User talk:Corgi Stays

Welcome!

Hi Corgi Stays! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

I noticed that you added 3 references to the Andrew Kehoe article with this edit. It's great that you added references but the problem with all <>three four of these reference is that they are bare URLS with no title or writer or publication or date or any of the other info that can point readers and other Wikipedia editors to the proper source in case of WP:Link rot (a condition that bare URLs have a tendency to tip into). I have posted a citation help here so then you can consult it and create full cites for the references you added to the Kehoe article. Shearonink (talk) 03:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized...you copied over the 4 cites I posted to a discussion on Talk:Terrorism in the United States. Did you read all 4 of references? Do you have a page number or chapter or maybe a quote that supports the major change of the first sentence in the lead? It looks like you didn't read through those cites because the first one is a review of Harold Schechter's book Maniac: The Bath School Disaster and the Birth of the Modern Killer, published by Amazon in 2021, the actual book is already referenced in the Kehoe article and that reference is only available through JHU/Project MUSE or if one subscribes to the Michigan Historical Review. The 2nd cite you provided in your edit is to the Arnie Bernstein book and that is also already cited in the Kehoe article. The Safe Havens article mentioned the Bath School disaster...do you know what they specifically stated about it? Here is the exact quote

"We also decided not to include some incidents that took place in the United States that many others refer to as school terrorism.[BOLDING mine] These include active shooter situations (like those at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado or the recent attack in Newtown Connecticutt), the Our Lady of Angels catholic school arson in 1958 or the 1927 Bath School Disaster".

The Michigan4You article is useful but bothers me because it seems too similar to the Bath School disaster article here on Wikipedia. For all these reasons I have gone ahead and reverted your edit, I think this possible change needs to be discussed on the Kehoe article talk first before it is all or partially reinstated. Shearonink (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to mention that the lead section is supposed to be an overview of the important points in the article. If Kehoe is to be described as a terrorist, then, per WP:LEAD. that sourced information needs to first be present in the main body of the article. Shearonink (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding references can be easy

Hello! Here's how to add references from reliable sources for the content you add to Wikipedia. This helps maintain the Wikipedia policy of verifiability.

Adding well formatted references is actually quite easy:

While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "Cite". Click on it.
Then click on "Templates".
Choose the most appropriate template and fill in as many details as you can. This will add a well formatted reference that is helpful in case the web URL (or "website link") becomes inactive in the future.
Click on Preview when you're done filling out the 'Cite (web/news/book/journal)' to make sure that the reference is correct.
Click on Insert to insert the reference into your editing window content.
Click on Show preview to Preview all your editing changes.

Before clicking on Publish changes, check that a References header ==References== is near the end of the article.
And check that {{Reflist}} is directly underneath that header.

7. Click on Publish changes. ...and you've just added a complete reference to a Wikipedia article.

You can read more about this on Help:Edit toolbar or see this video File:RefTools.ogv.
Hope this helps, --Shearonink (talk) 03:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To use this message, place {{subst:User:Shearonink/ref}} on User:talk pages when needed.

New message from Shearonink

Hello, Corgi Stays. You have new messages at Talk:Andrew Kehoe.
Message added 04:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Shearonink (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop adding unsourced population numbers to so many articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bare URLS

When you add references please keep in mind the essay WP:BAREURLS. Use the cite help I posted above, read over WP:CITE, take a look at Help:Referencing for beginners with citation templates. When you add bare URLs to an article, those plain web addresses are prone to link rot which can become a real problem for one of Wikipedia's core principles - verifability. I am going through some (some, not all) of your edits about the House Republicans who voted against that bill and making those refs a complete cite web. Feel free to join in. Shearonink (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly reminder re: the January 6 article

Please be mindful of WP:3RR. It is a bright-line rule and editors tend to take it quite seriously. Simply a word to the wise! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from January 6 United States Capitol attack into Criminal proceedings in the January 6 United States Capitol attack. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Proud Boys, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. You seem to be moving a lot of content between various articles in a semi-automated fashion, with no explanation of where things are being moved to, or providing any attribution (as you were warned about above). Please stop, or at least slow down and discuss what you're changing on the relevant talk pages. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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.

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.

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Pittsburgh synagogue shooting

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Riot vs attack

I notice you are making lots of changes. Are they based on some consensus? Are you being careful to follow what the RS say in each instance? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See here. Corgi Stays (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That refers to the title. It doesn't mean that every instance in the article should be changed. All the various synonyms used by RS should appear as used by them. Just keep that in mind. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me)

Also categorized as a terrorist incident. Corgi Stays (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. There is no need to add the year to articles if it was the only event CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2023 Lewiston shootings shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You're already past 3rr. I suggest you self revert and step back for a time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In case it was lost in the wall of text, you're already past 3rr. I suggest you self-revert your last revert and step back from editing the article for a time, especially if you cannot keep yourself from reverting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just for some comparison, Corgie has made almost double the edits in the past hour that I've made in the entire page lifetime (I've added 4 times more bytes in total, and still have higher authorship). Their editing pattern feels deliberately confusing. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 04:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (2023 Lewiston shootings) for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's kinda hard getting all your edits saved in an article that everyone's editing at the same time, so I thought I'd do it piecemeal, but okay. :)

Your recent editing history at Lisbon, Maine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
SilentRevisions (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

Please refrain from adding, removing or changing genres without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Most of the categorization changes you've made are inaccurate. Please remember to also always use an edit summary. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mass shootings

Please don't use arguments like "Article A has this, therefore Article B has to have it as well. This is WP:OTHERCONTENT and it carries no weight on Wikipedia. All article edits have to stand on their own merit, not comparisons with other articles. As I've said before, the WP:LEAD of a mass shooting article is not the Billboard charts. There is no need to say "this was the xth deadliest shooting" unless it is covered by reliable sources. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:DisuseKid per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DisuseKid. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. firefly ( t · c ) 17:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of 2012 Empire State Bulding shooting

A tag has been placed on 2012 Empire State Bulding shooting, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. (See section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]