User talk:John from Idegon/Archive 84

Archive 80

←

Archive 82

Archive 83

Archive 84

Archive 85

Archive 86

→

Archive 90

Revert of "Ann Arbor" edit

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

---

Regarding the reversion of "Ann Arbor", no hard feelings, but I'd like to discuss that (and my editing in general). I'm not a seasoned Wikipedia editor, but I'd like to start contributing more to Wikipedia (and hopefully not harm it). I've been trying to edit footnotes (mainly because I like citations that include quotes and are easily verifiable, and because I don't like when explanatory footnotes are included in the "References" section or citations under the "Notes" section). I never understood shortened citation until I started editing citations, therefore, I was hoping to write shortened citations in a style/format that would be uncomfortably obvious even for readers who aren't familiar with shortened citations ("See (wikilink to full citation), p. ___: "relavant quote"."). I posted the idea here (abbreviating "page" as "pg." wasn't received very well), and while I'm familiar with the Wikipedia policy/concept that most ideas are bad and that mine are probably no exception, I have a preference to this style, and a very strong preference for separating explanatory notes/caveat from citations. For the reversion, I was wondering what you thought of the reference style overall (I would defend it as being consistent in terms of shortened citations), or if your main objection was changing the date format format to (YYYY-MM-DD) for some of the citations but not all (or maybe that my edit summary was cut short by an unfortunate press of the "Enter" key). I was wondering your opinion of redoing the short citations as "See (wikilink), p. ___" (or at least adding the wikilinks back, which maybe aren't "needed", but I would defend as being a helpful addition) while maintaining all of the dates as they are, or, for the love of god, removing notes/caveats from the "References" section. Thank you. Bfoshizzle1 (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Bfoshizzle1, there's a couple axioms from life in general that apply here. First, a folk expression "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". People other than you put in a tremendous amount of effort creating that article. After a feature article has been created an expanded, it is copyedited by a very experienced editor that specializes in that, and then it is dissected line by line, source by source by yet another editor and the process goes back and forth till every criteria is met. It can take up to a year. The other axiom is the Hippocratic Oath - "Firstly, do no harm". Uniformity in citation style is a requirement for good and feature article status. Mucking around with citations can cause the article to be demoted. As far as the census bureau goes, it is already linked in the text of the article. We only wikilink a term once in any article. If you create an article, you're allowed to use whatever cite style you want. When editing existing articles, it's only polite to follow the existing style. Another thing to keep in mind please - this is an entirely volunteer activity. Me, you, the administration all our fellow editors - all volunteers. Please try to keep your communication brief and on point. Although almost any editor will be happy to answer specific questions from you, your "feelings" on whether a particular style might be better are not on point, except possibly on the specific guidelines talk page. Long rambling posts like yours here take time to digest and respond to. That is time the other editor cannot use to work on the encyclopedia. There is unfortunately only a few training aids available for new editors. Wikipedia was much smaller when I started and there was a one on one training program called ADOPTION. It's still extant, but barely. Since everyone is a volunteer, there simply aren't that many editors that want to do that. The best things going now are The Wikiadventure (a video game like simulation) and Teahouse (a q&a forum just for new editors). I'll leave you a Teahouse invite, and you can find info on WA there. John from Idegon (talk) 06:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I can come off as rambling... that's a fair point, but apparently there is a misunderstanding: I was specifically referring to the wiki-links between the shortened citation and the full citation, not to the publisher listed in the citation (that's just something I encountered and liked, but if that's the issue, that can be omitted). In terms of shortened citations specifically, they all were referring to the same full citation, and were all done according to the "See (wiki-link), p. ___" style. I'm hoping that that can be redone. Bfoshizzle1 (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Oy. No it won't be. Don't change the existing reference style on the article. If you have further questions, take them to the Teahouse please. John from Idegon (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Cape Fear High School

Recently, you have taken out a lot of information about Cape Fear High School. Some of them I agree with, while others are completely unexplained, even going as far as to take out sourced information. After this message, I will be reading taken out information. However, I will do my best to cite the sources. If you find any problem with anything I do, please message me first before making any edit. Here is a brief description of the things I have changed and why I have changed them:

The Academy of Natural Sciences section has been completely removed. I will cite this source. It should be included, as Cape Fear is a Natural Science school.

You have removed the football section. This has been a very big part of recent Cape Fear history. Alumni from as far as Wisconsin, if I remember correctly, has come to watch the state championship. The state championship is the biggest event at this school that has happened. I will also cite this to the best of my ability.

Softball and Ultimate sections have been removed, in which you have noted this was encyclopedic information. However, I am highlighting the most successful athletic teams of the school. I will make sure to cite these sections.

The next edit was deleting all general information besides the very basic location information. I do admit, it could be reduced considerably. However, it would be wise to not delete all but the location just because of some encyclopedic remarks.

I will add a citation for the Cape Fear Ultimate team. For Junior Varsity, I will not add a citation, honestly because I'm not sure how I would tackle this. I will add it without a citation for now, but could you guide me as to how I will cite this?

