User talk:Magnolia677/Archive 9

Sorry

Listen, I know I said and did some things that you may not have agreed with, but I want to let you know that I apologize for the actions I did not only to you, but for the Wikipedia community as well (for adding content that was considered unsourced). I hope there is no hard feelings for all that I have caused. Thanks. EscoLaFlare (talk) 1:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Xboxmanwar: - I didn't respond, of course, because I knew your apology was disingenuous and that you were a fake. One of the reasons your sockpuppets were so easily detected is because you continued to make the same sloppy edits to the exact same articles. You have completely failed as a Wikipedia editor and the project will benefit from seeing you gone, though I suspect you will continue to strut the schoolyard bragging about your edits to so many rap music articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm sorry I had to edit content without improving it. I'll do it, I promise. (User:Renepantoja) 10:01, 8 January 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by R.pantoja.982864 (talk • contribs)

Hay my joke I did on the hannibal page it wasn't supposed to stay forever it was supposed to make just a chuckle. Rednoseclown (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikihounding

Please refrain from hounding me. I have strong reason to believe you are reviewing my edits. It is not appreciated. You have not edited these pages ([1], [2], [3]/[4]) in past and knew nothing about them until I began editing them. So it is strange to believe that you could come completely out of the blue and started requesting sources for those pages. If you think you are being productive by doing this, you are not. You are coming off very disruptive! Wikipedia users are supposed to work together and not against each other. Horizonlove (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asking admin @WJBscribe: for an opinion as this is similar to the previous ANI issue that was closed today involving this editor. Karst (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Karst - Please do because I'm starting to notice that it is strange how he is coming out of nowhere being disruptive. The last external link ("4") is when Magnolia677 came to my talk page and drops a hint that he will being editing the link "3", which I also edited. Horizonlove (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Horizonlove: - If you peek through my edit history you will see that most of my edits are to small towns in the United States, and to gangster rappers and electronic DJs (simply because they have so much in common). With my music-related edits you will notice a pattern, which is that like a surgeon I remove unsourced content (which is often, though not always, filled with incorrect information). These music articles are very popular with the users of Wikipedia, which means that the less sloppy, unsourced edits found on them, the more beneficial they will be to those readers of Wikipedia, who deserve content which is accurate and factual. Keep in mind that Wikihounding is accompanied by behavior which is tendentiousness, contains personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior. If you feel you have been targeted in this way I would suggest you report it. I certainly hope this addresses your concern, and I would be happy to assist you if you are uncertain how to properly source articles. Also, I asked a question here on your talk page about one of your edits which appeared to be original research. Could you please answer my question? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: - That doesn't explain why you followed my specific edits and how you ended up on these two pages ([5], [6]) with intent to edit the third page [7] before contacting me on my talk page about it[8]. The only way you could have come across those pages was to look my recent history and edit those pages to revert my edits, which you did. Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. You have done that. And as I have said, you are coming very disruptive instead of productive. Horizonlove (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've been repeatedly warned for unsourced additions. If I came to your talk page to leave you a warning about unsourced edits and seen that, I'd review your editing too. That's not hounding or harassment, it's quality control. If you don't want your unsourced material removed, don't add unsourced material. It's really very simple. John from Idegon (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC) Pinging Horizonlove John from Idegon (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: I highly doubt that and I don't think that is a proper excuse. It has been my understanding that every sentence written in a Wikipedian article did not require a source. And there are no rules or special pages that explain quality control as following specific users and reverting their edits. Please try again! Horizonlove (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad you have this so well in hand. He is not hounding you. So if you are so certain he is despite being told different by an experienced editor, perhaps you need to take this to the adminstrators. Most likely the results will not please you. Magnolia677 has told you the same. Continuing this thread on your part, therefore would be harassment. Magnolia677 is to be commended for his efforts to improve verifiability on a general topic that suffers from a pronounced lack of it. John from Idegon (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strange how it is non-productive. Most editors try to work together when they see something that is challenged, however that option has never been offered.Horizonlove (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rockaway Townsquare

