User talk:John from Idegon/Archive 86

This is an archive of past discussions about User:John from Idegon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 80

←

Archive 84

→

Jones College Prep Page Edits

Hello John. I wanted to further work out your issues with the edits on this page. I made an account for ease of discussion, as I didn't think it would become this complicated.

Can you please explain what is wrong with both of the sources used? These both appear to be reliable sources and I don't know why they need be removed.

Edit: I will add NCES as a secondary and put it up on Talk. You're welcome to evaluate it there.

TwelvePointFive (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC) TwelvePointFive

I posted on Chicago talk page that I had added a section "High Taxes"- You immediately reverted the addition and told me to take it to the talk page

It is hard to imagine why a section (well sourced) to show that Chicagoans enjoy some of the highest taxes in America should be reverted. I notice on your talk page that you revert many other people's work. Please do not undue another's research.Perhaps you could take it to the talk page before revert. Maybe then your talk page would not be full of complaints from other editors. Gristleking (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Because that is not the way it works, Gristleking. Our quality control here is peer based. There are no managing editors. If another editor states an objection, which I have, you are required to start a discussion on the article talk page and gain consensus prior to replacing the content. It's on you to sway any editors opposing you. It isn't on them to convince you you are wrong. This is outlined in WP:BRD. Also, everyone here is a volunteer. It's Sunday night, and I'm watching movies with my son. I'll respond tomorrow. There is no deadline. John from Idegon (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:John from Idegon's hostility and generally disruptive behavior. Nihlus 02:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Frank Bergon April 2019

There is nothing more to discuss here. Discussion on article content can take place at Talk:Frank Bergon. Clearing up misconceptions about Wikipedia can be dealt with by self help and WP:TEAHOUSE. Nothing more to do here.

John from Idegon (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

(non-admin closure)

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.

You wrote, "Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Bellarmine College Preparatory. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blockedfrom editing Wikipedia. John from Idegon(talk) 17:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)"

I'm not sure how it can be construed as unsourced. Frank Bergon went to Bellarmine and graduated in 1961, which could be verified by alumni records. It's all factual information, so how can I show that to include it on the page? And why would you remove his biography on his page? His page is entirely factual and referenced with his permission. I fixed everything in 2011 and nothing has changed except I would like him to be added to Bellarmine's notable alumni. I just need to know what kind of reference I should provide. A copy of his diploma? I'm still learning about Wikipedia, but am not being paid, as I said before, and not trying to intentionally cause an issue. Thank you for your time. Aleksadive (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

You've been here for 6 years and haven't bothered to even learn the most basic things about Wikipedia. It's clear the only reason you are here is to publicize one particular person. That is not what Wikipedia is for. As such, I have no interest whatsoever in helping you. I'll thank you to stay off my talk page, Aleksadive. John from Idegon (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC

My webpage was fine since 2011, the only error I made was in adding to Bellarmine without a source, but I am asking politely on what kind of source is supposed to be provided. I know the basic things about Wikipedia. Not all the alumni on Bellarmine's site even show sources. You have no right to remove the Biography section of my wikipedia page, and I would like you to stop screwing with me. You are being very aggressive and hostile for no reason. I had explicit permission from the author for all the information on his page, and got the copyright information. I would thank you to stay off my page, and leave me alone, as well. You have no right to do this. The page is important for history, as the author is part of Nevada Writer's Hall of Fame, and has many awards and published novels. Aleksadive (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Aleksadive. I'm not sure what you mean by "My webpage", but it seems that you might be mistaking your user page for a Wikipedia article. This is a common mistake that many editors make, but is still none the less a mistake. Your userpage is a place where you can (if you want) post some brief information about yourself and your Wikipedia editing activities as explained in WP:UPYES, but it's not really intended to be a personal website or a a place for posting content about someone else. If you're working on a draft for a future article, then the best place to do that would be in a user space draft or the draft namespace; then, when you feel you're draft is ready for article status, you can submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review.

Just for reference, the longer your user page stays as is, the more likely it's going to be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:U5; so, the best thing you can do is to move that content to your WP:USERSANDBOX or to one of the other two types of pages mentioned above. You should also understand that you don't own your userpage, and others can remove content if it really shouldn't be there per relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Most of the time, they probably give you a "warning" first if it's not a major issue, but that's not required and serious policy of guideline will be removed at asap without giving notice.

