User talk:Corker1

I'm not going to make a separate disambig when the primary topic is a single line article that's barely more than a dictionary definition. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed your submission of the National mall article for peer review. I added some general comments but the article still need quite a lot of work before I can identify specifics. I hope this helps though and please let me know if you have any questions. --

Your improvements to this article look good. My only question is where you got the information that he and his wife had 16 children? The source I found mentioned only "5 daughters and 2 sons". Now, that might very well have been only the ones that survived to be adults, but I couldn't find any other number. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the following reference: Johnson, R. Winder (1905). The Ancestry of Rosalie Morris Johnson: Daughter of George Calvert Morris and Elizabeth Kuhn, his wife. Ferris & Leach. This is presently reference number 1 in

David Stuart. The reference states on page 30 that the Stuarts' children were "said to be sixteen in number". Other sources also provide this information. A direct quote from a letter that one of Eleanor Stuart's daughters wrote states that Eleanor Stuart had borne twenty children. The twenty children included the four children that Mrs. Stuart had with her first husband, John Parke Custis. Corker1 (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Sounds good. Thanks again for the improvements to the article. Brianyoumans (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Corker1, I admire your work on the page for the Martin Luther King, Jr National Memorial - which I worked on as well - but wanted to mention that unless I am wrong leads do not need references if the information is included and referenced in the text of the page. I see you've added references and referred to the statements as "undocumented," but (again, unless I'm wrong), I don't think that's necessary. (I did make sure all the facts in the lead were included and referenced in the article.) Do you think my understanding is wrong? Best wishes - and by the way, I visited the memorial and it is very, very impressive. NearTheZoo (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found the answer to my own question:" The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." (Quote from the wikipedia manual of style). Best wishes, NearTheZoo (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Corker1! Just wanted to stop by and say "thanks" for your contributions - I've noticed some of your DC related contributions, and it's really appreciated! On that note, if you are ever interested in meeting up with fellow DC area Wikipedians offline, we do have a

I appreciate what you have done for the Benjamin Banneker page. You are doing a great job keeping the site clean.

Ghhinerm (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Continuing to revert edits will be considered

I've added a discussion topic on the talk page of the National Mall. If you'd like to discuss it further, feel free. McKay (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your comments on the talk:National Mall page. McKay (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing citation style at

YOu have for the third time changed citation style without consensus, and without discussing your edits. Please review

WP:3RR and understand that you can be blocked for disruptive editing if you persist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Deep TMS to help form a consensus. Corker1 (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

No, I am user SandyGeorgia, and I did not suggest that. Please stop changing the citation style without consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop posting to my user page (User:SandyGeorgia); for that, we use talk pages. I have your talk page watchlisted and will respond here. Almost every medical article on Wikipedia uses the citation style that you are altering. Regardless, if you continue changing citation style without consensus, you could be blocked. The options are the original, incomplete, non-citation (manual) style used by the first author, or the style I converted it to when I completed the incomplete citations. Stop introducing the cite doi and cite pmid templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Corker1: I came here to help but I don't see how to say it more clearly than SG has. I looked at the Deep TMS page, its talk page, and both of yours, and I see no evidence that SG ever suggested changing the citation style midstream. Just stick with the one that's being used, as long as there is no consensus to change it. -- Scray (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop altering citation templates; that just creates work as a citation bot has to alter them back. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't "stuff" articles with images which don't add anything. Your addition of the "shutdown" image was worthwhile, but this latest addition was not, and just unnecessarily crowded the article, which has plenty of images already. I have reverted it.BMK (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I added the new image (National Mall in 1999) to the History section to show a comparison of views of the Mall looking east from the top of the Washington Monument towards the U.S. Capitol in 1901 and 1999. The two images show the changes in the Mall that resulted from implementation of the McMillan Plan (which is between the 1901 and 1999 images. Corker1 (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		In appreciation of all the persistent and meticulous work you put into many of our articles on history and transportation. Samsara 19:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for your improvements to the Monarch butterfly article.   Bfpage |leave a message  19:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you like it or not, you can use all the semantics in the world, it still can't take away from Benjamin Banneker accomplishments. Go and cry to someone who's willing to listen to rant! Uriel Lavi (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who knew Benjamin Banneker understands his accomplishments! No matter what semantics is used to discredit him, he will always be noted as a man affiliated with the mapping of Washington, D.C. Uriel Lavi (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Benjamin Banneker had a number of well-documented accomplishments, including the authorship of a series of almanacs, the creation of mathematical puzzles and the predictions of eclipses. However, historical researchers have been unable to find any verifiable sources that support the idea that Banneker had any involvement in the mapping of Washington, D.C., except for his three-month assistance in Andrew Ellicott's two-year survey of the boundaries of the District of Columbia. (See
  Mythology and legacy of Benjamin Banneker for information and citations relevant to this point.) Corker1 (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The article at Gutenberg here is a mirror of content at World Heritage, including the license and link to the source at Wikipedia (the line labeled "make contributions at the Citational Source" at the top of the page).
• The article at World Heritage here is a mirror of content here as noted in the same link and credit at the bottom of the page.
• Both versions are identical to the Wikipedia article before you began improving it in November.

If you feel there is some mistake, please let me know. This has been covered many times before, and World Heritage is a known mirror - they've just done a very poor job of making that clear and abiding by the CC license. Kuru (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your comments on my edits to Bushrod Washington. Before reading your comments, I had not recognized that the citational source for the Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing Press article on Bushrod Washington is actually the Wikipedia article on that subject. As you stated, the Gutenberg article's original source is quite obscure. I have therefore removed the information in the Wikipedia article that the Gutenberg article contains except where I was able to find one or more sources that I consider to be reliable. Corker1 (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate any edits to this article, the recent effort to bring it to Good Article status mainly involved the reduction of detail that had made it almost 300k, difficult to read and edit. Since I had added most of that detail, it was only during the collaboration on the Good Article review that I came to appreciate the validity of

Please don't unnecessarily rewrite article's references, as you did at Libby Garvey. Doing so erodes the utility of diffs.

There is a principle, in engineering, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

I like putting every field of a {{

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from L'Enfant Plan into History of Washington, D.C.. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed you using bullet points for some of your comments while cleaning up

Thanks for all your work expanding the article! JohnPomeranz (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the "Marshall House plaque" in various articles. One quibble though - blog comments are not adequate sources for an article. [2] Please see

Anyone can create a

reliable

third-party publications.

