User talk:Donner60

I will be offline for most, perhaps all days, from June 3 to June 12. I hope to catch up on some lingering tasks and keep up with others before then. RL has not given me much time lately. I will comment further on my return. All I think I should say now is that if my return is much delayed, you will not be wrong in assuming that I have encountered a problem. No need for me to elaborate unnecessarily now since a problem may well not arise. Donner60 (talk) 07:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a prioritized to do list to my user page. These have been getting done much more slowly than intended because of coordinator tasks and other unanticipated editing that needed more immediate attention. Donner60 (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please put new messages at the very bottom of the page.

To clarify:

• The new item should not be below this message and not below the message about this in the collapsible section but at the very bottom of the page after every other item on the page.
• Add a section heading, identify the article you are concerned with (if your question or comment refers to a specific article), use a link so I can find it more quickly.
• Sign your edit with four tildes (~~~~) so I know to whom to reply.
• Keep an eye on this page. You should be notified here and continue any discussion here if I click the reply box when responding - which I will do unless there is something unusual about the post. I will add a ping if I think it is necessary. I may respond on your talk page if I think that would be helpful to expedite communications.
• Note that as far as I know, IP addresses/temporary user accounts (which are numbers), can not be pinged so checking back here will be necessary to continue communications.
• 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.

Related information: I may not reply to (but will try to thank for) messages which I think are just for my information and do not appear to call for a reply.

If you have come here for information, or to complain about something in a civil manner, please read the information at the pertinent links in the collapsed sections, which expands some on the points mentioned above - at least if you are unfamiliar with posting talk page messages.

I will not respond to vandalism, disruptive, uncivil, insulting, abusive or nonsensical posts. I will simply delete them but depending on their nature, I may post a vandalism warning on your talk page. This was especially pertinent when I was doing more vandalism patrolling since such messages occurred from time to time. I suppose such a message could possibly still be left for any number of other reasons.

If you send me an e-mail please leave a talk page notice in a new section at the bottom of the page. Note: I am not always prompt at looking for new e-mails at the listed address so you are more likely to get a reply, or a quicker reply by notifying me on this page that you have sent an e-mail to me. In most cases, unless the message is confidential, I am likely to be informed the fastest, and reply more quickly if the message is left as a new section below. Thanks.

Current talk page items follow these sections.

Barnstars and awards before July 6, 2025 are at User:Donner60/Barnstars. Some of the earlier ones kept here may be shown there as well.

		The Good Article Rescue Barnstar
		This is presented to you by the GAR process in recognition of your sterling work in helping Flavian dynasty retain its Good Article status. Please feel free to display the GA icon on your userpage. Keep up the good work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you, Donner60, for your straightforward review of the “Charles Thau” article. Your expertise (and time) to help get my 1st wiki article to B‑class status are deeply appreciated.

— Milwaukee911 (talk) 07:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Rescue Barnstar
		This is presented to you by the GAR process in recognition of your truly outstanding work in helping Battles of Lexington and Concord retain its Good Article status. Please feel free to display the GA icon on your userpage. Keep up the good work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Rescue Barnstar
		This is presented to you by the GAR process in recognition of your sterling work in helping Edward Porter Alexander retain its Good Article status. Please feel free to display the GA icon on your userpage. Keep up the good work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Rescue Barnstar
		This is presented to you by the GAR process in recognition of your sterling work in helping Siege of Fort William Henry retain its Good Article status. Please feel free to display the GA icon on your userpage. Keep up the good work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Coordinator stars
		On behalf of the members of WikiProject Military history, in recognition of your election to the position of Coordinator, I take great pleasure in presenting you with the Coordinator's stars, and wish you the best of luck for the coming year! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:53, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Rescue Barnstar
		This is presented to you by the GAR process in recognition of your sterling work in helping P. G. T. Beauregard retain its Good Article status. Please feel free to display the GA icon on your userpage. Keep up the good work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Rescue Barnstar
		This is presented to you by the GAR process in recognition of your sterling work in helping Siege of Yorktown retain its Good Article status. Please feel free to display the GA icon on your userpage. Keep up the good work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:56, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Mediator Barnstar
		For your efforts in fairly mediating a lengthy and drawn-out dispute on Battle of Maritsa, which ended in a suitable compromise thanks to your suggestions. Keep up the good work! Botushali (talk) 08:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history service award
		On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I am pleased to reward your performance - 95 points - in the November 2025 Article Improvement Drive with this award. Congratulations! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:21, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Citation Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Donner60 for collecting more than 4 points during the WikiProject Unreferenced articles's NOV25 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing over 6,000 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:30, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Rescue Barnstar
		For Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Battle of Long Island/1. TompaDompa (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Silver Wiki Congratulations! You have been selected in second place for the Military Historian of the Year by a popular vote of your peers in recognition of your contributions to the English Wikipedia's coverage of military history. On behalf of the coordinators of WikiProject Military history, it is my pleasure to present the esteemed Silver Wiki. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:11, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 2 reviews between October and December 2025. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thanks for your comments and help a few months earlier. I finally made some more edits and submitted it for review if you have time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Battle_of_James_City

