This is an archive of past discussions with User:Donner60. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 6 starting with threads from September 14, 2014 - through October 28, 2014
Sports in New York City
Donner60 I edited NY arm wrestling from the New York Arm Wrestling Association and I received a note that it was not appropriate and I cannot understand why my editing was removed. We are a not-f0r-profit sports entertainment organization for 38 years. i only put general updated information. Please reply to email - nyawa@nycarms.com Thanks Gene Camp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyawa (talk • contribs) 00:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I now think that with some changes, much of your addition to Sports in New York City about the New York Arm Wrestling Association could be kept. I viewed the addition as completely promotional in violation of Wikipedia policy. A closer look leads me to conclude that although some changes and deletions are needed, some of the text should be includible.
The following sentence, the last sentence of the paragraph, is promotional. It starts with "We", which does not refer to Wikipedia but the association, and invites the Wikipedia reader to contact the association. Wikipedia certainly does not offer this invitation, as it would appear, and does not allow other organizations to do so. The sentence "We would like to share our insights and demonstrate how New York Arm Wrestling® events can offer a viable lifestyle sporting event that can help build your strength, engage your mind and enhance your image." This sentence or anything like it cannot be included.
At least two citations should be given for the assertions that the association is (1) "one of the most innovative and recognizable sports-entertainment organizations in NYC" and (2) has spanned 38 years with visible evidence of “hard work, promotion and performance credibility”, which is evidently a direct quote from some text or web site.
A smaller problem with your additions is that some of the text does not conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks where it states among other things:
Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one:
avoid: TIME, KISS, ASUS
instead, use: Time, Kiss, Asus
Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs).
avoid: LittleBigPlanet™, REALTOR®
instead, use: LittleBigPlanet, Realtor
Usually a detailed review of promotional material is not useful because there is no truly informational content that can be separate from the improper content. In this case there seems to be informational content that is includible, so I am glad you brought it up.
Dear Donner60
Thank you for your reply and information on the reference and Wikipedia's violations policies. To be honest I did not read the policy prior to editing. I will try to re-edit the New York Arm Wrestling Association to meet your terms and Wikipedia policy. Hope I could get it right this time. Thanks, Gene Camp Founder/President of the NYAWA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyawa (talk • contribs) 03:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Your welcome. This shows a problem with making people aware of the Wikipedia editing guidelines that I think is difficult to solve. Vandalism aside, Wikipedia can be freely edited but there are limitations as to what can be included. Those limitations are reasonably well spelled out on the page Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. But many, perhaps most, people are probably unlikely to find the page unless they are really looking for such guidelines or are told about then. If the person adds something that does not comply, they may need a detailed explanation and a page link but these might not always be forthcoming. Since Wikipedia is a volunteer organization (except for a few computer and administrative people), every editor may not make such content and even experienced ones may not always see the need for it. Also, editors/users/writers are only on line as they have time and only one may know about, or be contacted about, a particular situation. I suppose the only real solution is to respond as quickly and clearly as possible when questions are raised. Donner60 (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me the problem is that you created the template on a template talk page. The actual template page is blank. So when you put the template link up, you get nothing because the page is blank. I think if you move the template to the template (usually the article) page and remove the same material from the talk page, it should work. I think you need to define colors for the font and for the base color of the box as well.
I deleted the previous notice on your talk page because it is obvious that the problem with the edit was a mistake not an intentional nonconstructive edit.
I apologize with not really know how to properly respond here, as my account is obviously still new. I appreciate your reason for removing the external link I added in the Wilmington Wiki. I read the guidelines and honestly the site I added passed each of the guidelines regarding sites to be avoided. Its all unique and relevant content (I personally got the content first hand at each local establishment), it requires no sign int, its not littered with advertisements etc etc. Its a local restaurant guide based in Wilmington NC, instead of a restaurant list (which is on one of the pages) it lists by special. Again I respect your view point, but I do have to disagree with it based on the guidelines as I saw them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neofotography (talk • contribs) 04:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policies on advertising are spread out on a few different pages and come up in different contexts such as creation of articles and external links. The external links policy, while applicable here, and the article creation guidelines are incomplete unless you see the other Wikipedia policy pages. Your additions are clearly advertising. The very first thing that comes up is a solicitation for adding advertising to the page. The next item is a Buffalo Wild Wings ad. There are many ads below. I am not sure what you think you put up because it does not sound like the web page which is linked. That is full of advertising. 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 manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. So I have to conclude that this link and the others on Carolina beaches pages do not conform to the policies on the pages I just cited. If you are unconvinced, we can ask the opinions of a few experienced editors or administrators if you wish. Donner60 (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Donner60 the slides at the top of the page show up in random order so the first thing that "comes up" isnt a solicitation for advertising each time. Yes there are slides promoting local businesses in the top which is kind of how most every page on the internet works including the local area guides also listed on the wiki pages you reference above. Beyond that the "many ads below" you mention below are specials listings. They are unique content blocks offering information on specials listings hand sourced and hand added. They are the equivalent of a list of local restaurants and bars in the area except they are listed through a searchable specials format. Again it seems like you are equating this to a landing page with a bunch of google ads on it. This isnt the case, its unique, relevant, area content that has value to locals, tourists and visitors to the town.
My site is at least usable, unique content for this area...
Examples from the Wilmington Wiki External Links: B.C. Brooks Writer's Hiding Place <--- is a page selling people writing help on their history papers for $40 (why is this one there? Wilmington and Cape Fear Visitor's Bureau <--- im sure they sell advertising however currently that page doesnt even resolve.
