Bmk812

September 2017

Hello. Your recent edit to La Porte, Indiana appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at La Porte, Indiana. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Before a person can be listed on a notable person's list, you have to prove they are notable (and that they have a connection with the subject of the article containing the list.) There is nothing inherently notable about inventing something, being an industrialist or dying, which is all the single reference you added shows. The only way to show the vast majority of people are notable is to create their biography first, then add them to the list. See the previous message for more details. John from Idegon (talk) 07:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to La Lumiere School. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A scan of an advertising brochure is neither reliable or published, both of which are requirements for sourcing. Even if your scan could be authenticated, we have no interest in what the school says about itself. John from Idegon (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your message on my talk page

You have a very mistaken notion of how Wikipedia works. Let me ask you something. When you started your first job, did you walk into work and start telling the people who worked there for many years how to do their jobs? Perhaps you did, but if you did I'm reasonably certain you got fired in very short order. We have a policy here called assume good faith. That means that just as I assumed you're trying to improve the encyclopedia with your additions, you need to assume that in the 6 years I've been doing this, making nearly 75,000 edits to this encyclopedia that I probably know how to do it just a bit better than you. If someone reverts a change you've made and provides a reason, you need to assume that either they are correct or there is a misunderstanding. In either case, it is on you, the one who wants to make the change to determine what is needed in order to make the change you want. This is a collaborative project, and the policies, guidelines and traditions are complicated. Most any editor will be glad to help you, as long as you understand that your additions have to comply with policy and guidelines. What won't get you by here is acting like you have all the answers. You don't. If you want help, ask. If you wish to continue acting like you are, someone will be happy to show you the door. Hope that clarifies the issue of edit warring. Just because you add a citation to what you've done does not automatically mean that what you want to add can stay. I've told you above what you need to do in order for your additions to be acceptable. If you think I'm wrong, first that would be a mistake, because experience is the best teacher for almost anything, but you still can start a discussion on the articles' talk pages to try to gain consensus for inclusion. That's the proper way to handle a new addition you've made being reverted. See WP:BRD. To not do so and just put it back is what edit warring really is. Try taking my advice tho, as in these two cases you haven't got a basis for an argument to include the content you want. Your source on Farley is unacceptable; and the only way to show a person is notable is to create their bio. Didn't you notice that the name you were adding in La Porte was the only one that was red? John from Idegon (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow. You are arrogant. Bmk812 (talk) 08:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Frederick C. Mennen for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Frederick C. Mennen 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/Frederick C. Mennen until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. John from Idegon (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Frederick C. Mennen

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Frederick C. Mennen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/22/obituaries/frederick-c-mennen-industrialist-62.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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 removed 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. John from Idegon (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)