User talk:Magnolia677

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
40150 This user has made over 40150 edits.
Crystal Clear app tutorials.png This user has created 291 articles on Wikipedia.


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)

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 (talkcontribs)


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)

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)
@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)
@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)
@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)
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)
@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)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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)

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)

Rockaway Townsquare[edit]

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)

Thanks I'll look at some sources :-)

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


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)

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

Musical Freedom Records[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 21:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@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)

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 (talkcontribs) 21:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Please stop[edit]

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)

@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)

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)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thank you for merging the two Jay Dean articles! Marquardtika (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Black Beatles[edit]

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)

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)

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

"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)

@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)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
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.

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

Rae Sremmurd discography[edit]

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. Ss112 03:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

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? Ss112 03:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@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)
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.) Ss112 03:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@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)
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. Ss112 04:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Geography Section McDade[edit]

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)

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)
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)

A favor?[edit]

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)

@John from Idegon: They're pretty tricky! Let me take a peek. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@John from Idegon: Very cool. Let do the DYK. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
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)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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)

JayPe socking[edit]

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)

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

Deleting Susan E. King from Woman's Building page[edit]

--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.

  • @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)

Tell me[edit]

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

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

DYK for Mound Landing, Mississippi[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg 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)