User talk:Donner60/Archive 9

Archive 9 starting with closed threads from July 16, 2015

Holmdel NJ correction

Thank you for your reply, I am not very familiar with Wikipedia and how the editing format even works so your help is much appreciated!

I am a second generation LIFE LONG resident of Holmdel, my father, "like many township families" was a Bell Labs/AT&T employee for well over 20 years and personally knew the men who invented the Transistor for Bell! Which was NOT invented at the Holmdel Bell Labs location! The Labs in Holmdel were not even built until the late 60's, early 70's, which was LONG after the Transistor was invented! This can be easily found on other wiki pages for the transistor and for Bell Labs! I am not sure how to properly write and/or link this info, so it would be great if you could help.

The citation that was provided is either wrong, or taken out of context because the Murray Hill Lab is where MOST of the Transistor development was done, along with several other Bell locations around the country, several team members LIVED in Holmdel, but it was 100% NOT invented at the Holmdel locations! This can be PROVEN from not only the simple fact that the Holmdel lab locations were not even around when the transistor was developed by Bell, but also from someone who knew several members of the team for YEARS, my father.

I don't know how to correct this other than asking you to simply look at the other Wiki pages about the invention of the Transistor and even Bell Labs and AT&T, "which by the way even include the FACT that it was around in a simpler form WAY before even Bell started working on it," but as a resident and a family member of someone who was friends of the Bell Transistor team, it is a bit of an insult to incorrectly cite their work and where it was done… These were brilliant minds that helped develop our modern world! And getting the information right is important to them, and those who respect their achievements!

Also, I have a copy of the 2012 Guiness World Records which also talks about the smaller Lab "which is also the only one in-town that is still operational," on Telegraph Hill Rd, behind town hall a bit, as having the record for the most Nobel Prize winners working in a single location! This is also the Lab location where the "Horn" antenna discovered evidence of the Big Bang… The "Horn" is still there and as a teenager we jumped the fence several times to check it out! It is up the hill from the small Lab off of Telegraph Hill. Unfortunately it is closed off from the public as they still do a-lot of work and research there. "A cool side note," the windows of this Lab are tinted green… this is because of an additive to the glass that doesn't allow Listening Devices to penetrate and eavesdrop on the workers! This was a feature that Bell Labs installed at this location to deter Corporate Espionage because of the cutting edge work that went on there! In it's early days, they were very afraid of other companies and even foreign countries spying on their work on satellite communications…

Anyway, Please do the right thing and simply take out the part that the Transistor was "invented" in Holmdel because it is completely FALSE in several ways! Again: 1 - The Holmdel Labs were not even BUILT until WAY more than a DECADE AFTER the Transistor was invented! 2 - It was the Murray Hill location where most of the work was done, but a-lot was done at other Labs around the country! 3 - All of this can be easily looked up on Wiki for simply , Transistor, Bell Labs, AT&T, etc… 4 - Wikipedia is built on TRUST and information that is as correct as possible! And this is an insult to one of the greatest inventions EVER! And the team who built it! 5 - I love my hometown, BUT it should NOT take away from correct information and take credit away from the proper locations! 6 - The citation used is 100% wrong! It is either fabricated, taken out of context, or written wrong! Either way, the correct information is EASILY found across the internet! The Transistor was such in important invention, that there are whole web-pages about its history and development! Some sources rate it as in the top 10 inventions in Human History! So the CORRECT info is actually all over the internet from MANY credible sources!

Please Help and do the right thing… Thank You It would also be great if you could find a citation for the Guniess World Record thing so it could be added as CORRECT info about Holmdel's history! Again, I am not familiar with adding info to Wiki pages, but I could not find the record online even though I have it in writing from the actual Guiness book on my office shelf!?!?

J — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.8.152.18 (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed explanation. I think I should be able to take care of this later tonight or tomorrow. I will gladly do so in response to your good faith effort to put this right. I wish to have references to cite or to edit your explanation a little and put it on the talk page. I appreciate your effort to make the correction. I hope you can add further to Wikipedia in the future. Donner60 (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

You can cite the book without having an online reference to it as long as you include author and/or editor, title, place of publication, publisher, year, isbn and page number(s). Donner60 (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Erp, who identifies as an alum of Stanford, deleted the incorrect information from Holmdel Township, New Jersey a few hours ago, for which I thanked him/her. I am looking for a citation for the Guinness World Record. Donner60 (talk) 06:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I could find the web site http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-nobel-science-prize-winners-from-one-laboratory- which states that 11 people from Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ have had the Most Nobel Science Prize winners from one laboratory. The New Jersey government site http://nj.gov/state/historical/dos_his_ihhnj-video-archive.html says "Researchers working at Bell Labs in Murray Hill and Holmdel, New Jersey are credited with the development of radio astronomy, the transistor, the laser, the UNIX operating system, and more. Started in the late 19th century by Alexander Graham Bell, Bell Labs has remained at the forefront of communications technology for over 100 years. A dedication to basic research has resulted in eight Nobel Prizes for work conducted at Bell Labs." The web site http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/universities.html has a list showing the research affiliations including universities and companies for Nobel Prize winners in sciences at the time the prizes were awarded. Penzias and Wilson are listed for Bell Labs, Holmdel. One person from New York City and four from Murray Hill are also identified. None of this seems to be quite what you wanted so I am not sure if you want to use it or not.

Knowles, Scott G. and Stuart W. Leslie. "Industrial Versailles": Eero Saarinen's Corporate Campuses for GM, IBM, and AT&T. in Isis, Vol. 92, No. 1 (Mar., 2001), pp. 1-33 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society. pp. 22-24 states that the transistor was invented in 1948 at Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey; that the Holmdel, New Jersey facility building started in 1955 for another lab to be as big or bigger than Murray Hill; that there had been a (small) Bell research facility at Holmdel since 1929; and that phase 1 of the new Holmdel facility construction was completed in September 1962 (p. 26.). Donner60 (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

This is great! I truly Thank You guys for seeing and finding that it was the Murray Hill lab and that the Lab in Holmdel "while important," played a role much LATER in the development but NOT the invention of the transistor! I wasn't sure of the year but Donner60 found it, 1962 the lab was built which is WAY after its invention… The part about the Labs being there since the 20's is new to me though as well, I personally know the family that sold AT&T the land for the big Lab on Crawfords Corner rd, their family has been in town for MANY generations! I went to school with 2 of them. The small lab on Telegraph may have been the location prior for another lab, but as your research has shown, it was not for the transistor, I am going over to town hall today to ask a friend of mine who is another long time resident what kind of lab was there prior to the "big bang" lab because that location is not hidden and is behind the town hall… As for the Guniess thing, again, thats really strange because like I said, the actual Book has a different citation??? But as I said, I am ALL for correct info, I could take a pic of the books entry to show you guys, cause that is strange and looks like Guniess is making a mistake SOMEWHERE??? Not sure where though now, is the book correct or the online sources??? THANK YOU AGAIN ALL!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.8.152.18 (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The newspaper source for the statement about transistors and Holmdel was not fake, just wrong. Donner60 (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your further message. It's hard to say where the Guinness error is. There must be an error somewhere since both versions apparently originate from Guinness. I saw some other sources that gave the information in general terms (e.g. New Jersey) but none seemed to provide specific verification of the book item. Donner60 (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Peter Dinklage

