Hello, This is your answer on the redact of my contribution to the page mentioned. I'm not sure specifically how to respond to your query. I have read through your references. I am not compensated for my editing. I'm not really understanding how my edits could be monetized they describe events that happened quite long ago. I know Richard Wise and worked with him in Jamaica Plain in the early 70s. I lived in Jamaica Plain for many years and recently attended a launch of Mr. Wise's book on the subject of Redlining. You can check on the book's subject on Amazon. I bought one, paid full price. Bertha Pierce ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by BerthaPierce ( talk • contribs) 12:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello, I am posting here as requested. The additions I have added are not run of the mill in Canadian Universities, our culture is a lot different here compared to that of American institutions. That being said news shapes the campus life at our University, and the implications of that occurrence have more far-reaching implications. When does something like this become history?? When someone does something so vile and disgusting?? No, the best way to prevent this is to educate and show so that future student can learn from the mistakes that others have done. This is how campus life grows, I await your reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChillabitUser123 ( talk • contribs) 02:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC) reply

@ ChillabitUser123: Thank you for writing. Could you please discuss this on the article's talk page at Talk:University of Alberta. Thanks! Magnolia677 ( talk) 19:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I think you'll find that since some of the information on the article Meduza (producers) has either been released or announced so doesn't really need any kind of source necessarily. And in terms of the rest of the information, such in the infobox, if it was really not that reliable or needed additional citations, why is it still been like that for the past three months, despite their being a reminder to add citations for verification? Why wouldn't people take the time to delete that info back then? Really I don't see the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.34.79 ( talk) 17:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC) reply

@ 89.168.34.79: By removing your unsourced content, I forced you to find a source to support your edit. In doing so, you discovered that Meduza are not from Rome, as you had originally added, but from Milan, which you corrected with a source. This is the point. Magnolia677 ( talk) 16:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Please join ongoing talk re: whitewashing on the prime minister's article Talk:Justin Trudeau. user:Wisefroggy —Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello, I recently noticed that you reverted an improvement to my Hometown's Wiki page... for no good reason, aside from making it worse, using the old improper image, which displays the wrong colours.

Why did you choose to do this? When Greater Sudbury means nothing to you, when you have no knowledge of the Heraldry behind the flag. The image I uploaded is the proper image to be using here. Whether it's size is not to your liking, or not.

At some point, you Top Editors of Wikipedia must allow the proper image colours to be used here.

I thank you for your overwhelming interest in our City. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.185.195.139 ( talk) 19:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Okay Dimlix ( talk) 12:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC) reply

I am contacting you because I noticed that you recently added a significant amount of information to this article on Huntington Park, California and because you are clearly an experienced wikipedia editor. I would like to know the right way to deal with having my edit reverted (my edit really should have been a reversion itself). It involved a recent addition to the article of information from some click-bait from "Business Insider," which characterized "Most Miserable Cities in the US" using an arbitrary weighting of arbitrary data from the Census Bureau -- justified by the data being from the Census Bureau. This seemed to me to be both mean-spirited and deceptive to people who don't have much understanding of the uses of data and statistics. But useful as click-bait -- it got me to click in a weak moment! Anyway, I don't think that this is a reasonable source to be used on wikipedia. I don't edit a lot, but I've added things based on experience as a computer science professor and also based on personal interests, and I try to be careful about putting in accurate information and sourcing it appropriately.

Could you advise me how to proceed now that my deletion of the material has been reverted? Revertting the reversion seems pretty silly. Ngriffeth ( talk) 20:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC) reply

( talk page watcher) Ngriffeth, new talk page messages go at the bottom of the page. I've moved this for you. Also when leaving a talk page message concerning a specific article, it's good form to leave a WIKILINK to it. There are multiple articles on places named Huntington Park. Thanks. John from Idegon ( talk) 20:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Ngriffeth and John from Idegon: Thank you for writing. It was User:Zeneky that reverted your edit, so you may want to leave them a note on their talk page. Likely, this editor was just reverting what appeared to be sourced content. The bigger issue is whether city rankings should even be added to US city articles. There was a rough consensus not long ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian communities#Are city rankings published by magazines, newspapers, etc. appropriate/encyclopedic? to not included these rankings. I personally would support this on US city articles as well, but it would require a lot of community input and maybe an RfC to achieve a solid consensus. I may follow up on your discussion with Zeneky and get that long-overdue discussion started. Cheers! Magnolia677 ( talk) 13:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Magnolia677: Thanks for your quick respoonse, and I really appreciate the advice and information about this. I think wikipedia is a marvelous resourse. As a computer science professor, I told my students to use it as reference, and my daughter (an MD) actually uses it to get information quickly (which of course she double-checks). I required my students to add two paragraphs of information that they learned in the course but that was not already in wikipedia, and I went back to correct their work if necessary at the end of the term. It was then that my trust in wikipedia was confirmed - most necessary corrections had already been made. Astonishing! Anyway, I was worrying a bit about myself getting obsessive about this, but my husband pointed out that it's not really Huntington Park, but wikipedia, that I'm protecting, and I do have reason to do that.

