User talk:John from Idegon/Archive 73

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

→

Archive 80

Should this page be deleted or content merged?

Hi John, I'm going through and sorting out unsupported parameters using Infobox school and came across this page: Founder's Badge (Boys' Brigade in Malaysia). Is this even notable to have its own article on Wikipedia? Seems to be an award with one reference that comes to a page with "Sorry, no posts matched your criteria". Maybe the article should be deleted or at least content merged into Boys' Brigade in Malaysia. Don't think Infobox school is the right infobox to use, maybe Infobox award? Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I redirected it. John from Idegon (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

I don't fight proposed deletions bc it takes too much work. Appreciate it, if you could clean up all the dead links.

Cheers,

Koncurrentkat (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Please see the note at the top of the page. John from Idegon (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't fight proposed deletions bc it takes too much work. Appreciate it, if you could clean up all the dead links that get created as a result.

Cheers, Koncurrentkat (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

And that's supposed to clear it up? I still have no idea what you are talking about. I can read, so what the hell was the point of simply repeating exactly what you said before? I don't appreciate people who waste my time. Since you've asked me to do something (twice), don't you think it would be appropriate to provide a link to whatever it is you are talking about? John from Idegon (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Dead links get left behind after a page gets deleted Koncurrentkat (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you always this narcissistic? I have no idea what damn article you are talking about! John from Idegon (talk) 06:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Koncurrentkat: If you want to discuss a particular article/page it helps to provide a link. Are you referring to Tony Venhuizen? Also, "dead links" is commonly used when discussing WP:DEADREF. Any links to external website are automatically deleted when an article/page is deleted. My guess is that you're referring to WP:REDLINK. You are correct in that these will not be deleted per se, since they are technically located in other articles; a red link, however, does not automatically need to be deleted per WP:REDYES. When it does all that sometimes needs to be done is to remove the link markup. If you're worried about any redlinks being left behind if the article is deleted then (1) you can try and address the reasons why the article is being proposed for deletion by trying to improve it per WP:PRESERVE or (2) refer to Special:WhatLinksHere/Tony Venhuizen and proactively cleanup any possible redlinks yourself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

My page got reviewed, does this mean it gets to stay? Other pages have similar notability credentials Dusty Johnson (chief of staff to Governor of South Dakota) and Harvey C. Jewett IV (South Dakota Board of Regents member). Tony Venhuizen has both chief of staff and SD Board of Regents. Also I believe John from Idgeon has reviewed a previous appointee page of mine James E. McMahon. Maybe none of them qualify for notability :( Koncurrentkat (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

McMahon is a federal appointee to a non staff position. He's definitely notable. Jewett is possibly notable for his business position and may meet GNG. I'm going to prod Johnson. Suggest you familiarize yourself better with WP:BLP prior to creating any more articles. John from Idegon (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Just as long as the dead links get cleared up. Elected South Dakota Public Utilities Commission members get deleted? You'll need to prod articles such as Chris Nelson (politician) and Kristie Fiegen also. Suggest you familiarize yourself better with WP:BLP prior to prodding any more articles. Koncurrentkat (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

As long as you do it, they will. Goodbye. John from Idegon (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

You say goodbye while I say hello Koncurrentkat (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Deprod: Schuler Books & Music

Hello, I have deprodded Schuler Books & Music, because it has previously survived an AfD. I only did this to comply with policy and have no prejudice one way or the other on the merits of the deletion nomination. If you still wish to pursue deletion, please feel free to open another AfD. Thanks, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Westmount Charter School

Why was the 2008 incident section removed? It's not really news, it's kind of the history of the school.

—FibonacciYYC^Talk

FibonacciYYC, did you actually read the link WP:NOTNEWS? On what basis do you contend that an event that occupied a couple hours on one day and was not noted by any sources outside the local area is history? See WP:RECENT for guidance. The event's importance to people associated with this school is not relevant. John from Idegon (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I did. I realize now that I am completely wrong and I am a failure. Sorry that you had to suffer from this cruel post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FibonacciYYC (talk • contribs) 20:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

John, this account and a second SPA (who apparently know each other) were at WP:AN3 for edit warring over Westmount Charter School. And now a third SPA has shown up on the article. He states he is a friend of Fibonacci, and is restoring some of the material previously removed (not the 2008 incident). Meters (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

BRD?

