User talk:Magnolia677

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Richard apple)
Jump to: navigation, search
50351 This user has made over 50351 edits.
Crystal Clear app tutorials.png This user has created 323 articles on Wikipedia.

Base geological information[edit]

Geometrically Ordered Data. There's so much of it. Woilorio (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi - Please don't remove the base geological information being added to the Geography section. We are looking to expand ecological information for Windham and that is the logical place to put it. You previously complained that reference was cut-and-paste, so this has been rewritten from the original source. If you follow the citation you'll find that it is by no means cut and paste. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watford1955 (talkcontribs) 00:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Watford1955: Thank you for writing. Who is "we"? Also, the information you added bordered on nonsensical and appeared to have little or nothing to do with the articles you added it to. If I didn't delete it, I'm pretty sure someone who leaves less polite edit summaries than me would have. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

U of Tulsa article[edit]

Added a citation to support, thanks for the pointer, I'm new! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobin334 (talkcontribs) 00:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Sylvester Magee Jet article[edit]

You pointed out that the text quoted was not from the Jet article after removing my edit. Upon reviewing the article, the quote did not appear in the article and so was incorrectly attributed and needed to be removed. Southern Forester (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)Southern ForesterSouthern Forester (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Montréal Police Article - picture[edit]

These stickers are put on by the Union in a protest manner. They do not correctly represent the police force or it's vehicles normally. Hence why a picture with stickers should not be on Wiki.

Mtlfiredude (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

  • @Mtlfiredude: If you could please next time, just add that to your edit summery. I wouldn't have reverted had I known. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

In regard to list of Texas cities nicknames[edit]

Please pardon my re-editing. I'm brand new here. Just set up my account a few hours ago. Still learning the ropes. I didn't see your first message until after you had sent me your second message. Bkerr68 (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Harold B. Lee Library links[edit]

Let me be clear that I'm bothered by the spamming of links to the archival collections of this library by a library employee. It clearly seems promotional (and a conflict of interest). And if I recall correctly, another employee from the same library was engaged in the same enterprise a few months ago. (A WP:COIN report may be worthwhile.) Nevertheless, links to archival collections can be valuable resources to readers who wish to do further research on topics relating to the article. They're used legitimately in many WP articles, as I've tried to explain on the Smoot Dusenberry talk page. (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I have commented there. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Wallace Rider Farrington[edit]

how do i even access the 'talk' area? I've read a few of the protocols and no real guidance there. cheers, jollywally (Wallace Rider Farrington Close) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@ If you look at the tabs on the top left, all Wikipedia pages have talk tab. This is where editors discuss issues. We are now using the talk page of my account. I reverted your edit to Wallace Rider Farrington because you had not added a source. Where did you get the information you added? I will help you add the text and the source to the article. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Inuse template Reply[edit]

Thanks for letting me know you want to make an edit to Norwalk, Connecticut. I'll leave the template there as I take a break. Please let me know when you are finished! Face-smile.svg Thank you––→StephenTS42 (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@StephenTS42: I'll let you know. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Trey Songz[edit]

Hello, my edit to the Trey Songz article did have a source, but apparently you didn't see it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wessantana (talkcontribs) 19:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wessantana: You added Ty Dolla Sign, which was not supported by the source you added. Also, MikexAngel is not notable, yet you added a link to "[[300 Entertainment|MikexAngel]]". This isn't how it works. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced Content[edit]

I am sorry. I am a new user. All of the data that I have changed has come for the US Census American Community Survey. I have just recently figured out how to add sources to my changes and I am adding sources to all of my changes including the Dinwiddie County Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahraymoore (talkcontribs) 23:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I would however like to note that I did add a source when I edited the demographics for Petersburg, Virginia, but it has been deleted and switched back to the edit without a source. I do not know why this would happen. My source was the US Census American Community Survey and it had a link. --Jahraymoore (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Jahraymoore

Please let me know if this is not the proper way to message you. It would also be nice if you could tell me weather that is a correct signature.