As for the other part of your post, please take a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth and WP:ALMAMATER. Generally, the most basic criterion for inclusion for lists such a "Notable alumni", etc. is that each individual have a Wikipedia article written about them which contain content supported by citations to reliable sources which show that the individual in connection was actually an alumnus. This is because a Wikipedia article is not intended to be about every factual thing related to a subject, but only things deemed encyclopedically relevant to Wikipedia's readers. The best way to show that mentioning a person by name in any Wikipedia article is not just a case of WP:Namechecking is that they are deemed Wikipedia notable enough for a Wikipedia article to be written about them. In addition, it's your WP:BURDEN as a person wanting to include certain content in an article to actually provide a citation to a reliable source in support of said content; it's not really appropriate for you to add unsourced content to an article and then expect someone else to go digging in alumni records, etc. to verifiy the content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. Thank you Marchjuly, that was helpful information, and I am currently fixing the biography part of the page to include additional sources. I incorrectly used the term "my webpage". I was trying to fix the Frank Bergon wikipedia page which I had been working on previously, and is already an accepted Wikipedia article. I didn't realize that was also on my userpage. Thank you for your help.Aleksadive (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Aleksadive, there are many things you clearly don't understand about Wikipedia. We are not a webhost. The encyclopedia article on Frank Bergon is not a website in any sense of the word. You have no right to decide who does or doesn't edit that article. As my colleague Marchjuly explained above, everything here must comply with our core policies, which I linked to you in a previous message. The content on your userpage needs to be removed. It does not comply with the accepted uses for a Wikipedia user page (which is also not yours...you are allowed to have one and use it within the rules outlined at WP:UP).

As far as the article goes, it has existed since 2011. It has never been fine, and for that fact alone, I wish to apologize to you. Wikipedia is an entirely volunteer organization. Completely. 100%. Not one single person who works on English Wikipedia's articles is paid. Consequently, people work on what they want to work on. It's only been since 2013 or so that organized efforts to monitor article quality has existed. What caused me to take interest in the article was your unsourced addition of his name at the school article. I have a great interest in school articles as I coordinate the WikiProject that looks over them.

If you take the time to read and understand our core policies, and look at the article from the perspective of one who is completely detached from the subject of the article, you'll have to agree with me that there are many many problems with the article. They are possibly fixable. I don't know. To know what to do to fix it would require research that I choose not to use the time I freely volunteer to do.

Another misconception you are carrying around about Wikipedia is that the purpose of the article is to tell Bergon's story. That's not true. Ideally that is what it does, but it is not its purpose. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to summarize what others have already written about a given subject in reliable secondary sources.

The usual way a Wikipedia article gets created is someone who has interest in the general topic (in this case, American literature) notices an article is missing (in this case, a bio of FB), researches the available sources, assesses the sourcing to see if the subject meets the qualifications for a subject to have an article, paraphrases the sources accurately adding nothing from their own personal knowledge and create the article. The subject of the article has no involvement whatsoever and none is needed. Neutrality is another one of those inviolable pillar policies, and people with a relationship with the subject (which you unarguably have by your own statement about having his permission to write the article, something that is completely unnecessary and nearly impossible to obtain without some sort of relationship) have a near impossible time doing. As I am a volunteer, I choose not to use my time helping such users. You've gotten far more help from me than I would usually give. I hold no animosity towards you, just a big moral issue with what you are doing. Wikipedia was conceived as a noble project to collect the sum of human knowledge in one place. Promotional use of it frankly pisses me off. I will not be stepping away from the article. Instead, I will work hard to assure you can no longer use this encyclopedia article as a vehicle to promote FB. You are welcome to work on it of course, but your work will conform to policy or it will be removed. It's up to you to learn how Wikipedia works, just as it is and always have been for every other volunteer here. Since your misconceptions have led you to believe that somehow I am acting in malice toward you, I will leave you some information to help you learn what Wikipedia actually is on your talk page as a gesture of good faith. Take care, and please do not post here again. If you have how-to questions, I'll leave you a link to a place to ask them. If you wish to discuss changes in the article, please do that on the article talk page. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 05:04, 4 April 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.