What is BRD? Also I've edited on a lot of school articles over the years. It's a public high school...so it should be changed to that in the infobox. Why is this a debate? A high school is a secondary school with a specific grade range. And we can directly link it to secondary eduataion in the United States as we do with other articles. I've dont his dozens of times over and have had no problems until now...Banan14kab (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Hi Banan14ab. "BRD" probably refers to WP:BRD. Basically, you're WP:BOLD and make an edit which is subsequently WP:REVERTed by another editor. At that point, you're expected to try and engage the other editor in WP:DISCUSS on the article's talk page to try and resolve things. Sometimes you make an edit and the revert comes almost immediately; other times some time passes before it happen. So, unless you will to claim that the revert was a case of obvious vandalism (be careful per WP:NOTVANDAL, then you should discuss. Just for reference, WP:CONTENTAGE does not mean something added even years ago should be kept. Also, WP:OTHERCONTENT does not mean just because similar content can be wide in other articles that it should be found in all articles. If John removed some content you added, then he probably did it for a reason and not just to play vandal for a day. So, now you should discuss things with him on the relevant article talk page. This will keep everything in one place and make it easier for other editors to participate in the discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

What CONTENTAGE says is that it's reasonable to assume a consensus for material that has been in the article for a long time, but consensus can change. In other words, that alone was sufficient grounds for my original revert. It wouldn't be a necessarily persuasive argument in the ensuing discussion about a change.

One of the requirements of a feature article on Wikipedia is stability. If cosmetic details are in dispute (and it would be difficult to characterize this as anything but that. The terms are pretty close to synonymous and your choice is simply a wikilink to the stable version's article), an article cannot become a feature article (see WP:FA). The article at hand here is not now not will it ever be, a featured article. However, it is in the top five right now for page hits due to the recent unfortunate event. Making simple cosmetic changes is not appropriate at the moment. The fact is, you didn't link to secondary education in the US, you linked to a redirect of the original term. High school is fundamentally a US/Canada usage. In the vast majority of the world, a terminal school is not generally referred to as a high school (interestingly, in China, what we call a high school is called a middle school, as it is in the middle between basic and higher education). This article is getting a lot of attention, much from outside the US. It's kind of a reverse WP:ENGVAR situation. Generally, a US subject should be written in US English. But right now, so much international attention is focused on the subject that a more generic, yet still accurate, term should be used.

So my basic argument is that change for the simple reason of uniformity (something I generally favor) is not appropriate at the moment. Two weeks ago, I would not have reverted your change. Likely two months from now, I also wouldn't. Stability matters; especially when the change is strictly cosmetic.

Lastly,please don't make arguments from authority especially without the established authority. You've edited lots of school articles over the years and done this dozens of times? Banan14kab, I've got more US high schools on my watch list than you have total edits. I make more edits in two months than you have in nine years. I'm the only US coordinator of WP:WPSCH. That in itself does not make me right and you wrong, but that was essentially the crux of your argument. That's certainly an argument to avoid. Back in the day, a wise man told me "don't bring a knife to a gunfight". If you wish to carry this further, as Marchjuly told you, please do so at the article's talk. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Gibson Southern HS

You're messing with the wrong editor here. In 10 years I've dealt with editors like you who are not from anywhere around here (Southwestern Indiana or anywhere else) and think you know more than those who were either born here, or lived most of their life here. That being said, LEAVE that page alone unless you have RELEVANT information to ADD. I AM alumnus of this school, and go to most of its games, even worked for them from time to time. Therefore, I almost certainly know far more about that school firsthand than you do. Their colors ARE Maroon, Gold, White, AND Black and have been since 2012. Just because the IHSAA hasn't caught on doesn't mean that it's not true. End of subject.

There are hundreds of thousands of High School pages in this country that are far worse looking. Quit wasting my time on undoing your counter-productive reverts on this one and concentrate on those other schools!

Here's Some things about some of the local schools you probably didn't know; That Gibson Southern, once known simply as South Gibson High School, prior to 1980, had maroon, gold, and black as their colors. Evansville Reitz was supposed to have Navy Orange and White but had settle for silver instead of orange, although some of their teams have begun using the original intended colors. Princeton has always used Red White and Black, even before their consolidation. Vincennes Lincoln was Green and Orange, but later used white to contrast the two. Until 2004, Evansville North was just Kelly Green and white, but are now Green Black and Silver.

