User talk:Donner60 - Wikipedia

As it turns out, I will not be travelling in the next few days. I expect to be online, at least briefly, until early October when I may have some days offline. And I expect to be offline from October 10 to about October 13. Donner60 (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have added a prioritized to do list to my user page. That may move along more slowly because of coordinator tasks or unanticipated editing that need more immediate attention. Posted 1 October 2023, now updated to note no progress at all on the list since then. Donner60 (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please put comments or questions on new subjects at the very bottom of the page, use a new section heading, refer to the exact title of an article and sign your message with four tildes. If you send me an e-mail please leave a talk page notice. I am not always prompt at looking for new e-mails at the listed address. Donner60 (talk) 09:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please put new messages at the very bottom of the page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC) To clarify, the new item should not be below this message and not below the repeated message after my introductory paragraphs but at the very bottom of the page after every other item on the page. It will help me to understand what you are talking about to add a section heading, identify the article you are concerned with (if your question or comment refers to a specific article), using a link, probably putting the article title in the heading, and sign your edit with four tildes (~~~~) so I know to whom to reply. Keep an eye on this page because I may just reply here if the answer is simple and does not seem to be time sensitive. When I notice an out of order question or comment, I will move it to the bottom of the page and provide a heading if there is none already. Donner60 (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

If you have come here for information, or to complain about something, read the information at the pertinent links in the next two sections first. It may save both of us time as well as providing an immediate definitive answer. Current talk page items follow these sections.

Simplified and good introductory references: • Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. • Getting started. • Introduction to Wikipedia. • Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset and • Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style.

• Wikipedia:Civility • Wikipedia:No personal attacks. • Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

• Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes. • Wikipedia:Vandalism. References to Wikipedia policies, guidelines, instructions, include:
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style. • 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:Manual of Style/Words to watch. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Relative time references. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Puffery. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Editorializing. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. • Wikipedia:Handling trivia. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context.

• Wikipedia guidelines on twitter, facebook: Wikipedia:Twitter. Wikipedia guidelines, policies on external links: Wikipedia:External links, Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided.

• Wikipedia:Five Pillars. • Wikipedia:Notability. • Wikipedia:Verifiability. • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. • Wikipedia:No original research. • Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. • Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. • Wikipedia:Citing sources. • Help:Footnotes. • Wikipedia:Copyright Problems. • Wikipedia:Image use policy. • Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles. and • Help:Contents.

• Help:Introduction to talk pages. • Help:Using talk pages. • 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 user page 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. ...............................

Put messages at the bottom of this page, please. Please put messages, questions or comments at the very bottom of the page, i.e. after every other item on the page. If you put them here (immediately before or after this paragraph or section), I may either not see them or at least not see them very promptly. That will delay any reply from me to you. Please add a section heading, identify the article you are concerned with, and use a link, (if your question or comment refers to a specific article or edit), probably putting the article name in the heading, and sign your edit with four tildes (~~~~) so I know to whom to reply.

Where I may reply; and reasons why I might ignore or delete your message Often I will reply on your talk page and may note or summarize that reply on this page. If you do not get a reply on your talk page, check back here. I may put brief replies here, especially if they do not seem urgent. Keep an eye on this page because I may just reply here, especially if the answer seems simple and does not seem to be time sensitive. If you have a user name, I will try to remember to ping you if I just leave a return message here. As far as I know, IP addresses cannot be pinged. When I notice a question or comment that was not placed at the bottom of the page, I will move it to the bottom of the page and provide a heading if there is not already a heading.

If you put a question or comment on this page but not at the bottom of the page despite the above request, and you can not find it if you check back, I have moved it to the bottom of the page in a new section with an appropriate heading if there was none given to the message.

If your edit was disruptive, vandalism, uncivil, nonsensical or abusive, and you do not find the edit on this page, it is because I have deleted it. In most such cases, I will also put another warning on your talk page, but will not otherwise reply to it. (I will reply, however, if you then leave a civil and reasonable followup with a legitimate question or comment and some reference or reasonable explanation related to the question or comment. Note that I cannot reply to a message which is incomplete or otherwise cannot be understood or reviewed on another page.)

If I do not reply to your message, but do not delete it or have archived it, it is likely because I took it to be a statement rather than a question or message that called for a reply. If some time has passed since I have logged on, the message may have become stale, or appear to me to be stale or no longer in need of a reply for some reason. In those cases, I also may not reply and will likely simply archive the message at the next archiving on aging messages/replies.

I occasionally get one of these notices. I fix the link or bracket, then delete the message, as the messages state is permissible, instead of further cluttering up these pages. Donner60 (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
......................

