User talk:Magnolia677: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:39, 27 July 2023

Userboxes

121279

This user has made over 121279 edits.

This user has created 365 articles on Wikipedia.

This user took the red pill, not the blue pill.

Why did you revert my edit?

Hello, I was trying to make a edit on Sulphur Springs, Texas. However, my edit has been reverted for some reason. Is there a valid reason for this? - Kittenvy

@Kittenvy: Thanks for writing. My concern was that you added the 2020 population, but the source cited says you accessed it in 2018. You also changed all the quotation marks to curly style, which are not used on Wikipedia. You also removed the italics from all the newspaper titles, and changed them to curly quotes. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Green River, Utah

Hi there, I reverted your edit in the Popular Culture section of Green River, Utah. ‘’The Monkey Wrench Gang‘’ is a very famous work of fiction. You can find it in any major bookstore nationwide, even after being published almost 50 years ago. It is therefore notable and meets wikipedia’s requirements. I agree with your removal of the other parts of the section. Have a good day.

@Red Rocks and Sage Bush: And I reverted your edit again. Please see my edit summary on the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my edit of your revert. Red Rocks and Sage Bush (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mall images

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ArticleDiscoveries1934 - seems that the person commenting on the mall gallery, the person reinstating the mall gallery, and the person(s) adding images to the mall gallery are all the same person. Or at least that’s what I’m alleging. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@10mmsocket: Good eye. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 08:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677 @10mmsocket Hello there, but why did all of brought me to sock puppet investigations? Other editors are completely different people and I never did anything terrible or poor to this article, so I do not deserve a check on that. NorthernBladeLights9 (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go read WP:DUCKTEST. I see your post above, and your other protests, but all I hear is “quack, quack, quack, quack…” Wasting good, well-intentioned people’s time like this is lame and disrespectful. 10mmsocket (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rockingham, North Carolina

Your recent edit to Rockingham, North Carolina re-introduced a link to the John Hutchinson disambiguation page, which doesn’t help the reader as there is no other article that mentions the mayor. The reference that I added to Rockingham, North Carolina was to give proof of his relationship to the town, since there’s no article on him and no other mention of him in the Rockingham article. If you wish to include him in the article, perhaps it would be better to use the title John Hutchinson (politician). Leschnei (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Leschnei: I fixed that less then two minutes later. He was removed from the list of notable people because he does not meet the criteria for inclusion, per WP:USCITIES#Notable people. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Magnolia677

Saratoga Springs, New York

Hello Magnolia, hope all is well with you. I think Saratoga Springs, New York could use an extra pair of eyes. I’ve cleaned up some of the promo puffery advertorial content and there may be a COI involved. Netherzone (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: Hi there. Which particular section? The “in popular culture” is enormous. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve cleaned up the Economics section, and a some clean up of the Gov’t, Parks & recreation, Thoroughbred racing, Arts & Culture and History, but there is more to do. If you want to tackle In Popular culture, that would be excellent. Thank you in advance! Netherzone (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Hello, I’m 2600:1009:B004:7211:0:B:5E7B:E01. I noticed that you recently removed content from Dorian Rhea Debussy without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don’t worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Selected publications Title, topic, and publisher indicate the forthcoming work meetings wiki’s standards; no worries but please review policy on forthcoming publications before future edit here. Re-added book chapter to the list per note on edit. 2600:1009:B004:7211:0:B:5E7B:E01 (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

me angry

After all these years I wanna know, why do you keep reverting and removing my article edits ? do you specifically hate me ? Or is it that you are pro-American and hate anybody that tries to correct yours and others’ pro-American Wiki articles to reflect the Factual Canadian aspects involved. Today’s example - “Augustus Jones (c. 1757 – November 16, 1836) was an American-born Upper Canadian farmer…” – American born implies born in the U.S. which in 1757 is emphatically impossible, because the U.S. DID NOT EXIST IN 1757 ! I could have changed it to “Canadian” because Canada was noted on maps as existing at the time of his birth. but in deference to factual accuracy, I changed it to say “North American”. I see that you received quite a few awards for writing and contributing to the “10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada.” I shudder trying to imagine the shear amount of incorrect “Canada” things you contributed. DO NOT REVERT MY AUGUSTUS EDIT, NOR ANY OTHER CANADIAN EDIT BY ME EVER AGAIN.