But back to the subject, I have left a message on User:Zeneky's talk page. He added the information originally, so I think he may be rather reluctant to revert it. Because he did it only to Huntington Park, I suspect some animus. Ngriffeth ( talk) 13:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Ngriffeth, you may want to rethink letting your students use Wikipedia as a source. First, if they go on to post secondary education, they most likely won't be allowed to use Wikipedia. Not so much because of accuracy, but more due to the dynamic nature of the encyclopedia. What they cited on the 9th might be the same thing as is there when you review their work on th 23rd. For hard sciences and medicine, we've actually been rated more accurate than Britannica (mainly due to us being able to be more current). But for softer subjects like pop culture, our accuracy is not what it should be. I was a college instructor in the last century and thinking from that perspective, i think today I would tell them to use Wikipedia to find sources for their research rather than to directly use Wikipedia itself. That being said, when the doc prescribes me a new med, Wikipedia is my first stop. John from Idegon ( talk) 02:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC) reply

John from Idegon I was a college professor myself until 2016 (Lehman College and the Graduate Center of CUNY). Because I taught computer science, and knew that wikipedia was an excellent source of information for computer science, I wanted to un-teach some of the distrust of wikipedia that they had gotten from their high school teachers and teachers in the humanities. I also wanted them to develop some understanding of the "wisdom of crowds." This seemed like a good way to do it, while adding a few chunks of needed information to wikipedia. Ngriffeth ( talk) 20:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi --

I'm questioning the specific reverting of this change: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Thomson-Houston_Electric_Company&diff=prev&oldid=922082329]

What makes a link to another Wikipedia page (which is not linked nor referenced elsewhere on that page) "unnecesary"? It seems like a judgement call to me, and I added that link in good faith.

Stefan01902 ( talk) 21:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC) reply

You are correct. I fixed the edit and used the spelling used on one of the two sources cited, which corresponds to the title of the linked article. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Magnolia677 ( talk) 21:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi --

With all due respect, you are deleting an entire paragraph that was NOT part of my revision today. If you would like to discuss the First Electrified Streetcar in Massachusetts status, let's do so in that Talk page.

If you examine the change I made: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Lynn%2C_Massachusetts&type=revision&diff=922062957&oldid=922062522 I did nothing more today than add a link.

Thank you.

Stefan01902 ( talk) 22:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Stefan01902: At Lynn, Massachusetts, I have twice removed this paragraph because it is not supported by the sources cited. You have twice added it back. Is there something I'm missing? Magnolia677 ( talk) 23:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC) reply

I cleared it up. Thanks. Stefan01902 ( talk) 05:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC) reply

	US Banknote Contest
	November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) reply

Thank you for reaching out to me. I left a message with User talk:Ymblanter, who locked the article. I was disappointed to see User:Littleolive oil sneak their edit back in after I trimmed it of puffery, corrected the data, and removed the primary source. Disappointing indeed. Cheers

I did not sneak anything. I left a comment on the talk page about my concerns as you had asked for. I relooked at the source; it is not a primary source and even if it was, as a back up source for the secondary sources is not only acceptable but perhaps necessary. The book says much much more than your "prune" left in place; those comments were somewhat complimentary to both the Trudeau government and the Harper government. It is inappropriate to cherry pick content from a source this reliable which leaves so much out. The book made several important assessments and you chose only one; I have to question why. In the end I could not leave in your edits because they were not accurate per the total source. Please do not accuse me or anyone of sneaking when edit summaries and talk page point otherwise. I seldom get angry but your comment is really outrageous. Littleolive oil ( talk) 18:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Littleolive oil: Thank you for reaching out to me regarding outrageous editing. I started a discussion at Talk:Justin Trudeau. Cheers. Magnolia677 ( talk) 18:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC) reply

None of the information I posted was copyrighted, but is publicly free information regarding the history of my hometown. Owenalat ( talk) 14:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)Owenalat reply

@ Owenalat: Thank you for writing. I left a message on your talk page a few days ago regarding this. Please take a moment to read the links there. Cheers. Magnolia677 ( talk) 15:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC) reply

@Magnolia677, perhaps you may be open to identifying as a WikiWizard? Your citation actions (revert) speak for you. Owenalat ( talk) 21:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Owenalat reply

Owenalat has given you a pack of Toblerone bars! Chocolate promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Toblerone bars are wonderfully delicious! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a pack of Toblerone bars, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

For reverting/correcting/reverting/correcting/reverting/correcting until finally correct!

Spread the goodness of Toblerone bars by adding {{ subst:Toblerone for you}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Owenalat ( talk) 21:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Owenalat reply

You deleted my updates to the "History of Texas A&M University" page ( /info/en/?search=History_of_Texas_A%26M_University#Program_expansion) partially because I pointed out that the claim a unilateral act of the legislature could not nullify a provision of the state constitution.

