Jump to content

User talk:John from Idegon/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 25

Factual content is not defamatory

You posted this on my talk page:

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatorycontent into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Colorado Springs, Colorado, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You posted this and reverted my change because I wrote the following in reference the large "evangelical Mecca" in Colorado Springs:

Evangelicals in Colorado Springs are especially twisted as they are often employed by the military-industrial complex and spend time finding more efficient ways to kill people all-the-while preaching peace and love.

But this isn't defamatory; it's factual. It's twisted to say you are a follower of Christ but then become rich off of the military-industrial complex in Colorado Springs. I could have added that it's even more twisted that they become wealthy off of military tax dollars and then adamantly demand cuts in taxes and a smaller government and debt. This is yet another layer of the twisted mess that a Colorado Springs Christian often is. Can you please explain to me how trying to find more efficient ways to kill people is consistent with following Christ? If you can then I won't revert the change. Thanks.

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anaheim High School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WPA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Fix multiple Blue Valley school articles

Hi. Please go back through these articles that you edited and revalidate all of your "dead link" notes, because all the links don't look dead to me. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. And thanks for catching that, Sbmeirow. I got a "402" when I ran checklinks on them last night. Thinking back, I realize that they must have had the server locked out for maintenance. That would make sense considering the obnoxious hour I did that. Couldn't sleep.  :) Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Affluence

Wayne, Illinois an "affluent" village. Affluence is a fact, not a POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added byOtherbeach (talk • contribs) 16:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi, Otherbeach and thanks for your concern. I would surmise the reason my friend Gtwfan52 removed it was two-fold:
  • a) It does not belong in the lead, which per WP:LEAD is supposed to be a summary of the article
  • b) Affluent is a broad term - if you want it included, quantify it and cite it with reliable sources within the body of the article.
Welcome back, GP. That would about do it. It is exactly POV. Affluence is subjective. To someone who lives in a tent, one of the flophouses that used to be on Madison Avenue in Chicago would represent affluence. To Bill Gates, maybe his 17th home would represent affluence. Adjectives are a dangerous thing to use in an encyclopedia article. We stick to facts. Facts are objective and quantifiable. Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
To qualify that a bit, if you can find a reliable source that uses that term, it may be appropriate in the body of the article, with the source that uses it cited.Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Affluence is in the eye of the beholder and the wallet of the rich. But, Wayne, Il. has one of these and Cantigny is close by. Maybe if the editor could find some comparable tax figures for the Chgoland Area Wayne's affluence could be proven. But, I agree. Unless he does he cannot just claim affluence without verifiable facts. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I somewhat disagree, Buster. Unless a source can be found that actually uses the word "affluent" to describe Wayne, it just cannot be used in the article. It is still WP:OR to extrapolate affluence from polo. Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Yea, I was gonna make a point about the adjective "affluence" being hard to verify. I haven't looked at the article so Im not sure how it is described. I know when I want to hob-nob with the rich and famous, Wayne is where I head. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

C'mon, I dont make fun of your town...nor did we claim "famous" which BTW I think is a POV. Ok, if I can cite some affluence, I will add it back. Otherbeach (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker), people who proclaim that they never discuss money, and actually do not, are affluent. Thats because, they have always had wealth, ergo, its a non issue. OR one cou8ld obtain stats on income in the area and be done with itCoal town guy (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Uh-huh...well anyway, that is what I did Otherbeach (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this [1]. While it doesn't specifically use the word "affluent" there is a purpose to ranking things from top {most affluent) to bottom (poorest). (Not specifically about Wayne, Il but as a general question about verifiability). ```Buster Seven Talk 13:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Salinas

