User talk:Donner60/Archive 20

Archive 20 starting with closed talk page threads after December 6, 2019 through November 19, 2020

Koch People
You asked me about Koch people. RameshSingh321 (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * This is not sufficient. Many people have licenses of some sort. That does not make them notable because this is not a reliable source of notability or public recognition. Again, there is no Wikipedia article about the person to establish notability. Mensa membership alone does not establish notability. Besides, one cannot access the web site to check it without having a password. See Notability, Verifiability, Reliable sources, Citing sources an Help:Footnotes. Donner60 (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings; Happy New Year messages
I am amending this note because I have caught up. I changed to New Year messages only when I could not finish by December 26. I think I posted more this year than in the past few years, despite a small glitch or bothersome coincidence when I sent many out a few years ago. I took administrator names from my list of actions on my reports, mostly AIV, for this year which is on my user page. I took other names from my "thank" or "thanked by" lists. A few may have been just from my talk page but I omitted some one-off talk page items from users I did not otherwise recognize. I omitted a few names where I noticed the user had few or no edits recently and I did not recognize the name as someone I had run into much in the past. I added a few prolific users whom I have seen often making edits of the same type that I make. If we have corresponded or interacted in the recent past and I end up missing you, it was not intentional but a product of where I sourced names and perhaps the time period I used. The same can be said if I mistakenly omitted your name because I thought your recent edit history showed you were recently inactive or nearly so. In any case, I wish you in particular and all Wikipedians the best of the season and Happy New Year. Donner60 (talk) 06:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

ta
for the greetings



keep safe in the new year JarrahTree 14:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Donner60: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers,  Everedux  (talk)  18:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

You Reverted My Edit
You reverted my edit on the page for Resetti. And you left a message on my talk page about how I deleted the ClueBot warning. I did it because it was constructional. And I deleted the warning on my talk because the message said, "If you believe this edit was constructional, delete this" BLAH BLAH BLAH. Anyways, it told me to delete the warning and put back the edit afterwards if it was constructional. Please give me a reason and I will respect it. If you believe it was vandalism, then I won't bother you, and I won't put the edit back. Romanian Maniac II (talk) 03:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It was not a vandalism problem to begin with, just a manual of style issue. I have placed the following message on your talk page:


 * Since I did not place a warning as such on your talk page, you did not get another "warning" despite any implication suggested by the wording of my message. I now see that a better explanation was needed and my first sentence was unnecessary. So I am striking the first sentence above (in my original message on the page). In retrospect, I think as a new user you would not have seen the problem. I note that your edit was not vandalism; it just did not conform to the manual of style.


 * Simply put, your edit was an attempt to give additional information about the game but by using the words "you" and "your" instead of referring to a "player", it appeared you were giving directions or advice to the reader. Wikipedia is written in the third person and your edit should have been phrased in the third person, not the second person ("you", "yours") both to conform to the manual of style and to avoid the appearance of giving direction or advice.


 * I have restored your edit to the article but changed it so it now uses the third person. Please see the sentence as I have revised it.


 * Thank you for your polite and constructive comment from which I was able to clarify this. Please continue your constructive editing. I do advise that you read or at least stay aware of the Wikipedia (guideline and policy) pages that I have linked on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Not a joke
Hey. You posted on my talk page that I wrote a "joke edit" on the page of Collyridianism. I most certainly did not. The actual description in Epiphanius, which is the only source that mentions this sect, is as follows: they “decorate a barber’s chair or a square seat, spread cloth on it, set out bread and offer it in Mary’s name on a certain day of the year” (VII:1,6). The quote comes from pg. 52 of this paper. 69.157.44.136 (talk) 07:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I left the following message on your talk page:


 * I am striking the above message (my original message) because it was not a proper reason for reverting your edit.


 * However, your edit removed text from a cited source and added information that was already stated later in the paragraph. This does not appear to be a productive change so I will leave my edit as is.


 * I then added links to Wikipedia guideline, instruction and policy pages. Donner60 (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings
Happy Holidays text.png

Hello Donner60: From high in the Canadian Arctic I hope you enjoy the holiday season, the Winter or Summer solstice, Quviahugvik, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah or even the Saturnalia, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Adapted from Season's Greetings

Happy New Year!


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

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays text.png


Donner60, Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

– 2020 is a leap year   – news article. – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year '' Send New Year cheer by adding     to user talk pages.

–  North America1000 22:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


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

User talk:73.91.227.67
Donner, will you just please report these rightaway? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I shall do so. Some years ago I had a few reports turned down as "not enough warnings." Except for racist and similar edits, I have stuck with the four warning routine since then. Now that you mention it, I think we are, and should be, more sensitive to clear BLP vandalism in recent years. And this one was rather vile as well. Donner60 (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I know you as a sensible editor. You may know that I am not a fan of these steps, certainly not of the very first step, esp. not for disgusting stuff like that. Yes, I also have seen my share of "not enough warnings" stuff, but I think it's better to run that risk than to let some of these awful edits be added again and again. Thanks and take care, Drmies (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Donner60!


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

– Davey 2010 Talk 00:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Hey, thanks for your thoughts, hope your year is good too. -- Lofty  abyss  04:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year, Donner. De728631 (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Greetings and thanks
Hey, just wanted to say thanks for the greetings. I hereby return the good wishes and hope you have a healthy and fulfilling new year. ...GELongstreet (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Justus McKinstry
This fellow was long on my list of Aztec Society redlinks and I stopped by to tell you how impressed I am with the level of detail and sourcing on this subject. Nicely done. Much better work than I might have done. As strange as it seems, this totally unheralded figure makes a fascinating reading subject, causing someone somewhat knowledgeable like myself to rethink much of what I have read previously in reliable sources. The G.E. Rule-linked stuff is spectacular and compelling. Thanks for all you do here. I'm tickled to see this. BusterD (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for you comment. I am sorry to say that I missed it for a few days. For some reason, I thought the comment below was the only new one. McKinstry's story is a little more complicated than the blurbs that simply say he was cashiered for being a crook. My guess is that is why other users may have skipped by his story and not very interesting. He may not have been entirely honest but, according to at least one well researched view, he also may have been a scapegoat to a large extent. There is little doubt in my mind that all Civil War generals should have articles (maybe not all the honorary brevet generals). I think there may be a few obscure ones that still need articles but almost all of them now have articles.


 * I have seen your work around and you also do good work. I have probably done too much vandalism reverting and minor editing in recent years and keep resolving to do more writing and major editing. Sometime this year I think I will finally do so. Again, I really appreciate you taking the time to comment on the article. Donner60 (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding link to page
Dear Donner60,

A while back I added a link to the Gaston Chevrolet page allowing visitors to view my website: https://ChevroletBrothers.com Shortly thereafter you removed the link.

The website is educational in scope, and is devoted to the history of the 3 brothers. The site contains over 850 original photographs, 500+ trade journal reports & newspaper articles from the period, and over 300 pages of original signed documents. No products or services are offered for sale, and while the site carries the dot com designation, there is no commercial component to it what so ever.

In 2018 the site was recognized by the Society of Automotive Historians for excellence in presentation of automotive history. I believe the site offers a thorough insight into the of the history of Gaston Chevrolet, and his 2 famous brothers. With that being said, do you really find the link to be objectionable?

Your comments would be most appreciated, thank you

Mr. Frontenac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Frontenac (talk • contribs) 18:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree. I left a longer comment on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Many Thanks! I have added the link, and posted an explanation in the edit box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Frontenac (talk • contribs) 01:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Gavrilo Princip page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:203.147.93.62 You deleted my edit claiming there is no reference that Young Bosnia was multi-ethnic. DO I need to refer back to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Bosnia#Assassination_of_Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand_of_Austria In the very first sentence it claims multiethnicity. 203.147.93.62 (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure why this is being raised 7 months later. If a comment had been made here at the time, some clarification could have been timely made. Your comment presumes the reader will have read the Young Bosnia article, which may not be the case. I note that the Young Bosnia article's first sentence refers to each group with "Bosnian" as the descriptor. The meaning of this, to the reader who may not have figured this out from that, is spelled out with a source later in that article. It is not sourced in the lead, which it did not need to be, nor in the section linked here. The source is Dejan Djokic, who is not cited as a source in the Princip article. A citation to the Djokic book on this point would be more useful to the reader than presuming that the reader would check the Young Bosnia article, and its sources, to verify the point. No need for snark, by the way, when a comment and request for explanation would be enough. Donner60 (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Muhamad Ibn Hanafiyyah
hi yes you left me a message concerning muhamad ibn hanafiyyah.The pervious user had misinformed the reader of info concerning what son he was.Which makes a difference to shia muslims and historical references.I made additional edits as minor mistakes on mybehalf as far as spelling and I also forgot to add info.My intention of this edit was to show what both sides of the muslim sects view as his proper role.Thank you Ya Ali Ya HUsayn (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I left this message on your talk page. Thank you for your message. Because you intend to add back some content, I will strike through the above message. Please state the significance and place in history for both Shia and Sunni. It would be good to add a citation to a reliable, verifiable source for added content, especially if there is any chance this may be disputed. I also left links to helpful Wikipedia articles on guidelines, style, policies and editing advice and requirements. Donner60 (talk) 04:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

False Information
Hi, I’ve been trying to adjust Quentin Tarantino’s awards list and have been doing a pretty good job on it, but recently users have been putting some unsourced nominations on the list such as Pulp Fiction for Best Picture. He was not a producer on this movie therefore he was not nominated for that specific award. I keep having to delete the same thing over and over again. I’m not asking if you can block the users or protect the page or anything like that, I was just wondering if you could warn them not to do it if anyone tries to do it again. It would be much appreciated. Thank you.


 * Hi. I am not an administrator so I can only report vandals or disruptive editors. I can revert current edits and warn users for vandalism, failure to cite a reliable source, factual errors and failure to edit in line with policy and style guidelines, depending on the type of problem the edit presents. Since you have reverted the edits and there has been no further activity, I cannot warn a user for some past error or problem. Also, as a volunteer, as we all are, I am only online occasionally and can only look at such things on those occasions. Usually, I am looking at a recent changes feed. If the problems with this article persist persist, you can report them to either Administrator intervention against vandalism or Requests for page protection. Read the instructions on those pages carefully if you have not done this before so that you do not make a technical error. You can also ask a question about the situation at Teahouse. You can contact an administrator directly about the problem. One way to find an administrator who may be able to help or give advice is to look at the list of recently active administrators at this page: []. Good luck in your editing. Donner60 (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I added relevant information that was deleted on George Remus' page
I fixed glaring errors throughout the page and updated his recent notoriety, including books and a spirit named after him. I cited both, then had someone erase the citation (the website), then removed the website, then got a threat to be blocked for not citing. Remushistory (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)Remushistory
 * You spammed the article with promotional content about a new whiskey brand, cited to an article generated by a company press release. When I reverted you, you added the promotional content back, without a reference, and another editor reverted you. Your first edit shows that you understand the need for a reference. Your second one shows that you are willing to try to spam without a reference. Please stop your spamming. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Clive Fisk Harrison, Fiske Goodeve Fiske Harrison, Copford Hall, Brian Harrison
Hello, I amended information in August 18 about Clive Fisk-Harrison because it was incorrect. I removed only information that I knew was incorrect and left a note why this was so!

Fiske Goodeve Fisk Harrison died without legitimate issue, his marriage (to Jane Sparrow)was annulled on the grounds of impotency [1,2] so all references to the current Fisk-Harrisons (or Brian Harrison or info on the hereditary path of Copford Hall) being descended from him are incorrect. His only surviving child was John Blakeney Maskell. JBM is buried at Copford I believe (from a more recent Harrison), he was educated courtesy of his father (I sent for the Will) but never acknowledged as heir, therefore Copford Hall passed to a cousin and so on. The current Harrisons and Fisk-Harrisons share descendency with Fisk goodeve FH but they are not descended from him. It's a different branch/branches of the family with a different source for the addition of Fiske/Fisk. Way back they inherited as cousins when a current lord of the manor died without heirs. Its fascinating history. It is always incorrect to assume that the same name means automatic descendancy - you have to do the research to be sure. I have done the research, sent for the records, etc, in this case and much of the information is available online at ancestry.co.uk.

I have no idea if this post will go to the right place - your page says put at bottom but there is no-where to insert a post/message or reply. So I hope so. Its not at all clear what to do. I'm sure you do a sterling job with everything else, just in this case I happened to know it was and still is incorrect! I may yet go through and amend this incorrect information in the others.

[1,2]

AncestryMatters (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)ancestrymatters

I have been offline since before you left this message because I have been unusually busy or tied up in "real life." This is the reason for my delayed response. I have changed the format of your references. Otherwise, they would leave this item and continue down the page when other items are added. I am aware that ancestry information can be erroneous as I have encountered this before. As long as you give your reasons and citations, the change is valid. That was the problem with the earlier edit; you cannot just rely on information you have not cited or explained in the edit summary and, if elaboration is needed, on the talk page. Since some time has passed, I assume that if you have not completely tidied this up with the citations, you will do so. Thanks for your message. Donner60 (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete sell from Satire news and web
OK? Not sure how this relates to edit unless you are saying you have made a mistake rather that intentional deletion of sourced content. Donner60 (talk) 07:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

March Madness 2020
G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Craig Challen
Re: Craig Challen. You removed my edits. I am Heather Jayne Endall, partner of Craig Challen. Craig requested me to update his page. The information on the new diving depth is relatively new so nothing to reference to as yet. Please reinstate my edits. Heather Jayne Endall (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC) Heather Jayne Endall


 * I have replied to this at length on the poster's user talk page. Donner60 (talk) 08:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Akbaruddin Owaisi
Why you think akbar uddin owaisi is divisive leader? Mohd Dastagir (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * That is not my opinion. It is a quote from some political opponents published in a verifiable source. You not only deleted content based on your personal opinion but you falsely changed the content to quote the opponents as saying favorable things about him which they did not say. See Verifiability. I could have reverted your edit on the basis of verifiability and introducing errors into Wikipedia in addition to the reason I checked. See also: What Wikipedia is not. Please do not make such changes and additions without basis again. Donner60 (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

revert edit
Luciferianism Mcuthbert21 (talk) 04:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, how are you doing buddy, I welcome help with orientation in regards to being a Wikipedian since I am new at this, you claimed to have reverted my contribution since it did not "appear to be constructive". Rules and regulations are one thing, that the content of something appears "not to be constructive" because one has no knowledge in such things is a completely different story brother. That is not helping Wikipedia, you can challenge me to find a source, not revert a contribution that has a very solid foundation in true biblical exegesis Mcuthbert21 (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Buddy: Reverting an edit which removes all the sources and footnotes, and references to other bible versions, is not improper. The end result of your rewrite may perhaps be a little better written text but is not an overall improvement because it appears to omit additional information and alternative explanations as well as several footnotes with sources. Without the sources for your version, it appears to delete text simply because you do not agree with it and to be original research, which can be removed.


 * The Wikipedia guidelines encourage distinguishing properly sourced points of view or information by, for example, adding sources that support a different point of view or explanation as the majority or correct explanation. See Verifiability. "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight."


 * The sourcing for three paragraphs has been removed along with some content and has not been kept for any content that has been kept and has not been added for revisions. The reader should be able look at the sources and decide what is relevant, supportable and persuasive. Again, see Verifiability, in general.


 * Before adding unneeded accusations about what one has knowledge of, or challenging the rules and polices cited in the linked polices, or about what one does to help Wikipedia, think about Civility, brother, and whether long-time volunteer reviewers may simply be editing according to Wikipedia guidelines. That is not to say that anyone is infallible or that exchange of information and reasoning cannot produce a better result within the guidelines and policies.


 * I will acknowledge that the template message may not have been the best for this situation and a little more explanation and links, or even a different template message, would have better helped show the reason for my revert and even given a little guidance. As a reviewer views a stream of changes from different articles, the need for more explanation than the template may not always be evident. A simple request for me to consider an explanation of why the change is better and what I may have missed, rather than a belligerent post, would have helped foster cooperation and more easily resulted in an agreeable result that does improve Wikipedia. I could have acknowledged your point while still suggesting that some information, and definitely some sources, needed to be added, with better overall attitudes and results. The final result can still be agreeable and a better text overall. I encourage you to review your addition and deletion and consider adding sources and restoring other information and citations. If you do not wish to do so, another editor may well revert your change if I don't. Donner60 (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Wayman Mitchell AfD
Feel free to vote at Articles_for_deletion/Wayman_Mitchell.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Sad
I am displeased Technoquacker (talk) 04:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I am surprised. Not that you are displeased, but that you have not been blocked by now. Your other edits seem to have sneaked by without notice so far. But the pattern is clear, isn't it? Donner60 (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You should probably bring this to attention at WP:ANI, WP:AIV, or even directly to an admin. I've noticed the disruptive edits as well. Very sus considering it's a new account.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 05:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I reported it to AIV at about the same time User:Bongwarrior blocked the account indefinitely. Another editor reported the user as a possible sock puppet and a notice to that effect is now on the user page. Donner60 (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
Sorry for incomplete article change and lack of cite source. Despite to intent of completing content change, I ignored my intent of doing that and get out to do other things. I'll observe the compliance of completing content change and I would follow that policy as I should abide by. 211.237.125.110 (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi!
I didn't cite the[|Ayer Tawar] wiki page as I am from there and was writing from my own personal experience.Iamgid (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Your warning
I didn’t remove anything. I was undoing a vandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troysprose (talk • contribs) 04:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Got it. I noticed my mistake immediately and struck my message on your talk page as fast as I could. We edited simultaneously or nearly so. I intended to revert the same edit that you did. Sorry for the mistake; though infrequent, near simultaneous edits resulting in a mistake can happen. Donner60 (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Edits to Providence Health and Services
I would greatly appreciate it if you would re-instate the changes I made. The page as it is written is filled with accusations, not facts and includes numerous errors as to the names and numbers of the hospitals we serve. Every single change I made can be verified at www.providence.org. I'm new to this so citations is not my strong suit (although I appreciate the value of them!) but you shouldn't allow complete falsehoods and errors to remain on the page. Donovan Itsjustdonovan (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It is up to you to provide citations. There is no way a reviewer can know whether your changes are valid or a reader can verify them. It is not up to volunteer reviewers to do research for users who add or subtract material, especial text with citations. Will respond further on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Reference in Hell (DC Comics)
The aforementioned Reference you removed is also at Neron (DC Comics). I got it from there.

Constantine the Hellblazer #8-13 is what's being referred to here. It's Neron's first major appearance since Reign in Hell (where he was killed by Satanus). The Reference is correct as I stated it (I read the trade paperback Constantine the Hellblazer Volume 2: The Art of the Deal and know that it's right).2600:1700:7E31:5710:90FF:F4CD:310F:3FA1 (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Apparently a mistake on my part. I struck my original message on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Userboxes
Hi! Do you know where I could find the userboxes about trying to do the right thing and not being an administrator? I almost simply copied them off your page but I thought I should ask first. I'm still figuring out userboxes. Thanks!Schickdavid3 (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I put the information on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Great information. Thank you!Schickdavid3 (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Transracialism
You were unclear about which edit failed to include a citation. I made several edits and included citations for most. Please provide additional details. I am also curious as to the reasoning behind your decision to remove my edits while allowing more vague references by the previous contributor to remain.


 * Just answered on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Unexplained revert
Please don't make unexplained reverts, as you did here. Thank you. 2601:243:2200:60E:E08F:50A0:9A84:2F4E (talk) 04:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, your edits were obvious violations of neutral point of view, removal of sourced content and unsupported. Donner60 (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I disagree and would appreciate a more detailed explanation from you. Each edit was supported by an edit summary which you should feel free to prove erroneous. 2601:243:2200:60E:E08F:50A0:9A84:2F4E (talk) 04:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I must acknowledge that my edit restored an error, though I believe my explanation in general for several edits was correct. However, I will not edit the article further. I will be signing off soon and probably mostly offline in coming days. You can take it up with other users or editors if they disagree with your edits. Donner60 (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We can continue to disagree. Thank you for your responses. 2601:243:2200:60E:E08F:50A0:9A84:2F4E (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! 10 years; time flies! Donner60 (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society
Dear ,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. &#x200B;

Best regards, Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I am glad to enter such esteemed company. I hope my articles and edits have made a worthwhile contribution. Donner60 (talk) 03:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Gerda. I always appreciate hearing from you. Donner60 (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Morgan Lafey
Please change the language I inputted back. I did NOT need sources because it was the LANGUAGE I changed to be less sexist. I did not change ANY facts. Just the language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.33.193.52 (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * In fact, you changed the meaning to generalize the character when there is no basis shown for that generalization. The existing language refers simply to the character which happens to be a female witch. If you have a basis for showing the author meant this more generally, you should cite it. Otherwise you should leave the more specific and so far as it reads and appears more accurate language. See Five Pillars and the links. Donner60 (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

US names
In this edit, you removed the country "U.S." and used WP:USPLACE. That guideline is primarily about article titles. I see nothing there that says do not include the country in infoboxes. MB 02:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. I think there is no harm in removing the U.S. addition since the same rationale would seem to apply and the link is adequate identification of the place - in my opinion (and perhaps in the opinion of those who added the guideline even if narrower). I undid or simply edited this rather than making a revert. If you think it is worth changing back, feel free. I will take your comment to heart and not use that guideline in the future and probably not even bother to make such changes. Donner60 (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 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 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Korean Englishman
Hello,

The edit on the Korean Englishman page was deleted because of the lack of source. I did not mention the source because it was coming from their main YouTube channel. The direct link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gQzvV_yGMM

There are plenty of other sources like this one: https://www.allkpop.com/article/2020/10/josh-of-the-popular-youtube-channel-korean-englishman-feels-responsible-for-his-wife-gabiekooks-actions-and-states-he-will-stop-his-activities

Regards 125.237.38.145 (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I struck my original message to you because you were in good faith. Please insert a source into the article. I left links to some helpful Wikipedia info and guideline pages on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

2020 California Proposition 22
Hi Donner60, I think you made a mistake in reverting my edit. I edited 2020 California Proposition 22 without adding a source because there are already sources cited in the article documenting the statement I made. The statement is: "The companies have also forced their workers to support and promote the legislation: Uber sends its drivers in-app messages forcing them to click on either "Yes on Prop 22" or "OK", Instacart ordered its workers to place pro-Prop 22 stickers in customers' shopping bags, and DoorDash forces delivery drivers to use bags saying "Yes on 22". ". Someone else edited this to say that the companies "encouraged" workers to support and promote the legislation. But the sources already cited in the article document that the workers were not "encouraged" to support and promote the legislation, but forced to do so. So I believe that the original wording was accurate. Could you please revert your change? Thanks.2604:2000:2B82:B700:B960:4BDF:FB0A:6AAF (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I rolled back my edit and struck the message on your talk page. Thanks for the explanation. Donner60 (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Added no wiki to keep footnotes in this section. Donner60 (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Alvin Cole
"You removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Donner60 "(talk) 01:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I am a heavy contributor to Wkipedia and have been here a lot longer than you have. The article was written by BLM. Stop editing my corrections before I am finished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs Shafransky (talk • contribs) 01:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Right. You have 10 edits and have been editing since yesterday. I suggest you finish and justify edits and not make them piecemeal - if in fact that is what you are doing. I also suggest you see Civility before you leave further messages that stray even further. Otherwise, giving some actual sourced information or backup instead of simply making unsupported assertions would be preferable.


 * Since your edit is simply untrue, I would simply delete this as vandalism but I will leave it for a brief time due to the fact that I have added a reply. Donner60 (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

It is not untrue and I have been trying to edit for three hours.

My edits are completely true. The original article was written by BLM supporters. And apparently has been hatcheted by BLM supporters.

Instead of being uncivil, WHY DON'T YOU HELP ME? This is disgraceful after all the money I have contributed to Wikipedia.

If you bothered to check them out, my revisions are accurate. I wanted to add information about how no one realized Officer Mensah is black. They assumed the officer was white. There was no racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs Shafransky (talk • contribs) 03:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I added this to your talk page: "I am striking the above message because I accept your second explanation as in good faith and will note that on my talk page. I am sorry this has produced a misunderstanding. Please be aware that editing piecemeal without explanations in the edit summary or a note in the edit summary to look at a more complete explanation on the talk page can lead a reviewer to think that your partial edit is all that you intend to make and it does not comply with guidelines. I have not further edited the article after your first message." I also added helpful links to Wikipedia guideline, policy and help pages. Donner60 (talk) 03:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

NFAC
If a user posts a claim, they have to provide support for that claim specifically the inclusion of "Black Nationalism" in the description of this group. Also actual proof of a connection to Black Jerusalem as opposed to a article that has nothing but innuendo and no specific sources. These statements would be no better than hearsay or gossip. "In one sense it (NFAC) echoes the Black Panthers but they are more heavily armed and more disciplined... So far, they've coordinated with police and avoided engaging with violence," he said... And while Mockaitis said NFAC has made some questionable comments, including challenging White armed groups during a Georgia rally, he does not believe the NFAC has an overtly racist ideology." Source: https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/25/us/nfac-black-armed-group/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightinkarma (talk • contribs) 01:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * My reverts had to do with the substitution of "self-defense." Other edits made at the same time may have been carried with it. I suggest you make the changes separately with justification or explanation of them in the edit summary and by citation where needed. Donner60 (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

My deletion of "Black Nationalist" group and other heresay was that Whomever started the page didn't cite a single article proving such separatist intent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightinkarma (talk • contribs) 04:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Gender bender
I feel like you quickly did away with my findings instead of researching them first. Please come back to me with your research! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C0:C280:88F0:7C75:2923:8365:D544 (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You cited nothing in support of your edit. The subject is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. The entry was completely out of context. Donner60 (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * And this: From No original research: "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". From Verifiability: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an Citing sources to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" and "Articles must be based on reliable, third party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Donner60 (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Sally Bretton
https://www.hellomagazine.com/film/2020060591034/not-going-out-star-sally-bretton-husband-and-kids/

She's 43. She looks 43 to boot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.88.176 (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Imdb, though not necessarily free from editor or an approved source, shows a birth date in 1980. https://www.celebsages.com/sally-bretton/ says she's 40. https://biographypedia.org/sally-brettons-biography-husband-children-net-worth/ gives your date. Maybe you should just cite that if you think it is right. Donner60 (talk) 06:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

kamakshi amman temple
yes,i had changed a little bit. The story is an stone inspriction placed at the temple site,right behind the sanctum sanctoram,where the Lord resides. i am afraid,that our puranas and texts are inumerable to have all the sources uploaded already. still i can try posting a reference image from the text,giving us this information.

Shastha ,son of Kamakshi was breastfed in this temple. The diety is often called Apithakuchalamba,one who has not breast fed directly.but in Brahmanda purana,we have a reference text,which says that lord shastha is the only one son out of her three sons to have this privilege.

The stone inscription outside,further states that,the lord Shastha was filled with gold (pallava king) to rectify a draught. i have many more edits ,i shall try to post the photos of the text,where i am citing from. Indian scriptures are too voluminous for everything to be hosted in the web :) by adding on to the edits,i am just increasing the scope of knowledge and in-depth research for people surfing about the temple.kindly consider.


 * I struck my original message on your talk page because you are in good faith. However, you do need to provide a reliable, verifiable, third party source. If the scriptures or relevant excerpts are on the web, that can be cited. If not, you can cite to the pages from a print edition following the guidelines for full citations and footnotes in the links I put on your talk page. You can add images if they are free from copyright. This is discussed at Copyrights. I have left some further comments and links to helpful Wikipedia guideline pages on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

You popped up in a page while i was viewing one
It said "Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Maharlika Pilipinas Basketball League, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)"

I'm confused~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.32.105.90 (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I left some helpful links to Wikipedia guideline and policy pages on your user talk page. See especially Verifiability, Citing sources and Help:Footnotes. Donner60 (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Apocalypto
Respected Donner60,

I need to discuss about a user named 125.160.98.148 who is making Unsourced and unexplained edits on Apocalypto's Wikipedia page. This user claims that 20th Century Fox is an international distributor for Apocalypto. However, (according to the region I live in) this might not be true. Upon looking this user's IP address up, I found out that this user is from Indonesia (hinting that his edit is possibly true only in Indonesia). Whenever I revert his edits, he changes them back. Please do look into this matter so I can find out if his edits are true or vandalism

Thanking you, 110.44.102.123 17:34 (UTC), 6th November 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.44.102.89 (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * P. S. In case you are not available, please suggest another Wikipedia who can solve this problem.

110.44.102.144 17:30 (UTC), 6th November 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.44.102.89 (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I put an explanation and comments of what I found and did on your user talk page. I added thoughts about what you might possibly do to resolve the issue if it continues to be a problem. Donner60 (talk) 08:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

You can my language disruptive?
Chinese and Tamil are not official languages of Malaysia, only Malay is recognized in the constitution. Why did you put Chinese and Tamil names in every towns in Malaysia of which has nothing to do with them? Malay language whether it is written in Jawi or Latin are the only language recognized in the constitution of Malaysia. It looks like you didn't know anything about Malaysia, I advise you to not interfere! I am doing what it needs to be done!

Imagine if UAE towns and cities put Tamil or Hindi or Tagalog transliteration despite having no history whatsoever over the naming of those places? Why didn't you block those who put Chinese in Malaysian cities? Why am I who's only doing what is constitutionally right is disruptive and wrong and vandalism? YOU TELL ME!


 * See Civility and No personal attacks. So you think it is proper to come on to my talk page and threaten me. Wikipedia does not need users like you if that is the way you are going to behave. Sources indicate that various ethnic groups use various languages. Why are you trying to hide that? Where did this information come from that only now it needs to be changed? It is information about what the people actually speak. Certainly the official language or languages can be shown as such and no language that is not official should be shown as official. What various groups actually speak is a separate matter. Offer a reason based on the Wikipedia Manual of Style or other Wikipedia guidelines. I had actually stopped reverting those changes and from this point, I will leave it to others to deal with. My stopping the changes has been to show that intent and perhaps suggest you might be able to justify your actions on a more appropriate Wikipedia basis. Try not to bully and attack other editors. You will find people more congenial and co-operative that way. Donner60 (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Zip-line edit
Hi, I'm Gizz101. I will include a summary when I next edit. The reason was that the content was only relevant to American safety laws and was therefore too broad for the topic this edit to Zip line Thank you. Donner60 (talk)


 * Thanks for the explanation. I struck my original message on your talk page and added some helpful links to Wikipedia guideline and instructional pages. Donner60 (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

How is calling text as "myth" a neutral point of view?
Hello, I'm Donner60. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Mahabali seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 04:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear Blessed Donner 60, Namaste! Are you saying that calling the ancient history or sacred text as "mythology" is neutral point of view? To most of us who read the sacred texts and understand our history, it seems very biased that "others" judge our texts as "myth". What proof do they have? A lie cannot become the truth just because 1000 people say it.

What I wrote is NOT my personal point of view. The word "itihaasa" in Samskrtam language means "It thus happened". So, if something is an ancient history, it is incorrect to call it a "myth". Was this page written by experts on the subject? A lot of the story was also incorrect. I just corrected just one point in that.

Please, a humble request from us is "Stop calling our sacred texts as "myths". We cannot call Lord Jesus as myth. He really existed 2000 years ago. Kings like "Prahlada" and Mahabali" lived 6000 years ago. How is that a myth?

Thanks for allowing me to write my point of view. Infinite Love, Shanthi Shanthi Yogini (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Answering on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 07:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Why what wrong have I written
Why what wrong have I written Urdureporterchina (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't see that you have "written" anything. You have deleted sourced content, which I have checked, which reports that Pakistan has added Diwali as a holiday. You don't give any reason for the deletion and you do not cite in the edit summary or with a note in the summary about a longer explanation by you on the article talk page that an reliable, verifiable, neutral, third party source showing this has been repealed, which you also identify, exists. Donner60 (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Didn't Leave a citation
sorry, didn't know i needed one, does it count if im the citation, like an eye witness account? Dan Landersoni


 * The short answer is you do for that type of edit (and I am guessing which one because you did not identify it under this user name or the ip address initially) and no an unsourced, unverified and unverifiable account is not a proper reference for reasons I explain on your talk page with quotations from Wikipedia guideline and policy pages. Donner60 (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The change of signature to a name led me to place the reply on what turned out to be an article page under that name, not a talk page. I have asked that it be deleted as a mistake. I will reply again on the IP address. Donner60 (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not aware of the particular edit on "Taino" that I made of which you took down, sorry.
Hello, Donner60. I am not questioning your authority at all, I would just like to know which piece of information you took down so I can republish it with a citation. I don't want to create any unneeded conflict so I want to just make things right. Thank you for pointing my flaw out to me, I assure you that I will make the change, for know that I should and even if if I did not make the change you would simply just take it down again and I would have just complicated things. So, you need not worry about foul intentions. Farewell and take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.113.208 (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * All of this is obvious from the links in the messages about the edits on your talk page. Your additions were rather limited and none were sourced. I will add a comment on your talk page. Private communications are both unnecessary and contrary to Wikipedia guidance about editing matters, and these are routine, being on talk pages. Donner60 (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for sending the information. I will be sure to add the information with the cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.113.208 (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Long time no chat!
Donner60! I hope you're doing well. It's been a long time since we've said hello. :-) Just wanted to leave you a message to let you know that I was thinking about you... Stay safe and be well. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Good to hear from you. I haven't had as many edits as usual this year so I haven't shown up in as many places. I have written 13 articles: Classes 5 Bs, 4Cs, 1 start and 4 "unknown," which has taken time for only a few edits apiece, of course. I have researched at least 20 other topics, almost all biographies of American Civil War and Virginia House of Burgesses historical persons. If I could get moving on them, I would have a significant number of articles for this year (I guess). On at least some of them, I have not found a few key facts or citations that I think probably exist. One has to be careful attributing facts to some early Virginia colonists because there are some of these historical persons with the same common English name. Otherwise, I have either been distracted by real life or have not been energized enough to continue right away. I have also deferred further work on them temporarily as I thought I should get a few more edits in recent weeks so it would not appear that I was fading away. (Editcountitis?) My wife and I have been generally well. I have had some aggravating time sinks this year despite not getting out much due to the virus. I hope you will stay safe and well also. Donner60 (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Donner60 - It sounds like you're still active here regardless of the amount of "edits" you make. :-) That's awesome, and I hope that you get to make time to go through with your plans and continue contributing here. I've been busy as well. I'm still quite active here, though not nearly as active as last year when I had much more time on my hands to spend contributing. I guess that's what happens when you land a full-time job in a busy career. ;-) I'm glad you're staying safe during these ridiculous times. I would have ever imagined one year ago that I'd have to wear a mask and stay far clear of other people just to go to the store and pick up milk, but here we are... At the same time, I'm not surprised either. We've had nasty plagues and diseases in the past that were much more deadlier than this (think Black Death), and we made it through. I just hope that, if anything, we learn from this as a global society and we implement better safeguards and policies in the future should a breakout like this start to be detected. I hope you stay safe and I hope you stay healthy. Keep in touch, have a great weekend, and be well. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Montpelier Vermont
I had sent citation links and page numbers / even Wikipedia of Timothy Bigelow is correct. Can you please confirm the citations were received and update the page with the correct information? Thank You Mbigelow (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I am striking the original message on your talk page. I have noted the sources that you cite there. Obviously there is support for the change and your edit was in good faith. I will look at the sources to the extent I can access them and will promptly make the change (if you have not made it already) or suggest that you make the change with the added citations. Thanks for the additional information and explanation. Donner60 (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I added to your talk page: I have verified the existence of the sources but not all the specific details. Please add the change with full citations to the sources. You can use the style in the Wikipedia links Referencing for beginners, Citing sources or Chicago Manual of Style (author: last name first, title in italics, place of publication, publisher, year; OCLC or ISBN number; also if an internet citation: the http and date retrieved (date inserted into article). See also Help:Footnotes. Thank you for your patience. Donner60 (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Help
Hey, could you help me review and publish a page? Faits1789 (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

RE: Help
Could you help me with an article? Faits1789 (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I put the following and a list of links to other helpful Wikipedia guideline and policy pages on your talk page. It is better to seek help on article creation from those who are experienced in helping. The Article for Creation process which you used is the best way to do that. You can also ask for help at the Teahouse. Certain Wikiprojects may also have members who will help with articles or with questions on their subjects of expertise. Here is a link to a page where you can begin to narrow down the projects to the area you are interested in. WikiProject Council/Directory. See also Wikiprojects and Help:Contents. Donner60 (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome

 * ) DMacks (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

A Disney Halloween
Hi! I just wanted to let you know that I strongly believe this came out in 1983 and not 1981 (two major factors to these reasons being that the brief footage of the live-action Jack-o'-lantern puppet after Night on Bald Mountain from Fantasia (1940) but before "The Wizards Duel" scene from The Sword in the Stone (1963) is taken from Disney's Halloween Treat (1982) and that the copyright after the end credits reads "© 1983 Walt Disney Productions All Rights Reserved"). At the 1:27:34 minute mark: https://archive.org/details/adisneyhalloween1983 2605:E000:121D:8BF5:952B:19B:E329:75E3 (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Sources show the episode aired 24 October 1981. Your recollection or belief is not a verifiable, reliable, third party, neutral source.


 * The following quote from a Wikipedia policy page, No original research, 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."


 * From No original research: "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". From Verifiability: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an Citing sources to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" and "Articles must be based on reliable, third party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."


 * From Verifiability: "Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an Citing sources. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). See Citing sources for details of how to do this.


 * Helpful information about editing Wikipedia can be found on various Wikipedia guideline and policy pages which I left on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Revolver edit
Hello, I would like to talk about my edits for the Red Dead Revolver page. It's very heavily implied that the game takes place in 1880, such as the 1870's era clothing and the fact that all of the guns used in the game are pre-1878. The games' spiritual successor/indirect sequel, Red Dead Redemption, mentions that the events of Revolver took place approximately 30 years from 1911/1914 (when Redemption takes place). One character in the game, Sheriff Bartlett, mentions that the death of Red Harlow's parents was twelve years before the events of the main game. This would place the date of his parents death to be circa 1868. Now I'm not too aware of what Manuel of Style is. Does it mean that the writing style wasn't consistent with the rest of the article? If so, how do you suggest that I make it more consistent? 98.19.30.48 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I should have been specific, as I was on your talk page. I struck my original message because of your explanation and for reasons you mention here and I further comment on. I have left some helpful links on your talk page. I made the minor corrections for which I left the original message.

Thrace
I have quotated the source should be fine now,not trying to vandalyse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasing-shadows-origin (talk • contribs) 04:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yet, it is still inaccurate to change these long referenced Greek gods and legends to Thracian origin. Thrace was part of Greece in ancient time and part of it still is. Donner60 (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Are they any reliable sources to confirm what you stated ? Why did you remove the two different Orphism teachings do you work on percentage or something ? I have quoted where the source of that information is. Why dont you let the people judge for themself ? what is your problem with that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasing-shadows-origin (talk • contribs) 13:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

"Greece is an new state created back in 1830s, such country and nation didn’t exist 2000 years, not sure how Thrace is considered part of greece." how does that sound to you ... how can you claim thrace was part of greece when greece did not even exist you are a funny man... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasing-shadows-origin (talk • contribs) 13:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Greek city-states; Greek culture; Greek language, Greece under the Macedonians and perhaps more importantly, throughout literature and writings referred to as Greek. So you are a Thracian or have a bias toward changing these gods and terms from the long-established "Greek" to Thracian, I get it. Some of this "Greek" culture may have come from Thracia. Your reference to 1830 is disingenuous since all things Greek did not begin in 1830, just the modern Greek state after centuries of outside rule. I find it hard to believe that you are taking the position that there was nothing that should be referred to as "Greek" before 1830.


 * People are not supposed to judge for themselves unless there are two good positions and both are presented. The minority position, which yours surely is if it has any credibility, must be shown as such and not given under weight.


 * See No original research, Neutral point of view. The prohibition against original research limits the extent to which editors may present their own points of view in articles. By reinforcing the importance of including verifiable research produced by others, this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view. Also from the first link: "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."


 * I will leave this to others who are likely more expert and more interested in the topic so that third opinions can be taken into account. We will see if anyone else cares about this. Donner60 (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Cortinarius caperatus common name issue
Hi Donner60, thanks for inviting me to cite this. I am not saavy with Wikipedia editing, so please forgive the mistakes I will inevitably make, and I thank you in advance for your help on this issue. There are many resources which verify the racially problematic nature of the term 'gypsy', but here is a website for example: https://now.org/blog/the-g-word-isnt-for-you-how-gypsy-erases-romani-women/

Please let me know what type of resource you think it would be best to cite for this correction, if this one is insufficient. Thank you!

best, 198.29.35.161 (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Anna


 * You cannot erase a common and long-used term and change it for one that does not fit as well. See: What Wikipedia is not. I have a relative of Romani descent so I am not in favor of slurring Romanis. This is one of those situations where, under Wikipedia guidelines, we cannot simply sanitize a fact because we think it is offensive. Donner60 (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Changes to Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan
Hi Donner60. Which incorrect information are you referring to regarding the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan article? As far as I recall I only made a change to the President part, and the updated version seems to be the exact same, just with a title. Please let me know, Targeryen — Preceding undated comment added 00:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I added this: ''The web site that I checked appeared official but did not show the change in president. Also, there is no article about the change (as again edited by another user) so a reliable, verifiable source should be provided to verify the change" and some helpful Wikipedia policy and guideline page links to your talk page.

Edit to: Secret societies at the University of Virginia
Hi Donner60,

Apologies for my lack of understanding on how to edit the Wikipedia page. I wanted to delete the section on the "Vega Society" on Secret societies at the University of Virginia because it is not an actual secret society and should not be recognized as such. It is literally one person who wrote a letter to administration and is calling himself a secret society. I did not intend for my edits to be humorous and I should have provided more of an explanation when I submitted my edit, but I was not familiar with this process since I have never edited a page before. Can you help me with this?

04:15, 25 November 2020 diff hist -1,938‎  Secret societies at the University of Virginia ‎ Vega is not a real secret society. Tags: section blanking Reverted

2603:6081:1905:A297:C87:1E37:213A:9118 (talk) 04:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I am striking my original message on your talk page due to your explanation which appears to show that two consecutive edits were a good faith attempt to remove or clarify an apparently invalid addition to the article. I have removed the section since the recently formed anonymous group (if it is a group) does not appear to be the type of society described in the article. I base this on my reading of the cited source. However, I will not edit the article further if there are competing claims by persons who appear to be more knowledgeable about what is considered a secret society at the university. I have added some links to helpful Wikipedia guideline and policy pages to the new message. Donner60 (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Donner60! I appreciate your diligence in verifying this edit. 2603:6081:1905:A297:C87:1E37:213A:9118 (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding my edit to "Otokonoko"
Hello. I am new to editing wikipedia, but I noticed you had thanked me for my edit to the page Otokonoko. The edit was undoing the removal of a section of the article by another user. The section of the article did get removed again. Because I am new to editing wikipedia, I thought asking a more experienced editor for advice before going forward would be a good idea. I do want to avoid an edit war. I get that the section regards an opinion, and Wikipedia does not have to publish opinions. However the removed section of the article does not claim that the opinion is correct or attempt to push it. Instead it simply claims that there are people who hold this opinion, which is a factually correct statement. Thank you in advance for any advice you can give, Randomstuff84 (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You are correct but as I explain at greater length on you talk page, I would let it go. This is mainly because the point is now only made indirectly in the text but it is made in the citation that remains. It is probably made in more general articles as well. This is something of a gray area because arguments could be made about relevance to the article and overemphasis of an opinion, even though sourced. I would not get into a dispute (edit war) over it and suggest, as a new user, that you do not do so either. Donner60 (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Needing a citation for Pedee tribe language
Yeah, hi. My citation is that I'm a member of this tribe. This is the language that we speak. You can refer to our Chief Peter Parr. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.107.215 (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * A person adding content to an article based on personal knowledge or experience is are not a reliable source. The editors and readers do not know who that person is and whether they are telling the truth. Wikipedia cannot take user's word for types of edits which could be joke edits, vandalism, invasions of privacy or simply mistakes. They must have citations. Wikipedia guideline pages also point this out.


 * From No original research: "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". From Verifiability: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an Citing sources to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" and "Articles must be based on reliable, third party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."


 * Helpful information about editing Wikipedia can be found on various Wikipedia guideline and policy pages including: Help:Getting started; Introduction; Simplified ruleset; Simplified Manual of Style; Referencing for beginners; Identifying reliable sources; Citing sources; Help:Footnotes; Verifiability; No original research; Neutral point of view; Notability; Biographies of living persons; What Wikipedia is not; Manual of Style/Words to watch; Help:Introduction to talk pages; Copyright Problems and Help:Contents. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

"British" is a nationality, but when describing British people on Wikipedia, their ledes usually put whatever country in the UK they come from.
Hi! I noticed you cited in your Lily Collins edit that "British" isn't a nationality ("British is not a nationality; English is how her paternal origin is described elsewhere"). Well, British is a nationality and is used to describe people from the United Kingdom. There's a whole section for British nationality law. Though, most, if not all notable British people in their Wikipedia ledes usually get described as being "English", "Welsh", "Scottish" or "Northern Irish" or whatever place in the United Kingdom they come from.

Technically, describing Lily Collins as "English-American" is right, at least in regards to the consistency with other articles, but I just wanted to point out your reasoning. I'm sorry if I'm getting worked up over a very petty detail. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I think I have seen the "British" description changed so many times that it may have seemed the obviously correct reason for doing so - or I was just too hasty. I don't recall often, if ever, making the change in earlier reviewing. In any event, I don't think that being precise is being petty and I am glad to have the proper information. I will look for a guideline on this. There should be a better way to explain this frequent change or original description. If not, maybe it would be better to leave it for someone else to review. Donner60 (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Removed my Bwiti edits, claiming lack of sourcing.
Hello- you removed my Bwiti page edits claiming that there was a lack of source. I am the source of my information as I have experienced these things first hand. As I stated in the edit summary, I have lived with the Bwiti people and I am very familiar with the customs. I have been involved with the Bwiti for years. Many of what is written in articles or in books is incorrect and I was intending on cleaning up the links in this page as well. Only links with true and accurate information should be listed, not just any link that talks about Bwiti. I have discovered many people talk about Bwiti but very few actually have been to the village and spent time with the ancient tradition, as I have. Bwiti is an oral tradition, Bwiti people do not write books on the subject so it is up to us to correct these things. I would love to help clean this article up. Without my edits, there is so much false information here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.87.48 (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello I created an account so that you can know that I am sincere. Please feel free to reach out to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alligatorpatrol (talk • contribs) 19:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I previously left the following message on your IP user talk page. I think it is clear that Wikipedia guidelines do not allow original research.


 * From No original research: "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". From Verifiability: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an Citing sources to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" and "Articles must be based on reliable, third party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."


 * From Verifiability: "Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an Citing sources. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). See Citing sources for details of how to do this."


 * Helpful information about editing Wikipedia can be found on various Wikipedia guideline and policy pages including: Help:Getting started; Introduction; Simplified ruleset; Simplified Manual of Style; Referencing for beginners; Identifying reliable sources; Citing sources; Help:Footnotes; Verifiability; No original research; Neutral point of view; Notability; Biographies of living persons; What Wikipedia is not; Manual of Style/Words to watch; Help:Introduction to talk pages; Copyright Problems and Help:Contents. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Edits to the header of Robert Peary.
I only reused sentences from the existing article and moved them to the header section, which previously only included information about his accomplishments and successes, ignoring the issues he created for native populations. Is it appropriate to ignore the bad things a person did in their summary? Tack 03:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no need to repeat these things at length in the introduction. It can only be so long. Moreover, some of what was written in the introduction is written in speculative language and would require a source. See Neutral point of view, Manual of Style, Verifiability Donner60 (talk) 04:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Why is it appropriate to repeat only his successes and accomplishments in the introduction then? Shouldn't the harm he caused be given similar weight? Tack 04:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * No. Not considering the magnitude of the incident and the fact that some of the language in the text is based on speculation and the likelihood that Peary had no intent to harm the six individuals. See Neutral point of view. Donner60 (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement
New Message regarding Battle of Mutah edis i made. The results should be written as contested as there are sources that say the muslims won while others say the christians won  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.41.26.86 (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Then both should be included with citations to the various sources. See Verifiability, Neutral point of view, Referencing for beginners, Citing sources and Help:Footnotes. Donner60 (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC - scope and title for the American Revolutionary War article
I am forwarding this RfC notice to you, along with the ongoing Discussion Summary Chart because you are listed as a Military Project member interested in the American Revolutionary War. The RfC and discussion is found at Talk:American Revolutionary War. Please feel free to delete this notice if it does not fit your current interests. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

American Revolutionary War, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for value. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The use of the name Riverdale, South Riverdale instead of Kingsbridge in the Bronx
Hi there brother, I work at the Columbia Doctors on West 231 Street & Corlear Avenue @ 3050 Corlear Avenue, and everytime we have to answer the phones, or use the internet, we were told, and should use the name Riverdale, or South Riverdale Bronx as our address at all times. We were told NEVER to use the name Kingsbridge, since Kingsbridge is mainly used around the Kingsbridge Road geographically named area, and confuse the people trying to find our clinics. If you use the name Kingsbridge, and are caught, you're job may be on the line as well. Anyway, it seems to work fine this way, and so it goes. Have a Happy Holiday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:610B:4600:F92E:9CAC:4164:C5A2 (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Perhaps your right, but your edit is not verifiable:


 * The following quote from a Wikipedia policy page, No original research, 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."