So I tried adding some information because I live less than 15 minutes away from it and go there daily. But what should I do to source the info I added? Thanks! Sincerely, NikoWikipedia. NikoWikipedia (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I'll look at some sources :-)

NikoWikipedia (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

What planet was he on...? I've reverted about 100 pages, I see you are doing more! Do watch out when block expires, I have an awful felling that he might just sit out the block as start again. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 15:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronhjones: - I'll keep an eye out. Thanks for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Musical Freedom Records

Hi! I noticed you reversed my edit to the record labels that Sander van Doorn is signed to. I wanted to know what you meant by it being unsourced. Tracks of his are showing up, on the record labels I added, on Beatport but I'm not sure how to use these as sources. Thanks! ✌️ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fox Tanawa-Bamba (talk • contribs) 21:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fox Tanawa-Bamba: - Thanks for your message. I reverted your edit because you did not indicate the source of your information. Help:Referencing for beginners should get your started. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I've read it and I'm confident that the labels I added were correct but is Beatport a good source to use? Beatport is my go to place for a lot of things, outside Wikipedia edits, however I'm a little unsure. ✌️ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fox Tanawa-Bamba (talk • contribs) 21:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fox Tanawa-Bamba: - That's a good question. Have a look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

You don't need to cite a source if the album has a blue link to it. So please stop JustDoItFettyg (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JustDoItFettyg: - Please take a moment to read WP:CIRC. You were blocked last month for your unsourced editing, and now you are at it again. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you even add souces to associated acts? and why would you register half of my edit and send me some bs message about souces? Ctmv2 (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Thank you for merging the two Jay Dean articles! Marquardtika (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Beatles

If you go through the Billboard Hot 100 number one singles of the past 10 years you will see that never before has a trap song succeeded another trap song as number one. SomewhereInLondon (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I am not adding any un-sourced material. All material I have added can be checked by going through Billboard Hot 100 number ones.SomewhereInLondon (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SomewhereInLondon: Please take a moment to read WP:BURDEN. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." All my edits are done in good faith with verifiable material. Don't just remove it if you know it is correct - help verify it! SomewhereInLondon (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SomewhereInLondon: The authors of WP:BURDEN were very clever. Notice when you read it that the adding of reliable sources is described as a "burden", while other editors are encouraged to find sources for another editor's unsourced content. Said another way, you and I wouldn't be having this discussion if you had taken the time to source your edit, and you should know, quite often I will go looking for a source for a good faith edit by a new editor. But you have made 842 edits to Wikipedia, and a number of them were unsourced. When you add unsourced content as you do, it makes Wikipedia less reliable to its readers, and undermines the hard work of other editors who are not quite as...(what's the word I'm looking for?) Thank you for your cooperation moving forward. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Magnolia677. You have new messages at No longer a penguin's talk page.
Message added 13:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

No longer a penguin (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rae Sremmurd discography

Why is a citation needed for the simple fact that a song is on an album? Is this a dispute over the version featuring Kodak Black being the default version? As JustDoItFettyg pointed out; it's on the article, it's on every listing for the album there is. I don't see what there is to "cite". As far as I'm aware, the simple fact that a song is on an album is a self-evident fact that doesn't need to be cited, just like plots for films on film articles. Ss 112 03:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if this is something that needs a citation, then I think you have double standards: None of the singles need citations that they are from SremmLife 2 but "Real Chill", as a song that charted from the album, does? Why is this? Ss 112 03:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: The edit in question was added to the article yesterday, and states that Real Chill is on the album SremmLife 2, but there is no source supporting that. If the source is already in the article, please add it to this edit. This is not a subjective plot to a film. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not answering why you're applying a double standard. It doesn't matter when content was added; it can be challenged and tagged at any time with a CN notice. Why are you not questioning that the other songs are on SremmLife 2 but that this is? (If your point is that plots are written subjectively then that's great but not the point—it's comparable, as plots are mostly not referenced and don't need to be as they are self-evident from viewing the material, or a simple track list for an album that's been out for over a year.) Ss 112 03:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: Editors have no obligation to copyedit every article they find. In this case, a new edit was added, it appeared on my watchlist, I looked at it, found problems with the new edit, and corrected them. I'm not sure what your issue is. Are you suggesting that as soon as a new edit appears on an editor's watchlist they are expected to scrutinize the entire article, or just deal with the new edit that led them there? Magnolia677 (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I'm suggesting at all, and I have no interest in this tangent or a discussion based on your admission of following problematic editors. Ss 112 04:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geography Section McDade