Stevehartwell (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevehartwell: You’re madder than a mosquito in a mannequin factory. I’ve never edited Augustus Jones. Look at the edit history. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the editor is referring to something that happened in 2018. Take a look at their Talk page - you’ll also see my warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

High Point

Remember that you’re at 3RR now. I’ve left a note for the other editor, so they are appropriately warned if they revert again. ‘’’Acroterion (talk)‘’’ 22:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: I removed unsourced content. I’m not sure how to have a discussion about original research falsely cited to a source. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep in mind that it’s not an exemption to 3RR. That doesn’t mean it can’t be reported as disruptive editing, or referred to AN3. ‘’’Acroterion (talk)‘’’ 00:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tactics to change title at article:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

It makes it very difficult to WP:AGF with editors that have been around a long time but seemingly make questionable claims in their edit summaries. This seems very questionable. I would prefer to discuss it here rather than the article page because it is off topic from discussing the actual article. DN (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Darknipples: I believed that my edit summary was accurate, but I see you have since reverted the edit, so I’ll just wait for a clearer consensus to emerge. My apology if I misinterpreted the discussion. Thanks for writing. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Be fair and equitable

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grass_Valley%2C_California&diff=1161268403&oldid=1161223657

explain that to me, you removed as “unsourced content” when all but three of the people in that list have no refs. So why don’t you go back remove the dozens of other unsourced people there? 70.161.8.90 (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source at Erika Flores to support the she lives in Grass Valley, and you also failed to add a source when you added her at Grass Valley. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“Edit is a tad biased”?

"A tad"? The edit is a BLP violation as it asserts a serious crime against someone who hasn’t been charged. This is further proof, as with the above paragraphs that members of Democrat party are partisan hacks that do not believe what they say and are only in search of complete power. The IP didn’t even bother to put a Fox News or Breitbart source behind that whopper. And please keep your personal commentary out of edit summaries. The New York Post may have been founded by Alexander Hamilton, but now it’s owned by Rupert Murdoch. Much like how Republicans were the anti-slavery party in the 1850s-1860s, and then they were the ones opposing civil rights in the 1950s-1960s. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: What are you talking about? The ‘’New York Post’’ won a Pulitzer in 2018 for exposing the hoax that Russia collaborated with the Trump campaign to interfere with the 2016 election!! Wait a minute, I’m confused. Maybe it was the ‘’New York Times’’…for something Russia related. Anyway, the ‘’Post’’ steadfastly reported that the Hunter Biden laptop was ‘’’definitely Russian disinformation!’’’ Wait a minute…I’m confused again…well, it was ‘’one of those New York papers’’. Muboshgu, don’t get angry with those who offend you with the truth, get angry with those who comfort you with lies. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary was inappropriate and this comment is too. You’ve been around here long enough that you should know better than this. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

re: "the ones opposing civil rights in the 1950s-1960s" - Are you going to bother to put a source behind that whopper? OckRaz ^talk 06:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the revert

Hello, Magnolia. I noticed that you reverted my edit on the page Titusville, Florida because it was “unsourced.” However, I was only looking at the census box because it was literally showing the 2020 census population. This also happened a few months ago in 2022 once I saw my edit on Michigan City, Indiana reverted. When you get the chance, please explain how it was unsourced and I will reply ASAP. Thank you.

Sahas P. (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sahas P.: Thank you for writing. The source accompanying your edit did not support your edit, and the source supporting the census box edit did not support that edit either. Census data for 2022 cannot be supported by a dead link accessed eight years ago. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean basically I have to change the source so that it supports the edit? Sahas P. (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sahas P.: A consensus of editors at WP:CITEWEB have agreed that editors must link to the “URL of the specific web page ‘’where the referenced content can be found”’’. Also, updating the access date tells others the source has been updated. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You didn’t update & cleanup the reference, per your edit. The old reference wasn’t an exact link for the city, because lazy editors long ago used “census.gov” as the source. The correct way to reference it requires a lot more effort. I manually did it for every city in Kansas, thus no one can complain to me that it can’t be done properly. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For example, here is the census reference for Wichita, Kansas that created about 1.5 years ago: <ref name="Census-2020-Profile">{{cite web |title=Profile of Wichita, Kansas in 2020 |url=https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US2079000 |publisher=United States Census Bureau |access-date=November 14, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211115012419/https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US2079000 |archive-date=November 14, 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref>

Here is my 2020 census edit for Titusville, Florida. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 4th of July!