You reverted my edits on Salinas, California. As far as I noticed, everything seemed to be properly cited. I would also like to wonder why you removed the whole crime section, because it was very important to have that on the Salinas page. Salinas is a city with a gang and crime problem, and it is very important to have that information on the page. I will add the section again with all the right sources tomorrow. Cyanidethistles (talk) 05:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I would highly suggest you discuss your addition at the talk page of the article first. Secondly, just because a crime is in the news today does not mean it should be in the encyclopedia. (see WP:NOTNEWS) Third, a word to the wise. Anytime you mention statistics (such as FBI crime stats), you need to source them and only report on conclusions drawn from them that have been reported on in other sources. You cannot draw your own conclusions and write about them here, even if they seem obvious. Also please keep in mind that this is not a newspaper. Anything you write about should have some amount of permanence. Most crime is a short term thing and will be dealt with before it becomes historical. Places like Detroit and Flint, Michigan, Gary, Indiana and Chicago all have horrendous crime rates that have endured for decades. But even in those cities, the crime section is very small and only mentions specific events and specific criminal trends that have had a long-term impact on the city. Keep in mind that you are writing for an intended audience of the entire English-speaking world. You are specifically not writing to the residents of Salinas. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I understand the first two, but I still think the gang problem should be mentioned in the Salinas article. Also, I did cite the source for the statistics of homicides, assaults, and robberies in Salinas, or did you consider it to be not a reliable source? I got the information from City-Data.com, which you probably saw in the source, but it may not be considered a legitimate resource. I will have to use statistics straight out of an FBI page instead. Also, I obviously had all of the sources from international news websites about how Salinas has some of the highest gang-related homicide rates in the country. I will bring it up on the talk page and we will see if a crime section is necessary. Just saying, some cities like Santa Rosa, California and Hillsboro, Oregon, which don't have very serious crime problems, have their own detailed crime sections. I don't know if that's recommended, though. Cyanidethistles (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
You may be missing my point. Crime is a very complicated subject. A discussion of a current crime trend really adds nothing to the article. Is the gang issue long term? Are there other historic issues pertaining to crime? If the gang issues are something that has developed in the last four years, are the issues caused by the gangs or is it merely a symptom of the general economic woes the entire country has been seeing? Can you find sources for and are you prepared to discuss all the issues involved? Is it possible that the law enforcement community is simply using the gang issue as a tool to pry more budget out of the strapped local tax base? Taxpayers will approve money to fight crime related to gangs because the thought of gangs scares them. Crime related to poverty is not going to increase a police department's budget one bit and may actually shrink it. As a subject of a section of an article on a mid-sized city, it isn't possible to give the subject enough coverage to adequately explain it without making the section so big that the readers perception will be, "Damn, this place must be as bad as Chicago in the 1920's" (which, BTW, was not nearly as bad as the public perception of it was). Do you see where I am going with this? The crime sections on the two articles you mentioned are relatively poorly written, with very dated material and provide a snapshot on crime for only one small period of time. I don't have the time or energy to go through the histories of the articles to see when they were added, but it is my guess that they were added at some point in the past with then-current information by a very well meaning editor, and have been neglected ever since. I don't have the time to fight on those articles for the information's removal, but it would have been better off never having been added, IMHO. You may wish to see an essay on the subject of how Wikipedians feel about the argument that "something is in that article, so it should be in this one" at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, John from Idegon. You have new messages at Buster7's talk page.
Message added 20:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AutomaticStrikeout  ?  20:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

D'Hanis, TX

Rather shocked you deleted my entry on D'Hanis and then deleted all references to the businesses in that tiny town. I entered the business I did because the owner is engaged in a fairly high profile national tour on behalf of Disney for the film "Planes" -- this is likely the biggest thing to happen in D'Hanis in decades and you deleted it. I don't live there, but, having been raised in a small town, it's a pretty big deal.<- Unsigned edit by User:chuckdevore

Sadly, User:chuckdevore, your edits include no refs. Your reinsertions are unconstructive. You should stop. David in DC (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
You should understand from my actions and the comments by the other very experienced editor here on this page that the article is about your town, not for your town, and that what is a big deal in your town matters not a whit as far as contents in the article about your town. The article is written for the whole English speaking world, not your town. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Your points on my page are well-taken. I tired last night, halfway through a project. I've more-or-less completed it today. Please read my responses on my talk page and my edits this morning.David in DC (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Junjunone

There's a name from the past. Anyway, he turned out to be a sock for ScienceApologist (see User:Previously ScienceApologist). SA is now asking for his block to be removed and this is being considered at AN[2]. I have opposed this, and cited as an example of his arrogance your post on his (Junjunone's) talk page[3]. Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Your violin/radio example made me think of. . . "I don't want to make a Watch; I just want to know what time it is." ```Buster Seven Talk07:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grosse Pointe South High School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Monroe High School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

The Center Line: Summer 2013

Volume 6, Issue 3 • Summer 2013 •About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—EdwardsBot (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank You!

