User talk:John from Idegon/Archive 1

Hello! John from Idegon, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback

Thank you for your feedback. We all think vandals are a waste of our time. I wish I knew how to stop them. They are really sad people. Don't get discouraged by them. We are winning, with your help. Thank you.

Harkey (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

 

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Robert B. Miller College Patrick Revelli Goshen Pass Montcalm Community College Kuyper College Kellogg Community College Bay de Noc Community College Maurice Revelli Alpena Community College North Central Michigan College Jackson Community College Schoolcraft College Allan Kauffman Steven Nolt Ancilla College Saint Mary's College (Michigan) Fiat-Revelli Modello 1935 Oklahoma Wesleyan University WGCS

Cleanup Muskegon Community College Lee family political line International Bible College Merge Bluffton University Taylor University Biola University Add Sources Whitney Houston Cornerstone University Mennonite Historical Library Wikify Midwestern Undergraduate Private Engineering Colleges Low Level Bridge (Fairmont, West Virginia) Jacksonville College Expand Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary Illinois Route 84 The Electric Amish

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

An award for you!

		The Indiana Barnstar
		Hi Gtwfan! I wanted to come by and award you the Indiana Barnstar for your excellent contributions related to Indiana, my home state! Without your contributions Wikipedia can't be the world's largest, and most inclusive, encyclopedia. Keep up the great work! Sarah (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Re:user talk page templates

You have new messages (last change)

Hi Gtwfan! I noticed your post at the Teahouse Q&A, so i thought i'd help out.
Your "you have new messages" notification is simple: you get one every time someone (apart from yourself) edits your talkpage, and it stays until you have visited/reloaded your talk (then it disappears). Did you notice the notification you received from my posting this very message here? It should look like the orange box just above. (and this happens for every editor)

• You can find more detailed information at Help:Using talk pages (though you may want to read the Introduction to talk pages first :)
• To archive a talkpage i shall refer you to Help:Archiving a talk page, because i am not great at explaining and the editors there have done a fine job. (i can explain anything that's problematic though)

I you have any further questions, i'd be glad to help if you'd just drop a note here or on my talkpage. Cheers ~ benzband (talk) 08:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello John from Idegon,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 815 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

• It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
• It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes

• Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
• Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm

I suspect there's a backstory, but what advice would you give someone who was being difficult. I suspect it would be to keep your cool. Carry on.S Philbrick(Talk) 13:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

This would be more helpful with context. My email works. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate Edits by User:John from Idegon a.k.a Cyber Bully

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear User:JohnfromIdegon

Your poor use of words and abuse of editing power leading a discussion panel cyber bullying my client for beauty pageant background (2006) is absurd and inappropriate. PLUS to then personally attack my role in editing and character as a PR professional is not only bizarre, but unnecessary to present your editing notes/concerns for credibility. Instead you've taken the route of spreading slander and encouraging hate speech towards my client's past on American Idol and as Miss GA USA are NOT to be a topic of discussion considering they date back to 2006 and are not relevant to my edit of her category to actress and updated filmography section.

My client: Lesa Wilson is an actress and model based in the Atlanta-area. Her credits span from DC's Doom Patrol, Bluff City Law, STAR, Necessary Roughness to her most recent, DC's StarGirl debuting on the CW Network Spring 2020. So I went to Wiki editing to ensure she was categorized as an actress instead of outdated information of "pageant contestant" and "american idol contestant" and updated a filmography chart for reference plus updated photo instead of the 2006 pageant head-shot.

THIS WAS NOT A PAID PROMOTION/EDIT*** Instead, I manage public relations for this client and there is a significant issue with my client's search stating she's a pageant queen and/or American Idol contestant and referencing a misspelled name of "Lisa Wislon" and an out-dated image of her as well all dating back to 2006...NOT RELEVANT/Active information on her and misleading, so my edits were to merely revise her category to most up-to-date works and she IS a relevant actress notable for Wikipedia. Her works are credible and can even be viewed on-screen and via her demo reel linked here.

Cyber Bullying my client's notability and my professionalism is cyber abuse and not merely a "discussion for deletion" instead a thread of sarcastic slander and be-belittling that if presented in a court of law- a cyber crime/offense. So do note this engagement has since been reported and documented. Refrain from such future discussion dis-crediting myself or my client, and/or previous works as they are NOT RELEVANT to her current works/category.

I was VERY thorough and tried to ensure I abided every guideline when editing her page and happy to have direct tips/notes from an official admin on what I can revise, etc. BUT allowing such disdain and public abuse of "discussions for deletion" to take place simply because I requested an edit to her category is absurd.

Quotes from "discussion for deletion" for reference:

"it is highly doubtful your client is eligible for inclusion. John from Idegon (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)"

"Well, this was prodded but her publicist removed it. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR, WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. It was somewhat refreshing to see her publicist admit editing the article, but fitting, as their is no notability here. John from Idegon (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)"

"She may soon become notable as an actress, but, at the moment, she just hasn't done enough work to pass the actress notability standards. I don't think that reaching the semi-finals of American Idol is, in and of itself, particularly notable either. If others can find more information about her music career, or if others deem her modelling career to be notable (I don't have any opinion about this), I'll be happy to reconsider my vote. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)"

"non-notable state level beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)"

Thanks, but no thanks!

19:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2018PR (talk • contribs)

• • Drmies, would you please block this clueless person for WP:UPE? A volunteer PR agent. that's a new one. John from Idegon (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Marietta, GA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, Regarding your comment on Marietta, GA, how is it not an improvement?

1) Previous images were all from more than 12 years ago as compared to the new additions that are from within the previous 3 years (readers obviously appreciate media from recent years)

2) Images may be in a darker light but I don't think it's that bad enough to get rid of (if it really is, than the old image of Sope Creek can be kept)

3) Previous images were frankly dull and lacked in appeal. The new additions offer a good improvement on this. If a new image provides the same quality shot of the subject with a good improvement in blandness, then honestly why not change it.

4) Main image generally shouldn't show the Cobb County courthouse as the article is on the city of Marietta, not Cobb County (the image of the courthouse can be featured in the government section) and therefore show something more unique to the city, such as the Marietta Square.

If these reasons don't convince you otherwise, offer your insights to what constitute as "improvements" to an article's images.

--Ikon21 (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help.

John from Idegon:

I don't know if you remember me, user BeenAroundAwhile or his use of the word "affluent". I hope you do, because he is still at it. [2] This is despite lengthy conversations advising him not to [3] and despite suspensions.

You will notice his edit summary once again quotes data from the Los Angeles Times Mapping project (BeenAroundAwhile's edit summary: Article says "The median yearly household income in 2008 dollars was $112,927, considered high for the city and the county".)

I bring this up because the Mapping project, and BeenAroundAwhile's service to it, is the source of the problem. Others have brought up to him that he has a conflict of interest [4]editing the Los Angeles wikipedia pages since he has been a reporter for the Times [5]. He has dismissed this, but he clearly has some bias since he has been suspended over this behavior and yet continues to use this data as his "reason".

I guess I can simply "undo" his edit, but it seems that this issue will never go away.... Please advise....Phatblackmama (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Phatblackmama...long time, no see. As you can see from the top of this page, I'm not in the best health, and, due to that, am not good for anything more than advice. I haven't been following COIN much, but we do have recent technological changes that allow administrators to block specific editors from specific articles. That bodes well for a solution. I hope all the personal stuff you've posted here came either from his on-wiki statements or COIN. Please be aware of WP:OUTING. If the COIN report is still open, add diffs from both now and before and ask that he be blocked from Sherman Oaks. John from Idegon (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Just an FYI: Template:noping allows you to link a user without pinging them. John from Idegon (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry to hear you are not doing well. I send you good thoughts. Regarding COIN...a conflict of interest has never been filed...it was only a back & forth discussion between he and another user on a talk page...guess i will look at how to possibly do it.... This is like whack-a-mole! You never know what Los Angeles page he will pop up on! But he clearly doesn't fear a brief suspension (as he had experienced in the past). Feel better. Phatblackmama (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Westmount Charter School

Two years later and it's coming back... Meters (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

3RR broken. I've asked him to self-revert while we discuss, but I don't have high hopes. Done for tonight. I'll see where we are tomorrow. Meters (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2020

Wpcdande03 (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 16:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Update to RGraph page version number

Why did you revert my update to the RGraph pages version number? 86.30.29.225 (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Because you failed to provide a reliable secondary source for your changes. Because you are a COI editor on the article and should not be editing it directly. Do I need more? If so, why? John from Idegon (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

A secondary source? You can look at the RGraph download page to see the latest version: https://www.rgraph.net/download.html#stable I released a new version of RGraph - so I thought I would update the latest version number and keep the page up-to-date. That's all.

Richard heyes (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

We don't care. You've been told that repeatedly. We don't care what you say, we don't care what your organization says. We only care about what reliable secondary sources say. Learn how to properly indent your posts. But do it elsewhere. I don't waste my time on fools who wish to steal from people volunteering for a good cause to serve their own self promotion. John from Idegon (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Rudeness

John from Idegon, there is no need for rude edit summaries like the this and this. We are all volunteers here. No need to name calling or personalizing the work of other people on here.--TM 22:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

You have a very strange concept of rudeness. If you have a problem with my behavior, report me to ANI. If not, keep your opinions to yourself. I couldn't care less what you think. Got a problem with that? Again, couldn't care less. I take advice from competent editors. Read into that what you will. Bye bye. John from Idegon (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ammar Campa-Najjar. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Citation templates

John, I have copies of hand written box scores from Purdue football games in the 1960's that are not published online. You mentioned to me a few weeks ago that there are specific ways to reference documents such as these. Can you point me in that direction? Thanks in advance. PhillyHarold (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I doubt it. You cannot use unpublished documents, period. I cannot see what you could possibly reference to a box score anyway. We'd never include the score of, or stats from, an individual game. In box scores, individuals are indicated by last name only, which couldn't even be used to verify a name. John from Idegon (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have me a bit confused. I asked last week about documents not published online and how to use them in an article. What if there is something signficant about the game? For example, perhaps one in which an individual scored all the points in the contest? Also, what about unpublished documents and letters in the archives of a famous person? Thanks. PhillyHarold (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, I know you are in poor health so I am keeping good thoughts for you.PhillyHarold (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If there is was something truly significant about the scoring in a game, then I would expect that there might be a report of that significant event in a secondary reliable source. If you can find such a report in a secondary reliable source, then you may consider including it in the article. Unpublished documents and letters, no matter who they were written by or where thet were found, can not be used as sources in Wikipedia. - Donald Albury 23:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! PhillyHarold (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Brighton High School

Do you recommend no 2018 rebuild section at all? I’m obviously new to Wikipedia, so it would be helpful if you told me what I’m doing wrong. Thanks. GyozaDumpling (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lajon Witherspoon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sevin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II - Hendersonville, TN

John-

Thank you for reviewing the edits that I made to page of Pope John Paul II High School in Hendersonville, TN. What can I do to make sure that I am not violating the "promotion or advertising" rules? I am new to Wikipedia and want to make sure to follow the rules.

Thank you,

PJPopeJPII (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Simple. First if you are employed by the school, follow the guidence at WP:PAID. If you are a student, parent or alumni, follow the guidance at WP:COI. These two guidelines outline what you must do to edit the article at all.
• Second, you must change your username. It is violation of policy.
• Third, and although the other stuff must be done, this is the actual answer to the question: Paraphrase your content from reliable secondary sources and cite them. Nothing you know, and virtually nothing the school says, is acceptable fodder for edits to the article. John from Idegon (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Diff 947199477 on Arcadia, CA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned. I have trouble reading tone in real life, let alone the Internet. If your question be sincere, nay, that peacock is not in Oxnard. If your edit summary belies other concerns, what are they? Stay safe, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Management Development Institute Murshidabad

I know you are active in areas of school. Maybe you can look at the recent history and see if this can really be a salvageable article or just a stub? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a private for profit tertiary school. Not really my expertise (US secondary schools are), but it will need to make WP:NORG and it doesn't. Perhaps ElKevbo can be of more help. He's the coordinator for the Universities project. John from Idegon (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Be safe Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not any sort of coordinator and I don't know anything about Indian institutions but it looks like a reasonable stub to me. Others with more knowledge of Indiana educational institutions and systems can certainly provide a more informed opinion. ElKevbo (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Benchmark School

Not sure G11 is going to work since it just recently survived an AfD, even as much as I would like it to work. Worst case scenario it'll die a slow death in G13. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 02:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

4 reverts to Nicolet High School

Why did revert 4 edits to the page when you only wanted to undo a small detail on the article [6]? Your edit summary said "Reverted 4 edits by Royalbroil (talk): The championship achievement is encyclopedic sans details. the COVID bit is WP:NOTNEWS". Please review Help:Reverting. You should have done a partial revert if you felt that strong about the minor COVID detail. You undid three things that I consider productive - removed a notable student along with an image of him, a state championship, along with the part that you wanted removed. Do you think that the article is better without all of these contributions? Editing the detail of out the article was the way that I would have gone, not reverting. By reverting all 4, you are saying that all of my edits to the article were done in bad faith. Royalbroil 02:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry you see it that way. At no time did I accuse you of bad faith. Your edits simply didn't improve the article. If you want to dispute that, start a discussion on the article talk page please in order to establish a consensus on whether to include any of your changes and how to cover them. Every spring sport in the country is cancelled and in those states that winter tournaments weren't completed, they ended too. We cannot know the outcome as they are making it up as they go. We only cover the highest level achievement of the school. It's won state championships so we will not discuss less than that, including being involved in this years undecided contest. How we cover the effects of this spring's unprecedented events are going to have to wait until we have a more complete picture. By policy, we are not a newspaper. There's really no way to know now how we will be covering US schools viz COVID19. John from Idegon (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Trishelle Cannatella

She went to South Lafourche High School, she says so on her Wikipedia page Trishelle Cannatella Dwightforrm (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Dwightforrm, (talk page stalker) Wikipedia cannot source itself and a proper reference that the subject attended that high school is not on the subject's page nor was it provided in your edit. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Will Sheehey from Stuart, Florida

I added a couple of sources to the Will Sheehey article establishing his residency. I believe he was born there as well, but it's harder to source that. As there is a dispute at the Stuart, Florida article, I'm staying out of that. <ref name="Hoosiers Sign">{{cite web |title=Men's Basketball Signs Will Sheehey To National Letter of Intent |url=https://iuhoosiers.com/news/2009/11/21/Men_s_Basketball_Signs_Will_Sheehey_To_National_Letter_of_Intent.aspx |accessdate=30 March 2020 |date=November 21, 2009}}</ref><ref name="Will has Will">{{cite web |last1=Dopirak |first1=Dustin |title=Sheehey has the will to win |url=https://www.hoosiertimes.com/herald_times_online/sports/college/iu/sheehey-has-the-will-to-win/article_b63f03f3-7b27-51de-be91-996c60177d3d.html |accessdate=30 March 2020 |date=November 8, 2013}}</ref> Jacona (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit "Others' message"

Hello, I've receive a message from you, but actually, the action what you described as "Edit Others' message" is actually editing my "own" message. I changed my IP only because the IP I used is a public free Wi-Fi on a bus provided by Taiwanese government, and when I took off, the Wi-Fi disconnected. So I can only edit it through a new IP address. --36.225.13.160 (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A good reason for using a registered account. Wikipedia:Why create an account? - Donald Albury 18:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Yep, what Daniel said. We cannot know that. So, it's irrelevant. You cannot change a message you left from one IP address from another. First best option is to register an account so this doesn't happen to you again (it's also nice to have an account for many other reasons, including privacy). If for some reason you choose not to do that, the fix for your issue is rather than change a message, add your correction after it, with an explanation. Purpose achieved, with no confusion. One other thing: perhaps you only work on one article, but many editors here do some type of reviewing which means they may look at hundreds of articles in a day. Always mention the location of your issue. This one is weird, so I remember it. If I had reverted an edit you made to an article and you came here to talk about it, I would not have remembered it. Still can't say what move discussion this applies to, just that it was a move discussion on a school. Not sure if the school is in China, Taiwan, Korea, Hong Kong, or Vietnam. John from Idegon (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Duluth, Minnesota

Hope you're feeling better these days. I know you and your many page watchers have a keen eye for geography articles. I've been pulling my hair out at Duluth, Minnesota, and the eyes of other editors would be appreciated. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Hobart High School (Indiana).

