User talk:Magnolia677

Epilogue

Mistakes were made with predictable results. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He's a door pro, not a Wiki pro. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tuscaloosa, Alabama edits

Hello! No AI was used in the edits. Pclark18 (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YOUR Abusive reporting of "vandalism" when no such thing occurred

On 29 August 2025, you reported to WP:AIV, "Lots of unsourced content from this IP", to which, of course, the correct reply came back, "Edits are not vandalism. Please ensure recent edits constitute vandalism before re-reporting. @Daniel_Quinlan (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)" (see [1]).[reply]

Why would you report "lots of unsourced content" -- which is not the same as vandalism, anyway -- over a measly three edits (not "Lots") of mine, for which references do exist and have since been added -- FIVE SECONDS after you left a warning re "unsourced or poorly sourced content" after the first edits you reviewed?

That is an abuse of procedure, IMHO, and a violation of WP:AGF. 65.88.88.56 (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're madder than a mosquito in a mannequin factory. I meant your IP has habitually been adding unsourced content, not just your three measly edits. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"You're madder than a mosquito in a mannequin factory" -- faux Southernisms don't make you country, girl, or, for that matter, a country girl.

Also, I don't control the IP so consider the collateral damage. 65.88.88.56 (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bless your heart. Anyway, going forward, the best way to avoid this sort of drama over your unsourced content is to...sorry...one of my hens is running wild over yonder in the cotton field. I'll be back. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Also, I don't control the IP so consider the collateral damage. Shared IP addresses are often blocked for vandalism. There is usually no "collateral damage", as you call it, as such blocks do not prevent users from creating or logging in and editing from accounts. - ZLEA ^T|C 23:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was aiming for by reporting. The IP is from the New York Public Library and the talk page is pretty busy with warnings. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thank you for your defense of the Justin Driscoll page. Shelter3 (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to correct that edit myself

I learned the Ella Jones website lied to a major extent, as there was at least African American on the city council when she was elected.[2] Thank you doing it for me.2601:449:4582:B3C0:B13B:E41:8E85:7444 (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Friendswood, Texas Edits

I am a little confused here, everyone else does not have a reference in who notable people reside there? Why was it my addition that was brought upon by yourself? I am new to contributing to the knowledge of Wikipedia and I am simply looking for the reasoning here. Parkasity (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Parkasity: Your edit popped up on my watchlist and it was unsourced, so I removed it. I didn't remove all the other names in the list, because that would require checking all the target articles to see if the edit is sourced there. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, all new information should require a source? Secondly, you have a watchlist? Parkasity (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"all new information should require a source?". See WP:V and WP:RS. "you have a watchlist?" I do. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A watchlist so you can find incorrect edits and rectify it? Not to be insulting but why? Parkasity (talk) 02:27, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see H:W. Please also note I located this page by going to Google and searching "watchlist Wikipedia". Magnolia677 (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bay, Michigan Edits

It let's me thank you on there but there is no dislike option so here's this. Don't quite get why people are so hardcore about providing mediocre information, but you do you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPressler7 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo, etc.

Please go to my talk page, re my response to the message you left on 15 September 2025. I have reviewed MOS:OL and MOS:SCAREQUOTES, and I stand by my view that my edits are valid, for the reason given.

Unrelated to the above, you also reverted two of my edits, returning both to their previous incorrect state:

Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site (line 62): Pajarito village is correct (see also Gutiérrez Hubbell House, which notes it correctly). Pajarito Mesa, New Mexico is about 5 miles west of the GH House, and that community did not exist until the 1970’s. Clearly, you didn’t read the latter to confirm.

Embudo, New Mexico (line 83): D&RG was correct in 1881; the railroad did not become D&RGW until 1908. (This is easily confused since the D&RGW name existed twice; first in Utah and western Colorado 1881-1889, as an associated but separate company from the D&RG. In 1889 it was renamed as the Rio Grande Western. It was not until 1908 that the D&RG and the RGW were consolidated into the second, and final, D&RGW.

Kokopelli-UK (talk) 10:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kokopelli-UK: Please start a discussion on the article talk pages, so other editors can also contribute. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, I've put a topic for discussion on the Anglo talk page.

Regards, Kokopelli-UK (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kokopelli-UK: On the talk page of the article, you call me "Mag". Could you please change that to "Magnolia677". Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. Thanks. Kokopelli-UK (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addison, Texas Edits

Hi, I saw you undid some of my edits to the Addison, TX page with a comment saying:

> Too many issues to fix. Use US census for demographics, per WP:USCITIES#Demographics. Also, external links in body and lots of unsourced content.

The first part is straightforward, I'll only use US population data going forward, but I'm not sure what was wrong with the rest of it. I was updating a lot of outdated information and I believe I provided sources so I'm not sure what was incorrect there.

Thanks in advance Info Overloaded (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Info Overloaded: Thank you for writing. Sometimes an edit is so problematic, that it's best to just start over. I mentioned some of the issues in my edit summary. Can I suggest you try it again? Once more...use the US census for demographics, don't add external links to the text, and source all edits. I hope this helps. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

Hello Magnolia, I saw that you undid some edits on the Mobile, Alabama page that you thought were not useful but in fact were contributing to the article. Please refer to the talk page to discuss this matter. EulerianTrail (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Sudbury

Hello!

I noticed you reversed a recent edit to the Greater Sudbury article. These edits were made to increase clarity and consistency with other articles of Canadian cities that are legally bilingual and have a different legal name in French. For example, the Montreal article includes the langx template of (French: Montréal) where the only translated difference is the accented é.

Greater Sudbury is a city with a significant Franco-Ontarian population and it has a legal name in both official languages. Therefore I feel the edits were warranted and acceptable. I will add a section to the talk page of the article for further discussion.

Thanks! Platttenbau (talk) 13:39, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made were labelled as bot

Thank you for your feedback at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Driscoll. To clarify, this edit was not AI-generated but based on verified information provided by the subject and I am updating the information with latest data. I’m happy to improve the wording and ensure it follows Wikipedia’s neutrality and sourcing guidelines. Could you suggest which parts seem non-compliant so I can rephrase and add proper references? I want to make sure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards Radha04 (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss on article talk page. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of Notable People on Daly City page

I have cancelled your reversion. I discuss this on the Daly City, California Talk Page.

I further add that I consider your action unfounded, inconsiderate, and disruptive. Should you continue this activity I will have to report it as an instance of Wikipedia:Vandalism

Ethnic laundry (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have now reported your second reversion as vandalism (WP:NOBLANK). Ethnic laundry (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not vandalism. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blurry Drone Photo not being an improvement

The "blurry" photo provides the reader with a view of the town as it exists today. Misty weather notwithstanding. I intend to get a shot in different weather soon enough, but for now that view accurately and descriptively represents the town of Springfield VT. Ascended Dreamer (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ascended Dreamer: Best to avoid blurry images, per MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. You're welcome to open a discussion on the article talk page and get input from others. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenwasss (talk • contribs) 18:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hi - someone is complaining about you (I think? They got your username wrong) at ANI, and they forgot or didn't know to notify you. You might want to look in. Best wishes Girth Summit _(blether) 18:35, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Cherry Street, Tulsa

The page Cherry Street, Tulsa has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Pearl District, Tulsa

The page Pearl District, Tulsa has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Compagno

At some point yesterday (while I was unavailable) you added detail about your second reversion to my discussion on the Daly City, California talk page (signed but not time-stamped). Among other issues you questioned, I am answering one that seems to me to encapsulate the difficulty I experienced dealing with your edits. While each individual deletion has unique features, there are certain elements they all have in common:

"One of the names you added was Tony Compagno, along with these sources:" (those sources being ^[1] and ^[2]). Compagno was a professional football player, notable for his three seasons as a starting fullback in the NFL immediately after WW2. His Wikipedia bio article has been active since 9/22/2014 - anyone who cared to challenge that notability has had ample opportunity to do so. The article has been maintained, and recently was updated following a discussion among editors of football-related articles about Infobox standards.

The first source is the page for Compagno displayed by the San Mateo County Hall of Fame (including a photo and a transcription) which clearly states he was a football star at Jefferson High School. This was also repeated in my description of his accomplishments. Since Jefferson is described above in the Daly City article as one of the two high schools located in and serving Daly City, I saw no reason to recap that later in the article. Even if you contend his family home was outside Daly City (you're welcome to search, but good luck!), as a Jefferson student-athlete Compagno was an active member of a close-knot community based in Daly City.

The second source is Sports-Reference.com's Pro Football Player-page for Compagno. I have seen Sports-Reference material referred tp frequently in Wikipedia, and have used it as a source in edits with no challenge, and have never seen it on any list of unreliable or spurious sources.

Reading the biographic information in the article (which matches that in both sources), Compagno's football career ended when he was 25. It appears to have begun at Jefferson, from which he graduated in 1939 when he was 18. Even if we assume he only played two years in high school (although he would normally have played three on varsity and one on the freshman team) his football career covered an nine-ye]]ar period (of which two+ were spent as a soldier). Certainly, I believe spending 20% or more of the career which made him notable in the Jefferson student-athlete community is a "significant" part of the life which made him notable.

Because you and I have differences, Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution recommends "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, out of date, or insufficiently sourced, the best practice is to improve it if you can, rather than deleting salvageable text." I wish to point out "Our goal with Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia; indeed, the largest encyclopedia in history, both in terms of breadth and in terms of depth." (Larry Sanger) Editors who add verifiable and verified facts engage with that goal. Editors who remove facts are suppressing them, which runs counter to the intent of the project.

Should you dispute or disagree with an edit , Wikipedia:Notability (people) recommends a number of steps you can take:

tagging the article with {{notability|biographies}}
using the {{cleanup biography}} template
look for sources yourself, or ask the article editor(s) for advice on where to look for sources.
re-write the section or article
do not start an edit war.

Well, since those didn't happen, the next recommended step is to open a Talk page discussion, demonstrating good faith and an intent to negotiate a consensus. I want to stipulate a couple of things, and hope you will agree:

I intend to add all thirty-one of the notables you removed by wholesale reversion, unless you can demonstrate or convince me there are any individuals I should not include.
My purpose is to add factual and verifiable data that will help the 100,000+ residents of Daly City understand and be proud of their community and its history.
I don't have unlimited time or resources to devote to this project, and believe that you are in the same position. Our time has value, yours no less than mine (and vice-versa). We should first negotiate and agree on a deadline for reaching a resolution.
You and I will do equal shares of any work caused by disagreement.
If we can't agree on any policy/guideline issue by the deadline, we will seek help on Biographies of living persons noticeboard.
If we can't agree on content by the deadline, we will seek advice of the other editors of the individual's article.

Ethnic laundry (talk) 04:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR. Please discuss on article talk page. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

I don't think it's crystal clear there is multiple account misuse, though I do believe they are the same user. They most recently have made edits with heavy refbombs (not to mention article edit overlap). Is a sock report warranted? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 13:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PerpetuityGrat: Thanks for writing. Both have less than 650 edits in total, and they've edited a whopping 39 of the same politically-charged niche articles, per [3]. I'm not sure it's the same editor, but this edit led me believe they are communicating offline. Nothing wrong with contacting one of the regular admins here for an opinion. I don't think I'd be as troubled if the tone of their edits wasn't so...what the word I'm looking for? Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hate that I am removing content en masse, I don't even know where to begin. Nonsequiturs, bad use of quotes, copy/pasting content across articles, using Facebook as a source, and constant deviation from the article subject. They might even have a COI, who knows. Let's keep watching. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PerpetuityGrat: Are you seeing the same sort of edits from the other editor? If so, it would be best to report, as they could be working together for some advocacy group. If you report, please ping me, as I also have comments to add. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced information, removing parts of wiki pages that have been up for years for no reason?

In regards to Atwood, Ontario.

Firstly, Mary Vallance being the first Canadian female colonel and comp-de-aide to the Governor General is absolutely a notable achievement. To label her as “not notable” is nothing short of a joke. Being awarded the order of military merit, which is awarded to 0.1% of Canadian armed forces annually only further proves this point.

Additionally, all other information I have added has been researched thoroughly. Local history is extremely important, especially for a small town like Atwood. Even my information which had been sourced was deleted? For the unsourced content, a simple google maps overview of the town would show that all locations I had mentioned are in fact there. Should I be citing every minute detail I mention? EZ127 (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for butting in on someone else's talk page but to be included in the notable people section, that person must have an article on Wikipedia. Mary Vallance does not. User:EZ127, if you feel she is notable enough for her own article, may I suggest you create an article for her? Again, sorry for butting in. Masterhatch (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I was unaware of this as I’ve seen many other town’s “notable people” section to have many people without their own pages. I appreciate your comment. EZ127 (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holladay

Thanks for being an alert reader, and I agree that I didn't add sources for the people I added to the Notable list. But backing out all five of my changes to Holladay, Utah really goes too far. Some of the changes I made were removing unsourced statements. Why did you remove those? Other changes were clarifying wording and other copy-editing improvements. Why did you remove those? Indeed, one change I made was adding a WP:CITENEED tag. How can you justify removing that?

The article as a whole is short on sources, I agree. But I think you can see from my pattern of edits that I'm going in the right direction and there's no reason to think I'm finished.

Notable People sections typically do not have a source for every person. Perhaps this is because it's trivial to verify these, usually by reading the article about the notable person. A few examples: Chino, California, Sharon, Vermont, and Utah Valley University.

I will add some references, among the other cleanups I continue doing. If you would like to do something constructive, maybe you could add some as well.Davemc0 (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your surgical edit to remove a single unsourced notable Holladay person, Mark Hofmann. This is the proper approach, which is why I thanked you for your edit.

I note that this has been a problem for you in the past. Please see the talk page for Silicon Slopes. Per WP:REVONLY, let me invite you to permanently cease reverting changes that have nothing wrong with them as part of reverting something problematic. The essential concept that we all need to internalize is this: "The encyclopedia is damaged when positive contributions that should be preserved are caught up and lost in a revert."

Even better than not reverting good edits is to fix problems yourself. Rather than being a "goalie", trying to keep bad changes out, be more of an editor. Just find a source and add it, for example.

On another topic, one reason it's probably very common for notable people lists to not have a source for each one is that the sources may not be very suitable to WP. Not all notable people have news articles that mention all the places that they lived. In the case of Dale G. Renlund, for example, it took 20 seconds of googling to find his voter registration in Holladay, Utah, but that's not a great WP source. The community seems to feel that not providing a citation is a suitable solution in this case. If you have suggestions, I'd be interested. Davemc0 (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davemc0: Please read WP:RS, and go away. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about latest edit to Augusta article

Hi there, I saw that you undid an edit to Augusta, Georgia about adding flag icons to the sister cities list with MOS:DECOR cited. I am confused by this, since I regularly see the same flag icons on other cities. Is it because Augusta only has two cities where adding flags not necessary compared to other American cities with more? I also went through List of sister cities in the United States and the majority of them follows this trend. TheRealPear (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of stuff on Wikipedia doesn't follow guidelines. I fix it when I see it. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused too. Your edited flags look exactly like the guidance Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. DarkForest7 (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DarkForest7: Well that's a dilly or a pickle. Yes, guidelines often conflict. Go ahead and revert if you like. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts to San Fernando California article

Hello, I saw your revert and your explanation. I've read an exhausting amount of the talk page about notable people and how it applies to City articles. The table seemed be a good way to consider all opinions, and as a starting point for the preferred prose about notable people. Trying to follow the existing guidance. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline/Archive 3 and see "Lists of notable people". I'm following this example List of people from Park Ridge, Illinois DarkForest7 (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DarkForest7: You have confused a city article with a list article. Photos of notable people are typically not added to a city article. A list article about notable people often has photos. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. If broken out into a separate page (ie, a list) the table is more appropriate, especially regarding the photos. Thank you for helping me see that. The solution for San Fernando seems to be to create a list page. DarkForest7 (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Greg Sepelak

The article Greg Sepelak has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lacks substantial coverage in independent sources. Checked Gnews and ProQuest.

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. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 15:51, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linkedin As A Source

Hello. I saw your reversion on Steven L Sears as a Glendale resident based on the source being unreliable. I read WP:SOCIALMEDIA which states that in some circumstances a self-published item may be used. It seems pretty reasonable to let the subject publish something like "I live here", and use it to establish their residency. Am I missing something ? You have a lot more experience than I do. Thanks ! DarkForest7 (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help with possible vandalism

Hey @Magnolia677:, I really appreciate all your help over the years. Got another thing that may have been popping up on your Watchlist too. User talk:208.66.186.194 has been making a good bit of edits to articles that have a "see also" or disambiguation links at the top of the page. May they are trying to help, but they keep changing them to things that are too detailed/narrow or nonsensical. I don't really know the process for notifying them of their unhelpful edits, but a few of the edits have made sense. Any thoughts? Let me know if I can help out. Appreciate it! Dofftoubab (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dofftoubab: Thanks for writing! It looks like a few editors have reverted them. Let me take a look. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it! Dofftoubab (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About recent edits

A bit confused about some things. You said that I did not provide a reliable source, even though, and i double checked, in the edit I added a citation directly to the section on the city's .gov website about the the things I wrote. I can understand how it sounded promotional due to it including some pretty specified company work, and all though i cant necessarily prove this but i do live here and i think what also makes it notable enough to include is some of these improvements have greatly improved downtown, and building up on just eyesores of empty space just for parking and move that to the parking garages and also will add more public space downtown which honestly the city can definitely use even more of, and I'm sure I'm not the only here who is glad they are doing all of this.

and i can change the writing to say just science center, instead of sparc science center if that would help make it less promotional HeavyMetalChicken (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

little correction, it actually is quest science center and SPARC theater lab. HeavyMetalChicken (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also just noticed that you reverted my changes on the Richard Notkin article. You said "not supported by source" even though it is and pretty clearly is, I wrote out good portion of the stuff they had on their the timeline they had and changed it to exclude less important details to use as a base to give perspective for when i add more stuff like his different series. And I'm starting to think that you didn't even read a lot of this stuff. Also before you baselessly claim "probably ai", I would first like you to take a second and ask why I would even be on this platform if I use ai for giving me information or writing stuff.

I don't want to get all overly defensive here, but it really feels like you are making a lot of assumptions about what I've wrote, without little to back it up. HeavyMetalChicken (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent revert of Falls Church edit

You recently reverted my edit on the Falls Church, Virginia article. Your edit summary said "not an improvement;" can you clarify this?—Internet Snail (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Internet Snail: You added trivial information about "postal codes", and added "the city of" to the lead. Other sourced content was removed. May I suggest one edit at a time, rather than one large edit which is hard to fix by others. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was mainly trying to clean up the overly-long sentence structure on the page. I didn't add any content, but reworded what was already there (e.g. postal code info). I did update the name of the municipality from "Falls Church City" to "The City of Falls Church," which is the official language used by the local government.^[1]

I'm hoping to continue cleaning up the page (adding more information, citations, etc). I've studied this city in particular and I'd like to make the page more comprehensive. I appreciate the pointer on making smaller edits in the future!—Internet Snail (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "About Falls Church". City of Falls Church. Retrieved October 20, 2025.

Personal attack

Hi Magnolia677. I just wanted to make you aware about a recent personal attack against another editor with this diff. Thank you. Colman2000 (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Colman2000: Nasty stuff, but they were quickly blocked. If you see any more, it should be reported. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:24, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other Mendozas in the United States

Hi Magnolia677. Hope you have been well. I still remember a little disagreement that we had about my edits when I started here. I just did a little bit of research and wanted to give you my two cents on it, but in a polite, civil manner.