The next edit was made to the infobox. I agree with everything except changing the mascot box to nickname. The mascot for Cape Fear High School are the colts. It's not a nickname, it's the actual mascot.

Thank you for fixing the coordinates and changing the "Men's and Women's" to (boys and girls). I never really liked that format of listing the sports, but could never figure out how to change it.

I thank you for taking the time to try and help the Cape Fear High School page. I hope we can work together to make this page as detailed and encyclopedic as possible. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

TheGEICOgecko, you've got some major misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. First, the encyclopedia article titled Cape Fear High School is most assuredly NOT the school's page on Wikipedia. This is not social media and the article is neither for, nor under the control of, the school. I have no interest in Cale Fear High School. Clearly you do, and as such you need to read and understand our policies on conflict of interest. Second, the purpose of an encyclopedia article is not to tell about the subject of the article. Instead, it is to summarize what others have written about the subject. Further, content in an article should be informative and useful to Wikipedia's audience, which is the entire English speaking world. To that end, there are content guidelines for broad classifications of articles such as schools. You'll find the guidelines for schools here. The instructions for handling content disputes are here. Hint....it isn't put it back the way you want it. Further hint....you've made no argument here for inclusion that would help you form the required WP:CONSENSUS to keep your preferred version. I'll leave you some material to help you understand Wikipedia better and a link to a q&a forum for new users on your talk. Perhaps I'll see you on the article's talk page. I've reverted your re-addition of the poor content. John from Idegon (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I have not gone to any of the links, as it's quite late here. However, when I have time in the future sometime tomorrow or this weekend, I will be sure to read and consider the links you have sent.

When I said the page was the school's page, I in no way intended to mean the school or representatives of the school have official "control" of the page. I just meant it's the page about the school.

I do believe is informative to users. However, I have not read the school article guidelines. When I do read the links you have sent, I will let you know if I have any more questions about editing the page. I do admit I am a very new user, and have not done anything beyond creating an informal informative wiki on Fandom, so if I am acting very amateur like, please forgive me. I only have the best intents for the page, and I will do my best to adhere to guidelines as I build up this page. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Please make note of how I've used colons to indent replies in this conversation. "Wiki" simply means a website runs on Wikimedia software, which is free. We have a whole lot more restrictions here than most wikis, as the intent here is to create a serious reference work. Teahouse is a great resource - I would have quit a week or two in if it wasn't for the help and support I found there. Not that it makes my say any more important than yours, but I'm the only US coordinator of WikiProject Schools, and I can point you to several sources of info that can help you improve the article within guidelines. The main problem was that most of the things did not fall in guidelines. Sometime tonight, I'll work on the athletics section, giving it a secondary source, and add some more stats. Sleep well. John from Idegon (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

As you are likely aware, different people learn differently. I'm a tactile learner, so if you aren't, this may not work for you. I've found the best way to learn to do things that require markup, like bullet lists, templates, charts, wikilinks, etc is to first, use the traditional editing interface not Visual Editor (I've always viewed VE as akin to the training wheels on my kid's bike - makes it easier, but does nothing to accomplish the goal, whether it's riding a bike or manipulating a wiki). Second, if you want to make say a bullet list, go find one on another article, view that article in edit mode, and just copy the markup. Although the content may differ, in most cases, the markup won't. In the few instances where it does, looking at a few different examples should show you what changes to the article the changes to the markup affect. Good luck, TheGEICOgecko, and happy editing. John from Idegon (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I haven't had too much time today on Wikipedia, but I read the article about school articles, and I have a few questions.

There is one famous person that has graduated from Cape Fear that I know of, and is in NFL if I'm not mistaken, and they have their own Wikipedia article, as well as a mention in the Fayetteville article (I don't have their article saved, but I will look into it later when I plan on including them in the school article. How will I incorporate information about this? It says to make a list, but would one person be worthy of a whole section, or would they be incorporated into some other section?

You have deleted the achievements I have listed, however this article says that notable awards should be included. What deems an award notable? I have included some runner-up state championships, which may not be the most noteworthy thing. However, I also included the winter guard's notable achievements, which are at a global scale. Did you delete it because I put too much emphasis on the winter guard? Also, I would like to include some info about students contributing to the methodology of discovering asteroids, comets, and supernovae, contribution to how to calculate Hubble's constant, and the discovery of multiple asteroids and supernovae. However, the only resources I have is 3 scientific articles, or at least what seems to be something of the sort, that only briefly discuss these achievements, and go in little detail, and these achievements happened sometime 10-20 years ago. Would these be noteworthy achievements to write about?

Is there a reason why the Ultimate team should not be mentioned in the list of athletic organizations? Also, should I list the various organizations in the school?

The school has a Google Business page, and posts regularly. Should I add a link to this page, or perhaps list it in external links? TheGEICOgecko (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi TheGEICOgecko If the school has a main official website, then that would be acceptable as an external link; links to other school websites, however, should probably be avoided per WP:ELNO and WP:ELMINOFFICIAL.