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any .

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 01:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.

Cape Fear High School

Could you please explain why you keep removing perfectly valid content from the Cape Fear High School article? I'm trying my best to add information, but you keep deleting every edit I make with even the slightest concern. If you see something wrong with what I'm adding, please undo the edits manually. You said that I can't unilaterally decide content, but if anything, it seems that you're the one doing such. I'm simply adding as much information as I can on a stub article. Of course, I have made some errors, and I am completely fine with you deleting content that is deemed unfit, such as when I added a "Clubs and Organizations" section, that had little to no noteworthy information. However, you keep undoing my edits with no explanation. I am highly doubtful that every single thing I've done in the past two days was unfit to be in the article. However, you have deemed every single edit as invalid, and blindly have removed everything possible. If there is no reason to keep the article in an underdeveloped state, then please don't resist my efforts to build it up. Once again, if there is content that should not be in the article, I encourage you to remove it so that the article fits Wikipedia's guidelines. But the removal of absolutely everything that I've done is uncalled for. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

If you're so unwilling to make an effort to correct improper information without removing all of the proper edits, at least tell me what needs to be removed, and why, so that I can appropriate the information to be considered publishable, or remove it altogether. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, on reading the BOLD, revert, discuss article you have linked on your edit, it says explicitly to revert only when absolutely necessary. However, you have continually reverted on a whim. Unless I am seriously mistaken about the validity of the content I've added, reverting could have been easily avoided, as the majority of what I have edited is valid, or at least, has been undone with no explanation. I see that a talk page would be needed to significantly advance the page. However, with the exception of the extracurricular/club section, almost everything I've added should not need a talk page, and is information that other school pages add with no trouble or concern. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Offgassing/Outgassing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hey John from Idegon I have been using the previously titled Offgassing page for its references for research I have been doing. I noticed the title was changed to Outgassing. I could not find an answer to my question anywhere else so I tried to find the source on Wikipedia and I have been led here. I don't know if I am even doing this correctly but nonetheless here is my question. Why was the title edit made? I want to know if the process is now going by a different name in the scientific community. I simply am curious as to whether I need to revise my terminology used in my research. Sorry to bother you but I could not find the answer elsewhere and felt it best to contact the source. 2601:7C0:8102:6D40:B546:EA7E:B8C4:CA4D (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC) (2601:7C0:8102:6D40:B546:EA7E:B8C4:CA4D (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)curious researcher2601:7C0:8102:6D40:B546:EA7E:B8C4:CA4D (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC))

• I have no idea what you are talking about. I know nothing at all about that subject. Please stop bothering me. John from Idegon (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

John from Idegon The article history clearly states you made that change. I just wanted to know why you did. I don't intend to be a nuisance whatsoever; however, the correct name for that process is something I would like to have certain as I move on in my research. 2601:7C0:8102:6D40:B546:EA7E:B8C4:CA4D (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but please leave me alone. I reverted an unsourced change. Nothing else. I know nothing about the subject. And sorry, but this is sounding like trolling. Who uses Wikipedia for serious research? John from Idegon (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PHCA

It appears that I cannot establish Plaza Height's notability with proper sourcing. Alas, I tried. It was a fun exercise and I've learned lots. Please delete the page draft. Best regardsCC1973 (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Undone edit on Kimono

Could you please explain to me what part of the section I re-added to the Kimono article was unsourced or in some way in violation of WP:BLP? The only thing you referenced in the undo was the entirety of the manual of style - not exactly specific feedback that I can use to improve the article. Please assist me by giving feedback on exactly what you found at issue with in the section you removed. Thank you --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply. I've noted above my health issues, and it's been a bad week. Here's the thing: the article in question (at least at one time) was considered one of the better articles on Wikipedia. Unquestionably it's an important subject. Cultural appropriation isn't. Cultural appropriation by someone whose only fame is being famous definitely isn't a good way to introduce an ultramodern contemporary concept into an article on an ancient subject. I have no idea what part of the world you are from or your age, but from your edits it's easy to maybe conclude that you are from the US and under 40. Cultural appropriation of the kimono happened in the US long before the age of celebrity. Every Pacific Theater WWII vet brought home kimonos and Japanese art as spoils of war. Pretty sure the same could be said for Canadians, Australians, Russians and Brits that served in that area too. That's how culture spread prior to the electronic revolution. If you are the editor that wrote that section, you're missing the point of WP:NPOV. As one entry in a list of items in a "In popular culture" section, a very truncated version of this section might be appropriate. The question is: Is an "In popular culture" section appropriate? That will require a consensus, one I would oppose. If this was a serious attempt to introduce the concept of "Cultural appropriation" into the article, it fails NPOV completely. Ironically, the best way IMO to describe this introduction of cultural appropriation into this article is cultural appropriation. What would you call the discussion of a modern meaningless celebrity in an article about an ancient cultural tradition? John from Idegon (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi - I'm not the author who included that section.

The Kimono article is a mess, has been for a long time, and honestly, I'm just trying to fix it up bit by bit whenever I can.

To be honest, most of the articles surrounding traditional Japanese arts and culture are a mess, and need a careful hand, a lot of good citations, and some not too little time to reshape into good quality.

There are many articles that fall into NPOV territory, might have either too few or literally no citations, or need to be retitled and reshaped. This can't be rushed. The detail necessary is too fine, and so are the distinctions - I spent a while rewriting Mizuage recently as an example of this, and it's not even a long article. It's a very wide-ranging topic, and there's always, always more work to be done.

I would've appreciated if you'd gone back to see I didn't add that in the first place - some stuff is just shit, but has to stay shit for a while whilst I fix up other sections first. As it stands, I didn't add it, so I have to find some of your points a bit moot.

As for cultural appropriation, I think it could probably be better renamed as 'Impact of kimono in Western culture', as this is something that has got a very long history. You can draw a clear line from things like the trends of Japonisme in the 19th century, to the impact of American GIs in post-WW2 Japan, all the way to things like the story about Kim Kardashian. I can't really put value on the concept of Kim Kardashian as a person - she certainly means something to someone, somewhere, and at the very least, meets notability criteria for Wikipedia, even if some might disagree.

I'd also say that the terms "ancient cultural tradition" are definitely more woolly than this sheep at times, as it was just the clothes people wore, and still is. Check out The Social Life of Kimono by Sheila Cliffe for contrary to the belief that the kimono is nothing but ceremonial, as an aside - it's still worn as fashion and everyday clothes, so I don't see the inclusion of Kim Kardashian as irrelevant to the article whatsoever. The section in question needs fleshing ot, but I dont agree with section blanking as a way to achieve this. Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

And that's not going to happen here. Please take it to the article talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Zerobridge edits

Hello John from Idegon,

Would you please tell me what edits specifically needed citations in the section The Earl Slick Sessions (2004-2005) under the article, Zerobridge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aladinsane 1972 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Iowa Valley Junior-Senior High School feedback

I will work on editing the draft per your feedback. However, I am confused by the notability requirement for a high school. The examples I found (and even the one you referenced) have no more sources than my draft, and some have none.

I've updated the draft, I'd appreciate a quick look before I submit it for review. RickH86 (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• This makes my 6th attempt to reply to you, RickH86. Sorry for the delay. I'll look at the draft shortly and leave a comment there. But to answer your question: Wikipedia is 20 years old and no one ever pictured back at the beginning it becoming what it is now. We've always had rules on notability, but they weren't always followed and up until a few years ago, no one really checked. Also, up to approximately a year ago, secondary schools enjoyed a notability exception which they no longer get, but articles won't be retroactively removed. I personally think they still should be presumed notable, but, alas, the community disagrees. John from Idegon (talk) 06:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've looked at the draft, and edited it a bit. Somewhere, somebody has written about the school in a newspaper, magazine or book. Something more than just game results. A school costs multiple millions of dollars to build, and public money being spent in that volume will generate newspaper coverage. You need to have reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject in detail. It depends on the scope of the reference, but generally it takes three or more. For schools, if you can provide a reliable secondary source independent of the school that can be paraphrased to add facts to the article (not just stats or listings), that will usually do it. John from Idegon (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I will be back in the area later this summer and will track down a few references. I've suggested to the junior high talented and gifted teacher a project to track down some of the history. We'll see if that pans out. RickH86 (talk) 11:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Guidance on Ravi Venkatesan / Draft:Ravi Venkatesan

Greetings. I just saw your post on my talk page re: Draft:Ravi Venkatesan.

Needed some assistance on the next steps here.

I see your note that the article doesn't meet the guidelines for Notability with not enough independent sources. I would like some assistance in identifying enough independent sources. The only reason I say this is that as a Business Executive, I have no doubt that someone who is the Chairman of the board of some of the leading companies in India (Infosys, Bank of Baroda, and formerly Cummins, and Microsoft India) should qualify as notable. If I am doing something wrong in identifying these independent sources, please let me know.

For now, I have some leading newspaper articles, citations from foundations such as the Rockefeller foundation etc. While I think that these should qualify as independent sources, I am happy to work on identifying additional sources.

Kaisertalk (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Not interested. John from Idegon (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for gross incivility at AN/I. 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 ~~~~}}.  GeneralNotability (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

John, this is not a block I applied lightly, but calling WMF folks (or anyone, really) "motherfuckers" and "pencil dicks" is way, way over the line, especially just three months after a formal warning about behavior at AN/I. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

No sir. You are stifling a legitimate position. I demand an immediate review. (Redacted) John from Idegon (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

John just chill out, its a 48 hour block which is exceptionally lenient all things considered. Take a two day break (hiking, fishing, shooting, golf, swimming, whatever floats your boats) and then come back with a new attitude. Its only going to get worse if you try to fight it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

John from Idegon, you are certainly entitled to an immediate review. Lashing out at GeneralNotability for making the block is, on the one hand understandable,but is also not the way to actually get a productive immediate review. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• It's kind of like how the looters ruin the message of the protesters. You can't defend the community if you violate the policies (trust) of the community, or you just make the community look bad. (WP:NPA). It isn't like I haven't been tempted to use rude comments about specific individuals, but I don't because I don't want the message drowned out by my tone of "voice" (see my user page). Really, it isn't the language, it's the personal attacks that went too far. I get the frustration, I really do, but there is a right and wrong way to go about it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Since when is telling someone they're ignorant about something a personal attack? If someone tells me I'm ignorant of the Greek language, my reaction would be, "I agree" or "What do you mean by that?", not "That's a personal attack". Telling someone they're stupid is a personal attack. Telling someone they're ignorant about something is not necessarily a personal attack. Sundayclose (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Sundayclose. Glad someone gets it. The WMF (it's even in their name, for Pete's sake) are the owners of the means of production and we are the workers who create the product. We have far MORE power than the traditional labor/management dichotomy because we are also the raw materials. In the traditional labor management dichotomy, management controls two of the three legs of production; here, we do. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the 5 pillars. As long as you want to limit the discussion to the rules they devised, they will do what they want. Until we enable the thought that the Foundation (which by the way is a fucking entity, not a person, so NPA doesn't apply) are the motherfuckers that are shoving their will down our throats so the unnamed pencil neck geeks that collectively set the CORPORATE policies are happy, we ACTUAL WIKIPEDIANS will remain voiceless. So yea, whatever. Block me for 48 hours...it will not change anything. Feel free to extend it to indeff. Did it ever occur to you that the time may be here to go a different way? I attacked no one. And their is no better way to describe this but bullshit. The rev del is bullshit too. I'm not angry. At all. This is being approached from entirely the wrong way. Discorse doesn't have to be polite to be civil. That's an artificial reality. The people that make the rules are constricting us to follow the rules like they have the power to make us. They don't. Wikimedia software is freely licensed and there is ABSOLUTLEY nothing stopping us from telling the WMF to go fuck itself, and recreate Wikipedia elsewhere. And until we realize that it is the Wikipedians, not the WMF, that hold the cards in ANY negotiation between us, they'll continue to do the total clueless things they do. John from Idegon (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

    John from Idegon: If the motherfuckers have a problem with how we talk to them, they can leave the table. They cannot run the encyclopedia without us. Unless you enjoy having the pencil dicks from the office dictate to you, stop letting them define the problem.

    Also John from Idegon: I attacked no one ... I'm not angry.

    Maybe recalibrate your notion of what constitutes an "attack"? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

    It might be suggested that repeating substantially similar wording to that which got you blocked is probably not a great idea, and probably grounds for an extension of the block, considering that blocks aren't punitive, and there's no evidence here that the behaviour has been understood, let alone remedied. Pencil neck geeks is clearly not referring to the Foundation, but rather to its employees.

    I note that you've made a written request for a review, but not posted the {{unblock}} template, meaning that someone coming along and performing one is fairly unlikely; if a sysop does review the block, I think this response should be taken into account for a potential extension rather than an unblock. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Naypta, you should be congratulated for your sublime investigative skills. Wikipedia is so much better for your edit here. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. I could not have ever figured that out on my own. I'll bet your mama's real proud of you. John from Idegon (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• John from Idegon, while not directed at a specific person, your use of "the motherfuckers" to refer to the W?F does imply that each W?F employee is, individually, a motherfucker. No matter how you look at it, that is not civil. Ideally, you should stick to describing the W?F's actions, rather than the W?F itself. Also, I'm afraid there are not nearly enough editors who care about WP's relation with the W?F to make a strong 'union'. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 19:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  A personal attack is something that is personal. It has to target "somebody" specific, and it has to target their identity. Jehochman[7] Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Kudpung, I'm not saying it is a personal attack, only that it's uncivil. Also, if it's John's intention to rally editors to his side in order to fork or strike or unionise or whatever, his use of language is simply counterproductive, as many editors are alienated by it. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 16:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

PJvanMill Many productive editors, recognise his frustration and respect him for expressing his opinion. It surprises me that many who should know better, have no understanding of register. The language used by a sub-editor is different from that used by a RS journalist. The register we use in main space is different from what we use on a talk page; and in a user-talk page that will be framed by a consensus of regular productive editors. It has appeared for a long time this register is mutually misunderstood by editors who enjoy management.

I have no idea what to fork or strike or unionise means. I cannot understand the logic of calling this a personal attack. To use an analogy, in my shed I have a barrel of apples, about a quarter of them are now bad. If I say that the wasps are going for the bad apples in my shed- this doesn't equate to saying all the apples in my shed are bad! These time wasting bans just irritate. It may work to put a recalcitrant toddler on the naughty step, but you need a different approach when dealing with dedicated and productive volunteers. ClemRutter (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

ClemRutter, I do recognise his frustration and I don't think there's anything wrong with him expressing his opinion. All I'm saying is that it would have been better if he'd found a way to express it without calling the W?F "motherfuckers". To I cannot understand the logic of calling this a personal attack: I did not. To I have no idea what to fork or strike or unionise means: reading John's comment above, I see him make a comparison between Wikipedia and a traditional company, in which we, the editors, are the employees. He seems to be saying that we have a lot of power over the W?F and that we should rise up against them in some way, for example by doing or threatening to do a project fork of Wikipedia. To time wasting bans: this isn't a ban, it's a block, and I'm not the one who made it. Direct your complaint to User:GeneralNotability instead. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 19:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• • To a person except you, PJvanMill, everyone commenting here are editors whom I've worked with for years. I, as far as I know, have never interacted with you anywhere for any reason. You've been here three months. Frankly, there is no reason whatsever for an editor whom I've never interacted with to be here at all. The bunny hill is thataway. Please wait until you've got more experience before attempting a black diamond run. John from Idegon (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

John from Idegon, as you want me to leave, I'll leave. Indeed, this discussion hardly needs to include me. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 16:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• • But yet, you are still posting here. Any wonder why editors sometimes spew obscenities? You weren't invited here, PJvanMill. Your inane observations contributed nothing here. But yet, you stuck your nose in where it doesn't belong. At three months in, it is highly doubtful you have anything useful to offer in discussions like this. You simply don't know enough, and couldn't possibly know enough to be helpful. You know enough to think you know enough, but not enough to understand that there is much more you don't understand. See Dunning-Kruger effect, and kindly engage in some serious self evaluation prior to attempting to explain things you don't understand to those that do. John from Idegon (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Derry NH edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This content shouldn't have been deleted, and references a town park, "the splash pad", including a link to the town ".org" webpage regarding the place of interest. Andywho56 (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

{(talk page stalker)See your talk page, the edit summary on the article, and the article's talk page. Meters (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Andywho56, Talking about this on John's talk page probably isn't the best of outlets, as pointed out in his edit summary, a discussion about the addition of that link is already taking place onthe subject's talk page. You should consider continuing your discussion there, particularly since the issue has drawn the attention of multiple parties. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 03:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm still getting used to how wikipedia communications are structured as this is the first (and probably last after this experience) time I've added content. Andywho56 (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pocahontas County, WV, revert

Hello. You reverted my recent edit on Pocahontas County, WV. This is not a matter for consensus, as the references I provided in the edit are the actual history of the county, it is not an opinion. Pocahontas never voted to be in the new state, Pocahontas voted in favor of secession from the United States on May 24, 1861. It was one of 8 counties of WV who never voted to leave Virginia in any way. I will revert your revert unless you can state some good reason that referenced material can be reverted willy nilly. Dubyavee (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

You are introducing an entirely new concept into the article. Requesting discussion on a new point that diametrically opposes the concept it replaced is certainly not controversial. Show me where your claim that I have no right to revert you is ensconsed in policy. You can't, because it isn't. Surely you are not claiming that verifiability somehow guarantees inclusion? It doesn't. Article content disputes are settler via consensus, not rules per se. The WP:ONUS is on you to gsin consensus. Please take it to the article talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Page Move Error

Hey,

Just a friendly heads up - you forgot to remove the RM template when closing InTech Collegiate Academy. See this diff for what was missed.