Examples from the Carolina Beach Wiki External Links: Carolina Beach Surf Report <---- domain expired and its a park page Carolina Beach Lifeguard Stand Locations & Beach Information <--- domain expired and its a park page Carolina & Kure Beaches Chamber of Commerce <---- domain expired its a godaddy park page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neofotography (talk • contribs) 06:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
As you can see on the policy pages, the fact that other bad links have not yet been removed is no excuse for putting up others that violate the policy. You do prompt me to check those other links for deletion.
You admit that you are linking to "my site." I cannot accept your reasons for self-promotion as well as business advertising. Again, Wikipedia is not a travel guide and not a forum for promotion. Donner60 (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I left a message on your talk page while you were leaving this one on mine. I deleted the warning message to the user and apologized for the mistake. Donner60 (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Donner,
Ithink Wikipedia does not want to keep the information related to the actual history of Hastinapur that's why the edit which i maid to the page,in which i mentioned the text from the official govt. website of the archeological survey of india are also removed.Moreover information related to the ancient historic places which are edited along with the edit summary and relevant links are also undone.
You gave no reason with your edits for the removal of a substantial amount of material that appeared relevant. If you wish to avoid suspicion of vandalism in removing material, please use edit summaries or if the explanation is too long, put a brief note in the edit summary and refer to a longer explanation that you put on the talk page. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Hippocratic Oath
Hi Donner60. Wish to know where in your recent revision of the AMA Original version of the hippocratic oath, do l find the specific verbiage that states, "at first do no harm"? Thank you, Duchess14
p.s.-l am very new, my first time & personally, disturbed regarding what l observe to be unethical treatment by a doctor. Please advise as to this notation and l am open to constructive critism and critique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duchess14 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I did not revise the article except to restore the first paragraph which someone had deleted without explanation. Nonetheless, I hope the following answers your question.
The section that follows the introduction contains the original oath as translated by, or from, the cited source. It contains the words "and never do harm to anyone."
Another translation on the web site Medicine.Net translates the full sentence as "I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice." The cited source is "The classical version of the Hippocratic Oath is from the translation from the Greek by Ludwig Edelstein. From The Hippocratic Oath: Text, Translation, and Interpretation, by Ludwig Edelstein. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1943." You can find this same translation on the PBS web site NOVA: The Hippocratic Oath.
This same translation also appears on the National Institutes of Health web site at Greek Medicine: The Hippocratic Oath. Credit for the translation is to Michael North, National Library of Medicine, 2002.
I can only conclude that the exact words you cite are a popular paraphrase. I suppose there could be another translation that has those words rather than the two similar versions that I cite. I interpret them as meaning the same thing. But I cannot find such a version nor would I have more time to look for one since the other similar forms of words have been verified.
So I do not think the article needs to be revised to include the exact words you cite. If these words are from an alternate translation, the words would probably be added as a footnote and would not be added to the text. It would not be right to combine differing words and phrases from more than one translations. Of course, the alternate words would need to be accompanied by citation of a reliable, verifiable source. Donner60 (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Undo of update to Ode to Billie Joe - unsuitable HTML / CSS used by Wikipedia
This is a *real issue / problem*. Wikipedia is almost unique amongst major sites in delivering the wrong version of pages to high resolution mobile devices. I, and others I know, have tried repeatedly to get some recognition of the problem by Wikipedia, or even a *response*. But, nothing. It seems that updating articles is the *only* way to get a response. Yes, it might be reverted soon after but, hopefully, some of the more responsible editors will eventually understand and escalate the problem to people who can resolve it and provide a resolution. It will make the Wikipedia experience much better for many people. It will stop Wikipedia lagging behind most large sites which resolved such problems a long while ago, if they ever suffered from them.
Wikipedia continues to deliver inappropriate low resolution versions of web pages to high resolution tablet devices, often with higher resolution than most desktop / laptop computers. Very few significant web sites make this fundamental error. It really is time that a site as big as Wikipedia gets some IT / UI staff who understand how to deliver suitable versions. As it is the experience is very poor for many users.
You removed my plot summary of Insignia (novel) because you cited it as "not appearing constructive." Previously, the page only included a one-line description of the novel that was neither informative nor insightful. If I had wished to learn more about the novel through Wikipedia, that "plot summary" would have given me nothing. Thus, I wanted to provide more details for other viewers who may have wanted to understand what Insignia was about in a nutshell. Other novels have similarly extensive plot summaries. I'd also like to note that I was still in the middle of making the edit when you proceeded to remove the part of the summary that I did complete.
Left this message on your talk page: :Deleted notice. Mistaken reversion. Good faith attempt to add content. Sorry for the mistake. Rolled back my edit. Donner60 (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Left this message on your talk page: Deleting large parts of an article which has existed for six years and inserting random notices calling for its deletion is improper. If you truly wish to nominate this article for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion]. In my opinion, and I am not an administrator, the article meets none of the criteria for speedy deletion. It must go through the article for deletion process. Donner60 (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
why you delete my stuff on the wiki
i am a 80 year old man trying to give the truth to the people that need it and you delete it that was the truth that i wrote and you deleted it all of it my hard work now gone and now im mad at you all you youngsters these days are all the same. Mike bearinger (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)mike bearinger
Put this message on your talk page: Deleted notice in manner prescribed by guidelines. I misinterpreted the edit. I think I see why, but it seems I was wrong all the same. I am sorry for the mistake. I am glad you restored your work. Donner60 (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Stoner
Okay first of all my edits were a birthday present for someone who's pretty down in the dumps. He wouldve been pretty happy for a while. Second off, it's WIKIpedia if this sites no longer a wiki thats not open to the people then change the name of the website. Might as well just call it encyclopedia. Finally, everythimg I said besides him owning a world record is most likely true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebishophoward (talk • contribs) 01:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You seriously misunderstand it if you think it is a social media site. It is a site that anyone can edit - within the framework that it is an encyclopedia and has certain rules. Also, your edit could just as easily be false and an attack on the person for all anyone knows. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Donner60 (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Grommet Edit
I don't see what I have done wrong. One example of "Grommet" being popularized was shown. I simply added another.
