User talk:Donner60/Archive 3

Archive 3 starting with threads from March 2013.

FAU
I appreciate your editing the FAU page. Your actions restored a neutral tone to the article, but now the article is incomplete in that it fails to address the controversy surrounding FAU's naming its stadium. While it makes sense to edit out my comments (I know they were inflammatory and had absolutely no intention of posting them), if you get the chance I'd strongly encourage you to research this issue. You seem to have an interest in making sure that Wikipedia operates smoothly; since you also portray yourself as an authority on the proper dissemination of information, perhaps you should research and present your own information on the issue, rather than just working to suppress other people's voices.

There's a lot of information out there! Let's work to make it available to people, rather than just deleting things we find unpalatable. To destroy information and to inhibit the production of meaningful discourse on a topic is to betray your own ideological persuasion, and Wikipedia editors are supposed to maintain neutrality.

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/02/173293418/florida-atlantic-donation-sparks-outrage-but-university-doesnt-budge http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/27/florida-atlantic-university-geo-group-fau_n_2774100.html http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/business/fau-flap-a-little-surprising-to-geo-chair/nWfWx/ http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/2/21/4011532/geo-group-fau-football-stadium-name http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=7767347-176828-264166&type=sect&dcn=0000950123-11-020922

Above are some links posted for you. As a student at the University, I admit that I can in no way view the issue objectively. But since you are so vigilant in your editing of other people's posts, and since you are so capable of discerning and delineating what counts as neutral, you seem like the perfect person to write the section on this issue.

Don't let the Wikipedia community down!


 * I have posted the following paragraphs on your user talk page. I see you have added to your comments. I applaud your acknowledgement of your interest in the subject. However, I must decline your suggestion that I write the article for you. I have many other things to work on as a volunteer for Wikipedia and otherwise. If you feel that you cannot do it yourself - and frankly your straightforward approach leads me to think you could if you put your mind to it - perhaps you can persuade someone who knows a little about the controversy but can maintain a composed way of stating it to take a crack at it. My earlier comment:


 * I have no point of view on this at all. You acknowledge that your edit was inflammatory and point of view. If there is a controversy, go ahead and describe it in matter of fact neutral terms with a citation or citations to one or more reliable, verifiable sources. Neither I nor any other regular editor has an interest in keeping out legitimate information but stating points in all capital letters and argumentative language doesn't work for an encyclopedic work.

Please note the following from What Wikipedia is not:


 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion


 * "WP:SOAP" redirects here. For the Soap Operas WikiProject, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas.


 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:


 * 1.   Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.
 * 2.   Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles.

