User talk:Magnolia677/Archive 23

History of the City of Spokane Valley

Dear Magnolia677, I'm hoping you actually read these. There seems to be a lot of them. About the City of Spokane Valley history, did you read my edits before you deleted them? You deleted the parts that were actually about the City of Spokane Valley that had references attached because they were "Out of Scope", but re-added the sections that were *not* about the City of Spokane Valley. The current article is no longer referenced or accurate, as discussed on the talk page. Is this section of history of the City of Spokane Valley suppose to be about the region and not the individual city? Please explain the "Out-of-scope". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katrazyna (talk • contribs) 23:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Epessina

Dear Magnolia677, this talk is in reply to your message : "Please do not add or change content, as you did at Jenő Hubay, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please stop reverting my edits to add unsourced, non-notable content. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)" Who are you to revert my edits to Hubay page? a Musicologist? If yes, It's your problem if you do not know the Hubay's pupils that I mentioned... This is history, music history... and if you need confirmations please ask to the Hubay Society in Budapest, or, better buy my CDs, whose booklets are fully explanatory!!! (www.rhineclassics.com) So, please, restore by your own my adding to the Hubay page. In contrary case, I will be forced to revert again by myself. Many thanks, respectfully yours, EP (Italy)

Charmaine Fong‎

Please stop policing content from other peoples' popular cultures that you clearly know nothing about. You do not need to cite a discography which is widely available information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.255.108.232 (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Common knowledge, such as a list of musical releases you can easily find anywhere does not need to be sourced. Please stop randomly reverting edits and I would highly suggest that you stay in your lane.

Laurel, Mississippi‎

Hi! About the verbage involving the lynching of Howard Wash at Laurel, Mississippi‎, the previous editor was somewhat correct. Wash had been convicted that day, the jury was to decide on a sentence the next morning. It is exceedingly unlikely the trial was a fair one. There are a couple of sources at the bottom of my talk page, if you are interested. I don't intend to edit it further myself, but thought you might want to after seeing the sources, if you feel like it. Jacona (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jacona: Hi there. I saw some edits to the article, but didn't notice the murder conviction until I opened the New York Times article and felt it should be noted. He shouldn't have been pulled from his cell and murdered though. A while back I wrote the section Duck Hill, Mississippi#Duck Hill lynchings of 1937, which was similar. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I like your work there. It would be good to get something similar about Wash, but I don't currently have the energy.Jacona (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Parchman State Penitentiary

You reverted my edit on the aforementioned article and left a message on my talk page. However, AFAIK, "in popular culture" sections don't require citations because they list the work that includes the subject, and the precedent is easily reviewed. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Vicksburg, Mississippi

You reverted my edit at the aforementioned article, with the reasoning that the references to Vicksburg in In the Heat of the Night are unnotable and unsourced.

First off, In the Heat of the Night was nominated for several Golden Globes and NAACP Image awards, and Carroll O'Connor won a Primetime Emmy for his portrayal of Chief Bill Gillespie. It's well-established that the television series was both popular and well-received by both general audiences and critics. Your reasoning there is irrational. You should have done some research before making that assumption.

Secondly, it's popular precedent that "in popular culture" information doesn't necessarily need sources or citations, because media such as music, movies, pictures, paintings, etc., are self-verifying works. An example is that I don't need to provide a citation when I add "Lake Pontchartrain is mentioned in the song Hurricane by Band of Heathens" to the Lake Pontchartrain article, because all I have to do to verify the added information is to listen to the aforementioned song. I don't need to go through the trouble of finding a reliable source because it's verifiable through simpler means. It presents itself clearly and can be verified through lesser means. This is an established precedent that you can see in many articles on Wikipedia. That isn't necessarily a violation of Wikipedia's rules on sources.

Also, I noticed that you reverted a part in that same section of the Vicksburg article about the song "Mississippi Queen," with the aforementioned reason being that Vicksburg was only mentioned once in the song. I'm going to say it simply: it doesn't matter whether it was mentioned once or mentioned 42 times, it's still a mention of Vicksburg by a notable band in a notable song. That reasoning is irrational.

Have a good one, MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@MrThunderbolt1000T: Thank you for writing. Please note WP:USCITIES states "Topics specific to city" may be added, but says nothing about adding unsourced content, while WP:CITSTRUCT does not mention an "in popular culture" section, and nowhere advises to add unsourced content. Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 63#RfC: Are "in popular culture" entries "self-sourcing" or do they require a reference under Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources? concluded that "The consensus is very clear that a secondary source is required in almost all cases. A tertiary source is even better, if available. In the rare case that a primary source is judged to be sufficient, it should be properly cited. The source(s) cited should not only establish the verifiability of the pop culture reference, but also its significance." Magnolia677 (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Fort Yukon & the Arctic Circle

I believe there has been some sort of mistake. When I added that noteworthy point about Fort Yukon being along the Arctic Circle I cited the exact source Wikipedia uses in defining the ever-changing latitude of the Arctic Circle. The source is even used by the Wiki template Template:Circle of latitude. I just followed the exact line of latitude that was defined on 13 May 2014 as 66°33′50.0″ and stumbled across the fact it passes through the southern portion of Fort Yukon. Cheers, Ponderosapine210 (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

References

@Ponderosapine210: The source cited doesn't mention Fort Yukon, Alaska, and even if it did, why is it noteworthy? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Fork Yukon is the largest city in the Yukon–Koyukuk Census Area (the largest county in the U.S. by land area) and the largest city along the entire Alaskan section of the Yukon River east of Pilot Station, Alaska. Fork Yukon is also of historical significance in Alaska due to its role as the home of a Cold War era U.S. military base and early warning radar station. Thank you. Ponderosapine210 (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Browning, MT

You reverted my edits on the Daily Mean portion of the Browning climate model, claiming it was unsourced. I have observed that the daily mean is just the average of the highs and lows. Therefore, no sourcing is required.

