Hey Magnolia, was hoping if you had some time you could take a look over at my draft, Draft:James Kall. It got declined but i fixed the problem and then added more citations. Wanted to get your thoughts, talk to you soon! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for adding those links, I thought they were your addition. I reverted a previous IP address' contributions which focus on adding slanted political commentary and distractedly readded those links thinking they were from you. Looks like they came from the same disruptive IP address. I have requested page protection but it was denied. Chalandray
A barnstar for you!
The Half Barnstar
You have no idea how much I appreciate you reverting the closing of that discussion. You have renewed my faith in the process and earned my respect. Thank you! Mkstokes (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mkstokes: That editor is not an administrator, see here and WP:LA. I haven't looked at the discussions you've had, but my general advice is chill, do your own edits, keep off their talk page, don't engage, and be as civil as possible. And once you report another editor's behavior, your own will also be scrutinized, so always best to not engage. I hope this helps. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yes, this helps very much. Long story short, I had a past interaction with that editor that got me topic banned and them warned to remain civil and to refrain from future edit warring. I'll take your advice. Mkstokes (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gary
Magnolia677 - My name is Christopher Harris, director of Redevelopment for the City of Gary. I am concerned you are misinformed regarding the Indiana Dunes National Park boundaries, I highly encourage you to reference any official National Park Service map or any map for that matter to see that the Western most boundaries of the park are indeed within Gary's city limits and technically begin in Downtown Gary. The mayor and I three weeks ago had a very positive conversation with the Indiana Dunes National Park Rangers who are great partners with the city of Gary to install more trailhead branded signage in Gary reinforcing the park's presence in as the parks western most gateway in Downtown Gary which wraps around the westside Lake Street Beach. As a representative of the City of Gary, I'd like it to be known who I am in this space and have the ability to share Gary's truth... Outside of this, I appreciate how you and other users have incrementally enhanced the quality of Gary's page. ElbertHGary (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ElbertHGary: Good Lord! "Director of Redevelopment for the City of Gary". As we say here in the Delta, you must be busier than a church fan in August. Not so long ago, Gary was the "Magic City", with excellent infrastructure and progressive schools. Many happy families started out there, with dad making a good wage at the mill. Christopher, a snappy motto might be all you need...how about "Make Gary Great Again!". --Magnolia677 (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opened Complaint into Williamstonhead's GEOLINK editing
Or you mean the place in the article is not appropriate in the Commons, or you mean I put the thousand. Ok, can you recognize me anywhere in the article I put the thousand? Maryam AlAkini (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What gives you the right to just revert my edits which are well established facts??? Tanzania is home to the largest swahili speakers that is well known fact like Russia is the largest country in the world. How dare you just revert my edits without even trying to source them? What about the new HDI that came up from UNDP? As a long time editor, couldn't you just add sources from the facts rather than just revert people's edits??? People who live in a certain place and know their facts have to depend on stupid sources from people living in Europe or USA. To tell me every single detail is sourced in all pages??? You guys are a nuisance and you only exist to stop mostly Africans from making any positive valuable contributions for their own countries. So so irritating Amrobikanva (talk) 05:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chandler, Arizona
Hello Magnolia. I hope you are having a fine day. I corrected your oversight on healthcare in Chandler. There are, in fact, two main hospitals in the city which are served by Dignity Health and Banner Health. If you would like more details, either contact me or review what I changed. Thank you, and have a wonderful day.
Ariauroic (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit
Hello, I have recently been updating the Dulles International Airport site with a considerable amount of information that I have spent many hours researching through the Official Airline Guide (OAG). I am a 66 year old commercial aviation historian and the OAG is a highly reliable source, the best that exists. Can you please reimput my edits with this valuable historic information that Wikipedia is known for? Thank you!
Chuska03
edits to Rockport Texas
Magnolia677, I'm not sure why you deleted my edits. I'm an expert in the subject of Rockport, Texas, and have been a resident for over 40 years. I'm deeply involved in the community and have contributed 1000s of photographs, maintain a database of historical photos, and have the largest following on the subject on social media. The current main photograph was contributed by me on wiki commons. Did I do something wrong? Were my edits not factual, or are my citations not helpful? Please help me to better understand how I can contribute to a page I have vast knowledge and insight about..... 72.2.225.148 (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am reverting your removal of the city attorney and clerk information from the infobox for that article. As I have already pointed out to you in the edit summary, your reasoning (non-notable) is not applicable -- the notability guidelines *do not* apply to the content within an article, they apply to the creation or retention of an article itself. If you want to remove that content from the article, please make a policy-based argument for doing so. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!19:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing because you removed my contributions to parks and recreation for Murrieta, California. I know that the formatting could have been better. Ideally, I would have like for the listing to be more concise, but I lacked the skills to present it in an efficient way.