The YouTube user "JonTronShow" has brought lots of traffic to the word Grommet and the wiki page for Grommet. More than the example given, so tell me, Donner60, why did you remove that example of the use of Grommet in popular culture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.91.255 (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Apparently you are not really interested in an answer because you have been vandalizing this page nearly constantly since you asked the question. If you had the courtesy to wait a few minutes, I would give you an answer. Donner60 (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Obviously your intent was not to add information about grommet. And I am sure you must realize there is no way to verify that a You Tube site sends traffic to Wikipedia. Even if it did, a self-published site which merely asks in profane language about the meaning of the word is not adding anything of value to Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, could you please explain the reason for your rollback of the page creator's recent edits on this article? We are in the midst of a DYK nomination and I think he is improving the page based on our comments. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. I apparently "pushed the wrong button." I don't remember making this edit (although I obviously did), which means that I advanced the page before hitting the rollback button. I was not on the page I intended to edit. Please proceed. I will remove any notice in connection with this. Donner60 (talk) 08:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Sorry if I can not change some images?, I think some of the photos are so old , they have bad quality and sometimes are wrong in the royalty section, but I will not be contributing anything if prohibited... Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiqueroyals (talk • contribs) 14:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Placed this message on your user talk page and deleted the notice: Mistaken reversion and notice. I wrongly thought the image had been spoiled by the edit. In fact, the change was an improvement. I am sorry for the mistake. Please do not let this discourage you. Donner60 (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I have deleted the notice on your talk page. I still am concerned with the addition to the article. It's basically an insider thing that the general reader is not likely to get much out of as near as I can tell. They may even think it is a fake edit dissing the Rangers. And how are they to know that Atropians are a fictional enemy. (In fact, since you are the OPFOR, why aren't you the Atropian?) If you want to add this or something like it, I suggest you cut it back to the basic facts and make it a little more straightforward. Also, a citation would help. Donner60 (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Nehru
Hi! May I know why you undid my edit? According to the discussion page of the article, I had my reasons to remove that line from the article. The line was not supported by the ref provideed by editor bladesmulti. Thats why I removed it. The ref added to support that sentence is fake and irrelavant. Please go through the discussion page. Thank you.Indian4747 (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I undid my edit and restored your edit. I left this message on your talk page: "Deleted the notice in the manner prescribed by the guidelines. It has been pointed out to me that I misinterpreted the edit. I think that happened because the tag and the text removed were separated by additional text. Also, I was unaware of the talk page discussion. I will restore the edit. Sorry for the inconvenience." Donner60 (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I left this message on your talk page: Removed notice. Edits appear to have been a good faith effort to improve the article by making it more succinct. Restored version up to point of notice and removed a dead link reference that another editor had later removed but was restored by the reversion. Please review the current version for completeness and add any helpful references that you may have or easily find. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page that I clicked on the references and they led to the same dead link. If the article is valid, something seems to be wrong with the links, which makes it appear bogus. Donner60 (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I have gone back and began to test them again. Now they work. I don't know what happened but evidently it led me to make a mistake. Donner60 (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I have noted on the talk page of the Murat Pak article that the links now work for me. I wrote that I withdraw the speedy deletion nomination because the article is not a hoax or vandalism. My basis for the tag has now disappeared. I don't know what caused the mistake but I am sorry for the mistake and inconvenience. Donner60 (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I suspect the mistake which led me to dead links was caused because I clicked on the links from Huggle. Apparently the links will not work through clicks on the article text shown on the Huggle page. I also made the mistake on Salim Ismail. I have been explaining this and apologizing on the talk pages of those interested in the articles. I reverted the tag and explained the mistake on the Salim Ismail talk page. I am not sure that one other article that drew my attention tonight is satisfactory. (ANZ Tech Ltd. is brief poorly written, may be intended to be promotional and three of the four links lead to pages that seem to have nothing to do with the company. On the other hand, they may have been intended to point to articles on previous days.) To be safe, because of the other mistakes tonight, I withdrew the tag on that article. I had not put anything on the talk page as yet. I regret the mistakes. I am not sure why I have not run into this before but I certainly will not click on links from Huggle again. I have nominated 63 pages for speedy deletion to date and 61 have been deleted, so I have not been prone to rash or incorrect nominations. Tonight I made some mistakes. Donner60 (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Note to the file, I guess: Maybe my judgment on this article was not a mistake after all. It was speedily deleted on October 7, 2014. For what it's worth - to me, I suppose. Donner60 (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I made a couple mistakes tonight/this morning, which I fortunately was able to correct quickly and before they caused real problems, thanks to a helpful inquiry. So it lifts my spirits to be on the right track here. Donner60 (talk) 09:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
There have been some really rubbish sources used there for the 2014 claim -eg infowars, etc. Almost all conspiracy sites. I did fine one that doesn't seem to be and added it. We've also got a new editor who is using her own observations - I'll explain to her. It may all be a hoax or joke, and if it's actually is not there now then the whole thing probably doesn't belong in the article. Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I took a brief look at a few of those sites. At least one has a photo of the 2014 stone so the existence of the stone set into the monument is true. The whole thing is rather strange. My guess is that the monument is either the work of some person or group who wished to draw attention either to their personal philosophy or to the local area or both. Conspiracy theorists have a field day with it - adding to the publicity. Donner60 (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Arpa jarocha stub
