User talk:Minnemeeples/Archive 1

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brave Enough (disambiguation) has been accepted
 Brave Enough (disambiguation), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Disambig-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Brave_Enough_(disambiguation) help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! ~ Amkgp 💬  15:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fort Snelling (disambiguation) has been accepted
 Fort Snelling (disambiguation), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Disambig-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Fort_Snelling_(disambiguation) help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Akhiljaxxn (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Uptown, Minneapolis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seven Points. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Fort Snelling
I am not involved in the Minnesota wiki project even though I live there. I am in the Military History project. Those two projects overlap at Fort Snelling, Fort Ripley and Fort Ridgely. I do not know how large your member base is, but it seems I have become an issue for them. First someone posted my user id mcb133aco on the Minnesota Project page, stating that my  Minnesota edits were poorly referenced and would someone look at them. Now, the Fort Snelling article is tagged for an unclear reference style, which I think is my doing, or at least I contributed to. Very sorry for being a bother. I do think that whoever posted me to your project page could be a sock puppet. They seem to have more that a beginners knowledge of Wikipedia for the edits they have made.

The main reason for contacting you is Fort Snelling. "Bdóte" is an element of the article. It is being used in place of M'dota or Mindota. The spelling appears nowhere in the historical record. Even M'dota is not spelled as such, going as far back as you can go. The spelling used is Mindota. The Minnesota Historical Society added the word to the Fort Snelling Park signs in 2017 or 2018. In doing that they state on their webpage that there was confusion caused by their posting the word. By using the word in MHS literature they automatically made themselves a Wikipedia reliable source which I think is problematic. I am of the opinion that a great deal of what I just pointed out to you should be included in the "Bdóte" section and I think a member of the Minnesota Project should do the edit. Thanks for your time. Mcb133aco (talk) 03:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 03:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry you are experiencing frustration about your editing. I did not post the comment on the Minnesota project discussion site (that is from an anonymous contributor) and I am unfamiliar with the specific secondary sources you mentioned, though I am familiar with recent efforts to have more a inclusive name of the historic site to reflect pre-European-American settlement and uses of the area. My edits to the Fort Snelling article to date have largely been superficial--as opposed to substantially adding, revising, and checking secondary sourcing--and to create cohesion about several articles with similar names (e.g., Fort Snelling, Fort Snelling State Park, etc.). It seems that the Fort Snelling article is almost about two topics: Fort Snelling (the history of area and the military fort) and Historic Fort Snelling (the modern protected site and controversies). What do you feel are the best 4-5 secondary sources for the military fort? It is likely that "Bdóte" is not used in primary sources about the fort, but that it is in secondary sources about the history of the fort and area. Minnemeeples (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Completely agree with your observation on two subjects, with a slightly different view on the topics. Fort Snelling and Bdote/Mindota are two different topics for the same geographic location. From the historic stand point Fort Snelling has a major impact on the Bdote story. On the other hand, Bdote is almost a footnote to the Fort Snelling story. To answer your question concerning secondary sources I honestly would have to look because I can not cite anything off the top of my head. Thank you for the reply.Mcb133aco (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd memorial site removed from List of museums in Minnesota
I removed your listing of the George Floyd memorial site from the List of museums in Minnesota page. Just being a memorial does not necessarily qualify it as a museum. There are discussions on both Talk:List of museums in Minnesota and Talk:List of museums in the United States pages on what qualifies to be added to a museum list. I did add the category Monuments and memorials in Minnesota to the George Floyd memorial site page.

Myotus (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing the criteria and giving an explanation. Very helpful to know. Minnemeeples (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Minnemeeples/sandbox/Mississippi River Gorge
I think you created this in main space by mistake - I have moved it for you. noq (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oops! Thanks noq! Minnemeeples (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Double oops! Minnemeeples (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020


Stop your disruptive edits as you did on George Floyd protests. Therer is no WP:RS that says the "individual protests over George Floyd" are still ongoing, it was a part of the Black Lives Matter and 2020 United States racial unrest over other victims of racial killings asuch as Eric Garner, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor  and many other victims taht are still going. However as per WP:RS "individual protests over george Flod" have ended just like the Watts riots on August 16, 1965, which was a part of the Civil Rights Movement, which continued into 1968. So do not violate WP:NOR, there is no Wp:RS that protests individually over George Floyd are ongoing and as of November 1 the protests have ended although the 2020 United States racial unrest continued. So please refrain from such disruptive editing or you might be reported and may be blocked. As you have received previous warnings next time will be a report. Also your edit pattern appears similar to:. Thank you for your cooperation. Dilbaggg (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I will address the edit warring, Wiki stalking, lack of civility, and personal attacks in an administrative report about user Dilbaggg in the coming days incivility with Dilbaggg and strive for more enlightened discussion.I will not be bullied and harassed on Wikipedia, and I will not be silenced by false accusations from any user. I will, however, gladly discuss how to improve the encyclopedic content of an article on the talk page of the article in question (i.e., Talk:George Floyd protests). Minnemeeples (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Talk page warning for disruptive editing is perfectly allowed and not edit warring, Wiki stalking, lack of civility, and personal attacks. If I make such disruptive editing I welcome warns. But since it was you violating Wp:NOR and misinterpreting sources I warned you. You can report me for that but in now way is warning users regarding disruptive behavior not allowed. Thank you. Dilbaggg (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I noticed that the original edit warning by Dilbaggg is time stamped 06:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC) in the content of this talk page, but that it was actually made on 07:29, 18 December 2020‎ if you look at the edit history for this talk page. It might just be a copy and paste error from a similar warning to another user made in error and a now blocked editor. The warning here came after I made several edits with what I believe to be highly reputable secondary sources at George Floyd protests that were adequately cited with multiple sources in the article and after I initiated a conversation on the article talk page at 17:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC) about it. I am not sure what the "previous warnings" and "disruptive editing" are all about as I welcome constructive feedback about Wikipedia editing and I took the initiative to start a discussion to achieve consensus and avoid an edit war, and I have not reverted edits since but have discussed the issue extensively on the talk page. I also dispute the false accusations of being an account of a blocked user. I invite Dilbaggg to apologize for the warnings and accusations, and to stick to the discussion about the article on the article's talk page, so we can all just move on. Minnemeeples (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, Dilbaggg, you have mistaken me for someone else. I am happy to discuss the sources you mentioned at Talk:George Floyd protests. It is a subject matter that I am interested in researching and learning more about. I will share some other sources I've read and post links over at the article talk page. I will also take a closer look at the source you provided. (Thanks for the helpful link!) I think we should seek the opinion of many editors about it to achieve a broad consensus. Thanks for providing me with the opportunity for further discussion. Looking forward to it. Minnemeeples (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Dilbaggg, it looks like the article discussion didn't go the way you hoped. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you thought I was someone else, and that is why you reacted so strongly to my edits and to the discussion I started about it. I wanted to provide you with the opportunity to correct the time stamp in your original warning (it was made on December 18, not December 7), and to retract or clarify the allegations of disruptive editing and sock puppetry, especially if you are actually going to file any such reports. I wish you well in your projects of interest. King regards, Minnemeeples (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy International Women's Day!
We didn't always see eye-to-eye backstage for the brief time we were thrown together, but we worked pretty well where it counted, for the good of publicly perceived justice. I don't know if you're aware of the tale of The Can-Am Connection, but it's pretty similar. As are a lot of things between Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ontario and Quebec. Hockey, trees, air, beer, lakes, birds, snow...the differences are mainly political, nothing real.

I thank you for your politeness, am sorry if I seemed domineering and want you to know you and all the good people you know are very welcome in Upper Canada if another revolutionary or civil war happens to break out following the Chauvin verdict. Plenty of room, and more will open up every year as the Arctic returns to the sea, not a problem.