In this case, a blog comment calling for a boycott is not really significant enough to merit inclusion. If it were, imagine all the things that'd end up in Wikipedia! Mobi Ditch (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into Meg Groeling's background, and I'd say that her own work is OK, even when published in a blog, because she is a recognized expert, having been published by established publishers.[3] It's just the comments in response to her blog that don't qualify. If the calls for a boycott are reported in a reliable source then that'd be OK. Mobi Ditch (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Corker,

I just saw this edit and noticed that the sentence could be read to imply that Banneker influenced the Declaration of Independence. If there is a source supporting that view, then I think it should be more clearly stated. Otherwise, giving this impression should be avoided per

With the most profound respect,

Samsara 10:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Samsara: My edit restored the words drafter of the United States Declaration of Independence that another editor had removed from a sentence in the lead section of Benjamin Banneker. The sentence states in regard to Banneker: He corresponded with Thomas Jefferson, drafter of the United States Declaration of Independence, on the topics of slavery and racial equality.

The restored words inform readers of Jefferson's most notable accomplishment prior to the dates of the correspondence. Because the sentence is in the article's lead, the sentence does not provide the date of Jefferson's draft or the dates of any of the referenced correspondence.

This is consistent with the wording of all other sentences in the lead. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. The lead gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on. Lead sections therefore need to be concise (see

MOS:LEAD

).

While some readers may consider that the sentence implies that this correspondence occurred around the time that Jefferson was drafting the Declaration, the lead should encourage many to read the section entitled Correspondence with Thomas Jefferson to obtain more information about the subject. The first sentence of that section states: On August 19, 1791, after departing the federal capital area, Banneker wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson, who in 1776 had drafted the United States Declaration of Independence and in 1791 was serving as the United States Secretary of State. The readers will then recognize that Banneker could not have influenced the Declaration of Independence.

If you have any further suggestions or comments about this matter, please respond to the above. Corker1 (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the sentence is misleading as Jefferson was not the drafter of the constitution at the time of the correspondence. As you rightly say, that process had been completed. Samsara 00:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Samsara: I have disambiguated the sentence in response to your comments. The sentence now states: He corresponded with Thomas Jefferson, who had earlier drafted the United States Declaration of Independence, on the topics of slavery and racial equality.

Thank you for your comments. Corker1 (talk) 05:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, I have added my reasoning to my edits to the National Mall talk page. I will not be touching this page and leave it as you want it. Blazing Liberty (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your work on Benjamin Banneker, you are sometimes closing HTML tags with the slash at the beginning rather than the end. The closing tag for <sup> is </sup>, with the slash at the beginning, not the end. When the slash is at the end, it's called a self-closed tag. Some tags can be self-closed, and the most common example is <ref name="blah" />, which is used when <ref name="blah"> is already defined somewhere else in the article, and you want to use it and close it in one step. Otherwise, you would have to use the more cumbersome <ref name="blah"></ref>. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from National Mall into Dutch elm disease. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa (talk) Thank you for your messages on this subject. I was the sole author of the prose that I copied in the two instances that you have cited. Corker1 (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you intending to report this user for his uncollaborative attitude? After reviewing his pattern of edits in several topics, I think his behavior is unlikely to improve, and something needs to be done about it before he wastes any more of other people's time. 2600:1004:B108:1795:3044:8CE2:9571:D868 (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

BullRangifer: Please review all of the comments on Onetwothreeip's user page. You will find that Onetwothreeip splits articles without seeking or acheiving consensus or notifying previous editors, creates orphan articles, removes links to references in a manner that makes it impossible for others to access original sources and refuses to cooperate with other editors to correct the damage that Onetwothreeip

has done to Wikipedia.

Please also read the recent history of Onetwothreeip's user page. Onetwothreeip has recently removed comments that I have made on that page without notifying me or performing an "undo" action, which would automatically notify me of these actions. Onetwothreeip may have previously performed such actions earlier in response to other critical comments that editors have placed on Onetwothreeip's user page.

Because of this repeated pattern of non-cooperativeness and deception, Onetwothreeip's actions need to be reported to Wikipedia's administrators for appropriate corrective action. If you wish to report Onetwothreeip's actions to the administrators, please proceed.

It would be best if more than one editor reports Onetwothreeip's misuse of Wikipedia. Please therefore inform me of any action that you may take. I will follow-up with a similar action.

Thank you. Corker1 (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2600:1004:B108:1795:3044:8CE2:9571:D868: Please see above. If you concur, you can initiate the process by informing Wikipedia's administrators of Onetwothreeip's actions.

Thank you. Corker1 (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The correct place to make such a report would be

Wikipedia:ANI, with diffs showing his pattern of behavior. I agree that this needs to be done, but I'm the wrong person to do it. It should be done by an experienced Wikipedian, not by an unregistered user. 2600:1004:B108:1795:3044:8CE2:9571:D868 (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

To put it bluntly, you have devoted far too much time and far too many edits to me personally. Often these have been very lengthy edits that I have tried to make sense of, following up on most of them. You say things like that a certain article is an orphan, but it's not, so I don't know what more there is to talk about. I think it would be best if we edit articles rather than engage in this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, someone else has made such a report: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Undiscussed_split However, it's only about a single case of his behavior, not about the long-term pattern.

I'm not able to participate in the report directly, because only registered users can edit that page. But this probably is the best opportunity for the rest of his behavior to be brought to the attention of administrators, if you or one of the other editors who's familiar with it would like to bring it up there. If you decide to comment about it there, I recommend pinging some of the other editors who have participated in the earlier discussions about him. 2600:1004:B16B:F542:458D:473F:2506:D12A (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that the issues around splitting the Benjamin Banneker article were drawn out, but I am glad that this is an issue that has been resolved, and I thank Corker1 for its conclusion. They are free to raise further concerns with me, but it seems that's all behind us now. We don't need continued drama, and it would be a much better use of everyone's time if we stuck to editing articles for now. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

BullRangifer: 2600:1004:B108:1795:3044:8CE2:9571:D868

:

Onetwothreeip: Your message above stated: "... this is an issue that has been resolved". You appear to have misunderstood the message that I placed on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Cban against implementing article splits for Onetwothreeip. My message began "Strong support Cban".