McDade had no geography section. I started adding Geography sections because pages I created (mostly for new CDPs) were being labelled as stubs. I did not create the McDade page, but it did not have a Geography section. I'm trying to make the pages all look similar. That's why I put the coordinates there. If we're not putting the coordinates there, then why put the area there? That's data is in the infobox too? Same with the population and the county and state in the introductory paragraph. But to get back to your question about why I changed the coordinates. In order to cite my edit, I had to use the data from that cite. That data came from the 2016 Gazetteer files on the US Census website. There have been several that I didn't change, because they were close enough and were already in the geography section and cited. Others I have changed because the city/town/CPD area has either increased or decreased making the coordinates off center. I have to replace the previous editor's cite, but they were usually from the US Census website, just older data.

I'm just following the example of the majority of pages I see. How am I supposed to know that "this is the way we do it now"? Who decides that and where are these "new" rules? I'm not trying to be confrontational, but I've gotten flack a couple of times for doing things that I am just copying from other editors.Jdtrue63 (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just read the link you attached. Wikipedia needs a less confusing set for finding these kind of things. I have found it very difficult to find answers to questions. There's way too much information to sift through. Most US city pages I've visited still had the 2000 population numbers in the infobox. I started to update them to 2010 numbers, but realized that this was making the population density wrong. So I changed the ones I did back. Later on, while editing another page I noticed that the pop. density was set at auto. Now I knew how to correct this problem and went back and started changing all the populations to 2010 (unless someone had a later date) and changing all the pop. density settings to auto so people in the future can update the population without worrying about the density. Where is the help page to tell you that? It's not on the sample page you directed me too. Everything I've learned about editing these pages, I've learned by trial and error with occasional help from people like you directing to to the proper instructions. Just learned how to "move" pages last week. Didn't know I was cutting off the edit history by just cutting and pasting to a new page with the new name (like Los Angeles Subdivsion, Texas to Los Angeles, Willacy County, Texas).

I do this because it's fun to me, but this is getting frustrating. I've coordinates in several Geography sections. Not I have to go back and remove all the Geography sections I created because with just the coordinates and area they aren't neccessary since that data is already in the infobox.Jdtrue63 (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jdtrue63, it's not the end of the world. You can just remove them as you come to them. Many articles have the coordinates in the geography section and using them there was only deprecated about 4 years ago. You'll get them eventually or someone else will. Don't sweat it. John from Idegon (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A favor?

I'm not much for self promotion, so I've never had occasion to do a DYK. Could you help me do one? Jeffers High School is the article. I didn't technically create it. A vandal started it, it was marked up for CSD as a hoax and courtesy blanked and I removed the CSD and ran with it. It's not a great article, but it has a really cool hook which will jump off the screen at you when you read it. Let me know please. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: They're pretty tricky! Let me take a peek. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: Very cool. Let do the DYK. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on the article, but tell me what to do by all means. I think I'm gonna try to write a short piece for the Signpost on the importance of projects, as I found the vandalism edit via WikiProject Michigan's recent change report. John from Idegon (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got it right. Look at Talk:Jeffers High School Please and let me know. What a pain in the arse process. When I make a school article, I put a lot of things in list format, because frankly that is easier to read than the same info in prose. Had to convert a list to prose to make the size limit. Let me know what you think. Thanks...I'd have never known of the size limit. John from Idegon (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JayPe socking