Hopefully it doesn't come to such chaos, and everyone can just treat everyone like they'd like to treated, regardless of the verdict, regardless of the virus, regardless of violence, vitriol or the reigning vice president. Long story short, stay golden, Minnesota, and never forget: causes and manners are separate and distinct, but equally important, in death and in life. Go Gophers! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh for sure. I really messed that one up, eh? Minnemeeples (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just like the real Tom Zenk. By which I mean you'll do much better later in other areas without me! If the allegory holds up, I'm destined to get mixed up with a Mexican Texan schoolteacher/bullfighter next, could be interesting. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Expanded MN State Capitol History
Hi Minnemeeple

You mentioned on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota page that you were interested in history. I am working to expand the Minnesota State Capitol page have created drafts of supplemental pages on its history. If you'd like to assess quality or provide feedback that is welcome as well. Help especially with proofing would be greatly appreciated.

Minnesota State Capitol construction

Minnesota State Capitol artwork (still needs citation work)

-Myotus (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reaching out. I would love to collaborate. It may be a few weeks or months before I can contribute much of anything. Some things to consider....


 * It seems that the article, "Minnesota State Capitol construction", could be better titled, "Third Minnesota State Capitol" and be about the history of construction for the current building. It would fit theme of other articles better.


 * You could create a gallery, or several galleries, on Wikimedia Commons for the capitol artwork. The main article has too many images relative to the length of text.


 * In the main article, there seems to be undue weight to Monument to American Civil War Veterans, which could be covered elsewhere and summarized.


 * Thanks for reaching out! Minnemeeples (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the suggestions. I have slimed down the Monument to American Civil War Veterans section and removed several photos from the Capitol Artwork page and plain to cull more. The data table will be moved to its own page eventually. As far as the title "Third Minnesota State Capitol" That was already tried and it was deleted which is why it is on its own draft page. :-) However, that is a complicated story. Myotus (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 38th and Chicago, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trolley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Cup Foods for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cup Foods, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Cup Foods until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Week of May 24
Minnemeeples, may I buy you a coffee or tea someday say the week of May 24? I'm in Minneapolis briefly and would like to write a sentence for the lead of the Minneapolis article and need your help. Your Wiki email is turned off, as is mine. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, this coming week would be better for me. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer. I keep it "on-wiki". Kind regards, Minnemeeples (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I added a whopper sentence to the lead. Working on it here. Feel free to edit. I hope you will. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, User:SusanLesch. Check out the History of Minneapolis article, particularly the section on confronting structural racism. Tom Weber's book, which I noticed is added and cited there, is largely about the history of Minneapolis with a focus on who benefited and who did not from early patterns of development. It might be more lasting to the introduction of the Minneapolis article than the City Lab or Star Tribune pieces, which are solid, but seem to be about the current situation, rather than the contemporary situation. Minnemeeples (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Funny I am still reading Weber's book. Added him as a source. Do you think it would be all right to replace the sentence in the lead with User:SusanLesch/sandbox? -SusanLesch (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Today I walked down Hennepin and saw these amazing billboards. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Minneapolis
