Jump to content

User talk:John from Idegon/Archive 40

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42→Archive 45

Walnut Hills

Why are those edits encyclopedic? Walnut has a lot of clubs and some of them, I thought, should be addressed rather than just the Latin Club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vensmash10 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

They're not. They're unencyclopedic. When a school article is as large as the one we are talking about, we do not mention every club. The only achievements we discuss are the ultimate" achievements in the field you participate in. The achievements mentioned were not. They were removed because I noticed the change you made adding them. I don't know how long the Latin club stuff has been there, but it isn't the best content either. A new addition is much more likely to be removed than long standing content.
When you post on a talk page, new posts go at the bottom, and you must sign your post by typing four tildes (~~~~). ThanksJohn from Idegon (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Jim Brown edit

So you are saying that if a jury finds someone not guilty, then mentioning the charges and trial is defamation and a violation of Wikipedia's policy? How fortunate for Jim Brown's reputation considering how many times that happened! I obviously don't believe you but I am done with this craziness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunthertoody (talk • contribs) 03:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Have a great evening. John from Idegon (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

T.J. Maloney edit

Hello John I think the section concerning the lawsuits are unfair to Mr. Maloney as all allegations were either drastically reduced or dismissed. I will attempt to re-edit the section.Buttsco (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

That would be great. Please make any further discussion on the article's talk page thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

John Thanks for the clarifications. I need to more fully immerse myself into the Wiki mindset. Buttsco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttsco (talk • contribs) 22:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Redirects

Hi John. You don't need to send articles like this to AfD. You can do it yourself. It's quite uncontentious. Just be sure that the schools project banner is on the talk page and that you include the {{R from school}} template on the redirect. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung. This was contentious. I had redireted it two years ago and someone undid it yesterday. John from Idegon (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Controversial maybe, but not necessarily contentious. If someone undoes a redirect like that one which you are sure should be a redirect, and you are one editor who does know the principles involved, then you can BRD and ask an admin to protect the page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok! On a related note, and possibly out of your expertise, do you think the same procedure (boldly redirect) would be ok for the numerous fire and police department articles that are not notable? John from Idegon (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
For many years, I, and other admins such as DGG, have fought to uphold some guidelines of sanity for the notability of educational establishments, and I've been a coordinator of the schools project since we had only half the number of schools we have today, but while I am aware of some other types of articles, such as human settlements etc., that enjoy inherent notability, as far as fire departments and police stations are concerned I'm afraid I'm out of my depth. I have an article languishing in my user space for years about places of worship for which I did some very extensive and intense research, but until I can find out what the guidelines are for church buildings, I am reluctant to move it to mainspace and have probably wasted my time on it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
That is why I stick to schools and places....I like the "comfort" of knowing what is and isn't notable. It is my feeling that in order to survive, eventually wikipedia is going to have to shift to a more "set in stone" group of notability guidelines, with IAR in reserve for unusual cases. My take on PD and FD articles is drawn from how we treat schools that do not have automatic notability. If the only stories on a police department are crime storie, if the only stories on a fire department are fire stories, then they are not notable. It would be more "notable" to NOT have stories on crime and fire, I think. John from Idegon (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
To be absolutely honest, our notability system is a total convoluted and complexx mess. Take for example the injustice where every soccer player get an article with the only source being on the reserve list of a major league team or having played only one professional game, while lifelong academics have to jump through a whole raft of hoops. One person whose interpretations on notability I really trust is DGG; there are others of course who are just as well informed, particularly among those of our editors who are lawyers, but I know DGG personally and I know the kind of work he does or did in RL, plus he's been around on WP and in RL a very long time. There's an interesting discussion about notability for journalists on his talk page right now. I know he's very committed at the moment to his role at Arbcom, but if there is really a need to find a notability bright line, he's one of themost clued up guys to ask. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
My general approach is, just as Kudpung says, to try to find a bright line (admitted there can be occasional exceptions). The GNG based approach tends to result in quibbling about wether a source is sufficiently substantial or independent, and in most disputable case could easily be argued in either direct.-- as a consequence results from using it are too variable. Clear dividing lines are simple to apply and save time, make for consistency, and guide new editors. It's particularly important to give them clear signals whether the topic they propose to work on will or will not be considered acceptable. We could have a decent encycopedia with many different levels of notability; we will not have one long without the continued recruitment of new people. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Kudpung, please take a look at Carman-Ainsworth High School. Got a long time user edit warring with me over his redirect of this high school article to the school district, ignoring my suggestion to stop and take it to AfD. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
With the caveat that none of our notability criteria are in fact anchored in policies and that at best they are guidelines, like several other topic areas mainstream high schools enjoy relative inherent notability. In the absence of a written declaration, the thousands of kept articles at AfD clearly document a long-standing precedent uphelp by the members of the community who know about and understand these exceptions. The editwar is not quite a 3r but it is most definitely an edit war and a warning might be appropriate. That said, to clear the air anyone can take the article to AfD where IMO it will almost certainly result in 'keep'. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I was at 3rr on it, but another admin (Arxiloxos) has reverted him too. One of his edit summaries was very troubling to me. We'll see where it goes from here. He is at 3rr too so if he reverts again, I am guessing that Arxiloxos will mop it up. John from Idegon (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, just a plain old editor [and thanks to the old gods and the new for that :-) ]. On the merits: this is a sizable public high school with a long history and notable alumni, so unless the standards currently applied to high schools are changed drastically, there's little doubt it would be kept. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Arxiloxos had you confused with someone else. Please let me know if he reverts again. I will take him ANEW. John from Idegon (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Shibban Lal Saxena

Hey I had to remove the blp prod from Shibban Lal Saxena, it says he was born in 1906 so its highly unlikely he is alive so its not eligible for a BLP prod. Wgolf (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Arapahoe High article

You left a warning at User_talk:2601:8:9780:1EE:F851:E413:9459:41D4 for supposed violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Who is the living individual you are referring to?

Additionally, the template references "unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content". What about the edit in question is defamatory? 2601:8:9780:1EE:F851:E413:9459:41D4 (talk) 08:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Start a discussion on the article talk page. I'll respond after work tomorrow. Wikipedia has no deadlines. John from Idegon (talk) 08:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Those were easy questions. I am restoring the article. 2601:8:9780:1EE:F851:E413:9459:41D4 (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
To do so risks getting yourself blocked. You were asked to cite your edit, you were asked to discuss your edit. Again, I tell you, although you seem not to want to hear it: Additions to Wikipedia need to be justified and a consensus for them needs to exist. If someone disagrees with your edit, you cannot replace it until you have a consensus to do so. and Wikipedia has no deadline. I'll take up a discussion with you tomorrow. Again it is not on me to justify the removal. It is on you to justify the addition. How else do you suppose it could work? What is your source for the information you are adding? John from Idegon (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
If you revert again, you will cross the bright line of WP:3RR and you will be blocked. Just do it the way you are supposed to and go start a discussion on the article's talk page and get a consensus for your addition. John from Idegon (talk) 09:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Reversion 1, you: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arapahoe_High_School_(Colorado)&diff=665371833&oldid=665369131 Reversion 1, me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arapahoe_High_School_(Colorado)&diff=665435209&oldid=665372961 Reversion 2, you: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arapahoe_High_School_(Colorado)&diff=665439438&oldid=665435209 Reversion 2, me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arapahoe_High_School_(Colorado)&diff=665443396&oldid=665439438 Reversion 3, you: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arapahoe_High_School_(Colorado)&diff=665443677&oldid=665443396 Thank you for pointing out that you have violated the three-revert rule. I will wait a day or so before reverting, but please try to avoid violating Wikipedia policy in the future. 2601:8:9780:1EE:F851:E413:9459:41D4 (talk) 09:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, apparently the rule is more than three reverts, so you haven't violated it. You have come close though. 2601:8:9780:1EE:F851:E413:9459:41D4 (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
If you are unable to offer a reasoned argument for why the additions are a problem, you can leave a Template:Citation needed tag until you are able to do so. Your stated reasons for reverting the article are unjustifiable. An observer would not even be able to say you have read the edit in question. All the additions are supported by news articles on mainstream sites; it is not difficult to find relevant articles. However, you have not shown the material is such that there is any need for me to do so. 2601:8:9780:1EE:F851:E413:9459:41D4 (talk) 09:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I showed you i disagreed with it by removing it. If ANY editor disagrees with an addition you have made, you are required to form a consensus for it. I cannot explain it any clearer than that. No one has a RIGHT to make an addition to wikipedia. All content is decided by consensus. You do not have one. Start a discussion, citing these sources you mention and also referencing policy as to why we should be adding any more to the description of this event which is already way too long. In case you are not aware, there was an article on this event at one time which was deleted because the community deemed it not important enough to have an article on it. John from Idegon (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Have you read the edit in question? 2601:8:9780:1EE:F851:E413:9459:41D4 (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
If you are not even willing to read a short edit made by a user, there is no reason to think you will read a lengthy article which supports particular sentences within that edit. While reverting the article at this time would not be a violation of Wikipedia's rules, I am not trying to harm the project so will wait a reasonable period of time for you to read more about the incident in question. 2601:8:9780:1EE:F851:E413:9459:41D4 (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes. And I am going to bed. Gain a consensus for the material you want to add. I'm not trying to be difficult. That is how it works. at this point no one cares about this but me and you. You added something. I removed it. The way it works (see WP:BRD) is that then you justify your addition. You are refusing to do that. Please do not post any more here. it is much more productive for you to make your arguements at the article's talk page. My feeling is any further descriptive content on the event is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. I will soon be reducing the content greatly as it is. Adding more to it only takes away from the overall quality of the article. There is much much more to this school that something that occured in 10 minutes on one day. And I will be happy to present a case for removal of any and all content I remove, just as I am asking you to do for the content you want to add. It is up to the person making the change to the content in the article to defend their addition (in your case) or subtraction (in my case when I start pruning). John from Idegon (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

And you need to be patient. Again, WP:Wikipedia has no deadline. I am a volunteer, as you are. You need to understand that people will not nessecarily reply promtly to your messages. John from Idegon (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Top Warning Box

Hi John, please direct me on how to have an old exclamation box removed from the top of a wiki page I authored: The_Rip_Chords I did serious editing on it for over three months after that warning box appeared to fix all questions raised, and greatly shorted the article removing many large paragraphs. The warning box remains and with the old date. I'm not sure of the process to have it reviewed. Thanks for any insight you might provide. Thanks! TL001 (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

i would be glad to tell you, but the article is still in need of those warnings. A good half of the references cite original research. This is totally unacceptable. All material sourced to anything other than previously published sources needs to be removed from the article. Encyclopedias are not the place for original research. All content in the encyclopedia does not have to have references attached, but all content must come from previously published sources. Not most not some---ALL. John from Idegon (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Alan Sayers

Hi John,

I am Alan Sayers' IT support and have been tasked by himself to edit the information about him as there are a lot of mistakes. He needs this done asap because people will be looking him up due to his recently released book being circulated around.

You have said in your message to me that I didn't indicate a reliable source. This is my first time editing for someone in Wiki. Can you please advise how I can do this? Especially that I have been asked to do it by the person himself?

Thank you.

Marvin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctoritnz (talk • contribs) 07:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Any material that is referenced to reliable sources must stay in the article. The subject of the article has no say in its content. All content in the encyclopedia needs to come form reliable sources. You have a conflict of interest and have no business editing the article directly. If you wish to challenge any of the content in the article, post a request at the article's talk page. Please note that anything you have garnered from conversations with the subject of the article is not fodder for adding content to the article. If you challenge any content in the article, you must do so with published sources that contradict the established content. Please read WP:RS, and most importantly WP:COI John from Idegon (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182 needs your help again.

Hi John from Idegon.  Once again I need the help of someone experienced.  But this time it's not technical but more like "political."  I'm trying to correct an error in an article.  I made the appropriate correction, which was promptly reverted.  Rather than getting involved in an "editing war," I contacted the reverter and tried to work something out, but to no avail.  So I started a discussion on the article's talk page.  All I ask of you is to check it out and weigh in with your opinion. The talk page is Talk:Wanderer of the Wasteland (1945 film). Thanks!
Richard27182 (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Howdy, Richard. A couple things. Your discussion on the article's talk page was a bit misfocused, which may be causing a reluctance on the part of the other party to work with you. In a talk page discussion, discuss ONLY the material, not the motivations or your opinion of them, of the other editor(s). You have not cited any reliable sources, whereas the material you are wanting to change is supposedly cited to a book. I like your spirit of compromise, and you made a great choice for an article to start working on consensus building. You, the creator and the editor that reverted you are the only ones who have ever edited that page. Onel5969 is a fine editor and if you approach him politely and try to discuss the issue with him, you may be able to find a workable solution. I pinged him in this discussion, and perhaps that will motivate him to join your discussion at the article's talk page. he is a very busy editor tho, so be patient. Happy editing. FYI, please put my talk page and the article's talk page on your watchlist. I don't generally leave talkback templates unless asked.
OK....now I have seen your discussion on One-l's talk page and I find his explanation perfectly plausable. You aren't going to win this one, pardner. Just like the prior discussion we had on JR, although you are technically correct, that does not make you right. Encyclopedias (all of them, not just Wikipedia) are entirely based on published sources. If the best published sources are calling it something different than what you think it should be called, then their version is what is going to be here. A bunch of websites with no editorial or academic oversite are not going to trump university published scholarly books.John from Idegon (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

Re: Possibly living

Not sure-you could ask this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Canadian_Paul he tends to find the info about them and has this page also User:Canadian Paul/Nonagenarians. Wgolf (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Idaho edits

Hi John I do not understand your reversion of the pushpin maps for the US. How is it not useful when it gives context to where the location is in the US? Why do you think it is ok for Arcadia,_California[1] but not for cities in Idaho?--Cs california (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The diff you improperly posted says nothing about my approval or lack of it on the California article. I oppose this, and don't play dumb. There is a discussion going on at the Cities wikiproject on the usefulness of these insertions and NO ONE has sided with you on it. You are effectively editing against consensus on a very wide scale, and when an RfC gets done, which it will soon, and you are told the community does not want this, it is going to created a hell of a lot of work for other editors to revert. Just stop until this gets figured out please. In the meantime, I will revert it on every small town in Indiana, Michigan, Idaho or Oregon you add it to. So save yourself the trouble and just don't add it. John from Idegon (talk) 04:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
If you have been keeping up you would know there is consensus via:

Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus.

— Wikipedia:Consensus#Reaching_consensus_through_editing

As for the small Wikiproject decision under:

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.

— Wikipedia:Consensus#Level_of_consensus

. I do not see any of you adding rebuttals either --Cs california (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

blah blah blah....take it to the article talk pages and stay off mine. understand, or do you need a map? John from Idegon (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

Bots


You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

4im warnings

Recently you placed a 4im warning with this diff. Not only were the edits not vandalism, they were trying to be constructive. Such warnings are never helpful right of the bat, especially since the contributor is acting in good faith as evidenced by their teahouse post. Please refrain from jumping straight to the 4im warnings for good faith contributors as they are extremely bitey. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. He has made good faith edits, but good faith is not a suicide pact. I left him a welcome template first; his response was to blank the article. I left him a linked edit summary explaining his errors in capitalization, his response was to edit war over them. He added typical schoolcruft boosterism crap, I reverted it with an edit summary of promo. He did it again. I responded with the level 4 warning, with added text explaining the problem and extending a hand to him to help, which I followed up with a link to the Teahouse, undoubtedly how he found his way there. He is a SPA editor, with no interest in anything other than the particular school he is editing on, who had not responded to anything in a constructive manner. I got his attention and now he is presumably doing something constructive. That reads as a victory to me. Sorry you don't see it that way. BTW, I have replied to him at the teahouse. I have worked with new editors ever since I was one myself. It is my experience that some people need to get bit to get the point. After trying it the nice way, and getting no response, I bit him. One of two things could happen at that juncture. Either he will wake up and realize that he needs help, get it and we have a good editor retained. Or, he will continue to be obstructive, get blocked and be gone, and we have a bad editor no longer causing problems for good editors and burning them out. Sounds like a win/win to me. Obviously, your methods may vary. Variety is the spice of life. Happy editing! John from Idegon (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear John from Idgeon, Hi!:) I'm still new here; you can please call me "G.T.". Sorry to be any bit o' a bother, But, have a ? that follows up on a bit o' helpful advice you gave another dutiful user/editor here... Reference to: your words to the effect of...'if it persists you can contact an admin here and they(lousy, destructive, undoing 'hiders') will be blocked...' Just how exactly please does 1 contact 1 of these so-called "Admin(istrator)(s) here about Lousy, 'time-wasters' who undo the hard, UNPAID, work of people who edit truthfully & can back it up with OFFICIAL citations; AND WHO WON'T EVER GIVE UP `TIL ALL AVENUES HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED ?... Thanking you in advance for any & all help in the matter=) --Da Famous Teddy R. (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

Rondae Hollis-Jefferson

You do realize that Hollis Jefferson will likely be a lottery pick in the 2015 NBA draft, right? ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you realize that this is an encyclopedia and we deal in facts, not supposition? FYI, being drafted won't make him notable either. Have you even bothered to read the notability requirements for athletes? Do you even know what notability is? John from Idegon (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
being drafted WOULD make him notable, which doesn't matter because he is notable already. Have YOU actually bothered to read the notability guidelines for athletes? ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of his draft status, RHJ meets WP:GNG right now, which supersedes WP:NCOLLATH. Once he is drafted, he will also meet WP:NBASKETBALL, making him notable x2. Rikster2 (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Our Lady of the Lakes High School (Michigan) ‎

Hi John from Idegon,

I have used identical language and identical topics (i.e.; head football coach's win records) from existing pages in developing the page I am currently working on. Why are personal accomplishments, such as those in "Brother Rice High School (Michigan) head football coaching record" allowed, but I cant use them. I have looked at dozens of pages with that type of information. Not sure why those were all approved but mine are not.

I did not develop the "Our Lady of the Lakes High School (Michigan)" page. I'm just trying to improve it and trying to edit out the laughable, erroneous information that is on the page. I am using only factual, documented information, unlike who ever developed the page initially. I am active with the high school, and attended it, as did my children. Those of us at the school are not happy with the misinformation that has previously been put on the page about our school. The historical information, for example, has hints of the truth in it, but it is mostly urban legend and unfounded. Also, "Notre Dame du Lac" isn't what the school is called by anyone, so why is it in the name? Furthermore, that is French, not Latin. In Latin it would be "Dominae Nostrae a Lacu".

As for Our Lady of the Lakes not being a high school, it most certainly is. It is a separate building and was built in 1960. The elementary school is on the same campus and was built in 1956 Both schools, in fact, have different addresses.

You have been extremely critical of what I have written, and rightfully so, as I do not know all of the rules here. I'm only trying to get the information about the school correct; something the original developer of the page failed to do.

Please help us get this corrected.

Thank you. Donerpass (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi John from Idegon, you removed twice the Robotics reference stating "(→‎Robotics: unreferenced, undue weight, unencyclopedic claims)" so I can add a reference, but I am not sure what do do with "undue weight" or "encyclopedic claims" How would I address those concerns? Richtop (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Marching Band

Okay explain to me this, why are you going to delete my edits about a principal and an edit about the Jackson High School marching band that gets to play over at that Outback Bowl? I cited both of them and then you deleted them. Why?