My students were practicing how to clean up and properly cite sources in Wikipedia, but many of the students are, surprisingly, new to Wikipedia so we were learning both the research and writing skills as well as just how to actually execute changes properly in Wikipedia. They knew other Wikipedians would be watching their changes, and could make even further changes on top of their own, but we didn't know why the original zapping of all the changes had occurred. Thanks for going back and reverting the new changes, realizing that the mistakes Missycosmicity made were about newness-to-Wikipedia coding and style-guidelines, and that it was a good-faith effort to clean up the page. Thank you also for helping my student to further clean up the page with your edits (you caught that I left in some weird spacing in my attempts to clean it up too). Francesca Rivera (cubanabop) — Preceding undated comment added 22:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I am glad that I could clear that up quickly and without too much inconvenience. Certainly Wikipedia does not want to discourage anyone who is making a good faith effort to edit constructively. Sometimes a single edit seems problematical but a sequence of several edits are not. I am glad this was pointed out to me so that I could go back and see that although the last edit seemed problematical, the entire sequence was not. One does have to be careful when reviewing to take immediately preceding edits into account unless the last edit is quite clearly vandalism or wrong. Sometimes one needs to be told the background or reason for an edit or edits and to look at the work again. Donner60 (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Whistleblower Complaints
I want to petition Wikipedia to make special consideration for whistleblowing sections for several reasons. Whistleblowing is an important part of our democracy, but increasingly challenging to accomplish in an organized and effective way with an increasingly populous and information stuffed society. Having a regular section with different, not absent, standards should mean that Wikipedia can preserve the integrity of it's entries and still provide this valuable social service. I mindfully used the word allegations, only stated what I have direct personal knowledge of, and kept my editing in a distinctly named section instead of tampering with other sections so that the entry would not be viewed as vandalism and could not be said to be conflicting with the normal verifiable information provided for the entry. I've noticed most controversial pages have sections or whole pages identified as something like "Criticism of Topic X" and that these sections and pages often have very little restriction. All employers are potentially controversial pages. Though Wikipedia does not have the goal to be controversial, silencing this controversy seems to be inconsistent with it's goals of informing the people.
I have gone through the normally designated grievance processes and found that investigators, instead of investigating, consistently advocate for their employer or fail to address matters at all; this corruption enables corruption. While you might understandably be skeptical of my allegations I am sure you have seen related stories in the news about investigative and enforcement agencies not doing their job and must have realized that it is at least plausibly true. Provided that I and other whistleblowers present our complaints as plausible allegations, keep those allegations in properly identified sections, and provide what verification we possibly can, may we have this avenue to give and receive information about the employers of the world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchtower25 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
That was a very relevant link you undid, as it was to an online copy of the original Canadian Government brochure announcing the planned new observatory. Not really sure how much more relevant it could have been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomLuTon (talk • contribs) 02:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Left this message on your talk page. I am removing the notice because of the explanation that the addition was a relevant link. However, the addition did result in the deletion of other references. Was that your intention or did I misread that? In any event, I am sorry I misunderstood your edit. Donner60 (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Emergency Management
Yes, I did intentionally edit the opening paragraph to the Emergency Management article, it was not a mistake. The definition that you have listed is simply incorrect. This is confirmed by the very first link - to MEMA's posting of the Principles of Emergency Management. Following that cited resource, no definition, or support is listed for defining emergency management as "is the effort of communities or businesses to plan for and coordinate all personnel and materials required to either mitigate the effects of, or recover from, natural or man-made disasters, or acts of terrorism." Emergency Management is, "the managerial function charged with creating the framework within which communities reduce vulnerability to hazards and cope with disasters." This is the definition used by FEMA, High Ed programs across the country, AND is the very definition cited by the MEMA reference. In the same principles document, the mission section demonstrates a much clearer and comprehensive explanation. The principles document can be found at [3].
Additionally the link to the principles document listed under the profession goes to a blank page on IAEM. Again, [4] would be an appropriate change there. As for your concern over my editing, I did submit an edit summary for the change in definition. You are correct in that I did not include one for fixing the broken link, an act that surely is obvious enough to not require an edit summary. Since it is of such concern I will be sure to include edit summaries for each detail. I'll be re-replacing the definition and the broken link. Thanks for voicing your concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disasterology1906 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Left this message on your talk page: Deleted notice due to explanation left on my talk page. It seems my review was superficial, looking at the form rather than the content, and not noting that the underlying links were bad. I am sorry for the mistake. I am removing the notice in the manner prescribed by the guidelines. Thank you for the explanation. Donner60 (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Not a problem. Thanks for clearing that up. Also, please be advised there are other inconsistencies on the EM page. Expect that I will be making changes, as I have time, over the next few days. I'll be sure to include the edit summaries. Let me know if you have any concerns, I'd love to help clear them up. Disasterology1906 (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
You wrote: Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Peter Jones (mathematician) with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. 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) 03:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC).