@Jahraymoore: Thanks for contacting me and the signature looks great. I reverted some of your edits because they were unsourced, but some of your edits also removed decennial census data, which should not be removed per WP:USCITIES. Please have a look at that document and if you need help please let me know. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Jahraymoore. It's quite alright to add the latest estimate. Just do not remove the official decennial figures. They are what count for important things like election districts, federal funding shares, etc. John from Idegon (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Samuel Hollingsworth Stout[edit]

Do you think you could upload this picture please?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually it says "museum property," so maybe not. But it's so old, they're surely wrong about copyright, aren't they?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: Any photo of him will be in the public domain, but that pic has that unsightly watermark across it. I searched for another photo of him but no luck. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be better than no picture at all? Are you able to upload it please? And the caption could say it is owned by the American Civil War Museum (which used to be called the Museum of the Confederacy before political correctness hit us).Zigzig20s (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: It would really look awful with the watermark. I could crop out the watermark, and the picture would still be big enough to use. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I'll let you do it. I don't know how to do this...Zigzig20s (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Do you think it's a start now?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Way too detailed to be a stub. Nice work. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if any of his 7 children were notable...Zigzig20s (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I found a genealogy at Wikitree and there didn't seem to be much detail on them. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Link please?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Maybe this brother is notable?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Want to nominate Stout for DYK?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Josiah Tannehill[edit]

Possibly a landowner in Detroit. If we can find out more, I think we should create an article.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Unadilla boldness[edit]

Thanks for the edit. But I really see no reason to remove the bold from the section Tripp155 (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tripp155: I left an edit summary explaining my edit. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk)


Hi. Can you please respect that FAs go through an extensive process to comply with the MOS among other things? This article even went through two FACs and one FAR. The image placement was correct. Images can be placed on the left side, and are actually preferably staggered left and right throughout the article. Look at all the other FAs for examples, and look at MOS:IMGLOC. Thank you. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@: There is no need to stagger images at Briarcliff Manor, New York. The layout is fine with the images right justified, and less disruptive for readers. Being a featured article does not preclude future editing. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Are you just trying to attack my contributions? It seems so, as you haven't edited any other New York municipality articles recently, nor any only to right-justify images. Listen - this article underwent extreme scrutiny over every single detail during those processes. It's by far correct to stagger left and right. And when you search for stagger images on the Wikipedia namespace, literally every user recommends staggering, and not a single user complains that they are staggered. This is a problem that only you have, and it's not in accordance with the Manual of Style, which totally allows any left and right staggering. It's also not at all less disruptive (How???), and your way means images relevant to a section are no longer in the correct section, which is disruptive. No policy or guideline says that it has to be that way, so please defer to the regular contributors of the article. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Please familiarize yourself with articles here: Wikipedia:Featured articles. They all use basically just as many on the left as they do on the right. Would you like to "fix" all of them, are all of those hundreds/thousands of editors/reviewers wrong? I should also note that I placed the images not only with their relevant content, but also so as not to break up text, e.g. stick out from paragraphs, interrupt flow. These are much more important than the idea of sticking everything to one side, which I think of as a lazy way to prevent text wrapping disasters, which aren't an issue on this article anyway. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Hike The Monicas also said it well: "It's not about preferences, it's about balancing the look and feel of the page to improve readability. If you look at any edited encyclopedia, you will see that exactly zero of them put all of the images on the right side. It's just not done in publishing. I'm at least leaning on historical placement practices used for hundreds of years in professional publishing to support the argument." ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Even take a look at All the most recent to pass as FAs and then honestly tell me they're all wrong. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@: Ralph Waldo Emerson said "Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted". MOS:IMAGELOCATION is a guideline, which means a consensus of editors created it. Editors can always edit contrary to the guideline, but a consensus has already been reached about the best way to do it. In this case, the guideline says "in most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement. If an exception to the general rule is warranted, left can be used". A valid exception would be if there were too many images to fit in a section of the article. In this case, the images could be staggered left and right, or placed into a gallery. What's your exception? If you tell me again that you moved the images to be closer to their relavent sections, your nose is going to start to grow. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
So you're just going to plainly ignore all of my evidence and likely thousands of Wikipedians in favor of an Emerson quote? And thousands of years of publishing standards in favor of a poorly-worded guideline? I was looking at the MOS talk page, which has lots of conversation on the issue. Seems the "most should be right-justified" thing came from articles with only one or two photos, where of course it should go on the right. But I'm not sure if you've been an FAC creator/nominator; it's been a longstanding standard to stagger images. For God's sake, look at some of those FAs. All of them. Any of them. Anyway, yes, the "too many images to fit in a section" idea applies. Your placement makes all sorts of problems, where the image of the village founder is not in History but in Climate, where the image of the river is not in Geography but in Neighborhoods, where the Climate chart is also in Neighborhoods, and where the Scarborough, Chilmark, Downtown, and Central Briarcliff West images are not by their respective paragraphs, but instead get pushed down to irrelevant areas, creating a lot of white space in the process. The Historic sites section also gets unnecessary white space. Overall it's very poor formatting, and no real encyclopedia would make such a mess just to follow one less important (and honestly silly) rule. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
That whole "nose starting to grow" comment is honestly rude and obnoxious. No, a climate chart should never belong in a Neighborhood section, no an image of the founder accompanying text on the founder founding should never be moved to the Climate section, nor should such an obscene amount of white space exist in an article, where instead staggering images is perfectly accepted and used ON EVERY FA. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@: I'm right in the middle of trying to decide if The Big Book Of Lesbian Horse Stories meets WP:NBOOK, but ok, I'll look at some of the FA's since you asked me to. Actually, tell you what, this will likely take me a while, so when I'm done I'll start a discussion on the article's talk page about this image placement thing. All the best. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I think a more relevant discussion would be at an MOS talk. Nobody follows or edits the Briarcliff article except me, so I'm not sure what you're looking for there... ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