Finally, in a separate unrelated note, you might want to ask about your choice of username at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. The GEICO gecko is a pretty well known advertising campaign (at least in the US), and while I'm happy to assume that you're not really the gecko (though a mascot editing Wikipedia would be an interesting ad campaign) or anyone associated with either GEICO or the company who created the mascot; it might be seen as a tad bit WP:PROMONAME per Wikipedia:Username policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The link to the Google Business website would not break any rule in the ELNO link you sent. It is not promotional, is not trying to sell something, is not only available on certain browsers or with certain extensions/plug ins, etc. The second ELMINOFFICIAL link you sent says that in most cases, only one official link should be used. However, it doesn point out that in certain circumstances, a second link would be allowed. First, it's not social media, it's a Google Business profile. It provides unique content in which the majority of its content is not posted on the official website. It is not prominently linked on any Cape Fear High School official website. It will offer unique content that would otherwise be unavailble from only one external link to the official website. However, I may be mistaken. Is there any rule on either link that I have glimpsed over?

As of my username, I will try and find out whether this would be considered a promotional username. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

A good person to ask about the EL might be Beetstra or you could ask at WP:ELN to get more opinions.

As for your username, it might not hurt to check just to make sure since administrators sometimes soft block accounts that they feel have promotional usernames. I didn’t notice this before, but another editor already posted something about this on your user talk page. That warning notice, I think, added your account to a category of possible problematic usernames; so, perhaps an admin has already reviewed it and determined it’s fine. It might be OK as long as you stay away from editing anything related to GEICO. — Marchjuly (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: could you clarify if you think there's a problem with the username please? MPS1992 (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@TheGEICOgecko and Marchjuly: the page is almost completely void of any prose, information etc. Linking to a business directory to fill that void is not our way forward, again per WP:EL, but also per WP:NOT/WP:ENC. Also, linking to that business directory seems to me promotional. I also note that the article now is totally void of independent references. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

There were many independent resources. However, John from Idegon has deleted most of the content the sources referred to due to it violating Wikipedia policy. Looking into the policy he sent me, as well as some other policies I found myself, I can see that I have indeed violated a couple of policies. I may not agree with some things he has deleted, but I have not had the time to throughly check all deleted content. I usually don't have too much free time on my hands to do projects such as building a Wikipedia article, so chances are, unless someone dramatically helps me, it will stay like this for a while. But don't worry, I will eventually add more content to the page. As of linking a business directory, although it technically is a business profile, it is not used for any business purposes. I can't recall one time the site has attempted to sell anything through means of Google Business. Wikipedia might still count it as promotion, or even social media, I don't know, but I think it's possible that it's acceptable.

I am looking at the rules for a promotional username, and it doesn't seem to me that it is breaking any rules. As long as I make a lifetime ban on editing car insurance articles with my profile, I should be fine. Under WP:PROMONAME, it states that a name can't just plainly/purely be the name of a company, as in the whole username is nothing but a company name. My username is not simply the name of a company. If I am wrong and am violating the promotional name guidelines, the guidelines also says very clearly that I cannot be blocked for the username as long as I don't edit promotionally pertaining to the username. It states explicitly that users found with promotional usernames will consequentially be "gently encouraged" to change their username. If an admin of some sort tells me that my username is against the guidelines, I may try and argue against it, but if they stand their ground, I will willingly change my username to a less promotional username. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGEICOgecko (talk • contribs) 03:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, TheGEICOgecko. Welcome back, and my apologies for any drama here. Also apologies for my lack of participation. If you notice the box at the top of the page, my health has been, to put it mildly, troublesome lately. My talk is a fairly busy place primarily because I'm a project coordinator and I highly appreciate other editors like Marchjuly stepping in to help out. I explained my position on your username below. This is a rare occasion where Marchjuly and I disagree. I think your username is fine, as long as you never ever edit articles pertaining to insurance. I'm certain you understand why that would be problematic, even given you have no connection whatsoever to the insurance company. Appearances and all that, ya? I might suggest you create your userpage with a brief statement about your username. I would not say you use it elsewhere, lest you somewhere down the road, subject yourself to off-Wiki harassment. I changed my username from something I'd used elsewhere for just that reason. One further comment on usernames in general: your username will be red until you create your userpage. The simple truth is, having a red username makes you stand out as a new editor and what you do will likely get closer scrutiny. Perhaps it shouldn't be that way, but human nature being a factor, it is. I personally could care less, but just relaying what I've seen here over the past 7 years.

Keep the following in mind, and I doubt you'll have problems:

1. With the exception of mundane info not available elsewhere, you should have secondary sources for everything. Once you have secondary sources, you can use neutral information from connected sources to add color, but not new facts.
2. Your target audience is not the school or the local community but the entire English speaking world. Names especially are not important in that context. Also not important: details about individual contests, course catalogs (the consensus represented in the school article guidelines is we'll mention AP courses and arts (music, theatre, art) courses sourced to the school, but no other courses of study and things like qualifications for individual music groups are local-interest only and hence unencyclopedic), hours of operation, detailed description of the buildings (unless subject of significant commentary in reliable secondary sources), less than ultimate achievement (we will mention but not discuss in detail the highest level of achievement the school has, if reliable secondary sources are provided. In other words, if girls golf won a state championship, we will not mention the football team (or the band) taking 4th. Any state championship can of course be mentioned.) Further, we do not discuss individual achievement of any student or staff.
3. Any change you make may be reverted. Do not put it back if that happens. Instead, discuss. If you're not clear on the why for the revert, ask the reverting editor on their talk (it usually won't be as involved as this discussion has become). If you disagree with the revert and can make logical arguments based in reliable sources and Wikipedia policies and guidelines, start a discussion on the article talk page and attempt to form a consensus.