Left this message on your talk page: Deleted notice in manner prescribed by guidelines. Edit was good faith attempt to change to more recent photo. I have made the change to the more recent photo in the article. I hope that is what you intended. If not, please let me know. Sorry for the confusion. Donner60 (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Not only is an antecedent to the Dunning Kruger, but it's a quote from Bertrand Russel. It's even on Bertrand Russel's wikipedia page. I think it should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genscripter (talk • contribs) 06:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I left this message on your talk page: I should have been more specific: Isn't your edit just a paraphrase of a quotation which is already in the article, namely, "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"? I am deleting the above notice [on your talk page] because your edit was obviously in good faith. Donner60 (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Dronning Maud Land is increasingly being used internationally as the name of the Atlantic side of the Antarctic Continent, although it is frequently being referred to as "Queen Maud Land" in (American) English. As an example, Dronning Maud Land is generally being used in British and Australian maps of Antarctica, as well as in Antarctic Treaty and SCAR contexts. Thus it seems particulary inappropriate to use the form "Queen Maud Land" in an article about Norway.
Stastein (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
̈
I have added a parenthetical expression "(often shown as Queen Maud Land in English)" after Dronning Maud Land in the Norway article. After all, Queen Maud Land is the name of the article in the English Wikipedia. I think this is a good compromise. If you think a revised form of words is better, you may wish to change the wording of the parenthetical. Donner60 (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Matthew Warren
Not sure if this is where im suppose to message but its the bottom of the page
why has my change to Matthew Warren been labeled as vandalism? I am Matthew Warren and its the story of my life. can you please approve it, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.53.198 (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
what I posted is the story of my life and I specify in the headline, my full name is Matthew Timothy Warren and I am from Michigan. Can I start a new thread as Matthew Timothy Warren then instead of Matthew Warren if I'm intruding on that thread in some way? I'm not trying to vandalize anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.53.198 (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
What you posted does not show you are notable in any way, which is a requirement. If you posted it separately, I am sure it would be speedily deleted. I suggest you read:
I'm the father of Jesus for www.christsake.com don't you think the real story of the conception of Christ and who the father is, is wiki worthy? there is a fricken painting in the catacombs in Italy of Christ (the original last supper believed to be the first image of christ, its him without a beard) and it looks like me, yea probably not a coincidence considering what happened in the church. come on dude — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.53.198 (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I am who I claim to be, the first vandalism was from my room mate trying to bash me probably because he's an old hateful guy a little off his rocker, clearly. just about the same story is on my website www.christsake.com I just added a few details like me going the wrong way at first and then turning around and seeing her glowing underneath the bridge. There have been alot of things that have happened since that i would have ended up adding to this in the future, this was just the beginning :( maybe I should make an account, would that make any difference?--50.133.53.198 (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
My edit on the "National Geographic Animal Jam" page, I believe, was not vandalism. I just thought that the section needed some grammar corrections and a bit more info to it so that's what I did. And I sort of reworded some stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.14.231 (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I left this message on your talk page: I delete the second notice because your explanation indicates good faith and perhaps the two notices confused you into citing links which I took to be nonconstructive. Nonetheless, you should not post information about the membership benefits. That seems to me to slip over to promotion or advertising which is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. Besides, there is already an external link to the web site on the page. Donner60 (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Generally, YouTube sources are not considered reliable since anyone can post anything they want without sources or proof. However, the rule is occasionally bypassed. If you have one that definitely shows they are the same, and if you can find no other written source, I would say go ahead and list the video. It would be better than just saying it is true with no support. Donner60 (talk) 03:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
This is Me
Hi, you undid one of my edits and marked it as unconstructive, however I assure you I wasn't intending to opose or get off on the wrong foot with silly nonsense. Sorry if there was any confusion. 96.250.19.175 (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
It would be a good idea as a new user for you to read the pages using the links at Matthew Warren, a few threads above this one. Donner60 (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I tried the sample code on the page and it didn't work. The changes I made allowed the example to work (without -I. it couldn't find the HelloWorld.h, without -I<pathtojre>/include it couldn't find jni.h) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjames1958 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for letting me know. I will assume that it is correct. I think it is likely that someone more familiar with Java and wiki codes will look at it in the future and revise it if necessary. Donner60 (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Subject: ELO Fans
Hello i have just noticed you have taken down a link to my page ELO Fans I dont think this was un-related to the page as ELO fans is a fan base
about ELO I would like to know why you took it down and if i can put it back up-Thanks -MrWikiGuy — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrWikiguy (talk • contribs) 21:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi I changed the district because it was incorrect from: User:Taxifloyd
You state the county was wrong. I did not check so perhaps you are right. But why did you change "date" to "dte"? That alone tipped me off that it was a bad edit and led to its reversion. If you have a constructive edit to make, go ahead and make it. Donner60 (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
all I was trying to change was the county I'm on a mobile phone so perhaps it's editing more than what I'm trying to correct all I want to change is lancashire to Merseyside.
Hi Donnie, Thanks for the interest on the Clinark page, I didn't realise that it was fully published yet as I am doing a complete re-draft.Its my first article, so I am happy for any help! I am just working on the discography. For some reason I lost 3 hours of work in draft so I'm doing it again now. Julietedewards 03:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julietedewards (talk • contribs)
I restored your previous version of the article. I made a mistake for some reason since I never intentionally edit or revert an edit in a draft. I probably reverted an edit to the previous article in the queue and ended up reverting the next edit (your article) as well instead of simply advancing the list to the next edit. I am very sorry for the mistake. I hope it will not discourage you. I deleted the notice on your talk page in the manner prescribed by the guidelines. Donner60 (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Restored content
From the article talk page:
Hi Donner, Thanks for your concern about removing content. Actually, the first four edits you undid were well sourced additions which did not remove content. The fifth edit removed redundancies and some additional detail that seemed unbalanced. I think if you look carefully you will agree that most of what I removed was redundant, and the remainder unbalanced excessive detail for this article (i.e. why so many details about Robert Williams, but none about Malcolm X, Fanon, or more about Donald Warden, the AAA, SSAC, RAM, the Poverty Program, and Carmichael's national efforts, which are given quite extensive treatment in the memoirs and the histories. If you -- or anyone else for that matter -- feels any of this deleted content is important to re-incorporate, by all means let's discuss it in detail. Policing.the.police (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I did not look at it carefully enough. I only looked at the last edit, and not carefully enough to see it was removing redundancy. I thank you for your explanation and I am glad that you went ahead and improved the article. I am sorry I got in the way. I deleted the mistaken notice on your talk page in the manner prescribed by the guidelines. 08:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Uncited Source
You have removed my edit on Uhn Tiss Uhn Tiss Uhn Tiss about Cory Williams being present dancing in the music video for no cited source. I have never needed (previously) to cite a source on a paragraph about what is happening in a movie or film, I have done very minor edits on films about what happens in them and since it is a film, the film was my source. I created the edit because it is true and I also have no clue how to cite a source when my source is just the very music video itself which I assumed has already been cited as a source. If you want to go watch the video yourself and then find that Cory is clearly scene busting some mad moves in the background of about 80% of the shots then cite it and put it back in the article yourself, fine by me. ShaggydogGaming (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
You restored the edit. I have left it in place. I deleted the notice on your IP user talk page because of the explanation given. Besides, the whole article is unsourced. Donner60 (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Ray Charles Edit
Hi Donner60. This exact excerpt appeared somewhere else in the article and was repeated. I removed that section to improve the article. My apologies for not explaining why I removed this line on the talk page ... I assumed by action description would be acceptable. Thank you for your help and if it's ok, I'm going to delete this section again.Abdavis329 (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I also just realized you undid my complete work on this section. I had created addition sub sections to make the article more clear, separating the section into awards & honors, contributions to civil rights and influence on the music industry. Is there a way to restore this section?Abdavis329 (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I deleted the notice on your talk page because the edit I reverted was part of a series of edits to improve the article, which I did not recognize. You undid my entire edit so nothing else that is in or out of the article was done by my action. I do see that some edits were made by others after you undid my edit. Go to the history page (View History tab in the article). Click on "prev" next to your last edit. Then you can follow the sequence forward to see if any of the later edits caused a problem. Donner60 (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
You also can retrieve your entire work by pressing edit on the page you last edited and going to the edit box. (You could get it without codes by copying that version of the article, of course, but you might want codes and footnotes with the edits.) Do not edit from that page, however, because you will undo everything that came after. Donner60 (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
The edit I just made what's wrong with it?
What's wrong with the edit I just made? I was just saying how many of the BCHS games CHS has won. That's not promoting the school, I'm just stating a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.68.130.222 (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I am quite sure they did not win 27 out of 11 games. But since it seems to have been a mistake rather than intentional, I am deleting the notice. You may wish to try again. 11 out of 27? Donner60 (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Believe it or not CHS has won 27 out of 38 games. That was my mistake. BCHS has won only 11 of the games. But wha'ts wrong with the other stuff you removed. The school guidelines page doesn't seem to say there's anything wrong with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.68.130.222 (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, with the program I am using, it was all or nothing on the reversion. Also, since part was wrong, it shed doubt on the rest. If the rest is ok, you can add that back when you correct the numbers. Donner60 (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
My Bad
Sorry, that change that was made was an accident. I must not have been paying attention and typed the wrong thing. Sorry about that.
from Moviefan12
Unsure if this is what you mean by new messages at the bottom of the page (if incorrect, then where, please?) You deleted my addendum to the Moxie article (Popular Culture section):
"In the movie "Yankee Doodle Dandy" (1942), the character Eddie Foy (played by his son Eddie Foy Jr.) tells George Cohan (James Cagney)that Moxie is the drink he likes to drink."
Your reason, you stated: "it didn’t appear constructive to me."
Enlighten me, please. What makes my contribution less constructive than the two preceding sentences in the article ("Moxie is mentioned in the independent film Man with a Plan (1996) as the favorite beverage of the titular dairy farmer and congressional candidate." and "In the movie Small Apartments (2012), the character Franklin Franklin drinks only Moxie and nothing else."
My addition is factual, truthful, and pertinent to the topic.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingnut1958 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
You put empty ref tags before the section heading which resulted in this showing in the article in front of the section heading: "Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page)." This also resulted in the section heading not being in proper format. This may have been an unintentional mistake on your part but it was the reason for the reverted edit. Often, when a disruptive edit is made (intentional or not), it casts doubt on the entire edit. I am sorry I did not take time to explain this. I will accept your explanation in good faith and delete the notice in the manner prescribed by the guidelines. Donner60 (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I want to do a grammar edit because there is a typo made by the previous editor of the article (acutual -> actual). Bowiechen (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Donner60,
I edited the arabinose page because saying it is a "culture medium for specific bacteria" is too vague and has no real meaning. What bacteria is this? Because it has no reference, I deleted it and replaced it with a specific use of arabinose in synthetic biology complete with a reference.
I am sorry I did not look at your edits more closely. In the last edit before my reversion you had a simple mistake, obviously not an intentional nonconstructive edit. You used a front slash instead of a back slash which resulted in "<\sub>" appearing in the text of the article. That is why I reverted the edit, which unfortunately resulted in other reversions as well. I am deleting the notice because your edits were constructive. I will look at the text again to see if all of your changes have been restored or whether further addition is needed. Donner60 (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Lenny Walters
Lenny Walters was a rather well known member of the Class of 1971 (IIRC) at Harvey Mudd College, which fact you can verify with the Alumni office at the College. I know this because I was there at the time. However you own the page so you get to put on it what you like to put on it, and who am I to challenge you in this regard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.54.81 (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no Wikipedia article about him. If he is well known, then you can at least add a footnote to a reliable, verifiable source that shows his notability. Wikipedia can not take your word alone for it, although I will take it for your good faith in adding the name. For all anyone knows (at least most people}, without an article or a reference, he could be fictional. Donner60 (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I have deleted the messages on your talk page and left an explanation there. I am sorry that the second message referred to vandalism. I should have left an explanation and not an automated message which changed the characterization to vandalism from incorrect. As I explain, I think your edit would be very confusing to readers. Even if it were technically correct in terms of "domestication", it appears to contradict the whole premise of an article about feral parrots which previously had been pets or in captivity. This is especially true in the opening paragraph. Perhaps there is another way to make your point later in the article without it appearing to contradict the remainder of the article. Donner60 (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Only a few species of parrots have been selectively bred by humans. The majority of non-native parrot populations do not belong to these species; they belong to species that have never been selectively bred by humans, so they could never have been considered domesticated.
Just because many people don't know what the word "domesticated" means doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used properly on wikipedia. As it is, wikipedia is contradicting itself, so either the "feral parrots" article should be changed to agree with "feral organism" and "domestication, or the "feral organism" and "domestication" articles should be changed to agree with your definition of those words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772D:6BA0:2915:758B:2670:C958 (talk) 10:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Same reply on your talk page: Do you think that the article could be changed to use some words like pets or captive where appropriate, still be correct and meet your concerns? If so, why not try to revise it along those lines? I am sure neither of us wants either inaccuracies or contradictions in the articles. Again, you may be able to work your point directly into the article if you do it further into the article, with perhaps some smaller change earlier. I will be off line for a few days so if you reply with a message that needs a response, I will not be able to reply until Tuesday or possibly Wednesday. Donner60 (talk) 04:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
feral parrots
The article will never be correct as long as it has the title "feral parrots", as most of these parrot populations have never been domesticated, and therefore cannot ever be considered feral. You would understand what I mean if you would take the time to read the intro paragraphs of the "feral organism" article and "domestication" articles. Since the term "feral parrots" is not an official scientific term anyway, the article title should be changed to prevent contradiction and the spread of misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772D:6BA0:5088:30FD:325E:127E (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Here we are back to the same problem. You want to negate the entire article. I can not accept that as a proper edit. It is a fundamental difference in approach. Certainly there are sources in the article which support the existence of feral parrots. I think the best thing for you to do is to post a new topic for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds and see whether you can come up with something together with those most interested in articles about birds or get some more expert or experienced guidance in how to handle this. Donner60 (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
feral parrots
The problem is that you don't understand what the word "feral" is, and how it is being used incorrectly in the "feral parrots" article. Please read wikipedia "feral organism" and "domestication" articles, and you will understand how the "feral parrots" article not only contradicts the information on these articles, but is spreading misinformation. This would all be corrected if the title of the "feral parrots" article was simple changed to "non-native parrots". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772D:6BA0:5088:30FD:325E:127E (talk) 04:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, other than the fact that I am reasonably sure I understand what "feral" means, you may be right about the technicalities. Of course, we are writing for ordinary readers not biologists - although as we have both noted, we want to be correct. I also wonder, based on citations in the article, whether you are being a bit over-technical. I don't say that in any kind of critical way since I suppose I can be that way with topics with which I am more familiar.
In any event, in terms of making changes to the article, and especially to changing the title, I think that is too much of a change and too potentially controversial for me to concur with as a non-administrator and non-member of the Wikipedia Project: Birds or for me to suggest you go ahead with. Again, I suggest you take this up with the Birds project on their talk page. Ultimately, you are going to have to convince at least some people there to support your changes to get them to be made - and more importantly to you, I would think, to get them to stick. If you don't get more of a consensus on this, I think you will have to deal with more people with more expertise than just with an editor reviewing recent changes because some of them are likely to look at the changes at some point in the future. If you can't point to having made your case there, you will certainly have to make it again. By the way, you may have noted I did not suggest you take it up on the talk page which in theory is a way to justify changes, resolve questions and establish consensus. I have found that many talk pages, especially on articles which have existed for quite awhile and do not change much, do not seem to get much readership and comments on those pages often generate few, if any, replies. Donner60 (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I have restored your edits. You will see that my edit showed the letter "m". That means it was supposed to be a minor edit, some sort of spelling or other small change. A minor edit certainly would not have resulted in the removal of your detailed edits. I did not leave a message on your talk page so I must not have seen anything especially wrong. I reverted a problem edit about a day ago but that should have remained completely unrelated. I restored your edits because in fact I do not know why they were reverted other than I must have "pushed the wrong button." I am sorry for the mistake. Donner60 (talk) 05:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Oliver Shaw
The latter part of my edit regarding Energy Performance Certificates was based on a consultation today with a surveyor, who was surveying my property for the installation of solar panels. My EPC, assessed a few days ago, failed the required grade by just one point, and I was advised that if I fitted a cylinder thermostat to the hot water cylinder it would score even if I did not connect it to anything. The surveyor also told me that their instructions are that they are NOT electrical engineers, and that they assess only what they see; they do not test whether it works. He cited one instance in another property where a room thermostat clearly had unconnected wires dangling from it, and it was equally clearly not connected to anything, but upon checking up he was told that it had to count as present.