() Anyway, I want to line up the arguments here:

For Against
MOS says it's fine (consensus in theory) MOS says not to (consensus in theory)
Not disruptive Somehow disruptive (clarify?)
All Featured Articles use it (consensus in practice)
All print encylopedias have always used it
Puts imgs in relevant sections/paras
Eliminates white space
Briarcliff has had 3 extensive reviews
Most users recommend, on search
MOS talk suggests that guideline is misworded
Allows for more images per article

Does this accurately summarize? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

about links to special collections[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you have been reverting the links that User:Katelyn Sun (BYU) made to our special collections to various pages. The cultural professionals page on the Wikipedia Library specifically states that adding a link to a special collection is appropriate when it's a useful or definitive collection. Perhaps not all of the links she added were definitive sources, but for a page like Oak City, Utah, I believe the centennial history in our collection is probably one of the best sources on the subject of Oak City's history. A subscription to the library is not required to view the finding aid for the object in question. Anyone who comes to special collections can view it. We make very little money off of our patrons--even overdue fines go to a general university fund to avoid COI.Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): Editors need to be cautious of spamming links to their website across multiple articles. Most of the links that editor added required a subscription, and I doubt most Wikipedia users are prepared to travel to BYU to view your resources. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

So-called "Disruptive Editing"[edit]

Magnolia677, my editing has not been disruptive. I don't see why my addition of an 'Associated Acts' section on Kodak Black's page is being removed as it seems every other artist in his respective field has this section, and so it seems strange that Kodak does not have one. The acts that I put on this section have collaborated with Kodak three times and twice, and so, can be seen as associated acts. I hope you revise your removal. Benarnold98 (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I reverted my edit. My apology. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