Donner60 (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Donner60, I sincerely apologize that you had to clean up the effects of what was essentially just a bad mood on my part. And I very much hope that there are no hard feelings between us; you are a competent and hard-working editor from what I can tell and don't deserve snark from people like me. Sorry again! I should have thought much more carefully before posting any of this, but I hope you can forgive my oversight. I will certainly put in the requisite time to research write the article myself. Please know that any rudeness on my part was misdirected and uncalled for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.230.0 (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize. I don't consider your messages to be rude at all. I do sympathize with your thought because if you are like me, and I think like most people, you have probably unintentionally offended someone when they took something you wrote the wrong way. When people can not see your face or hear your tone of voice, all they can do is interpret the words - sometimes not really as intended. I usually have concern for that which often leads me to be overly wordy and explanatory. I think your suggestion was in good faith and if we were looking at rewording a sentence or two or adding a proper source, I would be glad to give it a try. Here, you have a longer, more involved and controversial subject that I would have to get up to speed on - and also to be sure I did not state it in a non-neutral way. I think someone who is familiar with it, even with a point of view, can present it just as well or better. I make mistakes as well. I hope not to make too many and to get them corrected promptly when I do. Good luck. Donner60 (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Pokémon (anime)
Were you seriously treating this as an edit done in good faith?— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 09:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was going to post this on your page to be sure you got the message but that is all I left there because you prefer the threads all on the same page. I must say I don't understand your question. I reverted the previous edit because it removed links. Perhaps I did not understand it correctly but it appeared that either rendering might be correct so it seemed to me that the one that kept the links would be better. I put this in the edit summary, which I think was clear enough and can only be so long. Rather than make a puzzle of it, why not just say whether I was wrong and why - which I gather is what you think. You were not the original author of the change so it seems your interest is as someone who knows more about the subject. So it seems you may know more about this and may have a good reason to take another approach. If so, fine, I will yield to any change you wish to make to make it right. It seemed to me that removing links in order to put in an alternate spelling should not be preferred but if there is more to it and I got it wrong, go ahead and make it right. In fact, that would seem to be the simplest way to approach it without further discussion. Donner60 (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And of course, the change was also inconsistent with the title - an important point that I probably should have made in the summary and noted in my comment here. I am not trying to be snarky in any way. I was doing a recent changes patrol; this looked wrong and not preferred; I saw the alternate spelling somewhere in doing a quick check so I thought the person might have a thing for an alternate spelling that might be correct, so the way I approached it - as an unconstructive change and not as an expert in the area - seemed right. Donner60 (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * An IP vandal changed "Pokemon" to "Pedomon" and you just let it pass as a mistake by a new editor. That is what is confusing me. I would hope that in the future you recognize blatant vandalism for what it is.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 10:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I usually do as I will further note. I hope that you can credit me for at least getting the result right and correcting the text - I was initially afraid you were saying I got the substance of it wrong. I wrote the rest of this while you were adding your comment and perhaps I could have cut it. It may be a little wordy but it makes the point I just made a little better so I hope you will excuse if I just leave most of the comment. I am about to sign off and have a busy schedule later today and probably tomorrow as it is shaping up.
 * I can't cite chapter and verse but I am sure I saw the alternate spelling somewhere in the article, or another article or in one of the sources - just on a brief look which I guess must have been wrong or misinterpreted. So I think that confused me a little on the intent, but not enough to think the change should stand. I did think I should revert the change as unconstructive. So the bottom line seems to be that I got the revert right but did not recognize that the IP user's intent was bad or perhaps to put it another way, that he or she was a vandal. I am usually not shy about tagging vandalism, although on a few (recent) occasions I have had complaints about that being too harsh or even wrong. I actually do not believe in coddling vandals when the vandalism is obvious, which it usually is. (I am not an expert in this field, obviously, and this was a little more subtle than some instances, in my view.) I have seen quite a few instances where I thought notices, even first ones, were a bit soft. So I am glad the result was right even if I did not recognize the intent to be as bad as it apparently was. My main interest was to get the text right and I think that was accomplished. If I had fully recognized the vandalism, or been a little less hesitant at that particular time, I would have noted it. You may have noticed that I did not go so far in the other direction as to use the good faith reversion template. I assume I would not have much occasion to ask but I hope that since you are an expert in this area, you will be open to a question if I see something suspicious in an article in this field but am hesitant about how to interpret it. Another reason I won't have much occasion to ask is that recent changes patrol is a somewhat thankless, though necessary, job where a few mistakes are bound to happen - and to be called out and criticized, even if one is willing to correct them and even apologize if necessary. I do intend to cut back on it in the next month or too, if not cut it out altogether, and go back to content creation and editing, and watching some articles only in my areas of interest. I may have had enough experience in the area - and there does seem to be a number of people willing to work diligently on this type of review most of the time. Donner60 (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I should perhaps apologize for my tone. Your action was correct in the end but the means by which you treated were not up to par. In the future, take a slightly closer look at the edit to see if it was done in good faith or not.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 15:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Taking a quick look in I saw your further note. No problem. I appreciate your concern for the project and the area you spend so much time on. Vandals irritate me as well, or I would not have spent most of my wikipedia time in the last five months on recent changes patrol. If I see it that way, and I usually do, you can be sure I will call it that way. (I do want to do more on content creation and editing but probably won't give up recent changes patrol altogether, at least for the time being.) Donner60 (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC) 18:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

John Smith (explorer)
I agree with you - I cannot find any information or credible source which names John Smith's siblings. There were at least two John Smith's at Plymouth (not related). Mugginsx (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it should be reverted. It looks like the type of insidious vandalism that the essays warn against as the worst kind. That is, it looks like it may be credible so editors are reluctant to revert it, as I was, even though it is suspicious to someone with some familiarity with the subject. It might take a good amount of research to come to a firm conclusion that it is wrong. The names sound perhaps right, one or two perhaps a bit off for the time. At least I tagged it for a citation needed; but perhaps with a closer look, it should be reverted with a note that it should only be added if there is a reliable, verifiable source. Donner60 (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted it. I looked here: http://www.americanancestors.org/.../PDF_Archive/smith_john.pdf and here:  http://www.americanancestors.org/pilgrim-families-john-smith/ as well as mayflower.com and it is in none of those references. Mugginsx (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good work. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Brands Hatch
Hello there. Just checking with you on an edit I had made to the page on Brands Hatch racing circuit a few hous ago. You flagged the edit as vandalism (I was going as an unregistered user at the time) even though it was a minor grammar correction and sent a message alerting me of the flag using my IP.

The original sentence goes as follows;

"Shortly after the war, motorcycling racing quickly resumed thereafter and in 1947, Joe Francis (Managing Director of Brands Hatch Stadium Ltd.) persuaded the BBC to televise a grass track meeting, the first motorcycle event to be televise on British TV."

I corrected 'televise' to 'televised'. The improper grammar simply bugged me. I realize now that I should have mentioned the specific change in the summary before saving the edit. Is the sentence not to be tampered with? Does the flagging affect my experience with wikipedia? Sorry for the misunderstanding. It was never an intention to vandalize. Just tried to fix the spell error...