I've reblocked JayPe indefinitely because I've found him to be using socks to evade his previous blocks. Since you are familiar with this user's editing patterns, I'd appreciate it if you would ping me if you see any other accounts pop up that look similar. --Laser brain (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: I will. Thanks for you support. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this was bad. I tried explaining a lot about sourcing but looks like it was of no avail. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Susan E. King from Woman's Building page

--Sue Maberry (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)I didn't add Susan E. King, but I absolutely agree that she should be there. She is a VERY prominent book artists who in in major museum collections and is invited to teach/speak at museums and universities all over the world. When I get a moment, I will create a page for her. A simple quick google search for her will establish her notability.[reply]

@Maberry: Thank you for offering to create an article for this person. Until then, please hold off on adding this person as an unsourced redlink to the article. This offers nothing to the readers of Wikipedia. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me

Why did you change the number of the judges' seasons? KydaSym (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you changed the number of the judges' seasons KydaSym (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean? --Sue Maberry (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mound Landing, Mississippi

On 21 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mound Landing, Mississippi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a levee break at Mound Landing, Mississippi (pictured) – now an isolated ghost town on the banks of the Mississippi River – began one of the worst floods in American history? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mound Landing, Mississippi. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mound Landing, Mississippi), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response for your warnings

Hi, I'm Lawsilly. I apologize to you to not answering your warnings/messages on my "User talk" page about not providing reliable sources so far, but I didn't have time to checking Wikipedia in January. I have been editing Wikipedia pages for years now and of course I got some other warnings about the sources before. Yes, I agree that I don't use sourses often, but from this time I will pay respest to the sources to avoid the problems.

You also send a message about the 59th Annual Grammy Awards aticle. I see it still have the temple message. And honestly, I don't know how to solve the problem, because the only legit source is from the Official Grammys website and they still changing the nominations, adding more people on the list they left (other materials are not enough). I checking the official website at least 3-4 times a week and it always got some changes. So, I don't know what to say, I'm continue editing the article from the site and just keep hoping it will not be deleted. I wrote down your my thoughts about this article just to know why it keeps being edited.

So, this my position, I'm try my best in the future and of course, thanks for your messages. Lawsilly (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our old Louisiana buddy

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frierson,_Louisiana&curid=19480772&diff=761290704&oldid=738082073

Sorry it's been so long I can't even remember his name, but I do remember there is an LTA on him. Hoping you remember. John from Idegon (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: Good eye, see here. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A favourite- Kehlani

Hi sorry to bother you but its come to my attention that the cover art of Kehlani's album SweetSexySavage has been updated. The new artwork has her 'Woke' tattoo edited out. Is there any way we can change it as the album comes out in 2 days?? This is the new one.<ref>http://press.atlanticrecords.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Kehlani_SSS_COVER.jpg</ref> Thanks, I ask you as you are a confirmed member of the Wikipedia community and I am only getting the hang of the system — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliyar1998 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eliyar1998: - Because this particular image is copyright protected, it can only be uploaded as "free use", which I don't often do. I'm certain another editor will upload the image soon. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pickering College

Hi Magnolia677 - I've been watching the back-and-forth regarding the "Grey Lady" at Pickering College. I think retaining the content about the ghost is warranted. There is a reference, and while it says it's "rumoured", that tends to be the nature of hauntings, isn't it? I have added another reference to support that there is a known haunting story at Rogers House at Pickering College. I think the content should remain in the article. Thank you, PK T(alk) 02:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Lunar New Year!