If you actually visit some of these schools you might actually be able to confirm these little gems of information that I and many of the other editors of WikiProject Indiana try to convey to the world. Rhatsa26X (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, I don't think You're messing with the wrong editor here is a good opening defense for the persistent addition of unsourced content. Any editor who's been here for a decade and hasn't been blocked for this much WP:OR is a rare contributor indeed. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Kerhonkson, New York

hi john , thank you for being thorough . the information i posted was obtained from local historians who printed surveys and historical recordings of said subjects. my information for the barn came from : town of rochester historic preservation commission 1997, p 15 , town of rochester historic farmstead inventory 1996 p6 and the gazlay genalogy john h latimer page please verify so my statements may be added to wikipedia.Ktownhistory (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Ktownhistory, I'm sorry to tell you but your original research is not allowed here. See WP:OR. It is the very nature of an encyclopedia that we publish only material paraphrased from already published reliable sources. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. John from Idegon (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Action for Bright Children Society

Hello John from Idegon. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Action for Bright Children Society, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Subject might be important/significant (see also Google News/Books hits for this subject) / use WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead to allow other editors to participate in this decision. Thank you. SoWhy 11:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I also have concerns about the notability this article. It appears to be nothing but the society behind the establishment of one school (Westmount Charter School) The list of AP and IB schools on the society's web page does not mean that those schools are members of the Action for Bright Children Society. There are many online hits, but almost all of them are just copies of Wikipedia's content. This might be a good target for a merge into the school article. Meters (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

You know more about Canadian schools than I, Meters. Do you think a bold redirect and then deletion processes if you get resistance would be appropriate? If so, go for it!! John from Idegon (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

A merge proposal would be better. The Society has been around since 1979, but the charter school wasn't founded until 1996, so there may be enough earlier history towarrant a separate article. I'll do some digging. If I can't document more than we have I'll propose a merger. Meters (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School

protection just ended.... interesting that there has been zero input on the talk page in the two weeks since I declared my AGF done. Meters (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I think what we see there is a coincidental concurrence. Several people ran out of patience at the same time it finally dawned on one person that the supply of rope is not infinite. John from Idegon (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Coincidence. I lost interest in arguing. Rhadow (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on anyone but the editor pushing for the changes and his recent supporter. Like (I assume) most of the other editors I was just happy to have a break from the never-ending time suck. I was sorry to see it end up as a topic ban, but I don't think there was any other choice. He had far more chances than most editors would have had. Meters (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Freeman High School (Washington), you may be blocked from editing. Please restore the article to the correct state and discuss changes in the appropriate section on the talk page. Page protection has been requested since you seem unable or unwilling to discuss so far. Thanks. Oak Island Kid (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

See the message on your talk page. I'll start a discussion at the article's talk, but try to understand that you are the one violating the community standards of behavior here. Obviously disputed changes require consensus. How else could it work? It's irrelevant whether you agree with my reasons or not. If someone disputes new content, the editor wanting the content is required to justify it and gain consensus prior to the change occurring. I gave you a very clear example of why that is on your talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

The 'rollback' and 'thanks' buttons can be a bit close and I have big fingers. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Niel Mandt (Lahser High School

Hello, I noticed you removed Niel Mandt from notable alumni from Lahser High School as you said there was no source. Well here is a video where he says he graduated from Lahser in 1987 (not 1988 as was previously written). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8lzGtovfNk By the way I went to Lahser while he was there and remember him, not that it would be a reliable source! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.164.154 (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Oligoquestion

Greetings. In your post about topic-banning contributor Jzsj, something irrelevant caught my eye. You mentioned the following: "Private schools in the US...are businesses competing against a free government funded oligopoly." Could you please elaborate about this a bit? Are government-funded schools in the US indeed an oligopoly? Thanks in advance. -The Gnome (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

In my view yes. Whether you opt for private education or not, whether you have school age children or not, you still pay for public schools. Even if you pay for private education, you still pay to support the free competitor to it. The only people who don't pay for public education are the homeless, as US schools are primarily funded from property taxes. Even they pay some, as tax liability is reflected in retail prices. So when you have a market where acquiring the service they offer is mandatory, and the dominant player in the market has a huge competitive advantage, that's an oligopoly. Sorry it took me so long to respond, The Gnome. I've been trying to decompress from this entire debecle prior to looking at what's going to be needed to clean it up. John from Idegon (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I now understand your point. Let me add this: For the notion that taxpayers' money are funding public expenditures in the national currency, you might want to look up Post-Keynesian economics and specifically the descriptive presentation of state finances of modern monetary theory. Of course, even if the question "where does the state get its money it spends" is answered (from nowhere, really; the state creates new money every time it spends), the issue about competition remains. Yet, this seems like every other issue of social policy, such as health care. Most countries in the world, especially advanced economies, provide socially funded health care; private care is legal and thriving alongside the state's. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I did not get a chance to vote in the "debacle". If I had the chance, I'd vote for a topic ban. But I think the indefinite ban was both too quickly decided and too harsh. Perhaps a six-month topic ban would suffice. Another worthless two bits. -The Gnome (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The Gnome, he received a 6 month topic ban. Not uncommon for a newly sanctioned editor, he went thru a period where he tried his best to get indeffd immediately after, but has since calmed down. John from Idegon (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Appreciated. -The Gnome (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Yup