I am hoping that you and I can come to some sort of an agreement for the movement of George Floyd and Black Lives Matter. I will only Propose changes that are agreed upon. That is why I have started a few Discussions on the talk page. Please understand I am not trying to vilify you or your editing. I am only trying to make views that may not be represented by majority present in the article. I understand as a community, these changes need to be agreed upon. Therefore I am asking for your consent, to propose a change directly to you, instead of making the changes myself. That way both majority and minority views are presented. If you agree, I will send you my proposals here, and we can decide the best way to move forward FactsNotNarratives (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A discussion about how to improve an article should take place on that article's talk page so other editors can read and participate in the discussion. Please read Talk page guidelines and Neutral point of view. Thank you. Minnemeeples (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I already have. Your the only one commenting FactsNotNarratives (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Cedar Avenue Band AfD
Hello! I stumbled upon your AfD nomination of Cedar Avenue (band) and saw that it was done incorrectly and not included in the AfD log's, thus why it had no participation. I requested the original AfD for deletion and I have since re-nominated it to include your original comments. If you would like to add any additional comments you can but it is not necessary to vote because you originally nominated the article for deletion. In the future please read the instructions on how to properly nominate an article for delete at WP:AFDHOWTO. If you do not already have it, Twinkle is a great resource for AfD because it does everything for you automatically. Hope this helps, let me know if you have any questions! Thanks, JayJayWhat did I do? 16:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback User:JayJay. I attempted the manual option per the how-to page, but I should have sought out assistance first, as I obviously messed that up. Thanks for cleaning up and suggesting Twinkle, which I'll look into. Kind regards, Minnemeeples (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. I am trying to learn from your editing skills and approach. Minnemeeples (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Derek Chauvin protests
Hello, Minnemeeples, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Slatersteven, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Derek Chauvin protests, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin protests.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice, Slatersteven. Derek Chauvin protests is a split from George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–Saint Paul, not a fork from George Floyd protests. Much of the content is not discussed in detail at the Derek Chauvin protests article, such as as arrests, aftermath, etc. are not discussed at George Floyd protests. If anything, the lengthy George Floyd protests article could be trimmed further. Minnemeeples (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Then it shouldld mention the location.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, Slatersteven. I'm confused. The article does that. The first sentence of reads Derek Chauvin protests reads, "In 2020 and 2021, several protests were held in the U.S. city of Minneapolis that coincided with judicial proceedings and the criminal trial of Derek Chauvin." Minnemeeples (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But the George Floyd protests (and indeed reactions to the trial and sentencing of CHasvunvin) were nationwide, not just in one city.Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