I think James City might be added to the Bristoe campaign now. I'm not familiar with the term for the Wiki "grouping/name" for a campaign.

I really appreciate your help and comments earlier. Qstor2 (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at the article within the next day or two unless something delays me. I want to be more careful than I was with another reply recently which I did not get exactly right. "Grouping/name" does not ring a bell with me, but I may have forgotten it or think of it under another term. Did you see it on a page you can point out? Campaign may be described or defined on a project page but I would need to think about where to look for it. Closeness in time of the progression of battles and movement of armies may have something to do with it. I am reasonably sure that most, if not all, Civil War campaign names have been placed on a series of battles and movements by historians, and possibly contemporaries, for quite some time and they probably used names of a major battle within these movements. A few such as Peninsula, Antietam, Gettysburg and several others come to mind. Donner60 (talk) 07:20, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Donner60, something got screwed up with the USCGC Dione A-class review. MilHist Bot closed the review as a fail, but then promoted the article's talk page. I also saw that you failed the review here because Phoenix was banned (back in January) as a sockpuppet. As the second nominator for the A-class review, would it still be possible to keep the review open as I am still active? GGOTCC 06:42, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GGOTCC: This is an edited and I hope is a more accurate and clearer comment on how to progress this than the one I posted at 22:21.

I forgot to change the bot's A class assessment when I put the "fail" into the current status. It is a separate entry which the bot does not change automatically. I have changed it to B.

I have edited the assessment review to change the status on the review page to "current" from "fail". I have not done this before and don't recall ever seeing it done. For the next 24 hours, I am counting on the bot reopening the review page. Perhaps a new review page will need to be set up to confirm supports and pass the assessment to A.

I think the bot should reopen the review within the next 24 hours. If it doesn't, I will need to find out how to restart it unless the supports can be otherwise confirmed. I assume that if a new one is started the current reviews and comments can be transferred to it which would result in it not having to start the reviews and comments all over.

So with your changes, we may just need to confirm that the reviews' support votes still apply. The previous reviewers can be pinged when it is again ready for confirmation of supports or any necessary reviews to finalize the supports.

Let me know if you do not see the review reopened after 24 hours and I will see if restarting it on a new page is necessary or whether we can just confirm the supports and pass it to A class. Donner60 (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: The Bot already closed the nomination, so you have to go through the WikiProject Military history/Academy/Creating an A-Class review or reappraisal procedure. I'll do this now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:16, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hawkeye. I had not encountered this type of situation before. I thought I might be more or less on the right track but was not completely sure - as I think my comments showed. Donner60 (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GGOTCC: I have carried out the required move. Could you re-nominate the article? That way it will be listed against your name. You can ask the previous reviewers to re-confirm their support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:25, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also: I have corrected the Bot error. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:04, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have just done that, and contacted the reviewers. Thank you both for the help! GGOTCC 01:52, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for progressing this. Donner60 (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Update: @Hawkeye7: MilHist Bot just closed the new review and reverted my new listing for the same reason as before. Is this MilHist Bot's fault for a new review so soon after the old one, or have I incorrectly renominated the article? I will not revert the edits yet, because I am not sure if that would break things further. What is the best course of action here? GGOTCC 15:40, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your help reopening USCGC Dione's A-class review! :) GGOTCC 02:12, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four works Timeline: This month in military history