OK by me. Yeah, more is better; we'll see. 32.218.36.9 (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Troy, MI Acting City Manager

I didn't mean to cause an edit war for the Troy, MI. In this particular case, the City Manager was appointed by City Council Resolution. The nomenclature is probably not the best, however. I did find other pages on wikipedia that included "acting" positions.

Director_of_the_United_States_Census_Bureau

List_of_Administrators_and_Deputy_Administrators_of_NASA

I will not revert this edit, but simply wanted to express my reasoning.

Ghostman42 (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Ghostman42

Seymour High School

There really is no basis for your reversion of my sourced edits to Seymour High School (Indiana). I offered not one but two sources and the material is entirely relevant to the subject matter. No consensus for these routine, helpful, sourced edits is necessary. You appear to be exhibiting a domineering and controlling approach to this article. I wanted to give you an opportunity to reinstate my edits before I escalated this issue to others. Thanks.--IndyNotes (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

New edits that are disputed require consensus. I'd suggest you simply start a discussion on the article talk page where I will be happy to participate. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Content is decided by consensus, which you do not have. I'm not discussing content issues on my talk page and your assertion that I'm behaving improperly are both incorrect and inappropriate. John from Idegon (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's be clear about what happened. You simply deleted my edit and then claimed a dispute. One must not ALWAYS achieve consensus before making an edit, which appears to be your position here. I initially provided a picture with the caption that it is the third largest gym in the country. Although this is noted elsewhere on Wikipedia, you understandably noted that it needs a source. So I then provided that source. I also believe that approaching you about it first is the most appropriate avenue. Seeing now that your position remains unchanged, I will take this up with others.--IndyNotes (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

And again, you are incorrect. So feel free to "go take it up with others" and when they tell you the same thing I did, I will be happy to discuss it with you at the article's talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear John (March 2018)

Dear John,

I have been pondering over your recent comment about me regarding Dothan High School

I inferred the comment, and I've come to the conclusion that some Wikipedians regard me as inexperienced or a reliability.

I then considered why I was part of Wikipedia. To annoy other Wikipedian by making them clear up the mess I started?

No.

To make Wikipedia a better place?

Yes.

And as you have pointed this out, I ask you to read my user page.

I'd like some help. From someone experienced. You? Maybe. It's up to you, of course :)

(I assume good faith. To all users.) East Anglian Regional (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Seymour High School (Indiana). Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.--IndyNotes (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Whatever. Again you have a misunderstanding of how this works. Once a consensus is reached, if that consensus is to include the picture, then the picture gets added. Not before. I am amazed that an editor who has less than 200 edits and just over six months experience wants to lecture me, who has made nearly 350 times that many edits over six years on how Wikipedia works. CONSENSUS is what decides content. Please cite me any policy or guideline that say different. Consensus (with exceptions for policies with legal ramifications such as copyright and libel) even trumps most policy when it comes to content decisions. I'm sorry you haven't encountered a place where you've had someone contest an addition you've made, but it happens hundreds of times every day. It isn't a battle, no one is picking on you. It is the way Jimbo designed Wikipedia to work. You are not helping form a consensus by your actions. You are needlessly personalizing it. We disagree. It happens. Just cool out with your postings on user talk page and discuss the issue at the article talk page. Either your position will prevail, my position will prevail or a compromise will be reached. Again, and I cannot repeat this enough, that is how this works. I'm going to bed. I'll reply at the article talk tomorrow sometime. John from Idegon (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Billhpike, perhaps IndyNotes will accept a tutorial on content decisions from you. He seems reluctant to listen to me, and you are, after all much nicer than I. :) John from Idegon (talk) 04:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I think this diff means that IndyNotes got my message. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Howard High School Notable Alumni