Thanks! -- Dane ^talk 18:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry...used a script, and when I close XfD with it, it removes the template. Guess I haven't used it to close a move before. Thanks for the heads up. John from Idegon (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Hobe Sound

I did not use any promotion or advertising in my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markdirector (talk • contribs) 14:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Alpena High School (Michigan) logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Alpena High School (Michigan) logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi John. You can ignore this for now since I've re-added the file to the article where it was being used. The logo might need updating if it has been replaced, but the file uploaded to Commons seems almost certainly to be a copyvio and has been tagged as such. If for some reason the new version is kept by Commons, I will re-add it to the article. I'm just posting this as a courtesy because the I had (for some reason) the file on my watchlist as well. No need for you to reply unless you want to clarify something about the most recent version of the school's logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks. Appreciate it. John from Idegon (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome...?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Thanks for the welcome. But not sure why you are trying to call me out for conflict of interest? You don't know me. I have nothing to do with any of the agencies I write about. I'm a resident of the area and want to bring a new recreational mode of transport to light. --Hsvbypass (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not purposed with bringing a new recreational mode of transport to light. That's not what an encyclopedia is. Perhaps if you spent 15 minutes researching what Wikipedia is prior to using it, you wouldn't feel offended. I really don't care. You are CLEARLY promoting this as yet non existent thing, and you are doing it on multiple articles with no sources. Stop. John from Idegon (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see the following:

• Allegheny River Valley Trail
• Auburn Trail
• Bethesda Trolley Trail
• Bethpage Bikeway
• Betsie Valley Trail
• Billy Goat Trail
• Capital Crescent Trail
• Catharine Valley Trail
• Cato–Fair Haven Trail
• East Central Regional Rail Trail
• Erna Nixon Park
• Great Divide Mountain Bike Route
• Gwynns Falls Trail
• Iron Ore Heritage Trail
• Leelanau Trail
• New York State Canalway Trail
• Paradox Trail
• Patuxent Branch Trail
• Pine Mountain State Scenic Trail
• Savage Mill Trail
• Sligo Creek Trail
• Turkey Creek Sanctuary
• Wickham Park (Melbourne, Florida)

There are tons of articles about similar trails throughout the United States in Wikipedia. Clearly, it can be noteworthy. I apologize for not providing sources as that seem to be the issue. But I am now providing sources to several news agencies now.--Hsvbypass (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

So are you illiterate or just too lazy to read? That isn't the only problem. Anything you add about this trail system you are reporting will be removed until such time as it ACTUALLY EXISTS. I'm not in any way interested in helping you use Wikipedia to promote your pet project, so kindly go away. John from Idegon (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Get well soon

I hope this message let's you know how much we care and will be thinking of you. Wishing you better health. You are an important contributor. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It's getting better. The primary issue is solved, but I lost a third of my body weight while ill, so I still fatigue really easily. My 8 year old is getting kinda torqued over me falling out in the middle of a game of Battleship. It's getting better. John from Idegon (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your illness, John. Really glad you're on the mend, though. Best wishes for your return to health. El_C 21:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Wishing you a speedy recovery. We need you here full time :) Sundayclose (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I too wish you well in your recovery John. MarnetteD|Talk 01:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Good luck John. I did 30 seconds of Just Dance with my seven-year old and I'm ready for bed. Drmies (talk)

Corrections to articles

So, for my updates to both State Prison of Southern Michigan and Jackson MI I should have just deleted the paragraphs or added in my updates at the end of each paragraph? My thought process was to leave something that informs Wikipedia viewer if they were looking for information about Cell Block 7. Thanks, John.3415TTG (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

3415TTG, our messages crossed. Ive already replied on your talk, prior to your question here. Generally, you should respond to messages where you got them. You can use either Template:u or Template:tb to notify the other editor, but it's not necessary to notify experienced editors of a reply. Generally experienced editors will "watch" (via their Watchlist) any talk page they edit for a reply. If you have any further questions, please reply at your talk. Thanks. (Wikipedia is fun and educational, but not really intuitive). John from Idegon (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Hyde alumni revisions

Hello, John from Idegon! I see you reverted my cited inclusion of Elijah Blue Allman on the list of Hyde School (Maine) alumni. His inclusion had two citations -- one from the school headmaster saying he's an alumnus, and another interview with Allman himself in which he and Renn Hawkey confirmed their attendance.

It also looks like you removed the source for Robert King (photojournalist)'s inclusion. This was again from an official school publication, and the source material was an interview with King in which he spoke about his attendance. When both the student and the school confirm someone attended, that seems pretty definitive to me.

I'm not sure what other type of sources you'd prefer, but I really don't see any reason to remove these names or sources. Please help me understand. Thanks in advance for your response. Beginning (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry you don't understand what an encyclopedia article is. Not my problem. Your changes fail a core policy. There are numerous help assistance available. If you have policy based reasons to dispute my change, bring it up on the article talk page. Nothing whatsoever you've mentioned here is in any way relative to the question at hand. John from Idegon (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add my tendentious editing to the ANI discussion

I'd be glad to see a WP:BOOMERANG Do you know what you're edit warring over or are you just reacting? I took it to the talk page to explain. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Explain all you want, you still need a fucking consensus. Until you change your attitude, I'll not be replying to you any further. Status of your edit has not changed. I will not waste my time discussing with you whether that's necessary or not. The fact that you think you have a FUCKING RIGHT to change things is the entire problem. I'll not discuss the ground rules with you. You agreed to follow them when you registered an account and with every single edit you ever made. John from Idegon (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not need a consensus to fix an obvious error. Sorry you think I have an attitude. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh? Please quote the policy backing that position, oh lord and master. Who decided it was an obvious error? Who decided that your change is the solution? I've got no time for your ignorance. Kindly go away. Permanently. John from Idegon (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

John, please tone it down. I won't ask you again. El_C 02:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

To answer your question: User_talk:Tony1#Link_mangling is where the discussion about the problem—obvious error as you call it—was opened. Do you understand the obvious error that I fixed and why there's consensus to fix it? You have still not shown why you think it's not an obvious error. Can you show my why it's not? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Then indeff me now. You've got no grounds. He posted here. There is no policy backing his position. He's here stirring the pot. And refusing to discuss it in good faith. And somehow, my frustration is the problem? Sanction me or drop it. Good bye. John from Idegon (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I would really rather not, which is why I am appealing to your better nature. El_C 03:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

This is John's better nature. EEng 04:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

At this point, you've got no choice. You haven't anything to block me on. The problem behavior is not occurring now, so it would be punitive. However the other parties', especially Walter, is ongoing. He's insisting again that his edits are beyond reproach and came here again with it. Ignoance means lack of knowledge. Clearly either that, or willful disregard, is in play. And again somehow I am the problem? If he cannot be bothered to discuss it and insists on coming here to further the argument by failing to acknowledge that, IMO that's enough for me to tell him in no uncertain terms to stay away. And in this case "ignorance" is the more flattering description. Would you prefer I use more colorful words so you'd have a reason to block me? And why does my phone think the proper word is "blick"? And will we ever play baseball again? All good questions and far more useful than this conversation or an ANI thread. So, again, block me or drop it. John from Idegon (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

John, I do not want to block you — believe me. El_C 03:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

ANI Noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:John from Idegon and civility. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

ANI report

John, please try to tone it down a bit. Even though you're right on the content or procedure, please convey that in a less confrontational tone, even and especially when you become frustrated. Thanks. Best regards, El_C 01:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

IP edit

An IP claiming to be you has posted some personal attacks on ANI. Can you please verify whether that was you or not? El_C 10:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't. I'm almost always on a Verizon network. Never have figured out how they allocate, but sometimes it is in Phoenix, sometimes Indianapolis. Funny, as I'm in Oregon. John from Idegon (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, John. I thought as much. Just an LTA looking for thrills. El_C 12:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Alta Loma HS logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Alta Loma HS logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Undone Edits on Morristown Junior-Senior High School

Hi John from Idegon, I just wanted to start off by saying I read your reasons for removing my edits, and I appreciate you taking the time to explain some things to me. Thanks also for doing your due diligence to ensure the quality of Wikipedia articles. That being said, I still had some questions regarding all that you removed and on certain Wikipedia policy (very short questions), if you don't mind.

I understand why you removed my Demographics & Trends section, as well as the fact that NCES is a better source for the information I included. I am confused, however at why my edits simply directing readers to a corresponding wikipedia page, or to fix broken links, were removed (perhaps this was in error?). Additionally, you mentioned on my talk page that I could not add content and say "". I understand that completely, and I did not do this. In all cases where I put , I simply requested citations for existing content that was added by another user which lacked (I believe) necessary citations. Lastly, if I'm not mistaken, you seemed to take issue with the very minimal data analysis I used in my Demographic & Trends section, and I was curious as to what the problem with analysis like that was, as I made no claims, but simply made note of ongoing trends and noteworthy statistics. Is this type of surface-level data analysis not allowed, or am I missing something? Additionally, while Compass may not be the best source available, it does provide updated and accurate information on stats such as enrollment and number of faculty, so could it be cited as a source for updating information this is by now six or seven years outdated?

Thanks for taking the time to help, and I am grateful for any help you can give. (I do believe that your removal of certain information I added, such as updating the school's current principal, along with my adding and fixing of broken links was in error, so I have re-included those changes, and am awaiting your response.) Jumpin'Joey (talk) 04:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Jumpin'Joey: I didn't look too deeply into that article, just at your edit. I did look closely at it this morning and I stubbed it. There's some Wiki-history involved here. Most of the school articles for Southern Indiana were written by one guy, about 15 years ago. Nobody took Wikipedia seriously back then. We do now. I removed all the clearly WP:OR stuff and there isn't anything left. I'll add the base stuff back, with sources (IHSAA, NCES). An academics section will be needed. It should contain a listing of AP courses (which can be cited to an appropriate page on the school's website), the latest US News and World Report ranking, any notable awards for academics the school has received (Blue Ribbon School notably, other prominent national awards, not honors for individuals associated with the school), a listing of any academic teams that compete interscholastically (these should be sourced to whatever organization sanctions the competitions) and any state championship (or higher) they've achieved. It should also have an arts section, listing the performance art programs the school has (the listing can be sourced to the school.) Anything else (including a specific name for a particular program ie if the band were called "The Marching Morrises", that would need a citation to a reliable secondary source...if only the school uses that name, we will not be), requires reliable secondary sources. I'm not recalling the organization in Indiana that sanctions music programs, but I do recall it's cited at Avon High School (Indiana). Thanks for your interest. I'll be happy to help you with this. I'll also start an article on the district at Draft:Shelby Eastern Schools for us to work on. Keep this in mind: the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to summarize what others have written about the subject in reliable secondary sources. It is not to tell the school's story, although ideally that is what will happen. If it isn't written about somewhere else it doesn't belong here. John from Idegon (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Saint Mary's Cathedral, Limerick

Dear John, May I ask why you deleted information from the above page? As Dean of the Cathedral, I inserted this information. Niall J. Sloane, Dean of Limerick NJS26 (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Will reply at User talk:NJS26. John from Idegon (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

ANI thread where I mentioned your edits

I believe you're already aware of this thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated problems with Walter Görlitz, but since you haven't participated I'm just letting you know I mentioned your edits, albeit without naming you. Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up. I'll pass. I'm too irritable to deal with any of this, which, for the most part, appears to be (2/3 anyway) about some interactions between en.wiki and wikidata. I won't understand ever why I need to understand wikidata to edit Wikipedia. Isn't it there to make things easier, not harder? I can link a photo from Commons seamlessly. I can upload a picture to either en.wiki or Commons almost as seamlessly. Every damn time a problem exists between Wikipedia and Wikidata, the solution always seems way too technical. I'm sure I'm not alone, and reasonably sure my feelings are common: if I wanted to do heavy coding, I'd be getting paid to do heavy coding. I guess what I'm saying is that whatever Walter's problem is shouldn't be a problem in the first place, but like you, I think he needs to communicate better. Also probably should clarify his thinking about what represents a community consensus and how local consensus applies. See his remarks above, which I'm not replying to in an effort to disengage. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Cardinal Mooney Marine City

Hi John, I am just informing you that the history information and the cutting of the one former alumni who died in the line of duty will be undone as per request of the school. I appreciate your dedication to preserving the Wikipedia community but I have to ensure that the information for this page is accurate as per what the school requested. Thewiselexicon (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Reverted your edits again and replyed on your talk page. You have some very very incorrect ideas about how Wikipedia works. John from Idegon (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi John,

I am just placing the information that the school is requesting so that their Wikipedia page is maintained. It was there for almost a decade until your edit on March 6 2020. Thewiselexicon (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• So? This isn't Facebook. This isn't a directory. Subjects of articles do not maintain the articles about them. Your assumptions are ALL completely incorrect. John from Idegon (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi John,

That is on the website currently. If you need me to send you a screenshot of those people who work there I would be more than happy to. If you require further verification of those people, I’d be happy to give you the contact info for the school. Thewiselexicon (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi John,

You are correct that this is not Facebook. However, the goal of Wikipedia is to display and provide free information to millions about an area and what is there. That is the role of the community. As much as I respect the numerous years of editing and hard work you have done, it appeara we may be at an impasse over this article. I would like to ask how would you like me to accurately reflect the school’s information satisfactory to your standards. Please let me know. Have a good day. Thewiselexicon (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• • That's yet another incorrect assumption. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to summarize what others have written about the subject in reliable secondary sources. Ideally, that will tell the school's story. The enrollment stats should come from NCES. The athletics information should come from MHSAA. The only things we consider the school the best source for are staff names (of which, we only use principal and for a private school, the corporate head) and its own address and website. We don't even consider the school to be the best source of the school name. Wikipedia, by pillar policy, is not a directory.
  • You need to explain this to whomever you are talking to at the school. WP:OWN is another relative link. So is WP:NOTFACEBOOK.
  • I'll add some basics. If you want to look for reliable secondary sources for more information, go for it but please wait till I finish. Thanks.
  • I'm sorry if I sound flippant about the kia soldier. I know the locals all felt it. I lost two friends in Nam and 3 relatives in WWII. But that's the point. Kids get killed in war. Lots of them. It's noble, heroic, gallant, tragic....the list goes on. But individuals dying in war does not make the individual notable. Literally over a million kids have worldwide in the last 150 years. The scope of this encyclopedia article is world-wide. That also factors in to the removal of the history section. It was completely meaningless unless one has a knowledge of the geography of Marine City. Lacking that knowledge, none of the information in that section can be strung together to mean anything. Therefore nothing there was encyclopedic. I'll take a look at the school's website and see if I can get a grasp of something neutral and informative for history. Basically the qualifications to be on a notable alumni list are exactly the same as having a biographical article on Wikipedia. Getting killed in action does not in and of itself make a person notable. The only presumptive notability for military is making general officer or winning a country's top military honor (ie, the Congressional Medal of Honor). He would have to have pretty much been notable for something else prior to his death to be considered notable. No disrespect intended. In the bigger picture, sadly, his death is not considered important enough for continuing coverage outside the local area. And that is what we base inclusion on.
  • If you really want to improve the article (according to our standards, not the school's), I'll be glad to help. John from Idegon (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

ok thx for the help. I understand youre just trying to do your job. I'll make my reccommendations in the talk page of the article due to my COI and find reliable sources. Let me know if I can help in any other way. Thx. Also, sorry for the loss of your friends and relatives in Nam and WWII. :( Thewiselexicon (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I think he does this voluntarily, which makes it even more commendable that he takes this much time to explain the issues to every single user he seems to have encountered over the last couple of years. Wish you all the best John, just a random user passing through! (Is this agains't the rules too? :D) --LKS1990 (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