Please read Cban (Community bans and restrictions). As you can see in the discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Cban against implementing article splits for Onetwothreeip, the community is reaching a consensus to impose this type of sanction on you. Your refusal to adequately respond to comments by a number of editors is helping to achieve consensus. I therefore suggest that you place a message on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Cban against implementing article splits for Onetwothreeip that states that you will stop spliting Wikipedia articles. Corker1 (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, please feel free to ask me any questions you would like for me to respond. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is just one example of what is happening with some of the splits. See here. 123ip gets notifications, so search their talk page history. What was once a good article gets split, and then the split becomes unstable or not worth keeping. --

@

Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker has resulted in a similar effect. Except when recently edited, one of the products of the split (Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker) is now receiving fewer than ten pageviews per day, some of which are my own. The split therefore created an article that attracts few readers. Corker1 (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I've been pinged here so I'll just say that I am not against the deletion of List of Teen Wolf minor characters. I don't make judgements on the notability of content that already exists when splitting the article, given that the content already existed. The issue in that deletion discussion is not that the article was split, but the content itself. If that article does get deleted, the content would just have been removed from the main article if it wasn't already split out. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to

In a recent edit you added webarchive links most of which are valid. However, adding webarchive links will not work when the content at that URL is updated daily, such as at the VDH website/URL about COVID-19 in Virginia. There is no saving of the VDH.gov website as it appeared when 10 deaths were announced, etc. therefore the webarchive linkage is invalid. - Shearonink (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: Thanks for catching this. I have removed the archive url for the VDH.gov website that you identified. I will do this in the future whenever I again use a bot that archives the url for that website. Corker1 (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that at least one reader notes, and appreciates, your well-documented work on Banneker. deisenbe (talk) 09:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed on some of your recent edits (such as at Metroliner (train) that you place multiple sources between the same reference tags, numbering the sources within those tags. Please do not do this. Each separate reference source needs to be placed between separate reference tags, as that auto generates the appropriate number for the reference list below. I have already corrected them at the Metroliner article as well as at High-speed rail in the United States, bit would ask you to do the same for other places where you've made the same inappropriate formatting. Thank you. oknazevad (talk) 06:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've noticed that you've been editing recently this article, mostly by revising references. May you do the same to the Italian article, the only existent in another language in Wikipedia, please? No need to change anything else, just to fix the same few things you've fixed in the English article about references! If you don't want to do it, no problem, but if you will do it, thank you very much :-)

Well, you know, a "sorry but I'm not interested/I've got no time and I can't help you" would have been at least polite... :-(

I generally respond to requests on my Talk page in a message to the requestor's Talk page or by pinging the requestor. However, the above requestor did not sign the requesting message. Therefore, I could not do either of these things.

Abingdon (piantagione) in the Italian Wikipedia has received an average of only 1 view per day during the past 12 months. I made 36 recent edits to Abingdon (plantation) on 11 June 2020 and 12 June 2020. All except one of these were minor edits. Each edit either revised existing references or were editorial changes to existing text (which only a person who can write in the Italian language can change in the Italian Wikipedia). I therefore chose to not place those edits in Abingdon (piantagione). However, a bilingual editor can make those changes if desired. Corker1 (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problems, thanks anyway. I'll try doing it by myself or asking somebody else. However, I don't understad why you don't usually reply in your own talk page when it's an IP user who writes, it's even simpler for both reading the discussion in a single talk page instead of jumping from one page to the other.

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Benjamin Banneker. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I'm sorry, "unjustified vandalism"? Drmies (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see this what mentioned above, but if you noticed references on the Pike article were formatted individually, not grouped together. I have no clue why they would be grouped like that, since it would make it more difficult to cite only one of the articles in the rest of the page. Thank you for updating the arrest info, but if you add any more sources, please use the same format as the other inline citations.

@

User:AgnosticPreachersKid The format that I used for my references is a type of "bundling", which Help:Citation merging#Usage describes. Therefore, the format that I used is acceptable, although it is uncommon. Help:Citation merging#Usage

states that "bundling" has several advantages:

Help:Citation merging#Usage also states that "bundling" has several disadvanges. However, when there are more than two related footnotes (as is the case with the footnotes that I placed in the Pike article, the advantages appear to outweigh disadvantages.

I agree that, in general, all citations within an artcle should have the same format. However, since "bundling" is uncommon, that would preclude its use in nearly all WP articles, as many editors are not aware that "bundling" is acceptable.

Further, some editors would bundle only two citations, while others would bundle only when there are many more citations. Therefore, "bundling" is one of those instances in which consistency among formats within the same article would be nearly impossible to achieve. Corker1 (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but if you could stick with the same format when there's already dozens of other citations, especially on something that's a GA ,I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

whisper in my ear 22:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Your edit re-inserted the spelling "Virgina". Also regarding br tags, the closed form is useful for syntax highlighters (see Help:HTML in wikitext#br). While strictly speaking, the closing slash is not necessary, it is neither invalid nor harmful, and it costs you nothing to leave it there for people who use syntax highlighting. kennethaw88 • talk 15:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:kennethaw88: I apologize for not retaining your correction of the misspelling of "Virginia". I did not see the correction before I reverted your edit.

I have often removed the closing slash and its preceding space from br tags in articles, as they appeared to have needlessly used resources and to have been distracting. However, as you have informed me that the closing space and slash helps some readers and editors, I will not remove these in the future and will add them whenever I insert a br tag. I have also restored your edit to Washington and Old Dominion Railroad.

Thanks for the information and for informing me of the link to Help:HTML in wikitext#br. Corker1 (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Corker1,

I appreciate all the work that you have done on this page. However, you have recently twice reverted my edits to a language template in a citation, when I changed your wikilinked Catalan to its ISO-693-1 code "ca".

In addition to asking you to glance at the ""Category:cs1 unrecognized language" page that I mentioned in both of my edit summaries, I direct you to the paragraph at Help:Citation_Style_1#Language. Although it is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, it is a how-to that states two relevant points. First, language codes are preferable to language names so that if another editor copies the citation for use on a page in another Wikipedia language, it will continue to render correctly in that language. Second, and unambiguously, "Do not use templates or wikilinks". This information also is in the bullet point "language" in the paragraph at Template:Cite_web#Title.

Use of your format also does not permit the page to be added to "Category:CS1 French-language sources (fr)" page as it should be – and as the page for Benjamin Banneker is, which has correctly formatted language tags.