Why do you keep removing notable alumni? Michael Chabon are Alexis Kerry Ohanian are notable. WHy are you even editing this page? Go to your own high school page and edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.91.229.182 (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I have not looked at Chabon yet, but the issue with Ohanian was that there was no reliable source showing his attendance at the school. A YouTube video by someone claiming got be Ohanian that claims to show him speaking a the school's graduation ceremony is not a reliable source. I've added a WP:RS. And it's not appropriate to tell someone not to edit a school article unless he or she attended the school. I didn't attend the school either. Would you have preferred that I not have added the source? Meters (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Virginia Beach, VA

I am trying to add up-to-date and accurate information about the city of Virginia Beach's economic industries. I had purposefully included links to other Wikipedia sources and excluded perceived promotional language to include factual and timely information. What's included in the Economy section now is not fully reflective of the current Virginia Beach economy and business landscape. The city's economy includes much more than a resort area and farm land. And also, the information currently included is from a more than 10 year old economic profile (2007). The information that I was attenpting to include is sourced from the most recent economic profile (2017/2018). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmetheridge (talk • contribs) 19:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? Your sources are all primary. Your tone, whether you think so or not, is promotional. Are you in any way associated with the city, the chamber of commerce, any of the businesses you've written about, or any other organizations that may be interested in promoting this community? Because that is what your additions look like. A good-class article, such as the one you are editing is not the place for a new editor to start. Any encyclopedia, Wikipedia included, is made up of information summarized from what other published secondary sources have written. If there are not secondary sources, do not add it. John from Idegon (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Chilonia Union High School

Hi you unprodded the above article without leaving an explanation in the edit summary and I was wondering if you could tell me why you unprodded it. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, John from Idegon and welcome to Wikipedia. You recently unprodded Chilonia Union High School. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is not how an an AfD discussion is closed. A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours). Unless the AfD meets an exception for speedy keep (and this did not), you must wait for consensus to build. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus. If editors continue to revert to their preferred version and remove an AfD nomination before consensus is reached, they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused. Thank you.--IndyNotes (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@IndyNotes: You've misundestood what John did. The article about the Chilonia Union High was prodded for deletion, it was not nominated for deletion. Any editor can WP:DEPROD an article for any reason, even a bad faith one (which I'm not saying is the case here). The warning you added is not applicable at all to what John did, so you probably should strike it out per WP:REDACT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@IndyNotes: i think you have got a little confused. WP:PROD and WP:AFD are two different processes. I would suggest that you read the 2 links to get a better understanding. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Domdeparis, sorry. I generally do leave edit summaries. I think you've misinterpreted that rather poor RfC closing. All it says is you cannot use WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as the sole rationale at AFD. Indeed virtually all AfD since that RfC have continued to show the validity of SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I've even seen an administrator (TonyBallioni) state they feel that RfC isn't valid. Of course you're welcome to take the article to AfD, but IMO that would be a waste of time. IndyNotes, I'd strongly suggest you read WP:HARRASS, because you are getting very close to that. John from Idegon (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I helped write the RfC, so I think it’s valid. It closed as no consensus to the question asked. My view is that the commentary the closers added beyond that wasn’t what the RfC was asking, and was trying to spin a nice narrative to a no consensus close. The fact that the community still is so divided over the outcome I think validates my view there. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Marchjuly (talk), and keep up the good work. John from Idegon (talk), I suggest you read WP:HARRASS to understand that good faith notes do not qualify as harassment. Try not to take things so personally.--IndyNotes (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Tony for the explanation. John my point in the PROD nomination when I referred to the AfC was the first line "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist". There is absolutely nothing that enables us to verify the slightest information on this page without even talking about notability. There is nothing out there in any language that could help us check the figures, the article is very poorly written by someone with a COI (it says ex-student in the info box!) and unverifiable. Without taking it to AfD I do not think we can leave this article with information that is totally unsourced as is. I carried out a search and could find nothing. If we accept that this school exists, what do think about removing all the unsourced info (90% maybe) and stubifying it ? Dom from Paris (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I think stubbing it would be appropriate. The troubling thing for me is that India, unlike the other large English speaking countries, doesn't have a centralized education authority. But that does not make their schools any less important. There are most likely local sources for it that are not locatable on the WWW. In one of the many places notability of schools is discussed, it us mentioned that we should assume that to be the case. I'm in favor of keeping secondary schools in general per WP:GAZETTEER. John from Idegon (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: Deletion for Tri-County Conference (Western Indiana)