Peter is probably 3 feet. Sorry if thats wrong Donner60 I'm so sorry! BarbieR. (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

While I acknowledge that the internet movie database isn't considered the best of sources, the 4 feet, 5 inches figure is what that site gives. He does seem somewhat shorter but http://www.celebheights.com/s/Peter-Dinklage-2412.html quotes him as saying he is 4 feet, 5 inches tall and http://www.tv.com/people/peter-dinklage/biography/ gives a similar 4 feet 6 inches. Donner60 (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Thanks. You were close; next time should do it. Donner60 (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: Katy Perry

It's all good. I just made that mistake myself a little while ago. GAB (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Clarification: I noted that I used the wrong template but corrected it on the user talk page. In any event, the reversion of the erroneous edit, which GAB thanked me for, was correct and I left that in place. Donner60 (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

New section

not a test edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenDouglasMcGuireMcGee (talk • contribs) 01:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

At same time I left a message and welcome links on user page. Donner60 (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Survivor: Philippines

Hi, you reverted my edit for not having a source, however, what I did was essentially add a topic sentence to a paragraph of sourced material that summed up the following information, so I feel like it was already sourced simply by having the paragraph already be there. 72.74.64.170 (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I added this to your talk page: Thank you for your explanation of your edit. Because of your good faith explanation, I am deleting the above message through strike through as provided for in the style guidelines. I also restored your edit. Donner60 (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

MeQuieroIr.com

Hello, Donner60. We need to contact you, but are not sure this is the right way. We are the official owners and editors of the www.MeQuieroIr.com website and wish to accurately and correctly edit the information on Wikipedia regarding our website MeQuieroIr.com. Please help us. We do not wish to be blocked. We are not trying to promote, we are just trying to protect our content and our copyrights. Our user is LMGonzalezMQI. LMGonzalezMQI (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Thank you!

Many of your edits were in Spanish, which would be appropriate in the Spanish Wikipedia but is not helpful or appropriate in the English Wikipedia. Also, you cannot refer people to your web site in the text of the article, especially by implying that the Wikipedia text is wrong. If it is wrong, it should be changed. If there is a copyright violation, please point out the language that is the same as the copyrighted language so it may be changed or removed. You also can place comments on the talk page but these may not include directions to go to your web site. Donner60 (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Your answer is helpful. We will analyze this better to decide what we should do. The articles you cite are serious, but a lot of the information is incomplete, missing or not up to date. Thanks again.LMGonzalezMQI (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Synovial Fluid

Hi, on the Synovial Fluid page you changed my edit back to yolk-like from egg-white-like. Yolk-like does not have a reference either so I don't understand why you would choose one over the other. Regardless, here's a reference: Rheumatology Secrets 3e, Sterling West, Elsevier Health Sciences, 2014. P 19. Wiktionary also says egg white in its synovium listing.

Thanks. I have rolled back my edit and deleted the message on your user page by strike through. I will insert the reference. Donner60 (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

RMS republic

hello, how you can see in this article https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Republic_(1903) jack was the first one to send an sos sinal on a ship

Not much help since the Jack R. Binns in the article on the English Wikipedia was born later than the incident in the Republic article. There is no source cited there either. There is no link to an article on a Jack R. Binns in that Wikipedia. In any event, the Binns in that article is either a different person or the name was inserted as a bogus edit. Donner60 (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

IP you reverted at Persian Empire

That's someone editing from the Fars Province University Of Medical Science And Health Care Services insisting that the Medes were the first Persian Empire and adding incorrect dates. Thanks for reverting. It's always a different IP address, so a bit of a pain. Doug Weller (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I am no expert on this but the unexplained edit did not look right. I thought the worst case in the event of a revert would be that the user would come back with some source to support the change. Then it might be be allowed in some form. It thought it more likely it would be left as reverted. Donner60 (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi there

I don't understand! 😭 Brilloman12 (talk) 05:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I tried to give you some advice by pointing you to pages that could help you. Maybe you did not have time to look at this before you made another disruptive edit. In addition to the comment I made about what Wikipedia does not include, it does not include personal commentary. It is not a blog. See especially Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. If you continue to edit in the same pattern, adding speculation and personal comments to articles, you risk being blocked soon. Donner60 (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Possible editing to be done?

Hello Donner60,

The article for the University of Michigan notes that the alumni section needs to be restructured: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:University_of_Michigan_alumni

I've made edits to the alumni section, but don't have the skills to restructure the page. Might you assist in that regard or put me in touch with someone who might do the editing.

Thanks in advance, and thanks for contributing to the Michigan page

Bluedudemi (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You are referring to the University of Michigan alumni category page rather than the University of Michigan page or the List of University of Michigan alumni page or its sub-pages. Someone has tagged the category page because they think there are too many entries in this general category. The page has a few sub-categories already, where articles of alumni who are athletes or graduated from a few schools of the university of the university can be categorized, but apparently there are not enough since so many articles have been added to the parent general category.

Presumably what is desired is to create new sub-category pages, in the same way as creating an article, placing them in the category of University of Michigan alumni. Then, one would go through all of the individuals and place them in the sub-categories, removing them from the more general category. While other schools of the university might be good categories, assuming they exist and some of the individuals' articles show them as graduates of the school, others could possibly be derived from the sections (or categories, in a non-technical sense) in the list of University of Michigan alumni article(s). I suppose an example could be Category:University of Michigan alumni (politicians). While this seems different than most sub-categories one would expect to see for a university, I am not sure you could reduce the number of categories without something creative such as this. I also suggest you see: Wikipedia:Categorization, Help:Category and any links from those pages that appear relevant which will give you more definite and authoritative advice.

Possibly use of Wikipedia:HotCat could help the process but I have never used it and do not know anything more than the page about it could tell you. Otherwise, it would appear that one would have to create the sub-categories, then look at each of the 3,647 articles in the existing category to see which sub-category might be substituted for the general category. I suppose some sub-category names might be suggested by looking at the articles if you can not come up with all the appropriate sub-categories by looking at the list articles or considering other schools as sub-categories.