Exactly how much detail do you want me to do into to substantiate a unilateral act of the Texas legislature is not how the the state Constitution is amended? I have a wealth of information I can provide, but I would think such a basic element of democratic government shouldn't be so controversial.

As for the number of recipients of the Medal of Honor TAMU claims, I can easily prove the earlier claims to be false, but is Wikipedia now about individuals having to prove claims to be false, or individuals making claims need to prove their to be true.

Texas A&M claims seven "alumni" as recipients of the Medal of Honor. As I stated, Univ of Washington has proven eight recipients ( https://depts.washington.edu/vetlife/medal-of-honor/) and Harvard claims eighteen ( I stand corrected, my origination assertion was seventeen. https://memorialchurch.harvard.edu/medal-honor

So, how would you like to proceed to have the page edited? Do I truly need to cite that the Texas state constitution was not amended by a unilateral act of the state legislature?

I will proceed to show both U Waqsh and Harvard to have more Medal of Honor alumni recipients than Texas A&M.

@ Randolph Duke: Thank you for writing. Please note that the edit summary I left when reverting your edits read "unsourced". Original research is not permitted on Wikipedia. Thank you. Magnolia677 ( talk) 23:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC) reply

I'm not attempting to offer original research. I am attempting to offer original source documents. Readers can accept the validity of the information. I am not seeking to offer any embellishment of the original source documents. Rather, I am allowing readers to consider unfiltered historical documents and to choose whether to accept or reject the validity of the words of the original authors. In the case of Texas A&M University, I am allowing the original words of the state legislature to speak for themselves. Additionally, I am allowing the original words of Texas A&M administrators to speak for themselves. This is not "original research." This is "allowing historical documents to speak for themselves." I do not understand your objections to original source documents to speak for themselves.

Please, clarify for me. If original source documents are not allowed by Wikipedia, how is any claim cited reliably on Wikipedia? Second hand research taken from original research? Are you actually claiming second, third, or fourth hand research completely removed from original source documents are what you believe to be more reputable than original source documents and better than allowing readers to consider original source documents?

The previous statement I removed stated "previous acts of the legislature...." This was offered with no citations whatsoever. The contributor was asserting the acts of the legislature unilaterally amended the state constitution. You are allowing the statement to stand, demanding I somehow show in a system of constitutional government, the constitution (a grant of power by the people to the government) is not simply negated by a unilateral act of the legislature. And you are asking I do this even though the previous contributor offered no citations whatsoever as to how the legislature unilaterally amended the constitution without a vote of the people,

At some point, we all just give up on Wikipedia as an organization with any commitment to the advancement of knowledge.

If you are going to disallow original source documents as reliable citations of the words of the original sources, and allowing specious claims to stand with no citations whatsoever, how do we document verifiable facts? Or, do we just give up and let Wikipedia become completely disconnected from any basis of verifiable fact? When original source documents are no longer allowed to cite the historical record on Wikipedia, what value does Wikipedia have? Randolph Duke ( talk) 00:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Randolph Duke, WP doesn't rely on original sources, but on third-party sources: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. Your additions constitute original research. Buffs ( talk) 20:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply

When the issue is discussing the status of Texas A&M University as a branch college of The University of Texas and the efforts through time to terminate that status, would a publication of Texas A&M during the time of the efforts to terminate the branch college status that has been cited without challenge be original research of a third-party source? https://newspaper.library.tamu.edu/lccn/sn86088544/1915-05-19/ed-1/seq-1/

Regardless of how hard some parties try to distort the historical information presented on Wikipedia, at some point, either the factual record needs to be allowed to speak for itself, or we need to openly admit the information presented on Wikipedia is of no actual value. Randolph Duke ( talk) 15:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I have referred the disagreement whether original source documents are appropriate for historical discussions to Wikipedia arbitration(arbcom-en@wikimedia.org). Please cease any revisions to my original source citations or edits on this page until the matter has been addressed by Wikipedia arbitration. Randolph Duke ( talk) 16:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Your edits are a subject of a discussion at WP:AN/EW Buffs ( talk) 17:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