--Rubberducky785 (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rubberducky785: Wikipedia does not accept original research, including synthesized conclusions. You also vandalized Mount San Antonio. You have made 284 edits to Wikipedia and have already been blocked twice. Not a good start. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I observed that the numbers differed throughout Wikipedia. Most sites referred to the height of the mountain as a different number, and therefore I changed it to that. I admit, I should have found a source for that. In addition, I understand that synthesized conclusions are banned. However it is extremely obvious that the Daily Mean is an exception. This is a numerical source, not a verbal source. We all know what the daily mean is. While it is not explicitly stated, both the highs and lows are given to you by the same source, which is not synthesis. I am not making original observations off data, I am using completely intuitive and understandable methods to add data. Rubberducky785 (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rubberducky785: According to the World Meteorological Organization and this science publication, that is not how mean monthly temperature is calculated. Please find a reliable source to support your data. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but the given highs and lows in the chart are already mean monthly highs and lows. In addition the science publication instructs us to find the average of all the mean monthly temperatures to get the mean yearly temperature, which is exactly what I did. Search up any major city's climate section and you will see that Daily Means are simply the averages of the highs and lows. In order to prevent further conflict I will no longer edit these charts. However I highly recommend you share this information with others as the actions I took in editing the chart were identical to everyone else's. Rubberducky785 (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Virden,Manitoba notable people

Hello, I noticed you reverted an edit I made earlier today, adding David Rockola to the notable people section of the Virden Manitoba page. Just wondering why he doesn’t cut it? Rock-ola itself has its own Wikipedia page, and those jukeboxes are quite well known. Plasticflasks (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Plasticflasks: Thanks for writing. All names on a notable people list should have their own Wikipedia article, per WP:CITSTRUCT#Notable people. While Rock-Ola does have an article, David Rockola does not (it redirect to the Rock-Ola article). Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

- Category:Habesha peoples - (spacing and dashes added to prevent adding this talk page to the category)

How in the world is a Wikipedia Category unsourced content, I can't put an intext citation for it because Wikipedia doesn't allow you to do it next to a "[[Category: ____]". The reasoning is evident within the text and the text has sources, all I did was insert categories with similar articles. WhatsUpAfrica (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@WhatsUpAfrica: You've been adding w:Category:Habesha peoples to articles that don't mention "Habesha". See WP:CATV. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: ok I'll fix it them.

@WhatsUpAfrica: You don't have to ping me on my own talk page. Moreover, you have also been placing w:Category:Habesha peoples (a parent category) into articles where more specific subcategories are already present (see Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing pages and WP:CATDD). I see you've also reverted my previous reverting of your edits. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Images

Regarding your edit summary on Toronto, I think the same thing would apply to the top montage image of Calgary. For some reason, the editor Acefitt prefers this horribly hued and colorized photo over previous ones that looked much more realistic. If you can, please try to reason with the editor. Thanks, ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

ANI

For some reason, your name is being bandied about by Carmaker1, a user with more than enough experience and who claims to hold advance degrees and important positions in commerce but apparantly cannot follow the rules and instructions at ANI, where he's been numerous times. Since he's too lazy/deceitful/arrogant/whatever to notify you as required: it's at WP:ANI#Carmaker1. Fyi. John from Idegon (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I did not know that, as they are not being accused of anything are they? My name has been mentioned in past AN/Is I have NOT been a part of, with no knowledge or pinging. Only discovering while doing a Google search or reviewing archives. I suggest you mind your own conduct, as it's not your place to make such commentary and make hypocritical character attacks outside of simple notification, if required. Carmaker1 (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Responding to Concern

Hello Magnolia677. I have indicated on my user page that I am a paid graduate assistant of the University of Maryland. I also have a conflict of interest heading. Should I put this information in a different location? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellstran (talk • contribs) 18:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bellstran: Thanks for adding the personal note to your user page. If your read the notice I added to your talk page there's a template that should have been added. At this point just enjoy Wikipedia, and if there are any edits you need to make on behalf of your employer, just make the request on the article's talk page. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

I agree with you, the ACLU source article got less neutral the more I read it. Thanks for removing it and replacing it with the CNN-sourced article that explained their authorization better. LetterOpener (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hi, I mentioned you about an issue you had been involved in. Since you haven't commented, I am making a note here in case you didn't get a ping. If you just don't want to comment, then just disregard this. Thanks. The thread is here. MB 04:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@MB: I'll take a look. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 09:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Demographics

Really, a consensus has been reached using poor grammar and awkward wording?50.25.221.206 (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Idyllwild–Pine Cove, California

Hi, I saw that you reverted my edit, thinking it to be vandalism. However, it is not vandalism, as this unincorporated community has an animal mayor. Wikitrumpets (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wikitrumpets: You can kinda see how adding "Maximus Mighty-Dog Mueller II" as mayor might be viewed as vandalism. I found a source here if you'd like to add it back, except because this is mostly a publicity stunt it may be best to add it someplace in the article and not in the real mayor parameter in the infobox. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

East York, Toronto

Hi! Yeah, when I finished editing I went back and tried to add in references but I got your message shortly after. Mind if I add in the public transportation page with references this time? Thanks! Android7400 (talk) 20:08 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Cherokee Dam photo

The photograph that I had added to the Cherokee Dam article had been of coursed edited, but I can assure you that the "blue haze" that you are seeing is not from my editing. As you can see in the photograph, there are rays of sunlight beaming through over the top of the structure. This picture was taken around 7-8 AM EST. Plus, your input of the picture being "hideous" is an opinion, so how is your opinion a valid reason to remove the photo, given it is of better quality in pixilation compared to previously submitted files?