Ongoing discussions	News	Current statistics
Proposed topic split Election consequences criticized as WP:COATRACK 41 likely LLM-generated GAs	The Good Article Gazette is back after a two month break!	Number of GAs: 43,784 (+338) Number of nominations: 951 (+110) GAs for reassessment: 64 (+18)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		Citation Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Donner60 for collecting more than 3 points during the WikiProject Unreferenced articles's March 2026 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing over 8362 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! – DreamRimmer ■ 16:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

May 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2026, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2026).

Administrator changes

• Deepfriedokra

• EvanProdromou
• Wouterstomp

Interface administrator changes

L235

Chaotic Enby

CheckUser changes

• TheresNoTime
• Versageek

Oversight changes

Moneytrees

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

• Changes to user permissions made from Meta are now included in the local user permissions log (T6055).
• The autoconfirmed user group will soon be modified such that the four-day account age requirement begins when an account makes its first edit (T418484).

Arbitration

• The arbitration case SchroCat has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case closed on 15 April.
• Per a recent motion, appeals of blocks from the conflict-of-interest VRT queue are, by default, appealed on-wiki through the normal unblock process. However, they may be heard by the Committee if COIVRTers disagree on the interpretation of the evidence or believe ArbCom would be better suited to hear the appeal. Administrators are also advised that loosening or lifting such blocks without the consent of someone with access to the queue or ArbCom can be grounds for desysopping.
• Per a recent motion, restrictions issued directly by the Committee may now be enforced with blocks which work exactly like contentious topic blocks.
• The arbitration case Maghreb has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• The May 2026 administrator elections are scheduled to run from April 29 to May 19. The call for candidates ends May 5.
• The 2026 Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is scheduled to run from April 25 to June 1. Candidacy submissions close on May 10.
• A new noticeboard for non-urgent, batch page protection requests has been created, primarily for the enforcement of contentious topic restrictions.

---

-- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Donner, I've been working through the article for Elkanah Greer in fits and starts over the course of several months and there are some dates which the sources disagree on - could you please look up what Eicher has for Greer? I'm particularly interested in what Eicher has for date of birth, the date that he was replaced as commander of the Trans-Miss conscription bureau, and any inkling of what he was doing between his resignation and when he was appointed to the conscription bureau position. Hog Farm _Talk 23:55, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Eicher, John H., and David J. Eicher, Civil War High Commands. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001. ISBN 978-0-8047-3641-1, pp.266-267. (266): Born Paris, TN 11 Oct. 1825. Moved to MS, Pvt. 1st (MS} Rifles, Mexican War. Moved to Texas, planter, merchant. Grand C. in C., Knights of the Golden Circle, 1859. Col. CSA 3 Tex Cav, 1 July 1861; South Kans. & Tex (267): Aug. 1861. Cav B, Army of the West, 13 Mar. 1862-1 June 1862, wounded Pea Ridge Ark. Mar. 1862 resigned 1 June 1862; Brig. Gen. CSA 8 Oct. 1862; Bureau of Conscription Trans.-Miss Dept. 8 Oct 1862 - 26 May 1865; Texas Reserve Cavalry Forces 27 Mar. 1865-26 May 1862; no record of parole. Died Devalls. Bluff, Ark. 25 Mar 1877, int. Elmwood Cemetery, Memphis, TN. That is Eicher's information in its entirety. Nothing on the interim between the resignation and appointment to the conscription bureau. Warner, Ezra J. Generals in Gray: Lives of the Confederate Commanders. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1959. ISBN 978-0-8071-0823-9 which you may have, at p.118 notes that Jefferson Davis was colonel of the 1st Mississippi Rifles, that Greer was grand commander of the Knights of the Golden Circle, wounded at Elkhorn Tavern, the alternate name for Pea Ridge as I am sure you know. Warner says Greer tried to reconcile the laws of Richmond with the laws of Texas, not entirely successfully. He lived in Marshall, Texas after the war and died while vising his sister in DeValls Bluff, Ark. Also says he was "slightly wounded" rather than just wounded. Also nothing on the June to October 1862 period. No contradiction in dates. Hope that helps. Donner60 (talk) 07:38, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing discussions	News	Current statistics
LLM-generated GAs at GAR Old reviews that need a second opinion	The next GAN backlog drive will be held in June and will be co-ordinated by four editors. It will be mainly targeted towards those who are new to reviewing.	Number of GAs: 43,883 (+99) Number of nominations: 980 (+29) GAs for reassessment: 74 (+10)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7, Hog Farm and Nick-D look at four recent works Timeline: This month in military history