AfD vs. RfD
Hi there! It looks like you're trying to AfD. Since it's a redirect, you should use WP:RfD instead. If you need any help with filing there, please let me know. -- Tamzin [cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, User:Tamzin. How do I do that? Can you help me fix it? Is is a simple swap of the code? Should I delete and resubmit? Minnemeeples (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want, I can just file it to RfD on your behalf. Then you can tag the AfD with db-g7 to have it deleted. -- Tamzin  [cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (Should have said: Otherwise, just follow the steps at WP:RFD.) -- Tamzin  [cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks again User:Tamzin, for alerting me to the correct procedure, for your assistance on the matter, and for your thoughtful discussion and counterpoints about it. I learned a lot from the procedural issue and discussion. Minnemeeples (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Noor (murderer)


A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Noor (murderer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

"This is a redirect, so it goes to RfD instead of AfD (RfD has been created at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 18)"

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — Goszei (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages
Hi Minnemeeples,

Please note that disambiguation pages like Fort Snelling (disambiguation) and Twin Cities (disambiguation) have guidelines that are different from articles. For example, the primary topic (Fort Snelling and Twin Cities) should be set in bold face, per MOS:DABPRIMARY. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Leschnei (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know me! I appreciate your help and expertise. Minnemeeples (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

January 2022
Hello, I'm Beccaynr. I noticed that you recently removed content from Robin Wonsley Worlobah without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like 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. ''Let's talk about this on the Talk page - your repeated deletions are disruptive to the collaborative editing process. Thank you,'' Beccaynr (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I attempted to move the content to the appropriate section. I think your reversion has led to a duplication of it again. It took me two edits to move it and as I accidentally saved it mid edit. That happens sometimes. Sorry for the confusion. I did remove trivial information and blatant promotional content that was written or produced by the article subject, such as a personal essay and a campaign website. Those are not appropriate sources. I also removed excessively trivial about the persons travels and education study projects. The article isn’t a CV. As always, editors are free to revert my edits if they disagree. Minnemeeples (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It is probably best if we discuss article content on the article Talk page, and I apologize for my confusion - I was trying to incorporate your obviously constructive contributions, find the missing citation, and figure out what was being changed, after spending awhile expanding the article today. I also mentioned this on the article Talk page, but I believe we can use primary sources for the type of content supported in the article. Also, content about her travel was grant-funded and connected to her education, not a trivial vacation, and I cited her campaign website because the institution that sent her there used clunky language to describe what she studied, and it seemed helpful to incorporate her description as well. From my view, there is a theme in the sources that emerged after I pulled the content together, so from my view, the research she conducted for her PHd is also relevant to her current political career. Beccaynr (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Beccaynr, I left some comments on the article talk page. We can continue the discussion there. I am truly interesting in improving the article with the hopes of it surviving the deletion discussion. I don't want to interfere if you have a vision for the structure and flow, and if you are about to make future contributions that will fit into that vision. I did, however, note some issues with a few sources. Thanks for engaging in a discussion. Sorry about the sloppy series of edits. I can see that you would perceive that as disruptive and frustrating. Minnemeeples (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Killing of Amir Locke
Please take a moment to read MOS:LEAD. There is no need to link to commonly known words, and certainly no need to add specifics such as the name of the officer. If you have concerns, please discuss them on the talk page. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Magnolia677 Thanks for the link to the Manual of Style. All editors should periodically review it. I am not sure what this notice is about and why it's necessary here. Perhaps you could explain your vision for the lead on article's talk page? What in particular are your concerns? Please be more specific there. In looking back, I added some contextual links to the article for terms such as no-knock warrant, SWAT, etc. These are not commonly used words, in my opinion, but key terminology to understand the event. Is that you are referring to? Also, I only included the officer's name when initially creating the article here because another editor had included it when I pulled the content into this article from this version here. I was only trying to respect other prior contributions when boldly forging a new article that could be worked on and improved with other editor's contributions over time. If you feel strongly about the content of the lead, why not just go edit it yourself and explain why in an edit comment, and then discuss on the article's talk page if there is disagreement? I'm scratching my head a bit about this, my friend. I hope you don't don't feel like I was over-writing your edits or stomping on our work. This is a new article about a current event with very little discussion. We're all editing quickly and doing our best to keep it up. Minnemeeples (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You reverted an improvement I made to the lead. You may have done it unintentionally. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Magnolia677: Sorry to have undone your work. I know that it can be frustrating to have an edit wiped out that you worked hard on or that you feel strongly about. What improvement in particular is important to retain or exclude in the article, besides excluding the policer officer's name? Please be specific as I am still confused about what you want there. As it is an article about a high-profile current event, the lead paragraph will be edited hundreds of times in the coming days/weeks, by both registered and unregistered users, all with different motives. If there are important details to include or exclude in the lead, I would encourage you to gain consensus about it on the talk page so that other editors will help ensure that sticks around. Take care, Minnemeeples (talk) 14:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

bruh why do you delete new information?

Thanks for the message. Can you elaborate? What article and edit are you referring to? Minnemeeples (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