@AppalachianCentrist: I realize you are really trying to make positive contributions to Wikipedia, but honestly I've just spent the last hour cleaning up your edits. Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with the project and its policies. If you sincerely feel your early-morning blue haze photo is an improvement over the other two photos, please start a discussion on the article talk page and get the input of other editors. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Studio 10

I don't know how to reply to the messages on here so I hope you get this and you can delete it once you have read it. I have Aspergers / High Functioning Autism and your message upset me. I spent heaps of time on those changes because the Studio 10 page needs desperate updating. Many people listed haven't been on the show for years. No written sources will show things that you can see with your eyes. My changes were obvious changes that have occurred on the show since it changed Executive Producers. They have added a News segment and it is good and important to list Current fill-in presenters (like the news), which the list shown on the Studio 10 page is not. It is an old list, it has changed so much. Things like Fill-in presenters can fill-in for any presenter like Bishop, Drysdale, Kennerley or Hildebrand. Merrick Watts fills in for any of them. Natarsha Belling is the main fill-in for Sarah Harris and various people fill-in for the news. Narelda Jacobs is mainly a reporter, but is also a Panelist/Co-host. This can be backed up by a source (https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/morning-shows/studio-10-announce-new-panellist-for-2020/news-story/ab16e9616b40ca359437658c18acd288) But you just have to watch the show to see that the fill-in presenters have changed and there are also News Fill-in presenters. The list on the page is old and needs to be current. You can email me at mark.ch@adam.com.au - Mark Cheesman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.165.8 (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@60.242.165.8: Just add the text back to the article along with a reliable source. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners for assistance. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

But as I said there is no reliable source to back-up the fill-in presenters. The source is every single viewer who watches the show. They all would know that most of the fill-in presenters listed on the Wikipedia page haven't been on the show for years. They all would know who fills in. Why can't people who actually watch the show update the page to show actual current fill-in presenters. It keeps the page current. Not all changes to shows will have a source to back it up. But people who watch the show will know the changes exist. You can't keep a page current just from reliable sources, some sources come from the show itself and people who watch it. Otherwise the wikipedia page won't be current and isn't it important the page is current. The list on the page of fill-in presenters isn't current, they are so old. I spent so long updating it and making sure it is correct. I don't want to have to go through that all over again, I have already done it. The list now is not current. The list I put up was current and showed news fill-ins and actual current fill-in presenters; that don't have a physical source to back it up, as the source is the show. How come the list of presenters on the Studio 10 Wikipedia page doesn't show a citation. There is no reliable source linked to the current list of fill-in presenters. So why can't the list be updated by someone who watches the show? The list has just grown over the years by people adding presenters. But the list changed when the Executive Producer changed. How can the list be current if people who watch the show can't update to show information that can only be received by actually watching the show. - Mark Cheesman

• (talk page watcher) Mark, encyclopedias are tertiary. That means the content of the encyclopedia is paraphrased from reliable secondary sources. If no sources exist, it cannot be here. Period. End of story. If you want to go bicycling, but have no bicycle, can you go bicycling? No. If you want to add a fact to an encyclopedia, you have to have a reliable secondary source. Without one, you have no edit, just like without a bike, you are not going on a bike ride. John from Idegon (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's just stupid. Without a chain and pedals, the bike can't go anywhere. Just like without Fill-in presenters, the show wouldn't be the same. For a bike to go it needs parts, which means it needs fill-in presenters when regular presenters are sick or unavailable. Without every part of the bike it won't go anywhere, without every part of Studio 10 it won't be a full show. If a bike didn't receive replacement parts, it won't work, if the Studio 10 Wikipedia page didn't receive updated fill-in presenters then it wouldn't be current, just like a bike with no new parts. Does a bike need to show proof of reliable sources to make it current. Just like looking at a bike to know it is wrong, a viewer looking at Studio 10 and the Wikipedia page will know that the page isn't current. A bike can show what is needed by looking at it, just like the Studio 10 page can show what is needed by looking at it to make it current. How can a Television Show Wikipedia page be current, if no one who actually watches the show can update it without reliable sources? Just like a bike who is owned by someone who can't ride a bike and who knows nothing about bikes. It would just sit there get old and rot when it is not being looked after by someone who knows about bikes and can ride one. Without someone who watches Studio 10 updating it, how can the page be up to date, new, fresh and correct. Many things about a TV show like its fill-in presenters won't be documented and would only be known by watching the show, therefore can not be backed up by reliable sources Mcheesie79 (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Humidex and wind chill

In the weather context for places in Canada, humidex and wind chill are not temperatures, so the {{Convert}} template should not be used.

Incorrect: The humidex reached 52.1 °C (125.8 °F) in Windsor, Ontario on June 20, 1953.

Correct: The humidex reached 52.1 in Windsor, Ontario on June 20, 1953.

Eyesnore 22:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eyesnore: Thank you for writing. I've found one of the best ways to stop editors from questioning what appears to be "unexplained content removal", is to leave an edit summary outlining the purpose of my edit; something like "humidex is not a measure of temperature". Please see Help:Edit summary for details. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 09:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Muncie, Indiana neighborhoods

Hi Magnolia677, Muncie's neighborhood boundaries are mapped at the Delaware County level by its GIS Department. The Delaware County GIS Department's map of the Muncie's neighborhoods is at https://delcogis.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=f9e36453d4f446b5bc090ffd4ae7c8d3. Is that official map an acceptable source (and I could mention about how this data is mapped by the county GIS Dept)? The GIS Department clarified to me that the GIS department's map is more up-to-date than Google Maps b/c Google Maps sometimes has delays in processing the county's updated map data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyviper (talk • contribs) 19:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tommyviper: Thanks for writing. I actually went looking for a list of neighborhoods on the Muncie city website, but no luck. A city GIS is pretty accurate. Linking to Google map just seemed a bit wonky. Use this template. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: @John from Idegon: Apologies for not originally signing my comment above. Upon seeing the auto-generated signature, I realized I'd forgotten to sign my comment. In my attempt to correct the signature issue (b/c I thought I was supposed to - sorry for that assumption), I'd mistakenly altered the original timestamp. I will try contacting the Muncie Mayor's office to see if they can work with Delaware County to add the list of Muncie's neighborhoods on Muncie's city website. I've seen other cities list their neighborhoods on their Wikipedia page, so I was just trying to help by adding Muncie's. I do know Muncie has over 50 neighborhood associations, as I've been a member of my neighborhood's association for many years and regularly attend the city-wide neighborhood leadership council meetings that all active associations attend and that the GIS department was a guest speaker at the last meeting. I never realized how involved this would be, but I appreciate everyone's help as I learn the ways of Wikipedia editing!Tommyviper (talk)