You might also look at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, which might give you a little more information. Also, by perusing some of the items, you may find other editors who know more about categorization and do work in that area, which I do not, who could help. This appears to be far too big and time-consuming a task for me to undertake since I can think of no shortcuts, have no experience in the area, and have many other tasks under way. I hope this is helpful. Good luck with this. Donner60 (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Grundigligaen

Hi, Im sorry I didn't write why I deleted it. The thing I did was to improve the wiki-site, not vandalize it. I was now going to edit more and finish it, and then you deleted it :/. I hope you can restore it, so I can finish the wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stennes (talk • contribs) 21:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the message on your talk page because you told me that you were in the middle of editing and had not finished. So your removal of content was in good faith. Please use Wikipedia:Edit summaries, which can help prevent such misunderstandings. I also rolled the article back to your last edit. Sorry for the disruption. Donner60 (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Removed information i added to the page of an school I go to for being "Incorrect!"

I go to chattooga high, and i noticed an error about when we started the four day school week. It said the four day school week began in the 2014-2015 school year, but it really began in the 2010-2011 school year. I tried to edit it, but Donner said that it was "Incorrect"! I am just trying to correct information! I don't think that he ever attended a school in chattooga, so who is he to tell me i am wrong!?! I do have a credable source! http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/news/story/2010/aug/08/chattooga-schools-launch-4-day-week/25793/ So fix it! 68.112.78.173 (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC) A concerned Chattooga High School student!

I now see the sources in the article conflict, or at least one of them that I relied upon is not clearly written. I will accept your source and explanation, rollback my edit and delete the comment on your user page. Donner60 (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank You!

I apologize for being so rude, but i have been apart of that school system my whole life, and didn't like how my edit was counted as incorrect. My apologies. 68.112.78.173 (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)GabeMcg (the chattooga student)

No problem. It turned out to be my mistake for relying on just one source and not looking at the others. Usually, that would not be necessary so one can think that it is not worth the extra effort to look further. However, newspaper stories can have errors or be unintentionally misleading so another check would have been in order here where a different newspaper story was what I looked at and relied upon. Donner60 (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't get it.

Why is my edit on My Friends Tigger and Pooh have no resources? Darby (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The entire article only has one source and it has been tagged since last November as needing more citations. In that sense, I can see how you are wondering why even more unsourced text cannot be added. When you refer to a show that never aired, people might question whether that show really existed. More than that, you say that many people wonder how a show that bad could nearly air. Who are these many people? How do they, or you for that matter, know anything about a show that never aired or how bad it might be? This is more speculative than anything already in the article. That is why you must cite a source. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for more information. Donner60 (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Neutral POV?

What? -I'm removing a section without proper citation based on OR/Synth and the inclusion of weasel words 'said by some', what's not neutral? I presented the points on the talk page which are fully supported by policy, without any dissenting view offered (and after giving it reasonable time to be responded to). You can't just assert 'Not adhering to neutral point of view' without supporting that. If you want to dispute the edit, find a proper cite or take it to the talk page, I am not interested in edit warring, given that there has been dispute I'll leave it longer for people to counter the points raised, but if it isn't corrected or addressed I will remove it again.219.88.68.195 (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I left this message on your talk page: There are citations in the paragraph you removed. I am not interested in getting into an edit war over whether this is original research and whether the citations are valid. Since this is arguably disputable, I am removing my message. I will not rollback my edit. However, I will not revert your edit if you restore it. Donner60 (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and retraction regarding non-neutrality, genuinely appreciated. I've left another comment on the talk page of the article regarding this. Previous to removing the text in question I presented a rationale on the talk page, including points about the citations which had been added after its previous removal as being uncited. I had left it there for a reasonable amount of time without anyone dissenting before editing, which I think is the correct process and demonstrates good faith.219.88.68.195 (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that you handled this in good faith. As far as I know, someone using Huggle (as I was) to review recent changes would have to make a special effort to look at the talk page and almost never is clued in to that by the edit or edit summary. In almost all cases it would be a waste of time to look. Of course, there can be occasional exceptions. A reason I accepted your position is that you had put an explanation on the talk page but I had only viewed the change. Thank you for your further comment. Donner60 (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Mount Wilson Observatory edits 8-12-15

Hi,

I am somewhat new to editing and will defer to you on much of the technical stuff regarding rules and formatting. I followed some of your comments to the other user who battled you to change the MWO page and believe your edits are the more correct of the two version. You backed off from your position, citing this page as a science article when it clearly is not. It is a historical and informational page about a scientific facility. The versions you changed repeatedly altered the names of the various telescopes in the attempt to be "wiki proper" when our versions were in fact correct. No one calls any of those telescope by any metric designations. They predate metric convention by many decades and are historical and famous for their accomplishments. They cannot be referred to by metric labels as they have no context with those new names. How is this context made clear and the proper edits made to keep it a historical article? I work there and was trying to supplement the limited and sometimes incorrect information on the wiki and would like to see it written as I left it, with the proper formatting for automatic metric conversions and such. I wrote the names and numerical units the way I did so it would read correctly. Clearly bots and such sniff out any unit discrepancies and I cannot battle this with my limited experience. Can you assist in putting this back to the conventional, non metric article that I wrote? Thanks for your help. There is much to add and the sooner these difficulties are settled, the easier the new content can be added without issue. Norm Vargas Norm Vargas (talk) 06:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

PS I have an even bigger problem that will need settling regarding crediting of my aerial photo on the same page. It was wrongly attributed to NASA when it is in fact my photo. How do I make a valid claim to the photo? My previous edits have been undone as vandalism before.

It seems that I was too easily persuaded to move off my original position. I thought the changes to metric (only) were incorrect under the Wikipedia Manual of Style but I also thought they simply did not look right in the context of an article about an American observatory and instruments over 100 years old. I think you are correct that this is not a science article - and I should have thought about that more carefully before conceding to that rationale.

I would like to see if I can find a person who edits Wikipedia who might be more knowledgeable and could help with this problem which I would do by looking at the most pertinent project pages to see if I recognize someone to contact. One of the persons on the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Members may be helpful. I recognize a few names. There also may be a noticeboard of some sort connected with Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy to take this up on. It might be that this needs to be handled as an editing problem and someone with knowledge of the editing of units of measurement would be more helpful. So another project page or, more generally, theWikipedia:Teahouse or Wikipedia:Help desk pages might be the most logical places to go with the question, rather than to an individual. Wikipedia:Requests has links to a variety of places to go for help including links to Help:Contents/Directory and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests. That general dispute resolution board is available but I think help from a more specific project might be the first place to look.