I have cleared to the greatest extent possible the "Category:cs1 unrecognized language" page. At the time I am writing this message, the only remaining pages are those with languages that are not recognized by CS1, those in the draft namespace, and one in the Wikipedia namespace that has been archived and is not supposed to be edited. Yours is now the only page in all of English Wikipedia that contains a language recognized by CS1 but formatted with a wikilink. I will allow you time to respond in case there is a Wikipedia policy that states otherwise, but your reversions of my edits go against a well-established consensus.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ira Leviton: Because Template:Cite_web#Title states "Do not use templates or wikilinks." in the bullet point "language", I have reverted my edit.

Thanks for providing the link to Template:Cite_web#Title. Corker1 (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "computer access to live links within this article, because access to |archiveurl=....| is slow" and "to improve computer access to the article's live links"? What computer? Are you referring to the time it takes to parse the wikitext into html? Or the time it takes to parse the HTML in your browser? I am confused. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AManWithNoPlan: Here is the problem, with an example. If your computer and WiFi connections operate at high speed, you may not experience the problem. However, I and many other WP users often experience it.

Click on ""Benjamin Banneker: Surveyor-Inventor-Astronomer mural". Archived 2017-11-01 at the Wayback Machine" to access a live web page. (Don't click on the word "Archived".) Your computer should access the live web page within one or two seconds, as my computer does.

Now click on ""Benjamin Banneker: Surveyor-Inventor-Astronomer mural". Archived from the original on 2017-11-01.". My computer takes about 30 seconds to access the web page (which is an archived page) on its first attempt after I have clicked on the link; however, access is often faster on later attempts because my computer has a memory. You may experience similar delays when using your computer, although you may not. While users can quickly access the live orginal web page by clicking on "the original", few will do this before they have experienced delays when clicking on the link to the archived web page.

Your edits (using the bot) delete all links to "Archived 2017-11-01 at the Wayback Machine" and links to other archived web pages with other archive dates. Your edits replace those links with ""Benjamin Banneker: Surveyor-Inventor-Astronomer mural". Archived from the original on 2017-11-01." or other archived web pages with other archive dates. Your edits therefore delay user access to the information that they are seeking when clicking on the links. 

Therefore, if you use the bot, please manually remove the above types of changes that the bot makes when the link to the original web page is live and the WP article contains "Archived 2017-11-01 at the Wayback Machine" or links to other archived web pages with other archive dates.

Thank you. Corker1 (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did do that the second time. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AManWithNoPlan: If you review your edit at Revision as of 20:41, 11 December 2020, you will see that you did not manually remove approximately 155 of the above types of changes that the bot made when the link to the original web page was live and the WP article contained "Archived 2017-11-01 at the Wayback Machine" or links to other archived web pages with other archive dates. That is the reason that I found it necessary to revert your edit. Corker1 (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one example of what you reverted. The title link is to the original, because status is set to live. before: Highsmith, Carol M. (photographer). ""Benjamin Banneker: Surveyor-Inventor-Astronomer", mural by Maxime Seelbinder, at the Recorder of Deeds building, built in 1943. 515 D St., NW, Washington, D.C." (photograph). Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress. Retrieved 2017-11-05. Archived 2017-11-01 at the Wayback Machine

After: Highsmith, Carol M. (photographer). ""Benjamin Banneker: Surveyor-Inventor-Astronomer", mural by Maxime Seelbinder, at the Recorder of Deeds building, built in 1943. 515 D St., NW, Washington, D.C." (photograph). Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress. Archived from the original on November 1, 2017. Retrieved 2017-11-05.

@AManWithNoPlan: I now understand the revisions that you made. I have therefore restored your edit.

Please note, however, that archived links to references in Google Books usually disappear after several days. I therefore suggest that you check your edits periodically to determine whether archived links to references in Google Books that you add (such as those that you added to Benjamin Banneker) are still functional. If the archived links no longer function, I suggest that you remove them to allow readers to quickly access the link to the orginal reference.

Alternatively, when you make your edits, you can assure that you have not made any that added archived links to references in Google Books. There is no real need to archive links to Google Books, as Google Books will almost certainly remain active for the forseeable future. Corker1 (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I regularly remove google books archives myself from pages for that reason. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AManWithNoPlan: Your 16:52, 15 December 2020 Revision to National Mall using Citation bot removed several portions of important live links to Google Books, including "&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false". Your removal of those portions of the links redirected the links from the books' title pages (often the books' front covers) to Google's main pages for the books. I have therefore reverted your revision.

I have previously reported this type of error to User talk:Citation bot. However, the error still exists. Please therefore correct the error whenever using Citation bot. Thank you. Corker1 (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not that is an error is a matter of opinion. Please discuss on the bot page. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AManWithNoPlan: I have discussed this matter in response to your comments on the bot's Talk page. Corker1 (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With some of your edits to

@Ww2censor: Thanks for tip. I have changed the values of the images on Postage stamps and postal history of the United States‎ to "upright=(value)" where appropriate. I will also use this format in all images that I add to WP articles. Corker1 (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that on List of common misconceptions, you have in several cases combined multiple footnotes into a single footnote with numbered parts. This isn't standard style in any reference or scholarly style sheet that I'm aware of, and I haven't seen it on Wikipedia before. Is it a new standard on Wikipedia? If so, where is it documented in the Manual of Style? Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Macrakis:The format that I used for my references is a type of "bundling", which Help:Citation merging#Usage describes. Help:Citation merging#Usage states that "bundling" has several advantages:

It helps readers and other editors see at a glance which source supports which point, maintaining text–source integrity;

It avoids the visual clutter of multiple clickable footnotes inside a sentence or paragraph;

It avoids the confusion of having multiple sources listed separately after sentences, with no indication of which source to check for each part of the text, such as this.[1][2][3][4]

It makes it less likely that inline citations will be moved inadvertently when text is re-arranged, because the footnote states clearly which source supports which point.

One or more prior editors of List of common misconceptions bundled a number of citations by inserting bullets for each citation within single footnotes. I changed the bullets to numbers and increased the number of bundled citations. These changes increase readability and ease of citing references within the article. Corker1 (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. I wasn't aware of the bundling format. I don't see the advantage of numbering the individual references, though, and that format isn't mentioned in the Citation merging page. Bullets seem cleaner and more readable to me. --Macrakis (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Macrakis: You are correct when stating that the Citation merging page does not describe the individual numbering of bundled citations. However, the numbering of bundled citations is only a minor modification of the bundling procedure. As I stated above, numbering increases the ease of identifying and citing references within the article.

To determine whether numbering makes List of common misconceptions more readable than does bulleting, I suggest that you compare the present version of the page with the version that existed before I made my changes. If you believe that the earlier version was more readable or more useful than is the present version, you can change to bullets each of the numbers that I have placed within the footnotes. Corker1 (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do prefer the bulleted form, except for one thing: the first bullet starts a new line, which is exceptionally ugly; that could be fixed by using "• " explicitly, but it seems poor form to hack in a special case for the first "*". Then again, "(1) " has the same problem (duplicating #). How about "1. " to make it a little lighter visually? --Macrakis (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Macrakis:Replacing "(1)" with "1." would result in a duplication of the format that WP automatically inserts for each footnote. WP would automatically insert a superscripted pointer (∧) between the two numbers.

The reader would see "5.∧1." (with the pointer superscripted) for the first citation in the fifth footnote and an indented "2." for the second citation in that footnote. This could confuse readers while not providing a large benefit. Corker1 (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean!

I've mocked up various formats on User:Macrakis/bundled. Using "a." instead of "1." looks pretty good, though to my eye, "•" looks better. "a." has the advantage that "footnote 23a" works, but "1." would have to be something like "footnote 23/1".

By the way, I see that one of the references here has gotten screwed up along the way, too. The full article in the second one is volume 45, issue 1, pages 21-41 (45:1:21–41), specifically on pages 31 and 39 of this 20-page article. But it is being formatted bizarrely, with quotation marks. --Macrakis (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the Polgar formatting by reverting to the old version -- maybe someone who's better at templates than me can re-template it. I also fixed the Raw Truth reference to be complete. --Macrakis (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Macrakis: "a." looks good, but I prefer numbers. When needed for additional information, I place letters after the numbers. However, if you would like to change all of the numbers to letters, I would have no objections.

Thanks for informing me of the formatting error in the citation to the Polgar article. I have reformatted the citation and added a link to a synopsis of the article, as well as other information. The page containing the synopsis contains a link that downloads the complete article, which is written in English. I also changed the formatting of the citation to the Raw Truth article to match the formatting of the citation to the Polgar article. Corker1 (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm done changing (1) to a. etc. in the article. I've also cleaned up some other things: consistently using <br /> rather than <br> or <br/>; some typos; etc.

Looking at the result, I still think that bullets would make more sense than either number or letters, but we agreed on the letters. --Macrakis (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Macrakis: I have reviewed your edits to the footnotes in List of common misconceptions. I consider that the parentheses that you removed from the footnotes helped identify the beginning and end of each citation in a footnote. However, the parentheses added clutter to the footnotes. I have therefore retained those edits.

I found that you used bullets, rather than letters, to identify the listed citations in the footnote that begins with the word "conversate". Please therefore note that Help:Citation merging#Usage states: "Within a given article, only a single layout should be used." I therefore replaced that bulleted list with a lettered list.

Thanks for correcting the typographical errors that I made, including those that occurred when I inadvertently added <br> or <br/> instead of <br />. Corker1 (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

@Onel5969: I did not create the article entitled John B Judkins Company. On 16:18, 7 May 2021, I redirected John B Judkins Company to John B. Judkins Company to add a period after the letter "B". I therefore suggest that you inform the creator of the article entitled John B Judkins Company of your concerns and actions. Corker1 (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corker1, apologies. That happens automatically to the first editor on the page. Will post on the other editor's page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: Thanks. Corker1 (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

You have shown interest in genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

certain exemptions

.

KoA (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly letting you know about this because you are reinserting content in some areas of the article relating to pesticides, which are under a 1RR restriction. Part of that restriction is the expectation that you also aren't reinserting content that has already been disputed and are expecting to gain consensus for it instead. You are making a lot of edits and missing a bit when people try to chime in and point things out, so I highly suggest slowing down and addressing issues. KoA (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KoA: I am not aware of any edits that I made that relate to pesticides, including any that may have reinserted content that others had removed. Please therefore identify those edits.

In addition, you recently reverted a paragraph that I had added that had provided information regarding the Mayors' Monarch Pledge. You had earlier reverted my initial addition of this information, stating "Lacks independent coverage and not real indication of

WP:WEIGHT

or specifics. Better to have actual actions listed than random policy initiatives."

I therefore added a sentence that stated "The United States Fish and Wildlife Service and non-governmental organizations have encouraged communities to take the pledge, which more than 300 have already done in the United States, Canada and Mexico." I supported that sentence with in-line citations to several different sources of the information in the sentence. Each citation contained quotes from the source that verified the information that the sentence contained.

In my opinion, the sentence and the cited quotes clearly demonstrate the

WP:WEIGHT

of the Mayors' Monarch Pledge, as well as the fact that there is independent coverage of the subject. The paragraph, when supplemented by the additional sentence and the cited quotes, provided much specific information about the subject and its weight.

Nevertheless, you again reverted my edits, stating "Clean up edit warring, still not showing significant coverage. Please follow

WP:ONUS

states: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." However, I am presently unable to achieve consensus for approval because you did not explain why my coverage of the Mayors' Monarch Pledge was not "significant".

Please therefore explain why my coverage of the Mayors' Monarch Pledge was not "significant". I need this explanation before I a seek a third opinion (

WP:CON on the subject. Corker1 (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

For whatever reason, the ping did not show for me back when you commented, and normally content discussion belongs on the article talk page. That said, your mention of the USFWS would be a

WP:SYNTH violation. We would need to know why that one particular city's policy that does involve things like pesticides is so notable compared to all others out there, and we can't handwave by USFWS making a general recommendation to assert DUE for something they didn't actually comment on. KoA (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:SYNTH. Corker1 (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

From your link Change ordinances so herbicides, insecticides, or other chemicals used in the community are not harmful to pollinators.. It shouldn't take an entomologist to tell you what's in your source. Pesticides are almost always involved in pollinator protection plan goals (and rightly so). Pollinator friendly habitat is also typically tied into that subject even if not mentioned explicitly, and the discretionary sanctions are broadly construed anyways. That all should be moot point anyways because the whole point of alerting you to these sanctions months ago was to caution you about edit warring that shouldn't have been happening anyways, but to especially caution because you were drifting into a much more strict area. You are welcome for the assistance.

As for the content, the burden is on you, not me, to establish significance through other sources. It's been months and there's nothing on the article talk page to establish how this one policy program that has pretty standard language that we use in pollinator protection programs stands out among the rest. Why bother naming this one in particular? Where's the significant independent coverage? KoA (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KoA: @KoA: You stated: "From your link Change ordinances so herbicides, insecticides, or other chemicals used in the community are not harmful to pollinators.." That statement is not in my link ("Mayor's Monarch Pledge" at https://www.nwf.org/MayorsMonarchPledge/About/Pledge-Action-Items). Why did you cite it? Where did it come from?

You stated: "there's nothing on the article talk page to establish how this one policy program that has pretty standard language that we use in pollinator protection programs stands out among the rest." That is correct. There was nothing in the article talk page about this policy program (Mayor's Monarch Pledge) because the Pledge does not have the so-called "pretty standard language" that some sources may use in pollinator protection programs.

You stated "Pesticides are almost always involved in pollinator protection plan goals (and rightly so)" Wrong!!! That is only true in rural areas. Farmers use pesticides to increase food production. However, mayors govern cities and towns. As a rule, cities and towns avoid the use of pesticides, as they are often toxic to humans, birds, etc. The only exception to this rule occurs when a major insect infestation is destroying the city's tree canopy or is endangering human health (such as an outbreak of a mosquito-borne disease). Policies designed to create or restore monarch habitats in cities and towns may therefore contain limitations on the use of herbicides, but have no limitations on pesticide usage.

The Mayor's Monarch Pledge is specific to monarch butterflies. The Pledge contains nothing about creating or restoring habitat for other pollinators, some of which feed on trees that insect infestations may endanger. I therefore do not understand why you cited "pollinator protection plan goals". Those goals are inherently different from goals specifically related to the creation and restoration of monarch butterfly habitats.

Urban and suburban monarch habitats contain butterfly gardens and meadows. These contain neither trees nor mosquito habitat (standing water). As a result, there is rarely, if ever, a need to use pesticides in a city or town's monarch habitat. You don't need to be an entomologist to understand this.

You stated: Why bother naming this one in particular? Where's the significant independent coverage?. If you choose to read the references in the last version of the text that you removed, you will find citations to independent coverage of the Pledge. Corker1 (talk) 07:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you cite it? Where did it come from?. You just posted the link in your previous comment. Please do not waste other editors time like that or by letting your personal assumptions about municipalities go on tangents. I will not respond here further due to that. KoA (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KoA: @KoA: We have a big problem. I have searched all of my previous messages on this page. I found no messages with a link to Change ordinances so herbicides, insecticides, or other chemicals used in the community are not harmful to pollinators.. None of the messages that you have sent to me contain an active link.

As I have stated, I have sent you only one link ("Mayor's Monarch Pledge" at https://www.nwf.org/MayorsMonarchPledge/About/Pledge-Action-Items). Nothing in that link mentions "herbicides, insecticides, or other chemicals".

Please therefore send me an active link to Change ordinances so herbicides, insecticides, or other chemicals used in the community are not harmful to pollinators. I require this information to determine the origin of the statement. The statement appears to be irrelevant to the "Mayor's Monarch Pledge", which you removed from

Monarch butterflies without a presently verifiable justification. Corker1 (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll indulge one last time. I suggest reading the link you just posted (again). All you had to do was use a search function in your browser or look for item 28 in the list. In the future, please read the sources you are using rather than demanding something that is in there doesn't exist. KoA (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KoA: @KoA: Thanks for indulging me. I can finally recognize the issues involved.

Item 28 (Change ordinances so herbicides, insecticides, or other chemicals used in the community are not harmful to pollinators.) is an "Action Item" that is not within the "Mayors Monarch Pledge" itself. An explanation in the webpage that contains the Pledge states: "Mayors and heads of local or tribal government who have taken the Mayors’ Monarch Pledge must commit to implement at least three of the 30 "Action Items" within a year of taking the pledge."

Government leaders taking the pledge therefore do not commit themselves to take any actions regarding insecticides. They can select as few as three of the remaining 29 "Action Items" when making their commitments.

Because a committment to Item 28 is optional, I see no reason to for it to trigger

WP:AC/DS

states: "This page in a nutshell: Discretionary sanctions is a special system that creates an acceptable and collaborative environment for our most contentious and strife-torn articles."

Few, if any, editors would consider Monarch butterfly to be one of Wikipedia's "most contentious and strife-torn articles." Even fewer would consider that the addition to an article of a discussion of an optional pledge with an optional action item would make the article "contentious and strife-torn" when the addition does not mention a controversial subject (e.g., pesticides) .

I therefore do not concur that my addition to

WP:AC/DS. None my additions to Monarch butterfly

have mentioned or will mention pesticides.

If you wish to further contest my addition of the "Mayor's Monarch Pledge" to Monarch butterfly or to retain your reversion of my addition, please copy this entire section ("Pesticide topics") to the Monarch butterfly Talk page. This would be the first step to achieving a consensus on the retention or removal of my addition. Corker1 (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of putting so much energy into special pleading, remember that the DS are broadly construed. It doesn't matter what you "concur", all that matters is that the pledge involves the subject. I was one of those that worked on crafting the DS and subject scope, and it was specifically crafted to cover parts of articles were pesticides can be involved such as this. You're the one who chose to make this huge talk page section because I tried to caution you that you were getting into a DS topic.

Your energy would be better spent improving your behavior. What you are doing here is what is called

WP:POT

behavior in your unblock request trying to blame other editors for your behavior.

Instead, you should be avoiding edit warring and gaming the system to keep your edits in without gaining consensus or insisting others gain consensus against your edits. That's not how policy works in this area. Avoid arguments you've commonly made simply declaring "I concur" and insisting you get your way. That is how combative

WP:PAG. Like it or not, you have been actively disrupting the subject with your own behavior and failure to even read your own sources. That is why I've been somewhat firm with you as it is, but this is your last warning that you need to stop abusing my good faith. I will not be so lenient going forward. The simplest and easiest solution is to work on your behavior rather than doubling down on that behavior, so cut the excuses and stop pinging me here as I will not reply here further. KoA (talk) 04:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Georgetown Car Barn

Hello Corker1, I'm just letting you know that I've rolled back your recent edits on

WP:BAREURLS. That was not helpful because the existing references were necessary to support the adjacent text. Please feel free to ping me if you would like to discuss this further. Ergo Sum 16:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Corker1, I'm just letting you know that I've rolled back your recent edits on

WP:BAREURLS. That was not helpful because the existing references were necessary to support the adjacent text. Please feel free to ping me if you would like to discuss this further. Ergo Sum 16:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@Ergo Sum: WP:BAREBARRELS actually states: "There is nothing wrong with adding bare URL references to Wikipedia." Further, your edit removed much information that I had added and restored undocumented information that I had deleted.

Additionally, some paragraphs that you restored were so lengthy that few people would choose to read them in their entirety. If you are unable to cite a WP source that recommends a specific number of sentences within paragraphs as being "good practice", please do not revert short paragraphs that other editors have added.

In summary, when you revert other editors's contributions, do not remove documented information that the other editors have added or replace undocumented information that they have removed. Such reversions are unhelpful to readers, even if they are not vandalism. I have therefore restored the edits that you removed. Corker1 (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking

edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — Smjg (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. KoA (talk) 03:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KoA: @KoA: You are the one that is edit warring. You are removing images or text that I am adding without providing any justification for your deletions. When I replace the image or text, you remove them again. I therefore suggest that, if you wish to remove a recent edit or addition, you propose this on the article's talk page before you perform the deletion and ping the original editor. Alternatively, you should obtain a consensus before deleting any other editor's work, especially when not providing an thorough justification for your deletion. Corker1 (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Corker, and yes, I'm well aware what you say is

WP:POT behavior trying to single me out as edit warring even though you're the one with 3 reverts right now. That isn't appropriate, and I don't appreciate interjecting that battleground behavior in to the subject. At the time, my only revert was supposed to be from my initial edits, and this one

was intended to be part of the series. Not sure why I didn't get an edit conflict notice, but your knee-jerk reverts didn't help. When someone gives a clear justification, you can't just come back and revert saying no you didn't. You need to use the talk page if something isn't clear to you.

As you're well aware from our previous conversation a few months ago, part of what you suggest is inappropriate as

WP:ONUS applies. After you initially add content and it is rejected, you should not be reinserting it as you have done. Nor is talk page consensus required every time content is deleted. Part of the reason this template is here is because you were still charging ahead with edits even when you know they are contentious and disputed, especially when there is a template on the page cautioning about those images. Instead of working collaboratively, you are being extremely combative, and that needs to stop. KoA (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

External links

Hi, please stop adding large numbers of external links to articles, like you did at

WP:EL for a full description). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continued edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. KoA (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The matter at hand is now being addressed on the relevant article's Talk page. If the matter actually involves an "edit war", it began when KoA reverted one my edits without first discussing the intended reversion on the article's Talk page. Corker1 (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Star Mississippi 17:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for refusing to follow repeatedly given advice..

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Star Mississippi 19:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You have repeatedly been advised that consensus is not in favor of the way you are editing. Specifically that content shouldn't be hosted because a group incorrectly uses it, and refusal to abide by the consenus that Facebook should not be used. You can cite a newspaper without linking to FB, which is likely also hosting it in violation of copyright. As soon as you were unblocked, you returned to some of the problematic edits. Should you communicate that you're willing to follow policy and edit collaboratively, I would have no issue with an admin adjusting the block. Star Mississippi 19:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Corker1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There appears to be a misunderstanding about my edits. First of all, there is no "consensus" about my editing. Only three editors have complained recently about my edits to the article in question (

WP:EL does not prohibit such links. Each time that I added a link to Facebook, the Facebook page did not contain a link to a url that permitted direct access to the publication itself. I therefore could not find a way to cite these publications without creating a link to Facebook. To make this clear, I identified each citation as being via Facebook, rather than being a citation to a possibly unverified statement that had been made within the Facebook page. It appears that an administrator (Star Mississippi) prematurely blocked me. To resolve a complaint about Washington and Old Dominion Railroad (a main article), I had created a new article (Washington and Old Dominion Railroad routes and stations) that was a "daughter" of the main article. I added to the main article links to the new article so that the new article would not be an orphan. However, one of the complaining editors had an objection to this procedure. That editor did not try to resolve the matter on the Talk page for either Washington and Old Dominion Railroad or Washington and Old Dominion Railroad. Instead, the editor asked that I be indefinitely blocked. Star Mississippi then blocked me indefinitely within a few minutes without giving me sufficient time to respond to the request. The original complaint was based on an editor's belief that Washington and Old Dominion Railroad contained several lists and tables, as well as an excessive number of external links, that were of little interest to many readers. The editor made massive changes to Washington and Old Dominion Railroad that deleted much of the article's content. I then reverted the edit and discussed the matter on Talk:Washington and Old Dominion Railroad#External links. Only three more editors made comments on that Talk page. Despite this small number, a complaining editor stated that I had not edited the article in a collaborative matter and requested that I be blocked. While main articles frequently do not contain tables, lists and external links, "daughter" articles often contain these. Some "daughter" articles contain only lists and tables. The placement of such lists and tables in "daughter" articles therefore appears to be consistent with Wikipedia policies. It therefore does not appear reasonable to contend (as Star Mississippi did) that my edits are "problematic" and did not "follow policy". I do try to edit collaboratively and follow policy. However, in this instance, an administrator decided that the opinions of three editors constituted a "consensus". Further, the administrator did not suggest that I utilize Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures to help acheive a real "consensus" (which I have done in the past). The administrator instead placed an indefinite block on me without giving me sufficient time to respond to a request for the block. I therefore request that the block be removed. If the block is removed, I will continue to edit collaboratively and follow policy. I recognize the problems that my edits and responses to comments have recently created, and will make efforts to avoid similar occurrences in the future. Corker1 (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Decline reason:

Does not address the reason for the block. "If the block is removed, I will continue to edit collaboratively and follow policy" suggests that you don't understand that you've been blocked for precisely not doing those things. Black Kite (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Black Kite (talk): Please note that my final sentence was: "I recognize the problems that my edits and responses to comments have recently created, and will make efforts to avoid similar occurrences in the future." That was my bottom line. It's the best that I can do.

Please therefore remove the block. Corker1 (talk) (UTC) Corker1 (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add any replies to the response section of the unblock request. If you wish to revise your reason for unblock and have it reviewed again, start a new unblock request using the same procedure as the first, but please, please read

Contact me | Contributions). 03:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@User talk:TheDragonFire300. I have moved my reply to the response out of the response section. Thank you for your advice. Corker1 (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Corker1, @TheDragonFire300advised you to " start a new unblock request using the same procedure as the first". You have not done so, and therefore there is no open request to review. Please read the guide and follow its instructions. Star Mississippi 17:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Washington and Old Dominion Railroad routes and stations for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Washington and Old Dominion Railroad routes and stations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

KoA (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@KoA: The indefinite block does not permit me to participate in the discussion in a timely manner. However, I would like to make the following points, which others may not recognize.