I was trying to follow the example of "parks and recreation" on Irvine, California in listing the individual parks of Murrieta, California. On your edit you wrote that none of the parks were notable. I disagree with that statement. I think that a list of the parks in a city is a reasonable addition for any page that purports to describe a city. If there were a way to present the parks better, I think that would be a better alternative to removing it completely. If you look at the example on Irvine, California, I wanted to present the parks as they did bulleted columns, so as not to take up too much space. But when I attempted to replicate the formatting, I wasn't able to make it look the same. Z3lvs (talk) 04:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z3lvs: Thanks for writing. I removed the long list of neighborhood parks because it was unencyclopedic, and Wikipedia is neither a webhost nor an extension of the city website. Please have a look at WP:NOT, and if you disagree, please start a discussion on the article talk page. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made two attempts to edit the history section of my town's Wikipedia Page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewisville,_North_Carolina) in collaboration with the head of our Historical society. The first reversion was understandable, as the edit was largely based upon an interpretation of history.
The second edit, however, was copied directly from a local history of the town with the author's express permission. I included a proper citation of the passage and even prefaced it with the statement "The following is quoted directly from Images of America: Lewisville by Merrikay Everett Brown and Darla Morgan Johnson in association with the Lewisville Historical Society:", and yet the edit was still reverted.
A specific justification for the reversion was not included, only a vague statement about improper citation, even though a properly formatted citation was included. Please tell me what is necessary to digitally preserve my town's history without it being immediately scrubbed from the Internet upon publication.
Why did you write that McCool is not notable? Symptom targeted intervention, which she created, has its own Wik page. When people who simply played for some professional sports team, like Brunelli, are on the list, why is some-one who developed a clinical program not worthy?Kdammers (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I see you removed my edits on the Yailin la mas viral article. The source was instagram, but I simply added it because it was photographic evidence that can easily (and constantly) be seen by going on there and seeing the posts and comments. May I please edit it again with the same source? Ashketchum64 (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you a fan of hers? Don't you know she puts makeup on her baby daughter? She does so to try to make her look "sexy". Do you have a daughter? Do you think this is RIGHT?! Shame on you, CREEP. Please ban me, it would be a great pleasure, Magnolia677. I bet you creepily like the magnolia color on little girls' dresses. There, now I ruined your name. Ashketchum64 (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit revert on Pepsi, I didn’t deliberately violated Wikipedia’s MOS:OL policy, Sorry about that, please be nice
Hi,
I just wanted to regard on your revert of my edit on Pepsi.
Look, I’m not trying to deliberately vandalise or disrespect events.
I only do this because I’m trying to help improve Wikipedia to be a better website for everyone or better user experience.
I didn’t even know that linking “Israel” would violate Wikipedia’s MOS:OL.
All edit reverts (so far) weren’t vandalism by me. They were mistakes and I didn’t know that they violated, wasn’t needed or unacceptable on Wikipedia.
@PEPSI697: Hey friend, not a problem! It was just a routine revert. Sounds like you've had some bad experiences here. You need to really screw up to get blocked, and you'll usually have a ton of warnings first. I'm not even an admin. Hey, cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Unnecessary" is not a valid reason to revert multiple edits. If there's a policy that can be cited or a previous discussion as to why we don't include HDI in city articles, please let me know. However, city HDIs are currently widespread in, for example, city articles in Brasil. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 15:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edit on the Lansing, IA page. I know it was very minor, but I've been meaning to reword that whole article, and you just made my job a little easier. Lansing is a town that I have close connections with and there is much more to be fixed with its page, so I'd be happy to work with you if you'd like!
<3 thanks again, Finn Fishy-Finns (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
can someone please tell me how to delete my account. I no longer wish to be an editor so you can delete my revisions that need further work. I am no longer able to continue due to health reasons.