As far as uploading images, or taking credit for images, is concerned, I am not an expert. I think the best I can do is refer you to Help:Introduction to uploading images/1 and pages linked or following on from there. Wikipedia:Uploading images and pages linked from that page also should be helpful. You will also find the following advice at the bottom of the page. Get personal technical help at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Wikipedia:Help desk, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), Help:Introduction to talk pages or Wikipedia:IRC.

I was about to log off and will be offline for most or all of the next few days (visitors) so I may not be able to get back to this right away but I will look into it further as soon as I can unless you see a quick way to handle this based on my comments or the links cited. Although I could get back involved with making changes and supporting those on the talk page and engaging in renewed comments with the person making the changes, I think it would likely just lead to calling in additional parties. Some notice that his interpretation is being challenged after all and how it will be handled would be appropriate in that event.

I hope these comments are a useful start. Donner60 (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I have checked the article. I had not rolled back my reversion of the edits to the article, even though I had conceded (wrongly, it appears) on the IP user's talk page and deleted my messages. The user again made the edit to the page but another editor then reverted that edit. No more edits have been made for about 34 hours now. It seems that nothing needs to be done to correct the Mount Wilson Observatory article at this time, but it probably will need to be checked for consistency and watched in the future. I have spent over two hours looking into the proposition that dual units, and US customary units as the standard unit, should be retained. I think a good argument could be made to the Astronomy project or currently uninvolved members as mediators. After all this time, I just come back to the same Manual of Style sections I relied upon to begin with, plus the cogent argument that this really is not a science article, even though it is in the general purview of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy. Since nothing apparently currently needs to be changed, there is no reason to renew or expand discussion of the matter with respect to this article at this time. I have thought about making a backtracking comment on the IP user's talk page about the proper units and the fact this is not an article which discusses scientific principles (but not trying to restore my warning messages as I think that would be improper under the circumstances). I think this argument should be saved in case the matter comes up again. I probably should look at the other edits made by this editor to a few other articles because I think one other one may need to be changed. I hope you have made some progress with the image question or that I have sent you on the right track. Donner60 (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

About the Kids' meal article

I added the sources now. 73.160.108.91 (talk) 02:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute

Hello, Not sure how Wikipedia actually works, I Googled myself and found a quote in an article about Susan B Anthony which I never said; it was from a time in my life when I was being targeted by people writing letters to editors in my name. At the time (late 1980s) I thought I managed to find them all and contact the editors, but evidently this one went far enough to be included in a scholarly journal and Wikipedia! PLEASE remove the quote purportedly by me (Annette) in Daughters of Sarah magazine, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.214.237 (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Partial reply: The main reason I reverted your edit is that you also removed categories and the default sort from the article. There would seem to be no justification for that as the quote could have been removed without the other global changes to the article. Also, the default sort is needed in every article as part of the organization of Wikipedia. This removal appears to have been a problem, along with not putting an explanation in the edit summary for your change, with the previous removal edit. I will look into this further but the inclusion of the quote in a scholarly journal may be difficult to refute. I also think that we may be better off tossing the question to User:Bilpen who is a major contributor to the article. I will look into this a little further and get back to you. Donner60 (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Also placed on your talk page: Unfortunately, as an editor looking at recent changes, all I can see is that a scholarly journal supports the quote in the article. A sentence is left out that could be inserted, but it would not seem to change the meaning. I could find nothing on the internet that can be cited to show you have publicly refuted the quote or that the letter to the editor was sent by an impersonator. I do not see how I can view it as anything but removal of content. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. So your request will have to be approached differently.

The major contributors to this article appear to have engaged in rather intense debates about what should be included or not included, including the contributor I mentioned. These debates have played out on the talk page of the article. They even have included the Thomas article and even the quote from you should be included and how the references should be phrased. Click to archive page 2 in the box near the top of the talk page to see this rather recent discussion.

Because of the volatility of this matter and the long participation by other editors to the article and the fact that the article has been the subject of arbitration at least once (Wikipedia's "highest" form of dispute resolution), I think it would not be proper for me to become further involved in a matter in which all I can reasonably do is edit according to Wikipedia policy on the basis of references that I can see (or cannot find). I cannot necessarily refer you to any of the contributors for help or mediation because they seem to have points of view that would require them to reach some sort of consensus before acting on your request - unless they see it as more clear cut than I do, perhaps because you present them with some more information.

In accordance with common Wikipedia practice, you should place your question and request and supporting arguments or sources on the talk page. Given the activity with this article, I am sure that the participants will weigh in. You can place comments on their talk pages if any of them do not. If this does not end up satisfactorily, you can take the matter through the dispute resolution process. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and pages linked from that page such as Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests.

I am sorry I cannot be of more help on this but you do have some forums and methods open to you to try to resolve this under Wikipedia guidelines and I hope the links I have cited will point you in the right direction. Donner60 (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Re Biblestudyprof

His edits technically fall under WP:NOTVAND. I have reported him at WP:3RRNB. My D&D game is over now, so I can revert him some more. I recommend not reverting him again as some admins would include you as edit warring as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought that it looked like vandalism since he had been warned and had been referred to the talk page but I think you are correct that this is more like borderline behavior and I should back away from further involvement with the article. I will follow your advice. Donner60 (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.. Biblestudyprof (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the request has now been declined. Donner60 (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

His real weight is 227 lbs

His Odawg1414 (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

If so, and it is similar to the weight listed, that is the weight you should use. Donner60 (talk) 02:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Danesville mn name not correct

I am not a programmer but wanted to let you know that Danesville is misspelled. The correct spelling is Dehnsville Mn. I grew up a half mile from the store and did submit good data. here are 2 cites that use the correct spellings and name of the 2nd operator of the store. http://www.dingmannfuneral.com/obits/obituary.php?id=5 http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/40524559/6329 sorry if I made you think I was messing around — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.197.224.202 (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Harry A Dehn was the first operator of the store. 70.197.224.202 (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have left a message on you talk page that states in part that your references were in the wrong place and improperly formatted, which caused part of the problem. Of course, the U.S. Geological Survey uses the current name, as used in the article. It is fine to add history and show that there was once a previous spelling, along with references. The U.S. Geological Survey is the definitive source for the current spelling. I have deleted the earlier messages on your talk page as provided by the guidelines (strike through) and left a slightly more detailed note and some links to pages with information that can be helpful in editing Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

hey, sorry for the mess.

hi, I wrote reasons and I think messed up while deleting some of them. most of the "events" dont show any pkk losses, and desperately calling pkk terrorists as "guerillas" pkk is a terrorist organization. in casualities section, the link provided does not work, I tried to remove that, but apparently messed up. thanks for fixing them in advance, and please keep the biased opinions deleted.