He's been indef blocked. Buffs ( talk) 17:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello, please leave my edits on LearnedLeague alone. I am aware of the Wikipedia policy on citations, as many of my edits clearly demonstrate. As I stated in my undo of your reversion, there is no way to cite publicly-accessible portions of the site that confirm members. This is for the privacy of the members. Therefore, if you want to be a fact czar about a website that you have no insight into, follow the rules and delete half of the page. Or, leave my edits alone. I am a member of the site and wanted to share info on it here. If you don't want any additional information about LearnedLeague, so be it. The page will fall out of date then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minimac93 ( talk • contribs) 01:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Minimac93: Thank you for contacting me about this. I left a message on your talk page regarding Wikipedia's policy on citing sources and original research. Thank you. Magnolia677 ( talk) 10:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Minimac93: Now you're edit warring over your original research. Please stop your disruptive editing. Magnolia677 ( talk) 20:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Magnolia677: https://imgur.com/a/V1eJZ3r Happy now? Minimac93 ( talk) 00:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Minimac93: A screenshot of an online game is not a reliable source. Magnolia677 ( talk) 00:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Magnolia677: Alright, if the actual website of the actual content of the article is not sufficient to demonstrate to you what is and is not real, I will remedy all the potential inaccuracies on the page. I'm sure that will improve the utility of this repository of information. Minimac93 ( talk) 00:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Minimac93: One of the best way you could remedy that section of the article would be to find sources to support it. Magnolia677 ( talk) 13:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Magnolia677: You really are dense aren't you. How many times have I explained to you that the site is private? I'm guessing you won't let me cite a website that you cannot access, given you won't even let me demonstrate to you that information I've added is legitimate. It seems clear to me at this point that you care more about the rules than about the information within the pages. Your priorities are beyond stupid. Minimac93 ( talk) 15:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Magnolia677: I have acted in an inappropriate and inflammatory manner, and I do apologize. I am not and have never tried to vandalize the site by adding inaccurate information, but I went about arguing for my edits in the wrong way. I will work on my interactions with other editors. Minimac93 ( talk) 00:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Why did you remove Wm. Reginald Morse? West China Union University is a well-known missionary university in Chengdu. Morse was one of the founders. He was a McGill alumnus. His reputation has borne the test of time, unlike many others on this list. Read the Wikipedia entry for Morse yourself and you'll see. Please explain your decision. 2600:1702:2100:7CF0:B146:2093:C9B0:BF ( talk) 15:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC) reply

@ 2600:1702:2100:7CF0:CDB:7221:B256:8A96: My edit summary when I reverted the addition said "Please find a source to support this". Thanks. Magnolia677 ( talk) 19:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I listed a source when I made the entry; it was Wikipedia's own entry on Wm. Reg. Morse. However, a simple Google search reveals that his papers are in the Yale Archives. Further, the on-line book "Anthropology at Harvard," p.434, provides a bio and confirms what I wrote in my entry. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2100:7CF0:98EB:4AA2:B98C:6923 ( talk) 16:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

@ 2600:1702:2100:7CF0:CDB:7221:B256:8A96: I have added your edit back with a source. Thank you for writing. Magnolia677 ( talk) 19:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

A first for me in doing so, but I'd like your input/opinion on a population chart/template I developed, which is at the bottom of my talk page. Thank you. DJ Jones74 ( talk) 07:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply

@Magnolia677, Would you mind looking at my updated chart again (at the bottom of my talk page) ? I punched it up with percentages and notes and would appreciate your opinion on its progress. I copied the earlier version to the link you sent me to, but aside from one person remarking it was posted in the wrong place (I assured him it wasn't, since I'd like to do the format for both cities and counties, etc.) nobody else has offered any comments on it. Thanks again. DJ Jones74 ( talk) 20:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply

@ DJ Jones74: Looks good. The input of the wider community would help. Not all editors are not so visual, and often text is the preferred method on Wikipedia, but your effort and expertise are obvious. Thanks for your hard work. Magnolia677 ( talk) 20:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the kind compliments on my work. Best wishes. DJ Jones74 ( talk) 20:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply

@ @Magnolia677:Well, since no one appeared to object when I placed the color-coded racial chart on the discussion page, I immersed myself in placing the data on the pages for the past 3+ weeks. This morning, I log onto Wikipedia to discover countless edits were rescinded overnight en masse and complaints filed here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline Sadly, in the race to remove the charts, they also removed countless other edits related to population matters (precincts, etc.) which also took considerable time and effort on my part to assemble and put up. To say I'm disappointed that all of that hard work was trashed would be the understatement of the decade. That I was smeared as a racist in even doing this work is disgusting. In 4 months, I will have been here for 13 years as a contributing editor, and I might as well have joined yesterday. I don't know what else to say. I'm not seeing any reason to remain here whatsoever. DJ Jones74 ( talk) 15:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ DJ Jones74: Sometimes it takes a while for the community to reach consensus, which it has now done. You asked for my advice and in response I cautioned about using colors to represent races. Hopefully there was some good feedback. Cheers. Magnolia677 ( talk) 18:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, all this happened after I had spent long hours adding work that has been or will all be deleted en masse. The feedback offered there at the page didn't help me at all. I'm beginning to wish you'd had me banned from WP way back when and spared me all this wasted time. I'm an idiot. DJ Jones74 ( talk) 19:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Whenever I feel discouraged, Peter the Meter Reader cheers me up. Magnolia677 ( talk) 21:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Why are we holding List of place names of Native American origin in the United States to a different standard than WP:LISTPEOPLE, which states "If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided ..."

In the case of one of the entries that you removed, Tchoupitoulas Street has the Native American origin documented in its own article.

