User talk:CommonwealthEditor

Welcome!

Hi CommonwealthEditor! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Schazjmd (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Monroe, Massachusetts, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a moment to read MOS:LEAD, where there are examples of the first sentence for geographic articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would just like to inquire if these said edits can be retrieved to publicity if proper sources are credited in factual messages ?? CommonwealthEditor (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, by any chance do you watch my edits live or screen? CommonwealthEditor (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @CommonwealthEditor, yes! Your edits can be made public again if you add a proper source. Just re-add the text and cite it (similar on John Hancock Tower). Tip: mention editors using the '@' to ping them. I think @Magnolia677 might have missed your replies! SSR07 (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how to link source to a fact? CommonwealthEditor (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @CommonwealthEditor, looks like you figured it out! SSR07 (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this instead of threatening block and removing edits down by me CommonwealthEditor (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Brockton, Massachusetts, you may be blocked from editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should add “citation needed” over threatening a block @Magnolia677 :( CommonwealthEditor (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The language is part of the warning template. Editors use escalating levels of warning templates to notify editors of repeated problems with their edits. "Citation needed" is useful when you identify content that's been in an article for awhile but lacks a source, however when it's just been added, that editor should easily be able to cite the source and is expected to do so. Schazjmd (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say that less than 30 characters entered in past edits on this article were not facts so didn’t need citation or source CommonwealthEditor (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Back Bay, Boston. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for Dorchester, Boston now that’s just misleading. If it’s so important as to change pages revert or add, why not let’s add that source as a citation so misleading doesn’t happen again for naming of subdivisions? CommonwealthEditor (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also do you know how to add images to articles from source editor? CommonwealthEditor (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677 I forgot to ping for the inquiry about these previous replies. CommonwealthEditor (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment doesn't make sense, "As for Dorchester, Boston now that’s just misleading." What are you talking about? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677 I don’t see how it’s confusing in any way. All the inquiry is that you could make my day with an answer for “If it’s so important as to change pages revert or add, why not let’s add that source as a citation so misleading doesn’t happen again for naming of subdivisions?” The source in question being the link you used while reverting an edit in Dorchester, Boston. CommonwealthEditor (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be using AI to write your sentences. Please note, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material", per WP:BURDEN. --Magnolia677 (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677 The hell? This is literally Wikipedia, lots of smart folks here. I’m typing this with my own fingers. Can you please just answer the inquiry in a simplified answer? CommonwealthEditor (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This applies if you’re implying that these replies I myself have typed are being contributed with by artificial intelligence. CommonwealthEditor (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]