I'm not sure why you added the pushpin map back to the Norwalk article. We still never got any consensus for it, and you're not following the good and proper procedure WP:BRD, which I think would be proper in this case. Regardless, please seek consensus on controversial changes before implementing them, and especially before re-implementing them. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 23:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@: Seek consensus to add information to an article template? You're joking right? If the town came up with a new motto, or elected a new mayor, or added a new area code, you'd expect those editors to seek consensus before adding that information to the town's article? Consensus has already been reached by the editors who created that template, and included no fewer that four perimeters for adding a pushpin map. That template is now used on 460,000 articles. "Controversial", oh please. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
You're being rude, while I'm just trying to work out this issue. Most editors on Norwalk did not want the map, and now that some are banned from editing it due to disputes, you feel you can now do whatever you want there? You can't. Someone creating a template, and some people mass-adding it to articles doesn't mean it has global consensus. I am going to take this to a higher forum later, partially because your conduct is improper, offensive, and not following standard procedures here. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 00:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@: Part of the problem here is that on this very talk page you've called me or my edits "disruptive", "silly", and "rude". In a recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline, you described the arguments of those who opposed you--including me--as "irrelevant" and "silly, excessive, and ridiculous". When I encounter people, either here on Wikipedia or in real life, who regularly use insults, threats, shaming, flamas or humiliation to get power; or people who, after I have interacted with them, make me feel worse or "dirty" for having done so, then I do my best to avoid them. Basically, I follow The No Asshole Rule. Therefore, please stop reaching out to me here on my talk page and take your concerns to one of the many discussions going on about this. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I mainly referred to your edits, if I recall. However we're all human, we all get tensed up and aren't 100% super civil. But that's no excuse for your level of improper conduct here. I will take this elsewhere. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 00:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Historic Buckeye[edit]

The references and sources are within the article. I do not understand why you have been having issues with me and the article since the beginning. I am a respected photo journalist and a historian which has been recognized by the government. I would really appreciate it if you stopped taking issues with me as if you had a personal agenda. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Marine 69-71: Thank you for writing. I'm concerned that images and places at List of historic properties in Buckeye, Arizona, have been added to the article with the claim they are "historic", though their historic notability is not obvious or sourced. For example, the grave of John G. Roberts. Is this grave recognized anywhere officially for its historic importance? Also, much of the bolding in the article needs to be removed, per MOS:BOLD. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. What a day! I've been busy documenting historical structures. In accordance to the Pioneers' Cemetery Association, which is a member of the Association for Graveyard Studies, the Yavapai Cemetery Association, and the Arizona Genealogical Advisory Board (AzGAB), a historic cemetery is one that is fifty+ years old. The Palo Verde Baptist Church Cemetery was established in 1903 making it 104 years old. The only person whose grave is in the cemetery and who is of historical significance is that of John G. Roberts. This is because he was a founding father of the Palo Verde area and because he played a historical role in the development of Buckeye and it's surrounding areas.

When I took a look at the article of Buckeye Airport, I asked myself "is this an Ad?" the reason being that it lacked substance which most people expect to find in an encyclopedia. The substance it lacked includes the history of the place. The airport started as a base for the United States Army Air Force, Luke Aux #5. It's historical significance comes about it's association with World War II. Only two images of the planes which are now historical artifacts were included. There are many things which have been omitted from many articles and our history books in general, I believe that is one of the reasons that the Pentagon asked me to write articles related to the omitted historical facts related to military.

The historic Highway 80 and pictures of it through Buckeye is a given. Even though I do not see anything wrong with the "bold", it is only my personal opinion and if policy requires "no" boldness, then out with the boldness. Hey, I hope you have a nice day. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning up Maryann Keller...[edit]

Hello Magnolia677: I see that you edited this article before, thank you for that. I'm volunteering my time to cleanup, but I can't make edits as I work for the subject, for details see ( If you can, I'd super appreciate it if you can review the article and make edits/comments as updating this article is super important for all parties. I've also made some suggested edits here: Thanks in advance for your help!