Northwestern Polytechnic University Wikipedia page

Recently the page was edited by me but it was rejected because NPU is not accredited, however, Lincoln University is in the same situation as NPU and has the exact same information allowed to be included in the wiki page

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_University_(California)

I’d like for my original edits to add WASC candidacy back on the page

Thank you DCLinn (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

DCLinn, WP:OSE is generally not considered a meaningful argument. Please discuss content issues on the article talk page, not at a user talk page. Goodbye. John from Idegon (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Greendale High School

Could you take a look at the ACLU complaint section? An SPA had been adding some poorly sourced and POV material. I've trimmed it down. Is what's left reasonable? Meters (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I glanced at it last night, but didn't get a chance to completely read the references. My initial thought is to axe it as NOTNEWS and local interest only. Thoughts? John from Idegon (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, the complaint was filed on the district, not that particular school. I've removed it as off topic. John from Idegon (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Doh!. Thanks. I've added the district page to my watch list to make sure the original POV and bad refs (the mom's facebook for example) don't come back. Meters (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

It took me three reads to notice that too. I'll be removing it all if it shows up on the district article. John from Idegon (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

And indeffed after legal threats in UTRS unblock request. That went downhill in a hurry.after the EW block.. Meters (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Sinai Akiba Academy

Hello, I'd like the text for my own records of everything that had been composed for the 'Sinai Akiba Academy' page and has since been removed. Can you please let me know where I can find a copy of all the text you removed? Thanks.Egw1119 (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

We aren't a webhost. I have no idea what you are talking about. Only an administrator can delete an article or a draft. Please address your enquiry to the administrator that deleted your "page". John from Idegon (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

"Common" School Name versus "Full/Official" Name within Articles

Hi, John from Idegon. This is general school-related name issue that seems to occur a lot. As I understand it, articles about schools are supposed to be titled with the COMMONNAME for the school in accordance with WP policy. That is fine. But often times the lead sentence of the article will start with the "official name" of the school, which is different from the common name. As a real example, consider the article for Lamar High School (Arlington, Texas). The common name of the school is definitely "Lamar High School" so the article title is okay. But the lead sentence starts out with "Mirabeau B. Lamar High School is a secondary school...." It seems inappropriate to lead off the article by introducing a subject with a different name from the title of the article. It would be fine to put the "official name" somewhere later in the article, along with something about the significance of the name/person/etc. featured in the name. But not right at the beginning of the lead. Since schools are particularly likely to have a common name that is different from their official name, is this issue addressed in a policy that you could direct me to? Or do you have a suggestion for best practice? Your attention is much appreciated! --Krivak957 (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME actually only applies directly to article titles. In practice it is followed everywhere else too, but there are exceptions. The actual legal name is supposed to be used in the first sentence of the lede and that is bolded, along with any common AKA's, which only should be bolded if a redirect page (redirecting to the article in question) exists. I know...that's complicated and confusing. Let's use Babe Ruth. Well most people know his given name is George Herman Ruth, and that is how he is referred to in the first sentence. You'll see a little bit further The Bambino and The Sultan of Swat. Enter either term in the search box and you'll come right back to Babe Ruth. Those are redirects. So in the first instance only you should use the legal name. Otherwise use the common name. I haven't actually read it lately, but I think this is covered in WP:LEDE. John from Idegon (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I understand. Thus, the example of from Lamar High School (Arlington, Texas) is correct "as is" because they use the full legal name right in the lead and the common name elsewhere. Thanks again! --Krivak957 (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Removing my account

PLEASE TAKE THIS ELSEWHERE

Oreratile1207's userpage was blanked by me per WP:CHILD. I'd really appreciate it if you carry this any further, do it elsewhere. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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.

Hello sir, why did you remove my account? Oreratile1207 (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Obviously, I didn't. You are using it to post here. Mainly due to copyright laws, accounts cannot be removed. I blanked your userpage for your own protection. See WP:CHILD. If you need further information please ask an administrator. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 16:26, 18 April 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.