March 2022
-- Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Mankato Hangings
Well Minnemeeples I am back with a request. I have a proposed article in my sandbox that I have been trying to get another editor to review before I post it and have my head handed to me. The first Minnesota Project editor I asked refused. The second is a Master editor who edited a portion of the leade and has not been back. The third is also a Master editor and has not replied. There is no article posted for this topic. It is bad enough that Minnesota history is not taught in Minnesota's schools, there is no excuse for the Minnesota Project to ignore the subject too. It is my opinion that Mankato is being used to defame Lincoln. I am still working on it and am open to constructive input. It will be disputed from the get-go and a likely target of vandalism. Thank you.Mcb133aco (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. I think the first step might be to improve the section in the Dakota War of 1862 about it and determine if a standalone article is necessary or just a fork. Was it a separate event or was It part of the conflict and should be explained in that context? Mankato hangings controversy might be noteworthy as an article that could cover how the event has and has not been addressed and the lack of historic recognition/memorialization/etc. A lot depends on the direction you plan to go. Do you see it as an event article, issue article, historic place…? Minnemeeples (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Another member of the Minnesota Project had asked me to contribute the Dakota War of 1862 a few months ago. I had prior to their request, but have done nothing per that request.  That article has issues from  beginning to end in my opinion starting with editors that do not have the NPOV's they think they have and have sanitized the undisputed facts.  The title is problematic if War Crimes were committed.  Using "Dakota" is inaccurate, inappropriate and maybe even insulting to the Dakota peoples that were not involved.  They get painted with the blood the Mdewakanton spilt for what reason?  Another issue it that article is over 120,000 bits as is.  To be honest,  I had given no thought on my article's direction.  You made me laugh with that.  I do not consider myself a writer and your insight seems to point that out.  I have come to dislike the the "edit -as-you go" that is much of Wikipedia.  Acting upon your suggestion I have copied the Dakota War article  to my sand box. I will for sure get back to you when I have gone through it, but welcome your thoughts whenever you have the time.  Thank you for your time and thoughts. Mcb133aco (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Good day to you Minnemeeples. I have combined that request from the Minnesota Project to go over the Dakota War article and your suggestion to just add some of the content from my Hangings proposal.  When you have a moment could you give me your thoughts again.  Thank you Mcb133aco (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about George Floyd mural
Hello, Minnemeeples, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username TheTechnician27, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, George Floyd mural, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/George Floyd mural.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

 TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  18:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you!

 * I second this barnstar!!! Beccaynr (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

2022 Greater Minnesota History Wikipedia Edit-a-Thons

 * Myotus, thanks for the invite. I will not be in attendance, but let me know if there are specific articles the group would like help working on. I plan to transition my editing away from current events to historic people, places, and events. Minnemeeples (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit
Minnemeeples can you revert this please? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_youngest_killers&type=revision&diff=1108276125&oldid=1108120899 2601:206:301:4A90:125C:C16D:39A:FB87 (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Review request
Do you have time to review the Government section of Minneapolis that's in my sandbox? Recent edits reduced the Police section to Law enforcement. I think we're better off folding that in to Government. You can edit in place there. Tuesday the city will have a new police chief. I'll be back from wikibreak around then. Thank you either way. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. I'll have to add the crime rate, which I think we'll be asked for in January (for a planned featured article review). -SusanLesch (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Question
Hello Minnemeeples can you do me a favor please? --~ Ejdnfo (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

