User talk:Donner60/Archive 2

No items from May and June 2012. Archive 2 begins with July 2012.

Upper Wolfsnare
Hi. THanks for the review of the DYK nom. I've posted the alt, slightly modified, as ALT1. Could you check it and post another tic mark below it so people don't wonder if it's still pending? Thanks. Pumpkin Sky  talk  10:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done! I posted this further review/comment on the DYK nomination page:

Great. I think ALT1 is complete, meets all the criteria and is ready for promotion to the queue. Donner60 (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Donner60 (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Wilburn Hill King
Yngvadottir (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Levin Major Lewis
Yngvadottir (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

George von Amsberg
Thanks for the extra info on George von Amsberg. I left the main comment there to keep the history together, but thought I'd drop a quick thanks here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awun (talk • contribs) 08:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Triple DYK
Thanks for reviewing and glad you liked it! Gerda proposed alts, can you look over, pick a preference, and put another check when they're good to go? Pumpkin Sky  talk  09:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You can also leave the preference to the prep builder ;) I suggested an alt pic, to make choices harder ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I like alt 2 and the alternate, cropped image better. I have left a further review/comment. Donner60 (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Precious
Congrats on 2 years at wiki!♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Moses Wright Hannon
Yngvadottir (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for William Henry Chase
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/George W. Gibbs, Jr. at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 10:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Template:Did you know nominations/List of number-one R&B singles of 2011 (U.S.)
Thanks for reviewing :) Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 10:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Some items that were in Archive 1, from August – December 2012, have been moved to Archive 2 because this archive was becoming too long with the addition of some older items that had been kept on the talk page. Archive 2 has been started. Donner60 (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

RE:Did you know nominations/James Cameron (Union colonel)‎
I also forgot to notify you about my reply here, but that was only because I gave it a green light for the first time. Truly the best referenced DYK I've seen so far.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  09:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for James Cameron (Union colonel)
Yngvadottir (talk) 08:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Francis Marion Walker
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Congratulation on a fabulous article. Miss Ivonne (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Annoying format edits in Civil War articles; left note for the user
Howdy! I hope you are doing well. I am so darn busy with my cartography business that I have really slacked off on Wikipedia. I think your sentiments on this are right on, but the way you have formatted the text you extracted from my style guide makes it really difficult to understand, so perhaps you could take a look at that. I have periodically reverted similar changes to favorite battle articles, but frankly my watchlist interest has shrunk quite a bit, leaving many hundreds of biography articles out in the cold. Hal Jespersen (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Edits in Civil War Articles
Donner60,

Topic: "Edits in Civil War Articles".

To reply to your message left on my talkpage concerning the above topic. I am not going to be worrying about it. Since Hlj may have done the majority of work to certain articles and is possibly the main contributor to them. I am able to freely "contribute to and edit". As far as I can remember, Hlj has a "maintained" template on the article that he has done which implies no ownership of these articles and he has clearly agreed to the terms of releasing such information that is contained in those articles for future editing by other wikipedia users. Adamdaley (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Johnson Henderson
Orlady (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Gilbert S. Meem
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for cognitive vulnerability
Hey! This nomination template has been looked over and since the reviewer suggested a hook, ONLY THE HOOK needs to be looked over by another new reviewer. The rest of the article has been surely taken care of. If you have the time to just check it out, please do so. Thanks. Khyati Gupta (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Cool! Thanks! After the article gets a check mark, doesn't it need to be archived by an administrator?Khyati Gupta (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Reuben Walker Carswell
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Wife of Reuben Walker Carswell
I have found images of widow pension filed by a wife who remarried and resided in Florida (PD-FLGov). --George Ho (talk) 08:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Response on George Ho talk page: added information to article. Donner60 (talk) 05:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK images
Hello, you approved Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Roach but you forgot to verify the image's license status. I realize that, the image was not flagged for deletion, but that's part of your job as a reviewer. If you go to Mary Roach's web site (which is listed as the image source), you'd see that there is a blanket copyright notice for all the content, so that would mean the uploader has committed a copyright violation. If you are unsure about the image's licensing, you can use DYK? to put the question mark icon and you can ask someone else to do it. Thanks. — howcheng  {chat} 19:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Responded on Howcheng and Infrogmation talk pages: my mistake, uncareful reading or lack of understanding of what I saw on Wikimedia Commons, think I now understand it better, sorry about mistake. Donner60 (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Aaron  &bull; You Da  One 10:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