Tommyviper, sign your messages with four tildes please, not 3, not 5. A map on a rando website created by a rando person, which even if it had some validity on the current topic (which is the city of Muncie, not the county of Delaware), there's no provenance for the map. This still looks like a marketing campaign much more than it looks like the conveying of valid historically correct info. I'd oppose using that map to source anything anywhere, but it certainly isn't a valid source for the discussion of neighborhoods in a moderately old US city. John from Idegon (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

And Tommy, you clearly have a conflict of interest here. If you are in contact with the city of Muncie, you are editing with a strong conflict. We report on what sources say. We do not try to manipulate our sources to say what we want. With your admission above, I will oppose any addition you wish to make to Muncie or Delaware County that isn't sourced 100% to reliable secondary sources and will remove any change you make without gaining consensus first on the article talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Mankato, Minnesota

Hi! Reference added. Feel free to update.Comm260 ncu (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Pittsburgh and Charleroi-no longer sister cities (who knew?)

Hello and thanks for bringing that to my attention, I don't like unsourced material anymore than I am sure you do. I just saw after I made that edit to Pittsburgh's sister cities that Charleroi and Pittsburgh were not sister cities as of 2019 (coincidence? Still very weird).

Meanwhile, Charleroi still lists Pittsburgh as a sister city, though that page's International relations section lacks citation.

The weird thing is, I couldn't find a link stating why these cities seem not to be connected anymore. In any case, what do you think?

Thanks, 71.82.237.58 (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Wiscipidier

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 14:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Hi there. I'm not quite sure how this ended up on my talk page but it may be bacause of a recent edit I made to the Washington Examiner, a conservative magazine. An editor noticed in that Wikipedia article that the Washington Examiner was known to have published editorials which minimized climate change, so that editor found a source completely unrelated to the Washington Examiner, and which did not even mention the Washington Examiner, and used it to refute what was written about climate change in the article. An analogy would be if CNN's Wikipedia article mentioned that CNN was pro-gun control, and upon seeing that an editor found a source which discussed the virtues of gun ownership--a source that never once mentions CNN--and adds it to CNN's Wikipedia article to add balance. Sometimes I just scratch my head. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It's just a standard alert, I've got virtually all of them at the talk of my talk page. As it says, it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with your edits. I try to give them out even-handed. Doug Weller talk 17:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I notice you were involved with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change. Your input at Talk:Washington Examiner#Refutation to the Washington Examiner's editorial stance would be welcomed. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Morristown, Tennessee

The removal of my content from the Morristown, Tennessee article does not make any sense. I compared the overall construction of the larger and higher-quality Knoxville, Tennessee article which had some similarity to the edits I added to the Morristown page (I.E. highway description, external links to official city related websites, general city location with description).

I believe that your edits are not contributing to improvement of the article and find it insulting that my edits are considered "unconstructive."

Thanks, --AppalachianCentrist

@AppalachianCentrist: Thank you for writing. I'm not sure how to say this politely, but I have spent several weeks cleaning up your edits and I feel many of them are not improvements. Please let me suggest you take a moment to read WP:USCITIES and WP:NOT. Also, your photo on the right of foliage is low-quality and decorative, per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. I left detailed edit summaries for each of my edits, and as the saying goes, this is not my first rodeo. If you have issues with my edits please discuss them on the article's talk page and seek consensus. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of book from further reading

Please tell me how a book entirely about Henderson is not specific to Henderson Dshep913 (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Dshep913: My apology. I reverted my edit. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Morristown II

I have been following the US Cities guidelines. Here is quotes to explain my reasoning behind my edits.

For economy:

“=== Manufacturing / Industry === Especially for cities, such as Detroit or Cleveland, where manufacturing has been responsible for a significant number of jobs.”

For media:

“If any major motion pictures, television shows, or syndicated radio broadcasts were filmed/recorded or originated in the city, this would probably be a good place to put that information.”

For external link to visitor site:

“A link to some of the official websites should be provided here, such as the official city government, or the convention and visitors bureau.”

Care to explain the reason why the photo was violation? You never gave a reason in the edit summary. It followed the photo policy per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE.

Thanks, --AppalachianCentrist

@AppalachianCentrist: You added the following without a source:

"Morristown is situated in the Great Appalachian Valley (known locally as the Tennessee Valley), between Clinch Mountain to the north and the Great Smoky Mountains to the south. The Great Valley is part of a sub-range of the Appalachian Mountains known as the Ridge-and-Valley Appalachians, which is characterized by long, narrow ridges, flanked by broad valleys. Cherokee Lake, an artificial reservoir built by the Tennessee Valley Authority in the 1940s, is north of the city."

Also, is it necessary to add "Manufacturing / Industry" to the economy section, when it's the only text in the section for this town of 30,000?

The section you added to "media" probably should have stayed there, yet you titled the section "in popular culture", which gets lumped in at the end of the article as a topic "specific to the city".

The link and the photo are fine. I'll be more careful picking through your edits in the future. I'm cautioning you, stop adding unsourced "stuff" you know to articles. I see you quickly deleted a warning from another editor of your talk page. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Magnolia677:, okay, I’ll be sure to not add unsourced information based off my personal knowledge. Thank you for the clarification on that and on the photograph and the link.