I have provided a newspaper source concluding that the TCC at the very least did exist as the Sullivan County Conference, which should be sufficient to prevent total deletion. I am still trying to go back and find my source where the SCC definitively became the TCC, but at the very least should be satisfactory to remove your deletion request.Mtndrums (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Mtndrums, what notability guideline are you asserting this meets? Please explain. John from Idegon (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

It proves that the county schools were based in Interscholastic competition as a conference within the time frame offered on the page. Unless you happen upon a newspaper page that happens to state such and such conference was formed on such and such day, this is about as good as you will get for references for many of these conferences, at least for online referencing. As for notability, it was a conference that competed in IHSAA play, which is enough for it to count as a former conference, and another on a list that was pretty large before I started getting into this project.Mtndrums (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Mtndrums, that's all very nice, but doesn't answer my question. What notability guideline does this article meet? John from Idegon (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Notability as far as? I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.Mtndrums (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) John is referring to Wikipedia notability. One of the main reasons articles are deleted is because of a lack of Wikipedia notability. There are various guidelines for different subject matters, and these are used to help assess whether something is notable enough for a stand-alone article. The most basic one is WP:GNG, but in this case maybe WP:NSPORTS and WP:ORG also are applicable. Simply existing is not enough to establsh notability; what generally needs to be shown is that the subject has received significant coverage in secondary sources which typically extends beyong purely local routine coverage. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad nice people watch my talk page. Personally I find it absolutely incredible that you've been here for 11 years and have to have notability explained to you. You've created hundreds of articles, all of which will need to be looked at. As it stands right now, the current article in question has no verifiable content. Where did you get the information to write it? John from Idegon (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've deprodded the article. I found several articles at Newspapers.com that discussed the conference in detail (example). I suspect it would pass WP:NORG if it went to WP:AFD. I personally think we have to much coverage of high school sports, but if newspapers editor’s devote significant coverage to a topic, Wikipedia will generally have an article on it. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

So basically you're asking why it's relevant to you, more or less. It may not be out in Ontario, but it is pretty relevant to a lot of people in Indiana, particularly on the basketball end. Hence why there was quite a few articles on former conferences before I started on the project. Look, I'm all for Westerners raising the hackles of Hoosiers, but this is one time I'm being forced to side with the Hoosiers, which is not a way to stay in my good graces. Is Wikipedia really in that bad of shape they have to start purging to save bandwidth, or is this a matter of you wanting to get rid of stuff with no personal relevance? This is starting to look like the latter.Mtndrums (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

School sports is a long standing quip between John (USA) and me (UK) as coords of the WP:WPSCH. Achievement in school and college sport is very important in American culture, but by contrast, virtually non existent in Britain where our school articles tend to reflect more the intellectual achievements. That said, sources are sources ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung: That's because competitive athletics in Europe is run by athletic clubs or independent associations, so high school (and to some extent, college) sports there are pretty much intramurals. Sports are run by the schools and colleges here, so they cover what would be the non-Premiership level of sports over here. If you look at the NFL and NBA in football pyramid terms, high schools are pretty much League One. It just takes understanding that Europe and America have entirely different systems of how sport advances, which is why if this was an argument over English high school sports, there would be an argument over whether the page should exist, but since it's American sport, John is the only one arguing against it, because he obviously wasn't around when the discussion took place years ago.Mtndrums (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mtndrums: Relevancy and Wikipedia notability are entirely different concepts, so it's probably best to not try and mix them up. There are lots of things in the world that someone somewhere may feel is relevant, but that does not mean these things are automatically Wikipedia notable. Relevancy (more specifically encyclopedic relevancy) may come it to play when determing content to include in an article per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, but it's the significant coverage in reliable sources or the lack thereof which determines whether its acceptable to write a stand-alone article about a subject. Moreover, "purging to save band width" sounds like a WP:OTHERSTUFF type of argument. Wikipedia has over 5,000,000 articles so band width is not really an issue; however, problem articles are not kept simply because there are other similar articles in the encyclopedia or simply because they have been around a WP:LONGTIME. Lots of people are keen on creating new articles so more and more are added to the encyclopedia each day; unfortunately, quite a lot of these creations have problems which sometimes cannot be fixed. When that happens, they are deleted accordingly. It make take days or even years, but eventually they are deleted. John prodded the article because he felt it was one of those articles. Prodding things for deletion is part of normal Wikipedia process. Billhpike saw the prod and disagreed with John's assessment. This is also part of normal Wikipedia process. Instead of trying to imply that there might be some ulterior motive to what John did, it probably would be better to try and track down the sources that Billhpike seems to have found and then add them to the article because that's the best way to make sure that it isn't someday WP:AFD'd by some editor for the same reasons John gave for prodding it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: We've been having these arguments over notability since I started years and years ago. It's pretty obvious that after all this time, these articles are still here, so that side of that argument has won out, yet people still keep on trying to rehash them in some insane attempt to think that this time their way of thinking will win out. There's an infinite amount of more productive things to do than try to rehash a battle that's been dead and buried.Mtndrums (talk) 12:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Being still here once again does not mean should still be here per WP:LONGTIME, WP:CONTENTAGE or even WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED. Those types of arguments along with WP:OSE types of arguments are not likely going to get you very far in any XfD discussion. You’re better off focusing on how relevant notability guidelines are met for whichever article is being discussed. — Marchjuly (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you should reread my previous response. We have already had this discussion years ago, and it was settled that the pages could stay. This was more than five years ago, yet we have someone who wasn't there back then to begin with, if they were even on Wikipedia back then, rehashing a dead horse. So I feel I have full right to be annoyed at having to waste time taking up something that was settled ages ago.Mtndrums (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