Kurzheck (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It was completely my mistake and I am glad you brought it to my attention. I simply read the sentence wrong, as if the past tense was the first time it appeared rather than the second - or at least in that sort of context. You were right all along. This has no effect at all on your experience with wikipedia and I am sorry for the annoyance that I caused. I have been doing quite a few edits in the last several months. Thankfully, I think I get most of them right, including about half of the ones people have questioned or complained about. But being human, I sometimes misread or misinterpret something. I will remove the message from your IP talk page, but since I assume you won't be using that, it would not matter in any event. Also, I think almost all experienced editors realize that a reversion can be a mistake or a misinterpretation by the author or the editor and that a warning or two can be mistakes as a consequence. Sorry to have spoiled your introduction and I hope you will continue to author and edit here. Donner60 (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have undone my edit rather than just change the word to make it right. That shows it was my mistake all along. Donner60 (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

White Terror (Hungary)
Hi, You changed the edit and flagged it as vandalism. Simply because a statement is referenced does not mean it's appropriate where it is made. I was in the process of fleshing out more of the article, giving a more complete description from several sources and including them, but I'm not in the habit of working when things I do are labelled vandalism. As Descarte famously said (according to wikipedia), "You could have given her the dick." In other words, keep the weird article, good luck making it better

--108.86.124.30 (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC) "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."


 * I can only go on what I see, not read your mind or act in line with your intentions if you do not describe them in the edit summary or in some other way. I removed the vandalism warning on your user talk page because I accept your explanation that you were in the process of making changes. Your edit was an interim step and not intended as vandalism. I suggest you register and use a user name. After as few as ten good edits, your edits will not attract as much attention and an interim edit is more likely to stand for awhile. I also suggest you use the edit summary so that other editors will know why you made the edit and what your intentions are, especially if standing alone the edit appears not to be constructive. If the explanation is too long, you can refer to the talk page and put it there. I am sorry for the misunderstanding and that I may have judged the change wrongly. I am willing to admit a mistake or even a too hasty judgment. But again, I can only act on what I see. I hope you will put aside your emotions, accept my explanation and apology and proceed with your contributions. Donner60 (talk) 05:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
--I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @ 22:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Convergent evolution
Sorry for getting in the way at Convergent Evolution--I was trying to help by getting rid of the vandalism but got confused with all the edit conflicts. 76.242.72.64 (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the warning on your talk page. I accept your explanation in good faith. That was a confusing sequence of edits and an effort to change one or less than all of them could result in a previous vandalism being restored. Such sequences have tripped me up at least once or twice as well. Donner60 (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Peter Dinklage
Good sort-out - well done! Cheers DBaK (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Yes, I think what caught my eye is that while reverting something that was at least sloppy writing, and possibly vandalism, you had also enhanced the factual content and provided a much better - and more language-sensitive - version of what they'd been groping towards. It was like a double whammy of good editing. :) Cheers. DBaK (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it - what's the difference
Could you explain why you just removed a twitter link I added for Andy Levy and then replaced it with his twitter link again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.5.132 (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Because someone else had also put it in. I thought I was removing it entirely. I will say it is a guideline that is not entirely obvious and can lead to confusion but that has nothing to do with my not removing it entirely in this case. See [] Donner60 (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sneaky IP vandal
You were right initially. is a WP:SNEAKY IP vandal who copy/pastes existing links from the article to "source" the specious content s/he added. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information on the IP vandal who changed "sloth" in several articles to "sleuth." I am a little embarrassed that I had second thoughts about the edits that I started to revert, but then did not check into them more carefully. I still thought they were suspicious but I failed to follow through. Indeed, I noted that Merriam-Webster does not mention "sleuth" as a plural form of sloth. Perhaps that, and the fact that the word did not seem correct should have been enough. I think I was thrown off by at least one bogus cross-reference and by a supposed limitation of that plural form to baby sloths. I should have realized that would also be in a dictionary if it were accurate. I now realize I should have spent a little more time on it and then proceeded with my original conclusion. I have caught a few of these types of vandals in the past, for which I always feel satisfaction but with a little unhappiness that a person would go to such lengths to vandalize Wikipedia. It is too bad that someone who is clever enough to devise a tricky vandalism does not contribute productively. Thanks again for the followup. Donner60 (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * These are rare, fortunately. I didn't catch it until s/he edited Fulica americana, an article on my watch list. A websearch for "Fulica cootie" was null, as I expected. Looking at earlier edits, the pattern was obvious. It is a pleasure to see your work on US Civil War biographies. Editors like you make WIkipedia worthwhile for me. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Catholicism
Hello - what is inappropriate is pouncing in place of announcing - Donner60 - followed with insulting words such as irrelevant. Rather sad that in an Article discussing faith one takes such an attitude towards others; especially, when they have not talked previously. Perhaps you're "edit war" weary. So, I forgive you.

This idea that Catholicism requires a redirect to the Catholic Church seems rather odd. Yes, we all know it means Universal, and so on. At the same time it seems odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.210.70 (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand my use of the word "irrelevant" here and misinterpret it as an insult. If I had wanted to insult you, which I didn't, I could have done it much more directly. I didn't leave a message on your page because I considered your edit in good faith but that my reversion was necessary in view of the way the hatnote and the two articles were structured.


 * I don't view the concept you are expressing as irrelevant, simply that it does not belong in a hatnote that is essentially a redirect. It is perfectly ok as far as I am concerned to express it in the text. In fact, I agree with you that the redirect is odd. I had to look at it carefully to understand that it was a redirect and that there were two different articles expressing two somewhat different (though actually connected) concepts. One could confuse Catholicism and Catholic Church. The first article, however, seems concerned mostly with Catholic Churches not in communion with Rome. This is exactly what you are saying. Even though I agree that it is odd and I see your point, I did not write the articles or the hatnote this way or make the rules on what hatnotes contain. I only edited them as I found them. Textual content doesn't belong in the hatnote. I have no problem with you expressing it in the text if it is not adequately covered there. Donner60 (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Very well, we're on the same page. Oddities are apart of life. We'll leave it that.67.167.210.70 (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Entitlement
Hi, Why is the entitlement program redirecting to the entitlement page on Wikipedia. I feel like it's a political bias to include the united states political section at the bottom of the article. It's my first edit, so I didn't know protocol, but it's the first time I ever saw something bias on the wiki. If you don't mind I'm gonna go remove it again.


 * I have removed the warning on your talk page because I accept the explanation that the edit to Entitlement was in good faith. I don't see the content that was removed as biased, simply as the giving of examples. I will say that as I look at it, the use of a section heading titled "politically" is somewhat odd, maybe off the point. So I think the content is acceptable with a source but I can see that the section heading could be omitted. My edit was a few weeks ago. Since others have been involved more recently, I will leave it between you and them to sort out. Donner60 (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

CUSACK correction
Thank you Donner60 for your correction/removal of an entry done on CUSACK. I didnt understand 'it' and my searches had not shown up any other CUSACKS in Ireland prior to Geoffrey de Cusack in 1172 although a Seigneur de Cusac did arrive in England with William the Conqurer in 1066. I didnt know how to go about challenge the entry so thank you again for spotting it and taking action.

Best Regards (C.Cleeve (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC))
 * I appreciate your thanks for the correction I made to Cusack. The edit by the IP user was a sly one. No reference was added but numerous valid additions have no references. It looked like it could be either valid or bogus. The IP user gave himself away by making a clearly bogus edit to Louis XVI of France, tying a Thomas Cusack to the French royal family but also adding some words and misspellings only a vandal would add. I checked other edits by that user, found the Cusack edits and realized they must be bogus. While I might have hesitated to revert them standing alone, together with the Louis XVI edits, I had to conclude they were wrong. So I cannot claim any prior knowledge or research led to the discovery of the Cusack vandalism, only a little luck. It's too bad people do not use their time more creatively. Donner60 (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

New Brunswick Youth Orchestra vandalism
Hi, I noticed that you reverted some vandalism on the New Brunswick Youth Orchestra page. Every month someone comes along and deletes any reference to the present conductor. There was some sort of internal drama that apparently resulted in bad blood, because people keep deleting it.

Is that the sort of situation that warrants semi-protection? It's not really frequent but it is consistently coming from different users. I'm still getting my feet wet on Wikipedia so I thought I'd ask for your advice before proposing anything. wia (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no experience with page protection. I suggest you read Protection policy and Requests for page protection and any linked pages that might seem applicable. Good luck! 21:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That "global cash dinar" vandal
Hi, it doesn't seem that the edits that you reverted in Yugoslav Dinar were good faith at all. That IP address (71.50.181.102) is a notorious "global cash dinar" vandal that vandalised the article enough to get blocked, then vandalised further to get their talk page privileges revoked. Don't worry, I've warned the IP address, and I'll alert JohnCD if the IP keeps doing it. --Marianian(talk) 07:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for picking up on this. As I look back on it, I believe I thought that one of the edits was suspicious because it was unnecessary but I did not understand the other edit. They needed to be reverted but I could not tell whether they were vandalism. I suppose if I had taken a good look at the IP's talk page, I would have found that out. The talk page often tips the balance on sly vandalism when the user has been warned about something already. Thanks again for the followup. Donner60 (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

In regards to Paul Barbeau wikipedia
I' ve made the edit because I felt the old one was too long and too wordy. We are speaking about me as I'm concerned, so in essence you are the one vandilazing texts and contents which is about myself and not the other way around. Please accept my new edit as I wish for it to be conscice and to the point. Thank you for respecting my wishes....about My wikepedia page...about ME.

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.101.20 (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I undid my change but forgot to remove the warning on your talk page. Sorry. I just removed the warning explained my change, and the fact that I intended to restore your latest version, with a little more detail on your talk page. Please do not let my previous editing action (which was undone within minutes of when it was made) and previous talk page warning (now undone although it should have been undone after a few minutes, not a few hours) prevent you from restoring your preferred version. That was my intention. I suggest you cite a source or reference about the subject, however, since there were no references in the latest version. Donner60 (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP articles cannot be authored by their subjects and, as all other articles, have to rely on independent, third-party WP:SOURCES. I reverted the version written by Paul Barbeau himself to an earlier independent version. See WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY.  kashmiri 11:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your edit on Paul Barbeau. I must admit I was not alert. The edit history had both a user Paul Barbeau and an IP address. Yet, the IP user admitted he was Paul Barbeau. Somehow that did not sink in with me and I treated the IP user as if he was independent of the article. I know the policy about persons contributing to an article about themselves but my brain did not seem to be making all the connections. Thanks again for catching this. Donner60 (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Jouissance
I disagree about my citation edit in the Jouissance article. The claim concerning Filipino babies clearly requires a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.91.247 (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That part I can accept, but the other stray characters appeared to be vandalism. Perhaps you made an inadvertent error by striking one or more keys that you did not intend to? In any event, go ahead and add the citation needed tag. Donner60 (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, thanks for the keen eye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.91.247 (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry, I thought I got all the vandalism off that page. I will be more careful next time! 71.105.45.242 (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem. It can happen when the vandalism is not from consecutive edits or more than one user has vandalized the article. I have had the same experience. Donner60 (talk) 03:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah I was just reviewing some Tea Party related articles and came across that. I never thought vandalism looked like that though. 71.105.45.242 (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Fremont
I misread the article, I thought Fremont had slipped away and saved his army. I considered this to be factually incorrect, and deleted it. I just reread the passage, and the sentence refers to Jackson, not Fremont. I apologize — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zartoast (talk • contribs) 01:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem. I have done that a few times in reviewing recent changes. Luckily, the writer or someone interested in the topic will usually get it right. Donner60 (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

National Moot Court Competition
The entry I deleted was not an act of vandalism. As it stands, the top line in the "Past Competitions" section is obviously incorrect. There has not yet been a 2014 competition. Further, the statement "all by his self" at the tail end of the 2014 entry was obviously made in jest by the original contributor. This entry could be embarrassing for multiple parties and I would kindly ask you to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.69.248.166 (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. User:Kashmiri has already reverted my edit and the page should now be returned to your edit. I am embarrassed to say the least. The vandalism was cleverly inserted and I noted only the removal of references.. He also removed my warning on this page. Please note in edit summaries that you are reverting vandalism. In this case that should have prompted me to take a closer look at the entire article. Thanks for noting the vandalism in the first place and bringing it to my attention. Donner60 (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
 kashmiri 17:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

What?
I think that that information was constructive, do you go to one of those middle schools? Do you know what is happening at all? Probably not. THOSE are the nicknames. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.35.41 (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Derogatory and unencylopedic. No place to talk about mutual hate between schools. Donner60 (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

August 4
So I kinda immaturely edited a page of births of "important" people on august 4th...and I am sorry for that, but there wasn't one for 93...which sucked, because I was born that year....so if you can find someone who really was born that year to add to the list that'd be great, and thanks 98.201.116.241 (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)girl who thinks all people are important not just celebrities


 * Patience, please. Most 19 and 20 year olds have not had time to make an impact yet. Maybe a footballer, actor/actress or singer. All people may be important in their own way and to their friends, families and co-workers (and to God, at least to those who believe) but all people can not be listed in an encyclopedia, even an electronic one. 7 billion names on the list? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. Donner60 (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Evergreen high school
I am not vandalizing the EHS webpage as i happen to go to that school and i am just correcting info.STOP******* TELLING ME I WILL BE KICKED IM NOT ******** VANDALIZING THE WEBPAGE. So ***OFF

Evergreen high school
I am not vandalizing the EHS webpage as i happen to go to that school and i am just correcting info.STOP******* TELLING ME I WILL BE KICKED IM NOT ******** VANDALIZING THE WEBPAGE. So ***OFF also im not vandalizing so dont ****** ban me im just correcting info as i go to that school — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.77.92 (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Response on your talk page. Sorry for the mistake. Please correct it so it is done right. Warning removed. Donner60 (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

antartica
Hi, would you please stop being intimidating. you sent me a message saying I had vandalised the Antarctica page. I hadn't edited that, it was the Antartica page I had edited. you were suggesting I was just trying to experiment with wikipedia. Antartica was redirecting to Antarctica, it might also mean Antártica so I thought i was being helpful creating a disambiguation page. if you disagree, you should have said why and not just labelled my edits as vandalism. you didn't even tell me why it was considered vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.187.232 (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Unless my eyes deceived me (certainly possible when one is looking at a single letter in a word), you had a misspelling of the subject, often a vandalism by a new user. If I was mistaken, or if that was not your intent and it was a typo, I am sorry for the mistake. If you have a proper edit, go ahead and make it again. Also posted on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Tiverton Population
http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/councildemocracy/neighbourhoods-villages/devon-town-focus/tiverton.htm

Clearly marked by the Devon County Council as 38,331, and is therefore not 'vandalism' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.121.242 (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a different source than the one from the article. Perhaps it is a difference between area and immediate town? (Or as I see from a closer look, the old source may simply have been outdated.) Whatever the reason for the difference, your source is clearly authoritative and should be accepted. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. Donner60 (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Aye there Donner, Just wanted to say 'thanks' for looking out and staying on top of vandalism on the Steamship page. I'm in the process of building that page but have taken a break from it this past week. Sometimes I don't check my watchlist as much as I should. Btw, I was going over your user page and noticed you are involved in bibliography work! I do a lot of writing and researching in early American/British naval history, and over the years have found/collected a good number of publications, so a while back I sorted them all out and created the Bibliography of early American naval history and Bibliography of 18th-19th century Royal Naval history pages hoping other editors will make use of them when they're adding content to articles. Again, thanks for looking out. See you around! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. I put a little longer reply on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

