User talk:Donner60

New messages

Please put new messages at the bottom of the page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

New message: List of Gnostic sects

Moved to bottom of page. Donner60 (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies, guidelines; twitter, facebook; what Wikipedia is not; avoiding common mistakes

References to Wikipedia policies, guidelines, instructions, include:
Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Wikipedia guidelines on twitter, facebook: Wikipedia:Twitter. Wikipedia guidelines, policies on external links: Wikipedia:External links. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which includes not a dictionary, a publisher of original thought, a soapbox or means of promotion, a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site, a directory, a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal, a crystal ball, a newspaper, or an indiscriminate collection of information. • Wikipedia:Verifiability. • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. • Wikipedia:No original research. • Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. • Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. • Wikipedia:Citing sources. • Wikipedia:Notability. • Wikipedia:Image use policy. • Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes. • Wikipedia:Vandalism. • Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles.

Disambiguation link notifications

I occasionally get one. I fix the link, then delete the message, as it states is permissible. Donner60 (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Alfred E. Jackson

Orlady (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC) 16:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence

You edit with passion & adequate references, and your extensive service to Wikipedia speaks volumes of your tenacity to keep Wikipedia credible & fortuitous as a reference source. Your edits are in keeping with the proper Manual of Style of Wikipedia, the Policy on Good Faith Edits, and the heritage of the United States Military. Keep up the great work! Bullmoosebell (talk) 07:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This barnstar is, in no way, in gratitude for your explanation, though appreciated (with humble apologies for any abrasive manner in which I bestowed my retort, you simply replied faster than I could award you). What you do deserves proper adulation for your service to this wonderful Nation by providing accurate and adequate information of the great citizens that have preceded us all. Bullmoosebell (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, in my experience, I've included the ability to email an editor directly (see the link on my user page) to avoid potentially embarrassing discussions. In other words, there are some instances where you & I would appreciate discretion (discussions offline rather than on a talk page where any editor can view history, even if deleted). I would like to work with you on future matters and appreciate your advice on my edits in the future. Feel free to email me through my talk page (or the "@yahoo.com" link on this paragraph).

As you know, there are MANY editors on Wikipedia. Many prefer to disregard the Manual of Style and blatantly ignore the punishment put forth by Wikipedia that they, just a day prior, were punished for that which they were barred from blocking (see Searcher 1990). So please understand my apprehension to allowing edits that encroach against what we both are striving to achieve. Bullmoosebell (talk) 10:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the dialogue. I'll look into what we discussed, and feel free to take the initiative on the issue you presented, if you have the time. Currently, my dance card is full to the end of the year and I fear I'll be enveloped with a lot of work. My suggestion is to find the Admin that blocked said user & present the circumstances. Thanks, again, for your diligence. Keep up the great work! Bullmoosebell (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue was looked into. It appears many of the edits included proper references. Still, there are admins watching this/these user/s to keep them honest, IAW Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Bullmoosebell (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Your vigilance has not gone unnoticed. The powers-that-be are in knowing of what needs to be known, so it's in their hands now. I really, truly appreciate the hard work you've done. Beyond in keeping with the honor and integrity of Wikipedia, you've bettered yourself and other editors, myself included. You spoke words previously, about being enlightened on certain edits. As a result, I have re-checked my edits, even a few of my previous edits, to ensure they are IAW (in accordance with) the policy that Wikipedia adheres to. I wish more Wikipedians could conduct themselves as you do. Sincerely, I look forward to working with you in the future. That's to mean I will be presenting future discussions for your interpretation. And, if you feel my assistance necessary, feel free to drop me a line or email me directly (bullmoosebell@yahoo.com) Regards, Bullmoosebell (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	You've gone through much toil and hard work to keep the integrity of Wikipedia, while associating the proper channels and adherence to good faith edits. Seemingly overdue, you've earned the Barnstar of Defense. Bullmoosebell (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Your recognition is most gratifying. I think you are way ahead of me on this count. Donner60 (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for William F. Perry