According to the Florida HomeTownLocator, the populated place of Mendoza in Hillsborough County is located at the house with the address of 11811 N 51st Street in the Temple Terrace city limits. Based on this information, it appears to be a populated place associated with a specific address within the city limits of Temple Terrace. While it is not explicitly labeled as a neighborhood or subdivision, its location and classification suggest it could function as a small locality or community within Temple Terrace. It might not have formal boundaries like a designated subdivision but could still be recognized as a distinct area. Its unique identification might stem from historical or administrative reasons rather than being a planned residential area.

Based on the description from Puerto Rico HomeTownLocator, the populated place of Mendoza in Naguabo municipality, positioned at a roadway median on Puerto Rico Highway 53, does not align with the typical characteristics of a neighborhood or subdivision. Instead, it is more of a designated geographical point, possibly serving as a landmark or administrative feature. Its location in a roadway median suggests it may not include residential or organized community structures that are common in neighborhoods or subdivisions.

Mendoza (historical) is a former populated place in Sutter County, California. It is classified as a "historical" feature, meaning it no longer exists as an active community. The site is located near Live Oak, California, and falls within the ZIP Code delivery area of 95953. I have noticed that many communities designated as historical on the GNIS are called ghost towns here on Wikipedia.

The one in Missouri is no longer on the Geographic Names Information System's website or on HomeTownLocator, but because it was identified as a locale, this means that it was a geographic place in Missouri at which there is or was human activity. This definition does not include populated places such as cities or towns, but rather encompasses locations where human activity has occurred, such as camps, farms, or other dispersed sites.

As a result, I don't think these places qualify for their own Wikipedia articles, as stated on the notability guidelines, but I wanted to add this just so we are clear. Thank you. Colman2000 (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Colman2000: Could you discuss this on the article talk page, where others can join in? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bartlesville, Oklahoma Cherokee Name Revert

@Magnolia677, I wanted to make you aware that I am about to reverse your revert on Bartlesville, Oklahoma. I added the Cherokee name for Bartlesville as a footnote in the lead, following the long-established tradition of including alternate and native names for places after their first mention. Your reason for the revert was "Per MOS:FIRST and MOS:LEADLANG. Less than one percent of the population is Indian." I am not what your source is that led you to believe that "Less than one percent of the population is Indian", but it does not match up with US Census data, which lists the Native American population as 7% in 2020 (https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US4004450-bartlesville-ok/ - the main census site is down for the government shutdown). This is a sizable percent native for a mid-sized US city, but additional importance comes from the fact that Bartlesville is within the boundaries of the Cherokee Nation. As for your cited policies, MOS:LEADLANG directs to consult MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV for foreign equivalent names in the lead, and the addition of the Cherokee name in a footnote is completely in line with this policy. See for example Edinburgh or Anchorage, Alaska, both of which have footnotes with translations for relevant languages—despite these languages not being spoken by a sizeable portion of the population. I could understand your concern if it was related to overemphasizing Cherokee culture as opposed to other relevant people groups, such as the Osage, and if you know of a unique Osage name for Bartlesville then feel free to add it, but I do not think this is the case. --Leviavery (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Leviavery: Please discuss on article talk page. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

San Diegan hatnote

Hi,

I noticed you deleted the hatnote I added on San Diego because the train was included in the disambiguation. However, I think having the hatnote there is a better idea than leaving it at just the disambig page hatnote - a user looking for the named train probably wouldn't have gone to the disambig page for "San Diego".

I don't want to revert that without finding some sort of agreement here, but I really think the navigation flow is better off with the hatnote included. Plutonical (Talk) 22:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Plutonical: Not sure how a reader could confuse "San Diegan (train)" with "San Diego". Please see WP:SIMILAR, and discuss on article talk page if you disagree. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI editing

you can not accuse edits of being AI generated without evidence. I ran those edits on The Troubles through an AI detector, and it came out clean. The Troubles is a deeply sensitive topic. The sports section added was valuable, and deleting it because of your vague assumption is wildly inappropriate. you need to be better and learn to ask questions before you edit a source about sectarian violence. McCIrishman (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@McCIrishman: I noticed you removed a message I left on another editor's talk page. Did you have permission to do this? What is your connection to that editor? Magnolia677 (talk) 10:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no connection. was trying to reverse your edit to the troubles and may have made a mistake. sorry, I dont really edit Wikipedia ever, but I care deeply about Irish history. sport was a very important part of the troubles in Northern Ireland, and you erasing the entire topic is not appropriate. if you want to learn more, I would recommend reading "Gunshots and Goalpost" by Ben Roberts to learn about the history you are trying to erase. McCIrishman (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About a recent nomination for deletion

Hello. You nominated Template:Elvis Presley sidebar and placed the appropriate Template for discussion template on it. However, the in-article discussion notice ended up shifting prose in pages (if you're curious, you can see it by previewing a page like Elvis Presley while editing that template version). You can avoid this in the future by adding |type=sidebar to the template when substituting it (as explained in Template:Template_for_discussion#Sidebar). Though it still creates an extra newline at the beginning of articles, can't figure out why. Cheers, Sophocrat (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Sophocrat: I noticed that on one of the articles. Good piece of knowledge to have. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of edit on Fairbanks

Hi Magnolia677, I noticed you reverted a small edit I made last month on the notable people section of the Fairbanks article. I seldom notice that these dates are directly backed up by sources. I always thought it was sufficient when these sources are noted in the article of the individual (which they are in this case), as it is just a little side information in the city article. If this is not the case I'll refrain from doing these kind of edits in the future. I just wanted to know the official stance on this. Thank you. :) KR7907 (talk) 08:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KR7907: Thanks for writing. I'm not sure what the edit was, but if there was no source added, and there was no source on the target article, I'll usually revert the unsourced edit. If this was not the case, feel free to revert. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:53, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

?

You have deleted most of an article of which everything mentioned has resources. You've edited it into something that doesn't even make sense and leaves out relevant details, especially in instances where it seems you chose not to read the source, or recall from a previous source provided. You deleted anyway, citing reasons if you had only read and comprehended the sources. & If you looked at the article, you'd see it was currently in progress of being edited. This is a gigantic waste of someone else's time that you've undone in a matter of minutes.Interestingfactcheck (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Interestingfactcheck: I removed the unsourced content, and content that had no relevance to the subject of the biography (you can't write a biography about Fred Jones, and then write paragraph after paragraph about some other guy, citing sources that never once mention Fred Jones). Then, I moved the article to draft. I seriously doubt Draft:Louis R. Golding meets WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. --Magnolia677 (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. What you did was mass edited a fresh article while it was clearly in progress. Just like every other article of a person, an article needs to be laid out in sections and in order. One cannot put the end of someone's career at the beginning along with the initial source, just to satisfy or guess Magnolia677 exists and what their perceptions or memory might be later in the article. You've seemed to assume that within a matter of minutes, you know better than someone who has things mapped out with countless articles over a number of years. Not only did you delete things because you felt they were not sourced or relevant, you left or added things that were less relevant. You didn't even wait or consider more might be coming to satisfy what you questioned about it. Complete lack of regard for other people's work, and even less logical. By the way, I imagine someone honored by Hollywood in the Waldorf Astoria in New York speaks for itself, moreso than Magnolia677's opinion of if they meet criteria to be on Wikipedia. I would have provided a source if you didn't jump on the article right away and try to delete it. Interestingfactcheck (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Am 73 hijacking edit

Hi, Magnolia677, it seems that you've reverted my edit because you suspected it's AI generated, but you didn't specify what exactly was inaccurate in my writing, I haven't AI generated what I wrote, and I've also cited a source, please let me know of any misinformation you find and if none, reinstate my edit, thank you. XAaryan (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://historysmc.pastperfectonline.com/webobject/559F6AE6-7B0C-4A82-969E-740563724090

[2] ttps://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/C/CompTo20.htm

[3] "About Falls Church". City of Falls Church. Retrieved October 20, 2025.

[1]

[2]

[1]