New message: List of Gnostic sects
Moved to bottom of page. Donner60 (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Twinkie "vandalism"
I am sorry about what you perceived as vandalism on my part to the Twinkie article. I had just learned of all the vandalism that occurs to wikipedia and had been offering some of my time to revert the obviously malicious vandalism (those with clearly inappropriate additions), got distracted when checking the Twinkie article, and accidentally undid someone's edits. It was a newbie mistake, which when I realized what I had done I tried to go back and revert but it was too late, and I was accused of vandalism! I apologize and I will probably go back to letting other people who don't ever make mistakes handle it, because, contrary to the wikipedia guidelines, honest mistakes are automatically assumed to be vandalism!76.235.181.231 (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I deleted the warning on your talk page and added the following:


 * I am sorry that your attempt to restore a good version misfired and that I mistook it for vandalism. However, if you consider it a little more, you might realize that if someone reviewing recent changes for vandalism had to check back to see whether an edit that resulted in vandalism in fact was a good faith effort to revert vandalism which failed to do so completely, it would be difficult, not completely obvious and take quite a bit more time and effort to review each edit. The good faith but failed effort happens, but rather infrequently. What actually happens a little more frequently is what you encountered. Someone reverts a vandalism but there is another one before it, very likely made by a different user, which is then restored. The person who thinks they have restored a good version goes on to something else and then finds he or she gets a vandalism warning for unintentionally restoring a previous vandalism (which the party doing the warning does not see or realize). It has happened to me a few times. I explain the occurrence as best I can. Then I try to be more careful to be sure there is not intermediate vandalism or even intermediate good edits that could prevent restoration of a completely clean version when I revert vandalism. It is a lesson we all have to learn, sometimes more than once.


 * Assuming good faith applies to edits that have some chance of being accurate even if they look a little dubious or suspicious, not to edits that are clearly not right. I must say that I probably have misidentified a good faith, but not completely successful, attempt to revert vandalism as vandalism a few times out of the thousands of edits I have reviewed as well as a few other mistakes. I am sorry for the few mistakes I have made but no one is perfect and the review process is not always easy or perfectly clear. I think I get it right almost all the time and so do those who do these reviews regularly. But I have seen even the best reviewers make an occasional mistake. I hope I have not really discouraged you. Wikipedia needs all the good editors, reviewers and writers it can get. You do have to realize that someone may criticize something you do occasionally. If they are in good faith they will acknowledge the mistake and apologize for it or explain it, as appropriate. Donner60 (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation of how things can go awry. I guess I'll hang in there and hope to be of some use.  Cheers!76.235.181.231 (talk) 06:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

New message: List of Gnostic sects
Move from top of page

Donner: Thanks for additional interest in my modification. You ask for neutral third-party verification. I am a brother in 3 Summit Lighthouse/CUT Holy Orders, including Order of St. Joseph, which is the Holy Order fulfilling the mission of St. Germain. As such, we are dedicated to disseminating accurate information about the Prophets and their Church. You ask for additional verification regarding the Church's status as a "gnostic" Church. We are a Church and a school dedicated to the mystical paths of the 8 major world religions, and we study several of the gnostic Biblical texts. Mother -- our guru -- has averred that others have termed us "neo-gnostic." As for sourcing our status as gnostics for your purposes here, I'm not sure what sort of additional information you require. Would a link to a video recording of Mother's discussion of the Book of Enoch or another gnostic text suffice? I presume that all of us posting here are being held to the same evidentiary standard. To the best of my knowledge there was a page on Church Universal and Triumphant. When last I checked, it appeared in a serious state of disarray. I did provide notification to the Church that I felt that it was time to refresh/edit the CUT page, but I believe there is one in fact. I volunteered to edit it when I had the resources and time; however, it might take me several days to this. We are considered "to be" many things: part of "I AM" activity; New Thought spirituality; gnostic Christians. Yet we are our a group unto ourselves. So: I seek just a bit of additional guidance. Thank you for your interest and additional time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.71.188 (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Replied on your user talk page. Donner60 (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=555261591 your edit] to Craig Fairbrass may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

206.130.211.54 Vandalized Another Page
206.130.211.54 has recently made several edits leading to false information and deletion in the page Total Miner. The contributor has a precious record of vandalism as I've read from your response on the contributor's talk page. I wish for you to consider blocking or advising the consequences to that contributor. Thanks Healablemarrow4 (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noting this. I have added a "last warning" to the IP user's talk page. An administrator will want to see one more vandalism from this user after the last warning (which should be the fourth warning over a short period of time, which this is). I am not an administrator so I cannot block the user. I do report users who vandalize a page after four recent warnings. Anyone can do that at Administrator intervention against vandalism. If I see another vandalism from this user I will report it but you can do so as well if there is another one. Just follow the instructions for adding the IP address and a short message in the "User reported" section. (Also posted on your talk page.) Donner60 (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Buck (chaplain)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Sutton Trust Vandalism
I did not alter this page personally, as this is a university halls i.p. address. Your message has gone to about 300 people. Also, I note that the information you replaced has no citations. If you see this information as vital to the article, please add citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.236.9 (talk) 09:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I, or perhaps we, apparently have made a mistake. One editor did the reversion and I left the message, presuming I saw why that editor made the reversion. It now appears to me that the intention was to place some new material in the article but there was an intervening unexplained removal of content which was interpreted as vandalism. This often occurs when no explanation of any sort is left in the edit summary. Occasionally, and fortunately infrequently, these types of edits are misinterpreted as vandalism but are quite appropriate. Intervening edits or perhaps edits done in more than one step can cause confusion. Luckily, we can fix these problems in a short period of time when they are pointed out and explained to us. We are human (except for Cluebot) and we will make a few mistakes. I might add here that there was no intention to delete fact based research. The intention was to restore recently deleted content which appeared genuine. I am removing the warning. If the article does not now have the appropriate wording, please change it. Please accept my apologies for the mistake and do not let that deter making needed edits.Donner60 (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

10-second barrier
My edit of the 100M sprint page was not vandalism. I simply stated facts. I'm sorry if fact-based research is not allowed on here.50.70.196.236 (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but your entire edit was as follows: "It is yet to be seen if non-East African descended sprinters can sprint at the same rates as East Africans." This appears to be an opinion or speculation and possibly have inappropriate undertones. You do not support it with any citations to any reliable, verifiable, neutral sources. So I do not see any research at all. Additionally, the article shows that almost all of the persons who broke the barrier were North Americans, including Carribean islanders. How do you know some of these people are not "non-East African" descendants, or have been in North America so long that their distant ancestry should not matter and that this is not a suspect statement. This type of POV commentary is not appropriate for an encyclopedia in any event. Donner60 (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, there is enough discussion of the subject in the article already, and most of the persons are described as of West African descent, not East African. Donner60 (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant West Africans. Typo, for which I apologize. What is my evidence that non-West African sprinters can sprint at the same level as West African sprinters? The fact that only four human beings on the planet who are not West African have broken the 10-second barrier. Let's make a list on the page that lists West Africans vs. all else. Or would you fear that would prove my point? Since it is obvious I am correct and you know it. I try not to let ideology get in the way of my edits and I recommend all others adopt the same policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.70.196.236 (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It's already stated in the article. I suggest you go on to something else instead of expounding on something that is already covered. Donner60 (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Warnings
Hi Donner. I've noticed you do a lot of warnings of IP address, but I'm slightly concerned about them. Scanning through them, I've seen a lot of warnings that are stale - I'd never leave a warning for an IP address over 24 hours past the event, as users dynamic addresses change frequently and people on public computers are likely to have moved on. So posting a warning in May for an edit made in January is wholly unacceptable. I've also found instances where you have warned for actions that already had a removed warning. IPs, just like every editor are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page. Finally, posting multiple escalating warnings to a users talk page long after the fact is just counter productive. There's no bureaucratic need to do so. A good rule of thumb is that only be warning as part of a revert, and I recommend you follow that rule of thumb. Worm TT( talk ) 11:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Explanation and reply on your user talk page. Donner60 (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Century College
I got the following message when I went to the wikipedia home page and searched for something. I don't recall ever going to either website, much less changing anything. I am on a wireless network at Century College. There are about 14,000 students at this college during the school year. Any changes were made by someone else on the college network or by someone that was able to spoof that address.

Wayne

User talk:204.77.37.230 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 2012 [edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Cole Thornhart, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Cole Thornhart was changed by 204.77.37.230 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.889292 on 2012-02-29T22:18:26+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC) May 2013 [edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edit to Bagger 288 constitutes vandalism and has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 06:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have recently become aware that certain wireless or network addresses or hotspots may show the same IP address for all users. That means that everyone who uses that address will see the message. Often, if the editor who posted messages is aware of it, there will be a suggestion placed on the talk page of that IP address to open an account so that ordinary users who wish to edit or use the encyclopedia will not be banned because of the IP address they are using. If you are not the person who made the invalid changes, do not worry about it, ignore it, the message was intended for someone else among the many who might use the same network and IP address. If you find the IP address blocked, that should be only for editing, not for reading. If you wish to edit and that network is blocked, register and get a user name. It only takes a few minutes. Donner60 (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Kentucky-Tennessee rivalry
I was removing duplicate info and now ClueBot thinks it was vandalism. Could you fix that? 76.190.198.56 (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I saw the whole page gone but that appears to have been a mistake since your intent was to remove only duplicate information. I will look back into the history for a clean version. Donner60 (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I initially struck the warnings on your talk page since only duplicate material was removed; not a blanking or section blanking. I had been told it is better to strike the warnings with an explanation than to simply delete them. Since this was resulting in this section being struck as well, I have now deleted the warnings instead. This section and edit history shows what happened in any event The whole page was not gone but I viewed only the removals; sorry about the mix-up. I hope I have put it back as it should be. Let me know if I need to do anything else. (Repeated from your talk page.) Donner60 (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism vs. Not vandalism
I probably wouldn't have said anything, except that I noticed a similar discussion with WtT a few days ago, above. This edit was labelled as vandalism and a warning was given when it was clearly NOT a case of vandalism. With IP contributors, especially inept and often young IP contributors (as is almost ALWAYS the case with those that edit school articles), it's often hard to tell the difference between a bad but well meaning edit, and actual vandalism. In this case, it was the former. It's not a huge deal, and a mistake I'm sure I have made from time to time over the years, but slow down just a little bit, give a little extra scrutiny before hitting the rollback button. Cheers, Trusilver  19:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment. Certainly I have made a few mistakes over the past eight months of recent changes patrol. I think they have been few but the goal has to be none, if possible. I suspect most people who do this for a long period of time end up with a few mistakes and a few notices. If an editor brings it to my attention, I will certainly apologize and fix it as best I can.
 * It is good to be reminded to slow down or about other fine points from time to time to stay on track. Often I immediately double check the edit and warning that I give. I have undone a few of my edits and warnings when I looked more deeply. The thing to do, of course, is to look a little more carefully at edits that are not so obviously vandalism that anyone could disagree with the conclusion.
 * Also, one can get tripped up by earlier edits (usually by a different IP) which leads to reverting a good edit which appears to be vandalism or reverting back to a bad edit. I have caught a few of those mistakes as well as making a few. I think WtT was mostly concerned with late warnings but I have tried to avoid those, especially by avoiding warnings if I did not do the reversion (barring an edit conflict, which would mean the edit is not late, of course). Thanks again for the reminder. Donner60 (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Undid the revert, cleaned up the spelling as needed, deleted the warning and added an apology and explanation. Donner60 (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