Good luck, and feel free to ask if you need any help. Marchjuly, anything you want to add? John from Idegon (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I will be sure to make my userpage and breifly talk about my username. I will do my best to learn about the guidelines in greater detail before I start editing, and will try to make more reasonable calls on what to put and what not to put.

Good luck with your health, I'd love for you to be involved if you can, but your health is more important than this wikipedia article, and I understand if you can't do much for the article

Best of luck, TheGEICOgecko (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hide off topic rude interruption to discussion at hand. IRL, if someone refers to me as "kid" I generally answer with "What, mother..." You do not know me and have no right to address me that way. John from Idegon (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly and John from Idegon: please could you kids clarify if you have problems with "GEICO" and what if any those problems are. If you have a COI then you should declare it. MPS1992 (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC) Not sure what you mean by "you kids", but I don't that's really a good way to refer to other editors. As for the username, I gave my reasons in an above post and they have nothing to do with any connection to GEICO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC) Thank you for clarifying. I hope you all gain greater respect for each other as time goes on. MPS1992 (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC) I never said there was a problem with their username. That is, unless they start editing articles on insurance. I can't see how it could be a trade name violation. The ONLY issue I see with the name is that two other users mentioned a possible issue (with which I disagre), making the name at least a bit of a distraction. Cannot see how that distraction could rise to a level of disruption tho. For me, if I got pushback on my username, I'd change it just for the sake of collegiality, but that's just me. Oh, and I've not been a kid for twice as long as I was one, thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC) MPS1992, the only one being disrespectful here is you, and if you do not see that, kindly stay away from here. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hillsdale High School Reversion

Hey, John! It's SmartMuffin. I'm not upset, but I was wondering why you removed my addition about Michael Galea, the band director, to the HHS page. I provided a reliable source (the current staff directory from the HHS website), but you removed the info because it was "unsourced". Also, if we don't name staff, then how come Jeff Gilbert, Allison Gamlen, Sabrina Braccini, and others are named? Furthermore, their mentionings aren't supported by citations in the first place. I'm still learning, so I'm open to your advice, but I am more than a little confused.

Best, SmartMuffin (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, SmartMuffin. Thanks so much for keeping your message brief and concise. It's greatly appreciated, as is your inclusion of a link as my talk page header requests. A couple things: Wikipedia turns 18 this year, and like most organizations, has changed greatly over its history. Since about the beginning of this decade, we've started taking ourselves more seriously. We've instituted review procedures, both for new articles and for new edits. Your change was caught on recent changes review, which happens fairly consistently these days. Earlier, not so much. School article guidelines are clear that we do not name staff, except the head of the school (for US public schools, that's generally the principal), and any that may be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia biography. I didn't review the entire article, just your change. I'll look at the article in detail in a bit, and may make more revisions. I hope that clarifies my revision. An encyclopedia article is meant to be simply a summary of what others have written about a given subject in reliable sources. A school article isn't meant to be a guide or a user's manual, and it is in no way for the school, or the school's community. Everything in a school article should be useful to Wikipedia's audience, which is the entire English speaking world. Many if not most new editors have some level of misconception about that. See the fifth pillar policy, WP:NOT, for more. Stop back if I can be of further assistance. Happy editing! John from Idegon (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Barry Baron sandbox

I agree with User:JamesBWatson about the sandbox of User:BARRY BARON, although I share your annoyance with the editor, who is wasting his time and the time of multiple Wikipedia volunteers with diddly questions, but the underlying problem is that for some reason he wants to use Wikipedia as an art journal to publish his (or his sister's) findings. You are right that his paper will never be accepted as an article, but JBW is right that it is a good-faith but misguided effort to publish an article in Wikipedia. I share your annoyance. However, if you really think that it needs to be deleted, I would suggest Miscellany for Deletion, where there will be a seven-day deletion discussion. I think that some of the regular and semi-regular editors there would !vote for Delete and that some of the regular and semi-regular editors would !vote for Keep. It might be worth that route. It can't be speedied. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Block of NOTHERE editor