The first part of my edit, regarding properties with solid walls two or three feet thick, was based on personal involvement with two such properties - I used to own one, now a listed building as it happens, but that is no more than fortuitous - and my godson's father, who is my oldest friend, going back to our school days around 55 years ago, until very recently owned another. When I discussed such properties with the EPC Assessor who did my recent EPC, both of us being erstwhile professional physicists, he confirmed that the thickness of the walls is not taken into account - although very obviously the rate of heat conduction through a solid material is inversely proportional to the length of the conduction path. I don't need to justify that statement, it is basic physics, which was my late profession.
I could have added, but didn't, that from personal experience (in a school flat where I was living while teaching at a school on the edge of Exmoor in the seventies), cavity walls cannot always be relied upon to be well insulated, although I understand from more than one EPC assessor that they make no distinction between the quality of cavity walls in different properties, and they do not test how well they are or are not in fact insulated. This particular flat was perishing to live in, and rumour at the time was that it was jerry-built, and that steel tie pieces and concrete droppings had bridged the cavities!!
All of which adds to the valid criticism of the quality of Energy Performance Certificates.
I have removed the notice message, commented, and added a welcome message with some links to pages about various Wikipedia guidelines on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Professor Fomum died in March 2009
Hello, The content i added are from one of his books, which I clearly cited at the end of the section. I would be adding more of his story, taken directly from his writings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmfionline (talk • contribs) 21:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page. Deleted notice but questioned propriety of additions under Wikipedia guidelines, including potential copyright problems. Provided links to guideline and policy pages. Donner60 (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
TKS
The Tonkunstler-Societat article currently relies on 70 year old research. The Judas Maccabeus arrangement is not by Mozart. The clarinet quintet had its first known performance at the concert, not its premiere - it certainly wasn't written for it. The changes serve to improve the accuracy of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.201.144 (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page: My mistake. I am deleting the message in the manner prescribed by the guidelines. Thanks for the explanation. Donner60 (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Donner I have no idea what you are babbling about. I have not looked at the Angular distance page so it would be hard to edit it in any way. Check your whatevers that claimed I did anything. 173.87.174.213 (talk) 07:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I deleted the notice on your talk page because you wrote that you did not make the edit. The edit did come from your IP address but there are some possible reasons that could happen without you having made the edit. One would be if you were at a public place or a position where someone could piggyback on your connection. Someone could have used your computer directly. There are a couple of other possibilities. Donner60 (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted mistaken notice on your talk page in manner prescribed by guidelines. Recent change makes edit correct. Reference is later. Thanks for straightening this out. Sorry for the mistake. It might be a good idea to put a reference by the first occurrence of this as well to prevent misunderstanding. Donner60 (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Felicien M. Steichen
Subject of page is DEAD. As page states, he died in June, 2011. So it seems unusual to have him be part of category "Living Persons." Am I missing something here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.19.42 (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The problem was that you replaced the category with [[Category:Steichen]]. There is no such category. Unfortunately, the entire article does not come up on the program I was using so I did not know that the categories should be removed, only that the replacement was invalid. Since you are correct that the categories should be removed, I will delete the notice on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, so! Sorry. Yes, I thought that Steichen was a category, when it is actually just a wiki page. I had intended to take out the category link on the Felicien Steichen page, but you beat me to it! I saw that the better way to do this is to edit the "Steichen" page to include Felicien M. Steichen. The Luxembourgian Wiki page for him is already shown in "Steichen," but not the English language one, so I included the English one too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.19.42 (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
No problem. We all make mistakes. Huggle is a great program for checking recent changes but I do occasionally run into a problem because it does not show the entire article, only the change. As in this case, that can be misleading. (Officially, not an excuse.) I thought I should make the change to the article to complete what you were trying to do in the event you may have logged off. Donner60 (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
John Carl Buechler
I just stumbled upon the page John Carl Buechler, and it seems you reverted an earlier blanking of the page. While I agree that simple blanking is not a sensible solution, looking over the prose I'd say this isn't an article and I wonder how any of it could even be salvaged to sensibly stubbify the article until it is expanded with proper sources and tone of writing. For that reason, imho simply restoring all the material wasn't a good call either. Just saying since you're one of two established editors to do so, rather than at least acknowledging the unacceptable text itself. --85.197.59.162 (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
When a page appears as blanked on Huggle, it is easy to revert as vandalism because it almost always is. Blanking may not be appropriate here either because the person exists and appears, in view of his movie work, to be notable. Admittedly, I did not go to the extra effort to see if this case was exceptional and the article might truly need to be deleted. If so, it should be done through Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or Wikipedia: Articles for deletion.
On the other hand, I agree that the article is as bad as you described. It also has been overtagged, a separate issue, which makes it look worse. I spent a little time and could not find much on this person available from what we might call reliable sources. What I saw on the internet movie database leads me to believe that the article is essentially true but that is not considered a good source. I could not find any truly reliable sources for this information. I am not eager to spend time on this but I may revert the tags and try to cut the article down and tag it as unreferenced. Then I would try to pass this on to an editor or project with more interest in the general subject matter. I also might PROD it. I will get back to this tomorrow after I have had a little time to think about it further. Donner60 (talk) 04:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Donner60. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