First, consensus can and will change over time. Remember Pokemon? Second a vague reference to some unnamed discussion that some undefined we had at some time in the past carries no weight whatsoever. You had an AfD? An RfC? A chat with your chums over coffee? Please identify this discussion that is not memorialized in any Notability guideline so we know what you're talking about. John from Idegon (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Domino's Deletion problem

Hi, John. I'm a student and I'm tries to make contribution on Domino's Wikipedia. I was written on the Innovation and Present part. Why did you delete almost all of my written content. This is my coursework and I had done a lot of researches about my written content. Could you please don't delete my written content? Thanks. talk 12:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

If you make reasonably good contributions, they won't be deleted. The things you add here cease to be yours when you press the publish changes button and are subject to revision or outright removal at any time. If that isn't acceptable to you, do not edit Wikipedia. Your coursework is of no concern to me or other Wikipedians. Please do not post on my talk page again. If you don't like the removal of your addition, discuss it at Talk: Domino's Pizza. John from Idegon (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm so sorry about my improper messages yesterday. I was depressed and misunderstood something yesterday. I had saw your revision record and recognise my problems. Thanks for your revision and comments. talk 11:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Saginaw Heritage Girls Class A State Championship

I noticed you removed my edit from this page, after I added the 2018 Class A State Championship. I am a reliable source, and I go to this high school. Here is the proof, http://highschoolsports.mlive.com/news/article/-7454069905697898557/see-photos-as-saginaw-heritage-wins-2018-class-a-girls-basketball-state-title/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soap Price (talk • contribs) 16:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Apology

I apologise for my inappropriate message yesterday. I was frustrated because I had finished citing the sources for my page and you had undone a previous edit, causing my work to be undone.Bandittx (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

My talk page

Hey, you recently warned me for removing other's comments on a talk page. Can I do this to my own? Bandittx (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

With a few exceptions (mostly related to blocks and sock puppetry), you can remove whatever you want from your own talk page. You are allowed to remove only your own comments from any other talk page, and only if no one has commented in response to or about them. See WP:OWNTALK and WP:TPG. John from Idegon (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality Check

John,

I received your COI warning and responded on my user talk page; I wasn't aware of the policy. I have since added COI disclosures to both my own page and the talk page for the article on the Grand Rapids Police Department. As I noted in my response, I will refrain from making any future edits outside those permitted by the Wikipedia COI policy. However, I do feel the current information on the page is neutral and properly cited. Would you be willing to check my existing edits for neutrality and update the connected contributor box on the Grand Rapids Police Department talk page if you feel they are appropriate? This3ndup (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Quality Control Music

John from Idegon, as you may have noticed, the article Quality Control Music has been reverted by User:Bandittx to the state before User:Magnolia677's edit last week, and the PROD and COI templates removed by him (thanks for reverting him blanking the talk page). I don't see how the article is improved significantly. He says he "fixed the issues that were proposing the article's deletion", but actually he hasn't done anything substantial. Do you concur? This back-and-forth is beginning to annoy me. --Renerpho (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I've kinda been keeping an eye on it for Magnolia who has been tied up with RL issues. I'm going to back away because the whole hip hop culture thing frankly infuriates me. Your on your own until Magnolia gets back, which I'm led to believe shouldn't be long. John from Idegon (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks John. Good luck with the RL issues, Magnolia! --Renerpho (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Renerpho, I've replaced my COI tag. This is blatant COI but it does look as if the sources add up to notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Greenbrier High School (Arkansas)