	Happy Lunar New Year!
	Hello Magnolia677, May you have success, prosperity, peace, love and good health on this Chinese New Year. Here's to another year of productive editing. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for this new year. Kind regards, Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to particularly thank you for all your efforts to ensure that content is adequately and reliably sourced. It is a trying job to constantly patrol the articles and explain to editors that sourcing is not optional. I value your efforts because it is a small but significant step towards setting a culture where WP:V is not considered optional. Thank you once again. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemongirl942: Thank you very much. The same to you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Hailey/Doubleday page

Hi I'm new to Wikipedia, so I wondered if you could tell me why my revision of the Doubleday page (adding Arthur Hailey to the list of Doubleday authors) was removed? I'm not sure what "unsourced content" means. Thanks.... Untold Millions (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Untold Millions: You added his name to the list at Doubleday (publisher) without a source. I therefore tried to confirm your edit by going to the Arthur Hailey article, and there is no mention there of having written for Doubleday. I'm sure you are correct, but there is nothing to support your edit. Could you add a source to one or both articles? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Untold Millions: I added a source. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Ludden

It's occurred to me here and there that you are occasionally a bit overzealous in removing unsourced content additions. You don't have to revert everything you see that's uncited. For example, you just reverted an addition to Allen Ludden that is probably correct. Removing the text completely generally means you are challenging it as being incorrect. You do have to option of adding a tag to request a source. My general strategy is: If I think an addition incorrect, I remove it. If it's likely to be correct, I leave it alone, or request a source using {{cn}} or similar. --Laser brain (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: Let me get this straight. An editor added unsourced text to an article which had already been tagged because it was unsourced. You think I should just add a second unsourced tag? I don't. I think the editor who added the unsourced content to the already undersourced article should go looking for a source to support their edit. And, in fact, the editor did just that, and re-inserted their edit with a source, along with the vacuous edit summary "Well, most of the rest of that paragraph and great swaths of the entire article are unref'd, so are you going to delete those too?" Let's set our standards high. The readers of Wikipedia will benefit from the accuracy of the information. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I conveyed my point well, but that's OK. Have a nice day. --Laser brain (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

I haven't had an account on here in at least 6 or 7 years however I will make sure I familiarize myself with policies again. Cheers. EdelweissofNE (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need me to explain to you how to use the mall website?

The stores are listed on the malls website which was added in the last edit that you're claiming is disruptive. What gives? EdelweissofNE (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crossgates Mall

It looks like you're beyond 3RR there. Toddst1 (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chickasaw County, Mississippi, notable people and characters

I noticed you deleted Ida Mae Brandon Gladney, a person whose life is detailed in the Pulitzer prize winning book The Warmth of Other Suns from the notable people section of Chickasaw County, Mississippi, with an edit caption of "fictional characters should not be included", but left Titus Andromedon, who unlike Ida truly is a fictional character. They probably both deserve mention somewhere in the article, although Andromedon should probably find another section.Jacona (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to move Andromedon to some other part of the article, and write an article for Gladney. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. If you don't care about your work any more than that, I'm not going to go behind you and fix it.Jacona (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pity Sex

I undid your edit to the article on Pity Sex. I added a reference. Please do not remove the category again. Thanks. WereWolf (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AN3 report

I thought I'd notify you since you were involved in the discussion on the talk page: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:EdelweissofNE_reported_by_User:Toddst1_.28Result:_.29 Toddst1 (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block Request

Please block my IP, this is a school IP, that many people use, mostly for vandalism. 66.109.53.196 (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luaza1313

I blocked him for 24, not so much for other stuff, but when I saw his contribution history, he was making hundreds of edits in less than an hour, so blocked for 24h for running an unapproved bot. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 17:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Fire

I found the table of Fire engine companies / locations to be useful and am sad to see it go. jhawkinson (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jhawkinson: Thanks for writing and its clear that someone put some work into creating that list. In fact, I should have hidden it instead. I was doing a bit of cleanup and the list of stations seemed a bit excessive, per WP:NOT. Listing fire stations and apparatus is ok on articles about a fire department, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Fire Service, but I've usually seen these deleted from city articles. Please add a message to the article's talk page about it. Or, add what I deleted back to the article with a source. I won't delete, but will add a talk page message about it. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove comments with swearwords from a vandal?