DYK for Joseph H. Tucker
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email! If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia). Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
 * 2) Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code.  Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
 * 3) Create your account by entering the requested information.  (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
 * 4) You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID.  (The account is now active for 1 year).
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
 * Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
 * Show off your Questia access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

DYK for William Henry Harman
The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Find-A-Grave links
Hello, and thanks for your work in finding correct references for the (ancient) Find-A-Grave links!

However, I wonder if you could deal with those in a typical Find-A-Grave fashion instead of fixing the names? The standard procedure I've been following is: Find-A-Grave is a list of people who might be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, but aren't there yet. Once they're there, there's no further value in the listing.
 * Create a redirect from the old name to the new name (this makes search in wikipedia work better, and leaves a record of what was done)
 * And then, delete the name from Find-A-Grave's lists

Have fun on Wikipedia! --Alvestrand (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Replied on Alvestrand page. Followed suggested procedure for all the changes before and after date of this note. Donner60 (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Jeptha Vining Harris (Mississippi)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Charles Desvergnes
What nonsense! I am in the middle of a major reconstruction of the Charles Desvergnes article which I wrote in the first place! This morning I forgot to log in which I admit I should have done but to start talking of "vandalism" is ridiculous. When an article is "under construction" and tagged as such surely this is meant to avoid interventions such as yours. Wait until the article is finished before you wade in but having seen some of the rubbish on wikipedia then I would have thought you could find better things to do. Weglinde (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Added this reply to Weglinde user page: My apologies. However, you have touched on an important point. I saw that the article had been worked on by Weglinde and that it was under construction. But as you rightly state, your last edit was under an IP address and it showed blanking of text and repeating characters. In hindsight, and with your statement that it was you who made the changes, I can see it was part of your revisions. But before you conclude that my reversion was nonsense, consider the circumstances. How was I to discern that your edit under an IP address, which appeared simply to delete material leaving repeating characters and incomplete sentences, was part of your revisions? I am sorry for the inconvenience and any upset, but you can, of course, get that version back - and I think upon reflection you will see that I had reasons for my action. Donner60 (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

G1
CSD nonsense is rather limited. Nonsense looks like; "yiouyrhjo dedeeireidwedededijkkvir". I've noticed that you recently tagged an article with G1 meaning patent nonsense, G1 (according to CSD) involves words that that have no vowels, no meaning, etc., but if you can understand it, G1 does not apply. It may be rubbish, and totally unencyclopedic, but it's not nonsense. As one of the admins said to me, "CSD nosense is rare". Regards, Mediran  talk 02:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Chambersburg Raid
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Removing AfD template
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Orlin Vassilev. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it. Snotbot  t &bull; c &raquo;  07:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was doing recent changes patrolling and initially reverted the deletion of the template and the blanking of the page which I suspected was vandalism (and it in fact probably was). Then I had second thoughts about whether I should revert the blanking of the page and undid the reversion. That resulted in the previous edit, which had blanked the Afd template as well, being revived. I probably should have left the initial reversion in place. I did not think about the fact that the Afd template had been removed; it was not my intention to remove it either directly or by reviving the previous page blanking. So in the long run, my initial thought to revert the blanking was correct and my undoing of it was not. It had the unintended consequence of blanking the Afd template. Sorry. This required some more careful consideration but the full consequence did not register with me. Donner60 (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, I voted to delete the article with the following comment: Not a single result comes up in a High Beam search. Nothing significant comes up in a google search (except the unreferenced Wikipedia pages themselves). Donner60 (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. In the future, if there is a major problem with the article that requires it to be immediately blanked, you can optionally use a template like Courtesy blanked to denote that.  However, if the article is currently at AfD, the AfD template should always remain.  Thanks.  ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _  14:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Great thanks. 22:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