ANI Result

 Warning I have closed the recent discussion at ANI with the following result. You are Formally Warned that the community has found a pattern of unnecessarily acerbic and at times uncivil communication with your fellow editors. This is inconsistent with the collegial environment we seek to foster and contrary to our policies and guidelines. You should make every effort to avoid language and edit summaries likely to cause offense to others. Persistent failure to abide by our guidelines may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you for your long record of contributions to the project. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Understood and acknowledged. I was waaaaay off the reservation yesterday and will log off sooner if I feel the patience ship is leaving port. John from Idegon (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Like. El_C 14:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi John, I have observed from time to time that you have some days you get cranky. No big deal, but so do I. I have an idea, if you see me headed in an unhealthy direction, post a joke, any joke, on my talk page. It would serve as a wake-up call for me, but not serve as fodder for the drama lovers. If you like, I'll do the same for you. What do you think? Jacona (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks friend. John from Idegon (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Your recent deletions on Wallingford, CT page

Hello - You recently deleted Robert Gober and Samuel Simpson from the Wallingford CT page. You also deleted mention of I. M. Pei in relation to the art centre. Do you know who these people are? They are as, or more, notable than others listed on the Wallingford page. They are three huge, international names in art and design. I assumed that as they had Wiki pages specifically for them, that that was enough justification. Mrdnartdesign (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Mrdnartdesign

George Walton Comprehensive High School Page

Hello,

I am an proud alumni and my colleague is school leader from Walton High School. My colleague and I are trying to update the page to show the new modern features of Walton High School. Many of the pictures on the page are old and outdated and do not reflect our new school. In addition, under the information section I added more factual information that you took out. The other schools in our area have the additional information that I added to the information section, so I wanted our school to be the same. Some information in the section such as rival and motto is simply incorrect. Respectfully, please stop changing our work. Thank You.Eastcobbhistorian (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Reversal of revision on West Aurora high(Illinois) page under notable Alumni Gary Beisbier (class of 1963)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Aurora_High_School&oldid=prev&diff=956003132

Please reconsider this action.. I am attaching jpeg files extracted from downloaded pdf files which pertain to the verification of Gary Beisber's attendance of West Aurora High School in Aurora Illinois. I had previously been rejected for use of social media sites like Classmates.com for proof of attendance. I am in e-mail contact with Gary on a daily basis and is aware that editors refuse to believe he attended this school in the early 1960's. They suggested some proof as in a book or amagazine and not a blog or social media site. Here are snips from West Aurora High school newspaper The Red and Blue from 1962 and 1963... Gary's name appears in these files...He was a senior in 1963. He was a musician in the school bands and orchestras. Joseph L Pytel Jr 12:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Response to the article, "Lakewood High School"

Thanks for informing me that I should write an edit summary for every edit I make. I went ahead and reapplied the original edits since I actually go to that school and one of the principals (Mario Jimenez) actually did retire last year, according to on slide 2 of 29. I'm new to Wikipedia, so thanks again for correcting me.

Jddoan (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Chaminade_Julienne_High_School".The discussion is about the topic Julienne High School.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

I noticed this on your talk page and sent this editor a more reliable source. Hope you're well. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. No CV19 praise God, but the lockdown has caused me to lose a major client and also slowed my recovery from the other crap, which got fixed in January. Facebook nicely reminded me today that it started two years ago yesterday. Lost over a third of my total bodyweight and I've only been able to gain about 10 pounds back so far.

Editor in question is seemingly inexperienced and patience is in short supply right now. Thanks for helping. John from Idegon (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

User:STAY AT HOME FOR THE NHS

This user has certainly been disruptive, and I've undone some of their edits, but I'm not sure what you mean when you say that they are "using wikipedia as a personal web host". I'm also not familiar with policy around deleting User pages -- could you point me to the relevant policy? Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Macrakis I have deleted the user page and here is the relevant policy WP:NOTWEBHOST. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: I don't understand how WP:NOTWEBHOST applies here. Is it just a nice way of saying that you didn't think he would ever become a productive editor? Every so often, a new user starts as a POV warrior but gets persuaded to be cooperative and productive.... His changes to doner kebab, for example, seemed to be in good faith, though misguided. --Macrakis (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Userpages are to inform other editors about your Wikipedia "life". They are not to campaign for a political cause. It's blatant U5. We don't have userpages for the user to promote their political positions. John from Idegon (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@HickoryOughtShirt?4:, and Macrakis (whom I forgot to ping above), I think a new username should be part of unblocking for this editor too. Macrakis, I do not really understand your concern. The editor's edits have nothing to do with deletion of the userpage. It doesn't affect his account in any way. John from Idegon (talk) 23:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I agree, I'll keep my eye on it but I doubt this user will try and be unblocked. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Feedback on Greenville, SC Page

Hi John,

I noticed some feedback on my Talk page about an edit I made to the Greenville, SC page. I always appreciate feedback as I am new to this. The talk page mentioned Verifiability, which confused me since I have been using citations to both primary and secondary sources.

Would you mind explaining more what you meant - and how it was not verifiable - so that I can improve my future editing.

JeremyAGibbs (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm stealing Wifi to answer you, so I can't help you much now, but later in the week I'll do more. Courtesy link in case someone watching my talk wants to help in the meantime: Greenville, South Carolina. Wish I could do more now, JeremyAGibbs. Ttys. John from Idegon (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, please don't get discouraged. You have the best possible attitude to succeed here. John from Idegon (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back, John! BilCat (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ditto John. "May the Force be with you" from hereon. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Hope so, but it is 2020, so I suspect the proper quote might be from Spaceballs, not Star Wars. May the farce be with you, friend. John from Idegon (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Glad to have you back, John. You do excellent work here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, thanks. I did spend my vacation thinking about what I do here, and about what pisses me off here. There are two things: promo editing and editors with more experience than I not following our standards for dispute resolution. I'll spend some more time getting my thoughts into words, but when I figure out how to say it nicely, could you help me with one of those notes that appear when you open my talk page to edit? I don't know what it's called, but last time I was there, Drmies had one on his talk page. I want to say something along the lines of "If you're here because I removed your edit as promotional, please enquire at WP:TEA or WP:HELP as to what Wikipedia considers promotional. If you're here because I removed your edit as unsourced, please source it. See WP:V, WP:RS and WP:RFB. If I've reverted your edit because it was either not verified, or not an improvement, please open a discussion at the article's talk page to attempt to gain WP:CONSENSUS. I'm not always right, but it isn't personal. Follow WP:BRD, and remember that decisions on Wikipedia (all of them) are made by consensus. Thanks." John from Idegon (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not know off the top of my head how to create that kind of message, John, but I will look into it and get back to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Health Issues

Sorry to hear of your current health issue/s, John. I have prayed for a quick and favorable outcome. ShoneBrooks (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Special:Diff/951520093

really? you prefer the version of the page with syntactically invalid markup and obvious vandalism. why even bother putting a TW edit summary anyways if you're just going to revert everything? ⁓ Hello71 02:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't know why the user changed the ref name, but I fixed the broken ref. Meters (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

SurVision Magazine

• I don't appreciate unfounded assumptions, nor do I like personal attacks. Please refrain from mutilating articles if you have an issue with a particular institution that they describe. This is not nice, to put it mildly. --Bonmot (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions 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. Thank you.--Bonmot (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• • You haven't answered the question which isn't optional. You continue to edit war which isn't allowed. I've never even heard of the subject of the article and don't give a damn about poetry. I do care about Wikipedia. You are editing the article in a way that violates pillar policies WP:NPOV and WP:V. And you are getting emotional about it. That's what people who have vested interest in a subject do. The entirety of your edit history involves this magazine and authors published in it. It isn't unreasonable to believe you may have a WP:COI. And questioning you about that is my responsibility as a Wikipedian. Sorry if that troubles you, but I'm doing nothing whatsoever wrong here. You are the one breaking policy, both with your edits and your editing style. Why do you refuse to follow WP:BRD? And this isn't personal. Stop taking it like that. We are here to make an encyclopedia. Period. This is about how you are going about it. You've only made a handful or so edits in the 6 months you've been here. I've been doing this for 8 years and have made over 100,000 edits. Logically, who is going to have a better grasp of how things work on Wikipedia - me or you? WP:AGF is a rule for very good reasons. I didn't say you were stupid or a defect, or anything personal. I informed you your edits are out of policy and they are. Do you believe yourself beyond question? No one can challenge you? If so, you are in the wrong place. Everything here gets decided by WP:CONSENSUS. If you cannot deal with having your work removed, challeged or edited, this will not ever work out with you here. After all, you re-agree to allow just that each and every time you press the "publish edit" button. I wii be asking an administrator to re-explain all this to you, but that shouldn't be necessary. AGF says you should assume I made my edit in good faith. You've shown ample indication of connected editing to justify me asking if you are doing this for reasons other than to improve the encyclopedia. I cannot revert you again, as then I would be in violation of policy. You should revert your last re-addition of the disputed content, then start a discussion on the article's talk page, arguing for your preferred version by citing reliable secondary sources and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you cannot do that, then clearly the content you want doesn't improve the article. This isn't an emotion subject. Quit taking it that way, answer the question on your talk page, and discuss the edit on the article talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

→ You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. I understand that you bear the grudge against the whole world and against everybody who disagrees with you, this is your problem, but you are not supposed to take it on Wikipedia articles and Wiki editors who haven't done you anything wrong. By making disruptive edits and then by nominating this article for deletion (!!!), obviously NOT made in good faith, you only show that what you are doing is counterproductive. By maiming and deleting articles about Irish culture you only show that your attitude is not beneficial for Wikipedia Project. My advice is, stop that, you are only making a spectacle of yourself. Concentrate on the positive, help improve articles as I am trying to do. This would be the right thing to do.--Bonmot (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• SurVision Books and Magazine. Renamed because this reflects the reality. Please discuss before reverting.--Bonmot (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Instead if reverting back to your preferred name, you would’ve been better off following WP:RMUM. You made an undiscussed page move that was reverted by another editor. That makes the page move contentious which in turn means you should initiate the discussion and establish a consensus for the move, not the other way around. Moreover, you moved an article while it’s being discussed at AFD, which isn’t also really a good thing to do. It would’ve been better to wait for the outcome of the AFD discussion and then figure out whether to move the page. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Suppression of info about rise of Neo-Nazism

Hi John, please chime in to Talk:Pacifica_High_School_(Garden_Grove,_California)#Worldwide_news_-_Nazi_salute I hope to God that this is not what I think it is, suppression of relevant information regarding the rise of Neo-Nazism, especially as this is the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the concentration camps. If it's not, then please explain to me why you think the event is not relevant.Keizers (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Bishop Alemany High School

May I ask how Devin Ross an nfl football player isn’t relevant but a cheerleader and cfl player is? Bigmike2346 (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Bigmike2346, I didn't review the article, just your change. New changes are patrolled. I don't remember the specific edit, but if he doesn't have an article, he doesn't go in the list. If there's no source tying him to the school in his bio, you have to add one when you add him to the list. If you want more details, please link to the edit in question. John from Idegon (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't even know what article you are talking about. I linked the name you gave, and this is the only place on Wikipedia that name occurs. Is there a spelling error? John from Idegon (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Ok, it was a spelling error. I'll get rid of the other non notables. The person in question doesn't meet notability guidelines and their bio is nominated for deletion, which will in most likelihood result in the article's deletion. He's no where near notable. See WP:ANYBIO, WP:NGRIDIRON and the deletion discussion linked from the person's bio. John from Idegon (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Cadeken SPI

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Cadeken. I don't have a lot of experience making SPI requests. Feel free add, comment, and correct. It's getting very burdensome cleaning up after this guy. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked, tagged and awaiting closing. Since the abrupt departure of Bbb23, SPI is extremely slow. John from Idegon (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:MCQ#Should I upload or not?

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ#Should I upload or not?. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi John. Hope you’re feeling better. Maybe you or one of your talk page watchers can help this person out. Just from the name of the school they provided, my guess is that it’s probably not one that’s notable, but there might be more to this than just a name. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

3RR

Hey! I would like to remind you that you violated 3RR at Taylor Allderdice High School with your most recent revert. I suggest you self-revert and then report the IP to AN/EW. --MrClog (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Was just getting ready to do that when I noticed 331dot had blocked the other guy. I'm going to go ahead and fix this article now. John from Idegon (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Linking to archives as ELs

Hi, John! I took a look at this edit summary.

I strongly disagree with the statement that "There's no reason ever to link to an archive as an EL". There are many good reasons why we should: to tell the public where historical knowledge of the school is, and to tell Wikipedians where it is so they can use those old URLs for research purposes. I regularly consult such URLs to get material for school district articles, particularly about former campuses that have since closed or merged. They've been helpful especially in relation to the school district mergers in Arkansas and Iowa.

The general public doesn't know that URLs change rapidly, and without the knowledge of which domains/URLs the subject previously had, the knowledge in those archives becomes less accessible. Wikipedia's job is to make knowledge accessible to the general public, and linking to archives does exactly that. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Point taken, but not without some explanation of why. I'd think a standard section listing all the historic websites the has would be very useful. Random inclusion in an external links section with no indictation as to why....not so much.
• On a related topic, is there a way to stop bots from adding an archive link when in fact the website has migrated? Clearly the current website is vital. If the link for the official website comes back dead, mark it and add it to a catagory for maintenance rather than replace it with a stale archive? I don't know for sure even what bots are doing it. I do know that if you put the link in Template:Official, the bot leaves it alone. John from Idegon (talk) 09:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

1. It would be great to put this functionality into Wikidata and/or on Template:Official website. One might specify the "years active" each URL is/was, as the Wayback Machine may take archives when the website has another URL or is having a 404.

2. It might be good to talk to the bot owners about it. I'm not sure if the website has temporary access issues but the bot assumes it is permanent.

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

• News and notes: Unbiased information from Ukraine's government?

• In the media: Coronavirus, again and again

• Discussion report: Redesigning Wikipedia, bit by bit

• Featured content: Featured content returns

• Arbitration report: Two difficult cases

• Traffic report: Disease the Rhythm of the Night

• Gallery: Roy is doing fine and sending more photos

• Recent research: Trending topics across languages; auto-detecting bias

• Essay: Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing

• By the numbers: Open data and COVID-19: Wikipedia as an informational resource during the pandemic

• Opinion: Trusting Everybody to Work Together

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Interview: Health and RfA's: An interview with Guy Macon

• In focus: Multilingual Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: The Guild of Copy Editors

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Have a great day , Sanjev Rajaram (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Have a great day , Sanjev Rajaram (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Your heavily biased and ignorant re-edits of the Riverside Polytechnic Highschool Wikipedia page

Hi John, I've noticed that you keep deleting edits of the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverside_Polytechnic_High_School that say that Daniel Lara, of Damn Daniel fame, attended this school. I don't at all understand your motives behind this. There is proof ON THE PAGE WE LINKED WHEN CITING HIM THAT HE GOES THERE, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damn_Daniel, so if you took it down for the information being false or uncredited, it can be proven in literally one button click. I also noticed in one of your messages after the edit that you said he is not notable and will never be notable, but this is directly contradicted by him having a Wikipedia page that has been up since at least April 2016, so if he is notable enough to not have his Wikipedia page taken down for over 4 years, who are you to say he isn't good enough to be considered important alumni. I would really appreciate it if you could revert the changes back to what it was before you edited, as it shows that you are being immature and unwilling to accept the fact that viral internet stars cannot be "notable". Good day sir. LaZBoy1890 (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Birmingham Groves High School

I added the reference for Jeff Teague, and for the sake of your point, deleted all the unreferenced entries.842U (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Naming Standard for Schools and My Edits

Hi John,

Thanks for the warm welcome! I'm excited to contribute to Wikipedia. I remember when in 2012, when I was 8 years old, I found an inaccuracy on the Wikipedia page of some chemical (I forgot what it was) and created an account to fix it. Ever since then I've been thinking about joining as a more productive member.

