User talk:OldandGood2876

Welcome!

Hi, OldandGood2876. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . tedder (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. tedder (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Oldandgood, I wanted to give you a welcome before placing this warning, but it's also important- you've made a series of edits and marked all of them as minor. It's defininitely not true in your case, as it's an addition of substance that might be considered controversial. Some people filter changes to pages to ignore minor edits, so ticking the 'minor' box makes it appear you are sneaking the edit in. Just FYI to stop doing so. Thanks for your contributions. tedder (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you much for the recommendation. I guess I considered "minor" something that was short and to the point. Given the seriousness of the content, I will not mark "minor" moving forward. Thank you much. OldandGood2876 (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Administrator's noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours 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 ~~~~}}.  Guy (help!) 19:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

This is primarily to get your attention and stop you reposting - again - the changes that have been challenged or reverted by others. The sole source for the section you have added to a very large number of articles is a single listicle at CNBC. That is unlikely to be seen as sufficient by editors of most, if not all, those articles. Guy (help!) 20:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Guy and OhNoItsJamie are correct that you should not post this to any more articles without consensus to do so. When an edit like this is challenged, the onus is on the person wanting to add the info to gain consensus to add it. I suspect you'll have a hard time getting that consensus - probably a lot of people are going to think this is undue weight, or will disagree that this is "avoidance" or a "controversy", or will think that one source is insufficient - but you can try. However, I'm unblocking this account, because no one actually ever told you what was wrong with what you were adding, and you stopped doing so as soon as OhNoItsJamie posted the note above. I'll note that the IP who reverted you was mistakenly blocked for vandalism, but what they were doing wasn't vandalism. Still, I can see how their block could have made you think it was OK to re-add that info. So, in summary, I'm unblocking so you can discuss this somewhere if you want, but please don't add or re-add it anywhere without a consensus to do so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I understand completely. Since this is a very volatile topic in the US at the moment, I thought it would make sense to add it to each corresponding business in a factual manner as to avoid any chance it would be misinterpreted as canvassing. I get more consensus. TY OldandGood2876 (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    • To be honest, I'm not sure where to recommend you go to ask about this. We generally don't discuss content-related issues at WP:ANI. I don't think you want to have this same conversation 58 times on 58 talk pages. A good first stop might be WT:BUSINESS, the Business Wikiproject. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
      • OK, I will try that. Thank you again for your help and patience (both which seem to be sadly lacking in Wiki world).OldandGood2876 (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Template:Vince Guaraldi, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. see the template's talk page and WP:EXISTING. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• I see the WP:EXISTING template and I am in the process of adding pages for certain entries. However, there are quite a few templates that are indeed "list" lacking existing entries. Template:Al_Di_Meola, Template:Michael Brecker and Template:Larry Coryell to name a few. It would make life much easier to leave the listings at least unlinked and then they can be linked when the pages have been created, rather than do a blanket mass edit without discussing first (something Wikipedians seem to love doing).OldandGood2876 (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Sweet. WP:WTAF, and make sure they either meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM before creating them. I'm not watching articles with those other "list" nav templates. The community has discussed this concept already and have decided that it is not better to leave the redlinks in navigation templates, but they can be left in discography articles or the subject's own articles (in a discography section). If you want to provide me with some of them using the {{tl}} template, I can correctly apply the NAV MoS to them as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
    • "The community has discussed this concept already and have decided that it is not better to leave the redlinks in navigation templates" - Ok. I can get behind that. Thank you for explaining.OldandGood2876 (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
      • And thank you for taking the time to clearly explain the process. That helps more than anything else. I am grateful for that.OldandGood2876 (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I see you are still marking major edits as minor: example, example. You must stop doing this. tedder (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• I know, I know. Please feel free to beat me over the head on this one. I promise I will get better with that. I still have to learn what constitutes a "major" v. "minor" edit.OldandGood2876 (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)