DeMint
I don't understand how this is vandalism. It's commonly known that DeMint started the recession, only dyed-in-the-wool Republicans would deny this. I even provided a source, a link to material from a major news network. --96.48.13.234 (talk) 07:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It is absurd to assert that a single U.S. Senator of either party could have such an effect. Your source is not exactly unbiased. I have reverted vandalism to articles on both Republicans and Democrats, which you could verify if you searched long enough. It isn't worth arguing about, however, and I think I will leave this for someone else to ultimately deal with. Donner60 (talk) 08:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Why did you keep reverting me?
I edited on Orders of magnitude (numbers), Fermat number, Mersenne number but those are all reverted by you. But I contributed using sources. Here are those:, , 14.34.43.149 (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You had no edit summary and I did not see the references you have now cited in your changes. My mistake now that you bring references to my attention and I am sorry if I missed them earlier. I have seen math articles changed before with no references or explanation at all and these have turned out to be vandalism. I am glad these were not and I am sorry for the inconvenience. I will change them back if you have not already done so. Donner60 (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

if it's true why is it vandalism
One of Claude Lemieux's very well known nicknames is "The Turtle" after a very well known incident involving him and Darren McCarty. Look it up if you don't believe me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.113.162 (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is true it is not vandalism, of course. However, this statement looked like a slur on a living person and did not seem to fit with the topic. So it really should be supported by a citation. Readers should not have to do further research to verify a statement about a person which could be considered controversial or derogatory (although after finding out the origin, it might turn out not to have been). If I had thought about it more carefully or considered that it might have been true, I should have simply tagged it as citation needed. Donner60 (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your remark on my George Wythe comment
The page still isn't done, but I hope it's in better shape now.Jweaver28 (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the Baptist article - I was working two screens and meant to modify the Baptist Successionism article, not the Baptist article.
Response on your page to the effect that I thought it appeared to be a mistake that would be fixed at some point but that I thought it would be best to restore the main article and let the person or persons who wanted to work on them carry on from there. Donner60 (talk) 09:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Belated greetings :)


Mediran ( t  •  c ) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Hey Donner60! I hope you had a very Merry Christmas! Also, I wish you to have a very prosperous, bountiful and of course a very Happy 2013! Mediran ( t  •  c ) 11:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Charles W. Adams
( X! ·  talk )  · @954  · 12:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Day of Seven Billion edit
Hello, I hope I'm replying in the right place here. I removed the sentence because "Mallory Bosch" was in neither of the two sources given, and I couldn't find the name via the Web. Also, given the parenthesized twin comment, the sentence seems to be a joke. 108.233.253.211 (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * OK. Sorry. Unfortunately, many of the deletions without comment that I have seen turn out to be unhelpful, and often, vandalism. I should have looked at the sources or just given it the benefit of the doubt because in retrospect I see your point. I try to do that when I am doing "recent changes patrol" unless it is quite obvious that the change is invalid. I have slipped up a few times and made an assumption about a deletion that turned out to be wrong. In that case, I must apologize, delete the unconstructive edit/vandalism notice and hope we can move on with the change and other positive changes. Donner60 (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Entry on Arthur Gietzelt
Hi

A short while ago, I noticed the entry of my 92-year-old father (Arthur Gietzelt) had been recently added to with a lie, that he had admitted to being a spy for the Soviet Union. I tried to delete it but you put it back in again, citing it came from sourced articles and that therefore I was a vandal! I now have a warning against me.

I deleted the sentence because it was a lie. My father NEVER admitted to being a Soviet spy because he NEVER was one. If you have a look at the references, you will see that Arthur Gietzelt "declined to comment" or something similar, on both articles. He never admitted to this scurrilous lie.