I left a note and some helpful links on your talk page. After I saw this note, I also added: In response to your message, please make your edits more carefully and support them with sources when necessary. As I noted before, wholesale deletion of content is not the proper way to address these issues. You should address them by adding supporting material for your points with sources. If material is truly biased, it should be edited into more neutral language, especially if it is supported by reliable, verifiable sources. If it can not be edited to make it neutral and it is not supported by sources, then (at least in most cases), you should be able to delete it. Please read some of the pages that are linked above that may relate to this. Donner60 (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Citation

You said I needed a reliable source for my information on palisades, I know them and all about the information I added! All definitely reliable. Guitargaskarth (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't find any mention of this on the band's Facebook page. Sorry, leave it out until you can find a reliable, verifiable, neutral source. Based on a quick search, I can't find one but perhaps you are more familiar with references about the band. Your statement alone can not be accepted as a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Donner60 (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal of information added to Fly Systems.

My source would be myself. I have 10 years experience in the Theatre business. If you would like, I can supply pictures to go with my information when I go in for more maintainence tomorrow.

http://www.controlbooth.com/threads/rigging-question-tieing-off-a-line-set.551/ Here you have industry professionals and students discussing exactly what I posted. They use some different terms such as "Dogging" and "Snubbing". The principle is the same. Terms change with location.

You cannot base your addition solely on your own experience but you can certainly add citations which back you up. Your own version backed up by one or more citations is in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. For information about editing and writing for Wikipedia see Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Help:Referencing for beginners, Help:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Help:Getting started, Wikipedia:Introduction, Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. Donner60 (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

That is unfortunate... There are some things we do in this industry that are not published work (or harder to find) and more so taught by experience.

A few brief sentences might not be challenged if they look legitimate but I would not encourage that approach. Since you have a citation, why not use it? Every word you write does not need a citation, not even every sentence as long as the basic ideas are supported by the source and legitimate web sites (meaning in general ones that are not obviously simply expressing personal opinions) are valid sources. You can write up the information much as you have it as long as you can cite something that shows what you are writing is reasonably accurate. Donner60 (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

kat williamson photo

Hi Donner60, I was wondering if there's any way you could change kat's profile picture to a different action shot or possibly head shot? I've been trying to and I'm encountering trouble and thought I would reach out to someone who knew more about how to change it. Thanks for messaging me- sorry it has taken me some time to respond, I'm not very technologically savvy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jking1707 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I left a longer reply on your talk page. I am not a tech person either but I can change an image if it has a file name and is freely licensed. If it needs to be uploaded, rather than already existing on Wikipedia Commons, that may be more difficult. A bigger problem, however, can be showing that the image is freely licensed and not under copyright. I'll look into it and get back to you. Donner60 (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Further comment on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 09:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Can You help out?

Hi, I can't bellows works

1. Please create Park Jong-Won then make #REDIRECT Park Jong-won

2. Please attache language links. ko:박종원 222.98.25.251 (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I left a comment and advice on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. Jong Wong Park is wrong name. Definaltely, German made a mistake.00:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.98.25.251 (talk)

Afonso I of Portugal

Sorry for the mess. What happened is that I was trying to insert a new image on King Afonso I of Portugal's Infobox, and I messed it up because, I inserted wrongly the image and by consequence I messed up the Infobox. I shut down the page beliving that the mess would be resolved in a instant. The problem is that I still don't get how do I insert images on a Infobox. I'm deeply sorry for what happened. I'm looking forward for a response.

Keyier II (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Keyier II

You don't have a proper file name so your proposed change won't work. You need a file that ends in .jpg or some other extension that shows it is a picture. Also, it has to be freely licensed. You must be able to show it is not under copyright. If it comes from Wikipedia Commons, the status will be shown there. If not, you will have to upload it and show the copyright status. Donner60 (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Brodsworth

Why did you delete my post billybob787 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billybob787 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Introduction of factual errors; vandalism. Donner60 (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Mustang Range

The contribution is highly relevant and placed in an appropriate place. This is particularly evident in consideration of cost incurred by the contributor's experience (or understanding) of what it cost in the 1960s. I'm really surprised this didn't occur to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.131.60 (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Your own experience or understanding is not a good source. However, since similar information is on the page and also is not directly sourced, I deleted the message on your talk page and will not revert the edit if you add it again but I can not know how other editors may view it. Donner60 (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Rogue Edits?

Hi, you removed some stuff from the Rogue brewery page becuase you said it looked like a test. I don't know what that means. I looked through the edit history of that page and it's almost all rogue employees doing the writing? It it supposed to be that way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MerabWade (talk • contribs) 21:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure how you suppose that the editors are all Rogue employees but I don't think it is necessary to go into that. Wikipedia publishes facts based on verifiable, reliable sources, not opinions or commentary, especially based on blogs or forums, and ones that simply criticize and have axes to grind. I assumed you did not know this and did not have bad intent when you posted your previous changes so I marked it as a test. A longer explanation with reference to Wikipedia policies that I now link would have been better. In any event, now I see that you deleted content in the article, mid-reference, leaving gibberish to start a paragraph. Apparently you have something against Rogue and are not adding or changing content according to Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. Also, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Donner60 (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

City of many chickens

You removed saying it was a test. I was just there. There are indeed chickens walking the streets everywhere. Maybe you can tell me if you don't want me to put that there if there is a section where I can add it as there city bird? Feralchicken (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

If you have a verifiable, reliable source that you can cite and this is not simply your opinion (See Wikipedia:No original research), let me know. Also, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a blog, forum, soapbox or publisher of original research or opinion. It is an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable, neutral sources. (See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.) Donner60 (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Random IP edits

Hi, I'm sorry if this is the wrong place for questions, but I think there's been some sort of mix up. I was told that I had made some edits that were considered vandalism, but I have never even edited Wikipedia in the first place. I use it a lot, but I've never edited it. I don't have an account, but it told me that you knew it was me from the IP address. This is a work computer, but I've had it for several months now and never edited Wikipedia during that time. It looked like the edits in question were from the last four months or so? 208.87.234.202 (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Also, I just made an account so if you responded to this I could see it. Thank you again. Zacharykopet (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I replied on the talk page for your new account. Donner60 (talk) 02:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Chinese Mini-Nuke Event

Referenced sources and simple logic is profusely given. Scientific analysis transcends politics. Please at least summarize the data I condensed and simplified in the article somehow, with the referenced peer-reviewed journals explaining the logic of causation here...

Ambrosini, R.D., Luccioni, B.M., Danesi, R.F., Riera, J.D., and Rocha, M.M. 2002. Size of Craters Produced by Explosive Charges on or above the Ground Surface. Shock Waves, 12 (1): 69–78.

