Badger, MN
I am from Badger, MN. Are you? There are billboards to the north and south entrances of town citing it as The Mallard capital. It is featured on the city's stationary. You know nothing of the city's actual history. PatrioticMiguel (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Responded in detail on your talk page. Also see Civility. Donner60 (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Improper humor?
Hello, I would like to know what part of this constructive edit you consider to be "improper humor"? The 40 route does not serve this station, therefore I removed it. Please be a little more careful while you identify edits as blatant vandalism, because mine was not. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * There is no link or explanation for your edit and the term appears to be dubious, even if it is not. There seems to be no way to check it. I suggest you add something (a parenthetical, footnote or citation) to show it is a valid edit. Anyone unfamiliar with the location might question it. Assuming it is a valid edit, I am sorry I did not recognize it as such. Donner60 (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I had hoped my edit summary would be sufficient. Did you not read it? "no 40, just Orbit" - the Orbit is a neighborhood circulator operated by Valley Metro; I put its name into the section when I removed the 40. Hopefully all these factors would have explained the edit to you, if you had examined them. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, perhaps they were not so obvious. I would have hoped that my explanation and apology for the apparent mistake would have been sufficient. Please see Civility and No personal attacks. Donner60 (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the apology, and I accept it. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Northern hawk-owl
Goodnight. I am a new member of the community and I have questions, sorry if it is naive. In the article about the Northern hawk-owl, I posted a link to a video that is dedicated solely to this bird, do not violate the copyright and carry information only about the author of the project and the performer of the work. This is an important and valuable video in terms of understanding the biology of birds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9z-kQLFlyM&feature=youtu.be The video link has been removed. Why Studenok 23:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studenok (talk • contribs)


 * The word "vote" was left at the end of description of the link which made it look like spam. Your explanation shows that this was not intended. So I am striking the above message. I also rolled back my revert of your edit and removed the word "vote." Sorry that I did not look at the actual video until you pointed it out. I left links to some helpful Wikipedia style, policy and guideline links on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Pastirma
Pastirma has been in the region long before the existence of the state of Israel. Citing a contemporary cook book about this is considered alteration of historical facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrshalaby91 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The source appears to be verifiable and reliable. We have only your opinion and assertion to support a change that is obviously not in line with Neutral point of view, Verifiability, Citing sources and What Wikipedia is not. Donner60 (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * This is not an opinion. I clearly stated that Israel did not exist before 1948. As shown in this source, a 17th century Turkish (Ottoman) writer called Evliya Çelebi praised Pastirma in his book. How is this my "opinion"? http://www.turkishculture.org/culinary-arts/cuisine/pastirma-306.htm


 * We will not agree on this and it is not worth debating. If you change it again, I will leave if for another editor to review. Donner60 (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I need to add another country in the list of cuisines. How can I do that without having you rejecting my changes? I have reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrshalaby91 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I have put links to helpful Wikipedia style, guideline and policy pages on your talk page and have put in bold font the pages that are most pertinent to your question. Donner60 (talk) 05:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I just made an edit. How is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrshalaby91 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I am just back online. They appear proper as I noted on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Xmas

 * 2018 XMAS.pdf FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Happy New Year! Hello Donner60: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, ― Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 04:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Warning of User:169.197.72.8
Hello - I noticed that you placed a warning on User talk:169.197.72.8 for the user's edit on Manny Diaz (American football). I wanted to let you know that I'm pretty sure that this was a good faith edit on the user's part, and he was actually correcting vandalism on the page by removing the joke tenure of "32 minutes" as head coach of Temple Football, and instead adding in the "2 weeks" that is approximately the time difference between the announcements of him taking the job at Temple University and then taking the head coach job at the University of Miami. Therefore, I think that the user's edit was made in an attempt to be constructive, and actually for the better since it did remove unencyclopedic content.--Slon02 (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems I became confused between the vandalism and attempted correction. I am glad you gave me the chance to correct it. I have stricken my original message to the user, apologized for the mistake, and added some of the helpful Wikipedia policy and guideline page links found in some of the welcome templates to the user's talk page. Donner60 (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Holiday Greetings, Happy New Year and Best Wishes
I was busy offline from about December 22 and missed sending out holiday greetings until today when I sent out New Year greetings. I wished to send greetings for a happy, prosperous and productive New Year to all who have helped me in the past year and all with whom I have had positive interactions. Since I have made quite a few edits this year, I almost inevitably must have missed one or more people. If I have done so and if you read this talk page, please take this as my New Year greeting and wish. I am sorry if I overdid this in any way (truly). If one contacts enough people with a rare friendly message, someone is likely to object or be offended - even if there have been positive interactions in the past and such a reaction is hard to anticipate, if not puzzling. While that can happen, it is unintended and I apologize for it if it has. One such reaction a few years ago put me off from such greetings but as near as I can tell these messages are unobjectionable, even appreciated by most so I have sent out a few more this year. I certainly don't need to pad my edits with them, if that thought may arise, as can be easily confirmed. Donner60 (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Donner60!


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

Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

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