I don't want to edit war over this.

I changed the wording because "noted to" implies that someone said that Scratch users create projects, which is out of place unless the source is stated. Stating that "Mitchel Resnick writing in his book Lifelong Kindergarten: Cultivating Creativity through Projects, Passion, Peers, and Play noted that [blah blah blah]" is way too long and draws undue attention to the source, when the attention should be on the content the source covers. You might have noticed that at the last GAN for the Warriors article, a very, very widespread problem was unattributed statements and quotations. Here, adding "have been noted to" is unattributed and there really isn't a reason to create another unattributed statement, nor adding attribution to attempt to fix the problem. You'll notice that unless there is a direct quotation (which are rightfully attributed to the person who said it), the cultural impact section doesn't contain filler words that imply someone stated something without stating who said what.

Also, adding "have been noted to create" makes the sentence way too clunky.

(I had originally typed a shorter version of this in my edit summary but decided against keeping it because I thought a full justification would be unnecessary. I was probably wrong, so here's the full justification.)

--not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 15:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please can you undo the cleaning to the mystique page? Thanks ~2026-10591-10 (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-10591-10 No?? The page was horribly written and contained a ton of unsourced information. Unsourced information on Wikipedia has every right to be removed. Besides, even if it was sourced, there would be no need for the cast of every single year of a show at a random amusement park to be listed. Not Wikipedia-worthy. Blubewwy (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. No need to be rude. ~2026-10591-10 (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously who are you the Wikipedia 5-0?? It can’t be so hard to correctly source the stuff you removed - that you consider not wiki worthy. I asked nicely too. Wow. So rude ~2026-10591-10 (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-10591-10 Hush. There is no rudeness to be found here, merely the stating of facts regarding the quality of a stub-level article prior to being cleaned of its ancient and crufty information. If you're so pressed about the article's information go gather sources to improve the article yourself. Blubewwy (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kvasten, a link pointing to the disambiguation page KR was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]