Colman2000 (talk) is wishing you a Happy 4th of July! On this day, we recognize our independence from Great Britain with the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, which ultimately paved the way to our freedom. Celebrate this day in many different ways, such as hosting a barbecue, watching baseball games, or even attending a fireworks show! Happy Independence Day, fellow American!

’’Share this message by adding {{subst:Independence Day}} to a fellow American’s talk page.’’

Colman2000 (talk) 06:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Colman2000: Hey thanks. Enjoy the day! Magnolia677 (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undone edits by me

Sorry for restoring some edits that were not properly sourced (that you had removed). Thanks for catching that and reverting it again. Poketama (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for clarification on “Jordan, Minnesota” edit reversion.

Hi Magnolia 677,

I noticed that you reverted an edit I made on the “Jordan, Minnesota” article this past week. You left the message “WP:DUE none of these are notable”. Looking carefully through the WP:DUE section I had some ideas for places my addition to the article had fallen short on meeting this rule. However, I’m somewhat confused why all the information was reverted. 1. Since my contribution relies almost entirely on encyclopedic historical events in each places of worship history in Jordan, I’m unsure how I would go about providing a different perspective. Jordan has no other religious or non-religious places of worship that I know of and I feel the rest of the article well establishes other perspectives of the current and historic city. 2. I can see that the details I contributed for the “St.John the Baptist Catholic Church” and “Jordan Family Church” were rather detailed for such a small part of the topic of Jordan, MN. However, most of the other churches mentioned are explained a short in concise “church is X denomination; congregation formed X year; building built X year; (optionally) previously located in X building. 3. I can see that the majority of my sources come from the religious institutions explaining their own history. If this was the issue you were getting at, I can easily provide secular sources on much of the information I contributed if that would be preferable or add these sources to with the ones I contributed before. 4. Alternatively, If you suggesting that the information I contributed veers too far from the intent of the “Jordan, Minnesota” article I can move my information to its own article and just add a “see also link to what’s already in that section”.

Overall, I’d like to share the information I’ve collected in a way that would satisfy Wikipedia’s guidelines agreeable to those working on this page. And am looking for clarification on my best next course of action. Werewright (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Werewright: Could you please start a discussion on the article talk page. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undone Edits

You deleted an edit of mine asking for “sourced material” when there was an entire article in Wikipedia about the fact. Stop being a deleting tyrant, without actually doing any research first. Spr519 (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Vestal, New York

Hi Magnolia677. While I want to thank you for your significant improvement of the Vestal, New York article, I'd also like to remind you about a couple of Wikipedia policies. You removed content, asserting (incorrectly) in your edit summary that the Binghamton University campus is not located in Vestal. I restored that content, as it is true and has been in the article for many years - your subsequent reversion goes against WP:RVREASONS, which requests that you discuss this on the talk page after removed content is restored. I have since provided multiple citations that back up the location of the campus.

Certainly good to address unsourced material, but per WP:NOCITE, you should really add a tag requesting citations, instead of removing longstanding content, particularly when you aren't certain of the veracity of the content yourself. You're certainly a more experienced editor than I, but I hope a refresher on these policies might help for future edits. Thanks. Vmanjr (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vmanjr: I reverted your edit because it was unsourced. A cornerstone policy on Wikipedia is WP:BURDEN. The university gives its address as Binghamton, and maps also show it being in Binghamton. If Binghamton University is located in Vestal, then you will need to provide a source supporting this. I'm cautioning you though, please don't edit war to add contentious, unsourced content into an article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677 I have provided multiple reliable sources in the article confirming the campus' location. At least in the U.S., mailing addresses do not correspond to municipal boundaries, and as such are not reliable sources on the physical location of entities. All maps with municipal boundaries clearly show the main campus as being in Vestal. There's nothing contentious about that - even the university itself calls its main location the Vestal campus, and lists its physical address as Vestal. As such, my edit was not in any form edit warring, but rather following WP:DOREVERT to correct your mistaken assumption, and to restore content previously added by other editors that was ultimately correct. Vmanjr (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on mentiong Hunter Biden's children

My RfC is quite different from yours! The question is not if Navy Joan should be mentioned or not, the questing is if a double standard should be used or not. —Menischt (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Menischt: RfCs are kind of a "big thing" on Wikipedia. If you read the instructions, they are used only when other discussions have not led to consensus. All you had to do was add your opinion to the RfC I had just started, seconds before. Your RfC question doesn't even make sense. Whatever. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. Your question is the wrong one! Fundamental thing should not be the question of a limited opinion poll. I asked my question to make clear what is really a stake here, that is, should there be a double standard or not. I assume you can understand my point.—Menischt (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update of CT alert -- American Politics post-1992

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. SPECIFICO talk 22:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update of CT notice RE: BLP

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. SPECIFICO talk 23:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Hi, as you've probably noticed, Alex Gurteen, aka EpsomGentleman et al, has reappeared as JamiroquaiTopG Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Murgatroyd49: I noticed that too. I'll report it, and will inquire about whether a rangeblock can be done on their IP. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This information is only partially true. The culprit, Alex Gurteen started editing in 2010 on the oscar1994alex1999 account, which was banned in 2012. I am his old school friend and has long been subjected to his juvenile attempts at humour. The TinyTemper account was also banned for vandalism in September 2012, before the long term account Oscar248 was set up at the end of the year. This was banned in December 2017 after Alex wrote an article about himself before quickly adding some trolling edits. The sock rampage in earnest began in early 2018, with spectacular trolling from 'do your balls hang low', to Mike Hocks Hucker (renamed Michael Hucker before too being blocked). Mr Gurteen usually edits constructively but does not possess the temperament to troll the site. He does not mean harm and is a big fan of the site. Epsomgentleman et.al (2021-present) is also Gurteen. He says he will be be editing again soon. Apologies.

Chris GorillaGardening (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hawick, Minnesota

Hello Magnolia677, I came across the Hawick, MN article while searching for misspelled words and found it needed considerably more editing than spelling errors. Since you clean up community articles on a regular basis, I thought you might want to take a look at this one. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Woodlot: I'll have a look. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hello Magnolia677!

The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Truth or Consequences, NM

Twice I have tried to add a trivia fact about Truth or Consequences, NM regarding professional wrestler Mick Foley - actually, his specific character Cactus Jack. I did not list him as a "notable person" and understand he is not from the town. However, the town was mentioned in his character billing/introductions; I believe it is an interesting fact for the "In popular culture" section, and worded it such that it was attributed to the persona and not the person. First it was removed for unsourced content, then for the "notable person" criteria I mentioned above. What am I doing wrong? 198.210.1.3 (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@198.210.1.3: Could you please discuss on the article talk page? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biden–Ukraine

Is there still an active name change request?

Not "conspiracy theory"; title change

OckRaz ^talk 06:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@OckRaz: I took a peek at your arguments and you're making excellent points. I like to start discussions like that on highly biased, pro-Democrat US articles. The advantage the mob of editors there has is that they have been successful at banning most conservative media sources from Wikipedia. The left never gives up. I've had some luck using RfCs to break these log jams. This open it up to a wider, less biased group of editors. What is upsetting is that any media-literate Wikipedia reader knows the title is bizarre, and this makes readers view the project as less reliable. Hey, cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

can you offer advice on protecting the page of a living person from someone who seems to want to hurt them because they're on the right? william b. allen is a professor of political science. for the last three days someone has been editing to label him a "a conservative american political scientist" in the lede, even though i don't see anyone labeled a liberal american political scientist. OckRaz ^talk 22:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 196: / Line 196: @@
 [[User:OckRaz|<b style="color:Purple;">Ock</b><b style="color:Black;">''Raz''</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:OckRaz|<b style="color:Green;">talk</b>]]</sup> 06:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 :{{ping|OckRaz}} I took a peek at your arguments and you're making excellent points.  I like to start discussions like that on highly biased, pro-Democrat US articles. The advantage the mob of editors there has is that they have been successful at banning most conservative media sources from Wikipedia.  The left never gives up. I've had some luck using RfCs to break these log jams.  This open it up to a wider, less biased group of editors. What is upsetting is that any media-literate Wikipedia reader knows the title is bizarre, and this makes readers view the project as less reliable.  Hey, cheers! [[User:Magnolia677|Magnolia677]] ([[User talk:Magnolia677#top|talk]]) 22:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
+::can you offer advice on protecting the page of a living person from someone who seems to want to hurt them because they're on the right? william b. allen is a professor of political science. for the last three days someone has been editing to label him a "a conservative american political scientist" in the lede, even though i don't see anyone labeled a liberal american political scientist. [[User:OckRaz|<b style="color:Purple;">Ock</b><b style="color:Black;">''Raz''</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:OckRaz|<b style="color:Green;">talk</b>]]</sup> 22:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)