For Talk:USS Arkansas (1863) - reassessment to b-class is this diff. Would the starting class be start-class as was hardcoded in the template, or c-class as would be indicated by the prior manual assessment of meeting all criteria except for b1? Hog Farm _Talk 00:58, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is an odd one. I looked at the changes in the assessments during the early years of the article, which were mainly made by bots or by users assisted by AWB, as in this case. Of course, the user is supposed to check all of the changes made (and presumably should have been made) by AWB. I also looked at the article immediately before and at the times the b4 criterion was changed. An assessment for the b4 (grammatical) criterion before it was changed to yes had been erroneously entered as yes/no, apparently by a bot or user assisted bot. Despite a run-on sentence, b4 seems to have been met all along. The user making the change to yes for b4 to correct an error apparently was the reason the user changed b4 to yes. He appears to have determined that "no" for b4 resulted from an erroneous yes/no entry, not because the article did not meet b4. Once that correction was made, the article met all criteria except b1. However, the editor using the AWB seems to have neglected to change the overall rating to C as should have been done as a result of correcting the b4 criteria. That left the contradiction in place for 12 years until your recent work on the article.

At first I thought that these inconsistences were caused by conflicting bots and that start could be the appropriate starting entry for work done this month. But when I noted that the user, only using a bot for help, actually changed a criterion which was considered "no" due to a "yes/no" entry, I thought that C was actually intended by that user 12 years ago but that user in turn made an error by leaving the rating at start. This present a hard case to me in some respects. But I think I have to come to the conclusion that it was a C class article when you started to work on it and was not shown as such due to a mistake in matching the rating with the criteria met. (I certainly hope that no other such cases arise, although it seems like a judgment call of a sort, I do think the history of the assessments leads to the conclusion I am expressing in this case.) Noting run-on sentences may appear in this odd hour reply: if this explanation is unclear in some way, misses something obvious or otherwise leaves you with some question or different analysis, please let me know. 07:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2026).

Administrator changes

• Asukite
• Bobby Cohn
• Bonadea
• Ca
• Drm310
• Reconrabbit
• Sammi Brie

• Tamzin
• TonyBallioni

• Ezhiki
• Queen of Hearts

Bureaucrat changes

• WereSpielChequers

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the "persistent usage of large language models" has been included as a common reason for a block.

Technical news

• Mandatory 2FA for bureaucrats: Bureaucrats without two-factor authentication (2FA) enabled have already lost access to their advanced rights on 26 May. Those who do not enable 2FA may be automatically removed from the groups in mid-June 2026, and from that point onward, new members must have 2FA enabled before they can be added. (T423119, T423120)

Arbitration

• The arbitration case SchroCat has been closed.
• The arbitration case Michael Jackson has opened. Evidence submissions in this case closes on 1 June.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the 2026 Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election closes on 1 June.

---

Ongoing discussions	News	Current statistics
Numerous source-to-text issues = QF? Resuming my project of organising the good article lists Lengthy articles	The GAN backlog drive is live! New and experienced reviewers are welcome.	Number of GAs: 43,915 (+32) Number of nominations: 1033 (+53) GAs for reassessment: 42 (–32)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 10:34, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(This message was sent to User:Donner60 and is being posted here due to a redirect.)