User talk:Donner60/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Archive 10 starting with threads from October 2, 2015

Germany–India article

Reverted the "Germany–India relations" article but took care to redact the disruptive/inappropriate reference tag (which got added automatically by my URL sources inclusion tool) and which is an unfortunate oversight. You will see that the rest of the updates are made in good faith and appropriately and abundantly referenced. 81.240.175.173 (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me about the problem and for adding a fully corrected version. I deleted the original message from me on your talk page with strike through. Donner60 (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :)

81.240.175.173 (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Public Protests: Just the TTIP of the Iceberg?

This article fails to represent the growing level of and protest against TTIP within the EU and UK. Despite this, comments highlighting public concern have been removed. WHY? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.106.20 (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I see it was an edit just before yours which added "The End of Democracy in Europe?....Well, Yes. According to Kevin Rees, but, What do I know?" and my edit did not remove it. I did not notice that. I also think that the addition of "(for US business)" is neither neutral nor accurate considering supporters think Europeans will also benefit. It seems that the rest of your edits could be considered supported by the sources without the need for additional sources. I am sorry I included the remark first mentioned as part of your edit and indeed, another editor had to remove it. I am sorry I did not review and handle this better and did not leave a more specific note. I would have no objection to your restoring the rest of your edits but for the parenthetical phrase which I think the text and sources do not support. Donner60 (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Editing The Alexander Nevermind Wikipedia page

Hello I'm trying to create a wikipedia page about Alexander Nevermind and his career up to this point and once it seemed as if i had made some progress on the page it then sent me a editing conflict error notification and said that i needed to contact you in this way. before i started editing when i would search Alexander Nevermind it would just forward me to a wiki page about Prince the Musician. flattering as that may be im not writing about prince. do i need to create a new page in order to finish what im trying to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.220.124.194 (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Alexander Nevermind is a Prince alias. If you wish to create a separate page for Alexander Nevermind, which I assume is the Prince alias and not a separate person, I suggest you create a new page and title it Alexander Nevermind (Prince alias). I would be aware that someone may challenge it as included in the Prince page. In that case, it would be better just to add more sourced content on Alexander Nevermind on the Prince page. If there is a separate actual person named Alexander Nevermind, I still think you need to create a new page with a title such as Alexander Nevermind (musician). If you do this, you will need to provide references to show that this is indeed a separate person from Prince. I saw no such references but I only needed to see that it was a Prince alias to know that the redirect to the Prince page was correct. I deleted my first message on you talk page in the manner prescribed by Wikipedia guidelines (strike through) because your message to me shows you were in good faith. I added some links to pages with useful information that can help you in editing and writing for Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

thank you for the info and yes i am indeed writing about a separate actual person named Alexander Nevermind who is an Artist ,Musician and Magician that is located in Colorado. In this case would i have to make a new page under Alexander Nevermind (Artist) or Alexander Nevermind (artist, musician and Magician)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.220.124.192 (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

You should pick one word for the parenthetical expression. See Wikipedia:Article titles for more information. Also, be sure you can show that the person is notable and support this with citations to reliable, verifiable sources, which means they can not be from the subject but should be from neutral sources. For further information about editing or writing for Wikipedia see: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Help:Footnotes 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. Donner60 (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

DrPhuong213

I reverted the artificial organ article back quite a bit. It looks like DrPhuong213 had been having fun with that article for awhile. Smeggysmeg (talk) 00:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

slander

sir you are slandering my master teacher you need to remove that information because it is very false. he is not serving a 135 year sentence for child molestation he is serving that sentence for racketeering the child molestation charges were dropped. you need to remove your post about the master teacher Dr York Nuavyon (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It is sourced. Your deletions and additions are unsourced and not supported. Donner60 (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

For being the rollbacker Wikipedia both needs and deserves. GABHello! 22:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Donner60. You might want to go back and sign your vote. Altamel (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry I forgot that. Donner60 (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

BYU/San Diego

Thank you for your watchful eye. As a little FYI, all the edits for the BYU/USD women's soccer match tonight were done by me. I work as a staff writer for a local paper on Friday Night's covering area high school football games. I have listened to the Friday Night WSOC BYU games 3 of the past 4 weeks and 4 of the last 7 total via my smart phone. I usually update the scores as the game is going on so I won't have to spend extra time on it at the end. Tonight I waited until the first score of the game, which was in the final 6 minutes. I typically do not log in with my username and password on the work computer solely because I don't want to risk anyone else having that info. So in this case, all 3 edits were actually made by me. I logged on after you reset everything because I wanted to point out that it was all correct and shouldn't have been reset, which is why the stat link was added. The only mistake I made on any of it was accidentally listing the USD penalty as a goal instead of yellow card on the 1st edit.

• Edit 1- Added scoring, penalties, officials, and attendance (all taken from the Stat Broadcast link).
• Edit 2- Added the Stat Broadcast link as a reference and corrected the yellow card that was accidentally listed as a score for USD WSOC.
• Edited 3- Added final result and score.
• Edit 4- Will add the BYU page recap as the summary and the Deseret News article as a reference next to the score. This is being done shortly.

Bigddan11 (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I thought I remembered an entry out of place but when I checked it again I thought your edit was ok. You were mostly correct so I should have mentioned something specifically or let it go because someone making a correct edit will almost certainly correct a minor problem in a short period of time. Donner60 (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for 1864 Republican National Convention

An article that you have been involved in editing—1864 Republican National Convention —has been proposed for merging with 1864 National Union National Convention. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. older ≠ wiser 18:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I've merged the articles, via changing 1864 Republican National Convention article, into a redirect to 1864 National Union National Convention article. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Ben Thaler

Hi, you keep reverting my constructive edits to a vandalised version. Please be more careful with Huggle. Thank you 90.203.6.79 (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

How can this person be both a referee and a player at the same time? Donner60 (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Mate, that's how it works in Rugby League! 90.203.6.79 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I will leave it to you and others more familiar with the Rugby League. It is unlike any sports league I am familiar with if a person can be both a referee and a player. Sorry if my unfamiliarity with the league caused a mistake. Donner60 (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I was joking pal, of course a referee cannot be a player! I have now reverted the article back to it's correct version! :D 90.203.6.79 (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Cross-linked polyethylene