First of all, Washington and Old Dominion Railroad routes and stations never contained a list of external links. That was the basis for one the original objections to Washington and Old Dominion Railroad. I therefore did not include the links in Washington and Old Dominion Railroad routes and stations.

Second, Washington and Old Dominion Railroad routes and stations is a "daughter" article to the main article (Washington and Old Dominion Railroad). I created the "daughter" to enable interested readers access the tables of stations and the lists of historical maps to obtain more information than some editors considered to be appropriate for inclusion in the main article. Interested readers could also view maps of the railroad's routes and stations the coordinates in the tables had generated.

Readers only interested in obtaining a general overview of the railroad's history can now read only the main article and not be distracted from the information in the daughter article. Those interested in additional information can click on the link in the main article to access the "daughter" article (which because of a recent edit now contains little information).

Many "daughter" articles contain tables and long lists. Some contain only tables and lists. Therefore, my creation of a "daughter" article that did not contain a large number of external links was entirely consistent with Wikipedia policies. It was a "good-faith" edit.

I expected that editors would resolve any objections to the creation or contents of the daughter articles on the Talk page of the "daughter" article or through Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures. However, I was instead blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, thus prohibiting me from participating in those procedures and from editing other articles, nearly all of which are not controversial.

That will be the outcome of this discussion and the indefinite block. Users will lose access to the information and maps in the daughter articles. Errors will remain or will be introduced without corrections in all of the other articles that I have been editing. Over time, the quality of those articles will deteriorate.

I therefore recommend retaining https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Washington_and_Old_Dominion_Railroad_routes_and_stations&oldid=1053394654Washington and Old Dominion Railroad routes and stations and restoring the information that was recently removed. On November 5, 2021, the received only 12 views. Few Wikipedia users will therefore care whether the article is deleted or retained. However, those who might be interested in the tables and maps will no longer have access to the information in the article if the article is deleted. Corker1 (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: You stated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington and Old Dominion Railroad routes and stations: "Wikipedia articles to not exist to be a repository of useful information, if it's not notable and documented in reliable secondary sources." Please therefore note that my original version of Washington and Old Dominion Railroad routes and stations lists in its "References" section a number of reliable secondary sources, including books that David Guillaudeu, Herbert Harwood and Ames Williams authored.

Harwood's and Williams' books contain lists of stations and their distances to other stations, as well as maps of the railroad's routes and copies of timetables from various times that the railroad and its predecessors operated. Guillaudeu's books contain many historical photographs of the railroad and its stations.

The Northern Virginia Regional Parks Authority published Harwood's book. The Arlington Historical Society published Williams' book. Both books contain photographs and lists of stations and their distances to other stations. They also contain maps of the railroad's routes and copies of timetables from various times that the railroad and its predecessors operated.

The fact that such respected organizations published these books and the information within them attests to the reliability of these secondary sources as well as to the notability of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington and Old Dominion Railroad routes and stations. In addition, the maps in the "Maps" section are reliable secondary sources, as they contain information obtained from primary sources by expert geographers.

If not deleted, Washington and Old Dominion Railroad routes and stations can become a source of information for organizations preparing historical markers and neigborhood histories, as well as for authors of future books. The article therefore has a general type of significance that Wikipedia editors need to recognize. Corker1 (talk) 04:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corker, none of us can use what you post here. The only reason talk page access is allowed after an indef block is for you to be able to appeal your block rather than to attempt to engage in content disputes. I highly suggest reading

WP:NOT policy. KoA (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@KoA (talk): The notification above informed me that Washington and Old Dominion Railroad routes and stations was under discussion for possible deletion. The notification states: "and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion." That is my understanding of the situation and of my opportunity to make such contributions.

I addressed my first message in this chain to you. You had stubified Washington and Old Dominion Railroad routes and stations after you had nominated it for deletion.

Editors and administrators reviewing the article can not access the original version if they do not know that one exists. The stubification is still inhibiting an informed discussion of the deletion request and the original article. Some might consider the stubification and its continued existence to be vandalism.

My first message recommended that you restore the original version. You have not yet done this. Corker1 (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked Corker. The automated message for AfDs is not an excuse to try to circumvent your block and the amount of wiki-lawayering you're still trying to engage in is indicative that the block will not be lifted. You are in no position to make demands about what should be in articles right now. Please keep in mind your talk page access can also be revoked if you keep this up, especially when it comes to casting aspersions towards editors. KoA (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As KoA said, continuing to litigate content disputes here after you've been blocked will only reduce your odds of a successful appeal. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin note Corker1, consider this your final warning. You are blocked, and when you are blocked your Talk is only to be used to request unblock. ENd of story. If you don't cease the continuation of the edit warring and wikilawyering that led to your block, you will lose access to edit this page. And on a procedural note, anyone participating in the AfD or otherwise involved with the article knows how to access the history to review it should it be a situation where a prior version meets notability guidelines. Please read
  the guide to appealing as you've been advised, although I'd say that your conduct here makes it less likely that you'll be unblocked. Star Mississippi 18:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  this was a good read

  In the quaint little town of Willow Grove, nestled between rolling hills and a serene river, there's an undeniable sense of community and charm. The local bakery, known for its delectable pastries and warm ambiance, is a beloved gathering spot for both residents and visitors alike. The aroma of freshly baked bread wafts through the air, inviting everyone to take a moment, savor a cup of steaming coffee, and indulge in a sweet treat. As the sun sets, painting the sky in hues of orange and pink, the town comes alive with the laughter of friends, the clinking of coffee cups, and the gentle rustle of leaves in the evening breeze. Willow Grove truly embodies the essence of a welcoming, idyllic escape.

  Under the starlit canvas of the night sky, a sense of wonder and possibility envelops the world. The quietude of the night, interrupted only by the occasional rustle of leaves or distant chirp of a cricket, invites contemplation and introspection. It's a time when dreams take flight, and aspirations soar to new heights. Each twinkle in the night sky seems to hold a secret, a story waiting to be told. The moon, a faithful companion, bathes the world in its gentle glow, lending a touch of magic to the darkness. In this tranquil embrace of the night, imagination roams free, and the whispers of the universe guide the curious on a journey of exploration and discovery. 185.165.190.108 (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:John B Judkins Company

request

that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

talk) 15:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

A cheeseburger for you!

If you ever wanted meat between two slices of bread... then, well, here you are! That Coptic Guy 02:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]