If you don't want to continue, then put the "retired" template (with two braces in front of and behind the word) to indicate you are not active on Wikipedia anymore. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, hope you are okay. Yesterday I made a few changes to Wikipedia information of the city of Kitwe. Surprise you reverted to the old information where Christopher Kangmbe(kaya spelling) is still the Kitwe Mayor when in fact not. It would have been nice to keep the changes as the information was genuine and I planned to add citations todays for the data without citations. Patrick Chipandwe (talk) 05:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
I will not template you, but this is a reminder that you cannot say what you said on Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu: Will you be addressing the silly comments preceding mine? Yesterday's testimony was stomach-turning, and they make jokes. Please deal with them as well. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously comparing your comment to a joke about Four Seasons Landscaping? That's not in good taste, but it's not on the same level as what you wrote. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu: Oh please, that was literally the stomach-turning testimony yesterday. Hunter--her dead husband's brother--began a romantic relationship with her, and "introduced" her to crack cocaine. "It was a terrible experience I went through, and I'm embarrassed and I'm ashamed". Have some sensitivity to those of us who still value honor, and view vulnerable women like Hallie as victims. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what anyone says in court testimony, you cannot call a BLP loathsome. Keep your opinions to yourself. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's concerning when two lonely people make mistakes. That's their lives they are screwing up. Been there, done that. My concern is that you should not be so sensitive about other editors' comments. Around here we tend to have thicker skin so we don't waste everyone's time and detract from what's important, which is the topic of the thread. Don't report such minor things as BLP violations, as that sets off bells and whistles and alarms, and then all kinds of shit and wasted time happens. You reported a minor blip and started a forest fire. (You have wasted the time of everyone who has responded to you.) Better to just go to the editor's talk page and talk to them, if you really feel a burden to make a mountain out of a molehill and offend them. Really? Is it worth it? Take the high road and ignore it next time. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valjean: My apology. When you replied "Okay, a bit funny, but seriously, where should it be added?", it legitimated the ridiculous comment made by the preceding editor, and I confused you with them, thinking you agreed with their silly reply. I'm now assuming your response was to the legitimate question by the IP at the top. Sorry for confusing you with that editor. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I justified my replacing of this phrase : ''[...]Most of the people who were stolen from Nigeria were likely to have been Igbo or Yoruba. Other ethnic groups such as the Fula and Edo peoples were also captured and transported to the colonies in the New World.[...]''
by saying that : ''When citing other ethnic groups from Nigeria, mentioning the Hausas is more relevant than mentioning the Fulanis. The Hausas constitute the largest ethnic group in Nigeria, accounting for 30% of the population. Specifically, they make up 71 million out of the total 230 million citizens. In contrast, the Fulanis represent less than 6% of the population.''
and you told me : ''This is not supported by the source cited''
I do not understand you want to put a source for the Hausa population in Nigeria even though it is common knowledge ? I want to understand what I need to do when I edit I am new, thank you for your help. Hamdan Turji (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citations for Amesbury, Salisbury, and Attitash Lake
Hi Magnolia,
I appreciate the follow up you're putting into checking the links for my citations in the Amesbury, Salisbury, and Attitash Lake articles. I think we're both working to uphold and continually improve the high editorial standards of Wikipedia. I revisited the links you said were broken and found that they were still functioning correctly for me; perhaps a browser issue?
You stated that the claims were not supported by the citations in question. In the Attitash Lake article, I cited a book of New England Native place names that specifically states Lake Attitash means "a huckleberry" and a book of native land titles that refers to Attitash Lake as previously being called Kimball's Pond but then being restored to its indigenous name meaning huckleberry. I added page numbers to the citations to clarify, and included a note in the talk page.
In the Amesbury article, I used citations that refer to the history of Salibury because Amesbury did not split from Salisbury MA until 1666, after the time frame in question which is the initial settlement process. I added a note as you requested in the Talk article and added page numbers to the citations.