So I am requesting you to remove the offending sentence and remove my vandal status. I'd also like to suggest you check the accuracy of the comments before you assume they are correct, just because someone adds a citation.

I would also like to be able to monitor my father's entry and delete any further lies added in the future.

Thank you

Dale Gietzelt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.171.22 (talk) 08:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am very sorry for the mistake. Usually the deletion of cited material by a non-registered user is vandalism. It is a big problem on wikipedia. Occasionally a mistake is made when reviewing these and I will gladly change it when I have made the mistake. I have reverted at least two thousand instances of vandalism - and made about 5 mistakes, which I have changed. No one is perfect and I think your comment suggests that this was not necessarily obvious from the source. Nonetheless, I accept your explanation. You can certainly monitor the entry by creating a watchlist where you can check every change made to the article or simply view the history of the article from time to time. You may wish to create a user name as well. I will make the changes. Donner60 (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Gietzelt
Thank you for agreeing to revert the sentence but one of the two offending sentences is still there: the one stating he was a communist. Should I be the one to delete it? Will that have unforeseen consequences like the last attempted deletion had?

It's very difficult to try to halt this attempted sabotage of my father's reputation by persons unknown.

Thanks again for your message. Sorry if I was a bit harsh. I'm quite angry about what is happening. It's easy to complain but you're the one donating your time and energy to try to make Wikipedia the best it can be. Thanks for that. In my minute way, so am I!

All the best

Dale Gietzelt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.171.22 (talk) 08:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I will delete the sentence in order to spare you the same problem. But I cannot guarantee it will stay deleted. I watch articles that I create or related articles in my area of interest. When I review recent changes, I do it as they occur in any article they may occur in at the time. After reviewing literally thousands of articles, it would take more time than anyone might have to go back and check each one of them periodically. Some are quite boring as well, but people find the oddest articles to vandalize. The worst changes are the ones that sound plausible or are on topics that only an expert will know if the change is bad - mathematics articles are good examples. More comment than I should bore you with. I urge you to watch the article periodically. Also, if you take a user name and make about a dozen proper edits, even trivial corrections, you are much more likely to be able to edit in peace. Donner60 (talk) 09:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Cyberspace
re revert: The two definitions are significantly different.

1) Cyberspace is the electronic medium of computer networks, in which online communication takes place.

2)in current usage the term "cyberspace" stands for the global network of interdependent information technology infrastructures, telecommunications networks and computer processing systems.