Typically, if we are including someone on a list of faculty or alumni, which are sometimes stand alone lists, we just include the Wikilink for that person's article, with no citation, since the citation is typically in that person's article. Why should this be different for a list of place names? I think that we would end up eviscerating the list if we required a citation for every linked place name that had already had a citation in the individual article.

Peaceray ( talk) 18:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

WRT to your removal of my link to my play on Jonathan Daniels: you should be able to see that there was a link there prior to my edit ( I didn't put that one up). I was merely updating it. It's free for people to read. As the guidelines state: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject...

This seems to fit the guidelines nicely. Please restore the link

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NewEnglander9 ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

@ NewEnglander9: Please take a moment to read WP:ADV. Thank you. Magnolia677 ( talk) 19:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

It looks as if you removed my entry on the Raleigh, North Carolina page because you believe I'm a paid writer or a robot. I'm a real person, and the information comes from my published research in a peer-reviewed book published by UNC Press. I'm not paid to write this, nor will I receive any financial benefit from providing this information. I don't understand why you have removed the information I placed (and referenced) on the page. Am I triggering a removal notice simply because I haven't created an account? Is that necessary? Can you replace the deleted text? Thanks for considering the questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.100.61 ( talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

@ 67.169.100.61: Thank you for writing. Did you notice each time I reverted one of your edits--whereby you added links to one of your publications--I used the edit summary WP:RSSELF? Unfortunately, some unscrupulous editors attempt to puff up their Google presence by adding spam links on Wikipedia to their own publications. Please also take a moment to carefully read the COI warning I left on your talk page. Thank you. Magnolia677 ( talk) 00:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your response. Again, I'm not paid to edit on Wikipedia -- on the contrary, I just retired from full-time work and decided to donate my time to correcting misinformation and providing updated information on Wikipedia. I have read the information on the link you provided. The source I cited is not self-published. It's a book published by the University of North Carolina Press. I've now created an account and verified my email, and I'll try adding the information again, unless you tell me this is forbidden for some reason not explained in the Wikipedia guidelines. All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.100.61 ( talk) 01:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

So you removed an edit I made on the Lebanon Ohio article with the reason "NOTWEBHOST". Can you explain why the weekly news letter from Lebanon.gov. Can you explain why that doesn't deserve to be noticed on the Wikipedia page, but a Public Advisory on Tropic Storm Sebastien (A hurricane not going to effect anyone) is allowed to stay? /info/en/?search=2019_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Tropical_Storm_Sebastien . In my opinion, this new letter is about information in the town that week, so it should be added as a sub section somewhere in the article. Elijahandskip ( talk) 01:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Elijahandskip: Thank you for writing. Over the years, the volunteers who edit Wikipedia have agreed by consensus to several policies and guidelines, including Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and WP:USCITIES. A newsletter published by the city is not encyclopedic or notable, and would be best on the city's Facebook or webpage. If you disagree, please start a discussion at Talk:Lebanon, Ohio. Thank you. Magnolia677 ( talk) 10:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC) reply

( talk page watcher) Elijahandskip, also please note our project wide guideline for external links ( WP:ELNO is the pertinent section). We do not link to subpages of already listed websites. We list the city's official website. As my colleague mentioned, it should be linked there. Also, WP:OSE might be useful for your reading. John from Idegon ( talk) 12:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I added some information this morning about Kurtis Blow Walker appearing on Good Morning San Diego, and I added 2 citations, but you still removed the information. The 1st citation was the website for the news channel, announcing the information. So I'm very confused as to why it was enough proof. Thank you PublicistDiannaPrince ( talk) 19:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

@ PublicistDiannaPrince: Thank you for writing. I left a very detailed message on your talk page, but in a nutshell you cannot "cut" entire sections of text from a website such as a newspaper, and then "paste" that text into a Wikipedia article, because it violates copyright. The text needs to be put into your own words. Thank you. Magnolia677 ( talk) 20:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Why will I get banned for adding associated acts when they aren't even cited to begin with? - User talk:Terminader

@ Terminader: At Rick Ross you added Nipsey Hussle as an associated act, though Nipsey Hussle isn't even mentioned in the article. Please stop your disruptive editing. Magnolia677 ( talk) 21:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Neither is KSI but he is still in the associated acts for whatever reason. I don't know what about my editing is disruptive. - User talk:Terminader

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Skowhegan, Maine; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