February 2023
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Killing of Amir Locke. 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: 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. Beccaynr (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * Beccaynr, I think you should consider some of the feedback on the article talk page that you might be editing from an agenda or viewpoint rather than following what reliable sources have to say.  Minnemeeples (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And I would appreciate you continuing to assume my good faith with regard to my interpretation of applicable guidelines and policies as applied to the sources. I am assuming your good faith while we disagree on the content, and would prefer to focus on the content, even though I am not sure what agenda or viewpoint you could possibly suspect me of having besides what seems best for the encyclopedia and this article, based on my extensive review of available sources and consideration of applicable P&Gs.
 * That a source is reliable does not exempt us from analyzing its contents and determining whether content based on those sources are appropriate to include in the encyclopedia, per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SYNTH, WP:BLPCRIME etc. I continue to encourage you to remove the disputed content, as I mentioned in my most recent comment on the Talk page. We can pursue other dispute resolutions options, but the edit warring needs to stop, and per WP:ONUS the disputed content should be removed in the meantime. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed the content again and request that we engage in another form of dispute resolution to help determine whether and how to restore the material. I am sorry that we are having such a pitched dispute about this, but I hope we can find an amicable resolution. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Normandale Park shooting. ''Please review WP:BLPCRIME - these are allegations about a nonpublic figure in a low-profile criminal case. Thank you,'' Beccaynr (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The article is about a notable mass shooting. The charges are an important aspect of it. The person was charged with murder and several other counts. I was merely updating the article with new information as covered in reliable sources. Minnemeeples (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, you deleted content sourced from Oregon Public Broadcasting. Is public broadcasting "poorly referenced", too? I see that you have nominated the article for deletion. Please do not revert or block attempts to update or improve it. Minnemeeples (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your revision to address the concern about WP:BLPCRIME, although identifying their age and residency seems a bit over the line of the spirit of the policy from my view, fyi. And yes, allegations and accusations can be considered 'poorly-referenced' according to BLP policy. As you are aware, the Normandale Park shooting is at AfD, and I think discussion about whether it is notable according to policies, guidelines, and sources is best had there. Beccaynr (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Beccaynr, please read a few other articles about mass shootings: 2023 Half Moon Bay shooting, 2023 Monterey Park shooting, 2023 Goshen shooting, 2022 Chesapeake shooting, etc. Many of them name the alleged perpetrator when it has been covered in highly reputable sources and when there are things like legal proceedings and a trial where it is helpful for a reader to know the names of the parties involved. You are misusing WP:BLPCRIME as it does not prohibit the name of the person charged from being noted in an article. Minnemeeples (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 2022 Chesapeake shooting does not identify a living person but may be problematic because they are recently-deceased; 2023 Half Moon Bay shootings and 2023 Monterey Park shooting are high-profile with a massive amount of national coverage and appear to be notable WP:EVENTs, and suspect names do tend to be included under those circumstances; 2023 Goshen shooting is probably a problem per WP:BLPCRIME - that editors create articles that appear to be outside of the scope of the WP:EVENT guideline and WP:NOTNEWS policy does not seem to be strong support for contravening WP:BLP policy in other articles. Beccaynr (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The Normandale Park shooting is also notable event. You seem to be eager to eliminate Wikipedia content about it, given your edit history on killing of Amir Locke and your desire to delete the Normandale Park shooting article. You seem to be editing with an agenda, rather than following what reliable sources have to say about the event. Minnemeeples (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I really don't think it is helpful to continue to vaguely accuse me of 'editing with an agenda', so I continue to request that you stop. I have good faith concerns about whether this content is appropriate to include in the Killing of Amir Locke article, and whether there is policy and guideline-based support for a standalone article for the Normandale Park shooting. This is all based on policies, guidelines, and available sources, so suggesting that I seem to have "an agenda", especially without evidence, does not appear to be a constructive path to resolving this dispute. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Several registered editors on the talk pages for killing of Amir Locke and Normandale Park shooting have left feedback about your editing approach. It might be worthwhile to consider some of the feedback and if all of the Wikipedia guideline references you keep repeating are encroaching on bludgeoning to get your way rather than are a sincere effort to improve the article and seek consensus. I think you have misapplied some of the recommended guidelines, which often include a range of suggestions and are not always the absolute rules you make them out to be. I think you are also inserting your opinions about perennially reliable sources because they don't contort to your argument, which is editing with an agenda rather than following what the the sources have to say. Minnemeeples (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have suggested alternative dispute resolution, and I am sorry that you continue to re-add the disputed content and continue to personalize this discussion, instead of following the WP:ONUS and dispute resolution policies. I think it is legitimate to dispute the limited and sensationalized coverage that is available, as well as the content you have continued to add to the article despite the guideline and policy-based objections, and I think broader discussion would be helpful. Beccaynr (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Alexander A. McRae
I don't have time to research him right now. But you know this I think:

What's the wiki for Minneapolis and/or Minnesota history of parks? Minne- wiki- something?

Cheers! - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 23:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Killing of Daunte Wright
The article Killing of Daunte Wright you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Killing of Daunte Wright for comments about the article, and Talk:Killing of Daunte Wright/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mujinga -- Mujinga (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC) &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)