The first is only the networks, the 2nd includes the computer processing systems -- thus includes the applications using the networks - a vast increase in scope. Think of it this way; the 1st does not include the web, the 2nd does. Whatever way you can find to align the definitions would be appreciated, thanks. (my reading was that inclusion of the web, of applications, was intended) 76.103.213.6 (talk) 09:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your explanation; sorry about the mixup. Obviously I have less knowledge than you do about this. Occasionally when checking recent changes one has to rely on what the change appears to be but once in awhile (not very often, thankfully), that results in a mistake due to misreading or lack of knowledge of the subject matter. I will restore your definition, if you have not done so already. Then if you think it needs further tweaking, I would rely on your knowledge. Donner60 (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Phantom time hypothesis
You've done something I've done, reverted here to earlier IP vandalism. That makes 2 editors today who did that! Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information. I put a little longer reply on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Cardinals
A look at google images indicates the Pelicans did, at one time, use a logo similar to the long-standing Cardinals logo. But that doesn't mean they used it in 1887 (and in fact I would be surprised if they did), and in any case the IP didn't provide a link. It's an interesting similarity, coincidental or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you google image [new orleans pelicans baseball], you can see some examples. This, for example, which is supposedly from 1942. The thing I wonder, though, is whether they were a Cardinals farm team. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And to no real surprise, the Pelicans were indeed a Cardinals farm team in the early 1940s. Random team pictures from earlier don't show that logo, which is not definitive, but I think we have a trend here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I put a few comments on your talk page, which I think you have probably seen. The last one more or less wraps it up so I repeat it here: I think you have solved the riddle. The Pelicans had that similar logo because they were a Cardinals farm team. Hardly a reason to say that the Cardinals stole the logo from the Pelicans. It certainly would seem there was co-operation and a common interest. More likely that one team copied the other with consent, probably the opposite of that stated by the IP poster. That makes be feel even more confident about my edit on the Cardinals page. Donner60 (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. And it's kind of a nifty story, if we could find more evidence. However, the minors are not nearly as well-documented as the majors. One would have to find someone who's a team historian or something. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit to "Avraham Friedman"
Concerning this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:65.79.36.130&redirect=no#February_2013 Why was it considered vandalism? A lecturer in a Yeshiva is called a maggid shiur, so I don't understand why it was a bad edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.36.130 (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I did not understand the idiom. It appeared to be a slur to me. Donner60 (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Dam Edit
I know it sounds ridiculous, but that was genuinely not vandalism. Tonights new episode of Top Gear genuinely did have the crew burning rubber to create a giant Penis on the base of the Dam. Regards, Dan (no username) 22:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not shown in U.S. yet, of course. It does sound ludicrous but I suppose anything is possible on tv these days. I suggest not restoring the edit the until after it is shown. Donner60 (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Well, if anything came from this episode it's that I ended up reading up on the L.A. River. I never did understand why it was culvurted. 22:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.250.2 (talk)

Loan to Value Ratio
"the likelihood of a lender absorbing a loss in the foreclosure process increases as the amount of equity increases"

The last word is clearly incorrect. As equity increases, the positive difference between the asset value and the loan balance becomes continually greater, and thus the likelihood of loss in foreclosure decreases. The sentence may have read that way for a long time, but it's wrong.

See page 4 of the link below, from which this paragraph was apparently pulled verbatim, save for the typo/error at the end

http://www.stonehedgecapital.com/4.swf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.254.233.43 (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks, sorry I got that wrong. Donner60 (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Philip Ludwell Sr. and Jr.
I have a more recent source (Jon Kukla, Speakers and Clerks of the Virginia House of Burgesses, 1643-1776, Virginia State Library, 1981) that directly contradicts Lyon Gardiner Tyler on which Ludwell was actually Speaker in 1695-6. It does include a direct quote from Edmund Andros about Ludwell Sr.'s election as a Burgess that year, calling him the "Reputed Governor of Carolina". This quote is dated 18 April 1695, the day before the election of one or the other Ludwell as Speaker.

Personally, I suspect Tyler got this wrong, but without other sources independent of both of these, I'm not going to make any changes at this time. Still, there's a problem here. Rklear (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Also on your talk page: Thanks for the information on the Ludwells. Obviously one of the sources has it wrong. Tyler says Ludwell Sr. procured the speaker position for Ludwell, Jr., making him the youngest person to hold it. I occasionally have seen more recent sources clearly get a fact wrong so even though it is usually a good bet to rely on the most recent sources, they are not always correct. I can't say which is right here, of course. Some more research is required. I hope something that might tip the balance can be found without having to spend too much time on it. I should add, however, that the quote you cite is somewhat persuasive. Donner60 (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I posted a request for further sources on the Philip Ludwell talk page and mentioned it at WP Virginia. Rklear (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Stanford Hall Rector
Stephan Johnson is no longer the rector of Stanford Hall. Bill Daley (https://law.nd.edu/directory/rev-william-dailey/) is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.254.249.73 (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think that got caught up with another edit but I will change it if you have not done so already. Donner60 (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

