Jump to content

User talk:Donner60

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has autopatrolled rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 99.118.9.93 (talk) at 07:34, 28 November 2013 (→New messages). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

New messages

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

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.

User Talk page guidelines

Excerpts Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia.

Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and unregistered users.

There are certain types of notices that users may not remove from their own talk pages, such as declined unblock requests and speedy deletion tags. See Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings for full details.

User talk pages are subject to the general userpage guidelines on handling inappropriate content—see Wikipedia:User pages#Handling inappropriate content.

  • Personal talk page cleanup: On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving.

From the section Editing comments, Other's comments in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines:

  • Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels, removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls or requests for comment (RfC), fixing list markup, using <nowiki> and other technical markup to fix code samples, and providing wikilinks if it helps in better navigation.
  • Fixing layout errors: This could include moving a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom, adding a header to a comment not having one, repairing accidental damage by one party to another's comments, correcting unclosed markup tags that mess up the entire page's formatting, accurately replacing HTML table code with a wikitable, etc.
  • Sectioning: If a thread has developed new subjects, it may be desirable to split it into separate discussions with their own headings or subheadings. When a topic is split into two topics, rather than sub-sectioned, it is often useful for there to be a link from the new topic to the original and vice versa. A common way of doing this is noting the change at the [then-]end of the original thread, and adding an unobtrusive note under the new heading, e.g., :<small>This topic was split off from [[#FOOBAR]], above.</small>. Some reformatting may be necessary to maintain the sense of the discussion to date and to preserve attribution. It is essential that splitting does not inadvertently alter the meaning of any comments. very long discussions may also be divided into sub-sections.

Note that it is proper to use <nowiki> and other technical markup to fix code samples.

Donner60, you recently changed an edit that I made to the article "Dog intelligence" - it seems that the present text "can not feel complex..." is inconsistent with the contents of the 2008 BBC press piece, the referenced PNAS article therein and recent neuro-imaging work on canines published in PLoS One (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%253Adoi%252F10.1371%252Fjournal.pone.0038027). Further, having read the PNAS and PLoS articles I believe the usage of "concluded" is too strong given that state-of-field at this time. Further, I suggest that the term "recent" should be omitted with reference to citation [7]. I believe the text should read: "Studies in PNAS and PLoS One suggest that dogs may feel complex emotions, like jealousy and anticipation. [7][11]" with [11] being added as a reference to the PLoS article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1:A680:56B:2C89:37CD:DC5:9376 (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have sources to back up your change. Please go ahead with it. Sorry for any inconvenience. Donner60 (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Donner60, your deletion of my addition to the article concerning linocuts comes across as exceedingly arrogant and ignorant, as well as somewhat puzzling. Consider that the first entry in this list is an obscure artist who neither has his own Wikipedia article nor a "reliable, verifiable, neutral source" as far as I can tell. One has to type his name into a search engine to find any information about him, which is something it seems you were too lazy to do with my addition - thus, I have done it for you: here is a reference to Mark Mulfinger from an art gallery - http://hamptoniiigallery.com/mulfinger/ - as well as an art museum in North Carolina - http://www.ashevilleart.org/artists/markmulfinger/ - plus, a news article - http://www.greenvilleonline.com/viewart/20130102/CITYPEOPLE/301020027/Mark-Mulfinger-captures-images-Westminster-Presbyterian - and his personal website - http://markmulfinger.com - If you take the time to look into these, you will see that this artist is more than qualified to be recognized in this list, and, I hope, cause you to kindly "allow" my addition to remain. Perhaps you can also refrain from making hasty edits in the future. Thank you, 

   -Thomas

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)[reply]

Reinforcements

It looked like you needed the backup; this guy has an impressive persecution complex and no concept of geography, but I figured it would take a double-teaming. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 04:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CUSACK

Hi Donner60, I've noticed that the entries you removed from the CUSACK history piece on 13 April 3013 has reappeared on 22nd September 2013. It still does not have an information source against it. Regards C.Cleeve — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.Cleeve (talk • contribs) 19:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Left on user talk page: I have reverted the Cusack edits and left a note on the talk page of the IP user that sources are needed for such extraordinary claims. I do not doubt the possibility of an Irish family independent of Norman background, but without a source, it does not fit. The IP address is different from the earlier one but I still think it needs a source. I have no idea what the RL and L numbers in the edit mean but I suspect they are from some sort of genealogy chart. That may not be a reliable source but even that is not cited. The edits do not appear to be vandalism in and of themselves but they look suspiciously like someone is trying to embellish their family history. I still think that if someone has a basis for these additions, they ought to be able to cite it. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Dean Gaffney

You did something I've done, not looked at the history when reverting, as you reverted back to more IP vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Posted on your user talk page: Thanks for catching my reversion to prior vandalism. I usually try to keep that possibility in mind or at least glance at the finished product as a double check. I am afraid that even after having become aware of the problem some time ago, I have missed this a few times (out of many). I know we need to strive for no mistakes rather than a very few. I think biography articles may be somewhat more susceptible to multiple vandalisms within a short period of time if the person is living and has some "anti-fans" for lack of a better word. It seems I just missed it this time. A reminder is good to have on such occasions. Donner60 (talk) 06:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University of Phoenix

I do not believe that my entries for the University of Phoenix are incorrect or unverifiable. I have been researching this field for a significant amount of time.

Regarding revision of my edit on fashion design

Maybe i didn't make my reasons clear in the edit summary. I thinks it's probalamatic to have the sub-topic "Star system" solely consists of quotes and extrapolations from a single source. Presumably this is because the idea of a 'star system' - a term not explained in the text - is a creation of the author being quoted which makes the topic NPOV. I noted unencyclopedic language and badly structured because it's unusual for a whole sub section to be composed just of quotes without any context or analysis or even attribution of the author. As is stated in the text itself, "a conception of a designer as a 'creative genius' disconnected from social conditions is central for the working of the fashion system" and yet this 'central conception' is not defended and is only ever mentioned immediately before it is dismissed as a myth. Perhaps the viewpoint of the author and his 'star system' could be condensed and integrated better into the article somewhere else but I'll leave that up to you. 216.121.240.125 (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC

Thanks for your explanation. I see your point. I am sorry that I caused you to have to explain it in more detail. I was somewhat misled by the fact that there was a source for the content. I should have looked at it more carefully because your edit summary was enough to show your point. I am removing my warning (by the preferred method of strikeout) because it was inappropriate. I am sorry for the mistake. I think I will just restore your deletion since I don't think I can write anything that would not depend on the single source already given.Donner60 (talk) 06:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fanta

Apologies- Meant to open Snopes link and hit revert instead. Sorry - fixed it I think..-- 🍺 Antiqueight confer 21:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The important thing is ultimately to get it right. Donner60 (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

  • i would just add that I kind of hesitated to do this because there are several discussions here on your talk page where you seem to be unsure of exactly what is vandalism and what is not. Please be careful with this tool and be sure you are fully familiar with the guidelines for its use. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there is an article you wish to link to put two brackets <no wiki>[[</no wiki> before the title of the article and two close brackets <no wiki>]]</no wiki> (without the no wiki signs) after the title of the article. Be sure you have the title exactly correct including capitalization. Donner60 (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

huh?

You reverted and section blanked a sourced, cited section on the Battle of the Bulge with little explanation and no suggestion on improvement. Why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.251.229 (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This section was stated in the form of personal commentary and conclusions, not entirely facts. Wikipedia standards require that facts be stated in neutral language. You can try it again with that in mind. If you really want suggestions, I can see if I can suggest some language. Donner60 (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the changes in the revision history, which is very unusual. I don't think I can do anything unless you make the edit again. Donner60 (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I was more perplexed than anything, normally when a section gets added, the initial language is modified to improve it. Blanking, I understand, is only utilized in patent vandalism, especially if it is sourced. I can put it back in the article and you can alter lanuage you find objectionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.251.229 (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That should work. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 05:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that I misread this in two respects. One was the reliance placed on a you tube video, which normally is not considered a good source. The other was a misreading of the sequence of the second paragraph in which I thought the Nazi actions were being attributed to the actions of the white officers. This is not what it says. I am glad I did not leave a vandalism message (although that is not what I thought was an issue here). I apologize for my misinterpretation and the inconvenience. I left the article as it was except for making a few minor spacing changes. I did that in order to put an edit of mine last which I believe will tip off the bot that the prior edit was good. Otherwise, I think the bot could come along and revert the edit as identical to the one already reverted. Donner60 (talk) 05:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. though when you made the spacing changes, the section still got deleted. Can you put it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.251.229 (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see the section on my screen. Did you refresh the page? If not, the old page may still be on your screen. Donner60 (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For reverting the vandalism done to Mummy (and just being generally awesome)! -- Saint Soren (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in Romeo and Juliet

Hello I did no mean to Vandalise I didn't even know what I was doing how can I fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.2.11 (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prior text is restored. If you were simply testing to see how editing works, it was successful. Please be more careful with future edits and explain them in the edit summary. If you had a good reason to remove this character, you should also explain that in the edit summary and if a longer explanation is needed, on the talk page. You are certainly welcome to make constructive edits in the future. Donner60 (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much But I don't want my ip address showing how can I erase? Yes I did refresh the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.2.11 (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You can't remove your IP address. When you edit without an account, it's saved permanently in the page history, and users' requests to hide their own IP address are specifically listed as insufficient reason to hide them. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that I can't do anything? Can I be tracked with ip? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.2.11 (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know of nothing that can be done but I don't think that one unconstructive edit should make any difference. If you edit again, that will be added to the edit history under this IP address. IPs can be tracked, at least to a general location, but I don't know why anyone would want to do it except maybe to confirm persistent vandalism. Donner60 (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CUSACK ancestry

Hi Donner60, firstly thank you for your previous advice and corrections. There is a list of ‘Notables Moderns’ at the end of CUSACK and I thought that I would give the readers of those pages an insight into the ancestry of those of that surname so I went and added – ‘Norman-Irish Cusack ancestry’ however ‘SummerPhd’ has come back to say that I was incorrect and has removed these references. Did I do wrong in trying to give those ‘names’ readers an opportunity to extend their knowledge? If not acceptable should I have done/worded the inclusion differently? Your advice will, as always, be gratefully received. C.Cleeve — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.Cleeve (talk • contribs) 15:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the information in a full sentence or perhaps as a clause at the end of a sentence would have been better form. This is a minor issue, of course. The main problem here is that there is no reference to the person(s) being "Norman-Irish." They are listed in the Notable Modern Cusacks section but I don't think the article establishes that all Cusacks were or are of "Norman-Irish" ancestry. Without citing a source that definitely links a modern person to a "Norman-Irish" lineage, it is technically correct to challenge the addition of that fact. If there is no definite source among those cited in the Cusack article or otherwise, I think another approach, or perhaps compromise, would be to find a stand-alone word "Cusack" in an article on an individual person and link it to the "Cusack" article. The reader could then see the information presented there and draw their own conclusion from it. Donner60 (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Donner60 - Thank you for your suggestion. C.Cleeve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.131 (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Donner60&oldid=583637304"