John, I have read what you wrote at User talk:BARRY BARON, and decided that I agree with you, so I have blocked the editor. As for the sandbox page, it might at a stretch be speedily deleted under one criterion or another, but it doesn't really seem to fit any of them perfectly. It could be taken to a deletion discussion, but my feeling is that we may as well just leave it until it qualifies for WP:CSD#G13. That will be in August, unless someone comes along and edits it before then, in which case we may need to consider whether a sock block is warranted, since the likelihood of anyone else wanting to contribute to it looks low, on the basis of history up to now. Robert McClenon, you may be interested in reading this too. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm good with waiting for 13 to kick in. I knew U5 was a stretch, but was hoping for an IAR resolution. The block is a better one. John from Idegon (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, User:John from Idegon. On the one hand, the sandbox could be taken to Miscellany for Deletion, but the question would then be raised of why the nominator wasn't waiting for G13 in six months. If someone nominates it for deletion, I will !vote Delete. If some volunteer makes a good-faith cleanup edit to it, I will tag it for MFD. I agree that if someone tries to improve it, a suckpoppet report is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I think this is likely finished. That's why I suggested he attempt to get his research published. Obviously there is nothing there, and academia does not have an WP:AGF rule like we do. To me, it appears he is simply so wrapped up as to have blinders on. John from Idegon (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Westland vandalism

My talk page is protected because of the recent spree of vandalism there. Unfortunately, the vandal/LTA enjoys targeting all of those articles within the categories you noted. This is a characteristic common to many vandals and LTAs. This means that users will have to patrol multiple articles in order to prevent (or revert) further acts of vandalism. It's a lot of articles right now, but hopefully It'll go away eventually. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Considering the timing of the onset, I'd predict mid-June. John from Idegon (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

MIVDF page updates

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

---

I can cite a reliable source - me.

I am the S3 Operations and Training officer for the MIVDF, and the existing content is intentionally misleading.

I'm not going to copy correspondence from the JAG or TAG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmesic (talk • contribs) 21:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Replied on their talk. John from Idegon (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Edits

Deny (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Extended content Ok really? Dude how are you on the most obscure articles on Wikipedia? And you accused me of deliberately adding false information? That information I provided was true. Mcgu8943 (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC) Bullshit. Provide a reliable published source stating that Sarah Brown, particularly the Sarah Brown that you claim is a teacher at a school in North Central Indiana, was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. And we'll not even bother with your vandalism adding some other silly child's name to another school as a baller, whatever the hell that is. No worries. You'll be blocked soon. John from Idegon (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC) Ok, the Nobel Peace Prize was a bit far, but the teacher in question happens to have been nominated for several awards for her teaching excellence, although it wasn’t at that school in Indiana, that is just her alma mater. Also, that “silly child” is a recent golf and basketball phenom. He has multiple articles written about him. Mcgu8943 (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC) Thanks for admitting to the vandalism. I'll add that to the report. John from Idegon (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC) Ok really buddy? This boy recently passed away and I was trying to find a way to honor him. And you’re going to ban me over some information that otherwise wouldn’t be known? Mcgu8943 (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC) Stretching credibility as far as possible by assuming this time you've decided to speak the truth, see WP:NOTMEMORIAL. John from Idegon (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC) Oh, BTW,I'm neither a dude or your buddy. You've wasted enough of my time. Don't post here again. John from Idegon (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Andy Fickman and Robert E. Lee High School

According to Andy Fickman's wiki he went to Robert E. Lee High School in Houston, TX. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Fickman

However he seems to have been born in Midland so it could be that his wiki is incorrect. The problem seems to be that both pages reference the same source but that source is not available at that link. http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=MRTB&p_theme=mrtb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=1106ECB85C92E160&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcharlesmith (talk • contribs) 21:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Content disputes go on the article talk page. The source worked fine for me and clearly stated he went to Midland Lee. You cannot use another Wikipedia article for a source. John from Idegon (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

"Bethany Oregon" Edit

Hi John, curious to why this revision was reversed considering it is from the 2010 Census and is sourced & referenced as such in the section.

Revision: "20:44, 12 February 2019 diff hist +27‎ Bethany, Oregon ‎ →‎2010 Census: added demographic detail to reflect African American population count"

Page Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethany,_Oregon

Direct source: https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/DEC/10_DP/DPDP1/1600000US4105950

Thank you Michael from Oregon (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

It seemed strange that data that had been there for over 8 years was being changed. To avoid this happening to you in the future, there is a parameter in the reference template called "accessdate". If you are updating (or in this case, fixing some long ago vandalism) from an existing reference, change the reference template to reflect that you accessed it today. Feel free to replace the info. Also, although we do not add demographic details from the annual estimates, there is a parameter in the infobox template to add just the population. There's a companion parameter to add the source. See Template:Infobox settlement. Sorry about that, Michael from Oregon. Hollar if I can be of any further assistance. John from Idegon (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Columbia Wharf, Rotherhithe

I can't understand what's going on here. The errors are now worse despite three editors trying to fix them. Don't want to sound paranoid but just just possibly there may be malware lurking. See the article's talk page.Ttocserp (talk) 12:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

That's highly unlikely. I'm not familiar with that infobox template, but I cannot even find the map in it. Perhaps an enquiry on the talk page of that template may help. Thought it would be a relatively easy fix...thought wrong. I generally do not work on British subjects, so I'm done. Good luck. John from Idegon (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding reversion of edits to Performing Arts High School