Thanks, --AppalachianCentrist

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you. I am still a new editor and so I appreciate your editing my edits at Venice, Los Angeles. Peace. Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Robert Jan van de Hoek: Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

You are very welcome! Peace, 'Roy'Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

United States Border Patrol

Magnolia677,

It's very unfortunate that the edits I made were deleted. All of the information is within the CBP intranet and internal memorandums and are not available to be openly referenced.

I know the information to be accurate because I am program manager for awards and history. I wrote the articles - https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-us-borders/history/father-us-border-patrol https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-us-borders/history/early-rank-and-time-service-insignia

I also contracted with the Army Institute of Heraldry to repurpose the old designs. https://tioh.army.mil/Catalog/Heraldry.aspx?HeraldryId=18804&CategoryId=10768&grp=9&menu=Federal%20Government&ps=0&p=0 https://tioh.army.mil/Catalog/Heraldry.aspx?HeraldryId=18803&CategoryId=10768&grp=9&menu=Federal%20Government&from=search

My hope is that you allow the changes I made to stand as the information is accurate. However, the source information is not public and can't be referenced. To not allow my edits to stand will perpetuate inaccurate information.

Thank you Bayoclam (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bayoclam: Thank you for your edits. While I have no doubt your edits are correct, Wikipedia has a strict policy against original research and paid editing. That being said, Wikipedia benefits when its content is accurate and up-to-date. If you are able to locate any published sources, my suggestion would be to leave a note on the article's talk page, along with links to the updated information. One of the volunteer-editors may wish to use the information to update the article. Again, thank you for trying to improve Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Magnolia67: I appreciate the effort that is put into preventing inaccurate edits into pages. You have changed minor pay grade edits that I have placed on the page two time when no other pay grade is referenced. My edits are entirely accurate and minor. Would it be better for the entire table to be deleted for lacking references or for minor edits to be allowed.

Additionally, I was able to get an updated pdf to be published by CBP for the Chiefs of the Border Patrol. I hope that can establish my legitimacy with you. Furthermore, I hope to have a similar source to reference published by CBP for the awards section that you removed. Once that goes live, would you be able to reinstate my awards edits? I'm am not well versed in editing pages and to do so is quite a lift. Thank you. Bayoclam (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bayoclam: If you look at my edit summary you will see I reverted your edit "per WP:EL". This means your entire edit was malformed. Also, while your edits are absolutely in good faith, you really need to stop editing that page, as you have a conflict of interest. I'll leave a not about this on your talk page. Thanks for contacting me. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020 ANI mention

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Instagram Edit

Hi there, Hope you're well, I am new and keen to learn editor to Wikipedia and would appreciate some guidance in what i did wrong with the edit you reverted that i made on Instagram. Many thanks for your time. -Ukdatageek (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ukdatageek: Thanks for writing. A few of the issues were, first, you added external links to the body of the text (see WP:EL). You also added a link to the United States (see MOS:OL). The edit also had a "spammy", unencyclopedic tone. For example, "a place where users can browse products and collections from brands and creators that are looking to sell their items. The service is a personalised experience, with suggestions of products and brands being presented based on the data Instagram collects on the users browsing behaviour, interests and likes", and "Rolling out in the US, to start with". I hope this answers your question. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok i understand, so i need to be more factual with edit. This is a major new feature from Instagram so was trying to explain what it does in detail. Also noted on the external links to the body of the text. I would like to get it right, do you mind me having another go? Ukdatageek (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ukdatageek: Please edit as you like. Help:Referencing for beginners may assist you. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Magnolia677 thankyou, i will have another go. I really do appreciate the help there. Thanks so much! Ukdatageek (talk) 10:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Lamar description

Hi! Thanks for your input on Lamar, I think we have more work to do....As far as the reference in Lamar County, Mississippi to Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar, the man was a lot of things. As is so typical, in this article he has been described for only the warm/fuzzy (at least to some people) sort of those things. In addition to the achievements the lost-cause apologists love to expound on, he was also a slave owner, a traitor to the U.S. (he wrote the Mississippi secession ordinance, was commissioned as a colonel in the CSA army, until he washed out because of "vertigo", then as a diplomat). He was a huge opponent of African-American voting rights, and helped develop the Klan. He was also quite accomplished in the political arena, serving in both houses of congress, the first Confederate to return to congress after reconstruction, and became a supreme court justice. So, while it's complicated, a description that just identifies him as a wonderful guy (the original was "post-Civil War Mississippi statesman") can't be considered a neutral pov. It may sound shocking to some to add white supremacist, but it certainly fits. How can we word a short description that captures who he is from a NPOV without whitewashing? I'm wide open to suggestions. Thanks. Jacona (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jacona: Thanks for writing and glad you're well. The term "white supremacist" is a newish term, and would probably serve Wikipedia's readers best if it were reserved for those who have gone out of their way to be as such. All CSA officers believe in the supremacy of whites, but that goes without saying. It's like saying "NAZI antisemites". I was reluctant to add "white supremacist" to two articles I created, Alfred Holt Stone and Belle Kearney, but did with Kearney because I felt it improved the article and was accurate. I looked at Robert E. Lee's article and no editor has yet directly added "white supremacist" to his biography. With Lamar, a detailed and well-written biography is all that is needed for readers to come to a conclusion. Just my two cents. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

John Robinson (aviator)

Hi Magnolia677, you might want to revisit this edit. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Woodlot: Doh. Wrong one. John Robinson (aviator). I'll fix. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Chicago Neighborhoods

You have reverted multiple edits I made to various Chicago community areas given data from the most recent American Community Survey from the US Census Department. Your comment claims it is not from the US Census. This is not accurate. Community areas are official boundaries defined by the City of Chicago, and the boundaries are a collection of Census Tracts defined by the City of Chicago (https://data.cityofchicago.org/Facilities-Geographic-Boundaries/Boundaries-Census-Tracts-2010/5jrd-6zik)

The sources cited on every community area edit (which were the previous sources, but now updated in July 2020) are from CMAP - the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. Every year, CMAP publishes a report using mainly US Census American Community Survey data (5 year). The latest ACS available is from 2018 and CMAP's latest publishes using US Census data was published in June 2020. There are other data in this report, but the population, educational, and income data come from the US Census. Following any of the sources listed, you will be able to see these explanations of the data

An example: https://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/126764/Lake+View.pdf

"About The Community Data Snapshot The Community DataSnapshots area series of county, municipal,and Chicago Community Area data profiles that primarily feature data from the 2014-2018 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates. As noted in each profile, the data comes from multiplesources in addition to the ACS, which include U.S. Census Bureau, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Illinois Department of EmploymentSecurity (IDES), Illinois Department of Revenue(IDR),and the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP).