OMG i am so sorry. i have learnt my lesson about leaving my laptop open during class. once again i am so sorry and i will make sure nothing like this will happen again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidabbott9011 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Niraj Goel

Hi Donner60 apologies in advance for any process errors I make in my communication. I know from direct real world experience that the current comments on Niraj Goel's page are lies. The person in question has paid for weak news content to boost their google search for the purposes of defrauding investors. I say this not to slander but to protect potential victims. If actual facts (the edits I made) are valued less than supported lies I suggest that defeats the whole ethos of Wikipedia. Kind regards, facts are great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsaregreat (talk • contribs) 03:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You removed many positive statements about Niraj Goel without any showing that they were erroneous. Then you added negative content without a single citation. If these are really such well known facts, surely you can cite some reliable, verifiable source that can back them up. Otherwise, all we have is your word for it and no one knows if your edits are made because they are true or because you have some sort of grudge against this person. As information, you may find the following pages have useful information about Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Help:Footnotes, 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. Help:Contents provides guidance and links to pages were help can be requested. Also see Wikipedia:Teahouse. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Fine, I will just have to wait until the "mainstream" media reports the case. Easy enough to arrange. The facts are erroneous and the sources are laughably weak. The "Times of India" and "Indian Diaspora" are pay for play rags and those are being used to support 90% of the claims including him being a billionaire. A former employee was tasked with creating the page in the first place - hardly impartial. For various reasons what has happened is being kept under the radar. Don't take my word for it though, please feel free to contact anyone at his associated companies, as well as the MAS and CAD authorities in Singapore. I respect the wiki process so won't make any further edits but the reality is the system has been gamed and he is using the front of wiki respectability to help him steal money from people. Whether you believe what I say or not the page is full of lies, which in my mind outweighs an ethical concerns sources. Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsaregreat (talk • contribs) 04:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC) I'm still waiting for a reply. Disappointing you prefer "valid" lies to actual truth.

I did not think your comment called for a reply. You make a few other unsourced comments and conclude that you will wait until there are mainstream reports. That seems to leave the matter where it is for the time being. I repeat that at this point it is your word against sourced content or previously unchallenged content that is not shown to be wrong. You make allegations against certain publications (at least one of which is a rather well known source) but do not back this up by any source, even a biased one. Wikipedia does not work by contacting people to get other unsourced reports, if that is what you mean. Again, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Help:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view among the pages I cited above. I suggest you wait until you can cite a reliable, verifiable, neutral source before further editing the article or further carrying on a discussion which can only lead to the same conclusions unless sources are cited. Donner60 (talk) 09:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources don't make something truthful they just make it sourced. I know Bloomberg will be writing it up soon so will come back to edit then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsaregreat (talk • contribs) 21:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

OK. Donner60 (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Adeiny Hechavarria misunderstanding

Hi, I got a message saying you removed an unsourced link from the page Adeiny Hechavarria that was from this IP address but I don't ever recall making an edit to that page. I've never even heard of Adeiny Hechavarria.66.87.82.228 (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

There are several possibilities including that someone used your computer during an unguarded moment, someone hijacked your internet access in a public place and a few others. A few unexplained edits have been reported in the past. There is no doubt that this IP address was used because the identification process is automated. If it does not happen again, I would not worry about it. Donner60 (talk) 02:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Question about editing

Can I be on this site if I'm just a normal uk citizen earning a normal wage in a normal job? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.226.73 (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I made a reply and left a list of links to helpful Wikipedia advice and policy pages on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 02:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Question about External Link Section

I have observed few organization pages having social profile links such as Facebook & twitter. Can I remove such links? Please help me with what kind of tag should be used so that, it will get auto deleted in case any one tries to add such links violating wiki guidelines

--Deepak HM 06:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Deepakhmwiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepakhmwiki (talk • contribs)

Please see Wikipedia:External links especially in the Links normally to be avoided section in particular for a listing of social media sites to be avoided as external links:

"10. Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists."

"11. Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)"

Although the official guidelines are in Wikipedia:External links, the essay in Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites has a useful explanation. Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard and a few pages linked on that page are pages where questions about external links can be asked]].

I know of no way to tag a page to automatically keep such links from being added again. As far as I know, pages simply needed to be watched or recent changes to pages need to be watched. You might want to ask your question on the noticeboard.

You also may find the following pages have useful information about Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Notability, 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. Help:Contents and Wikipedia:Questions provide guidance and links to pages where help can be requested on various subjects Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 07:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Espresso Martini

What 'factual error' am I supposed to have introduced to the article? 85.229.48.166 (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

In anticipation of the questioning you expected, you explained the edit and I missed it. Sorry for the mistake. I rolled back my edit to your version and deleted the message on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Lumber River

The name of the Lumber River is Lumber River, it is not the Lumbee River. What was included was not inncorrect http://www.rivers.gov/rivers/lumber.php

2602:306:BD5B:44E0:D824:F9E2:131:FD3C (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

My mistake. I should have checked that instead of relying on a recollection which you have shown is incorrect. I will roll back my edit if it has not been corrected and will delete the message on your talk page. Thanks for pointing this out. Donner60 (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Steatoda

Regarding the size of the Steatoda species - I actually have a false widow sitting here in a pot that I caught last night in the toilet & was trying to find info on it and straight away found that the size details are incorrect. The one sitting here which has been identified by true spider keepers and multiple pictures has a 30-35mm leg span, way over what is stated on any of the Steatoda sp. pages. I can TRY sort out a picture of a tape measure under it, just getting it to sit still for long enough is a bit of a nightmare let alone with its legs out-streched showing the full size but can give it a shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenette 001 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I have been offline for several days due to illness and travel. In answer, I think this would be original research contrary to Wikipedia editing guidelines. You should cite a reliable, verifiable source for the fact that these can grow to larger sizes. I think one of the cited articles actually says something about these possibly growing to 3 cm., but, sorry to say, I did not take note of it and could not readily find the story. So I can believe your change but I still think you need to provide a source - and that such source can be found. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources; Help:Footnotes; 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. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive?