No disrespect intended, but I humbly believe my edits were not uncited additions that constituted a “blog” mentality. They were strictly deleting peacock words that they themselves are flowery opinions, and my intent was to strictly bring the text into a more objective encyclopedic tone. (As [granted unscientific] proof, my edits pared down the entry some 700 characters, whereas your reversion added 600 characters back.) If you disagree, I’d (sincerely) love to hear your reasons. Thanks. –TashTish (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The whole article is a pile of poo. Which of the sources did you paraphrase from in your copyediting? John from Idegon (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, on that I have to agree. :^D That said I tried to get rid of a lot of the “hundreds of people” this and “in the public eye” that. I actually didn’t crib from any of the sources; I just attempted to make the article as succinct and dry as possible. That said, dry poo is still poo, I grant you. –TashTish (talk) 06:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Sudbury Schools

I have got about as far as I can with List of Sudbury schools, I have expressed opinions on the talk page but we have a very determined deletionist. It has been through a AdD, but he persists by other means. Have you the energy to look? --ClemRutter (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd be in the delete camp on this too, frankly. Here's why. It appears the consensus is that we include only: 1) Schools that are Sudbury schools and 2) are notable. So, we have a vague definition of what makes a school a Sudbury school. If we are relying on self identification, that, IMO, makes it, almost definitively, non-notable. It appears from the talk that is the criteria (especially since the original school no longer makes any statement on whether another school is or isn't a Sudbury school). On point #2, the few schools listed makes this list an unneeded content fork to Sudbury schools. It could easily be covered there.

There is no requirement that list articles contain only notable members. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons to have a list article is to cover subjects where individual members are not notable, but when taken as a whole provides information that is notable. Examples of this are the lists of minor league baseball players in each individual Major League Baseball team's organization. With these Sudbury schools though, you'll not have an agreed upon definition of what makes a school a Sudbury school and you'll have little to no potential secondary sources to verify that. Further, I cannot see how knowing what particular schools use this method contributes much to the understanding of the method itself.

ClemRutter, this conversation is at least close to CANVASSING and as such, I'm going to ping Jauerback here. His last posting asking postdlf to clarify his AfD close is now unfortunately of interest to me also. Unfortunately, because frankly this is an education topic and is not within the scope of WPSCH. I was not aware of the AfD, and likely would not have participated even if I had been, but it seems some arguments were not made that perhaps should have been. John from Idegon (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

On 3RR and adding victims to articles

First, you might want to watch out, wouldn't want you to get blocked for violating WP:3RR. Second, I'm still waiting for anything resembling a policy or guideline that says victims can't be added to an article until there's a consensus to add them. Every attempt to make that a blanket requirement that I've been shown has been a failed RFC. Finally, I'm not too sure why adding victims gets you guys riled up, but I find it fascinating. So let me get this right: we glorify the killer, but hide the people they impacted? WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS all seem to indicate that we should use the same or equal voice as the sources we find: news outlets have dedicated entire articles to the victims (and their names), but your contention is that we should violate NPOV and omit the names? As you mentioned, there is the RD in BRD, but I haven't seen you engage in the D part on the talk page, like I have. Don't pretend to care about consensus while at the same time refusing to engage in discussion to achieve the consensus you want. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not care about the consensus at all. I have no contention. It's called being a neutral observer. Other editors have reverted you. So you'll cross 3rr before me, but I will not be waiting for that. If you re-add it, you re going to ANEW. The policy is WP:CONSENSUS. Confine your discussion of the content to the article talk page please, and, excepting notices required by policy, there is no reason for you to post here again. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 09:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

A "neutral observer" who happens to engage in edit warring. How quaint. I'll take your silence to mean you don't actually have a good reason to revert me, you just don't like it. I'll see your consensus and raise you a WP:IAR. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You really are pushing it. My advise would be to find something else to do besides badgering John. - Donald Albury 17:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Dealing with paid editors