Chicago Community Area (CCA) values CCA values areestimated by aggregating 2014-2018 ACS census tract and blockgroup level data

The data is in fact from the US Census. Please read into the source before blindly reverting entire edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhendrix86 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jhendrix86: It's best to cite census data. Also, many of the sources you cited were dead links. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I agree with you regarding census department data - If you are talking about a 10-year Census only then that's another story. These articles have been citing Census ACS and other Census study data (non 10-year), along with the majority of US geographic entities on Wikipedia from cities to states to counties, for years and years.

Please be aware that all the revisions you did merely reverted 2018 data back to 2015 data, which is the same study and same exact source (US Census 5 year ACS put together by CMAP) but from a previous year (2015). The community areas of Chicago are a collection of census tracts, making up 1 or more unofficial neighborhood, and are a City of Chicago government only concept. They are the only officially city government recognized entity outside of what the US Census defines (tracts, blocks, block groups, zip codes, etc). As stated previously, CMAP is the official source of these population, economic, demographic, etc data by community area using mainly the US Census by census tract - used by universities. CMAP is a Government of Illinois adjacent entity, hence their website is hosted on illinois.gov. Every year, the 5-year US Census ACS represents an opportunity for the entire country to look at the survey and for cities such as Chicago to look at the state of each community area, as well as its trends from the previous years. The data comes from the US Census Department and it is a City of Chicago government-only recognized concept which many research institutions, journalists, criminologists, etc utilize in their research.

Every summer (June or July), CMAP publishes new data based on the latest available 5-year Census ACS. They do not change their URLs from the previous year publish (for some reason) which is why in some pages previous editors have left archived URLs with those as well so people can see previous publishes as well. As I had to enter these numbers into the articles, I had to retrieve the URLs for each article which came from which were present in each article. As you will see if you objectively look at the history of edits, the CMAP source has been used on each of these articles for years. I personally verified every link and they were not broken. If they were broken for you, then there is another reason as those PDFs are live:

https://www.cmap.illinois.gov/data/community-snapshots

@Jhendrix86: The links appear to be working again. Also, "The US Census should be the primary source of demographic data", per WP:USCITIES. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I suspect there was an issue on your computer and/or network. The links were never broken - the data in the articles via the edits had to come from somewhere. Regarding the source, what you have quoted is not the full quote from that page but also this is a guideline for city proper information. Community Areas are a City of Chicago geographical level, not a US Census geographical level, even though they roll up by census tracts.

"The US Census should be the primary source of demographic data. If census estimates or other reliable sources of demographic data are included, the additional data should supplement – not replace – the most recent available data from the decennial census."

The articles being edited are not for cities but for neighborhoods within cities that are not defined by the US Census but are defined by city governments officially. Please link to the guidlines around neighborhood entities of cities and how to deal with demographic information. I also recommend reading more into the definition of community areas.

https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/dgs/supp_info/citywide_maps.html

Community areas in Chicago

Thank you.

jhendrix86

@Jhendrix86: You make a good point and the links are working. Please re-insert your edit with working sources. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Lepreau Parish, New Brunswick

The list of bodies of water was an artifact from somebody else's earlier edit. I'll be removing such relics as I work through the province adding more detail. I'll unrevert your revert. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@G. Timothy Walton: Here is the version of the article prior to your edits. Where are these relics you speak of? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Relics are from an edit before the butchery by somebody who knows less than I do. Edits will involved properly cited material if you'll just let me finish the job. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Please use your sandbox for test edits and stop adding unsourced content. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Look, I'm not doing this to be disruptive. I'm trying to update every single parish in the province and found it easier to go back past recent edits and rebuild from there than to try to remove all the incorrect information added by somebody who seems unfamiliar with some important source materials. This meant ignoring some things like wikilink abuse while I got everything into the same format. Please note that everything I've added is sourced. Some new things will be added as I go, like where to find maps, improvements in the boundary descriptions to include information that is only referenced, the development of external and internal boundaries, and some other stuff that escapes me at the moment because I'm rushed and wasting time in an edit war.

It's really frustrating to try to salvage a page while somebody keeps dragging it back to a mess of incorrect information. I was able to back up my points with the recent editor on another page by correcting various mistakes he'd made and sourcing the corrections.

What is the point of trying if you just keep reverting any intermediate changes before corrections can be made? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, tonight's planned improvements won't be taking place because it's just not worth coming back to the aggravation after supper. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Hello, I'm AppalachianCentrist. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. If you continue to hound me, I will report your behavior to Wikipedia administrators. AppalachianCentrist (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@AppalachianCentrist: At Bean Station, Tennessee you added that it was in Hawkins County, Tennessee, and provided no source to support this. Your edit was reverted because both Google Maps and GNIS show it just in Grainger County. I'm glad you were finally able to find a source to support your edit. I also found this source. Instead of playing the victim, my advice would be to put more care into the quality of your edits. This may help. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Santa Rosa

Any chance you could have a look at the reverted edits on this page again? I think the newbie was very well intentioned and although he may have strayed on the headings was adding some useful stuff. We need new editors!! YellowFratello (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@YellowFratello: I commented on the article talk page. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

RPA

It says on the bottom that it is inclusive of every city that is included in the megaregion of the RPA.Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It is not even close to every city and town. Stick to commenting on here please. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The navbox notes that it is talking about the megaregion coined by RPA. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jhenderson777: Ok, you found some obscure topic that covers thousands of cities in Canada and the United States. Then you created a template for it. Now you are adding that template to hundreds of city articles. Do you think it might be wise to gain consensus first? Magnolia677 (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

There was already a template on the Northeast one. I have a right to be bold. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

See Megaregions of the United States... if it's so obscure why is there an article on it? Just a polite question. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jhenderson777: Megaregions of the United States gets 287 views per day, and Great Lakes Megalopolis gets 434; you added your template to Toronto, which gets 4,725 views per day. But that's not the point. What value could a navbox called "Great Lakes Megalopolis" offer someone reading the Detroit article? It's common to add a navbox showing nearby cites, or other places in the county, but do you really think a reader is going to say, "gee, it's part of the Great Lakes Megalopolis! Let me read about other places within the Great Lakes Megalopolis". Please take a moment to read WP:NAV-WITHIN and WP:NENAN, and ask yourself how your navbox helps readers. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I am aware of the guidelines and I do feel like they help the reader. Sorry if you disagree. I trimmed the Navbox about metros with only particular cities in mind now. Because I feel went overboard. Though I still feel that this is leaning to favoritism on articles you are passionate on. Saying something is obscure is almost leaning on not liking an article topic though leading on obscure topics can be good to me. So I agree to disagree. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jhenderson777: How am I passionate about Detroit? I've never edited the article. I see I'm not the only editor who has commented on your bold editing. Will you revert your edits to all those articles you added the navbox to? Magnolia677 (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Seriously an edit that says “what?” You are welcome to tag him because a rationale of undoing should be clearer not that. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See Wp:AGF on the edit war. We both edit warred technically if so and I did not break no third revert rule and didn't revert back any other editor. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Ttgrcr25

Just to let you know, the warning I posted on Ttgrcr25's talk page was already for the unexplained content removal at Rogers County, Oklahoma, but I didn't revert it myself because I had already reverted that article twice. This user is also removing content from other Oklahoma-related articles without explanation. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: Thanks for writing. I was reluctant to report this user as a vandal because some of their earlier edits were ok. Let me drop them a note. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Chevrolet Corvette owners

The article List of Chevrolet Corvette owners has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

See WP:CARTRIVIA, WP:IPC, WP:LC. Note the lack of other "people who own a thing" lists.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Vossanova ^o< 17:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vossanova: What about List of slave owners? Magnolia677 (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

For starters, slaves aren't a "thing". You see how slave ownership has more historical significance than Corvette ownership, right? Also, that list was nominated for deletion last month, but kept. --Vossanova ^o< 18:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Chevrolet Corvette owners for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Chevrolet Corvette owners is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chevrolet Corvette owners until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Vossanova ^o< 18:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Irvine

Please do not exploit the workers. 98.185.165.232 (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

If a man will not work, he shall not eat. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to File:2018 Bean Station Sewer Master Plan.jpeg can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Per WP:Hound AppalachianCentrist (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

File:2018 Bean Station Sewer Master Plan.jpeg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2018 Bean Station Sewer Master Plan.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Central Business District

Your attention is called to the addition of this display to the article on the Central Business District, Los Angeles (1880s-1890s). Do you have any feelings, for or against? Discussion should take place on that article's Talk page. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile: ay caramba!! Magnolia677 (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

McDowell County Schools

Hi Magnolia667, I'm new to this. I was looking at the Wikipedia page for the school system I've taught in for the last 17 years (my wife recently retired after 30 years in that system) and it was horribly out of date. I updated board members. Then I added a section on unions modeled after a similar section in Kanawha County Schools (the largest school system in the state). Can you tell me why that was deleted? What makes it unacceptable when the section in Kanawha County Schools is acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregcruey (talk • contribs) 22:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gregcruey: Thank you for writing, and welcome to Wikipedia. The section about teacher unions seemed awkwardly out-of-place, and un-balanced the article, as it was the largest section. Neither Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools nor Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article advice suggest including a section about teacher unions, and of every school district-related article on Wikipedia assessed at a "good article", or which was featured on a "did you know", none mention teacher unions. I see you have already reverted my edit. Please let me know if--in light of my explanation--you are willing to self-revert, or if you would prefer to start a discussion at Talk:McDowell County Schools, where we can gain input from the larger community. Thank you! Magnolia677 (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of Mary Wiggins Article

Hello Magnolia677, I just added a new composition, information about Wiggins' music publisher, and four new sources to the Mary Wiggins page you proposed for deletion. I am choosing female composers to write about from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Missing_articles_by_dictionary/International_encyclopedia_of_women_composers

a list based on Aaron I. Cohen's International Encyclopedia of Women Composers. I believe that Cohen's decision to include these women in his book, and wikipedia's decision to use his book, means that these composers made significant musical contributions. However, his book was published in 1987 and I do wonder if we should be working from a more current source! If you have further concerns about the relevance of these composers, perhaps you could mention it whoever is in charge of this project. Thank you for taking the time to read my article on Mary Wiggins. Sincerely, T. E. Meeks ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by T. E. Meeks (talk • contribs) 19:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@T. E. Meeks: Thank you for writing. Not all the names in the encyclopedia meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Grant Geissman

Read and heed. User:VmavantiVmavanti (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vmavanti: What do you mean? Magnolia677 (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