@Bargsnaffle: The edit summaries I left when I reverted your edits were clear as a mud-free river. I'm going to go back and look at your reverts to see if any contain the same errors. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will be reported if you delete factual information
I will be reporting you if you delete any more factual information that I have cited and placed on the Prince George's county, Maryland Wikipedia information page if you delete it again you will get a notice for edit warring if you continue you will eventually blocked from editing Sssueueh (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what I added was a renowned author by the name of Tony Lewis Jr from Prince George's county Maryland from the Washington DC area. The information is cited and is coming from a reliable source which is an autobiography of his life. The book is titled "Slugg" and would advise you to go and read the book I even think they have an ebook available but this is DC and Prince George's county Maryland history that I would advise you not to tamper with. You might get blocked if you keep deleting this information that will be considered edit warring Sssueueh (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove my Big Lebowski reference in the Moorhead, Minnesota article?
I'm the user who added a Big Lebowski reference to the In Popular Culture category on the Moorhead, Minnesota article. Can I ask specifically why you removed my cultural reference? 192.12.14.0 (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I edit Wikipedia I'm never logged in, so that's why you can't find a record of me editing the Moorhead page. But I'm the one who added this information to the page:
"In the 1998 comedy film The Big Lebowski, notably directed by the same filmmakers who made a film titled Fargo after the city in Minnesota adjacent to Moorhead, a missing woman is said to originally be from a family home in Moorhead."
Mentioning that any given Wikipedia topic was referenced in a film, novel, or television show almost never comes with a citation, because... lots of reasons, including the fact that there's nothing much one could link to, except perhaps an online transcript/script/pdf of the work in question.
Trivial? I find the fact that there is only one item in the In Popular Culture section of Moorhead, Minnesota's article shows that Moorhead's representation in popular culture is not being fairly covered. My reference may not be the most important fact in the world, but I don't feel that it needs to be removed without a greater number of established editors like yourself having a fair say/vote.
I see that you have many awards and are a prolific editor who believes in protecting the integrity of this great resource. Commendable; but I also see that other users have messaged you above complaining of (in certain cases) unfair removals and deletions done by you. I believe in Wikipedia, also, and with that comes the belief that good information should not be omitted or deleted.
@Sillyputty1967: You took a picture of a low-quality picture. The number of pixels can't fix that. Please start a discussion on the article talk page if you feel so strongly about your dreadful photo. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Colman2000 (talk) is wishing you a Happy 4th of July! On this day, we recognize our independence from Great Britain with the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, which ultimately paved the way to our freedom. Celebrate this day in many different ways, such as hosting a barbecue, watching baseball games, or even attending a fireworks show! Happy Independence Day, fellow American!
Share this message by adding {{subst:Independence Day}} to a fellow American's talk page.
please identify the issues you demand to be "corrected before reposting" utilities section to Manatee County, Florida — have numerous references to the data in the post and intend to repost and not a single "issue" was given for the deletion 83d40m (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have info to support my changes earlier this year (changing "town" to "township"), but the articles I was editing met the definition of township rather than town. But since then I learned that "township" is a term that's not used in Wisconsin. One of those edits got undone by someone else, and their edit summary said "It was a town, not a 'township' (a term we don't use in Wisconsin)". Cyber the tiger (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up!
Your editing caught my eye. Good work! I checked out your contribution list and you're scaping crappy (I mean unnecessary) stuff off of Wikipedia articles like barnacles off of a boat's hull. I did quibble with a couple of your deletions, [1][2], but otherwise I'm on team Magnolia677. If there is such a thing. Thanks for keeping Wikipedia sleek. WestRiding24 (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you rightly deleted my quotation of Robbie Robertson you had to delete more sentences on the page, declaring definitely the same historical truth: The Richmond and Danville Railroad was the main supply route into Petersburg, where Lee's Army of Northern Virginia was holding the defensive line to protect Richmond. The Danville supply train ran until General Stoneman's Union cavalry troops tore up the tracks. This event was immortalized in the song, "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down". and
The Richmond and Danville Railroad, referenced as "the Danville train", is also referenced in the popular folk-style song "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down".Wildel (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The citations you removed from those articles are all links to well-sourced posts. Each of those articles links appropriately to the primary (official) data sources which themselves could not qualify as valid citations for Wikipedia. If you disqualify these sources, you're effectively saying that serious data-based interpretations are not acceptable on Wikipedia.
Hi. I noticed your reversion of my additions to Desmond Kelly. I still maintain that I did not remove any info but it seems the article is about two different people with the same name. We have the musician that was born on July 2, 1936 and died on April 29, 2023.