Hey John. I saw the exchange on Talk:Indiana (I'm mentoring MattLongCT), and I just wanted to follow up. I understand the frustration and distrust towards paid editors, and I'm not trying to "dress you down" over that exchange. In a perfect world, they wouldn't be allowed at all. If you were to argue that paid editing fundamentally doesn't fit with the spirit of the project, I would agree with you. However, in reality, paid editors are allowed to edit freely. They're still entitled to our fundamental principle of collegial respect. You can't simply jump straight to assuming bad faith with any paid editor who's trying to be transparent and follow the rules. Matt was technically correct in terms of policy, and if he had decided to take you to AN/I, you would have been told the same things. But I do understand that we're all human, and I'm not here to lecture you about attitude. If proper etiquette is not important to you, I would ask that you take into account the practical considerations. Paid editors are a potential threat to the integrity of the project. Much like prohibition, we can block, ban and bully them, but they won't go away, they'd simply continue to operate without the bounds of legitimate oversight and regulation. It's important that paid editors are treated like legitimate members of the community, because we need them to choose to be. We need to be able to keep tabs on them, coach them, guide them, and restrict them as needed. It's honestly a lot easier for them to not disclose, and very difficult to prove when they don't. By taking a hostile approach, you're not discouraging them from editing, you're just disincentivizing them from disclosing, and that can do serious damage. If you have concerns with a paid editor's edits, you should treat them like any other. I know it's annoying, and you're not required to be responsible for these situations. But if you don't want to handle these situations in good faith, it would honestly be better to simply not engage with these users, than to become hostile towards them. Anyway, hope you understand where I'm coming from, and hope all is well IRL. Best, ~Swarm~ {talk} 02:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Swarm, respectfully, you need to re-read the back and forth there again. I was overly hostile, to Matt, not the PE. The statement I made to the paid editor was neither hostile or uncivil. I pointed out to him only that his attempt to insert fundamentally the same content sourced only to his employer on 51 separate articles looks suspiciously like SEO, which quite clearly, it does. The problem arose when your student decided to play civility police. It's a well-founded tradition here that we discuss edits on article talk pages and behavior on user talk pages. I dislike butinskys as much on Wikipedia as I do in real life and there was and remains no reason for Matt to make the edit he made there. I understand your position on coaching etc re paid editors and realize that is the current company line. And I will continue to reject it out of hand. It unfortunately doesn't solve anywhere on our playing field - it is wholly a Foundation problem to solve, and if we continue to give them a workaround, they'll continue to take advantage of it. My 2 cents. Please mentor your student on the proper way to raise a behavioral issue. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for getting back to me. First, you're right, MattLongCT should have raised conduct concerns on your talk page, not on an article talk page. That is the proper practice, and I did note that, and I thought mentioning that to him, but I simply didn't get around to that. Secondly, I know it's human nature to avoid admitting when you're in the wrong, and I appreciate your ability to concede that you were being too hostile to Matt. Thirdly, you are correct, the statement you directed at the PE wasn't terribly uncivil. However, you did indirectly display a great deal of hostility towards the PE in your comments to Matt, and that is my concern. Like I said, I understand your attitude regarding PEs, and I don't disagree with it. But, antagonizing disclosed PEs is counterproductive to even your own goals. You could have expanded on your reasoning for rejecting the PE's efforts, and even helped a newer user improve, had you engaged in civil discourse with Matt on a user talk page, rather than both hurting a new user and antagonizing a PE who is willing to cooperate. I don't think it's accurate to say the current practice gives PE's a "workaround". The easiest workaround for them, in practice, would be to simply not disclose. Surely you don't think that banning PE's would make it any easier to deal with them? Practically, from my perspective at least, the current policy is the only effective way of dealing with them. Let us monitor you, and you have nothing to fear. Try to hide it, and if we find out, you're auto-banned. It makes sense. It's a logical position, even if it isn't reconcilable with ideology. Not all ideology is realistic from a practical perspective. It's all well and good to say it's the Foundation's responsibility, not yours, to deal with. But, if you were in charge of the Foundation, what would your solution be? ~Swarm~ {talk} 06:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

That's a simple one. Get rid of anonymous editing. Anyone can still edit, only difference is one's edits are irrevocably tied to a username so actions by that username are accountable. But it's not gonna happen. We are the go to source for information for the world, something that was never anticipated by the founders (why does this sound like a discussion of the 2nd Amendment?)...unlike US society, we could easily deal with it by a policy change. An axiom from business school fifty years ago applies here. "If you're not growing, you're failing." That growth does not strictly apply to fiscal growth; it also applies to adapting to change. John from Idegon (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

My apologies to you for not bringing my concerns directly to your talk page. I was unaware of that procedure. Thank you Swarm for bringing it to my attention. :) ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 17:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the sentiment, MattLongCT, but it's quite unnecessary. You'll not receive any apologies from me ever, and the same is true for many other editors. Seldom will I say please either (thanks comes much easier), as it is an unneeded formality in a work environment. And we are here to work, all of us. We volunteer our time to do the good work of building an encyclopedia. Expecting cotillion manners is an unrealistic expectation. I'm not saying this because I'm rude; I'm not, not at all. I'm just trying to impart to you that the niceties of polite society are largely lacking here, and for good reason. We all come here to write; interpersonal interactions, while necessary, are an interruption to that. The most civil thing anyone can do here is learn to express themselves with concision and brevity. I hope you can understand (without excusing my boorish behavior) why I went off on you. The fact, which to AGF, I'm assuming you weren't aware of, that the editor there was pushing to include essentially the same content on 51 separate articles all sourced to a single article in the magazine he works for, certainly was germane to the discussion at hand. I'm puzzled as to why you would even think I wasn't assuming good faith. I happen to be devoutly Christian, but if communication with the dead were possible and a dead guy told me firsthand that the entirety of Judeochristian thought was totally wrong, my good faith would be stretched to the limit. (Not sure whether it would manifest as doubt in my faith, or labeling the aforementioned dead guy a liar, but you get the drift). Good faith is not a suicide pact. The good faith view there was that the guy was simply ignorant of either the appearances of what he was doing (in which case, my statement served to inform him) or the level of occurrence of hijacking Wikipedia for personal gain (and if you doubt that, continue to contribute at Teahouse. It will become obvious shortly). Anyways, there are no hard feelings here. I've been here 7 years (today, actually. Happy birthday to me, lol) and there has only been two editors I've found myself incapable of working with. One is indeff'd and the other, I do my best to avoid, although that's not always possible. I've dropped several dozen articles from my watch list in order to avoid him, some fairly critical to the Wikiproject I coordinate. When I do have to interact with him, I follow the cardinal rules. Comment on content, not contributors (the cause of our dust up, btw), and keep your comments focused and brief. Keep on working at Teahouse please. It's great training for dealing with editor interaction and a good way to learn both the technical and interpersonal skills that work here. I don't know what your ambitions are here, but not for nothing, most of the new administrators approved in the past 18 months have been steadfast contributors at Teahouse. Look forward to interacting again with you again, and if you ever get bored, please stop by. I can point you to hundreds of school articles that need help. Take care. John from Idegon (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Lakeville North High School