Hey John,

I was wondering if you add your two cents in at Talk:Greenbrier High School (Arkansas). I don't want this to be seen as canvassing, it just doesn't seem to have a lot of eyes on the page and since you mostly work with schools I was wondering if you could add some insight. I rarely work with schools except to fight vandalism so it would be helpful to have someone who knows how to balance controversial school articles. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi John

Believe it or not last edit was an involuntary mistake (I would like to see the history). I don't care anymore about editing this page since the info passed largely in the media in and outside US. Fiorgioba (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

You're right. I don't believe it. It totally defies logic. Fiorgioba, you need to explain that. How can posting something on the internet be "involuntary"? Here is the diff showing what you added, stating in Wikipedia's voice, your opinion of corporal punishment and citing no sources. John from Idegon (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi John as I said, war is over. Fiorgioba (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no war about anything. The discussion at the page referenced above is simply how Wikipedia works. Fiorgioba, are you refusing to explain your very puzzling remark above about your POV addition to the above article being "involuntary"? Did someone threaten to spank your tushy if you didn't make it? Does your computer or whatever device you use to access the internet frequently post things on its own? Competence is required to participate here. Your failure to explain your ridiculous comment, made both here and on your talk page, is a pretty fair indication you lack the required competence. John from Idegon (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi John I explain you what's happened, I was curious to know how to insert or tag a name using the code like John from Idegon so I went in one of the old page because I wanted to avoid to mess with the current one and yes I am incompetent on the topic, I am competent as educator since 20 year, I am competent in lots of other thing but not in that. Anyway I was facing to the two version I copy part of the text and I paste it, instead of doing a trial to see how would look I accidentally touched the Enter key which published the text (not even in the format it was before). The text had been immediately restored by another user and I apologized but for you it wasn't enough, you had to give your non-required and non-requested opinion. But at the end, go to google comment page on this school and district, type Wylie Greer in Google everything is there. And the story isn't over, because in that same school Wylie Greer and other students plan to walk out on April 20, if they beat him again, this goes directly to the Supreme Court. Fiorgioba (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Reviewed?

Hi, just got a message that you reviewed my user page? Not sure what that means. Sudden Someone (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

All newly created pages by most users (long term proficient content producers can request a specific user right called AUTOPATROLLED to bypass this) are patrolled by trusted long term editors such as myself called new page patrollers to ensure they comply with policy. Your userpage does. John from Idegon (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah! Cool! Thanks! Sudden Someone (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you very much for taking the time to explain the COI issue about International Samaritan on the talk page of the complaining user. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Addition: Yep, you're really being awesome. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Keen7777&diff=833105651&oldid=833104383&diffmode=source Full acknoledgement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018

• Op-ed: Death knell for The Signpost?

• News and notes: Wiki Conference roundup and new appointments.

• Arbitration report: Ironing out issues in infoboxes; not sure yet about New Jersey; and an administrator who probably wasn't uncivil to a sockpuppet.

• In the media: The media on Wikipedia's workings: the good and not-so-good

• Traffic report: Real sports, real women and an imaginary country: what's on top for Wikipedia readers

• Featured content: Animals, Ships, and Songs

• Technology report: Timeless skin review by Force Radical.

• Special report: ACTRIAL wrap-up.

• Humour: WikiWorld Reruns

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello John from Idegon, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

• Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

• While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

• The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	I was going through your user-page and this writing was stunning.Managed to capture the entire theme of the Paid Editing Saga nicely but enough succinctly..... ~ Winged BladesGodric 09:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts on this?

Hi John, came across this school - Hayrullah Kefoğlu Anadolu Lisesi, should a stub tag be added or should the article be deleted instead? No references, really short and website doesn't work, says unavailable.. The title of the school is also a different language, not sure if a English translation should be used instead. Any ideas? Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It's obviously entirely OR. I haven't the time to do any research on it. As there isn't even enough information in it to verify it's existence or whether it would meet the most liberal interpretation of notability guidelines possible, I think I'd prod it. Pinging Kudpung for his opinion. John from Idegon (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Easy, Steven (Editor), as per policy, redirected. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks John and Kudpung. I was thinking prod would be best too, but redirect as per policy is good, but what about the talk page? Should that be deleted as the article is now a redirect or remain as is? Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)