@ CorbieVreccan: Please take a moment to read Wikipedia:Edit warring#Administrator guidance, in particular the part about whether a warning is intended to "prevent, deter and encourage change in disruptive behavior". My last edit to that article was November 25th at 12:03. You tagged my talk page on November 26th at 20:27. Sometime in between--during those 32 long hours--I made this edit at WikiProject Schools seeking the input of others in this content dispute (had you read the discussion at Talk:Skowhegan, Maine you probably would have figured that out), and have made no further edits to the Skowhegan article. I have 80,000+ edit and no blocks, so this isn't my first rodeo. At this point, the consensus of others will decide the outcome of that oddball edit at Skowhegan. Magnolia677 ( talk) 22:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi Magnolia677, I will stop making these inappropriate edits before the edit blocking goes into effect. I am very sorry for it. I would like know how to check to see if any edits I make would be vandalism. If I get blocked, I will try to request to a Wikipedia administrator (who are users that can ban or block other users from editing) have the blocking from editing lifted on my account only if I learn completely from my mistakes permanently promise to stop with vandalism and illegal and incorrect edits. Airbus A350-100BOI ( talk) 20:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I do apologize. I only figured it was passable because the information was found and cited in another portion of wikipedia. I will be sure to not make this mistake again in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnserss12 ( talk • 16:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

OTRS received an inquiry because you reverted a recent edit. While I appreciate that you took the time to leave a note on the editors talk page, it appears canned and doesn't remotely suggest what you consider the problem to be. can I implore you to be a little more specific so that the editor understands the problem? -- S Philbrick (Talk) 22:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Sphilbrick: At Sebastopol, California, User:Hollyahansen made two edits, adding incorrect information (I checked the city website), using a dead link to support the edit. So I reverted the edit with the edit summary "nope", and tagged their talk page with a level-one warning. Perhaps a belated welcome would have been more inviting, but it kinda looked like low-level mischief, transposing the names of two elected officials. What would you have done? Thank you. Magnolia677 ( talk) 22:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Magnolia677, Oddly, while I didn't use those exact words, I did explain to the editor that the edit look like "something funny was going on", so I'd say we received the exact same impression. My guess is that the editor tried to make a good faith effort to update the page, but the edit was reverted before they realized they made an error. I did miss that the link was a dead link. I don't think they realized that they made an error - their question to me asked what the message meant. My guess is that they have no idea their edit was botched; I had to explain them them that the edit they made didn't make any sense.

I'm not sure what I would have done, but I'm looking at it through their eyes, and they didn't think the message explained anything. S Philbrick (Talk) 23:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Sphilbrick: Thanks for your help with that. Cheers! Magnolia677 ( talk) 23:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be 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. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ElKevbo ( talk) 23:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ ElKevbo: I was going to delete this with my usual "go away" edit summary, until I saw on your talk page "I'm a U.S. higher education scholar", and then realized my edit was...gulp...to a US university! Now I've really crossed the line. Magnolia677 ( talk) 00:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Well that certainly excuses your edit warring! ElKevbo ( talk) 01:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Thank you for telling me about my mistake I made on the Tauron Arena page. That helped me realize I should start documenting before doing it on and on. Here's a kitten. :)

jakanz ( talk) 04:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Jakanz: Hey, thanks!! Magnolia677 ( talk) 12:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

No problem. You just reminded me to get off my lazy butt and finally fix some mistakes I made. I do that a lot because of my conditions, so you can kind of expect that kind of mistake a bit. But seriously, thanks. :) jakanz ( talk) 18:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Thank you for correcting the links on the Apex, NC page. What is a better way to leave the sites that don't have Wikipedia pages. Should I just enclose them in double square brackets to leave a link to a new page? Robertl30 ( talk) 15:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Robertl30: Thanks for writing. Regarding that edit, there's no need to do anything to the non-notable companies such as Polyzen. Just leave them as plain text. The source you cited at the start of the section covers all the companies in the list. It's always good to add an internal Wiki-link to notable companies (ie. those that have a Wikipedia article). I hope this helps. Magnolia677 ( talk) 17:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

OK. And I see you took out other links to arts and cultural sites, but you left others in (arts, schools). Should those be removed also? Or is there a different standard for those? Thanks. Robertl30 ( talk) 18:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Robertl30: I trimmed the external links from the section where external links are permitted. That section often gets cluttered with non-encyclopedic links. See WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, WP:LINKFARM and WP:USCITIES. Cheers. Magnolia677 ( talk) 19:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Yes, so you're leaving the other links? They're OK? Why are they ok and the company ones are not. Is it because those were commercial websites maybe?

Robertl30 ( talk) 19:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

The article is about a city, so the only "official" link would be the city website. Magnolia677 ( talk) 19:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well M677. MarnetteD| Talk 22:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ MarnetteD: Thank you so much. Cheers! Magnolia677 ( talk) 23:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC) reply

You are welcome M :-) MarnetteD| Talk 00:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi Magnolia677. Thanks for your input here. Great success! Rob van vee 18:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Robvanvee: Often, I look for a source to support the edit, and about half the time the edit is incorrect. Adding a source to music articles is very important. Thanks for reporting this. Cheers. Magnolia677 ( talk) 20:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Merry Christmas, Magnolia677! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 11:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Onel5969: Thank you. Have a wonderful holiday! Magnolia677 ( talk) 16:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC) reply

listen there's no such thing as other songs produced which is wrong. production credits should be the correct source not other songs produced, so you think i'm editing badly I'M NOT. i'm just editing the right source you want to prevent me and block me from editing well do it. Johnny758 ( talk) 15:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello, Magnolia677. You have new messages at Talk:Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.
Message added 07:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink ( talk) 07:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Magnolia677, in October 2019 you reverted 28 additions I made to existing local history articles. You violated Wikipedia's stated guidelines by removing them outright before you edited them to improve them. You also did not engage with me or explain the reasons for your actions.