 * From No original research: "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". From Verifiability: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an Citing sources to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" and "Articles must be based on reliable, third party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Donner60 (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I am right, because I have been working there since 2015, and that's 5 years in a row now that the name Kingsbridge is NEVER used..... GET IT .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:610B:4600:F92E:9CAC:4164:C5A2 (talk) 08:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I guess I should not have struck my original message on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Anonymous user that Changed Tyrod's name
This guy has bad intentions. He changed Tyrann Mathieu's middle name and nickname although the nickname change seems to imply he meant to change Michael Badgley's nickname ChiefsLover17 (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. If the user continues to make such edits and is warned four times, the user can be reported to Administrator intervention against vandalism. Many administrators will require the 4 warnings and a 5th vandalism though in some cases, some of them will act earlier if it is clear the user only intends vandalism. I am not an administrator. So I can only revert edits and place warnings, then report the user if vandalism persists. I will be on the lookout when I am online. Thanks, again, and please report the user if you see vandalism persisting. Donner60 (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Fredricka Whitfield
The CNN biography of her says that she was born in Nairobi. DrJaysel (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You are correct. The source I looked at gave a different place but this should be more authoritative. Donner60 (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Autolysis
Hello, I have to edit a Wikipedia page as part of a school project. I accidentally saved an edit without explaining my changes, even though this page contains misleading and not-cited information. I attempted to resave a completed version today with explanations for changes, but I believe the previous reversion led another admin to immediately flag and revert my changes as vandalism. Put simply, the autolysis page is incomplete at best. I would like to make changes, especially ones that are made with cited information, however, I am not sure how to move forward if my changes will be falsely flagged as vandalism. Amg383 (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Answered on your talk page. You can also get guidance from Teahouse. Donner60 (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hillbilly Elegy
Hello. I noticed how many POV and non referenced edits that are being reverted. Personally, I'm not sure how to do it but should the page just be protected at this point as they are being done by anonymous editors? Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I can only offer my opinion based on my observations and experience since I am not an administrator. I think many administrators would say that there is not enough vandalism/disruptive editing over the last ten days, and the last few days in particular, to protect the article at this time. At current levels, it seems that the problem edits can be handled and stopped by a few timely reverts. I have not seen pages protected where there are only a few bad edits over the course of several days rather than several bad edits by more than one user over a short period of time. If the problem edits were to increase again, I would report it to Requests for page protection. Donner60 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input. I appreciate it. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 05:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

˜ ˜ ˜ ˜Integral Humanism ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜
Hi Donner 60! This is about the article edit mentioned above. I absolutely agree with removing biases and being as objective as possible, that was what I was trying to do. Let me explain to you the reasoning behind the edits I made - 1. "These values were based on an individual's undisputed subservience to nation as a corporate entity" are actually a changed version of the words of Richard fox, who is cited later when he criticizes the ideology. But corporate identity itself is never actually mentioned and I couldn't see anything like that so instead why not make it to - "individual to society"? And then also make it come under Richard Fox. 2. Now I read about Richard Fox, but I was surprised that I couldn't actually find him anywhere - and that's worrying as this compromises his actual relevance. The document which is cited cites "hansen 1998:225", which I tried hard to find but couldn't perhaps you could give me the link if you had it and we could cite that directly as well? 3. A much better idea, would be, to have a criticisms section, like a great deal of political ideology pages, and cite numerous criticisms, ranging from old intellectuals to modern opposition. 4. Also, in line 31, spiritual contentment is actually still a worthy edit acc to me, you should try seeing that again. That's about it!


 * I agree that moving the content citing Richard Fox, along with the citation, to a criticism section would be an appropriate way of handling that sentence. I don't think it should be removed but I don't see why it would need to be in the introduction. Contrasting views with citations to reliable sources are also permissible. If this does not sufficiently answer your question, I will expand on this if I can.
 * The spiritual contentment addition seems ok to me. Donner60 (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Naples, Florida
Naples, Florida: Notables Hi, you removed my addition of Denny Laine to the Notables section citing no source, I’m the source, I’m Dennys girlfriend and we moved to Naples Florida in 2019. If you go to his verified official Facebook page @DBFLAINE, Naples Florida is currently listed. I hope this helps. Thanks, Lizzie2601:6C1:4200:910:7834:5750:14BE:3D35 (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Answered at length on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 07:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now open
G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Re your Comment on proposed additional text on Edmund Hillary page by Bazza37
Hi Donner60, I acknowledge your desire to make Wikipedia information 'fact based' and have References for any 'additional' information being provided.

My entry says that Sir Edmund Hillary lived for 88 years plus 175 days which I said was 88.48 years.

The information I provided is based on Sir Edmund's Birth Date (20 July 1919) and Death Date (11 Jan 2009) which are provided at the start of Sir Edmund Hillary's Wikipedia Entry.

The only Reference that I used was the 2007 Calendar (which indicates that there are 164 days from 20 July 2007 to 31 December 2007). I then added the 11 days from 1 January 2009 to 11 January 2009 when he died, giving the total days that he lived after his 88th birthday anniversary to 175 days.

I am not providing any 'additional' information - just highlighting an interesting way of expressing the information already on the Wikipedia page.

If you think that an explanation of the calculation is needed maybe I could add something like the following in parentheses -

(Sir Edmund turned 88 years of age on 20 July 2007. He lived for the 164 days remaining in 2007 and then for 11 days in 2009. 164 days plus 11 days equals 175 days. As a decimal fraction of a year, 175/365 = 0.48 )

What do you suggest?

/Bazza37 Bazza37 (talk) 09:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Struck my original message. Suggestion and helpful links on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to let you know
Someone's angry. I've reverted that. Regards, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse &#124; fings wot i hav dun 04:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

NELK
My bad for NELK article edit, fam, Imma send linkss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A4E0:A07:55E3:50E0:9C73:D279 (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Note re Texas v. Pennsylvania
In Texas v. Pennsylvania, the issue considered by the U.S. Supreme Court was whether the Supreme Court should temporarily prevent Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin from certifying their 2020 election results because changes to those states' election procedures in light of the COVID-19 pandemic violated the Constitution. In the December 11, 2020 order the court ruled: "The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of  the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State  conducts its elections.   All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:  In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction.  See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___  (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting).  I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue."

The other relief would seem to have been with respect to the other motions (e.g. preliminary injunctions) that the court dismissed as moot. This would not have been with respect to the merits of the case because the two Justices would not have been expressing an opinion on the merits of a case which they opined should be heard and would not have added that "I express no view on any other issue." It would be easy to misinterpret or misdescribe the substance of the statement about not granting other relief. In the scheme of things for the layman, it is probably not worth trying to make and explain the distinction or otherwise quibbling about. Donner60 (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)