I was piqued by the possibility of creating a naming standard for schools. It's obviously not a top priority in the grand scheme of things, but I think having uniformity among school titles would be a good thing. I was wondering how I could initiate this, perhaps when I'm a more well-established user!

Also, I made some pretty substantial edits on the page for Gunn High School to try to cite more content and remove (what I perceived to be) insignificant information or information without a source. I would appreciate feedback on these edits for next time.

Cheers, Ovinus ^_^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ovinus Real (talk • contribs) 11:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Elk Rapids Public Schools has been accepted

Elk Rapids Public Schools, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. 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 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!

John from Idegon (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

guy on wilson security page did put disclosure on user page

John from Idegon, Natashavelkovski (talk · contribs) did put the disclosure template on their user page although they didn't fill in the company. I'd guess because they weren't sure how. Not sure what's appropriate with coi (too green), so I'll drop out from here. thanks.

b4 posting just saw they also put info on talk page. ToeFungii (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, by the username, I'm guessing "gal" would be more appropriate. John from Idegon (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

LOL, I'm pretty old but I'm trying to understand all this new non-binary and woke stuff (just binged Billions) so I try to use non-specific pronouns unless I slip. But I would agree that likely gal, or since an Aussie maybe Sheila. I posted what little help I could for her on her talk page. I'm new but used wp for a long time and I do get the impression that it was a good faith issue with her and I think she was trying to be helpful but didn't know about coi. With the virus I've had time to do stuff here and frankly just got even more confused with it. Even though I think it's obvious the ip was her too, I don't believe there was an attempt to evade. I could be all wrong, but regardless they've said they'll stop and hopefully they can get some helpful info. If I were to guess, a younger person just trying to be helpful and possibly be able to say look boss what i did after completing it. I can appreciate that but when I was young there wasn't an internet and I still remember my 56k modem as being awesome along with napster. thanks and take care. ToeFungii (talk) 04:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't consider anything about paid editing "in good faith". Trust me...I know the feeling. The first business system I worked on was driven by Windows 3.1 John from Idegon (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Guessing got you beat by a few years. my first computer was a TRS-80, used mac in school, and first job i had a ibm ps/2 60 with dos. boy takes me back. enjoyed chatting and take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToeFungii (talk • contribs) 04:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Just FYI, I took the liberty of fixing the user's {{paid}} template. This was their public disclosure of employment so I feel comfortable doing so. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

McQuaid Jesuit High School

I am sorry you decided to revert my recent additions to the McQuaid Jesuit High School article. The article is tagged as needing additional references, since the only reference is the school's website That's why I added the two external sites that provide additional information about the school. My edit also removed the advert tag because the article just contains facts, there's no attempt at advertising in the article. Would you please reconsider undoing your revert. Truthanado (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Truthanado, You posted two links to sites that rely on user generated information, making both wholly unreliable and thus the single source tag would need to stand and I would argue both links would be inappropriate even under the looser EL guidelines. As for the advert tag, John will have to address that, but either way the appropriate venue is the page's talk page, not on a user's talk page. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

How about you use your knowledge of the subject to clear up the issues, Truthanado, rather than complain about how the tags make the article appear? No one SHOULD believe the crap in that article and that should be clear. The tags make it clear. That article has been consistently used by the school for advertising for over 7 years. It was largely written by a priest who has been banned from school articles for his inability to separate his religious beliefs from fact. At this moment, the advert tag is likely invalid. It won't stay that way. When every single claim of achievement, prominence, importance etc has a reliable secondary source, then I'll remove the tag myself. Until then, a consensus is needed. I'm really curious on what your process was in determining that niche.com and privateschoolreview.com were reliable sources. Please explain how you came to that conclusion. Since you claim "truth" as part of your username, please tell us how you determine "truth". It's a valid question and an answer is expected. On Wikipedia there are no "bossess". You are accountable to the community. Explain. John from Idegon (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Plymouth-Canton Marching Band

Hello, I noticed that with this edit, you undid a edit where I changed the term "Rose Bowl Parade" to "Rose Parade" (or maybe it was Tournament of Roses). You asked, "why"? The reason is that "Rose Bowl Parade" is improper usage, used mostly by people from outside California who don't know what the heck they're talking about (most uses of "Rose Bowl Parade" I found and removed were in articles about out-of-state bands). The official name of the parade is the Tournament of Roses and it predates the football game by decades. pbp 02:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	John from Idegon... my message of appreciation Joseph L Pytel Jr 11:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Recent Edit Rolledback

Hi, I just got a message from you about a recent edit of mine being reverted, and am wondering what the issue with it was. There doesn't seem to be any obvious issues with my edit, the only thing I could think of is the removal of the multiple issues banner, which, in my opinion, never actually existed in the first place. Also, if it's regarding citations, I've added citations where necessary, and any information without lacked them before I began editing. I'm hoping we can sort this out because I spent quite a bit of time making edits to the page yesterday and it'd be a shame to lose it all because of one minor mistake. The page in question is Milton_High_School_(Georgia).

Thanks SonsyCrescent55 (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• SonsyCrescent55: Really....you removed a references needed maintenance tag, while adding unreferenced content, and have to ask what the problem is? Over the next few hours, I'll be converting the above referenced Facebook page into an encyclopedia article. Meanwhile, you've got numerous links to read on your talk page, and if you want to discuss the article after you've become at least somewhat familiar with what Wikipedia is and how it works, get back to me. Please, just in case it isn't in your links, also read WP:NOTFACEBOOK and WP:OWN. There's no hurry. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey, not sure why the rudeness is necessary. I understand the need for reliable sources and valid citations but it's Wikipedia, no need to get all worked up about it. I contributed factual information and provided sources where I thought were necessary but will go back and add more citations.

Thanks, SonsyCrescent55 (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

That article needs some serious trimming. It's full of unsourced puffery and material which should not be included. Meters (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, John. Didn't see the in use template when I started. I'll check it again tomorrow, Meters (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

If you want to help, feel free. I'll be at the athletics section for quite a while. Haven't verified any of the lede or infobox...haven't looked at notables. If you want to do a basic arts section or work on other parts....go for it. John from Idegon (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Tonight is non-Wikipedia writing on 1784 Palatine German United Empire Loyalist immigration to Ontario. I'll look tomorrow. Meters (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Banter

I didn't think it sensible to comment at WP:TH but, not knowing the meaning of the acronym, I loved the idea that the man from Vibease was offering to send you some KYC to help ease the passage from Draft to Article. I immediately assumed it must be some sort of product like this one! Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: KYJ, never thought of it :D

@John from Idegon: I wonder if you deleted my page? Paul Handri (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Found it. It was deleted by User:Jimfbleak. Peace out Paul Handri (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Re-reverted you

Hiya. I'm very confused by your rolling back of my six edits to Marquette, Michigan, of which only the addition of two New York Times links to the external links section could possibly be controversial. The other edits fixed a wikilink to Blackrocks Brewery, which I've just written; removed a Curlie link that has no content in it; and moved a newspaper article randomly added to the citations section (i.e. not in a footnote). Can you please explain your edit? Thanks. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

cc Magnolia677, who also reverted me and then had to go fix their edit; y'all should probably examine what you're reverting before clicking "publish changes." ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@The ed17: Wikipedia isn't a travel guide. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently wrong about non-inline references, but the links are inappropriate in an External links section. I was patrolling changes...I reverted your out of policy edit. I'll look deeper into the article soon. If I recall, this article has always been kinda WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK. Magnolia677, I am real time pressed at the moment. Could you possibly take a look? Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Yes, I'd understood your view on the added external links from your edit summary.

@Magnolia677 and John from Idegon: It's the rest of the edits that concerns me. You both straight reverted me instead of taking any time to view which parts of the edits were acceptable to you (and which weren't). If I was a new editor, how discouraged do you think I'd be feeling right about now? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for telling me of my mistakes and teaching me. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Editor of the Week : nominations needed!

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up a citation.

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Feedback on Lexington Catholic High School

John, I referenced all of the facts that I edited with the PDF document I uploaded, which came straight from the Lexington Catholic website. Furthermore, I know some of this information to be true because I just graduated from this school, but I cited everything that I updated. Thanks.

https://4.files.edl.io/b10a/09/17/19/175917-62ea767d-f297-48f5-8b95-92ede0c5bfc3.pdf

Sincerely, Justincfelix (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Justincfelix, thanks for enquiring. Encyclopedias are tertiary. That means that as much as possible, information should come from reliable secondary sources. For enrollment stats, it's completely possible. NCES maintains a database for virtually all schools, public and private. We like to use them for the enrollment stats for all US schools. The advantages of using a universal source are multifold. The only information the school is considered the best source for is its address and its personnel. The only people, students or staff, that we name are the principal (or whatever title the education leader has) and for private schools, the corporate head. Unless there's a dispute, there's really no need to cite it. The school's website is linked in the infobox. No need to cite it further. Also, rearranging the spacing, order, etc. of the infobox parameters doesn't do anything. Those variables are preset in the template syntax. See Template:Infobox school for further. Remember, the encyclopedia article in question is not the school's page on Wikipedia, but rather a summary of what reliable secondary sources have written about the school. John from Idegon (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

John from Idegon, I fully appreciate the recommendation of secondary sources, but in researching other similar high schools nearby, like Trinity High School (Louisville) , I have found that they use their own website to reference their own numbers. The NCES numbers are 2 years old, and the numbers provided by the school website are from the most recent school year. Thanks.

Justincfelix (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi John from Idegon, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Help cleaning up Knickerbocker Greys

Hi John, I hope all is well. While not a school, the article on the Knickerbocker Greys has one of the worst cases of over-zealous alumni editing syndrome I have ever seen. The way the notable alumni section is written you can tell it is almost certainly a copy-paste and probably a copyright violation. I'm reaching out because honestly I don't know what can be kept. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm a little bit conflicted here. I'd guess an organization that old in Manhattan would almost certainly make NCORP. But yea, that entire article would be SCHOOLCRUFT if it were a school. TNT maybe? I think the logical place to start is the "veterans" section (title itself is PUFFERY. It's demeaning to real veterans to refer to kids playing army as veterans). This isn't a list article. There's no reason to name a bunch of nn people. Remove any claims lacking reliable secondary sources. I doubt I'll be much help for a while. Connectivity issues until roughly the 3rd. John from Idegon (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I've already removed most of the alumni and gotten rid of the ridiculously puffy descriptions for those with articles. I think a TNT would be hard because as, you have surmised, they are probably too notable to outright delete even if there is a rebuild (hundreds of hits in NYT database alone, mentions in a bunch of books on NYC high society and if I recall correctly Tom Wolfe calls them a "kiddie cadet corps" in The Bonfire of the Vanities). I'll trim what is obvious down and then see what is left to work on. Thanks for the advice and best of luck, GPL93 (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Your opinion

Just wondering what your opinion is about Wikipedia:Reliability of GNIS data. It was written a month ago and some editors are using it in their AFD rationale. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

m:User:COIBot/LinkReports/rnopdx.com

Apologies if yesterday's removal comments were a little cryptic. You can read the narratives at:

• User talk:Tim Shelsea
• voy:pub#What's the deal with RNO PDX Bus Lines?

— billinghurst sDrewth 21:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hiding the truth

First not notable, now BLP. Seems the lady doth protesteth too much. You can block me if you want but the issue won't go away. It's much bigger than two editors. If there are changes you want, other than removing any and all the negative information, let me know. I handled your first very well I think. Though I see you deleted all that good stuff that you said you wanted. Strange, since you said that was what the entry needed. By BLP do you mean the judge? Surely not, I cited the heck out of that, it's bulletproof facts and documented to death. But you could delete that section and leave the rest, isn't that how you're supposed to edit BLPs? That's the only BLP in there. Why does that require removal of all negative information about the institution? Makes no sense.

Help me edit the article, make it better and more interesting. Be a force for good, help protect children from sexual abuse. It'll be the template for all the other schools we're going to update. You can be a hero. A good Christian and dad. 10% of children are sexually abused at school. This is your chance to be part of the solution. Markm999 (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

While the biographies of living persons policy includes a few exceptional editing powers that have been granted to prevent or reduce harm to living persons, these can be abused as some sort of trump card to give an advantage to one side in an editing dispute. This essay attempts to outline good and bad uses of invoking BLP as a justification for an edit.

Facts are facts

   If someone has been convicted of multiple counts of murder and grand theft, it's not a BLP violation to mention those facts with appropriate sourcing, even though most editors would agree such facts reflect poorly on the subject.

Invoking BLP in clearly inapplicable cases has a chilling effect on discussion

   Because of the importance of BLP, and the extra sanctions administrators may invoke to enforce it, citing BLP in inappropriate circumstances can be seen as a Godwin's law type of argument, which serves to alienate and bully other editors. Editors who cry "BLP!" in an inappropriate context should be warned that such stifles free discussion, and that they may be blocked for disruptive editing if invoking BLP as justification for an edit when BLP clearly did not apply.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Crying_%22BLP!%22

Page Deleted why??

Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Help‎ 23:15 -7,483‎ ‎John from Idegon talk contribs‎ Reverted 2 edits by Official.Rupom (talk): Not the place to draft an article. (TW) Tag: Undo

deleted??why??whats wrong with me?please describe! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Official.Rupom (talk • contribs) 00:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Official.Rupom: Could you please summarize the instructions at the top of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Help page for us? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Official.Rupom, is English perhaps not your first language? Perhaps you would be more comfortable editing the edition of Wikipedia in your native tounge? See wikipedia.org. John from Idegon (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Show me what Wikipedia rule restricts Tea House question

Show me what Wikipedia rule restricts Tea House questions ([8])? I asked about administrator abuse on deletion policy. It's not canvassing. Where is the rule about Tea House? Thanks so much ahead. PoetVeches (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@PoetVeches: John linked to Wikipedia:Canvassing. Please summarize that page for us so we know you understand it. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Wikipedia:Canvassing is about vote that I can say: you must not vote for Donal Trump, but only for Joh Biden. But my question was: please, Show me what Wikipedia rule restricts Tea House question? Thanks a lot ahead. PoetVeches (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@PoetVeches: No, not quite. Read it again, and think about what's going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coronavirus disease COVID-19 in Russian nursing homes for the elderly and disabled and how WP:Canvassing applies in this situation. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Do you mean I must not interrupt vote procidure? Thank you, next time I will not. If you have questions, please, ask me also anytime. PoetVeches (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Try again without the ignorant entitlement. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2020

• From the editor: Meltdown May?

• News and notes: 2019 Picture of the Year, 200 French paid editing accounts blocked, 10 years of Guild Copyediting

• In the media: CBS on COVID-19, Sanger on bias, false noses, and five prolific editors

• Discussion report: WMF's Universal Code of Conduct

• Special report: The sum of human knowledge? Not in one Wikipedia language edition

• Featured content: Weathering the storm

• Arbitration report: Board member likely to receive editing restriction

• Traffic report: Come on and slam, and welcome to the jam

• Op-Ed: Where Is Political Bias Taking Us?

• Gallery: Wildlife photos by the book

• News from the WMF: WMF Board announces Community Culture Statement

• Recent research: Automatic detection of covert paid editing; Wiki Workshop 2020

• Community view: Transit routes and mapping during stay-at-home order downtime

• On video: COVID-19 spurs innovations in Wikimedia video and virtual programming

• WikiProject report: Revitalizing good articles

• On the bright side: 500,000 articles in the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia

• Obituaries: Dmitrismirnov, Kattenkruid, Muidlatif, Ronhjones, Tsirel

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Saint Matthew's Episcopal Day School article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

John, you deleted content from this page for WP:BLPCRIME. The guidance below says that this reason does not apply if "a conviction has been secured". The content that you deleted was about a person who pleaded no contest to 5 felony charges of child sexual abuse and is currently in San Quinton Prison for those crimes. Please explain how the BLPCRIME reason applies.

