User talk:Magnolia677

Thank you for reading my addition to the Chicago page. There was absolutely no AI used, nor would I use it, because I find its output bland, redundant, weird, and cliche (sometimes all in the same sentence). What I wrote was adapted from my book about the Secret Six (Red Lightning Books, March 2026), which was researched through my line-by-line review of thousands of newspaper articles at newspapers.com and elsewhere, and organized and written entirely by myself, also with no reliance on AI. Further to my reply: Did you actually read my addition to the Chicago page, follow any of the links and view the vast number of sources cited, or did you revert my contribution because some AI system accused me of being AI, and you believed it? Are the robots going to start calling humans robots, and are Wikipedia's editors going to enable that?

Clearly, I am a novice at this. I simply wished to update Town Officials information for the Town of Almond, NY, that was very much outdated. No one else will take care of this (obviously), so I stepped in. The information was garnered direct from the Town's website. AlmondCitizen (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@AlmondCitizen: Thank you for writing. The content you added was malformed and not appropriate for Wikipedia (eg. phone numbers for town officials). Please let me know what you need updated and I'll try to help. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

West Halifax is an unincorporated village in Halifax. How about if we add Hilda Stone back in with (West Halifax) in parentheses? Thanks Littenberg (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Littenberg: Her article says she is from West Halifax, Vermont. This is geographically the most specific article. Although this isn't specifically addressed at WP:USCITIES#Notable people, it is discussed at WP:COUNTY#Content suggestions where it states: "Notable people should be placed into appropriate city or town articles within the county". Similarly, at List of neighborhoods in Chicago, each neighborhood has its own "notable people" section. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Can you please revert your edits on our page back to the version from Kmateika? She is the head of marketing at the school and we want to keep the page up to date Aseeley1 (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@Aseeley1: Could you please discuss this on the article talk page? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I posted a thread on our talk page Aseeley1 (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Please check your reversion. I think you reverted my reversion instead of your intended edit. General Ization ^Talk 21:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@General Ization: Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I was about to leave a note on User_talk:Leunghoching1234567 about unsourced election results, and saw that you had already left some comments about their editing. I appreciate that election results are being added to so many of these articles, but some of them just point towards a source in an edit summary, while others -- and Leunghoching1234567 is a real issue here -- don't even bother to mention a source.

Do you have any thoughts on this issue, both in terms of Leunghoching1234567 and of the problem in general? Would WP:AN be an appropriate place to escalate the matter? Alansohn (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Alansohn: I was golfing recenly at Pine Valley and thought of you. Could this be Tyler? --Magnolia677 (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah, a beautiful course named or a recently defunct municipality; I would have been happy to meet up. I will look through the sock evidence, but at a minimum there is a current editing issue. Thanks for the pointer. Alansohn (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering: I noticed you have been involved with Tyler in the past. Would you have a moment to look at this editor? Please let me know if you would prefer an SPI submission. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@Magnolia677, I think this will need SPI so the evidence can be laid out, and I'd be pretty skeptical to start - this account has been around for three years and nearly 3000 edits, so it would be a real surprise for them to be a TylerKutschbach sock, since you'd think we'd have caught them ages ago. -- asilvering (talk) 05:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering: I just saw a lot of similarity. Thanks for looking into this for me. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:07, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

You made a revert about an event not being noteworthy because it had "limited tickets and no promotional advertising". You also asked why would we include this on a city article? To answer your questions. The event had to be kept secret due to threats of violence against two much larger events earlier in the year. Therefore, due to the real threats of political violence, the towns Pride event being kept secret is a pretty significant thing historically. The historical significance is tied to the history of pride events having to be kept secret in the past. This cancellation due to the threats garnered national media attention and is the only story about this town that comes up on media scans from the last year. Perhaps I could have wrote the edit better and would appreciate your advice on how to become a better writer, but the threats of violence are the most significant story, in terms of media attention, in the towns history from the last 5 years. Major events getting canceled due to threats of violence leading to national media attention seem historically relevant to the towns history in my opinion.

If you want to read more about the event to help me improve the section, here are some sources: Source 1: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/steinbach-2slgbtq-pride-9.6953790 / source 2: https://www.thecarillon.com/local/2025/11/03/steinbach-holds-queer-country-fair-in-lieu-of-steinbach-pride / source 3: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/steinbach-pride-march-postponed-safety-143904477.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAEsokbggtpls4rRf6FzxtYq_c3xgbhbj3zqBeoJttImnRBURzKcFnJlYYwlLBHQmq2UsyxjyTGuAjAI8BzL_yT2y2Rk8al8Sy_YRqpWt3gOX5UI0XBaXtX1v-is2aLJVKIoWzDiZEA-yLgtqBQbt6FS16cG5GZ5qvTrjetr99s4k / source 4: https://www.steinbachonline.com/articles/local-leaders-condemn-threats-after-steinbach-pride-event-postponed / source 5: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/steinbach-pride-postponed-threats-1.7633415 / Source 6. https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/editorials/2025/09/20/a-tale-of-two-different-rallies / Source 7. https://www.brandonsun.com/local/2025/09/14/steinbach-cancels-annual-pride-event (there are more sources but i assume this is enough for you to learn about the historical event)

I hope this answered your questions. If you would be open to giving me advice on how I can be a better writer and contribute better to Wikipedia by writing about this event more effectively, I would be very appreciative. If you still feel this issue has no relevance to the towns history can you please let me know why? Thank you. McCIrishman (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@McCIrishman: Please discuss on article talk page. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I reverted your reversion, for the reason explained in my new edit comment. If you really want this quotation to appear, please rewrite the sentence so as to transparently explain that this was a smear by a contemporary newspaper (and that source no longer seems to be viewable, unless I'm mistaken). We should not be throwing in smears, even in quotation marks with a source footnoted, without couching them appropriately: otherwise it gives the appearance of Wikipedia endorsing the epithet. Jcejhay (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jcejhay: Thank you for writing. Please discuss on article talk page. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Not sure why you are using the revert button. User:Seb az86556 added Kin Łigaaí to the article 15 years ago. I linked to chindi, which appears to be the Navajo way of saying "haunted". This doesn't seem like anything to revert others over, so I'm not clear what the problem is here. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thank you for writing. Please discuss on article talk page. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Colman2000 (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Colman2000 (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@Colman2000: Thank you so much. Have a wonderful holiday. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Elvisisalive95 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Elvisisalive95 (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Elvisisalive95: Thank you for the greetings! Have a Merry Christmas. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. They are a time sink. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:51, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

@Timtrent: This one was over the top. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I was also waiting for WP:ROPE. I think and hope the SPI will show that wait not to be necessary, but they are about to tie the noose knot. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:47, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Magnolia677. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 13 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 18:21, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@Gnoeee: Holy cow! Has it been that long? Thanks! Happy holidays. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you have against this article, venue, or the people editing it. You seem to have a personal vendetta against it:

• First, you delete an entire swath of text. You don't even give anyone the grace period of adding the references.
• Next, when someone reverts your deletion, and suggests using the Citation Needed prompts and tags to allow the article to be edited over time by multiple people, you delete it again, and give the person an overly serious warning.
• Then, when they spend, what looks like weeks editing everything back in again, with references, you summarily delete half of it again, nullifying all of their work, and leave ambiguous statements that don't accurately describe anything.
  • What is a "A railway Prairie town re-creation"?
    • What does it have?
    • What is the difference between that and the "pre-railway settlement"?
  • What are "Rural occupations"?

Anyone using this article outside of someone from the area is not going to have a clue what is being spoken of, much less have any inclination to visit the park or the website.

Do you have something against using the talk pages to suggest changes or leaving section headers recommending changes?

~2025-42219-33 (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss at Talk:Heritage Park Historical Village. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I’m discussing it here because you are the only one who has an issue with the content and/or the editors, and you yourself have shown no inclination towards using the talk page to discuss article improvements, instead summarily deleting large portions of content without input or opportunity to correct the perceived issues by others and issuing overly serious warnings for minor slipups. ~2025-43332-48 (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Please start a discussion on the article talk page. Be sure to ping me to the discussion, or notify me here about it. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

		The Red Maple Leaf Award
		This maple leaf is awarded to Magnolia677 for creating four new articles on Ontario villages and heritage during the ninth year of The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Thanks!! Magnolia677 (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

You did not give me time to add sources to previously removed information in Tarrytown / Geography section, which I was in the process of doing. They are now added. Please wait for a couple of minutes and review again. Thanks. Irina S.B. (talk) 12:51, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello! When removing content, as you did at Nova Scotia, it's important to give a valid reason for the removal. You wrote: 'per Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada', however there is no information in the link that explains why the content should be removed. Then in your revert you said 'please wait for a consensus on the talk page' but it's not clear which talk page you're referring to: Template talk:Infobox province or territory of Canada or Talk:Nova Scotia. I did skim both but didn't see anything that looked relevant. You also wrote 'There is no "first language" parameter' but I wasn't under the misapprehension that there was, so I'm not sure where that came from.

I'd appreciate if you could make a dummy edit giving a valid reason for the removal.

Thanks — W.andrea (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2025 (UTC) edited 20:43

@W.andrea: Thank you for writing. I thought my edit summary was clear as a mud free river?? There is discussion right here on the article talk page. I'll try to be more explicit going forward. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

That discussion is about the name of Nova Scotia in different languages, not the languages themselves. It does touch on the languages themselves, but never directly addresses them, unless I missed something. — W.andrea (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I am seeking help regarding users whose names didnt follow naming policy. In this regard please suggest appropriate forum where I can raise the issue. J Bee Verma (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@J Bee Verma: Please see WP:UNC. --Magnolia677 (talk) 11:46, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply , but I am not seeking this.J Bee Verma (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Some one has misleading username where and whom to report that J Bee Verma (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@J Bee Verma: See WP:UAA. --Magnolia677 (talk) 11:55, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Magnolia677,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@Abishe: Thank you so much. All the best to you! Magnolia677 (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Magnolia677,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Safyrr 19:53, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 4}} to send this message

Safyrr 19:53, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Safyrr: Thank you very much. You too! Magnolia677 (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I noticed that you had removed two people from the notable people section citing "unsourced content". I'm writing to ask what was done wrong, and how in the future I could avoid whatever it was I did wrong? ProudOhioan1803 (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@ProudOhioan1803: Thank you for writing. You added Paul Doyle (baseball) as being from Huron, Ohio, but you didn't add a source to support your edit, and on the Paul Doyle article there is no source supporting that he ever lived there. Just add a reliable source to your edit. See Help:Referencing for beginners. --Magnolia677 (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. However I just wanted to make sure that if I were to add a reference to the page of the person, would that remedy the issue, or would I have to add it directly to page with the notable people section (although I've never seen that done)? ProudOhioan1803 (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@ProudOhioan1803: Ideally...both. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Magnolia677, thanks for the note. I wanted to clarify regarding my recent edits to the Celebration City page.

I am a local who grew up visiting this park, and I have been trying to expand the article because the current version is a stub that doesn't capture the park's history. I spent time gathering sources and going through the website through Wayback Machine. I made a mistake by including some generic links like the "Ride Entertainment" projects page that didn't verify the specific claims.

I have gone back and manually verified the content. I replaced the generic links with specific, reliable citations from RCDB and Travel Weekly (2003). I also converted the lists into standard tables to match the formatting of verified pages like Silver Dollar City.

I would appreciate it if you could take a look at the revised sourcing. I am just trying to ensure this defunct park is accurately documented. Thank you! Captk2233 (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@Captk2233: I checked two of the sources you cited, and neither supported the content. As I said one your talk page, please stop using AI for your edits. If you have specific content issues, please discuss them on the article talk page. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Last July, I made a small edit to Sacramento, CA to remove a factual inaccuracy. Today I noticed that you had reverted it less than 3 hours later, with the summary "not an improvement". Said inaccuracy has since been removed by another editor, and no longer appears on the page.

Initially I was annoyed, but after looking at your contributions I appreciate how quick and ruthless you are on reverting edits for machine-written content, vandalism, bad sources, et c. I see how my edit could easily look like pointless nitpicking to someone working as quickly as you do.

Thank you for all the time and work you volunteer. If you end up in Sacramento for some reason I'd love to get you coffee on the house at my shop. Conkaan (talk) 06:20, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Conkaan: Thanks for writing. Sacramento is a great city, with so many paths next to the rivers. I appreciate the contact. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Assuming the article is deleted one of us needs to remember to suggest speedy deletion G10 (advert) at Commons. Currently I doubt Commons will view it as a problem 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. Arcemar1981 (an SPA and the file uploader) created a foolishly located version here which was reverted. This feels like a slow burn campaign. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

The plot thickens. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I have a strange feeling that this is either:

• a hoax
• reputation whitewashing

The alleged criminal activity seems to have been a pyramid/Ponzi scheme. The gentleman appears to be, if real, a lawyer and an officer of the corporation (if that is real also). The AfD needs to close in the regular manner to make re-creation more arduous. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I noticed the paragraph about the 1966 Ypsilanti Greek Theatre was removed for lacking a citation. Rather than deleting it, it’s usually better to tag it with ^{[citation needed]} or raise it on the talk page so the information isn’t lost. I raised this concern over this ref on the talk page a couple days ago but did not remove it due to signifigance. easily found three solid sources — New York Times, Time, and an AADL photo — and added the paragraph back with proper citations. They all confirm the single 1966 season, the productions (The Oresteia and The Birds), and the involvement of Dame Judith Anderson and Bert Lahr. In general, it’s helpful to check for sources before removing content, that way relevant information isn’t lost. Braneyac (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@Braneyac: Please discuss on article talk page. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello Magnolia677!

You may remember contributing to the article on 'Silicon Slopes', only for your edits to be aggressively reverted by the businessman (the user called teaminvise) who uses that page as a promotional campaign to which he is directly financially connected. If you are interested in getting admin support for deleting teaminvise's promotional article, then you may be happy to know that I have nominated that same article for deletion: your participation in the discussion surrounding its deletion would be highly appreciated (if, after all, the only two votes are myself and teaminvise, then the discussion shall come to an impasse).

The link to the discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silicon Slopes (2nd nomination) Whumbler (talk) 09:08, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

@Whumbler: I don't think you formatted the linked discussion the right way. It should look like this. Did you use the WP:AFD#Creating an AfD? --Magnolia677 (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi again — so, I'm pretty inexperienced, and a higher-up has gotten involved and made it clear that I very much had not followed the proper rules and procedures when pursuing the article's deletion. For my own part I think I'll pursue other means of removing that article's promotional material, but the deletion discussion remains open for now. Sorry to drag you into the hullabaloo, and many kind thanks for your prompt reply. Whumbler (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia drama, and feeding my chickens, are what makes the day interesting. Thanks for writing. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Greetings,

Don't want to start an edit war, but...can you explain how the Fox News article you cited isn't a political story? Jenny Death (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jenny Death: Thanks for writing. Operation Metro Surge is a police operation. That's why the article has been added to Category:Law enforcement operations in the United States. I'm not sure what makes reporting about a police operation "political"? There are many sources in that article--CNN, NBC, AP, ABC--and no one has an issue. Then as soon as one source appears that doesn't support "the narrative", editors take issue and pull the "FOX News political" get-out-of-jail-free card. As an aside, a while back I started a discussion that generated a ton of response, see Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 74#This is curious.... Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Even before getting to the article at hand, the subject of the article is political. I would think that would make the article itself "political" reporting, which btw is not inherently biased.

The Fox article you cited exclusively cites the DHS (and it's not linked there, but it specifically seems to be from this press release). Zero quotations from any state/local officials, or anyone countering their claims for that matter, which CNN, NBC, AP, ABC et al do in their pieces. The Fox article (and the press release I linked) would also make it seem like they've merely arrested a handful of criminals on extreme or multiple offenses, which... is pretty clearly an inaccurate representation of who's being arrested and detained in this operation and why.

Lastly, Fox News is absolutely not equally valid a source on this issue as CNN, NBC, AP, ABC for reasons that have been extensively debated on here. Jenny Death (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey there. Just wanted to let you know that foxnews.com is not a reliable source for politics. Please see WP:FOXNEWS. This is in reference to this edit. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: The consensus at WP:FOXNEWS was that it is not reliable for political stories. Fox was reporting about a police operation, which is a news story. That's why the article has been added to Category:Law enforcement operations in the United States. --Magnolia677 (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey there. Interesting take. To me, I see the topic of the article Operation Metro Surge as "Trump's immigration crackdown", which seems political to me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

P.S. Looks like a discussion got opened on the article talk page. I'll repost this there to centralize things. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: I looked for information about all the murders and pedophiles being arrested in the New York Times and on CNN, but all they seem to be reporting on is negative stuff about ICE. How odd? You may be interested in this discussion I started last year which got a ton of (mostly negative) feedback...Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 74#This is curious.... Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Magonila677. I apologize to you for editing. Rock Life 864 (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello. You accused me of using AI to update the entry for Monitor, and reverted my edits. I would like to understand your justification, given that I did not use AI whatsoever. That page was a product of spending hours of my free time researching this hamlet, as I have set myself a personal project of fleshing out the pages for all of Alberta's hamlets eventually. (To demonstrate this, you also queried an edit I made to Taylorville, though I believe you will find it defended to your satisfaction on my talk page.) While I am unsure which aspect of my update to Monitor's entry made you suspect AI, I ran the copy through AI detectors and none of them suggest it was written by AI, nor explain which section(s) gave you that impression.

If it is because you could not access some of the newspaper sources I referenced, I am an amateur historian who pays for access to paywalled archives of historical North American and European newspapers. I have been trying to share the knowledge this affords me access to, which I had believed was the point of Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I try to ensure that if I can find something in a public source, I use that for a citation instead, precisely so that editors such as yourself can check my work. With that in mind, could you please say whether you checked the freely available sources I cited before you reverted my edits? You should have seen that nothing I wrote was unfounded or 'hallucinated' by an LLM.

I apologise if my tone is frustrated, but it is quite demoralising to have one's hard work wiped away by someone who does not appear to have actually read my article or checked the sources properly. If this clears things up, I would sincerely appreciate you restoring my edits and noting on my talk page that this was a misunderstanding. I am also truly open to learning from your concerns so that I can avoid any missteps that made you think my article was AI to begin with. Forecastkathryn (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@Forecastkathryn: Parts of the edit seemed a bit of a hallucination, but these things happen. Thank you for writing. I'll self-revert. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The article Ben-Gay, Arkansas has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A single sentence about a supposed place with no evidence it actually exists as a distinct location. No secondary sources. Fails WP:GEOLAND.

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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. AusLondonder (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Dorian88A deleted my questions from their talk page, but the material that they've added is borderline gibberish. I'm not sure if I feel better or worse if this AI or if it this editor's research. Thanks for your efforts to try to explain and address the very fundamental issues here. Alansohn (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Alansohn: I think they're using a translating app. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I think you're being charitable here. Let's see how this plays out, in English. Alansohn (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

thanks for checking the change. can you explain the revert for e-yearbook ™ to e-yearbook (tm) ? I made a few of those and would like to better understand (tm) Tonymetz 💬 16:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

the diff e-yearbook diff Tonymetz 💬 17:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@Tonymetz: I restored the previous edit. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

thanks for the second look. i did make a couple other mistakes so this was a big help making sure I'm on the right track. cheers. Tonymetz 💬 18:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@Tonymetz MOS:TM was cited by another editor who undid another of your edits, and used that as the edit summary. — Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 06:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Daedalus969 let's please keep feedback on my talk page, and keep it constructive focusing on content . Given that your tone is not very civil, please take this as a formal warning not to WP:HOUND me. I'm happy to discuss content-focused feedback on my talk page. Tonymetz 💬 17:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@User:Magnolia677, I've read your message, and response, and would like you to prove that you've actually engaged with the position I've put forward. You yourself have violated several policies at the same time that you've asserted that I need to familiarize myself with "our" policies. Your message, and response to my revert, was rude, condescending, and frankly disregard the ideals you claim to represent. The number of edits you have does not grant you free license to hold your position over other editors. I've performed far more edits anonymously than you clearly assume to be true based on your brief review of the information available on my user and talk pages. I don't appreciate this, and expect an explanation, if not an apology. CSGinger14 (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Just a suggestion for both of you: try to drop the attitudes and focus on improving the article rather than commenting on each other. I think you both have good intents and both maybe have been a bit ham-handed in your comments and responses. Talk:Culpeper, Virginia is <- that way. Toddst1 (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

hi, an IP address made edits to Engens political positions regarding ICE in Minnesota. They put the line "Engen also said that ICE agents apprehending people solely based on the color of their skin is wrong" in the article. I reverted that edit because it was unsourced and i could not find Emgen saying that quote anywhere via a google search. then you reverted my revert and put the false information back on the page. Are you okay if I fix it or do you want to fix it yourself? MinnesotaNiceGuy (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@MinnesotaNiceGuy: You are welcome to fix the edit, but please don't add back the biased low-quality sources I removed. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay I will work on this today. I need to ask why you didn't do that yourself though? You could have fixed the biased language and found better sources yourself instead of doing a mass revert that reapplied false information. I have interacted with you before on a different article where you behaved the same way. We need to work collaboratively with one another. Mass reverts, edit wars, and attributing unsourced quotes to living people all go against Wikipedia's codes of conduct and you are guilty of doing those things. You seem like a nice person, but you need to stop behaving this way and learn to work with others to improve articles in a collaborative manner. MinnesotaNiceGuy (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@Magnolia677, though I'm not certain it's my place to involve myself with this discussion, in connection with our recent bout, I think you owe @MinnesotaNiceGuy an explanation. It's unfair for you to engage in mass deletion, interact to the extent that you indict someone for their mistake, then be unwilling to engage with them further when they ask an entirely reasonable question of you. Can you really be surprised that they become frustrated? In some way, it feels as though that type of conduct is necessarily goading them into a position where they're sure to violate rules of conduct surrounding civility, or fail to follow guidelines that they are necessarily inexperienced with. You seem to only care to respond on a limited basis, rather than being polite or courteous enough (as you claim to be on your user page) to acknowledge the other user when their concerns surrounding your conduct are in fact justified.

In your pursuit of countering what you describe as "low quality sources", you've seemingly allowed false information to be maintained, upholding one dangerous practice over another that you personally disagreed with in the moment. If that wasn't the case, why don't you acknowledge the accusation and give them an significant explanation for why you made the choice you did? There will always be time to fix things, this lies at the heart of WP:Work in progress. What there won't always be time for is engaging new editors before this site's bleeding of contributors becomes too heavy to be stanched, and thus irreversible.

You do not need to be perfect. You don't even need to stop making the style of edits that you do. But you need to be far more willing to engage with the human side of this website, and not see or wavering from the particulars of codes of conduct as justification to ignore the concerns raised by that editor. Ultimately, being right doesn't earn you anything if such actions geared towards the audience and one's own personal preference cause irreparable damage to the site's relationship with its actual user base. You have been on the site for a long time, and that's admirable, but simultaneously, you shouldn't use the great number of Barnstars you've received as evidence that you aren't accountable to other editors; they should encourage you to help make necessary changes to your conduct and broader site policy to allow for this site's continued survival.

To @MinnesotaNiceGuy, it should be noted that you are not in the right either. There's a certain level of quality that's required of sources on this site, as is elaborated at WP:Perennial sources. Whether Magnolia's conduct was justified or not, the situation could have been avoided if you had gone through the proper dispute resolution channels, and taken into account the points they'd made. You should not be canvassing, as it necessarily creates an unfair balance in the discussion, and opens you up to accusations of direct attacks on the opposing user in question. You need to stop this, because doing so is all the justification Magnolia needs to report you. If you want to have an honest conversation about this, he's right that you need to do so on the articles talk page. If you feel that channel is not frequented enough, or that you're being ganged up on by a particular group of editors (which, it should be noted, is exactly what it's being implied that you were doing as deliberated on your talk page), then I recommend that you take your concerns to WP:Dispute resolution, but be willing to accept whatever the conclusion they come to is.

I will not involve myself in the argument on the page in question, but I think that regardless of Magnolia's 155,454 edits to your 85, this point needs to be made.

CSGinger14 (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

TLDR. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

This was a rather juvenile response my friend. Please read Wikipedia:civility. Specifically the part that says "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment. Even if you see the comment as ridiculous, they very probably don't, and expressing ridicule is likely only to offend and antagonise, rather than helping." MinnesotaNiceGuy (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@Magnolia677 TLDR you didn't feel the need to respond to a single paragraph by this user asking questions about your conduct so I wrote 4, 2 for you, 1 for him, and 1 for both of you. He took it quite well, you don't feel the need to engage. I don't feel the need to provide any more explanation, because it seems pretty clear that you don't think I'm worth responding to.

CSGinger14 (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for this @CSGinger14, I was in the wrong for the Canvassing matter, it was not my intention to gang up on anyone, I was reaching out to a person who was kind to me before when I was in a dispute on a talk page over Steinbach, Manitoba. I was not aware of that rule and its my fault for not knowing it. And I do feel that i could have spent more time working on my word choice on the original edit on the Elliott Engen page. I see how my language can be viewed as biased despite my efforts to make it neutral, but I was rathe upset for someone to do a mass revert claiming my sources did not include the information when they did. People like you educating me and being kind make Wikipedia a better place, thank you for the lesson! I may need to read up more on where to respond in disputes and i keep getting different messages over user vs article talk pages. MinnesotaNiceGuy (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@CSGinger14: Please discuss your issues on the article talk page. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

== Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion ==

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. MinnesotaNiceGuy (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello again, thanks for your interest in improving the quality of content on this page. I believe we share the same goal of high quality information with strong citations.

You reverted edits with multiple new citations stating that the content was not supported by the citations. I encourage you to read the citations to determine whether the content was supported before reverting them. The citations were to primary source materials and scholarly articles contextualizing them, so clearly not produced by AI as you state. Bargsnaffle (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@Bargsnaffle: I did test some citations and they didn't support the content. You are welcome to revert your edit, but I'd strongly suggest test each citation first to be certain they support the content. Thanks for writing. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Magnolia677, thanks for taking the time to review my edit. The research, structure, wording and sourcing of the History section are entirely my own and were developed over an extended period using published secondary sources. I primarily relied upon Dr. Ronald V. Mershart’s Frontier Village: The Birth of Superior, Wisconsin, 1853–1883, along with The Eye of the North-West (1890), the Wisconsin Magazine of History, and archival materials that I cited. My edit briefly summarizes Dr. Mershart’s chapters and follows his interpretation of Superior’s early development.

I did use a tool to assist with converting my already-written prose into Wikitext formatting, which can be cumbersome for me, but the language itself is drawn from the cited sources and my own summaries. The full draft was posted on the article’s Talk page and sat without objection for months, after which an editor indicated approval.

For transparency: my father assisted Dr. Ronald V. Mershart in the mid to late 1990s as a research librarian for the preparation of Frontier Village. The book itself is a published, peer reviewed local history issued by the Douglas County Historical Society and is widely cited. I clearly knew both Dr. Mershart and my father personally, but my edits summarize its chapters and don't introduce unpublished or personal research.

If you have any concerns about sourcing, neutrality, or wording, I’m very happy to address them. Singer2cantor (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@Singer2cantor: Please stop using AI. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

A history section rewrite for Superior, Wisconsin was reverted with a general objection to AI use, despite sourcing and prior Talk review. Requesting a content-based review.

Singer2cantor (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, how does One Fare work if travelling from Oakville to Toronto using public transit on a Presto fare card?

Scenario A: Oakville Transit to MiWay to TTC?

Scenario B: Oakville Transit to GO Transit to TTC? Alexscarborough (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@Alexscarborough: I have no idea. Maybe there's a website someplace when you could find your answer. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi there can Toronto TTC streetcars honk? Some people say "there is no such thing as TTC streetcar horns" as they only had gongs. Your thoughts? Alexscarborough (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't have the time or crayons to explain this to you. Please stop writing me. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey Magnolia667, why did you remove something about which city/town borders Randolph? Just because it's not a travel guide doesn't mean it's not allowed to be mentioned. Also, there's not guideline saying that mentioning which town or city borders is not allowed. If other city/town of Massachusetts mentions with borders, then what's the point of unnecessarily removing them? It just dosen't make any sense. ~2026-64171-4 (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I responded on the article talk page. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a disagreement over content with which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Culpeper".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

CSGinger14 (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

The article Little Hope, Alabama has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NPLACE.

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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. JHD0919 (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I am considering taking this to AfD as there's no evidence it meets WP:NPLACE, however given you objected to the PROD I wanted to check if you know of any sources to establish notability per GNG first. AusLondonder (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: I did a search and found a few sources listing people who were born there. I didn't save the sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Magnolia, I hope all is well for you!

I have seen that you've provided some assistance and touch-ups on articles I've collaborated on in the past (ex: Basehor, Kansas, Basehor-Linwood High School) and others, and I was wondering if you would be able to help me with some revisions on User:Jackson 913/Basehor-Linwood USD 458. At this time, I am struggling to find some sources that are independent of USD 458 for the article. A majority of the information and sources that I have cited come directly from the district website, and I believe there are only two articles that are independent from USD 458.

I also just want to see if you believe that the article would be okay to be published after revisions by either you or myself. If there is any way you can provide assistance, or provide constructive criticism, please feel free to do so. Please also feel free to revise however you see fit.

I look forward to hearing from you! Jackson 913 (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jackson 913: Thanks for writing. I'll for sure have a look at it tomorrow. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Magnolia677, Thanks for your guidance on the Halifax, Nova Scotia article. I’ve updated the section using a Government of Canada reference for Neptune Theatre. Cheers, --Curiousmaple (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@Curiousmaple: Happy to help! Magnolia677 (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I noticed that you haven't added a comment at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Culpeper. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 16:40, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@Sbmeirow: I'll add a few words today. Hope all is well. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah so I didn't check the sources to verify the information on that edit you reverted by me. I was just undoing a blanking by an unregistered user that was flagged as potentially disruptive while I watching over the recent changes page. I only looked at if the language was politically charged or not as that was the reason given for removing it. I'm not trying to turn Wikipedia into a tabloid, just made an oversight while trying to prevent vandalism. ―Maltazarian ^{(talk${\displaystyle \lor }$investigate)} 18:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello Magnolia 677. First off, thanks for your continued efforts to safeguard Wikipedia. I would like to discuss your changes to my edits from last night on the Mason City history page. You believed it to be AI, but I did write the information in my own voice, as well as procured new historical photos and citiations for the page. If you would like, I can continue to rework the wording I included, so AI is not suspected (even though it wasn't used in the first place). Please let me know if you have any concerns. Gcardinal101 (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@Gcardinal101: Thanks for your continued efforts to improve Wikipedia. Please feel free to add edits back in your own voice. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect, I mentioned in my last edit that everything I post is on Discogs. Everything. I even posted the exact date it was released of the album. Did you even bother to check it out? I have been working on that page without any serious problems for over a year now, so I don't understand what the problem is now. Grandmajohnnym (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@Grandmajohnnym: Please discuss on article talk page. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Do you have anything to say in your follow up? What is the point of notable people? You are missing at least 5 individuals. Braves2995 (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@Braves2995: Please discuss on article talk page. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I concur with your revert at Greenwich Village, especially as it appears that the source was one from Greenwich, Connecticut. Thanks again for the edit. Alansohn (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@Alansohn: Hey thanks. I hope all is well. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

That's a preservation of a historic buidling. They redid the house but kept preserved the Tudor Revival Style Shell. I didn't want to list the address and create a privacy issue for the owner. It's not decrative, you can see the 1920s / 1930s style, you can see the results of incorporation keeping the coast from having high rises, you can see Sea Grove Park, a result of the Open Spaces decade. I can add a comment that its a historic building.

https://www.10news.com/lifestyle/exploring-san-diego/del-mar-modern-home-built-in-historic-building

@FarFromTheMiddleEast: Sorry for not responding. No problem with the revert of the photo. Is there some text you could add to the article letting readers know the significance of the home? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

It's in the main text of the article that Tudor Revival Style was used in Del Mar during the silent film era. Do you think it is worth mentioning that this is the South Coast Land Company 15th street city center? FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

(circa post ~1905 I believe) FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@FarFromTheMiddleEast: The source above seems reliable. Would be good to include. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't want to advertise that this is a $15 - $20 million dollar house and create a potential privacy issue, and maybe a security issue for the owner, especially in such a high traffic area. They don't really explain the history in that link. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I am a newbie editor. I have no relationship with the Vienna Inn, but I am from the Northern Virginia region. When I hear Vienna, I think Vienna Inn, because it has been around so long and is the butt of so many jokes. Could you please let me know why you reverted my edit to Vienna, VA, and how I could do better in the future? Again, I have no relationship with the restaurant, so I am fine with it never being added to the page. This was my first attempt ever at adding something substantive to Wikipedia and I'd like to do it more in the future! Bibliotechnic (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bibliotechnic: Thanks for writing. I have no beef with adding a photo of the Inn; it just looked like some random house. Can I suggest adding the photo, along with a line of text in the article (with a source) telling readers about the Inn's significance. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I self-reverted. You may want to add more about it's significance. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually, if you want to debate something, I can find a better topic for you. You are a prolific editor and some of your edits may be slightly questionable.Stately2 (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Stately2: I asked you a good-faith question on your talk page, about a confusing edit summary you left on an article. Your response was to delete my message, and leave me a silly response here. This is not appropriate behavior for editors. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Interpreting anything as silly is misplaced, we're done.Stately2 (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I left my message at Talk:Poteau, Oklahoma#Vague edit summary. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Just dropping by to say hi. Spring is in the air, I even saw the grass for a while yesterday. I've started preparing my travel itinerary -- did I miss any hot destinations? Have a good weekend, MediaKyle (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@MediaKyle: Thanks for the nice message. I was going to write to you actually. The Canadian city articles are such a mess. I may have sort-of fix, but need to get my ideas together. Have a wonderful weekend! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello Magnolia677 Here is the source For Mission & Vision Statements https://web.archive.org/web/20160827210548/http://school.wcskids.net/shhs/home/ Bands https://shhsbands.org/our-bands/ I went to this School from 2013-2016 and It's Very disrespectful to not learn about the School From a former Student like me. I Was in Band, And The CI Program here's the info for the CI Program https://shhsmici.weebly.com/ Thanks:BobPunk1997 (talk) BobPunk1997 (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@BobPunk1997: Mission statements should not be included, per WP:WPSCH/AG#NPOV. You are welcome to add other content back with a source. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners for assistance. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I dont know How to add a source if you can that would be great. And here is the Picture of the School File:STERLING HEIGHTS HIGH SCHOOLWestEntry.jpg So we can replace the Mascot with it.BobPunk1997 (talk) BobPunk1997 (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I have been editing the Town of Milton page. I am an elected official, a member of the Town Council, elected in 2023. I added our mayor, John R. Collier, and Town Manager, Kristy Rogers. You erased because it was "not sourced." I have added them back with sourcing.

If this is still not acceptable to you as the editor, can you please explain what type of evidence you will accept to prove who our mayor and town manager are?

Thank you! Edman197 (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Edman197: Looks good. Thanks for doing that. Your town looks like a wonderful place to raise a family. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Please stop removing my edit on the OHSAA ice hockey page. The source is listed on the talk page, and is widely known thanks to the OHSAA website and social media. ~2026-16451-03 (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for cleaning up my text in the Leesville page. I am quite inexperienced in editing on Wikipedia. Also, as you can probably tell, English is not my native language and I will seek to improve on it, so improving the text I produce is appreciated. Thanks again! Haglets (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Haglets: I'm happy to help. Feel free to ping me. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Magnolia677,

I saw that you reverted the image edit I made to the page for Madison West High School. That's totally ok, no worries about it. But I'm wondering what about the image is bad? The original image has the flagpost in an awkward position, and has the street and some random surroundings taking up a significant part. I meant to replace it with an image that features the building a bit more centrally. What about the image was bad? The resolution is decent I thought, and it frames the school's entrance mostly in center. What kind of image would you most prefer being there? Fastreindeer45 (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Fastreindeer45: Please start a discussion on the article talk page. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

You have cited WP:ROUTINE to revert 68 users making content additions to articles.

WP:ROUTINE is a notability guideline. Both its first line, and the top of WP:NOTABILITY explain that these concern whether a topic is notable enough for its own article, and not for content disputes. WP:NOTNEWS also concerns notability, and not WP:weight.

You have used "notable" in nearly 10,000 edit summaries, mostly for reverting content additions such as:

• "having a "camp" here is hardly notable"
  • You deleted mention of the tribal leader, who went by "Catfish", having a camp at a location which the very next line explains "The French labeled the area "Wissameking", meaning "catfish place"."

• "None of these are "notable"; if they were, they would have their own Wikipedia article, which we could link to along with a brief summary."
  • You, deleting the graphic novel adaptations of The Great Gatsby from its article.

• "decorative image of a random non-notable house"
  • You, deleting a photo of Tudor Revival Style home, in an article which states "Additional Tudor style homes and around a dozen commercial buildings were built and it became a unique and distinctive feature of Old Del Mar."

Please stop mass deleting content from articles on the basis of WP:notability. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@ເສລີພາບ: If you have an issue with my competence, take it to ANI. I've also had a bad experience with a stalker on here...I don't need another, so please stop following me. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not "following" you. You reverted my addition citing WP:ROUTINE and calling it "cute" and opened a talk page thread against me.

It's a lot easier to click revert than it is to produce content, and you've been reverting people for years based off a clear misapplication of policy.

All I want from you is a single acknowledgment that you'll stop reverting content additions on the basis of WP:Notability, WP:Notability (events) (WP:ROUTINE), and the notability-citing-portion of WP:NOTNEWS. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@ເສລີພາບ: Stop messaging me on my talk page. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Magnolia677. My name is LivelyRatification, and I have just reviewed your DYK nomination of Mowbray, Manitoba. I have generally found it to be in compliance with the DYK requirements, but for that it falls short of the prose requirement, which states that an article must have 1500 characters of length to be featured in DYK. I have detailed that and a bit more in my review, but let me know if you have any questions, concerns, or queries. --LivelyRatification (talk) 05:37, 21 March 2026 (UTC)