Hi, I am wondering why you reverted my edits on LNHS’s athletics section. I understand that it definitely needs more work, but I did add sources (however baseline they may be). I do not think it is justified to remove the whole section, because the school is known for having strong sports teams, year after year. Thanks, Josh Joshander10 (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Joshander10, from your statement above, the edit I reverted and the other notes on your talk page, it's clear you have a fundamental misconception of what an encyclopedia article is. It is not to tell the story of the subject of the article. Instead, the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to summarize what others have written about the subject in reliable secondary sources. Period. To construct content, you identify reliable sources and paraphrase what they say, including only information that is useful to our whole audience, which is the entire English speaking world. Opinion, such as your last sentence above, has no place here. We have guidelines for various types of articles to help guide you in determining what to include - the one for schools is here. I'd suggest that if you cannot easily identify what is good content, then perhaps your pre-existing biases may be too strong for you to overcome and that due to your COI, it may behoove you to follow the best practices outlined for COI editors. There is no need for an editor to have any familiarity with this school whatsoever to edit the article successfully and in many cases, that familiarity is detrimental, not beneficial. Use what you know to help locate and identify reliable sources. Nowhere on Wikipedia should what you know ever make its way into an edit you make. Ever. That is a requirement outlined in WP:V, one of our pillar policies. Although a cited source isn't always required, the existence of such a source is - so why not just cite it? An article about a school is not for the school, nor is it for people with a connection to the school (such as students, alumni, staff or people in the school's community). We are simply not interested in what the school has to say about itself. Outside of mundane (the principal's name or the school's address) and neutral factual information unavailable elsewhere, sources need to be independent of the school and the school district. All claims of achievement, any claims of primacy and all statistics need to have reliable secondary sources. I cannot think of any reason to include a markup chart in any school article (there aren't any data that needs to presented on a school article that needs advanced markup to clearly present. Bullet lists are much easier to edit and plenty clear for the limited amount of data that needs to be presented).

Long story short - if you do not want your edits reverted, do not add edits that lack reliable secondary sources. John from Idegon (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Would this (https://www.mshsl.org/mshsl/schoolpage2.asp?school=248) be a better source for the list of offered activities because it is not from the school itself? As for the list of achievements: the Wikipedia pages of the MSHSL Tournament champions history were the most comprehensive lists of ALL the state champions I could find, and others were just articles on the champions of one year or one sport. Is is acceptable to cite other Wikipedia pages as a source? I’m sorry for not understanding this, I am not very experienced in this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshander10 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

No problem, Joshander10. As one of the coordinators of WikiProject Schools, I'm always glad to help those interested in contributing constructively to school articles.

A couple quick procedural comments first: One, be sure to sign any talk posts you make by typing four tildes at the end (~~~~). This adds your signature, a timestamp and a link to your talk page. Two, please note how I've corrected the indentation on your last post, along with how I indented my posts. You use colons to create indents, with every colon making one more space of indentation. This is just to make it clear how the conversation progresses and is "standard operating procedure". See WP:TPG for further information.

The Minnesota State High School League would pretty much be the source to use for a listing of athletics offered, so good choice. Please keep in mind that non-athletics activities should not be listed with athletics, but can and should be listed in appropriate separate sections (theatre and music in a section on Arts, speech and debate in Academics); noting which sports are offered to boys, girls, both or coed.

The achievements must be sourced to independent sources. Most state athletics sanctioning bodies have some sort of championship histories somewhere - that would be the ideal source. It appears MSHSL does have something on that, but it may not be complete. Since the only thing that's going to be encyclopedic is a state team championship, you can always use a newspaper article on the final game as a source. I realize this is less than ideal, but you can never use Wikipedia as a source for another Wikipedia article (user-edited websites such as Wikipedia, IMDb, Facebook or Twitter are never considered reliable sources - see WP:RS). As far as layout goes, this school in Michigan would be a good model. Note that although it is presented that way in many articles, what season a sport is offered isn't really encyclopedic (for two reasons. One, that's information that would have little value outside the local community and two, it's not differentiating at all. The season a sport is offered isn't up to the school and is the same for every school in the state).

Again, I'm glad to be of assistance. Thanks for your efforts. John from Idegon (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)