This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.

If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other,[d] include sufficient explanatory information.

You also also relied on WEIGHT to eliminate content, which applies to disputes. None of the information you deleted was in dispute. It is facts and was well supported with highly reputable sources, like the San Jose Mercury, San Francisco Chronicle, and multiple local television channels. Please explain how this is placing undue weight on a conflict.

Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markm999 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC) Markm999 (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Your interpretation of policy is incorrect. Policies are intentionally vague. They are interpreted on a case by case basis on the article in question's talk page. There is no reason for you to post here and I will not discuss this with you here. Make arguments to Wikipedia policies and guidelines by using reliable secondary sources. All your rhetoric on sex crimes in general is completely off topic and violates WP:NOTFORUM, a behavioral policy here. Except for policy required notifications please do not post here again. One more comment from you about any editor in any location other than a noticeboard will result in a noticeboard report on you for NPA violations and NOTHERE per RGW. Bye-bye, Markm999. John from Idegon (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

John, you had initially removed all the sexual abuse content from this article under the clearly pretextual rationale of BLP. I see you have now removed that and have no reason, but said to talk. I have added all the content you requested, and you deleted it. Please let me know what you need for this article with the highly relevant and notable child sexual abuse content to be included. Please provide guidance so that we may have this important content, and all the other great historical information that you requested, included. Markm999 (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CityofWorcester

Would you consider striking these comments? I don't exactly care for UPE editors either, but there's no need to taunt them like that. creffett (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Might be a good opportunity to use {Burma-shave-notice|promo|layout=horizontal}:

YOUR CONTRIBSGIVE ME THE NOTIONYOU'RE JUST HEREFOR SELF-PROMOTIONBurma-shave EEng 23:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I removed the over the top one. Leaving the other. I think the strip club remark entirely appropriate. It's just scintillating enough to show the seriousness of copyright.

Official strip club is
what you get
CC by SA you do regret
Burma Shave

John from Idegon (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

John from Idegon, well done, we'll make an unproductive burma-shave editor out of you yet! And thanks for removing the one comment, I appreciate it. creffett (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:BADNAC?

• WP:AN/I#User harassing specific Wikipedia Edit Thon (permalink)

Idk seems like something an admin should close just to be safe. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Respectfully I disagree. The OP's case was deferred to Arbcom. There's decidedly a BOOMERANG case, almost without a doubt, but it wasn't focused enough to really be carried off well. That facet may end up re-opening; I'm looking into it. If you want to revert I certainly won't argue, but IMO it's fine. You're also welcome to convince me otherwise here, but lacking that, I won't be reverting. Thanks, and I am honestly looking forward to your reasoning. John from Idegon (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  Well, I suppose there are two sides to this close: the routine part that needed clerking ("X doesn't need further action. (nac) ~~~~") and the referral to arbcom ("OP is referred to arbcom ~~~~"). I'd say the latter would best be handled by an admin since they have more of the community's trust to partially handle sensitive info.
  I guess it's a moot point since Swarm re-closed the thread. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Taunton High School Eric DeCosta

I just wanted to let you know that it is at the beginning of the final paragraph of the article. (Oinkers42) (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Boston College High School

How can we make the Boston College High School page better? I think some information with sources is better than no information and the stub article that currently exists. Can we work together to come up with something that will pass the bar? 2604:2000:1403:601E:252E:11A5:96AB:9450 (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

If we can reach an understanding that we are building an encyclopedia article not an extension of the school website, I'd like that. A few things:

• Although I completely respect your right to edit from an IP, collaboration is much easier with a registered editor
  • Registered editors can ping and be pinged
  • Registered editors have their own talk page
  • Registered editors can have Wikipedia email
  • Registered editors have a theoretically infinite number of pages in their own userspace to practice, test or draft on
  • Registered editors have a Watchlist so they can see when articles of interesr change
• An encyclopedia is tertiary. That means virtually all content must come from reliable secondary sources, not from the subject itself.
• As a tertiary source, we paraphrase and summarize what others have written about the subject in reliable secondary sources. We don't directly write about the subject. We write about what has been written about the subject.
• Wikipedia isn't a directory, a guide or a promotional tool. See WP:NOT, one of the Five pillars.
• An article about a school is not the property of the school, nor is it "for" the school in any sense of the word.
• Nothing should be based on what you know, have heard, been told, on what you've seen, or on what you've figured out. See WP:OR.

That's just some basics. Some particulars on BC:

• We do not use titles and post nominals.
• Content should be paraphrased from reliable secondary sources and those sources should be cited. That's not to say we cannot use the school's website at all, but it can not be the sole source for any claim of achievement, prominence importance (or the opposite of them).
• Trim way back on details. Remember that the vast majority of the readers of this article have no interest in the small bits. You are not writing for people who are familiar with the subject.

I could go on, but let's just do something. It's fine with me to work here. John from Idegon (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thompson High School- Photo Reverted

Hello, I recently changed the photo in the infobox on the "Thompson High School" page. The previous photo of the school that is on the page now (taken in 2014 based on the information in its caption) has been converted to another school, and the photo I put on the page is one of the new school. The photo I put up is my own work that has a creative commons license. It would be appreciated if the photo I took would be reinstated to the page, as the older photo that is up could confuse page viewers because it is the wrong building. Thank you. Nathanmre (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Springdale

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please explain how information about one of the schools that does not have a wiki page is off topic. Obviously the images you removed are on topic. Thanks. Brandonrush Woo pig sooie! 21:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of lynching victims in the United States

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The two users who are repeatedly deleting 21st century contributions to this article are now refusing to engage in the discussion on the Talk page. They have previously (after demands in edit notes that they explain their reasoning) made some arguments on the Talk page that specific examples do not constitute a lynching based on a definition they are imposing without consensus (see Talk:List_of_lynching_victims_in_the_United_States#Definition - no consensus was ever reached) and that is in contrast with those stated by accepted experts on the subject, such as peer review articles, Tuskeegee, and the NAACP. However, the issues they have with those specific examples do not apply to every entry in the 21st century section and they've made no good-faith effort to address why the circumstances of Tamir Rice's killing necessitates the removal of those under vastly different circumstances, such as George Floyd or Ahmaud Arbery. The only thing Tamir Rice and Ahmaud Arbery have in common, for example, is that a black man was the victim and it happened in the 21st century. Race is sometimes considered part of the definition, although it is supporting evidence, but timeframe never is. Removal of all 21st century additions to the list is in direct contradiction with the vague definitions proposed (but never agreed upon) on the talk page.

Additionally, there has been some discussion about what constitutes "a group" for the purposes of a lynching. Historically, the definition used was a group of 3 or more. Both Ahmaud Arbery and George Floyd easily meet those requirements and the removing editors have refused to address how those two instances, specifically, do not meet the definition of lynchings.

This exact form of analysis paralysis was intentionally weaponized by pro-lynching forces during the late 19th and early 20th centuries (see the relevant Talk page for primary sourcing) and it is unclear to me why we are allowing it now. Public opinion very strongly agrees that at least some of these are lynchings; the media has reported it widely and civil rights groups have similarly called them lynchings, which specific editors have acknowledged, but claim is not enough. That is bordering on issues of Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content, as editors are claiming that valid primary sources of material created by experts are not valid - designating themselves primary sources.

Finally, the editors engaged in the rampant removal of content have all but disappeared at this point. It is impossible to reach a consensus with actors who delete any contributions with a wide brush, very clearly based on timeframe rather than any acknowledged definition (academic or agreed upon by editors), and disappear when told to attempt to reach a consensus.

If these editors are unwilling to engage in an honest discussion, acknowledge existing and accepted academic and legal definitions of the term "lynching," or do anything except delete giant swaths of data under the guise of "not meeting the accepted definition" that they themselves have never been able to agree upon, the information needs to be reinstated.

Those editors do not own the definition, do not own the page, and are not making good-faith efforts to come to an agreement on what can and should be acceptable on the list. "Not that" is not a valid discussion.

First off, those who appear to be in favor of expanding the definition of lynching to include anything they feel like have ignored WP:consensus and WP:BRD, and have built ridiculous straw man arguments in favor of their position. They have not made any substantive proposal as to what the definition of lynching, just run roughshod over other editors. Please take a pause and discuss this before adding disputed material to the article. Second, as these editors are not registered and don't bother to sign their posts, it is very difficult to determine who is saying what. Please consider registering, and please sign your posts by adding four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. Thanks. Jacona (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Not really sure what you are trying to get at here, Jacona. My only interest is that we have a proper scholarly article and not a puff piece or a highly politicized current event piece. To me, the Floyd case absolutely doesn't belong. That was abuse under the color of authority, whereas my (possibly incorrect) definition of lynching has always been a vigilante action. Tell me how I can help, as this isn't really in my wheelhouse. Appreciate your fine work as always. Maybe I can referee? John from Idegon (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm just trying to provide some direction to the IPs that want to change the definition, trying to help them have a productive discussion.Jacona (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Confused about your edits to Taunton High School

Why are you actively removing information about Taunton High School that is accurate, even if unsourced (it could not be sourced either way regardless). Should Wikipedia not be a complete source of all information about a topic.

Also, what is your reasoning on the above statement that the school's Wikipedia article does not belong to the school if 90 percent of it's readers are alumni to the school? (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)(Oinkers42), Please see WP:OWN, the audience of an article does not determine ownership. Also, all information added to a Wikipedia page needs to be sourced. Even then, some information, even if sourced, is not appropriate for a normal, neutral article. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

(Oinkers42), you clearly have some serious misconceptions about Wikipedia. No, Wikipedia isn't intended to be a complete source of information about the subject. Instead, a Wikipedia article is intended to be a summary of what others have written about the subject in reliable secondary sources. OWN should explain your other question, but that portion of your message is troublesome. One of the things you likely have misconceptions about is how we decide what does and doesn't go in an article. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and almost all decisions are made by consensus. Trust between editors is important. Please provide your source for your statement ...90 percent of it's readers are alumni to the school??? Guessing you can't, as in order to determine that, Wikipedia would have to violate its privacy policies. This isn't social media, and it's not a game. Billions of people look to Wikipedia for reliable verifiable facts. If you want to take this seriously most people here are willing to help. But if it's just a hoot for you, please don't waste others time. John from Idegon (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

John from Idegon, I am sorry. I definetly do try to take this seriously. I was somewhat insulted by your comment, as I only try to make constructive edits. The 90 percent thing was a fluke, and I just wanted to help.(Oinkers42) (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Notability template for article on Esin Atıl

Hello.. I've noticed that you placed a notability template for the article Esin Atıl. I had submitted this article to Articles for Creation where I was asked to demonstrate notability. Once I added numerous references, it was found to have satisfied the basic notability requirement and was published. I realize this is a relatively short biography but I'm hoping to improve and add to it. After seeing the template, I checked the article Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I am certain that she meets the first and the second criteria. For the second criterion, I added references that demonstrate that "[t]he person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." I am also happy to demonstrate that she meets the first criterion ("The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources") but, in the present length of the article, I was not sure how to show/indicate that she is a highly cited academic without clogging up the article with a long list of citations of her work by other academics. Thank you, Mahrujan (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? John from Idegon (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I am talking about the template on top of the article Esin Atıl which states that "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies." In the revision history, I noticed that you had added the notability tag and that's why I posted here. My apologies if this is not the correct venue but I did want to point out that I addressed the issue of notability.Mahrujan (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Please indent your reply. And I'm sorry, but just because one editor (the AfC reviewer) thought it notable doesn't mean that the subject of notability is closed. I'm still researching, but the notability is questionable. And that may end up being decided at WP:AFD. Tags are not badges of shame; they simply add the article to lists and indicate to the reader that there are questions. The concept of notability is fairly complicated. One editor's opinion isn't sufficient. If you wish to contest the tag, start a discussion on the article's talk page and if you can (without WP:CANVASSING) raise a consensus there that the tag's inappropriate, then it can be removed. But no amount of pleading on the part of the article's creator is going to convince me to remove a tag I feel is proper. Consensus rules. John from Idegon (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your explanation.Mahrujan (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit on Ted Williams

Thank you for your comment on my edit to the article on Ted Williams. I'm still getting the hang of editing on Wikipedia; this was my first one. I will follow your advice on gaining consensus for my changes on the article talk before future edits. I still think it's more accurate to say "outfielder, ... primarily in left field," since he played 169 games in right field over 4 years, including his entire rookie season. Best regards. Bay State Reviewer (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not necessary to seek consensus prior to a change. The model for change is WP:BRD. You made a bold edit and that's fine. I reverted as the Ted Williams article is considered a key baseball article. It's better to discuss...but I personally don't think one season out of 20+ to be significant. Obviously that's going to be a matter of opinion, and discussion should ensue so we reach the best consensus. As I'm not really big on baseball that discussion won't include me except perhaps to get you more people to talk to. Glad you're here. This isn't exactly intuitive but it is fun and educational. John from Idegon (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again for your guidance; it's been very helpful. As the article on Williams stands now, it says: "He played his entire 19-year Major League Baseball (MLB) career as a left fielder for the Boston Red Sox from 1939 to 1960." That is inarguably factually incorrect; he played the entire 1939 season in right field. That's the only reason I tried to fix it. Not sure what I'll try next; I'll probably won't have the time any time soon to play with the discussion feature. Not sure I'm following how Wikipedia readers are better served by leaving information on the site that's flat out wrong. Cheers. Bay State Reviewer (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

You were changing the lede (the text above the first header) ya? Bay State Reviewer are the different positions described elsewhere in the article? If so, I have no objection to modifying the lede to read "primarily left field". If you wish to add something in the body of the article referenced to something other than a stats sheet about him playing right field his first season (esp if it can reflect a why on the switch to left field) you can also modify the lede as above. The LEDE is supposed to give basic introductory information and summarize the important parts of the article. Obviously his primary position is important, and it's left field. But to say "exclusively" when it's not is wrong. It's gotta be sourced tho, and a stat sheet really isn't a reliable secondary source for anything but stats, and that includes position. If you can add something about his time in RF, or if something already exists, it's fine to modify out that exclusive comment. It's foolish anyway...every outfielder will occasionally play in another field...it's virtually unavoidable. John from Idegon (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I get your point on ledes and the danger of including too much detail in them. In keeping with your suggestion above, I propose a small edit to what's currently the second sentence in the lede para to read: "He played his entire 19-year Major League Baseball (MLB) career, primarily as a left fielder, for the Boston Red Sox from 1939 to 1960; his career was interrupted by military service during World War II and the Korean War." There is language already existing in section 2.2.1 supporting that summary statement; it says that "Williams was then switched from right field to left field, as there would be less sun in his eyes, and it would give Dom DiMaggio a chance to play." That sentence in section 2.2.1 is supported by existing source citation no. 44. Sound reasonable? Bay State Reviewer (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Sounds good Bay State Reviewer! John from Idegon (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

You're the sly one

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I suppose you're going to tell me that your reference to the nuts and bolts in a discussion of potentially erotic images [9] was purely accidental? EEng 02:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Aw c'mon. For once in my life I wasn't having a dirty mind. People with hangups about nudity piss me off. The only way one could view those images as CP is if they personally aroused the complainant. My kid could see those paintings and I'd have no problem. They were tame and not in any way erotic. And with some tonal differences we all have the same body. And it's one of the greatest beauties the Lord has ever blessed us with. John from Idegon (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Old lady calls the sheriff. "Sheriff! There are boys swimming in the creek right outside my kitchen window -- naked!" The sheriff pays the boys a visit. "Look, boys, Mrs. Grundy doesn't like it when you swim near her house. Do me a favor and move downstream half a mile." Next day the old lady calls again. "Sheriff! Those boys are swimming naked in the creek again!" Sheriff says, "Didn't they move downstream like I told them to?" Old lady says, "Yes they did. But I can still see them with my binoculars!" EEng 03:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

It's always nice to be talked about behind your back. You should try assuming good faith, and that age makes you cynical, not easily shocked. I think that neither of you men can identify with the vulnerability of the child in the foreground, because she is female. If I was aroused by the image, why would I try to get it deleted? If you don’t recognise a pervert with a pomegranate when you see one, you’re not old enough to be out by yourselves. And I object to being called an old ‘lady’. No-one who knows me would ever accuse me of gentility. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• How do you know the child is female?
• You have a dirty mind.
• And you're a moralizing scold.
• It's delicious that you thought the joke was about you. But if the shoe fits, wear it.
• If I was aroused by the image, why would I try to get it deleted? – You might have downloaded a copy for your own future arousal, while at the same time advocating its deletion from WP to deflect suspicion from yourself.

EEng 15:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC) P.S. Vulnerable child being groomed by pedophiles. Everyone knows Normal Rockwell was a pervert. I mean, it says so right there: "I like to paint kids ... people think of their own youth" – an obvious reference to abuse he himself suffered. We all know it's a cycle.

Thanks for chiming in with a voice of reason, John. The tendency to immediately associate nude bodies with sexuality, regardless of context, makes me intensely uncomfortable. I can't even start to understand how that image could be interpreted as erotic, much less pornographic. But I live in a part of the world where most public bathrooms are not gender segregated, so I'm probably inherently perverted, or something :p --bonadea contributions talk 14:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draft:Behnke-Walker Business College

Your thoughts on this? FloridaArmy (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

That you need a mentor and I am not going to do it. John from Idegon (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Salisbury Christian School

Hi, I recently created Draft:Salisbury Christian School and noticed you made some substantial edits to the page before declining it as an Article for Creation. Specifically, this edit and this edit. The first removed demographic information because the percentages did not add up; Should I put in the raw numbers provided by the source or simply remove the section altogether? The second edit removed information on the headmistress without stating why. Finally, you claimed that Salisbury Christian wasn't accredited by ACSI. The second paragraph in Association of Christian Schools International#Purposes very clearly states that ACSI is an accreditation agency. AviationFreak💬 13:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

We don't list interim officeholders. Hopefully that explains the headmistress. Your numbers on the demographic section added up almost exactly 10% off...so it's likely a math error and you should recalculate. I'm guessing you're a hs student so you likely wouldn't know this, but your demographics also have precision errors. There is absolutely no reason to calculate to hundredths. Tenths is fine. And no, this school is NOT accredited by ASCI, as they are a trade association, not an accreditation agency. There are multiple regional accreditation agencies, but they all report at Cognia.org. I could tell you I'm Donald Duck. That doesn't mean I am Donald Duck. I don't care what they say...ASCI is not recognized by colleges and universities as an accreditation agency. The only accreditation we list are those reported at Cognia.org. However, none of these issues have anything to do with why the article was declined. You simply have no reliable secondary sources that discuss the school in detail. John from Idegon (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello John from Idegon,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

• A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
• Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
• A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
• Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

A goat for you!

thanks for editing my post in the Piqua Ohio page, i'm new to wikipedia and want to learn more about adding to culture additions to town pages

Ecleric (talk) 02:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Please answer this, I don't understand your edits:

1) When is it appropriate to add images of statues / memorials on the notable people sections / pages

To me, if there is a statue or a memorial, it adds to the context of how 'notable' the person is/was to the community.

2) Here is an example where images of paintings / memorials were added: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_from_the_London_Borough_of_Southwark

By your logic, I should remove those images? and put the comment 'you know nothing more about the subject of the article by knowing what one individual from the community looks like'?

Thanks for your time, I appreciate your work with Wikipedia, I want to learn about becoming a better editor.

Reverts to Marshall, Michigan article edits

You reverted my edits to the Marshall, Michigan article on 22 June 2020 with the comment "Reverted 2 edits by IanKorman (talk): Not an improvement" yet Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary clearly states "Do not revert an edit because that edit is unnecessary, i.e. the edit does not improve the article." Please explain your reverts and why they don't go against published revert guidance. --Ian Korman (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I looked again and that reference is an essay and not official guidance. Can you please point me to the appropriate guidance that I should follow? I see you also removed numerous other external references that I didn't even add to the artcle.

--Ian Korman (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

You've been here for years. Figure it out. John from Idegon (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking for community guidance

John, I'm looking for community guidance and wondering where to look. The question is about word usage, it has come up in the past and will come up in the future. It is pretty rare these days to use the word "negro" in conversation - except when it is, e.g. the movie I am not your negro. However, in history, many schools were named "Podunk County Negro School", and many subjects the word was used, sometimes neutrally and sometimes in a derogatory fashion. I believe there are certainly places where it is inappropriate, and others that it is. All that is really just an aside - I strongly suspect this subject has been discussed, and some sort of consensus reached on when to use it and when to replace it. Where should we look? Including @Global Cerebral Ischemia: as an interested editor.

Yeshiva Tiferes Yisroel

I'm tempted to just nominate the article at WP:AFD. I haven't been able to find anything in the way of WP:RS, and I'm not ecstatic about having matzav.com as the primary source. Unless schools are automatically considered notable, I don't really see this article as conforming to WP:GNG. There was a similar AFD in the past about Yeshiva Torah Temimah, but I think the consensus there to keep was largely motivated by the controversy surrounding the institution. In the absence of that, I'm beginning to doubt the merit of this article. What do you think? --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 21:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

CC BY-SA 2.0 permits commercial use

I have no idea why you think that CC BY-SA 2.0 prohibits commercial use. Normally I would let it go, but I would expect an experienced user like a new article reviewer/Teahouse host to know better. Brianjd (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I really don't know what happened. The Flickr image I saw had the $ symbol on it. I honestly have never memorized the details of the license level. I look up the license each time. I must have somehow switched to a different image on Flickr. We have processes to catch mistakes. Glad to see it works. John from Idegon (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Chaminade High School

What are you talking about? I provided a reliable source. [10]

The students must take an entrance exam which means this school is a selective school. Please explain what I did wrong. I don’t understand why you are reverting my edit. I provided a source and you still reverted it. Zoe1013 (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

If you do not know the difference between a secondary, a tertiary or a primary source, you lack the most basic level of competence to contribute here. This isn't English class. Basic competence is required. John from Idegon (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Where am I supposed to find the source? It has to be from their own website. They came up with the rules on who to accept. It’s not a reference from outside sources. Zoe1013 (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I added another source. Zoe1013 (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

so it’s not a selective school then? Their entrance exam is fake because there isn’t any reliable sources to back it up. Zoe1013 (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Zoe1013, I don't have time for this. Im a volunteer here, as everyone else is, and I refuse to waste my time on one who has no interest in listening. Goodbye. Do not post here again. John from Idegon (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

New Bedford, Massachusetts update by new editor

{{tps}} This was likely about this edit of yours undoing User:PottersEdits's additions. I think at least these two are a simple update of data, with a cited ref. Though it definitely needs some MOS:RELTIME cleanup. The third edit...yeah, that's got some substantive problems. DMacks (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

• News and notes: Progress at Wikipedia Library and Wikijournal of Medicine

• Community view: Community open letter on renaming

• Gallery: After the killing of George Floyd

• In the media: Part collaboration and part combat

• Discussion report: Community reacts to WMF rebranding proposals

• Featured content: Sports are returning, with a rainbow

• Arbitration report: Anti-harassment RfC and a checkuser revocation

• Traffic report: The pandemic, alleged murder, a massacre, and other deaths

• News from the WMF: We stand for racial justice

• Recent research: Wikipedia and COVID-19; automated Wikipedia-based fact-checking

• Interview: What is wrong with rebranding to "Wikipedia Foundation"?

• Humour: Cherchez une femme

• Opinion: Trying to find COI or paid editors? Just read the news

• On the bright side: For what are you grateful this month?

• In focus: Edit Loud, Edit Proud: LGBTIQ+ Wikimedians and Global Information Activism

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Black Lives Matter

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Clarence M. Kimball High School

Thank you for helping me learn the ropes. I recently edited the Clarence M. Kimball High School Wikipedia page, and you suggested that I may have a conflict of interest. Maybe this is true. I'm not sure :)

I've been writing bios for some former students and noticed that some of the former students with impressive credentials were not listed on the Wikipedia page under "Notable alumni", so U added them. Of the people I added, one remains and the others have been removed. (The judge is listed, but the actor/model/author and COO of Twentieth Century Studios, have been removed. The composer/conductor/etc. was removed too.) Who decides what's notable? I thought I was being highly selective when I added these people.on

Thanks for letting me know!

KathyHas (talk) 04:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Notable as you understand it is probably not what notable means here. Notable here means "qualifies to have a biography on Wikipedia". As you are new, probably your best rule of thumb is: add only those individuals who both have a Wikipedia biography and have a reference to a reliable secondary source that they attended the school. Additionally, external links are not allowed in the body of the article. John from Idegon (talk) 05:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Just a personal note

Hi, John!

I've returned to the United States safely many months ago and will be staying here now. Happy fourth of july! Hope things are going well on your end!

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Enjoy

Magnolia677 (talk) is wishing you a Happy 4th of July! On this day, we recognize our independence from Great Britain with the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, which ultimately paved the way to our freedom. Celebrate this day in many different ways, such as hosting a barbecue, watching baseball games, or even attending a fireworks show! Happy Independence Day, fellow American!  
 

Share this message by adding {{subst:Independence Day}} to a fellow American's talk page.

Magnolia677 (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

William Marutani's connection to Kent, Washington

For a bare statement of fact for something such as a hometown, with no analysis or synthesis, my reading of policy is that there is no hard rule against the use of either primary or tertiary sources. In my opinion, neither of the sources I supplied should warrant strong objections, but it's clear that you disagree. Would you be open to listing this conflict at WP:THIRD?—Myasuda (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Why are you here? You haven't even STARTED the dispute resolution process. What possible reason is there to push this out to 3O? You aren't new. Go start a discussion on the article talk page and make dispassionate arguments to support your position. Base those arguments on reliable secondary sources and WP:PAG. I posted warnings on your talk page, as edit warring is a behavioral issue. Content issues get discussed at the article talk page. Measages get replied to where they are left. There is no reason for you to post here. John from Idegon (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

adding a person to Notable alumni criteria

@JohnFromIdegon: Hi John from Idegon -- Thanks for your helpful editing info on the work that I am doing on the wiki page for [Academic and Classical High School] (sorry, I don't know why that is not taking you to the Wikipedia page for Metro Academic and Classical High School?). One thing that I am not understanding, is how to properly list Nia Ray, former Director of Revenue for the State of Missouri, as a notable alumna. I am not sure what is meant by the comments on why she is not worthy of being listed-- my thinking is that being appointed by a governor to head a major department in the state, would be a notable thing (considering that Sam Dotson has been accepted as a notable alumnus, and he was head of a department of a city). I provided links to references simply to verify her holding of that position (St. Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper, and something on the MO DOR website), thinking that was the role of a citation, but am I misunderstanding that? I see that you linked me to the Write the Article First page, but I wasn't intending to link her to any Wikipedia bio page. What is my next step, or is my thinking on including her just off base (and, if so, why?). Thanks for your good links for guidelines.Searshouse (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Searshouse

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Savaajankovic

Your guy and my guy were the same editor. Meters (talk) 06:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Charlotte Latin School

Hi John - I saw you undid my edits on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Latin_School. I'm obviously new at this, but my intention is just to improve the school's page. Almost all the edits were just adding citations, particularly in the "notable alumni" section where it was indicated more citations were needed. I also linked to some old newspaper articles and to a Department of Education list to confirm the "Blue Ribbon" awards. I think the only thing I added editorially was the school is "college preparatory" - which it certainly is but perhaps I should not have done that without understanding exactly what needs to be shown to prove it. Could you help me understand what I need to do better here? Thanks in advance for your help.

Jiffy.morton (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I probably should have been a bit more concise with my edits, as some of it was useful (and of course, clearly all meant in good faith). First, thanks for adding references, but please use a uniform style when writing citations. I find the citation templates very helpful for that, and it is partially automated in the source editor interface. Note that dropping hyperlinks into an article is out of policy (see WP:ELNO). The more complete the citation the better. SACS no longer exists. All the regional accreditation agencies have merged as Cognia. Although secondary sources such as you provided are generally preferred, for verification of membership like this, it's better to source it to Cognia, which is of course a primary source. The bulk of your text addition concerned accreditation, and although true, is run of the mill content. Yes the examination for accreditation is rigorous, it isn't any more rigorous for this school than any of the thousands of other accredited schools. The content you added sounds too promotional for something that is actually rather commonplace. (About 20% of the high schools in the US are accredited, so ~5000). The sourcing for the Blue Ribbon awards was good. The organization would be better if that section were rewritten in prose. One last thing: Charlotte Latin School is NOT the school's page on Wikipedia. It is an independent encyclopedia article about the school. Everything added here has to be verifiable to reliable secondary sources and must be paraphrased neutrally from said sources. It's not controlled by the school or its students, nor is it in any sense for the school. I'll leave some information on your talk page. Feel free to follow up with me on any specific questions you have. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

John - Thank you for the detailed reply. I know you are busy with helping with many edits and pages across the platform and I appreciate your time. I completely understand that this is not the school's page. My goal is simply to improve the page with regard to content, organization, tone/POV, and citations. This page is not particularly well written or clearly organized (for example, as you note, the "Blue Ribbon" facts would be better consolidated into one succinct section rather than spread throughout the article along with infomration about buildings, etc) and I think I can improve it. I have an interest in independent schools in Charlotte generally and see a lot of room for improvement in several pages. Taking a "one at at time" approach because, as you konw, the research that goes into finding verifiable and reliable secondary sources is time consuming. I appreciate your patience and guidance as I work in good faith to improve this page. Jiffy.morton (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi John - Checking back in with you re: today's edit to this page. If I could take your comments in order:

- the additions I made were all fully sourced with citations

- i agree staff changes are not unique to any one school, but i see many other well written pages that include a brief list of former heads of school. i think this is a point of interest, as they are essentailly the CEO of the school, and especially given the citations i added, an interested reader could click thru to learn more. much of this information was already in the article, i just added 2 more heads and added citations for all 5. i see there has been some disagreement/discussion around whether a list of heads of school should be included at all that you participated in last years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools/Article_advice#Former_headteachers/principals:_only_Notable_are_eligible_to_be_listed,_or_NN_are_fine_too?

- the child care program was not a new facility but a new program. it seemed approprirate to add it given the way the history was written, which mentioned the adding of important programs over time. my mention of this program also included a citation.

- finally, in undoing my edits, you deleted a good portion of the content that was already there long before i made any edits. while i agree that this content needs to be improved upon, including the addition of sections (heads of school was my first addition of a section in this regard) and citations (which i am slowly compiling), i would not be a proponent of deleting content that has been there for years in the meantime. yes it is not well sourced, but it does maintain NPOV (unlike many other similar schools i see whose history is filled with pufffery, i.e.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Providence_Day_School) and contain accurate information. i would propose reverting that deleted text and I will work to improve upon it in the near future.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts. And also, best wishes for your health.

Jiffy.morton (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Time to get off John's back

John is a long-term and trusted Wikipedian with whom I have collaborated for many years, especially in his role where he has excelled as one of only three school gatekeepers on the huge WP:WPSCH where I was the lead co-ord for over a decade. From the hospital room that has been my home for many months now, in support of John I will certainly come out of my retirement to leave a comment - on Wikipedia there is no rule of law, here reigns anarchy at its best, and you're always guilty by a pitchfork mob until proven innocent, and it's rare that anyone who knows of mitigating circumstances will risk their own climb up a greasy pole by coming forward in defence; fortunately nowadays I, at least, have got nothing to lose. John is someone who, like me, does not stand on ceremony and is not afraid to call a spade spade - I admire his courage. He is simply saying things that need to be said and even if he uses stronger language than I would, is dfinitely not making PA at any named individuals.

One thing I never had as an admin, was a loose and itchy finger on the block button (in fact I rarely used it except for blatant casees of vandalism and promotion). Blocking industrious users is often the kind of thing that can lead to, and indeed does, driving many highly experienced, active, and productive users away from Wikipedia. The kind of nonsense that is currently being thrown at John is as dubious as some the conveniently crafted crap that was was levelled at me by Arbcom earlier this year during their campaign to disgrace as many highly industrious admins as possible, and consequently my decision to leave this parody of a back office of what is supposed to be a serious project, and one to which I, like John, and other grown-up users such as Drmies, ClemRutter and many others have dedicated thousands of hours and hundreds of thousands of edits. I have lost the lust and energy to make minor (or sometimes major) corrections to the encyclopedia which I consult many times daily as a reader. This can happen very easily to any user - not just disingenuous and self-righteous newbies who claim to have been bitten. John is very close to throwing this encyclopedia out of the window for good, but the project WP:WPSCH, the guardian of one of the most trolled and vandalised categories of articles on Wikipedia, would look pretty silly if John, and/or Clem (editor for 17 years), were to leave in disgust.

I am hardly surprised that long term users for whom I have the greatest respect such as Guy Macon and admins such as the highly regarded Dennis Brown, and now John, have chosen to make their opinions known about the strange activities and possibly inappropriate intentions by a WMF which BTW also harbours, or certainly has harboured, staff as undeclared paid editors (and en.Wiki admins) of which my vague mention also became a further Arbcom 'finding of fact' - i.e. evidence for the prosecution).

To cap it all, after years of (thankfully) finally successfully fighting the resistance and arrogance of some of the 'staff' on roll in SF, I now hear they want to call themselves the Wikipedia Foundation. I can't think of anything more inept, inapt, and totally removed from what we, a corps of upaid volunteer encyclopedia-builders are doing, and the thought of it disgusts me. Whoever had the idea should be fired, the WMF dissolved, and management of the major projects fully devolved to their volunteers.

I'm beginning to believe that I hadn't actually done anywhere near enough to drastically curb the activities of newbies in the backroom. As far as I'm concerned, inexprienced users can edit away at mainspace and article talk to their heart's content, but they should stay out of stuff and internal politics that they don't understand or that doesn't concern them, while far, far too many editors and admins seem to enjoy schadenfreude and appear to join in just for the drama and free popcorn when a highly valuable user stands in the dock.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Chris, it sure is good to hear from you. You're in our prayers daily, friend. I'm not feeling all that put upon, however I still feel that block hasty, especially yanking my TP access, but (insert French phrase I can't remember how to spell here). I guess theatre of the absurd is just beyond some here. For my next trick, perhaps I'll out a UPE. Can't delete the mainpage. Lol. No, what I'll be doing is just what I always have. I do know my way around labor/management issues, with having managed labor intensive businesses myself, and my dad was a Chicago area labor leader for many years. One thing I know for sure....if I keep my head down and do my job, I got no worries. And at least here I get to decide what that job is. Win-win. Our Wikiproject seems to be in pretty good shape. We've got an influx of eager new editors lately, at least on my side of the pond. I'm thinking about spring, I'm going to try to get Clem and Steven on board with trying to up our organization to something like USROADS, MIL, or NRHP has. It's a task heavy project, and we need to recruit our members to taking charge of specific tasks. Unfortunately, those tasks will need to be identified and organized.

About three weeks ago, I suddenly got hungry again. Spent more on food in the past three weeks than I have in the three months prior. So I'm well on my way back, finally. Hope good health comes home to you soon, but in the meantime, please keep the thought that the One who has the answers, has your answer too. Be well, my friend. John from Idegon (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

School infoboxes

I had a couple questions about infobox fields. For the type/school type field, would it be better to say "Secondary school" or "High school"? Or does it not matter? The way I see it, simply including "high school" is redundant (assuming "high school" is in the name), and it would be better to specify the fact that it is a secondary school.

Is there a difference between the established and founded fields, or is this simply up to the preference of the editor?

Randleman High School includes links to the United States and Schools portals. Would this be useful to include in school articles?

Is there a reason to include empty fields in infoboxes? Personally, I find masses of empty fields annoying, and I think it might be somewhat helpful to editors—conveinent at the least—if I removed them. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

About Franklin, Michigan

Hi, John! About your request for page protection for Franklin, Michigan: I have denied it as a content dispute. Since you couldn't be bothered to go to the person's talk page, I put a note there myself, inviting them to the article talk page. At the talk page I see you have posted a totally unhelpful message, one which they are unlikely to see unless told about it, and which does not address their proposed content or why you feel it is inappropriate. You are a long-established editor, they are a newbie; you can do better than this. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Manganese, Minnesota

Hello, John from Idegon! You helped immensely in the improvement and elevation of the article Elcor, Minnesota in 2017. I have been ammassing information regarding Manganese, Minnesota the past few years, and have used my available time during the COVID-19 shutdown to expand the existing article from it's previous stub. I value your opinion. I hope you are well. If you have the time, could I please ask you to take a look? Best Regards, DrGregMN (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Good to hear from you, DrGregMN. I'll be glad to take a look at it. You did a bang up job on Elcor, so I'm sure this will be good. Give ma a day or two, and I'll leave you a critique on your talk page, and don't hesitate to remind me. The current situation has me kinda befuddled, time wise. Be well. John from Idegon (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

John, please come back. I don't know what's been happening in the last four years with Wikipedia while I have been ammassing information on my latest article, but you and Coal town guy have now both left Wikipedia. I know you are not well, but I want you to know I am profoundly grateful to say you were both my mentors, despite the fact that I have only authored three articles. I have always appreciated the constructive criticism you have provided to help bring my editing to the next level. Regards, DrGregMN (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Like the rest of the world, politics on Wikipedia are very tumultuous. I am planning on returning, so I cannot really even help you with advice. (Not supposed to do anything related to editing while blocked.) But my email is working, so read into that statement what you will. Email is private. And although you've only made 3 arricles, they're very fine articles. Magnolia677 is a mutual friend of CTG and myself, and he is better at self censoring than myself. Perhaps he can help you. He's very experienced with settlement articles. CTG left because a bunch of his articles got deleted. Seems the community thinks we're no longer a gazetteer and also thinks we are a newspaper. Just one of many things I need to think through prior to requesting unblock. God bless, doc! John from Idegon (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey John, glad you're planning a return and I hope your health has improved. If I can be of any assistance to User:DrGregMN it would be my pleasure. On a side note, I've been deleting promotional rankings from various US city articles (see [11][12][13]), and have been waiting for some pushback so I can start an RfC similar to this one, but all I've had is a few thank yous! All good fun. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 10:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is Incivility - John from Idegon. Darren-M talk 23:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you use the ANI thread to issue an apology, before somebody decides to block again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

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 ~~~~}}.  Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

John, I want to say that I have been in this position myself, where I've felt depressed and fed up, and can't seem to make the mental leap to helping people changing articles I have an interest in (particularly those I have improved to GA and above) and just feel like saying "for the 8 gazillionth time, please stop it until you know what the GA criteria are", because they've effectively dumped a load of work in my lap (ie: improving the edits to the article so it continues to meet the appropriate level of quality) and I'm not in the mood to do it. So I understand where you're coming from. Nevertheless, it does not mean these sorts of lashings out are acceptable - they aren't. People aren't making articles worse or not improving them in the best way to brass you off.

If you can demonstrate you're having a bad week, and can show remorse over this, I can try and get an unblock. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I echo that. John, please reflect and introspect. We need you back! El_C 12:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

What mechanism does the WMF propose to put in place to curb these ludicrous incivility blocks being targetted at well respected editors with years of history within the movement. Editors who are the gatekeepers of our high standards?ClemRutter (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure the WMF isn't meant to get involved in the autonomy of many community disputes (excluding the odd case *cough* fram *cough*) - it's down to each Wiki community and its arbcom to manage and review this sort of thing Ed6767 talk! 15:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

As long as the social club is more important than the product, the style more important than the substance, I'm done here. Wikipedia has turned into Portland. In the ANI thread an administrator flat out stated that those edits weren't promotional, because they weren't written in a promo style. Never mind the guy flat out stated he was doing it to promote. I may be back in a year or so, but I doubt it. Until then, kindly stop posting here. John from Idegon (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• And since it appears admins are coming out of the woodwork to post here, how's about one of you take a look at Talk:Norwood Park, Chicago? It seems a hardblock or semi protection is needed. Ah, my last act as a Wikipedian. See you all in the funny papers. Any friends that want to email, feel free. That's 8½ years of my life I'll never get back. Buh bye. John from Idegon (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the talk page for two weeks and blocked the remaining socks. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ritchie333. I can't even figure out what the illiterate child was ranting about. Oh, maybe I shouldn't say that. Lol. John from Idegon (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia has turned into Portland.” Come on John, you should have gone out classy not trashy. Very disappointed, perhaps wikipedia is better off without you. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, you may want to read WP:GRAVEDANCING, and you might wish to reflect on who's written below. Logically, one makes more friends and allies in near 9 years than one makes in 8 months, especially when most of what one does is quiet gnome work. I doubt you even understood the comment, son. John from Idegon (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

If I was dancing on your grave you would know... If you want to take cheap shots at the WMF etc on your way out thats fine but leave Portland out of it. I don’t believe any of the below are fellow Oregonians. What do you mean by than one makes in 8 months? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm an Oregonian, Jack. And I thought you'd miss the point. Obviously I was correct. Don't post here again. John from Idegon (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

:/

Why can't you trust atoms? They make up everything.

Schrodinger got pulled over by the police. After searching the trunk the cop asks "Do you know there's a dead cat in here?" Schrodinger says, "Well I do now!"

I know, I'm way to late for this one. Unfortunately, that's typical for me now. I hope to see you back around soon, but no worries. I've appreciated your work and guidance for the last several years! Jacona (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Jacona. You are always welcome to correspond. I've really enjoyed working with you, and I'll look back on the work I was able to help you and Bill with as my main point of pride here. Keep it up. It's a story that needs to get told before some fools come along and cancels that too. John from Idegon (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go, John. I hope you reconsider sooner rather than later. Best wishes, El_C 19:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

We'll miss you. I'll keep praying for a quick recovery from your health issues. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to see this, John. You've done a lot of good work here, and I always enjoyed our collaboration. Bishonen | tålk 19:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC).

I can't believe all this, I'll miss you John, please do come back, you have done great work here and I really appreciate your help and collaboration — this is definitely a blow to the schools project. Praying for speedy recovery with health, take care, blessed Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

IP wasn't me

Hey, John. I just wanted to let you know that the IP who made this rv last month was not me. It looks like he/she made a personal attack towards you shortly after you had reverted one of my edits, so I wanted to let you know that isn't my style. Cheers! - Location (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go

Hi John, sorry to hear about your block, and your illness. Having suffered with a chronic disease for 18 years, 14 of them on Wikipedia, I am certainly praying for your health. I'll miss seeing you around, as you were always willing to back me up on difficult edits, and I appreciate it. I'm sorry I didn't find out about this incident soon enough to be of help. I do hope you're able to return someday, but I totally understand it if you don't. Know that your contributions have been appreciated by some of us. Take care. BilCat (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I endorse everything that BilCat. Of utmost importance is that you take care of your health and I hope you get to feeling better soon. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 20:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I had to take several months off of Wikipedia last year because of the daily pressures of editing Wikipedia and their effect on my health. I know it can help. - BilCat (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I am also sorry to see this. I enjoyed working with you and I hope you will reconsider your departure after recuperating. It was a single admin's indef on a short-lived and somewhat unbalanced case. I pointed out some of the inaccuracies on the OP's page and my posts were simply removed Before I could make my comments at ANI the case was closed. Meters (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello John. I would also like to offer you my best wishes, not only for your recovery from illness, but also for a return, should you wish it, to some gentle editing again on Wikipedia in the future. You've contributed a huge amount over many. many years, and clearly care enormously about the Project. And I have (nearly) always respected your views, though not always your bluntness. I don't know if this translates across the other side of the Atlantic, but I have always seen you as a somewhat belligerent, but very well-meaning 'old bugger' - a bit like those slightly scary teachers of old; they were the best ones, with the greatest knowledge, and darned fine teachers, too, but probably wouldn't get away with some of their teaching methods today. I guess that's where you might have found yourself right now. Once you've recovered from your current illness and difficulties, and perhaps appreciated how the learning environment and teaching methods are shifting - just as it has within schools - I sincerely hope you might request an unblock and return to productive editing. From one belligerent old bugger to another: I wish you all the very best! Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

John from Idegon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I apologize to the new editor I bit. I did it, and I shouldn't have. In the future, I'll simply disengage. Many have noted my recent health issues, and that is a factor with my lack of patience. In light of that (and I am finally after more than 2 years, improving), Id ask any of my colleagues here to alert me if it appears I'm getting too testy. Regarding the previous incident, it won't be repeated. I'll not apologize for it however. I'm pretty sure some got the point. I can see many others didn't. I've got way too big a Watchlist and I'll pare it down to mostly just schools at my first opportunity. (Can't do it from my normal device. It overruns my buffer). John from Idegon (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per the consensus below and at WP:AN, including that of multiple admins, you are unblocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I posted at WP:AN — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

John, Chris.sherlock started a thread at ANI, and later blanked the discussion. I reverted since others had contributed, he again blanked and an IP then reverted. The thread is now archived. The IP edit was made from a Starlight ISP which geolocates to the border of Idaho and Oregon. I looked at the IP's contributions and they were quite similar to yours. Do you have any comments about this? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes Jim that was me. All the contributions by that IP over the last couple weeks were. I was going to edit as an IP, and yes, I realize that's a pretty serious offense. After I made that edit at ANI, it dawned on me that doing things like that were going to get me fried. I also took the time to rethink my actions and decided that trying to game the system wasn't a thing I should be doing. Not just because of the consequences, but because that's just not "how I roll". That's how the pre-sobriety me rolled. I've made 50+/- edits from that IP, and ~10 more from a Verizon moble IP (not recalling the IP address, but it's likely the same range as I'm on now.) No vandalism of course, and nothing as far as I recall even close to controversial.

As I've been upfront about with you about this, and behaved well while doing that what I know I shouldn't have been doing, I'm hoping Ivan will consider an unblock still. I'm still on the mend, and have been stuck in the house a lot due to the heat and smoke. Don't own a TV, and have read every book in the house 10 times. It's pretty clear I could show up at a Wikiaddict's Anonymous meeting and say, "Hi, I'm John, and I'm addicted to Wikipedia." I'll steer clear of the dramaboards until I'm doing much better. The foulest word I'll type will be "poop". I'll voluntarily limit myself to 1rr. And as I said above I'll disengage when I feel my blood pressure rise. It feels like it would sound very false to apologize for doing something yesterday I knew was wrong when I did it, so all I can say is that won't happen again.

I know my behavior over the last year has been suboptimal at best, but I also know I work hard to add value to the encyclopedia and 98% of the time I succeed at that. Blocks are not supposed to be punitive and this one isn't preventing anything anymore. I'll do better. It's not like we're all under quite a bit of stress right now, you know. The current sociomedical economic crisis has been difficult. We all need to strive to love more, me included.

One last thing (to administrators in general, not just you, Jim): If y'all aren't inclined to unblock me, please change it to a fixed duration or a C-ban. I'll be happy to discuss this at any time, but there's no reason for me to make another unblock request. The one above is really all I can say in my defense. Hence, please give me a date when I can come back, or tell me I can't. IMO, jumping from 48 hours to indeff was quite harsh for an established generally well regarded editor, but y'all gotta due what you gotta do. John from Idegon (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

John, can you explain what you mean by "Regarding the previous incident"? What incident are you referring to? Was it this ANI thread [14] and also this bizarre edit war with Walter Görlitz [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], which then spilled over into this [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]? Because that was totally uncalled for and unacceptable and in my opinion you need to address it in your unblock request. Also, regarding your above request (in your response to Cullen) to the reviewing admins: Making ultimatums (such as unblock me now or never) in your unblock request is not a good idea. It sounds to me like you need to wait until your hands are clean and you are also able to post an unblock request which meets the guidelines for doing so. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• John has contributed an enormous amount of good work to Wikipedia, and I'm highly inclined to unblock. I find his unblock request convincing, and the IP editing not heinous, even though I would have liked to see him bring it up directly in the unblock request without Cullen having to ask about it. Also, I too would first like to know what the "previous incident" he refers too was. However, as a general remark, so many second chances as we give editors who have never done anything but disrupt, it would certainly make sense to unblock a contributor like John. Bishonen | tålk 09:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC).

  Bishonen, Softlavender, my guess is that John's referring to the incident last month in which he said some unkind things about WMF employees (which ended up with me blocking him for two days). GeneralNotability (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock. Valuable contributor who has a misstep and is taking steps to correct. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Courtesy ping Ivanvector as the original blocking admin. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse unblock per Deepfriedokra and Bishonen. Thanks for the honesty, John. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse unblock I'd hate to lose a valuable contributor like John. As other's have noted, his unblock request addresses the reason for the block in a sincere fashion, and I'd like to see him given another chance. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• please note parallel discusiion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)