Thanks! I was glad to help. The Battle of Gettysburg is such an important milestone in U.S. history that it should be kept to a good standard. Donner60 (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. It's something I can do for the project which relieves the frequent contributors from the task and can be spread out over a month. Donner60 (talk) 00:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Donner60 (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! At least 40 more to come soon. The editor has done a good job of bringing these up to B class. He will be posting the remainder in the near future. Donner60 (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Most of the articles put up for manual assessments are easy enough to review due to the many outstanding contributors that we have to the project. Most are interesting as well. Donner60 (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the comment and for taking a look at this article (and also for the Galicia Division article that you assessed a while ago). For the organization table, I think it will be best for me to go through and add citations for every individual unit, because there is not a single source that lists out everything on there on one page (from what I could find), but there are sources for the individual units. I will start on that soon, and I will reply to your note on the assessment page when I finish with this task. I don't think this will take long. Romanov loyalist (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Donner60... It has been too long, my friend. I hope you're doing well, and that life is treating you with happiness and joy. We haven't spoken in quite some time (it's really my fault; work and life has gotten very busy for me). I was going through some old pages, saw your responses to me in many discussions, and I wanted to thank you for your support and to let you know that I was thinking about you... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good to hear from you. I have spent my time recently as a coordinator for the military history project. Before that Huggle had gone haywire on me and my activity fell off when I could not get it to work. I then moved on to less activity in covid times which started about the same time. I have had covid twice but fortunately seem to have gotten over it without much, if anything, in the way of after effects - maybe some periodic fatigue could be related, I suppose. I resumed editing but not working on anti-vandalism except for a few brief instances that I came across. I started working more on military history project reviews, GA reassessments and some editing about a year ago. In the absence of enough volunteers, I agreed to be a military history project coordinator starting last September. I have spent almost all my time reviewing and assessing articles, monitoring the article writing contest and occasionally answering some questions. It has taken almost all of my online time so my to-do list has remained about as it was when I got more involved in the project. I have missed working and communicating with you and a few others whom I have lost contact with for a few years now. Since I am still active, I hope to keep up with online friends here more than I have been doing. Donner60 (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Today's TFA, Felix M. Warburg House, was written by Vami_IV and Epicgenius, introduced: "This article is about another of the great houses that once lined Fifth Avenue in New York. Specifically, this is the mansion of Felix M. Warburg, a Jewish financier who ignored fears of anti-Semitic reprisal to his decided to build himself a big Gothic manor in the middle of New York City. Although the Warburgs no longer remain, their legacy does: the museum is now the home of the Jewish Museum (Manhattan) and the building largely survives as they left it. It's a beautiful building and I hope you will all enjoy it."! - in memory -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Gerda. I was shocked and saddened by Vami_IV's death, especially when I saw that he was so young. He was an outstanding contributor to Wikipedia and will be missed. Donner60 (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

yes, I remember the feeling of shock when I just saw the watch list entry -- today's story has a pic of a woman holding her cat, a DYK of 5 years ago - the recent pics of places show 2 orange tip butterflies --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for improving articles in May! - Today's story mentions a concert I loved to hear and a piece I loved to sing in choir, 150 years old OTD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Today's story is about Samuel Kummer, one of five items on the Main page - more musing on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Could you have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#ACRs for closure for me? This one needs closing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done. Donner60 (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks sent. Donner60 (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for looking at the articles. As for me: not the war, but work kept me from continuing the work in wikipedia. I have more time now and will be back to continue to create articles for all Italian Army units. I fixed the missing references for the Regiment "Savoia Cavalleria" (3rd) and I wrote a longer introduction for the article. I will write longer introduction for the other four cavalry regiments as well. I already fixed the issue with the personnel of the Regiment "Genova Cavalleria" (4th), which as you correctly noted should be "those personnel". And: Captain Vannetti Donnini was the only Genova officer killed at Porta San Paolo. I reused text from the Regiment "Lancieri di Montebello" (8th) article, which suffered two officers killed in the same battle and did not properly edit it. I will finish with the cavalry intros next and then move to the aviation units. Cheers, and thank you, noclador (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I found the time away from work to fix the issues:

• Regiment "Genova Cavalleria" (4th) - fixed, longer intro, and now ready for review.
• 1st Army Aviation Regiment "Antares" - fixed missing citation, and now ready for review.
• 3rd Special Operations Helicopter Regiment "Aldebaran" - fixed missing citation, deleted the last two sections, as these were not by me and I do not think they add to the article, which is now ready for review.
• 4th Army Aviation Regiment "Altair" - fixed missing citation, and now ready for review.

(In case of all three aviation regiments the source for the naming was at the beginning of the paragraph and not repeated at the end of the paragraph. An oversight on my part. I fixed this now also in the remaining Italian Army Aviation articles.)