Hi Gtwfan52,

I just wanted to personally say thank you for taking the time to assign the Great Question Badge on my page (and for answering the question), regarding my question about how to properly mark pieces of an article for deletion. I appreciate your doing so and I'm especially grateful for your sharing of knowledge.

My Best, Frank --FGuerino (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

/* Teahouse talkback: you've got messages! */ add

FYI, this new user has been complaining about Eric at the Teahouse for a while now. There have been several threads. Let's move those conversations away from the Teahouse and to user talk pages, where it is more appropriate, in my opinion. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I am going to go have a cool cup glass of iced tea and I may send you an email after... Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edit at Teahouse

(Moving this conversation here) Keri (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Please do not redact others comments at the Teahouse without discussing it first with Teahouse hosts at the talk page. The comments you removed were not personalized at anyone in any way, and the result of the discussion is that new users were educated about WP:AGF. Educating new users is the sole purpose of the Teahouse. You are not even a host at the Teahouse, and I do not recall ever seeing a question or an answer from you there. Why would you feel the need to suddenly show up and remove another's comment? In general, unless the thread is truly a violation of WP:NPA, or WP:OUT, we just hat disruptive edits, rather than revert them, as it is a Wikipedia policy not to refactor another's comments. I personally do not even see anything disruptive. Am I missing something? And what policy is it you were referring to when you said "per policy"? Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Point the first: Wikipedia:No personal attacks is a policy, not a guideline; I do not need to have a little discussion with you before removing blatant personal attacks made against Eric Corbett by another user. Secondly, the comments were specifically aimed at a specific editor and everyone was quite capable of figuring out who that was. Thirdly, a new user was not "educated" about AGF - a new user was educated about how to forum shop and make passive-aggressive digs at another user without any come-back. Next point: Yes, I am a host at the Teahouse - do your research next time. As for answers, again - do your research. Yes, you are clearly missing something. Oh, and in future, keep your patronising, passive-aggressive gobshitery off my talk page. Cheers. Keri (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your improvement to Birdsboro. I should have seen it myself. -- BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 19:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

Zak Bagans

Hi, the edit does not point to a film but rather to seven series of Ghost Adventures which is shown worldwide and of which Bagans is the director, executive producer, presenter and lead investigator. I can easily create an article on this person but they are not always required to suggest/prove notability.Jack1956 (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't really agree with you about notability not being required. The applicable policy is WP:NLIST, and the way I read it is that the subject either has to have an article or you have to show enough reliably sourced, independent referencing to show notability. For behind the camera people, that can be kind of hard to find. If you can show that, I certainly will not oppose replacing him in the list. Please refresh my memory as to what article we are talking about? Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
You removed his name from the list of attendees of Glenbard West High School. Strictly speaking he is a 'in front of the camera' person. I may have a look at writing him a separate article when I have a bit of time. Jack1956 (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
That would certainly be the best. If you put him back, please do it as a redlink. I watch tons of HS articles, and try to draw a pretty hard line on the notables list, as they tend to be magnets for WP:SCHOOLCRUFT. thanks! Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You have a reply at User talk:GabrielD2

Thanks for your ... um ... enthusiastic support.  :-) You have a reply on my talk page. I initially thought you were the same person as the user who left the initial message in that heading, so keep that in mind if anything I said seems odd, somehow. It's a bit too late for me to try to re-write the response, so I'll just leave this warning and assume you can figure out what I really meant. Thanks again.

GabrielD2 (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Boondock Brothers concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Boondock Brothers, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your article submission Boondock Brothers

Hello Gtwfan52. It has now been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Boondock Brothers.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Boondock Brothers}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ontario, Oregon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Wilcox (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_from_Idegon/Archive_18&oldid=1168302228"