Hi Magnolia677 (talk) , the second source belongs to the company itself and cannot be reliable per WP:Primary. I suggest to adjust the number of units per the independent source (and it also needs some confirmation as we have only one source claiming its the largest property management company). I'd like to hear what you think and suggest reconsider. 50.46.167.81 (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The matter is that the primary source does not support the report of the secondary source. The numbers are different in two sources and that was the reason I sticked to the secondary source. If you don't mind I'll correct the numbers per the report. I don't see any need for tag here. 50.46.167.81 (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies It's really annoying. When I woke up this morning, I had a whopping 14 alerts from this guy. It seems that they won't learn their lesson about not laying off death threats. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately midatlantic baby is not gaining any traction when they try to complain on reddit. As best I can tell they've had at least two accounts nuked for their behavior. Insanityclown1 (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry to see you being the object of such abuse; I have taken quite a bit myself, but then I edit in the I/P-area. What Acroterion say: Don't let it fuss you. I know that is easier said than done; but just realise: it isn't even personal. Some people just got to rage against...someone, Sorry that someone is you. cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
August 3, 2024
Hello, this is Winter. I have noticed that you have reverted my edits on Walmart Canada and several other articles under MOS:OL. Those edits did not violate OL. There is nothing specifically stating that I could not link those in the MOS. WiinterU23:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it's a while ago now, but here you used WP:IG as a reason to delete a list of notable wearers of a particular watch. I was wondering if you intended to cite a different guideline? Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. In your opinion, would this apply to a list of fictional wearers of a watch (e.g. characters on TV or in films) as well as real-life wearers? Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the edits I've made were directly translated from other language pages, and they do not often have sources for me to cite. I think it would be helpful if you used a translator and checked for yourself before calling my edits "original research". Ilovefood123123 (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilovefood123123: If you do not have a source to support your edit, do not add the content. Adding unsourced content undermines the reliability of Wikipedia. Please respect our policies and stop your disruptive editing. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain something to me. I added a reference to the tv series Outer Range on the Las Vegas NM page. The reference cross referenced the series page, where the location of Las Vegas is established. You reverted it as unsourced. Why doesn't the reference in the Outer Range article constitute sourcing?
Thanks. Paul Paul Asman (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. Perhaps I should ask this. Does another Wikipedia page constitute a reliable source, and, if so, how should a reference be made to it? "Referencing for beginners" didn't help, but then, I have been using wikis since before Wikipedia. Paul Asman (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Magnolia, I noticed your recent edit on Bronxville, New York, removed sourced content that described the village as one of the most expensive suburb in the United States and stated the median home value. As far as I can tell, the reference was reliable. The consensus to which you referred was that rankings of "best places to live in the United States" should be removed. That kind of ranking is completely subjective, while most expensive and median home price is entirely objective and quantifiable. I see that you have made a number of edits on other articles pursuant to that consensus. If any removed content about similar objective, quantifiable statistics, I would encourage you to undo those edits. Ergo Sum16:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ergo Sum: Thanks for writing. The discussion in the RfC specifically targeted the subjective "America's 100 Richest Places" type of articles. Look over the RfC and there was a clear consensus to avoid unencyclopedic cruft like this. If you see the consensus as otherwise, well, I dunno what to say? I won't revert, but, I dunno. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Median home price is not subjective at all. Nor is it unencyclopedic. Average home price data are collected by government agencies and are used by all kinds of agencies, businesses, and individuals to make decisions. Plus, it is also just a useful thing to know when someone searches for a place on Wikipedia. I really don't see that falling within the consensus, but if need be, we can reopen the discussion and get input from others. Ergo Sum20:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that "richest" and "best" don't make the cut. But reliable sources that simply state facts about median prices, I think, are certainly encyclopedic. Ergo Sum15:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ergo Sum: How about...use the census data? I bet it's different from Bloomberg's interpretation of the census data. To avoid this, WP:USCITIES#Rankings specifically states "Newspaper, magazine, and website rankings have no authority and no encyclopedic value. Surveys by reputable research and polling organizations such as McKinsey, Pew, and Quinnipiac may be included." If you feel otherwise, dispute the RfC and guideline. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marksaeed2024: Listing the most populated city completely within the San Gabriel Valley isn't enough, you want to also rank cities partially within the valley. Please, give readers a break. Also, if you revert, please be sure to add a source specifically supporting your edit. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had added the heading "leadership" for the Bank of Toronto page, which you reverted for being unsourced. You'll notice none of the lists of presidents and chairman for Canadian banks include sources, as this information is considered to be general knowledge. May I ask that if I put it back, you will leave it? Thanks for your consideration. Tsc9i8 (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Magnolia. You recently reverted my edit to Hollywood, Los Angeles, stating that many of the links I added are either not necessary or link back to the article in question. Can you explain this further? Most of the links I added are the publishers of the references cited, which seems like valuable information to me. Furthermore, as far as I am aware, none of the links I added link back to the article in question.