Sincerlery Jackson Viking

First, you sign all talk page posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Second, I am not even going to honor that with a reply. You know exactly why your edit to the band section was deleted. Your cute little games may have been entertaining to your middle school playmates, but it is not entertaining here. Do not post to my talk page again. If you have a content dispute with me, put it on the article's talk page. Any posting from you here will earn you a quick trip to a noticeboard. BTW, you misspelled "sincerely". John from Idegon (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hello John from Idegon Thanks for your opinion! I will be a bit more experienced when I come back to the teahouse. Happy editing! Gibboboy 25 June 2015 10:07 (UTC)

Homestead HS

Thanks for the note. I was under the impression that pretty much all US high schools were either just the school name, e.g. Bloomington High School South, or city-and-state disambiguated, e.g. Heritage High School (Monroeville, Indiana). A quick check of Category:Public high schools in Indiana demonstrated that you were right and I was wrong, so I deleted the redirect and moved the page. Nyttend (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Thank you. You are truly a Wikimensch! John from Idegon (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

Another question from Richard27182

Hi John from Idegon.
      I'm asking two or three editors this question.  It's an unusual question that I don't think is likely to show up under any of the Wikipedia policies, and I'm hoping you can answer it for me.  Suppose I'm considering making a small change to an article.  Would it be OK to contact the author of the article (or the author of the section I'm considering modifying) in advance on their own talk page just to run the idea past them and get an idea of what kind of reaction the modification would draw?  I don't think this would count as "canvassing" since, if anything, the editor I would be contacting would be more likely to be biased against my point of view since I'd be suggesting modifying something he wrote.  The whole purpose would be to try to avoid getting into any more contentious, argumentative battles like the one I'm currently involved in concerning Technicolor terminology.  As always, thank you for your help and advice.
Richard27182 (talk) 05:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 28 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Khari Willis

John, honest to God what the heck was wrong with my most recent edit? It's not copy and pasted because I've reworded it and Willis has stated in multiple press conferences he wants to study to be a denfseive attorney. JacksonViking (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources for the above claim? And to apply logic, what relationship do you see in his (supposed, uncited) claim of a career choice and the availability of a graduate level major to a freshman? When I attended MSU, you didn't even declare a major until second semester of your sophomore year. But for sake of argument, lets suppose he has declared a major. How can he declare a major that does not exist? Note that "law" is not on this list.
As far as the rest goes, it sure looks like a very close paraphrase if not a word for word copy from the source for at least one entire paragraph. That makes it still a copyright violation. If you don't understand that, all I can do is refer you to WP:CIR.
But the most telling thing in your edits today to this article is your "giving the finger to Wikipedia" move of removing the BLP sources template and replacing it with a good article template. Not that you will listen, but here's a clue for you: You do not find good articles listed at AfD. Ever.
And further indication of your lack of ability to work in a collaborative environment: You were told to stay off my talk page, but yet, here we are. Hmmmm. John from Idegon (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Why am i not allowed on your talk page but youre always dirtying up mine? How can anyone even cite anything if we can't paraphrase? Isn't that the purpose of citation? JacksonViking (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you intend to discuss any of the issues I've raised here? John from Idegon (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the good article part, I paraphrased the vilation and I do not know how to contact folks to colaborate. JacksonViking (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No, you didn't. I reverted your removal of the BLP reference tag and your addition of the good article template. I did that, not you. So why did you do that, and why did you just lie about doing that? And what about the "major" thing. What is your explanation for purposely inserting incorrect information into the article? John from Idegon (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
What information is incorrect Khari definitely tore that Guys Achilles JacksonViking (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Futurewiki / User:Mega256

Hi John. What a mess this vandal is making. Because he and I edit many of the same articles on the southern US, I've been able to spot him right away and report him to ANI. Within minutes he's been blocked. Not sure why this hasn't happend this time, but the cleanup will be pretty big. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_from_Idegon/Archive_40&oldid=1143093053"