@Jalicandri: Who are "all parties"? Magnolia677 (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@Magnolia677: Thanks for the note. As I mentioned on the talk page, your efforts will be genuinely appreciated by me, my colleagues, and future visitors to this article. I explained the whole situation on the talk page, but long story short, although he says he didn't, my nephew(a programmer) may have hired a third party to write this article. He was just trying to helpful, I've explained the whole situation on the talk page. If you are still interested in making edits, that would be awesome and very much appreciated. Thank you.
@Jalicandri: Why are you blaming your nephew? You're the managing director of Maryann Keller & Associates, and you actually created the first draft of the article here. You're a paid editor too. If there's something inaccurate in the article, it would be best to leave a message on the article's talk page. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@Magnolia677:My preference is for Wikimedia to delete the article, but they suggested I find editors to clean it up instead. Yes, what you wrote is mostly true, as I explained on here: - I even posted my phone #, so I'm not trying to mask my identity. Regardless of fault, I recognize that mistakes were made and I apologized for them on the talk page, including my failed draft page. Also, I'm not a paid editor; I'm not paid to write on Wikipedia or for my work on resolving this issue. With that said, I do have a partial party conflict, which I disclosed in my intial message to you. If you are unable to help, I understand, and I appreciate your past efforts. Thank you.
@Jalicandri: Yes, mistakes were made. I'll have a look at the article. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
You work for the subject but are not being compensated for editing Wikipedia? That doesn't exactly make sense. John from Idegon (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Majid Jordan contribution[edit]

Hello, I added some information on Majid Jordan that you removed because it was awkwardly worded. I really wanted to add this information to the page. How can I word it better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaniaR001 (talkcontribs) 19:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@TaniaR001: Thank you for writing. Most of what you had added is already in the article. It's best not to add too many minor details, like who sent who an email, but the basics of what you had added is already there with a source. If there's something missing let me know and I'll try to help. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


...And what happens to the rest of the article? You might wanna take it all down since it's unsourced. I add nothing but true info, your block-threat is very unnecessary. Still, I'm not gonna insist. Peace. --Kemal K. (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kemal K.: That's actually very good advice that I've started to follow. Both Starlito and Doggy Style Records appeared on my watchlist today, and at both those articles the majority of content was unsourced original research. Both articles had also been tagged as unsourced long ago. I therefore removed the unsourced content. I have many times in the past tried to confirm the unsourced content in articles like those, only to discover a lot of half true information. For the readers of Wikipedia, no content is surely better than unreliable or potentially untrue information. Again, thank you for contacting me about this. 10:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

American Airlines Arena Music Section[edit]

The List of Concerts in this section is way too long. Is there a way you can create a seperate article for it? Megacheez (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Eau Gallie Arts District[edit]

This is the arts district trying to build its own page. We are not editing your page so please leave ours alone. Furthermore, I am entitled to edit the Brevard County FL page. Please explain to me how you can just delete what you want? The section there is inaccurate. Not only that, the link for Cocoa Main Street is DEAD and the one for Melbourne isn't live and has nothing to do with downtown Melbourne.

Lcpackard (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC) --Lcpackard (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Lpackard: Thank you for writing. What you did was start an article on a page that had already been "redirected" to another article. You also included no source, and your edit appeared promotional. Please take a moment to read Wikipedia:Notability as well as Wikipedia:Your first article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Collin County, Texas. Fort Bend County, Texas. and Denton County, Texas[edit]

You reverted the edits that I did to the above articles. I added the 2016 population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau to the lede paragraphs. You reverted all of them and then you put a nastygram on my talk page. What you did not do was actually read the articles because if you did you would have seen that all three articles already had a citation to the information in the population infobox. That's why I did not add a second unnecessary citation because the citation was already in the article. You should actually read the article befor you made the reverts and before you placed the nastygram on my talk page. I have reviewed your edits and generally you just go through randomly and blindly reverting edits of others and then giving them a nastygram. I suggest you learn to actually read the articles that you revert on before you revert. Revert if you must but you should check and see if the citation is actually in the article first. You are not assuming good faith when you revert blindly, ignorantly, and randomly. It is inappropriate.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

You are correct. Please accept my apology. The random addition of demographic and climate data is heavily vandalized on city articles, so perhaps next time you may wish to add an edit summary "added population estimate cited in article", or something like that. Also, the edit summaries you used when reinserting your edit: "Restored correct info that was removed by User:Magnolia677 blindly", followed by another edit with the summary "added unnecessary citation to stop Wikipedia Editor User:Magnolia677 from making irrational and blind and inappropriate edits and irrational and incorrect comments", made me feel even worse for having upset you so much. Anyway, I'm right in the middle of trying to decide if The Big Book Of Lesbian Horse Stories meets WP:NBOOK, but thanks for your comment. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)