Would peakbagger count as a secondary source for the list of country highpoints climbed? I used this as well. Only problem with that would be that this comes from Gilbertson's peakbagger account. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without using a personal blog, how do you suggest the Eric Gilbertson article gets complete coverage as now it is heavily fragmented and does not read nearly as well? I understand Wikipedia has these policies for a reason, but is there any workaround to get some semblance of the information you deleted in the article across to the reader? Thanks. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KnowledgeIsPower9281: As a general rule, reliable sources should be located before the article gets written. You may want to move the article to draft while you work on it. I'd also recommend reading WP:BLP, which cautions about basing a BLP on self-published sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just read through WP:RS. One last thing you didn't mention; what about WP:ABOUTSELF?
"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as:
The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
It does not involve claims about third parties;
It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
The article is not based primarily on such sources."
Hi, I think you might have misread the background on this one, it's an image that was being shared by Trump supporters, rather than critics intending to belittle him.
Why do you keep nuking and vandalizing my edits to the village I live in? You didnt do this to my older edits but now you do this to my new ones saying no source? Then I give a source and you lie saying its a broken link and remove it. Then you start randomly rewording and vandalizing other parts of the article. Why are you moving stuff around? Where are your sources. You literally did all of these edits with no sources. CaloreMedia (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended confirmed
Magnolia, I wish there were something between auto-confirmed and extended-confirmed protection, but, unfortunately, there is not. Because of the unrelenting abuse, I've ECB-protected this page for one day.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well, as a wise Wikipedian once told me, if you find yourself the target of trolls and vandals, you must be doing something right. - ZLEAT\C03:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You must really be doing something right. Hopefully there is a way to catch their autoconfirmed sleeper accounts before they can cause further disruption. - ZLEAT\C23:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, even the extended confirmed protection in't enough. Twice yesterday the user gamed it with 30-day-old sleeper accounts with no edits. They spent hours making 500 edits on each account to get extended confirmed status, and immediately restarted the harassment. Magnolia, I'm sorry to see you being subjected to this unhinged harassment. Meters (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While extended confirmed protection will never 100% resolve or curtail the problem at-hand (if someone really wants to abuse the system and continue problems with extended confirmed protected pages, they will certainly find a way to do so), the protection level will at least make it much harder and take much longer for an LTA to game the system and build an account that quickly meets the requirements. ECP is surely much better compared to semi-protection, and much much better than no protection at all... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)22:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No argument from me. Perhaps it would have been clearer had I written "even the extended confirmed protection isn't stopping it" I've rarely encountered users this determined. Meters (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly feel bad for her. This guy just never seems to learn his lesson. And even if he tried to write a full unblock request, he's pretty much banned at this point. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your reversions of my photo additions to the article on Melrose Iowa. The photograph of the monument to the 1937 basketball team is a completely legitimate addition. The article has an extensive section about that team - why is adding an illustration inappropriate? The town went to the effort of erecting that monument - why is showing a monument in the town inappropriate? As for the drone picture of the park, I frequently (but not always) take an elevated picture of parks, because it makes it easier to see what equipment is available in the park. Please stop deleting my work based on your personal preferences, rather than established Wikipedia guidelines. PopePompus (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been dealing with this since almost 12 hours ago, and in previous days. You know what makes me feel better when someone targets me so much? Just ignore them. Try not to think about it. I'm so sorry for you.