reverting too fast?
Just a note to say I completely appreciate your work reviewing anon changes and wonder if you can figure out how to reduce the rate of false positives. In this case, an anon correctly deleted Tamil from a list in Indo-European languages (Tamil is Dravidian, not IE), but you reverted this saying "unexplained deletion". Benwing (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I see you are an expert in linguistics and are active in editing. I don't see too many edits in the language area but I will leave any that I do see that are not clearly pure vandalism alone. I will trust that you or someone with more expertise will take care of them. I see so many vandalisms with respect to Tamil and India on a wide variety of topics, I suppose I assumed this was just one more. Usually I don't make assumptions because the vandalism is clear or I know the topic or I check some sources in the footnotes. Sometimes the sources are not online of course. I have reverted thousands of vandalisms over several months and made only a few mistakes, all of which were corrected promptly. I will be cutting back on recent changes patrol soon and will return almost exclusively to creating content. If several members think I should stop this activity now, I certainly will. I started it out of curiosity on another aspect of wikipedia and found there was quite a lot of vandalism. I think over time I may make a better contribution with content creation and editing. I do take your point if you mean that I should always check on the basis or sources of deletions that could be credible. As I noted, I usually do, but occasionally one can think something appears suspect but on closer look, it is valid. Donner60 (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not at all suggesting you stop doing this. This kind of patrolling against vandalism is extremely important in Wikipedia and I really appreciate people like you who put in the time doing a never-ending task. In this case, there was indeed Tamil-related vandalism but the anon was actually correcting vandalism done by another anon, who incorrect stuck in the reference to Tamil in the first place. I guess in deletions like this you could potentially check the previous edits to see whether it's vandalism or an attempt to revert vandalism. But I understand there will always be mistakes. (Ideally there would be an "annotate" function automatically showing the source of particular text, as already implemented in revision-control systems like Git ... Maybe one day.) Benwing (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That would be helpful. I have seen some control on certain chemical formulas. I wish verified versions were available on all chemical formulas and mathematical equations. I see changes to equations in math or science articles that clearly have been written some time ago and ought to be reasonably settled. I believe these changes are quite possibly invalid. I don't touch those, however, because I have no knowledge in the area and I can not be sure there was not a typo or other mistake in the existing article. Such changes often do look suspicious. It would be a shame if the work of those who contributed such high level math and science knowledge is being easily vandalized because most reviewers may be baffled by the changes. Thanks for your comments; sorry if I was a little petulant as we get into the late night hours. Donner60 (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and thanks again for the recent-changes patrolling. Benwing (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

"Vandalism"
Yeah, I guess that applying the knowledge I received in medical school to an article on estrogen was inappropriate. My bad. Glad you reverted that sentence to the nonsensical original version which claims that the effects of estrogen in human psychosexual development do not apply to humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.231.86 (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * My mistake. Of course, since you don't have a user page or any identification in the summary or otherwise, for all I knew, you could be a 10-year old. I am amending my initial comment, however, because your misspelling of rodents may have thrown me off. A new user throwing in a misspelled word often is vandalism. There are dozens if not hundreds of vandalisms every hour and only a few people watching them at any given time - although Clue Bot picks up quite a lot of it at all times. I also suggest you use the edit summary. A brief comment might have brought a closer look and I would have easily seen your point. I removed the vandalism warning because obviously your edit was intended to correct a prior mistake. Donner60 (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I corrected the article with your intended edit. Donner60 (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC) (Note: initial change to article was "rodnts.") Donner60 (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism reversion
(Added a section heading here because the following was a different topic and discussion from that above. Donner60 (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC))

Pardon my lack of knowledge on where to put this thanks, but under Vandalism seems as appropriate as anywhere. I wanted to thank you for deleting the vandalism to Andrews University and the Blue Angels. Those edits were made by my twelve year old son, who had added himself by name to both articles. I have spoken to him about what he has done and how the Wikipedia operates. He was not aware of the ramifications of his editing. My thanks to your diligence in catching those edits. He may have been influenced in part by the dismissive attitude one of his language arts teachers holds towards the Wikipedia. Danaleeling (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Also put on your talk page: Thanks for the kudos. I am sorry to hear about teachers with a dismissive attitude toward Wikipedia. It does have shortcomings but it is still a work in progress and its content is entirely the work of volunteers. In some subject areas, some articles are yet to be written. Others were "starter" articles that no one has gotten around to filling out. Some content is erroneous but it is really a small percentage. Vandalism, unfortunately, is a problem. Some of the errors and problems - quite a few from my experience - are due to vandalism. Articles were correct when written but errors have been inserted. The most obvious vandalism is caught almost immediately by ClueBot and individuals who check recent changes. Unfortunately, even several individuals working at one time cannot read every edit. The worst vandalism is that which sounds plausible. If no one who looks at it is knowledgeable in the subject and no suspicion is raised, it might be awhile before it is caught. It just so happened that I was watching recent changes of IP users at the time and I tend to omit the biography articles so I happened to see those. I would not be too hard on a 12-year old who did not understand the seriousness of changing information that others would like to rely on. I think many of the errors come from those who are several years older, who really ought to know better. I hope you will contribute to wikipedia and that your son will decide to do so as well. If not now, in a few years he may have some areas of interest in which articles need to be written or revised. Donner60 (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Tucson artifacts
Thanks for your work there. I don't think Cyclone Covey's self-published book should be there, what do you think? You might want to look at Bat Creek inscription (and see the talk page) and Los Lunas Decalogue Stone as well. Thanks Dougweller (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind about Covey, but if you read FTN, see my latest post there on DNA Consultants if fringe stuff interests you. Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Lengthy comment left on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Edits to Selma
I fail to see how the edits to the page for Selma are erroneous and unhelpful. If you look around the page a little, you'll notice the Turkish and Arab people listed with the name Selma, and in this case it is an alternateive of Salma. I even linked the page Salma so that when one of you editors saw the change, you could also check the Salma page. I decided to take some time and edit the page to correct the error of the origin of the name, but thanks for continuing to be a lazy bigot and reverting any changes containing new and correct information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.51.11 (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * So Salma, Arabic, meaning peace or safety, is the same as Selma, German, meaning Aesir and helmet or protected by the gods. Sorry, I don't see it - and I think your less than civil approach shows some bias of your own. I would say that a hatnote referring to Salma, or a note in the other uses referring a reader to Salma (such as for Salma see...) or some other disambiguation could well be appropriate. There is nothing in the meaning of the words, or all of the examples given on both of the pages, to point to an equivalence. Referring to the Salma page itself only points up the inconsistent meanings of the two words. If you have a reliable, verifiable source pointing to equivalence, fine. If not, I stand by my change (which you might note I did not characterize as vandalism), without standing against the lesser changes I have suggested. I'll put this on your talk page as well. Donner60 (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you don't see it because you don't even bother to read or check any reversions you make, even after you get a note on your talk page. One name, two different meanings from two different languages. Selma is an alternate spelling of another name. Are you able to comprehend that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.51.11 (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not going to get into trading insults with you. That is contrary to the way wikipedia users are supposed to approach differences. I suggested you approach it in a slightly different way but you don't seem to have comprehended that. Go ahead and make your change. I hope you do it carefully and thoughtfully. I'll leave it for another editor to deal with if they wish to do so. If not, it will stand. If someone does, it is a further, third opinion.. Donner60 (talk) 06:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Dougweller (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

new south
Could you explain to my why you flagged my edit to The New South article as vandalism? I'm not trying to be a pain but I actually don't understand since all I did was change the picture, so if you could just let me know that would be awesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.172.183 (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I made a mistake. I saw the change in the picture and the insertion of a name and initial and thought it had been tampered with. However, now that I click on the links, I see that the bottom line is the same. Sorry, I should have looked more closely and not made an assumption based on the change in the file name. I have undone my reversion so your edit is back as you intended. I also deleted the message on your talk page. Thanks for your courtesy and your contribution. Donner60 (talk) 07:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)