In all 28 cases you removed the following information I added, for different cities and towns: "At the time of its founding, Smithville was located in Nashoba County, a part of the Apukshunnubbee District of the Choctaw Nation."

I demand you explain your imperious actions, and that you follow Wikipedia's guidelines when making future changes. Its guidelines are wise and fair, and really do apply to you, too.

Your changes eliminate any historical context. Explain yourself: how, exactly, was the information I added to existing local history articles not valuable to the reader?

@ Oklahombre: "I demand you explain your imperious actions". Go away. Magnolia677 ( talk) 16:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

I would like to respectfully ask that you ‘undo’ the edit which removed a notable person from the Charlotte Hall Maryland page. If you check the Wikipedia page for Sylvester Stallone, it confirms that he attended the Charlotte Hall Military Academy. We live in this tiny little town and are quite proud of this fact so please ‘undo’ your removal of our contribution to the page. Thank you. [[User:|Tlvietti]] ( talk) 18:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Tlvietti: Who wouldn't be proud! However, a consensus of editors on Wikipedia have agreed that living someplace only while you attend school there, does not make you notable to the town. This is why Stallone is listed as a notable alumni at Charlotte Hall Military Academy, but not as a notable person at Charlotte Hall, Maryland. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Notable people for more details. Thank you for writing. Magnolia677 ( talk) 18:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks :)

I understand that logic. So I removed Owsley Stanley. He was just a student at the academy and nothing more than that. Tlvietti ( talk) 20:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Tlvietti: One less hippie on Charlotte Hall's Wiki page. Cheers! Magnolia677 ( talk) 20:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Mass respect to Owsley but rules are rules. ✌🏻

Happy New Year Magnolia67 🎆 Tlvietti ( talk) 21:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello Magnolia677. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Streetsweepers Entertainment, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: both being run by a notable person and launching careers of multiple notable artists are sufficient claims of significance. Thank you. So Why 09:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi , Thanks for dropping the message. I just wanted to clarify myself that i am not being compensated for the edits , this must be a case of mistake. The issue was that we had some edit over the page inorder to achieve greater readablity factor and to achieve a consensus is why i approached the person in discussion.

Kumarcd ( talk) 19:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)Kumarcd reply