You can disable pings by going into Preferences --> Notifications and unselecting "Mentions." It's not ideal, but I've done it before on a temporary basis in similar situations. OhNoitsJamieTalk12:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you reverted my addition of information about the Comanche County–City Airport from the Comanche, Texas, article. I'm on a (slow moving) quest to purge Wikipedia of cookie-cutter articles about general aviation airports that don't meet WP:NBUILD, and the outcome of some contentious AfD debates has convinced me that merging them is a better solution than trying to delete them altogether. Since Comanche County–City Airport now redirects to Comanche, Texas, I suggest that a pared-down two-paragraph summary of the airport is better than 1-2 sentences that say nothing other than acknowledging that the airport exists. I have posted the pared-down version. Carguychris (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Carguychris: Thanks for writing. I looked at your edit history and see you are very skilled with airport articles. I commend what you're doing, trying to maintain a lot of information about a fairly non-notable airport before the article gets nuked, but by merging it into an article about a small city totally unbalances the city article. A WP:MERGE copies "some or all" content...often very little. If you look at most small city articles, they typically only have just a line or two about the local airport, and maybe a picture. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677, thanks for your response. As you correctly deduced, I'm trying to preserve the most important information, but I recognize your concerns about WP:UNDUE weight to the airport. Suggest I pare it down further to one paragraph: name, FAA/ICAO location identifier, ownership, NPIAS classification, area, elevation, runway information, number of aircraft operations and based aircraft (if any are listed). This information is as basic as it gets, and I think it's encyclopedic and of local interest. Also, I think MOS:BOLDREDIRECT is important, as I'm replacing the standalone articles with redirects. (I was also planning to create a Comanche County City Airport redirect per WP:CHEAP.) Carguychris (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677: it's a cookie-cutter article built solely from information in FAA databases or third-party databases that can ultimately be traced back to the FAA. The underlying issue is that basic navigational and statistical information about virtually every public-use airport in a developed country is listed in a government database, and this information has been used to build a whole slew of standalone airport articles that, in my opinion, violate WP:NBUILD and WP:NOTDATABASE because the information is completely WP:ROTM. Carguychris (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Carguychris: I looked at some smaller cities at List of United States cities by population. Most have a local airport the articles links to. Suffolk, Virginia, don't even mention an airport. Hesperia, California has one sentence. New Bedford, Massachusetts has more detail. My concern about adding codes and classification numbers is that it's irrelevant on a city article. As well, the elevation of the city is in the infobox already. Again, this is a city article, and it follows WP:USCITIES, which certainly doesn't ask for specifics about airports. Can you trim it to a line with facts that would be useful to a reader of a city article (less the details relevant only to a pilot)? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677, my underlying goal is to eliminate the need for a standalone airport article, so I don't think it's prudent to strip out everything that might be of interest to aviation enthusiasts; at a minimum, I think that the name, ownership, physical size, number and length of runways, and number of based aircraft and annual operations is of potential interest. Also, most airport codes are listed on a WP:DAB page, so the FAA/ICAO designations are something important to keep. Here is another post-merge summary that I've attempted to strip down to the essentials. I did include a blurb explaining that the field doesn't have scheduled airline service, so the casual reader won't need to click a link and read another article to understand that. Also, the example includes the alternate honorary airport name; these are commonplace, although the Comanche airport doesn't have one. Carguychris (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Carguychris: Is there a consensus to eliminate standalone airport articles? There certainly is a consensus to not include out-of-scope content in articles. I'd suggest you start a discussion on the article talk page, because I'm likely going to keep removing excess details. Thanks for your understanding. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Holidays, my friend!
Colman2000 (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Your recent edit makes little sense. But I've encountered a simoular misunderstanding regarding 'alleys' in the past. These St John's 'alleys' are an important part of the historic fabric of some older cities and not to be confused with American backalleys. Rwood128 (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rwood128: Please don't edit war, and revert multiple edits, just to add back the small you want. I have already told you one of your sources is user-generated. Please stop adding it. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some misunderstanding. I objected to your entire edit. I also thought your objection was to there being no citations. This was, of course, untrue.Rwood128 (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. Rather than edit war to add back sources you already know are not reliable, why not discuss your edits on the article talk page. Thanks for your understanding. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re your recent edit. I knew that my edit was unconventional but it was intended to be helpful and was explained, Magnolia677. Rules aren't meant to be slavishly followed. I believe that is in fact WP policy.Rwood128 (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A kitten for you!
you put up with a lot of crap! keep up the good work :)
_by_Ron.jpg)