Hi. Can you please tell me how my most recent edit to Hell in a Cell (2015) is disruptive? I directly quoted that from 411mania.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatwweguy 619 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Deleted my message, added comment and links on sourcing and footnotes. Donner60 (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Change in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Leslie_Goodwin

Hey Donner

I just got your message regarding my "test". It actually was a wrong citation. "Possibly 2nd class" even tho in the original it's "Probably 3rd class":

Number 4: http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/description-of-recovered-titanic-bodies.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1205:5020:5F70:A984:D9B5:728D:131F (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I am deleting my original message on your talk page because you were actually trying to correct an error. However, it seems to me that you need to cite the more specific web page of http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/titanic-victim/sidney-leslie-goodwin.html. The general page that you referred to on my talk page does not appear to contain enough information to support the change. Assuming you agree, please make the change (but not in all capital letters) and add this more specific citation. If you do not agree, let me know so we can consider it further. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Colonial India

Deleted uncivil and uninformed message but left reply and helpful links on user's talk page.

Thank you for giving a polite answer. I understand that I have acted not in a civil manner previously, and I would like to apologize for it. I understand that there are rules and I wish to follow them. What disturbed me was that after a mistake was bought into attention by my horrible editing, the same mistake was put back again. But I really appreciate you replying in a polite manner which I didn't expect. I am extremely sorry for my previous behaviour and for all the inconvenience that I have caused you. I will go through each and every link that you have posted and will make sure I don't repeat this behaviour of mine again. Thank you for being patient. I really appreciate the way you have handled the situation. Sorry again for my misconduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soumo1989 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Left this message on your talk page; copied here to keep the threads together.

I appreciate your reply. If we are making our best efforts as editors, it is to explain Wikipedia to new users and to bring them in to make constructive edits in the future. That does not work if one does not try to explain the many policies and guidelines which most people would not know exist unless they are told about them. There is no need to argue with people who are trying to act in good faith. We need to all be on the same page and try to understand and work out any differences. I am always glad when someone becomes more familiar with the project and continues to work on it.

While we may give some presumption to existing text, there is no doubt that sometimes it needs to be modified or replaced and, if challenged, citations need to be given.

I actually did take a few minutes to research this issue and found this: Wills, Jr., John E. The World from 1450 to 1700. New York, Oxford University Press, 2009. ISBN 978-0-19-533797-6. Page 39. "After the conquest of Goa, Albuquerque had encouraged his men to marry widows of fallen members of the Muslim garrison; we might wonder what the ladies thought about being treated as part of the conquerors’ loot. Albuquerque’s action often is seen as a sign of a relatively relaxed Portuguese attitude to racial mixing, and the result all along this coast and in Sri Lanka was the emergence of a substantial “Indo-Portuguese” population, mixed in racial heritage and Catholic in religion, uniquely blending heritages of culture and custom." Retrieved October 29, 2015.  – via Questia (subscription required) . Of course, we do not know whether the original author got the idea for the disputed language from this or from some other source. It may, or perhaps may only partially, support the sentence at issue. Also, I think you may be more concerned with a more limited group of people who seem to be included by the general language and perhaps should not be. Donner60 (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Donner60:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 00:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Hey Donner60! It's been a while since we chatted, so I wanted to wish you a spooooooooky Halloween! --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 00:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Donner60 (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Boole

Hi. Yes i just made a minor edit (delink) then a vandal interjected, Everything seems to be in order. The article probably needs a 24 hour lock. Cheers.RyanTQuinn (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Anna Rezan

Remove Anna Rezan page. It does not belong on Wiki. She is a no name actress, looks like it was written by her PR person. Very, very bad bio. Homemade crap Bellatarr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Remove Anna Rezan page. It does not belong on Wiki. She is a no name actress, looks like it was written by her PR person. Very, very bad bio. Homemade crap Bellatarr (talk)

A page cannot be deleted simply because a reader/user/editor does not like it or like the subject of the page or because it is poorly written. (I can agree that the page is not up to Wikipedia quality and has some puffery, at least, but that is cause for someone who is interested in improving the article editing the page, not for its deletion. I have tagged the page for cleanup.) The article has sources which appear to be neutral and reliable. I am not an administrator and cannot delete the page in any event. The page does not meet the criteria for criteria for speedy deletion. I checked a source and it was not copyrighted. If any material violates a copyright from any other sources, that material could be deleted without going through a deletion process. The source of the copyrighted material should be identified in the edit summary or on the talk page with a mention in the edit summary so the removal can be verified as legitimate. See Wikipedia:Copyright Problems and Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Otherwise, if you wish to have the page deleted, you must proceed under the procedures shown in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. For criteria, see: Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Given the subject's notice by the sources cited on the page, I think you might have difficulty establishing she is not notable under the general notability guidelines but you are welcome to try. See Wikipedia:Notability (people).

Other Wikipedia policy or guideline pages that may be useful to you in editing or writing for Wikipedia include: Wikipedia:List of policies; Wikipedia:List of guidelines; The five pillars of Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Help:Footnotes, 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. Help:Contents provides guidance and links to pages where help can be requested. Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages (but not article edits) by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

User MetlifeWP

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Incidents#Gibberish_edits_by_disruptive_but_well_meaning_editor. Thank you. You helped clean up MetLifeWP's nonsense edits, so I thought you might like to comment on this. Andyjsmith (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

References

I'm new on Wikipedia....having trouble adding refs...haven't figured it out yet.....I have the refs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcbstudent (talk • contribs) 04:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I left some links on your talk page to Wikipedia pages that give help and guidance for editing and writing for Wikipedia. In particular, as to references, see Help:Referencing for beginners; Help:Footnotes; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Donner60 (talk) 04:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm still having trouble adding shpack landfill refs...I'm working on it...Please know as creator of the page I think you did a great job...If you want to help me add the refs it would make the page even better....I'd like to start by adding links to the original NRC investigation report; the link for Oak Ridge's 1981 report; Bechtel's 1984 report; obituaries for Vannevar Bush and Carroll Wilson.....on the clean up section of the article there is new info....the site clean up was completed in 2012 50,000 cubic yards of contaminated material shipped to Clive Utah....Shpack site is also now covered by Energy Employees Compensation Act relating to cancer victim compensation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcbstudent (talk • contribs) 18:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I left this message on your talk page: I did not create the page. I only came across your edit while reviewing recent (which is to say almost current) changes. It seems you have put much additional work into it and others have also made some edits. I encourage you to review again Help:Referencing for beginners, Help:Footnotes and perhaps even Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes because it seems you are still having some problems with footnote and reference formats. Since I am not familiar with the references, or even the article as a whole, unless I come across a problem that seems to need immediate correction, I will leave it to you and the others who have worked on the article to finish the work on it. If you have a more specific question, especially about the citations, let me know and I will try to give an answer as best as I can as promptly as I can. Donner60 (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey

On the WITS Academy page, It's Peter Lopez, not Peter Dager as Harris. Read the end of WITS Academy credits.