Just noticed that you reverted four edits by BigUgly1430 to Upshur County, West Virginia with the edit summary "unsourced and incorrect". The four edits in question stated that Upshur County was in the north-central region of West Virginia (formerly it just said "northern"), that Buckhannon was not just the county seat, but the largest city in the county, and that Harrison County was to the northwest, rather than the north. I agree that Harrison County is better described as to the north, although I think I can see why BigUgly thought to change it to northwest—most of the northern border is with Barbour County. But it's pretty obvious from the map that Upshur County is in the north-central part of the state—it's more specific than "northern" and I don't know whether it's better, but it's clearly true and doesn't really need a source—any map with the counties labeled will verify that. And while Buckhannon being the largest city in the county should have a source, it's also clearly true, makes sense where it was added, and isn't likely to be challenged, so it should have been left even if a citation ought to be found. So, I really think it might have been better not to roll back four edits by someone who, perhaps a newer editor, was clearly trying to improve the article with accurate and relevant information (barring the orientation of Harrison County to Upshur). We want to help newer editors learn the rules, not discourage them, don't we? P Aculeius ( talk) 02:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ P Aculeius: Thank you for writing. A look at the map shows that Harrison County is north. Also, Buckhannon isn't the "largest city"; it's the only city, and whether it is larger by area or population is unclear. Also, where is the " North-Central region"? I went looking and just found North Central West Virginia, but it hadn't been linked by this editor, and without it the lead looked sloppy. I left a note on this editor's talk page. Please feel free to fix or revert. Cheers. Magnolia677 ( talk) 11:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Hmmm. I wasn't aware there was an article about "North Central West Virginia", and looking at it, I don't see any clear basis for delimiting it—it doesn't seem to have any kind of "official" status or boundaries, so I wonder if it's the creation of a Wikipedia editor... anyway, your comment about the lead "looking sloppy" reminds me that generally I don't get involved in content disputes when I don't feel sure who's right and don't have the time or patience to figure it out—I figure the experts will sort it out. I defer to your judgment on whether it's better to say "north" or "north-central", but I felt some kind of explanation was in order due to the rollback—a powerful tool indeed. You also make a good point about Buckhannon being the only city, which technically renders any comparison meaningless, i.e. it may be the largest, but it's also the smallest. I thought perhaps some of the other communities might be "called" cities, even if they're not counted as such for statistical purposes, but it doesn't look like that's the case. Perhaps this is hair splitting, since it's the kind of thing people would say and approve of irrespective of logic (I don't think it matters whether it's larger by area or population, since it's clearly both if it's the only one); but again, I'm not sure, so I'll defer to your judgment. Sorry to have wasted your time! P Aculeius ( talk) 15:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ P Aculeius: Thanks for your input and understanding. I'm no expert on West Virginia, and have only visited the largest cities in the state where I took pictures to add to Wikipedia, such as the metropolis of Hoohoo, the ever-growing Lego, and oddly-named Superior Bottom. Oh, and a trek to Vulcan. Cheers. Magnolia677 ( talk) 17:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I did some edits to my article by removing all the social media links and I feel this article is informative on my career instead of promotional content. It also shares a writing skeleton with the article [ [1]]. Can it be peer-reviewed? I will try my very best to get it to Wikipedia's standards for an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaadAnjum ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ SaadAnjum: The article has already been deleted. Cheers. Magnolia677 ( talk) 21:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Good Day Magnolia677, Thanks for the message and i have added the categories again with the corresponding references. Also I would like to point out that majority of the articles that have the "YouTube Diamond Play Button recipients category and YouTube channels launched in 2015 category" doesnt mention anything related to it in their respective articles as well as being unsourced. Examples of such articles are Tana Mongeau, Jacksepticeye, Jeffree Star, MrBeast and Logan Paul among others. I would assume it was due to oversight but i could also be wrong so if it's possible maybe you can double check all of those articles under the said categories since you are more familiar with the wiki rules as well as remove such categories that does not follow the implemented wiki format for the sake of consistency and uniformity within the wiki. Thanks again and have a nice day. Princeton294 ( talk) 16:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Princeton294: Hey there, Princeton294! Just chiming in here because I've seen some of your good work on the David Dobrik article. Thank you for finding those references! I know it can feel discouraging to have your additions reverted. Know that hard work like yours helps Wikipedia a place of high-quality! Re: your questions about other articles: WP:OTHERSTUFF basically says that just because other articles may have gotten something wrong doesn't set a precedent or give editors a reason to keep it going—the flip side of that coin means there's no obligation on Magnolia677 ( talk · contribs)'s part to check those other articles to ensure compliance. They may do so if they have the time, but, perhaps even better, you (who may be familiar with those articles based on your research of them) could edit those articles to either add reputable sources or tag material that's likely to be challenged! — Shrinkydinks ( talk) 05:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Shrinkydinks: Awesome. Thank you! Magnolia677 ( talk) 11:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello respected Wikipedia editor.

I noticed you removed my edit due to the person in the text added not being notable. The person I added to the "Designers and artist" section of the Petaluma page was from this town according to my source and she currently has over 1.4 million followers online. I believe she would count as notable for this smaller sized town. If I can make a stronger case for my edit with more sources, I will do so. Thank you.

Webwikionline ( talk) 19:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Webwikionline: Thank you for writing. Because Audrey Hopkins does not have a Wikipedia article, she is not considered "notable" on Wikipedia. Please take a moment to read Wikipedia:Notability (people) for the specific criteria, and if you feel this person meets the requirements, please consider creating an article for her. If you have any questions please leave me a message here. Cheers. Magnolia677 ( talk) 20:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I think the section that you have removed with regard to Markham Public Library on the Markham, Ontario page is worthy to mention because not many people realize that nowadays there are advanced software and gadgets available for those with lots of creativity, or simply want to try new things. Although 3D printers and recording studios are not new, they are still not very common in all public libraries. And it was my first time learning that a library offers laser cutting to do engraving and offers virtual reality software. I've never heard of them in a larger public library system such as the Toronto Public Library. These are not ordinary things that can be found in public libraries. Kutepanda ( talk) 04:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Kutepanda: These are indeed unique and I was too quick to remove your edit. Do you have a source to support the edit? Because Markham Public Library has its own article, you may want to include only what is most notable, as well as general info about the library. Thanks for writing. Magnolia677 ( talk) 12:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello, Magnolia677. You have new messages at Talk:List of College of William & Mary alumni.
Message added 16:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink ( talk) 16:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi, regarding the revert of my edit of adding Robert Henry Lindsay to the notable people of Brockville. Yes, he lived his whole life in Brockville since he was a young boy. The Personal Life section makes clear he moved to the city while young, and that he died there. You can also look at source #3 from the Brockville Historical Society, which has two reprinted news clippings on him. I'm planning on working on the article in the near future. Curiocurio ( talk) 01:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Curiocurio: Sorry about that. I've reverted by edit. Cheers. Magnolia677 ( talk) 11:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Thank you. IceFishing ( talk) 20:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ IceFishing: I jumped the gun, but this is why we have discussions. Cheers. Magnolia677 ( talk) 22:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply