Jump to content

User talk:John from Idegon/Archive 57

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60

Bishop Walsh School

Hey John, I'm trying to figure out what requirement you want to get a state title in Mock Trial on the BW high school webpage. I provided a primary source link from the CLREP organization that runs the competition and lists the winners. Your comment said I need a secondary source to show "someone outside the school cares." Can you explain that a bit more? I can give you write-ups in our local paper about Mock Trial. http://www.times-news.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/many-people-helped-make-mock-trial-teams-a-success/article_049e0efb-eabf-5d07-a79d-8c1690d36416.html this is just one of the archived articles in this newspaper and others about MD mock trial. Here is a link from our local TV station in Hagerstown that covered a match a few years back. http://www.your4state.com/news/news/students-on-trial-learning-about-the-justice-system. Maryland State Bar association newsletters and press releases about the Mock Trial champions are easily produced. I could give you dozens of links.

Just let me know what you need so this content can make it on the page, and I will get it for you. Thanks.

131.118.85.22 (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

What a pleasant surprise. If you look up this page you'll see several notes from students demanding I leave "their" article alone etc. Thank you for signing your note. Thanks for putting it in the right place. I've retitled this section, mainly to show you that the double square brackets make Wikilinks, but also to have a convenient link to the article in question.
There are two things in play here. One is WP:WEIGHT. It is fine to source the mere existence of academic teams and performing groups that compete on some venue to the school. However, we should discuss them all in just terms of existence. (You need to ask yourself when adding to a school article, "Will this matter to someone who has no attachment to the school at all?) It's a fair assumption that somewhere someone discussed these competitions in a reliable secondary source, even if they didn't discuss your school's entry. So you should add under Academics a referenced list of all academic teams. A separate section should be created for performance groups that compete such as band and choral.
School article guidelines tell us that achievement needs independent sourcing. A newspaper article (what you linked above is not an article; rather it is the weakest of all Op-ed, a letter to the editor) or a TV story covering the encyclopedic level achievement would be ideal, however, the sanctioning body's webpage that has the results of the contest can be used. We only discuss state championships, and make sure to name the sanctioning body (spell it out the first time with its acronym in parentheses after; subsequently just use the acronym. If the organization has an article on Wikipedia wikilink it.). No single team should have its own section. In no instance should you use phrasing like "has a long history of success", "powerhouse", "award-winning", etc. Just the facts, ma'am. Keep in mind always that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to reword and regurgitate information published elsewhere. It is not to promote and it most definitely isn't to disseminate information the students or the school think is important.
I hope this helped, and you're welcome to drop by with questions anytime. Thanks. P'S It might be good to think about registering an account. It makes communication much easier. John from Idegon (talk) 03:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I thought I did provide the official sanctioning body's results. The state champions are in the case book they give us every year, check the last page in the link I provided. I don't believe the CLREP (I can spell out that acronym in the article)lists their results anywhere else. It's the way they do things. I only know of one academic team in the high school that competes at the state level, and that's Mock Trial. So, there is your entire section. Again, I add verbage to say the same if needed.

I was providing some quick news links so you could see that "people outside the school care." I can find ones that aren't op eds. How many do you want?

131.118.85.22 (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok......so this is what I'd do:

In a new paragraph in the Academics section: BW's mock trial team competes in (if there are multiple types, list ) as a part of CLREP. (TV station ref) They won the state championship in 1994. (CLREP ref)

Holler if you need help. should be up another hour or do. John from Idegon (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll give that edit a go here soon..........ran out of time today.

131.118.85.22 (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Cypress Bay High School

Dear John. I have updated a lot of information regarding enrollment, graduation rates, etc which was reverted because of unreliable or not independent sources. The school belongs to Broward County Public School the single only source of reliable information about its enrollment is Broward County or the school itself. Do you disagree with this? I have included official or trustworthy sources for every piece of information I added or updated. The reverted version takes an outdated count from a website called schooldigger.com which isn't reliable in any way. Please let me know your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KikHolmes (talk • contribs) 00:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC) KikHolmes (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Schooldigger is reliable to a point. They are what we call an aggregator. Their source for enrollment is as reliable as it gets, NCES, and obviously it would be better to cite them, but the numbers are the same. NCES is preferred as a source as using them allows comparison between schools. Not every district releases their numbers in the same format publicly as they report to NCES. For the straight enrollment number, there's not many differences. However, in numbers associated with enrollment it does. Some districts formulate their public releases like the census numbers, with Hispanic counted as an ethnic group instead of a racial group. Some track different groups (in California, for some reason, they track people of Fillapino decent). By using NCES numbers, we have one source for staffing (enumeration of which is often manipulated in public releases. NCES is always in FTE), student-to-teacher ratio, demographics and enrollment. Having the most current number is far less important than having an evenly comparable number, as Wikipedia is not a newspaper but an encyclopedia, which by definition is tertiary. We don't care what the school has to say about itself. Hope this clears things up. You are to be commended for your use of secondary sources. We only source the most mundane of information to the school. Happy editing! John from Idegon (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear John. Thanks for your answer and clarification. I checked how the NCES reports data on this page http://nces.ed.gov/statprog/2002/std1_5.asp and they do it in the same way that the school district and county does it. So there should be no problem making a comparison between schools. I was also under the impression that wikipedia encourages editors to include current and up-to-date information. Please let me know if I'm wrong about any of this.
On a second note, do you think that a short summary (researched and with sources) of academic and extracurricular offerings or graduation/college attendance rates is trivial or irrelevant information? Or what is the problem? KikHolmes (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Again, independent sourcing is more important than a more up to date figure. You should use the most up to date independent figure available. In most states that is NCES, although some states do have one year newer numbers available from the state Department of Education. We have a concensus not to include graduation rates, and what we discuss for academic offerings is limited to AP, fine arts and any highly unique offerings (keep in mind they would need to be unique enough that they have been written about in reliable independent secondary sources such as newspapers, books, magazines or academic journals). As far as extracurricular offerings, it must be something that would have some interest outside the school. Academic teams should be included (under Academics, not in a separate section) and you can source their existence to the school if need be. Any achievement however must have an independent source and we only discuss the highest level of team achievement (that would be a team state championship or higher). We do not discuss individual achievement (that is for both students and staff. We also do not use student or staff names, except for people who are notable and the head of the school). Clubs should most likely not be discussed, as it is quite doubtful independent sourcing would exist for them and discussion of clubs tends to denigrate into a directory listing over time. For US schools, athletics has a big import, far greater than in other countries. A listing of the varsity teams is good. If possible it should be independently sourced like to the state athletics sanctioning body. Same restrictions on achievement as above. Don't name coaches, don't discuss individual games or seasons. Any rivalry that can be documented to independent sources should be included as should the team's nickname, the athletic conference affiliation and the school colors.
Hope this helps. If you need any help, feel free to drop me a note. John from Idegon (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
So in your view an aggregator of questionable authority and outdated information is more reliable than an updated governmental source? Or is being independent your ultimate test of whether a source should be used or not? In the latter case, how is the Department of Education more independent than the Broward County Public Schools District and where does NCES get its data from? Please help me clarify this KikHolmes (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not my position, it's the basic nature of an encyclopedia. As a tertiary source, an encyclopedia's content comes from independent sources. It is simply what this is. Sorry if you find that confusing, but it is what it is. We are not an almanac or a newspaper. John from Idegon (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear John, unfortunately you did not answer my question. I disagree that your rollback was useful. As I understand it, the objective of Wikipedia is to be as reliable and up-to-date an encyclopedia as possible and your rollbacks made it less so. Governmental sources are more reliable than aggregators of questionable authority that (as you know) simply regurgitate (when accurate) the same information provided by the governmental source. There is no logical reason to use outdated information simply because your favorite aggregator did not yet update it. By your logic, a huge amount of factual information would be gone from Wikipedia for using official reliable sources instead of less reliable and outdated independent ones. Since it seems like we can't have a consensus on this I suppose we will need a third opinion about it. Or what do you think? KikHolmes (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

"Middle schools" in China are often full secondary/senior high schools

Hi, John! I noticed this redirect of a Chinese secondary school.

In fact when Chinese say "Middle School" they often mean "secondary school" or 中学 (which really means any secondary school). The actual Chinese word for our (American) understanding of a "middle school" (lower secondary) is 初中 while senior high is 高中 ("gaozhong"). A "zhongxue" often has both levels.

It's important for WP:SCHOOLS editors, when dealing with Chinese schools, to check if the "Middle School" has a senior high department. If yes, don't redirect. If not, redirect. If you need help, contact Wikipedia:WikiProject China editors. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the education! Perhaps you might consider adding some language to WP:WPSCH/AG#N to that effect? John from Idegon (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Great idea! I'll do it ASAP :) WhisperToMe (talk) 08:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Done WhisperToMe (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Ugh, there is more

I just found Stone-Creek River. Speedy? Might be worth checking if this is the same user creating this? I'd do it but I have to go afk for a while right now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Piotrus, they are all deleted, at AfD or nominated for speedy. Removed links to the nominated articles in real-world place articles. Had a not too constructive talk with the author. It may be advisable for someone else to do the same. John from Idegon (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Piotrus - update. User in question is on a 31 hour block for disruptive editing and has changed his username to ACvoltage. John from Idegon (talk) 03:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Question

Hello J. I hope that you are well. I am wondering about your comment with this close. Unless I am missing something KrakatoaKatie is the OP so you might want to amend your statement. If I am misreading things please ignore and feel free to remove this post. MarnetteD|Talk 20:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

So true. I try to avoid using names in this kind of close, but it appears unavoidable. Thanks for catching that. Celebrating the end of silly season, John from Idegon (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
You are welcome. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 21:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hauser Dam

I noticed you reverted my edit on Hauser Dam, putting back the misinformation I removed. If you look at the citations for the information I removed, you'll notice they do not support the claim in the article. ACvoltage (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Then edit it so it does. You supported your edit by stating you were there and know better. That doesn't fly. John from Idegon (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

"Then edit it so it does" This is what I did by removing the misinformation. If information is not supported by a citation, you do not put it back. ACvoltage (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I have edited it so it does match what the source says and dated the edit as such so the reader will know when that was accurate. Unless you can find a source that says "access was restored on xx date", you shouldn't remove the sourced content. It may seem strange to you, but you have had more than one editor explain to you that verifiability is more important than accuracy from your point of view. Find sources, then make your edit. Please confine discussion of this article's content to the article's talk page. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

admin review

not sure why you have chosen to assist knowledgekid and his sock Icarus - both endlessly AND I MEAN ENDLESSLY push the same bias on the current portal for years now --98.167.185.72 (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
and as for the admin review they or should I say he know that I cannot even defend myself there since anons cannot post there--98.167.185.72 (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I am not assisting anyone...I pointed out to him that his complaint was deficient. I pointed that out to him because complaints unsubstantiated by evidence are no better than a personal attack. I am pointing the same thing out to you about your accusation of sockpuppetry above. If you have a case take it to SPI. If not, don't say it. Simple enough? There is no need to continue this dialogue. It is of no import to me and I will not respond further. John from Idegon (talk) 05:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

George Washington High School

I would like to discuss the edits made regarding the Speech and Debate section as well as the removal of the International Baccalaureate section. You said it was unencyclopedic and I would like to know edits I can make to correct any faults in the information. Personally I feel as though it is within the parameters of encyclopedic conditions as it provides information on the school in more areas than just its demographics, both programs are a large aspects of life at this school. Other schools such as East High School (Denver) have sections on speech and debate and other programs as similar and have not been removed for being "unencyclopedic". Please let me know what I can do if anything to correct what you are looking for. And as well for the IB Section, the claims of it being first are all evident from the GWHS IB website which provides the history of this schools program, please let me know what is the issue in this case as I would like to correct whatever I am not currently realizing. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benapearl (talk • contribs) 19:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Take your discussion to the article's talk page and see the book I wrote there yesterday. How is it that three separate editors are making the exact same edit? John from Idegon (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank You

Buster Seven Talk 13:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Brookfield East High School

Hey John, Noticed you reverted the BEHS page again, I added references to large portions of the page. Why revert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhanson96 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

See Talk:Brookfield East High School. Please sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). And do not keep replacing material that is under dispute. That can lead to you being blocked. See the article talk page and contribute to the discussion there. Thanks, Jhanson96. I will not be able to respond for quite a while. RL, you know. John from Idegon (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Question About Third Opinion

You asked whether there is a problem at third opinion. There is a volunteer problem. We have a shortage of volunteers in many areas, including Articles for Creation and New Pages Patrol. The WMF doesn't help and doesn't understand, but that is a separate point. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I used to do work at AfC, mostly in conjunction with the work I used to do at Teahouse, but I don't spend much time with either lately. I've been contemplating asking for NPP rights, having followed the discussion at Kudpung's page. I can help out a bit at 3O, but I have a question. Would my role as co-coordinator at WP:WPSCH make commenting at school articles a WP:COI? John from Idegon (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
User:John from Idegon How much do you get paid as coordinator at WP:WPSCH? In order to avoid a conflict of interest at third opinions on schools, you might have to give away your pay. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Sterling Heights High School

Hay Dude I was a student at Sterling Heights High School I know that my school Opened The Same year that Walt Disney Would Opened. Please keep it on there and the thing about Flynn http://boc.macombgov.org/BOC-District04 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby232332 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

You obviously do not understand what this is. Please spend some time reading the links on your talk page. If anything needs clarification, I'll be happy to help. Your additions to the article were completely inappropriate. It's irrelevant to an understanding of the school to know that an amusement park 2000 miles away opened the same year, not to mention that nugget of useless knowledge was not referenced. County commissioners are generally not notable. You must prove both notability and attendance to add someone to a notable alumni list. You do this with Wikilinking and or references. What you know is irrelevant. If you don't understand why, you have much to learn. If you don't care to make an effort to do so, I'm afraid no one will be able to help you. This is an encyclopedia not social media or a blog. John from Idegon (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Whisperback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 08:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your response the other day. I will read what you included to see how I can improve. I love editing wikipedia. I am sorry for my tone. I was angry my hard work was erased, but I will learn the rules! Stephanie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephaniesoftball (talk • contribs) 10:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi John from Idegon,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion

Hi John, would you have a moment to look at the edits of User:Ytfghhvfgf? I'm trying to figure out the purpose of some of the redirects to Happy Valley (Pennsylvania). The editor states that it is a "region", though GNIS lists it as a populated place. These may all be correct edits, but I need a second opinion. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

What the hell is it with Scranton, anyway?

It cant just be because of that TV program. Anmccaff (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

That was my thought. Lake Scranton isn't even a significant pond. John from Idegon (talk) 06:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, John from Idegon. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Is Vito Inghilleri notable?

You reverted my reversion... I'm missing something, aren't I? Zupotachyon (talk) 03:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

No. Well sort of. you're missing the joy of editing from a small screen android device. I was aiming at a diff button on my watch list but hit the rollback button for the edit above. I've self reverted. I'd like to say it won't happen again but that would be a lie. I hope it doesn't happen again tonite, lol. I seldom use rollback. If you see a rollback without an edit summary from me feel free to revert on sight. It just means I tripped over my fat fingers again. John from Idegon (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Earlier today I tried editing from my phone, and that did not end well. My commiserations. Zupotachyon (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Pinawa

Hi John, you and I do a lot of small town edits and you may want to comment on the discussion at Talk:Pinawa. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Magnolia677. Sorry for the delay. Thanksgiving week is very busy IRL for me. I generally stay out of things outside the good old US of A. But I do agree with you. Something to ponder: Really, doesn't every settlement require disambiguation? With a few exceptions, either due to extreme notability (Paris, London) or the very rare made up name, settlement names are NEVER unique. They are either named after a geographic feature, a person, another settlement or rarely a thing. John from Idegon (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Online degree mill

Any idea how to handle this draft? Draft:Los Angeles University Speedy G11? Or do we have to wait for it to hit article space? Since it's in draft space I don't think there is anything stopping me from editing it directly. Note that the two accrediting groups are real but neither of them lists this supposed university. It's also interesting that the article says this university was founded in 2016 but their webpage is copyright 2014 (and has a picture of what appears to be UCLA). Meters (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Interesting question. Perhaps ask at the Universities WikiProject. My feeling is to let it alone as it is a draft but communicate with the creator about the need for reliable secondary sources and suggest AfC. Perhaps even boldly add the AfC template to it as a not so subtle hint. I think from the description it will need to meet WP:CORP but I'm not completely fluent on how the school exception applies to higher education. John from Idegon (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Meters (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Service High School

How is my information unencyclopedic? Would you please elaborate on what I did wrong? Funibon (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Just opened up a section at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Spartanburg, South Carolina. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

On creating an essay

I don't want to take up your time; just a quick note of appreciation for the way you introduced yourself at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#On_creating_an_essay. I have similar sentiments about the TeaHouse, and your comments put a big smile on my face.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_from_Idegon/Archive_57&oldid=1076069979"