Ambrosini, R.D., Luccioni, B.M., and Danesi, R. 2006. Craters Produced by Explosions on the Soil Surface. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 73.

Ambrosini, R.D., and Luccioni, B.M. 2007. Craters Produced by Explosions above the Soil Surface. Mechanica Computacional, 26: 2253. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:F051:AB0F:3A76:DE48 (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You can certainly do this. The only problem that I saw with your additions was that they would likely be challenged for lack of citations. I assure you that politics has nothing to do with it as far as I am concerned. Since you have the citations, just add them as footnotes to support your text. There is no need for me to rewrite it as you are knowledgeable about the topic and know what the sources say. Help:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Citing Sources and Help:Referencing for beginners are pages with information about citing sources if you are unsure about how to do this. Thanks for the reply. Donner60 (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Sir, my above words are my own, but half of what I wrote to you was removed somehow, certain syntax and grammar in the public article modifications, and on here, both subtly warped, making my mind seem "eccentric" in an unflattering way, these changes not from MY END ... Genuinely puzzled, and I leave the NSA to this, I suppose. I know not what to think, period, now. Freaked out slightly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:F051:AB0F:3A76:DE48 (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The edit histories show no other user or IP address modified the above message or the article after your edits and before my reply or revert, respectively, both of which in turn did not modify anything you wrote. I am no computer expert so I cannot even guess at an explanation. Donner60 (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Oral administration of Propylene Glycol

Hi Donner60,

Please consider my addition to this section:

A recent case of propylene glycol poisoning from excess whiskey ingestion has been reported, in which a young man required ICU admission for respiratory depression and a significant osmolal gap metabolic acidosis.

I think it is relevant, but have not had much practice with editing. I'd like to try to site this article for the above addition: http://hic.sagepub.com/content/3/3/2324709615603722.full.pdf?ijkey=zv5XbFAllOicgL4&keytype=finite

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtaileen (talk • contribs) 13:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted my message and restored your edit. I misinterpreted it. I left a little longer comment on your talk page. Thank you for calling this to my attention and I am sorry for the mistake. Donner60 (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Lookout Mountain GA website error

I attempted to edit an incorrect link in the Walker County, Georgia article. The "City of Lookout Mountain, Ga" link currently listed (http://www.cityoflookoutmountain.com) takes one to a page with oriental text and is definitely not the website for the city. The correct URL is http://www.lookoutmtnga.com. (204.93.103.216 (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC))

You are correct. I must say it was really weird to test the old link and see the Oriental characters come up. Sorry for the mistake. I am deleting the original message on your talk page in the manner prescribed by the style guidelines (strike through). I have restored your edit. Thanks for bringing this to my attention and I hope you will be encouraged to add further useful edits to Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cannes Film Festival Best Director Award

62.85.42.252 (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC) Hi,Donner 60! Table "Template:Cannes Film Festival Best Director Award" is repeated twice. Please, correct it. Apologize about my bad English, and so on. 62.85.42.252 (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I only see the template contents shown once in the current version of the template. Are you referring to a different page or am I missing something? Donner60 (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Now I see from your edit summary that you were apparently concerned about the double entry in the article about Sergei Yutkevich. I removed the double entry from that article. You were editing the template itself which not only blanked the template but would not work to solve the problem with the Sergei Yutkevich article. It now seems that everything is correct. Thank you for alerting me to this. Donner60 (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit in page "pitts modern school"

Dear sir,

  I have done some editing like-1.added chairman 2.added website address 3. School address at the page of school "pitts modern school".

My changes have been removed and i got a message as : "Hello, I'm Donner60. An edit you recently made to Pitts Modern School seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to 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) 02:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)".

Please reconsider it.All changes i have done are correct.please make the change visible and applicable. Thankyou! Tapas ranjan mahto (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapas ranjan mahto (talk • contribs) 02:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted my message on your talk page. I have restored your edit except that I corrected the number of students from your number of 22000 to 2200. I was suspicious of that number which is why I tagged the edit as a test. Now I see that it must have been a typographical error. Sorry for the confusion but now all the changes appear to be correct. Donner60 (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Sex Difference in Intelligence

This is John Smith, a few minutes ago you removed an edit because I didn't provide the source but I actually DID provide that source and if the edit is still available please recheck it. If I did manage not provide a source, can you please cite which one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Deranjo Smith (talk • contribs) 04:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

You referred to "another study in Spain" but I see no further identification of it or reference to it. You also wrote "Therefore most IQ studies on sex differences tend to be representative of college students not overall population" without identifying a source for that. I think that unsourced edits to this article are likely challenged with regularity so it would be better to provide the references than get into a dispute about the contents (not with me, but with others who may take a greater interest). See Help:Page history for information on the "View History" tab where you can see previous versions and edits. Donner60 (talk) 04:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

How do I contact the author of the page "Sex differences in intelligence"? I wanted to talk to him about my deleted edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Deranjo Smith (talk • contribs) 17:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Removing my edit

Why was my edit removed? -71.224.115.250 (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You changed Cloud based applications to Butt based applications. Donner60 (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Revising the edits

Hello Donner60,

My name is Jzermene Van Ornum, I had my adding into the HTHMA deleted (it was the ip address before), The director of School, Robert Kuhl, has given me permission to add anything, but no inappropriate things, if you don't believe me, I will show you the email. Please respond, thank you Jvanornum2019 (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't believe you. You have added and changed information inconsistently and added an obviously bogus year change to 2025, changed numbers back and forth and put in something about a student hurting himself after losing in a game to his 2-year old sister. Or was it a 5-year old sister? You used both. Donner60 (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

   Since this is a big school, the ip's are all the same in the school, I promise you, my friends think it's funny changing things without the Director's permission, I on the other hand did. Jvanornum2019 (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

    They also don't have a wikipedia (so did I before) account, so all the changes linked into 1 ip address, & it was the school's ip address (All the chromebooks/computers are controlled by Hightechhigh.org), If you still don't believe me, I will give you the email I sent to the director for permission. Jvanornum2019 (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The whole email:

Jzermene Vanornum <jvanornum2019@hightechhigh.org> 2:22 PM (2 hours ago)

to R Hello Mr. Kuhl

    My name is Jzermene Van Ornum, a 9th grade student, may I add something in the HTHMA's Wikipedia, it will not be innapropriate, thank you.

R Kuhl <rkuhl@hightechhigh.org> 2:24 PM (2 hours ago)

to me

certainly

    I made this account so I can separate from the whole School ip's to wikipedia. Jvanornum2019 (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

OK. That sounds like a reasonable explanation. I am sorry that I did not give you more credit for acting constructively but without the explanation, I had no way to know that was the school IP address and not your own. So I could only think that you made the edits. I am glad you got an account. Protect your password and do not let anyone else use it, or leave your account unattended at school or in a public place, and you will be alright. Please go ahead with appropriate edits. Donner60 (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I left some links to pages with useful information about editing and writing for Wikipedia on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, since the school is based with the same ip, they can make the same edits with 2+ people, so you have to be on the lookout on that Ip. Thank you for putting in the consideration. Jvanornum2019 (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Belarus

I spent a couple of hours searching for duplicate references and what do I get? Semi-automated revert! You should better check every revert you do. --Jarash (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I have rolled back my revert and restored your edit. However, I believe you removed the URL from the first edit and did not replace it. That was what I saw. (Please double check that.) I am sorry I did not scroll further; that was my mistake. If I had, I would have noticed that you obviously intended to fix the citations. Please accept my apology and I hope you will continue to edit. I am striking my message on the user talk page before the redirected page and repeating this message on the other page as a mistake. I repeat this message to be sure you will get it. Donner60 (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

List of Bullpups.

I apologize for not adding a source. I changed those three years on the P90, F2000, and Famas because of the year they began production, not design. If you look at their wiki pages it will say what I put. Thanks!71.195.251.211 (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Without a source or an explanation such as this in the edit summary, I could not be sure whether the change in years was valid. Donner60 (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

All good! I tend to do that quite a bit. I definitely need to make it a habit to list my sources. :P Thanks for understanding! 71.195.251.211 (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Janet Jones (artist) page reversion/removal

Hello Donner60. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Last night, you made a reversion to Janet Jones (artist), a page marked under construction as part of a meet-up. You may not have realized that the new user involved was working in a library, under the guidance of Wikipedia Administrators (see Anne Delong), as well as several librarians and other Wikipedians. The new editor was focused on formatting, prior to inserting relevant content with citations. Unfortunately, your abrupt reversion/deletion (under 30 minutes from posting) was seriously discouraging to this editor, who comes with significant knowledge resources that would be highly valuable to Wikipedia. While your overall efforts are appreciated, you should give pages marked with under construction templates (see below) the stated week to complete their collaborative work.

As you know, while there are many users with technical sophistication, quality articles require people with exceptional writing and research skills. Patience with them on initial edits and posts would go a long way to improving the overall quality on Wikipedia.

Seazzy (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on this. I obviously missed it. I was using Huggle last night and I either missed the tag or Huggle did not show it. As you probably know, Huggle shows the changes, not the entire page, so occasionally something in an unchanged part of the page, or an earlier edit, might not be seen. No excuse, of course, but it may be what happened. Either way, I will pay more attention to this possibility in an effort to avoid this problem in the future. Donner60 (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, now that I have gone back through the history of the page, I see why I did not see the template on Huggle. It was not added to the article until after my one and only reversion of the additions. It was a later editor who reverted the content after the template was added. Nonetheless, I will take your message as a reminder to be vigilant when editing with Huggle. Donner60 (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't revert edits for no reason

You reverted a clearly described edit I made within seconds of me making it. Obviously, you didn't even bother to read it, and you certainly didn't have the courtesy to give any coherent explanation of why you reverted. Such destructive behaviour is entirely detrimental to the aim of building an encyclopaedia. Don't do it again. 186.9.130.34 (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It appears that I pushed the wrong button because I can see no reason for my revert. As unfortunate and unintentionally aggravating as it may be, mistakes happen. This could be easily corrected and indeed you have reverted the edit so there is no need for me to roll my edit back. Simply bringing it to my attention would be enough for me to recognize a mistake. An apology would ensue. I will assume you do not know about the levels of vandalism and disruptive editing on this project and the need for editors as well as Cluebot to quickly review recent changes in order to control it. Again unfortunately, neither the humans nor the bot are infallible. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Civility. Donner60 (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I am of course aware of vandalism. My edits are very easily distinguished from vandalism, being obvious improvements accompanied by a clear edit summary. But that doesn't stop people reverting them for no reason at all, as you did. If you aren't able or willing to look at edits before reverting, you shouldn't revert. And if you do actually look at them, and decide that you need to revert them, then you should have the courtesy to explain why in an edit summary. "(HG) (3.1.15)" is not a useful edit summary though I see you leave that one a lot. Reverting people's work for no reason is a personal attack. I suggest you read WP:NPA and WP:VAN. 186.9.131.187 (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This user proceeded to get into arguments with at least three administrators and to add uncivil comments, attacks and harassment to user pages. He (presumably) was blocked on September 21 and the block was extended to a week for further such actions. The user has never edited again. For the record. Donner60 (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Jay Jays change

Hi Donnor60,

I deleted the information as some of it is now incorrect. I also updated the logo which is their current logo, as per their website and Facebook page, in addition to their brand description

If you could please revert the page back to the changes I made, I will make sure that I describe changes in Edit Summary going forward — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birtcho (talk • contribs) 03:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I struck the original message on your user talk page and I have rolled back my edit to the latest version by you. You explained that you were in the middle of editing the page, which was the reason for the deletion of content. Thank you for the explanation and I am sorry I jumped the gun on this one. Go ahead with your edits; I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

89th MP Brigade

I appreciate you reviewing my changes. I am new to wikipedia and have been tasked by my military unit (93D MP Battalion) to add pages for us. I did not mean to remove any info box from our parent unit (89th MP Brigade) page. I am merely adding basic info and links. I also accidentally started a 93rd MP Battalion page that I changed and redirected to 93D MP Battalion. Please let me know if I made any other mistakes. Also still figuring out talk hah Bsn015 (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I suspected that you may have made an inadvertent change so I am glad I left a specific message. I will take a further look at the articles. I left some links to pages with useful information that can help you in editing and writing for Wikipedia on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The 93D Military Police Battalion page should have an introduction similar to that in the article for the 89th Military Police Brigade. Even though it is inserted under the infobox on the edit page, it will, or should, push the infobox to the right side of the page and opposite the opening text rather than on top of it. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history for a page with information about editing military or military history articles. Donner60 (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Blink-182 Name Explanation

sup. i edited the Blink-182 List of Recorded songs. i was partially incorrect. here's your source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPJMUzMrFP0 2602:306:BDEC:1D0:FD1C:1C0C:90F0:C89B (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Will you add a corrected sentence with the source? I left a little longer comment on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 05:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The Morley Academy

The Morley Academy does not have a sixth form — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.179.146.100 (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The Morley Academy may no longer have a sixth form but that is no excuse for also adding nonsense about the "4th Reich" and "concentration camp." Donner60 (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

explanation for editing

Hello Donor60 This refers to the editing of page Agha Shahid Ali . How on earth can you call it vandalism when I am authenticating it by adding his fathers page. I was just adding to the information. You must do your full research before making any such allegation and threatening to block. I pity your narrow outlook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali1872 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I deleted my first message on your talk page and I have rolled back my reversion to the last version of the article by you. I simply made a mistake. Now that I look at your edit, I see that it was a good faith effort to improve the article. I am not sure why I pressed the reversion button so I either did not understand the edit or simply hit that option by mistake. I am sorry for the mistake and hope you will continue to make useful edits to Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

It's alright. Best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali1872 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and thanks for bringing this to my attention. Everyone makes mistakes. Sometimes one has to be told about it or they are likely simply to go on and not realize it happened. I think the important thing is to recognize and correct them quickly and work toward the best result. Donner60 (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

sorry

Sorry Donner, I tried adding an image and tada, huge mess. 96.237.23.216 (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Images and pages linked from there for help. You also may find the following pages have useful information about Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view,Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style.