-OmgBunnies

OmgBunnies (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted my original message on your talk page and left some useful links to Wikipedia guideline, policy and style pages on your talk page in the event you are not familiar with them. I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: November 2015

Hi,

My edit of 'Gallipolli, Apulia' was not as a test but instead was intended to be a meaningful addition of content referring to an oft-visited location in the city. Thanks! Techguy248 (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted the message on your user page because your comment indicates you are in good faith. I have not restored the edit because the individual mentioned is not shown as notable with a link to a Wikipedia article about him (and the mention does not appear pertinent in any event). I left some links to Wikipedia style, guideline and policy pages which can be useful in writing for or editing Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Litótrofos

Hi, Donner60. I did realized that I was using the English version of Wikipedia til I got the message that was needed to be translated. I have already transferred all the information written to the Spanish version. Thanks for your great job, and sorry for the inconvenience. I just wanted to erase the input. Have a nice evening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario j vaughan (talk • contribs) 02:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I explained why — Preceding unsigned comment added by IncredulousAtonomy (talk • contribs) 02:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	thank you for reverting my mistake Jonnymoon96 (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have deleted my original message on your talk page since you obviously made a mistake (also shown by past history). The barnstar is appreciated although I must say that a simple thanks and explanation would have been enough. Happy editing. Donner60 (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Hi,my name is Marco chali,can you help me to put my info in wikiPedia,coz i dont Know how put all those details,sorry for anythin bro, Thanx Marco M Chali (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It is curious that you know how to create user and user talk links without creating the corresponding pages so I suspect you know more than you say you do. It is also curious that you found this particular page, which is not on any help page, with your first edit. Donner60 (talk) 03:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Your Fitness Club - Koregaon Park

Hey Donner,

Greeting of the Day,

i have Edited the Koregaon Park Wikipedia Page with More Information Like Health Club Or Gym where People Can do Workout Daily.. I have Taken the Membership from the Your Fitness Club in Koregaon Park Branch & i love the place & environment .. !! Worth of Time & Money

Hope other People will also Enjoy this

Thanks in Advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.63.226.135 (talk) 04:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Your only addition is #Your Fitness Club. Even if this was a proper addition, it gives the reader no real information. As information about this not being a proper addition, please see Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#Twitter. Also, please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. I will put some other helpful links on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Editing page on Bifurcation Theory

Hi Donner60, you removed my edit on the page for bifurcations because you thought it was a test. It was not a test and the edit I made was a needed correction. The page lists a Neimark bifurcation but in fact the most used convention is Neimark-Sacker. Try googling Neimark bifurcation to see for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.109.159 (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

In view of your explanation, I deleted my message on your talk page, left some helpful links to Wikipedia pages if you are not familiar with them and rolled back my edit so that yours is now the last edit to the article. I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Sorry for my misunderstanding. Donner60 (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Editing page on Wolf–Rayet star

Hi Donner60, you removed my edit on the page for Wolf–Rayet stars because you thought it was a test. It was not a test and the edit was a needed correction. The page lists the latitude of the Wolf–Rayet star Gamma 2 Velorum as northern but in fact it is southern. Try googling Gamma 2 Velorum to see for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.181.234 (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry for the mistake. I deleted my message on your talk page, rolled back my edit so that yours is now the last one on the page, and left some links to helpful Wikipedia pages in case you are not familiar with them. I hope you continue to edit Wikipedia. Thank you for your contribution. Donner60 (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Just working to make Wikipedia better one word at a time. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.181.234 (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

editing on Portola California

can you redo the posting? here are the sources...

Ronald "Jake" Jacobson http://freestyle.usskiteam.com/freestyle-programs/athletes/development/aerials https://usagym.org/PDFs/T&T/National%20Teams/tt_1314_srnationalteam.pdf

Tucker Larrieu http://tuckerlarrieu.com/ http://xgames.espn.go.com/xgames/athletes/3893026/tucker-larrieu

Mario Rodriguez http://www.wmubroncos.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=206293164 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.89.251.168 (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I left a message on your talk page in which I explained that I would add the Mario Rodriguez entry but gave reasons why I could not add the other two. This should give you an example of formatting. I left comments which state what would be satisfactory sourcing to add the other two. I left some links to Wikipedia pages which can help you to write for or edit Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

here are more links to prove those two people

Ronald "Jake" Jacobson https://www.usagym.org/pages/athletes/athleteListDetail.html?id=126517

Tucker Larrieu http://www.hookit.com/members/tucker158/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.89.251.168 (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Just got your new message as I was posting my message above. I will check these and get back to you. Donner60 (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I left this message on your talk page: I will piece together the additional information that you provided. I think that the three entries will be acceptable with this information. I hope you will review the pages above and contribute to Wikipedia in the future. Donner60 (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Editing page on Samaritan Hebrew

Hi Donner60, I changed from: "in Holon (in what today has become the State of Israel) or in Schechem (i.e. Nablus, located in the West Bank, in the area known as the Palestinian territories)" to: "in Holon (in the State of Israel) or in Schechem (i.e. Nablus, in the State of Palestine)" in order to render the sentence perfectly balanced and as NPOV as possible. The latter seems less distracting too. I didn't see this edit as a problem since the entry "State of Palestine" already existed in WP, even though I'm aware that this status is not recognised by everyone. And finally, the phrasing "in what today has become the State of Israel" sounds like defining Israel something recent or artificial. In other words: none of the two nations was correctly described. If you agree, could you please restore my editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.73.132.144 (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I have restored your edit, deleted my original message and placed some useful links on your talk page in case you are not familiar with them. Donner60 (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for both things! --151.73.132.144 (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Erik Bergquist

I am Erik Bergquist and very little of that information is varifyable - besides screen credit for Fast and The Furious. Please do not put up unverified or incorrect info about me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazlnut (talk • contribs) 04:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Your message to me a few minutes ago seems to refer to my message of six days ago. I checked the article in view of your message and current blanking of the page and found that only one of the sources exists. I suggest you not blank the entire page if your edit is questioned again, since a bare minimum of information is apparently true. Page blanking is a red flag for reviewers. I will not revert your current edit or edits in view of the lack of verifiable sources due to dead links and your concern but I can only speak for myself. (I am not an administrator.)

If you are unable to get the article changed through the editing process, which sometimes happens, please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. Also relevant may be Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. Donner60 (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Jatli

hi donner 60

those information was passed to me by my grandparents as i am the resident of that village since birth 56 year old please reconsider and remain the changes on the page of JATLI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.74.193 (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I deleted my original message on your talk page. I added further comment and explanation on your talk page. I also added links to helpful Wikipedia pages. Donner60 (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

New citation for your approval

Still working on removing speculation from my first submission, per your directions. Wish to add the following brief passages, cited from hard historical sources: From Historical Papers and Addresses of the Lancaster County ..., Volumes 26-27: From Page 234: 2.--John Grubb, son of Henry of Stoke Climsland, settled at Upland, Chester County, Pa., before 1679. He married Frances Vane. ... 3.--Peter Grubb, the first, son of John and Frances Vane Grubb. .... (End excerpt from Source) Camikympy22 (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a good source. I have left a detailed reply on your talk page. I am sorry I did not see the comment there earlier. My reply is not complete. I will reply further as promptly. Thank you for your work on this and your patience. Donner60 (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ringtone External Link Edit

Hi Donner60,

I'm Nick. Nice to meet you :) Just wanted to drop a note about the link you censored on the Ringtones page as advertising / marketing. I'm the researcher, developer and designer of the of the blocked resource. The site was developed commercially, but I think it's genuinely awesome and adds value to the Ringtones page and the Wikipedia community. It wasn't posted on Wikipedia for any commercial gain, though I confess it would be cool to have something i built to be on Wikipedia! Visitors to the resource can access audio files of Monophonic and Polyphonic ringtones from the the most popular cell phone models since 1983, listen to the top 10 ringtones for purchase from 2005-2013, and listen to pre-cell phone "ringtones" like what the first phone call sounded like and the ringtone a crank phone made. I really hope you'll check it out and reconsider. It's a truly unique site and it continues to grow with the help of submissions from users in the spirit of Wikipedia itself. Please let me know your thoughts. Any communication is welcome :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:4200:F700:D472:3BC9:22DD:31BE (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I will look into this further and get back to you soon. My first thought is that it might be best to get another opinion or two. Donner60 (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I have looked at this again. Even though the linked page arguably could be an external link, I believe the page would better fit and be less controversial as a footnote to statements in the History section of the Wikipedia Ringtone page. This may require the addition of a sentence or two to that section to make a better fit. I will try to do that tomorrow (actually now later today) unless you wish to do so before I get to it. (By the way, if I get tied up on Saturday, I will be offline for the next 7 or 8 days as well.) I have taken into account that SAS does not sell ringtones, there is no direct link to the SAS page (though I suppose few people do not realize they can get to a page by clicking on a logo), that iTunes already is mentioned in the Wikipedia article and that no sales pitch is made on the SAS ringtone page. I was concerned that the ability to link to iTunes might be considered advertising but the lack of affiliation and of a sales pitch seems to me to make the inclusion non-controversial. I now agree that the linked page adds some value to the History section of the article. Donner60 (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Super! Thanks for the consideration Donner and taking the time to review the resource. The iTunes links on the page are only for users to be able to play the ringtones (no commercial value) & SAS does not sell ringtones. Always interesting to have a conversation with a Wikipedia moderator BTW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.16.230 (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I have added a sentence to the history sentence and used the ringtone web page as a citation. You should feel free to edit the sentence or paragraph, of course, if you think of an improvement. Donner60 (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Cemile Sultan

Why it is forbidden to wrote her children and descendants? I give the source you can see... https://archive.org/stream/GenealogyOfTheImperialOttomanFamily2005#page/n13/mode/2up

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talk • contribs) 00:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I deleted my original message, left an explanation on your talk page and provided useful editing links. I will restore your edit and properly footnote it, but I cannot say that others will not review it for other reasons. Donner60 (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Valencian Community

Hi Donner60,

I am wondering why you decided to revert my edit made to Valencian Community Wikipedia page?. Adding an informative colloquialism never can create harm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.2.66 (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

"Vaginal Wart". Seriously? Donner60 (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Valencian Community

What did I do wrong?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.2.66 (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, you changed "Valencian" to "Vaginal Wart". Seriously? I will consider any further such sarcastic postings on this page as vandalism. Donner60 (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Conversion of non-muslim places of worship into mosques

Actually, I removed one of my own original contributions. An entire section of edit was removed indiscriminately and I restored it, removing a disputed section referring to places of worship that were not, in fact, converted to mosques. I don't see how that warranted removal of the entire edited section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD15:A770:3401:8514:6BCB:851B (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I deleted my original message on your talk page in the manner prescribed by Wikipedia guidelines (strike through) because it was in error. You have pointed out that the edit was part of a series of edits intended to improve the article. I saw it as a stand-alone edit and did not notice the prior edit. I saw only the last changes with the program I used (not an excuse) but should have look at the list of edits more carefully. Sorry for the mistake. I hope this will not discourage you from continuing to edit Wikipedia. I have restored the article so that your last edit is now the last edit to the article. Please review this to be sure that it is the final version that you intend and, if not, make any other changes accordingly. I added some useful links to Wikipedia format, policy and guideline pages to your talk page in case you are not familiar with them. Donner60 (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Information on talk page

HI, thank you for the information you posted for me on my talk page. It is very helpful and it will take me some time to look through the links you provided. I do not know what this template is you mention, "I am leaving the help template in place" so I cannot delete it, but I hope that the information you provided stays visible to me on my talk page so I can reference it. thanks again for your help. Klossoke

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Shpack landfill

I am still have trouble adding even the simplest references such as those from the Wall Street Journal's Wastelands series pertaining to radioactive waste sites linked to the cold war. There is a problem with Wikipedia's un-editability not me. In the mean time this site was contaminated with 85 tons of uranium linked to a thousand cancer victims or their survivors who have been compensated under the Energy Employees Compensation Act. You may be concerned about my inability to add references to a non-functional HTML package, my concern are all the people who died. The unedited article is a feel good, sanitized version of the facts that doesn't come close to conveying the facts or magnitude of the environmental problem that existed. I'd just as soon pay somebody to re-write this article.....JCB student — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcbstudent (talk • contribs) 03:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

When I go to edit on the shpack landfill page none of the links shown below appear as an option. The info below taken from Wikipedia instructions on editing

There are different templates suitable for different types of sources:

{{cite web}}: Empty citation (help) for references to general websites {{cite news}}: Empty citation (help) for newspapers and news websites {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help) for references to books {{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help) for magazines, academic journals and papers

I have been out of town and offline. I will look at your question in more detail as soon as I can. Ideally, we can solve your referencing problem or get you to understand it better so that you can contribute without being discouraged by formatting problems. I note that User:Keri has also made some remarks about referencing and the proper articles in which to add materials. As I think I pointed out before, editors will question and probably revert the addition of large amounts of material without reliable, verifiable references, especially if the topic is current or controversial. Donner60 (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Assault weapon

You left the following message on why you kept reverting my modification:

Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Assault weapon seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

So I am doing just that. The term assault weapon was originally created by anti-gun proponents to elicit an emotional response to make it possible to pass legislation. There is actually no such technical description, as is clear from the actual page. The person who was mainly responsible for defining and spreading the term assualt weapon is Diane Feinstein, who is a known anti-gun proponent. As can be derived from the article in question, the term seems to have been sometimes used in the past, but only started to be actively used by anti-gun proponents in the last decades. The current definition also muddles military and not military features together to come up with a totally new classification not based on any common technical properties. Even if the original term was a marketing term for the firearms industry before, it is now almost exclusively used by the anti-gun groups, which use it to gain public support based on emotions and suggestion. To be honest, what sounds scary? Semi-automatic firearm or assault weapon? As such it is a fact the term is suggestive and coloured. And I would assume facts are neutral, as such the term assault weapon is coloured and suggestive and only actively used by anti-gun proponents/press. A similar situation with word choice would be "nigger" this word has definite negative connotations and is almost exclusively used by racists. So can you please make sure this is reflected in the text as per my suggestion? 91.159.55.220 (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I added this to your talk page: Thank you for your explanation. I do not disagree with you but I think your wording would be subject to challenge as non-neutral. I will try to add your concept in more neutral language. I will let you know when I have this ready, which may be a few hours from now because I will soon be signing off for awhile. This may require a reference or two, as well. I hope we can agree on an edit which in turn also will be accepted by others. I am striking the above message because I think you were in good faith and any problem here is more with the wording than the content. Donner60 (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

With the possible exception of adding the word "controversial" which I would not contest but others perhaps might, I can find no other edit to the first sentence or later in the article which would fall outside the conclusions I draw below. Note, however, that I do suggest that some sourced additions later in the article might be possible if they are clarifications and are made in neutral language. I expand on this, and qualify it some, below.

I have looked closely at the entire article and sources that are both cited in the article and I have now looked at the talk page for the article, which we should have looked at before. There is a long debate about the term, and about the first sentence in general, that seems to have ended abruptly with the sentence staying the way it now is. Except for the possible addition of "controversial" to see if it is accepted, I think that it would be improper to change the sentence without bringing this up again on the talk page, loathe as I am to suggest that in view of the history. As I point out below, the point of your edits seems to be covered adequately later in the article, but you might have a better chance adding facts and clarification later in the text than trying to change the opening text.

I conclude from my research that Diane Feinstein is not the originator of the term but only used it to try to reinstate an older law which had expired. The term was brought into common use for a large and vague category of funs by an anti-gun proponent, Josh Sugarmann, in a 1988 article already cited in the text. It seems to have had some use before then, but only infrequently and apparently as a somewhat inaccurate alternative to "assault rifle." A problem with pinning this on Sugarmann, as seems most accurate, is that a few other writers have argued or suggested that the gun industry made up and used the term (first) though I have found no direct statements or any citations in the available sources that verify this. Nonetheless, these writers are cited and it would be difficult to show they are wrong from the available sources.

Returning to the talk page and the first sentence of the article, the conclusion reached by the commenters seems to have been to define the term in neutral language and get into its history and use later. Again, the points about the history and use of the term are made later in the article. "Controversial" in the first sentence or opening paragraph might fit into the scheme of the article as a whole but I think anything further would likely bring out opposition.

With the possible noted exception, the proposed additions to the first sentence, which have not been included after previous debate, would appear to put Wikipedia in the position of accepting a controversial definition which is later discussed at length and does not reach a definite conclusion. It accepts the possibility that the other sources, on prior more general use or use by the gun industry, may be correct or at least debatable and worth mention.

Your analogy does not persuade me that a more dramatic change to the first sentence is needed. I also do not see a real need to add to or clarify the later text but I would not oppose neutrally worded clarifications or additions. I agree that the history of the term "assault weapon" shows it is made up and not clearly defined, even is inaccurate and used for propaganda or political purposes, but this failing does not equate with a racial slur. More importantly, I think the facts are set forth in the article as some of the commenters on the talk page argued would be the best solution to earlier similar debate.

Since I think the first sentence cannot be rewritten in neutral language, except that "controversial" seems accurate and not inflammatory, the matter of changing that sentence is still a potential talk page subject and the term and its history are discussed as completely as the conflicting sources seem to permit, with some weight given to the anti-gun definition, I cannot think of any language that could be added to the first sentence or would expand the material already found later in the article.

If you wish to pursue this, especially by changing the first sentence, other than as noted, I suggest you bring it up on the talk page first. Given the interest in this article, I am sure it will attract attention and comment. I repeat that otherwise I would not try to change the first sentence again as I believe it will only invite reversion as non-neutral. If you can make any further additions or clarifications at a place or places later in the article, and add citations, you might have a better chance of having additional material accepted and if you are careful to be completely factual, resort to the talk page might not be necessary unless your changes draw further debate. For what it is worth and only for the sake of thoroughness, I also suggest you think about whether the article as a whole adequately covers the necessary points about use of the term and its history without the need for further addition. Donner60 (talk) 09:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Removing my Forge of Empires edit on wikipedia

I was trying to let the world know about what happened to me with my diamonds disappearing, and you keep deleting all my messages as vandalism however, I have a site link proving my ticket I opened at Forge of Empires. I want my link back on , I will talk to anyone from wikipedia I have to to get that link put back in. THERE WAS NO VANDALISM AT ALL IN MY LAST POST, OR IN ALL OF THEM FOR THAT MATTER, ALL WERE TRUTHFUL YOU DO ADVANCE FASTER IN THE GAME WITH DIAMONDS LIKE I SAID, MY DIAMONDS WERE LOST AND NOT REFUNDED BACK, AS I POSTED IN THE LINK THAT WAS LAST POSTED, SO EVERYONE COULD SEE THE REAL TRUTH AND THE CONVERSATION I HAD WITH YOUR STAFF THE LINK I POSTED FOR ALL WHO WISH TO SEE THE CONVERSATION, WHEN MY DIAMONDS DISAPPEAR, THE GAME CREATORS BLAME ME, AND TELL ME I WAS FULLY RESPONSIBLY BUT I WASN'T AND THAT I CAN ONLY GET MY IN GAME DIAMONDS BACK IF I PAY THEM REAL LIFE CURRENCY.

https://support.innogames.com/playerticket/showticket/?ticketID=9930375

I will review your comments and citation and reply to you as soon as I can. This will be later tonight because I will soon be signing off for awhile and I have a few other questions to answer so please be patient. Please note that personal comments and experience are not proper subjects for Wikipedia articles. Donner60 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I added to your talk page that I will note now, based on another quick look at your comment, that your proposed additions appear not to be proper subjects for a Wikipedia article. Content should not be added to Wikipedia based on your personal experience, knowledge or opinion. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. 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. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Please also note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a forum; again see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. You may express comments about the content of the article and needed improvements or ask for comments or help on the article's talk page, although, again, personal experience and personal opinion are not topics that can be added to an article. See Help:Introduction to talk pages, Help:Using talk pages and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. You also may find the following pages have useful information about Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. I will give you a further answer later. Donner60 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

(donner60 says)

I will note now, based on another quick look at your comment, that your proposed additions appear not to be proper subjects for a Wikipedia article. Content should not be added to Wikipedia based on your personal experience, knowledge or opinion. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. 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. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Please also note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a forum; again see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. You may express comments about the content of the article and needed improvements or ask for comments or help on the article's talk page, although, again, personal experience and personal opinion are not topics that can be added to an article. See Help:Introduction to talk pages, Help:Using talk pages and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. You also may find the following pages have useful information about Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. I will give you a further answer later. Donner60 (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not a matter of personal opinion, it is factual, and has the games website as the link I provided talking with game makers, about facts, not opinions, and this wasn't my personal experience, this is just one I saw and heard of btw, that I am choosing to pursue, because I have morals.

Again, I am not sure that your edit is in line with Wikipedia guidelines and appropriate for the article but as I noted, I will look into this further. It will take a little time, however. Donner60 (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Where is the place where you can express comments about the content of the article and needed improvements on the forge of empires website, because I want to list my link on their, and the problem of diamonds and $. ] If you can copy and paste a link to that improvement/comment section I would be very happy.

As I noted above, you may express comments about the content of the article and needed improvements or ask for comments or help on the article's talk page. Just click on the talk tab at the top of the article's page next to the article tab. See Help:Introduction to talk pages, Help:Using talk pages and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Donner60 (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Now that I look at this further, I see that you are contradicting yourself. First it is about you; then about someone else. You say that you talked to someone from "your staff." You could not have talked to anyone from Wikipedia about this because Wikipedia has no affiliation with the games' web site. Your link does not connect to any page about your "ticket", probably because one has to be logged in to see it, which no one who is not a member can do. It appears that your complaint and proposed edits have only to do with yourself and are neither connected to the game in general or notable. It certainly is unsourced because your link does not work. It appears to be some dispute between you and the game site. Please review my comments and the links above for further information. You may contribute constructively to Wikipedia in the future if you choose, but your current effort to make these types of edits is inappropriate and outside the guidelines as best as can be evaluated. Donner60 (talk) 11:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Unusual editing pattern

Hello Donner60, thank you for your recent edits to the North Carolina article. This appears to be a roaming vandal affecting United States-related articles and I wanted to initially bring it to your attention.

• 69.242.220.43 (talk · contribs) - Comcast, Detroit, Michigan
• 2601:406:4101:B8A7:C428:B9A0:6B05:6CD2 (talk · contribs) - T-Mobile, Brea, California
• 52.2.17.201 (talk · contribs) - Amazon AWS, Ashburn, Virginia

This has the appearance of being either a coordinated event or a single actor with access to multiple networks. If you see any additional evidence of this pattern please email me or contact me at my talk page. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I will keep it in mind. Donner60 (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Boxes

Are those userboxes with CSD counts automatically generated? Cause I would love to get my hands on that. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 04:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Allthefoxes: No. I put the box together myself and it must be changed manually. Please feel free to copy it if it is useful to you. I don't know whether there is a similar userbox template like it that has numbers that are automatically generated somewhere but I could not find one when I wanted one like it, probably a couple of years ago. Since a list can now be generated using Twinkle, perhaps someone has made such a box but if it is not on the general userbox template pages, I would not know where to find it. (Occasionally I have seen templates or examples on other pages but I have not kept any links to those because they are usually just single examples of unusual boxes.) Donner60 (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Donner60 thanks for the advise it helps a lot keep up the good works God Bless.

Your welcome. This must have been on a user talk page under your IP address because I see nothing on your user name talk page.

Mathew Kline kader

Why does my revision of this phony keep getting reverted when the article he wrote on himself stays intact. He is obviously a phony, has not won any championship as he claims eh has and I am just writing the truth. Feras Al Atal (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I put this on your talk page: In response to your question, user pages are different from regular articles. Within certain limits set forth in the user page link, users can put anything on their user pages as long as it is in line with the Wikipedia project and not something like advocacy, promotion, advertising, obscenity, libel, slander, violation of the biographies of living persons policy or extreme vulgarity. Also, what someone can do about anything on another user's page is limited and should follow certain procedures. See the section on Wikipedia:user pages#Ownership and editing of user pages for information on what you can do and how you should handle this if you think the content that you find objectionable in fact violates Wikipedia policies and guidelines on user page contents. Donner60 (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Hello Donnor, can I edit what people did on wikipedia pages? If so respond thank you so much! Iron Camaro (talk) 11:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Assuming you now wish to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia (earlier vandalism/personal attack on this page has been removed), I suggest you read the following helpful Wikipedia guideline and policy pages and pages linked from those pages as you need further guidance: Please also note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a forum. Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style; Wikipedia: Five Pillars; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Help:Footnotes; Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; and Wikipedia:Civility. Donner60 (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Lawful Officer

In order to lawfully be an officer, you must be elected by the state. Any policeman or woman not elected is merely an employee. Paragon845 (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

OK. And this relates to? Donner60 (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

donner 60 why did u delete my message.

did you read it if so please reply or use my talk page thanks reginald

Reginald desoto (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You replaced Uyghurs with a racial slur. If you post more such ridiculous comments or questions on this page, I will consider them vandalism. Donner60 (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

donner 60 please read the provided references in that page. All information ar valid.

Cheers Todai2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Todai2015 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

But why does your edit end in the middle of a sentence? Assuming this is just a mistake, I suggest that you complete the edit and perhaps even end with another citation so that it does not appear questionable. Donner60 (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Ernest Everett Just

Donner60,

I would like to run this by you. Its my addition to the Ernest Everett Just page and I'm making this addition as a final project for college. If you could please read this and respond ASAP with any concerns as this is due in a few days. Thank you.

During his career, Ernest Everett Just published more than 70 papers in his own and related fields, he published two books both of which were crucial and heavily influential in the world of biology, and he received a NAACP award for his contributions to his work and race. When it came to his work not many were as dedicated and talented as him, he was called “a biologist of unusual skill and the greatest of our original thinkers in our field”, he was highly regarded by coworkers both white and black and in multiple countries[1]; but he is not taught about in American curriculums today. Everett Just was simply born at the wrong time; he was in his prime during a time in science when many theories were not able to be proven and/or supported by numerous pieces of evidence simply because of a lack of high-tech equipment, like what we have today, and as a black scientist in the early to mid 20th century he struggled to find research opportunities in the United States to further his work. Just was a prominent figure in a popular and widely discussed field, he was at the peak of his career during a time of economic (The Great Depression) and social (Jim Crow Laws) despair in the United States, and then his ability to continue his work was drastically shortened because of World War II and serious illness, which would sadly lead to his death.

Just is not taught in American curriculums for three reasons: He was not afforded the ability to work with high-tech equipment like scientists today, he was unable to continue his work in the United States causing him to often be forgotten, and he held holistic views which he firmly believed in even though many of his American peers believed in the exact opposite. He is often forgotten by the masses because during his career his work and theories were hard to prove because of a lack of technology. One of the biggest marks against Just was that he had a holistic point of view about life. Just believed that the overall being was the most important thing and that everything in this world, especially people, can’t be defined by one or two elements like an inanimate object, and that people are affected by more than just their biological makeup[2]. Just believed that the genetic makeup, alone, was not the only element that affected living things but that the environment that the subject lives in has the same amount of input and effect on the makeup of the subject. What didn’t help Just was that his beliefs were in something that the majority of people in his field disagreed with; many of his fellow American biologists believed that humans can be categorized, only one element describes and affects their development, and that they need to be categorized in order for our society to be able to successfully carry on over time. Just did not believe that to be true. Just didn’t believe that was how life needed to or should be because if it were then someone like him, a black man, would not be able to hold the job that he did because he would be deemed not intelligent enough to handle the work and he would just end up being a criminal or someone’s help, even though there was a lack of solid evidence to prove that. Unfortunately for Just he would not see the time where the majority of people in our country, following WWII, would discourage with these eugenic beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcampbell30 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I saw your response and I really appreciate the feedback. I went back and made the edits to the page like you suggested if you want to take a look again. As for leaving it up for a short time is a great idea to me and I am perfectly fine with it. Essentially I just need it up until the 20th of December because grades will be finalized by then. I understand that a week in the internet world can be an eternity, but I believe that recent edits should make it an acceptable addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcampbell30 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

What do you think about Lack of Recognition or Academic Contribution for the title? So do you think I should just delete the entire first section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcampbell30 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I completely missed this further post. I see others jumped in with further comments. Too late now, but sorry, FWIW. Donner60 (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Kerry Fraser page edit

Hey thanks for the message. I am not good at doing the reference. And on my phone. What I added is quite likely the thing Kerry Fraser is most famous for. Citation pending okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.111.22.102 (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I left a message on your talk page with helpful links on referencing and footnotes. Until you can provide the citation, your entry is speculative and in fact is contrary to the policy on biographical content for living persons. So please leave it out until then. Donner60 (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you help me format and citation? Every sports newspaper seems to be on the blacklist when ever I cite it. If TSN is blacklisted that is a huge problem and goes towards the credibility of this page. Read the Talk page for the article itself for the history of this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.111.22.102 (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

http://www.thesportster.com/hockey/top-10-most-blown-calls-in-nhl-history/?view=all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.111.22.102 (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I have provided the formatting and some comments on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much appreciated 117.111.22.102 (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

on lodhi articel

I want to know what is the problem is i update correct information on that pages.

Please explain it if some one not have the correct evidence and information on the article.

they can update! This time please convene me with the evidence then revert the information on that page!

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prajput27 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I previously have referred you to Wikipedia:Copyright Problems and Wikipedia:Copyright violations because you have copied verbatim (exactly) large amounts of material from a copyrighted web page without rewriting it in your own words. You did not cite that source, whose authors are not named, as near as I can tell, and in fact, user submitted text may be included. This lessens its reliability. You removed referenced content instead of distinguishing it or simply adding your content. The content you removed from "etymology" is more in line with the web site you used than the addition you made. The alternative derivation of the name cited in the web site, which you do not reference, is hunter, not warrior (although Lodha claim to be descended from a warrior, which is not the same thing as the meaning of the word). Warrior is mentioned as a meaning only in a user submitted comment. You removed useful informational links that distinguish or refer to other articles on similar or related topics from the top of the page. At most, you should not remove sourced or useful information but add an alternative based on your source(s). I would not rely on the web page alone. You should not copy and paste copyrighted material in any event. Donner60 (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15