This vandal *Idk idk idk because idk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made edits commented with aggresive language with swearwords on Roy Conli and Byron Howard; He it's blocked but he made edits with aggressive language, leaving commented editions with swearwords. I would be thankful if someone can remove those comments from his edits. You can look at his contributions, if you don't mind. (Idk idk idk because idk) Thanks. 79.152.75.100 (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@79.152.75.100: That's quite the potty mouth. I see he's been blocked. Thanks for letting others know about this. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He it's blocked, but he left a lot of comments on his editions with swearwords and agressive language. 79.152.75.100 (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem has been solved. The vandal comments have just been erased, thanks anyway. 79.152.75.100 (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of cited information

Why did you remove the sourced information on [9]? The webpage clearly states "Rachel Maddow reports on the giant Oroville Dam and its adjacent spillway that is steadily destroying itself as it continues to be used despite a massive hole, to prevent the dam from over-topping." If you watch the video, you will see more information specific to the incident. MSNBC is generally considered a reliable source for this kind of information. Since this incident has affected over 180,000 people, in 2 counties (so far), and is being covered by multiple news outlets, including international news, it definitely qualifies as a notable (albeit recent) incident. Am I missing something? --Vandraedha (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vandraedha: I read the two lines of text and it didn't support the edit. I didn't know you wanted readers to watch an accompanying video. My apology. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions

WP:RS aside for a sec, simply reverting Ksenia's edits without taking two seconds to do a basic google search [10] and add a source just creates work for other editors. I'm on my phone or I would gladly source. We don't want to encourage editors sticking middle names everywhere, in fact there's a sockpuppet investigation that stemming from 5+ accounts involved in just that sort of behaviour. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PageantUpdater: I don't know if her common name is "Julia Frances Scaparotti" or "Julia Scaparotti". It's unsourced, and as I revert this spammer's hundreds of edits, I don't really have time to look for sources to support them all. Take a look at this editor's talk page. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry I have, they've been causing issues for weeks. I get what you're saying but when another editor steps in and undoes the edit, perhaps that's when time time to stop and think for half a second and do a search. I'm not going to leave incorrect edits there for 8 hours until I can get to a computer. In the name of improving the encyclopaedia, perhaps you can fix it now. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Side issue, I thought the same as you re the crystal ballishness of adding all the TBAs, then I saw on AIV that they gave him a pass for it so I backed off. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: there's something seriously wrong when the onus is not also on you as the undoing editor to check that her common name is "Julia Frances" which is essentially what you were asserting by undoing my edit. The fact you didn't even deign to respond or fix your errors (the other also reverted by another editor as plain common sense) when you have clearly been active in the intervening period just stinks and makes it hard for me to assume any good faith on your part. Our goal should be the improvement of the encyclopaedia and you sure weren't contributing to that. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PageantUpdater: I reverted 11 edits by User:Ksenia2727 today, who is currently blocked for adding unsourced content to beauty pageant articles. Following that, I left two warnings on their talk page, and then spent some time reverting the mess they had made, as is advised by WP:RVAN. One of their edits was this edit, where they changed the name "Julia Frances Scaparotti" to "Julia Scaparotti". I reverted their edit here with the edit summary "reverting unexplained content removal". You then reverted my edit here with the edit summary "as per WP:COMMONNAME". I then reverted your edit with the edit summary "you will need to add a source to support your claim of her common name". Following that, you changed the name to what you felt was this person's common name, and added it back with a source to support your edit. WP:BURDEN states: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" (that would be you). My concern was not whether this person's common name is two words long or three. My concern was the integrity of the articles edited by this editor, all of which were to beauty pageant articles, something you seem to care a lot about. I would think you would be thanking me, but instead you state that our goal "should be the improvement of the encyclopaedia and you sure weren't contributing to that", and you're angry I reverted your unsourced edit and didn't go looking for a source for you. I do feel you have an unreasonable expectation, but I appreciate you taking the time to share your concern. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saskatchewan - language issue

Hi, I've started a discussion on the Talk Page for Saskatchewan on the language issue - hope you will participate. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]