Christian Heritage School (Connecticut) revert

I don't care enough re-edit since removing the stub was simply WP:AWB's recommendation and I have no interest in the topic, but based on length and references, Christian Heritage School (Connecticut) feels more like a Start class article than a Stub to me. I don't find it all that promotional, either; the information may not all be encyclopedic, but it's appears to be facts presented rather dryly. —Ost (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The article is 100% sourced to the school; ergo, it isn't even really an encyclopedia article. Mission statements are 100% promo. Lengthy self sourced material about school programs are marketing, not encyclopedic content. You can use a whole lot of words to say nothing at all and that is what's going on here. John from Idegon (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good reason for anything around here, but I can't help but feel this article is a better attempt than many, though you may be right that after culling to the essentials, it would be apparent as a stub. I agree that the sources are insufficient for a good article, but to me it looks like a good faith attempt at a start that could use some experienced editorial work, not an advert. I also don't know where you see a mission statement in the article as it lays out what stats about the school, not the explicit goal of the school. At least the start of the lead seems encyclopedic, if not lacking in a notability assertion and third party validation. Just my thoughts, which you're welcome to ignore and move on with the more important task of maintaining the encyclopedia. Happy editing, Ost (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Another editor removed the mission statement during the time we were corresponding. Many school articles are promotional marketing tools and the simple fact is that until about 2 years ago, no one acted on it. Now we at WP:WPSCH do. John from Idegon (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Bluevale Collegiate Institute

That was certainly quick. I don't think I've ever seen a clearer case. Nine minutes from the 3RR posting to the call for a boomerang, and six more minutes for the block. If I'd gone for a drink I would have missed it all. Meters (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

SPI

Two minutes apart! After I hit submit I thought I had double-submitted accidentally. Bakazaka (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

me too. O well....all's well that ends well. 20:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Celina

That's just sad. The church in question is a significant part of the Celina skyline and is one of the most notable pieces of architecture in the city. The image is not "decoration". Omnedon (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]}.....so if it's so significant, add sourced copy on it, then add the picture. It is clearly your opinion that it's notable as it has no article on it. If you want to refer to something as notable, prove it and write the article on it. If and when you have an arguement that means something, seek consensus for the changes you wish on the article's talk page. Nothing further is needed from you here. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

3RR

THANKS ALL

I'll just ride it out. Apparently with some administrators you have to cite ADMINACCT before they'll reply to good faith requests for explanation. Thanks to those supporting. John from Idegon (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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.

You realize that you violated it, right? (one, two, three, four) — I suggest you self-revert while there's still time, and please be more careful in the future. El_C 00:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

That's not self-reverting. Self-reverting is going to the version you reverted. El_C 00:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Since when? I reverted to the status quo, prior to the edit war. It just so happens that's the version I support. I would have reverted to it if I were the other party too. If that's not what you think is right, feel free to move it to where it suits you. The other clueless noob has stated if we don't change our rules to suit him he's going to quit. So this is done. John from Idegon (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 24 hours due to violating the 3 revert rule. You were given every opportunity to self-revert, but chose not to. El_C 00:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. Goodnight. John from Idegon (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see this as anything but punitive. I asked you for clarification; you provided none. I told you I'd stopped. All that was needed was a full protect to force the new guy to talk. Something you didn't do. But whatever. John from Idegon (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

You're lucky you were even given the chance to self-revert, in the first place — when it comes to 3RR violations, I rarely do that. But rather than take advantage of that opportunity, you squandered it. El_C 02:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems the Admin are being very strict on 3rr if it isn't directly on the 3rr exception list which enforcing the status quo is not. John usually does solid work so maybe a time served unblock is best, I'm sure he won't do it again. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'll agree that this was a 3RR violation. That being said, John is a well established, respected editor from where I sit. If he says he's done, I believe that he'll stop. SQL ^{Query me!} 02:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

SQL, echoing. I too don't think a block was necessary here. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:27, 24 April 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.

Culver Academies

Hi,

I see recent updates to Culver Academies page have been removed. Is there a reason for the removal? The updates were made with reliable references/sources, removing sourced information directly from Culver Academies itself.

I see one entry where you claim the source is not reliable...how did you determine or claim to have the authority that the site is not reliable?