There's a lot of good advice on that page. The other main editor at the jazz project, EddieHugh, and I discussed discography ad nauseam. If you want to open that can of worms, go ahead, but understand that I'm a digger. I own a terrier. I have the patience and stamina to dig into subjects when others don't. If you look at other discographies on Wikipedia, esp. in jazz, you will see that they are usually unsourced. Unless you are knowledgeable about jazz, you can make your life easier by avoiding the subject of jazz discography. As I said, I went over and over it with people and we didn't reach any conclusions. I was nearly kicked off when I tried to take your approach. If there is a dispute over a particular album, then we discuss it, but that rarely happens. Jazz discography, like jazz, is always in flux. If there is a particular album you think is wrong, you can tell me or Eddie, what the problem is, and what source you used.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vmavanti: Thanks for the detailed explanation. I think I've finally connected the dots. Let me review. Earlier today you added this enormous 7,395 byte "new discog" to Grant Geissman, and I removed it because it was completely unsourced. You added it back with the edit summary "I know what I'm doing, see my User Page", and I again removed it with the edit summary "Please provide sources to support this large addition of text". The penny finally dropped after you left the explanation above, and I visited your talk page; you are a self-proclaimed "expert" on all things jazz, and as such don't need to source your edits like all other editors. (I would be so bold as to assert that just by asking you to provide sources would seem a insult to your self-proclaimed jazz expertise). Is this correct? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Not even close. You will learn the hard way I guess.Vmavanti (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I spoke to an admin here. I would like you to read this and then restore my edits.
Vmavanti (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vmavanti: I tried to source some of the edit I reverted and was not able to. I'm not saying you added original research, just that you seem to be the only one able to verify this information. This does not help Wikipedia's readers who may wish to verify the information they are reading, and it undermines the hard work of other editors who source all their content. Per WP:CHALLENGE, your edit has been challenged; it is your responsibility to find sources to support it. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey Magnolia677, these are generally considered self-sourced. It helps if you add a catalog number, since discs don't have an ISBN, but WP:V is not violated with their inclusion. It's like a bibliography. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand the hostility. I really don't. From the get go.
Vmavanti (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you should bring Chubs in. He loves debating this.
Vmavanti (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

huh, what hostility? I’m supporting your position. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Not you.
Vmavanti (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a 7,395 byte addition of unsourced text is sourced. Perhaps I missed something. Is there a guideline or consensus someplace excluding discographies from WP:V? Magnolia677 (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

You missed a lot. You counted the bytes again? What in the world difference does byte count make? Jesus on roller skates. Jazz discographies tend to be longer than pop and rock. Why? It helps to know something about jazz. I directed you to information on my User Page (not my Talk page) three times and your response was to ignore it and say "Oh, so you're an expert". Instead of being open to learning, twice you sarcastically called me a "self-proclaimed expert". That's civil? That's productive? And I didn't even say it. Where did I say that? Show me. I never said I was an expert. Not that expertise is bad. It's a good thing unless one is jealous of expertise. I do have experience. Experience of all kinds in a long life. I took the time to distill information from WP documentation and the jazz project for this very reason, to help, and so I wouldn't have to go through this ever week reinventing the wheel. One ought not to be a slave to protocol. That, too, is from the documentation. Let's all dial it down, OK? It's not a contest to see who can get the most edits. There are no awards. I referred you to a thread by an admin. Nope. Then another admin commented to you. Nope. Still you ask questions like "Am I missing something?" The answer to that is yes. A lot.
Vmavanti (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vmavanti: I've edited hundreds of discographies and have never seen a consensus that they don't need to be sourced. I recall User:Xboxmanwar and User:Bloomdoom2, both editors who only edited music articles and discographies, blocked indefinitely for adding unsourced content. Again, is there a guideline or consensus someplace excluding discographies from WP:V? Are you able to provide a source--any source--supporting your edit? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Nobody's claiming discographies are exempt from WP:V. However, they can be verified in and of themselves. In this way Template:Cite AV media is very useful. They certainly meet WP:RS regarding themselves, how could they not? Now, whether using this template is superior to letting the entries speak for themselves isn't something I'm willing to get into right now, but calling the addition of these discography entries a blockable offense is... harsh. I agree that we need to dial it down, and keep the discussion academic, instead of personalizing the conversation, and that goes for all editors. Vmavanti, there's a lot of good information on your user page, but referring other editors to that page when in a content dispute comes across as very arrogant to many editors, even though that isn't your intent. If it would help quell the dispute, I'm willing to add the AV Cite template to each of these entries, on a case-by-case basis provided I can verify existence. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@78.26: Thank you for your offer to help. Any cite template...news, AV, a magazine...would be great, as it would refer back to some secondary source to support the edit. Adding a huge edit with no source has been my concern from the outset. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I suppose we could go round and round and round regarding whether this edit really had "no source", but the end effect is minuscule. I will proceed accordingly. Thanks to Vmavanti for his hard work to improve the article by including the significant artistic output, and thanks to Magnolia677 for listening and compromising. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

"Huge" is subjective. That's why counting bytes is foolish. One has to know jazz a little bit at least to understand jazz discography. That knowledge explains why some discographies are bigger than others, a consideration that doesn't apply as much in pop or rock. How long should it be? As long as it takes. 78: Where did Mag compromise exactly? Or listen? All I see is repetition and the refusal to read responses. How is that helpful? I see no proof that my User Page was read or understood, per my request from the beginning. It was mocked, though. The accusation that I was being arrogant is absurd. I'm directing to helpful information to save everyone, everyone, time and trouble. I'm not directing people to a trophy room. What I wrote about jazz discography on that page comes directly from years spent developing consensus in the jazz project (arguing with you, and you blocked me) and from Wikipedia documentation. The idea that one can be blocked for not sourcing a jazz discography is fanatical. Someone with an agenda, who constantly fights for that agenda, should be blocked. Now what cause does a jazz discography represent? Saxophonists for Solar Power? Bassists for Better Wages? How long should we discuss this? As long as it takes. I don't see anything settled.
Vmavanti (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

"please discuss"

If you're going to write "please discuss" in an edit summary, you have to actually start a discussion on the talk page. Otherwise you're just editing in bad faith. 24.183.75.20 (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You again made a controversial edit to a page with the comment "please discuss." That content was already under discussion on Talk, and you have not participated in it. This is tendentious editing, and will be reported as such if you persist. 24.183.75.20 (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 24.183.75.20 (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Praxidicae (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)