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! Bullmoosebell (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Upper Wolfsnare

Hi. THanks for the review of the DYK nom. I've posted the alt, slightly modified, as ALT1. Could you check it and post another tic mark below it so people don't wonder if it's still pending? Thanks. PumpkinSky talk 10:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Done! I posted this further review/comment on the DYK nomination page:

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

DYK for Wilburn Hill King

Yngvadottir (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Levin Major Lewis

Yngvadottir (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

George von Amsberg

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

Triple DYK

Thanks for reviewing and glad you liked it! Gerda proposed alts, can you look over, pick a preference, and put another check when they're good to go? PumpkinSky talk 09:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You can also leave the preference to the prep builder ;) I suggested an alt pic, to make choices harder ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I like alt 2 and the alternate, cropped image better. I have left a further review/comment. Donner60 (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Precious

	hero of reviewing
	On your second Wiki-birthday, thank you for your collaborative reviewing for DYK, unafraid of a triple nom, seeking contact with all editors, commenting with precision, - you are an awesome Wikipedian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

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

DYK for Moses Wright Hannon

Yngvadottir (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for William Henry Chase

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Template:Did you know nominations/List of number-one R&B singles of 2011 (U.S.)

Thanks for reviewing :) Aaron • ^{You Da One} 10:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

RE:Did you know nominations/James Cameron (Union colonel)‎

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

DYK for James Cameron (Union colonel)

Yngvadottir (talk) 08:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Francis Marion Walker

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

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

DYK for Robert Johnson Henderson

Orlady (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Gilbert S. Meem

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for cognitive vulnerability

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

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

DYK for Reuben Walker Carswell

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Joseph H. Tucker

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for William Henry Harman

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Find-A-Grave links

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

However, I wonder if you could deal with those in a typical Find-A-Grave fashion instead of fixing the names? The standard procedure I've been following is:

• Create a redirect from the old name to the new name (this makes search in wikipedia work better, and leaves a record of what was done)
• And then, delete the name from Find-A-Grave's lists

Find-A-Grave is a list of people who might be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, but aren't there yet. Once they're there, there's no further value in the listing.

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

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

DYK for Jeptha Vining Harris (Mississippi)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Chambersburg Raid

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your remark on my George Wythe comment

The page still isn't done, but I hope it's in better shape now.Jweaver28 (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the Baptist article - I was working two screens and meant to modify the Baptist Successionism article, not the Baptist article.

Response on your page to the effect that I thought it appeared to be a mistake that would be fixed at some point but that I thought it would be best to restore the main article and let the person or persons who wanted to work on them carry on from there. Donner60 (talk) 09:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Belated greetings :)

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

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hey Donner60! I hope you had a very Merry Christmas! Also, I wish you to have a very prosperous, bountiful and of course a very Happy 2013! Mediran (t • c) 11:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Charles W. Adams

(X! · talk)  · @954  ·  12:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Phantom time hypothesis

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

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

Cardinals

A look at google images indicates the Pelicans did, at one time, use a logo similar to the long-standing Cardinals logo. But that doesn't mean they used it in 1887 (and in fact I would be surprised if they did), and in any case the IP didn't provide a link. It's an interesting similarity, coincidental or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

If you google image [new orleans pelicans baseball], you can see some examples. This,[1] for example, which is supposedly from 1942. The thing I wonder, though, is whether they were a Cardinals farm team. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

And to no real surprise, the Pelicans were indeed a Cardinals farm team in the early 1940s.[2] Random team pictures from earlier don't show that logo, which is not definitive, but I think we have a trend here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I put a few comments on your talk page, which I think you have probably seen. The last one more or less wraps it up so I repeat it here: I think you have solved the riddle. The Pelicans had that similar logo because they were a Cardinals farm team. Hardly a reason to say that the Cardinals stole the logo from the Pelicans. It certainly would seem there was co-operation and a common interest. More likely that one team copied the other with consent, probably the opposite of that stated by the IP poster. That makes be feel even more confident about my edit on the Cardinals page. Donner60 (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. And it's kind of a nifty story, if we could find more evidence. However, the minors are not nearly as well-documented as the majors. One would have to find someone who's a team historian or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you for promptly responding to the inappropriate edit on the Summary Execution page. You are a very diligent editor! Netrogeractor (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Philip Ludwell Sr. and Jr.

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

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

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

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

Vandalism reversion

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

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

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

Tucson artifacts

Thanks for your work there. I don't think Cyclone Covey's self-published book should be there, what do you think? You might want to look at Bat Creek inscription (and see the talk page) and Los Lunas Decalogue Stone as well. Thanks Dougweller (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Changed my mind about Covey, but if you read FTN, see my latest post there on DNA Consultants if fringe stuff interests you. Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Lengthy comment left on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

John Smith (explorer)

I agree with you - I cannot find any information or credible source which names John Smith's siblings. There were at least two John Smith's at Plymouth (not related). Mugginsx (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be reverted. It looks like the type of insidious vandalism that the essays warn against as the worst kind. That is, it looks like it may be credible so editors are reluctant to revert it, as I was, even though it is suspicious to someone with some familiarity with the subject. It might take a good amount of research to come to a firm conclusion that it is wrong. The names sound perhaps right, one or two perhaps a bit off for the time. At least I tagged it for a citation needed; but perhaps with a closer look, it should be reverted with a note that it should only be added if there is a reliable, verifiable source. Donner60 (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I reverted it. I looked here: http://www.americanancestors.org/.../PDF_Archive/smith_john.pdf and here: http://www.americanancestors.org/pilgrim-families-john-smith/ as well as mayflower.com and it is in none of those references. Mugginsx (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Good work. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Most recent items archived

The most recent items archived were discussions/threads closed since March 26, 2013. Donner60 (talk) 02:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

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

Talkback

Hello, Donner60. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 22:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Convergent evolution

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

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

Peter Dinklage

Good sort-out - well done! Cheers DBaK (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

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

I don't get it - what's the difference

Could you explain why you just removed a twitter link I added for Andy Levy and then replaced it with his twitter link again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.5.132 (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Because someone else had also put it in. I thought I was removing it entirely. I will say it is a guideline that is not entirely obvious and can lead to confusion but that has nothing to do with my not removing it entirely in this case. See [[3]] Donner60 (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sneaky IP vandal

You were right initially.[4] 70.97.71.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a WP:SNEAKY IP vandal who copy/pastes existing links from the article to "source" the specious content s/he added. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Catholicism

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

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

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

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

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

Entitlement

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

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

CUSACK correction

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

Best Regards (C.Cleeve (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

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

New Brunswick Youth Orchestra vandalism

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

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

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

That "global cash dinar" vandal

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

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

In regards to Paul Barbeau wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

Jouissance

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

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

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

Sorry

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

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

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

Fremont

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

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

National Moot Court Competition

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

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

Talkback

Hello, Donner60. You have new messages at Kashmiri's talk page.
Message added 17:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

kashmiri 17:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

What?

I think that that information was constructive, do you go to one of those middle schools? Do you know what is happening at all? Probably not. THOSE are the nicknames. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.35.41 (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Derogatory and unencylopedic. No place to talk about mutual hate between schools. Donner60 (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

August 4

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

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

Evergreen high school

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

Evergreen high school

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

Hello, Donner60. You have new messages at 208.81.184.4's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

antartica

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

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

Tiverton Population

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

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

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

Thanks

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

Thanks for the notice. I put a little longer reply on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Twinkie "vandalism"

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

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

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

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

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

New message: List of Gnostic sects

Move from top of page

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

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

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Craig Fairbrass may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

206.130.211.54 Vandalized Another Page

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

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

DYK for Richard Buck (chaplain)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Sutton Trust Vandalism

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

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

10-second barrier

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

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

By the way, there is enough discussion of the subject in the article already, and most of the persons are described as of West African descent, not East African. Donner60 (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

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