We're simply trying to add more robust and truthful content for the page, as similar institutions that the updates were modeled after...I'll provide a few examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_Academy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_Exeter_Academy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Paul%27s_School_(Concord,_New_Hampshire) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrenceville_School

The page is part of the following efforts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indiana

Your assistance with building the content for the page rather than its removal is appreciated. Tkcollapse (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Read the school article gudelines. Familiarize yourself with WP:5P. Practice WP:BRD. Understand that the article in question does not belong to nor is it for the school. It is an independent encyclopedia article. Virtually all content should be paraphrased from reliable secondary sources. Reliability is defined. Whether a particular source meets WP:RS is subject to WP:CONSENSUS. Content is subject to consensus. WP:OSE is not a valid argument. The article is not a "part" of Wikiproject Schools or Wikiproject Indiana (BTW I belong to both groups and am the coordinator of the schools project). Privateschoolreview.com is a directory that schools pay to be listed in. It is not a reliable source. Generally, US schools stats are sourced to the NCES. The formatting you were using when posting as an IP is just plain incorrect. Find reliable secondary sources, write in a neutral manner and follow WP:MOS. I'll leave some further info on your talk page, including a place where you can get assistance with technical or functional questions. Finally, who is this "we" you are speaking of? John from Idegon (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I'll need time to go over those resources/guidelines. However, a page as basic as the Culver Academies entry and the recent efforts to enrich the content to be compatible to other schools like the schools I listed above shouldn't be difficult. As I mentioned, those updates were made with various reliably sourced references. As for the paid resource you mentioned, I'm sure if the data was analyzed independently it would prove to be highly reliable, because the reputation of the service depends on it. Anyway, I still see your point, and I believe NCES was already one of the sources mentioned on the Culver Academies page. All I'm trying to do is to build up the content...I'm not trying to have a masterpiece done in one edit, but several users are literally jumping in upon the slightest issue and undoing everything. Not very productive. So far its been a huge waste of time and effort. Had users actually attempted to improve the information or simply vet the information the content would already be better, and yet it is basically the same starter page. Tkcollapse (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing unproductive about it. That is the way editorial review works here. See WP:BRD. And my question as to what you meant by "we" was not rhetorical. John from Idegon (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Too funny...you ask who "we" may or may not be, and yet you're completely anonymous behind your username. Reveal your identity and so will I. And while you may not see the process as unproductive, I certainly do. Several experts agree that wikipedia contributors like yourself stall the progress of Wikipedia itself. Tkcollapse (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia accounts are for the sole use of the registered user. It is a legitimate question. Also legit questions: Are you an alumni, student or staff from Culver Academies? Are you employed by Culver or any organization representing them to provide PR or web management? These questions are not optional. See WP:PAID and WP:COI. And either strike the personal attack (Several experts agree that wikipedia contributors like yourself stall the progress of Wikipedia itself.) or provide citations for it. Also not optional. John from Idegon (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/

https://thenextweb.com/contributors/2018/04/21/wikipedia-co-founders-8000-word-essay-build-better-wikipedia/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_is_Wikipedia_losing_contributors_-_Thinking_about_remedies https://www.npr.org/2012/02/22/147261659/gauging-the-reliability-of-facts-on-wikipedia https://www.uncomputing.org/?p=1622 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/23/wikipedia-bot-editing-war-study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ANorth_Tonawanda,_New_York Sorry, got work to do before the closing bell. Tkcollapse (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Pretty obvious from the last that there is at least a COI and quite probably undeclared paid editing as part of their duties. Ravensfire (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Yup. - Donald Albury 20:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Wrong...not paid...not worth the effort either.Tkcollapse (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

In Tkcollapse's defense, I don't think the closing bell remark had anything to do with school. The IP he was using prior to registering was registered to a broker. John from Idegon (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Westminster, Colorado edit

Hi, you sent me a message re an edit to the Westminster, Colorado page. I re-checked the edit, and am confused as to why you would think it was a test. I re-edited the page. Let me know why you think it is a 'test,' thx. Handy1965 (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Mary Davey Bliley is the first undergraduate woman to receive a Notre Dame Degree