In a similar vein, just wanted to drop you a bit about the Uniforms of the United States Navy article, where you gave a rather harsh warning to an ip editor for adding the nickname "poopysuits" to the section in coveralls. While it is not, in my opinion, notable enough to include, that really is a nickname for coveralls in the US Navy (especially among sub crews), and was a good faith edit. While it can be hard to tell good faith from vandal, especially for semi-profane content, jumping straight to uw-vandalism2 when the ip has no warnings on their page, may seem a bit WP:BITE-y. I dropped a note their myself in an effort to help them understand. oknazevad (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As you note, I was fooled. I suppose I should have looked it up, perhaps even let it go. Maybe a citation needed tag would have been best. Although we see that word in vandalism quite a bit, I suppose some sort of odd name for a uniform is not completely absurd. I will apologize and delete the warning if you have not done so. Donner60 (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I left the following on the IP user's page:
 * I apologize for my mistake. AS Oknazevad points out, we see "poop" or a variation of the word in vandalism all the time. In retrospect, I should have realized the name was something sailors would make up, or looked it up, or left a citation needed tag. I am glad the warnings have already been deleted. I would have done that if they had not been. We make mistakes occasionally but I hope you can understand why it was done in this case. I also hope you will see that this can be corrected quickly and will accept this apology. Please do not let this deter you from contributing further to Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Pure class, and handled the right way. I raise a toast in you honor! oknazevad (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have made a few mistakes on vandalism reversion. I suppose almost everyone who has done quite a few has. I always feel bad about them because we are trying to help the project and this can hurt it - and be embarrassing. But if we can fix the problem quickly, I think we can avoid or undo any damage. I would rather have these things called to my attention than have someone be put off. Donner60 (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's to bring to your attention. It was a good-faith edit that was not constructive due to the editor misunderstanding and altering the scope of the navbox that they added to the article. You may want to use the Template:uw-disruptive1 family as your go-to warning template instead of a vandalism warning, if you're not sure whether something is vandalism or not. Ibadibam (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Responded on your talk page as follows: Thanks for the information about The Country Bears mistake. I see that although the edit was wrong, it was not meant to be vandalism. I admit that after doing vandalism reversion for several months with only a few very minor problems that were promptly taken care of, I have been mistaken, more like being fooled actually, three times recently. It is good to be reminded that something that may look like vandalism at first glance, and in fact may have been vandalism in another case, may just be wrong or unintentionally disruptive. I have seen a few such instances recently and adjusted my notice accordingly. In this case, I missed it. Donner60 (talk) 03:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I find it can be hard to strike a balance between efficiently staying on top of vandalism and also taking enough time to fully investigate individual cases that are questionable. WP:AGF tends to guide pretty well, although this means I often warn vandals too politely. It's a challenge, to be sure. Ibadibam (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Silver Star : General Mohamed Oufkir
Contrary to what you wrote, it was not necessary to serve in the US army during the Second World war to get Silver Star. ("awarded to any person serving in any capacity with the United States Armed Forces"). General Oufkir served in Italy in 1944 in the French Expeditionary Corps (1943–1944)) which was under Allied command. A lot of french military sources mention he was awarded the Silver Star from General Clark.

If you do not read French you can even find ones in English by typing "oufkir silver star" in google books for exemple and wou will get "Clark awarded Oufkir the Silver Star. He also fought with French forces in Vietnam, where his bravery was dubbed legendary.", "General Mohamed Oufkir, who had been awarded a United States Army Silver Star while fighting with the Allies during World War II.", "Mohammed Oufkir, son of the man the French had attracted in the Tafilalt on the eve of the Protectorate, was awarded the Croix de Guerre and the American Silver Star." etc Regards 90.27.168.33 (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am convinced. Thanks for setting this straight and for your patience in explaining this in detail. Sorry for the mistake. If you have not restored your edit to Silver Star regarding Mohamed Oufkir, I will do so. Donner60 (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I now see that you have restored the edit and someone else has added another source. Good resolution. Donner60 (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)