Arnaoot

My source is only I am Syrian and I know my ethnic Arnaoot Albanians are living with us in my city. The were mostly soldiers in the Ottoman army and they have been living in Syria fore decades. Nezam mazen (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, even if your information is correct, Wikipedia does not base content on personal experience, knowledge or opinion. Wikipedia is based on reliable, verifiable, neutral (third-party) sources, which must be cited if an entry is challenged or is likely to be challenged, which I think you addition would be. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. (A minor point: it was in the wrong place on the page.) You also may find the following pages have useful information about writing and editing for Wikipedia: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset;Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Help:Footnotes Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Thank you.

Balkan pan-slavism

Why you delete my corections in this article? About pan slavism in ethnic macedonians... Ethnic macedonians not exist prerior to 1945... there is a plenty of discutions and articals with sources about this in wikipedia. Actualy ethnic macedonians not exist at all, they are macedonians by nationality, not by ethnicity, but thats other problem. So majority of historians in the world exsept yugoslavs defenatly not suport the climes of existing of ethnic macedonians prerior 1945. So its imposible to exist pan-slavism among nation and ethnic group that stil not exist!

About the denying the slav belongs of bulgarians. Its imoprtant subject of the article pan-slavism in the Balkan. The serbian nationalistic and comunistic doctrine deny the slav belonging of bulgarians. Propagandateing among the population in exyugoslaviq that the bulgarians are turko-tataro mongols from asian race, and its stil very popular in that area. How this is not important in subject of panslavism? The fashizoid serbian clims that bulgarians are tatars, turcs, mongol, asians is a basic for the serbian panslav national doctrine and vision about Balkan slavs and pan-slavism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.237.139.174 (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I have left an explanation and some helpful links on your talk page. I apologize for not leaving a message when I reverted your edits as editing tests. I explain that I would not have done this if I had a major problem with the substance. I went about in the wrong way but you reverted my edit and another editor has made some helpful changes so the matter seems to be fixed. I made a few other remarks and left some links to helpful pages on your talk page. Again, I am sorry for the inconvenience and my mistaken handling. Donner60 (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I apologize for my ëmotional answer! I apologize for my poor english! I appreciate youre eforts and work about subjects, also youre respective altitude, despite my probably not very calm notes! cheers men! Also to the guy who corect my misteks, also thanks!

No problem. Again, I do not blame you for your response. I am sure it was frustrating not to get an explanation at first and I must take responsibility for not giving you that right away. Then you would have spared most, if not all, of the frustration. Yes, also thanks to User:Yamaguchi for the corrections. Donner60 (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Eleanor Percy, Countess of Northumberland

Hi Donner60, nice to meet you on my first edit! You had written: Hello, I'm Donner60. An edit you recently made to Eleanor Percy, Countess of Northumberland seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to 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. No, it was not a test or mistake. She was not married to John Locke as listed on the right hand banner (uncited & unsourced). The site quoted from in the Wikipedia article does not have this marriage, nor does any other source. So it would be good if it were removed to stop the genealogical confusion. My thanks Answerstoeh (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry I made a mistake on that. I should have taken a little extra time to be more certain. I restored your edit. I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia. I placed on your talk page some links to pages with useful information that can help you in editing and writing for Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

A false positive in midwifery article

Hi. In the Midwifery article, I boldly split out content about midwife to the Midwife article.

• Per WP:SIZESPLIT, more than 60 kb.
• Per WP:CONSPLIT, is not the same "profession" than "professional". It is not the same dentistry than dentist, law than lawyer, physics than physicist, midwifery than midwife, etc. Different articles for different concepts. All the information about education, training, regulation and licensure corresponds to the professional (midwife) article.
• A lot of Interlanguage articles links to the midwife article.

I started "Split" discussions on talk pages of both articles. I had a false positive, and I reported it. Please, could you tell me what other steps should I take to finalize the edit? Thank you. --Rodguerrer (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I have rolled back my edit to Midwifery. I think the Midwife article is as you wanted it. I saw the edit to that article, and the summary that it was a split, and thought it was fine, and passed it by. Then, I reverted the corresponding edit to Midwifery, which was obviously a mistake if the first edit was fine. I should have been more alert and put two and two together. I think I was thrown off by the previous reversion by Cluebot, which one can see when using the Huggle program, but also the fact that Huggle does not show the whole page, only the change. That can lead to a mistake (infrequently) if one does not see the whole picture. I am sorry for the mistake and hope this will not discourage you from continuing to contribute to Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to keep everything together, I add this from the beginning of my later message on your talk page: I am deleting the above message in the manner suggested by the guidelines (strike through) because it was a mistake as the following note explains. Also, I notice you have been using Twinkle and are probably familiar with Huggle (making my mistake more embarrassing). Also, I am not changing what I wrote about Huggle but my explanation is rather simple or superfluous to anyone who is familiar with it. Also, since you have been contributing to Wikipedia, my word of encouragement may be less important than my explanation and apology. Donner60 (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help and for your explanation --Rodguerrer (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Fetterman, West Virginia

Hello. I saw your message on User:Magnolia677's talkpage. Did you take any pictures of historic buildings and the main roads while you were there? It would improve the article a lot if you could upload them to Wikimedia Commons and add one to the infobox. Perhaps User:Coal town guy can help too.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no pictures. I actually passed through the Fetterman location (now absorbed into Grafton) on a railroad hi-rail car about 35 years ago. The information in the article is from the sources quoted. I wrote my contribution to the article a few years ago but I don't remember any pictures in those sources. I wrote the article because of Fetterman's significance to events at the start of the American Civil War, not because I happened to have passed through the location or had any special knowledge. I do remember it because it struck me at the time as the name of a later (1866) Native American/Army battle, the Fetterman Fight, and I remembered it mainly because of that coincidence. Sorry I could be no help with a picture. Donner60 (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)