John: You have corrected me twice and taken down my correction. The woman who is cited as the first woman graduate of Notre Dame is not. She WROTE the article that someone else cited as the reference source. If you read that woman's article, you will see that Mary Davey Bliley is the first woman undergraduate degree recipient from Notre Dame. I should know I was in the second class and wrote a book about the experience that contains the information about Mary Bliley. My book is Thanking Father Ted: Thirty-Five Years of Notre Dame Coeducation. It is available on Amazon and Barnes and Noble and elsewhere. With your second correction, I did not change the reference. It is the original reference. Please make the correction or I will go to the University media relations and have them contact Wikipedia. Ann Therese Palmer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atpalmer42 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Atpalmer42. If you think content you added or changes you made to a Wikipedia article were removed/undone in error, then the best place for you to discuss such things is on the talk page of the relevant article and see if you can establish a consensus for your edits as explained in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. As for Please make the correction or I will go to the University media relations and have them contact Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Ownership of content because the subject of articles have no final editorial control whatsoever over anything written about them on Wikipedia; so, contacting the university's media relations department is not going to have any impact at all when it comes to Wikipedia because neither the university nor anyone connected to it has any special say over what information can be added to the article. Your best bet, therefore, is to establish on the article's talk page that the change you wish to make is in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines like Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, etc. because otherwise your going to have a hard time establishing a consensus to make the change. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Atpalmer42, you are clearly a new user, as indicated by your failure to sign your message. Do you really think a good way to start off in a collaborative project is to threaten people? Quality control on Wikipedia works like this: You make a BOLD edit, in good faith. Another editor, also in good faith, REVERTS you and states the reason (YouTube is user edited and not a WP:RS). If you dispute that, you go to the article talk page and DISCUSS; making dispassionate arguments based in reliable sources and Wikipedia policies and guidelines until a consensus is reached. Under no circumstances do you restore your material unless and until a consensus is reached. See WP:BRD. The article here is not for the university, and contacting the media relations department at the University would be pointless. They have to follow the same procedures you and I do to edit here. Now here is the problem. The person who added the content originally is claiming the source says one thing and you are claiming the source says another. You seem to be claiming some sort of expertise on this, but what you know is irrelevant here. Everything must come from a reliable published source. Also, we have know way to know who you actually are. You did not have to prove that when you registered, because who you are is mostly irrelevant here. As the bit about the first female grad is now contentious, I will be removing the entire bit. It can come back when a consensus is reached on the article's talk page as to what to include. Many people come to Wikipedia initially with lots of different misconceptions. You are not unique. I'll leave you some information to help you understand how this works on your talk page. I'd suggest you look for alternate sources (you cannot cite a book you wrote...that would be a WP:COI). Start a discussion on the article talk page. The consensus reached there is how we determine truth in the face of divergent sources. John from Idegon (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Red Circle Authors

Hi John from Idegon Thank you for pointing this out and reverting my deletes on the Red Circle Authors Talk page. I had assumed that as other editors had got involved (non-English language references checked etc) that the issues raised were no longer relevant. Very helpful to be pointed to the right etiquette like this. Please could you let me know if I should or it is too early to mark any of the issues as Resolved or Request for closure on the talk page or not? Thank you! --WikiGeoffrey (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Most talk page discussions are not marked concluded in any way. The only time article talk page discussions are closed is if it is a formalized discussion such as an WP:RFC or WP:RM; or if the participants cannot self determine a consensus (in which case a request can be made at the administrator noticeboard for a formal assessment of consensus. That's pretty rare). May I make a suggestion, WikiGeoffrey? Keeping in mind that the article you created is not yours (see WP:OWN), IMO it would be best if you stepped away from it (keeping it on your Watchlist to check for vandalism of course) for a while and worked on something else. Let others work on it for a bit. Happy editing! I was here a year before I attempted my first article. Good job. John from Idegon (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

John from Idegon Thank you, especially for the suggestion. It has been much more time consuming than I expected doing this first article, but feels great now it is live. I will take on board your advice and now probably focus on edits and adding references here and there until I take up the challenge of my second article. Again, all comments have been helpful and are appreciated. Happy editing to you as well! WikiGeoffrey (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)