Thank you, and with best regards, noclador (talk) 23:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Again, glad to see you back. I know you want to finish the other Italian Army unit articles. I have rated these B class, and pinged you on the assessment request page. Donner60 (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Would you consider closing Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Saipan and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Tinian? Both have three supports + source and image reviews Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done. Assuming I did it right again this time. Donner60 (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes. All fine. Bot has run. Thanks for that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can we count these as June promotions? The bot time was 9 minutes after midnight UTC. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sure. I have moved them from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/August 2024/Articles to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/July 2024/Articles. Nobody has started work on the JUly Bugle yet. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi man. I see your an experienced editor and reviewer. I created Surface Fleet Review and was wanting to get it assessed so I have placed it at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment#Requests for assessment. I see its crossed out or something straight after I placed it there so im not quite sure what that means as I cant find a key for what to do. If you have any advice on the crossing-out thing or have any tips on the article I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks! DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, you prefaced your request with a strike sympbol </s>. If a close strike symbol had been included, it would have made the strike through up to the point of that symbol. The complete absence of a close symbol resulted in the entire remainder of the page being struck, not just on the assessment request page but on the paragraphs that follow on the main assessment page. I have nowiki symbols before and after the strike symbol here which is the reason you don't see a strike through from that point to the end of the message.

The next coordinator or experienced assessor who looked at the page likely would have been alert to the problem but I am glad you brought it up because it would not necessarily be obvious to everyone. The strike and end strike sympbols are placed on the page after an assessment is made and only the article name is within the symbols. Then a reply is posted and the user who posted the request is notified of the result. I will be removing the strike out on the assessment pages when I complete this message. Soon I or another assessor will review the article.

It happens. I did something similar not long ago.

Donner60 (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, i had put up Battle of Thorgo article for reassessment now that its a B-class article and can you suggest whether its ready for Good article nomination since it's expansion has been completed with no further possible expansion and what it appears to me that it fulfills the criteria for GAN. Rahim231 (talk) 10:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rahim: Here is my opinion and comments for what they are worth. When I see a good and complete B-class article for military history, I think it is probably ready for GA. Be aware that even though I think your article falls into this class, I don't do GA assessments. This is in large part because I have reviewed many of the articles that are put up for GA for B class and the military history standards are similar for B. Of course, the GA assessment is independent. So it should be done by a different assessor. If your article was not as complete as it is, it still might have been B but would need to be expanded for GA. I would have noted that much if you had asked about such an aritcle.

It is hard for me to predict what a GA assessor might want but I would be surprised if much was asked of you for it to be promoted to GA. (I have worked on a few GA reassessments if I have sources and usually if only some citations are needed or minimal expansion is needed. In a reassessment since the article had been assessed GA, in at least some cases, it can be kept GA. If one or a few editors who have some time and enough sources are confident they can improve the article, it stay as GA.) Donner60 (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comment, I will be nominating this article for GA review. Rahim231 (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I believe the annual coordinator election is coming up. I don't have near as much time as I use to, but I'd be able to be at least a part-time figure for that in the coming year I think. Do you think it would be useful for me to stand for election, even if I'm only going to be available for coordinator tasks sporadically? Hog Farm _Talk 01:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes. You would probably do at least as much as others have done, even if it is sporadic. Please don't stretch yourself too thin or become stressed over it. I may be a bit preachy, but I know you have much to do in real life and that must come first. Donner60 (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Our article on Turchin/Turchaninov is currently at Ivan Turchin. The last couple books I've read have involved Turchin, who is invariably known as John B. Turchin in those works, with his Russian name only brought up as biographical background. Google books does show "Ivan Turchin" has some use, but I'm still inclined to think that John B. Turchin would be the better title, especially since the references in the article don't call him Ivan in the title. I wanted to see what you thought about this before opening a requested move, though. Hog Farm _Talk 04:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Eicher, p. 537, lists him as Turchin, John Basil (Ivan Vasilovitch Turchinov) and Warner, p. 511, lists him as John Basil Turchin (Ivan Vasilovitch Turchinoff). Based on these sources, I think John B. Turchin or John Basil Turchin would be a better choice for the article title. Donner60 (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Hog Farm:. One more: Sifakis, Stewart. Who Was Who in the Civil War. New York: Facts On File, 1988. ISBN 978-0-8160-1055-4, p. 663, lists him as Turchin, John Basil (1822-1901). Later on the page he adds: Tuchinoff, Ivan Vasilovitch, see Turchin, John Basil. Donner60 (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking the trouble on a Sunday. I'm not too fond of Holland's writing, which reminds me of books I read in the 60s. To me his books seem to be commercial publisher pot-boilers that lack academic depth; I'd like to find out that I was wrong. I had a long look at some Italian books in translation but they were too expensive for my purse. There's an article in Italian too but Jstor didn't have it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Register your vote here by 23:59 UTC on 29 September! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply