User talk:JohnInDC/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Internal link not allowed in Retrospect (software) article?

At 01:07 on 2 November 2017 you deleted a link from Retrospect_(software)#Small-group_features to Retrospect_(software)#Editions_and_Add-Ons, with the Edit Summary (→‎Small-group features: - no internal links). I don't understand your reason.

Perhaps you are saying there is some MOS rule against inter-section links within an article. However Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Section_links says this is OK, and even gives an example in the second paragraph. However the example used seems no longer to be in the actual article cited; maybe it never was. Are you saying I should have used a hat note—which I don't think would be appropriate in my case?

On the other hand, perhaps you are saying that this particular link would be incorrect because there is currently no discussion of Editions within the Retrospect_(software)#Editions_and_Add-Ons section; the word "Editions" is only within the section heading. On the article Talk page I have now seriously proposed a new shorter version of the section that would include only the briefest possible explanation of Editions.

If the first possibility for what you are saying is correct, please reply on my Talk page—since it would be an explanation of WP rules that doesn't belong on the article's Talk page. If the second possibility for what you are saying is correct, please reply on the article's talk page giving your opinion of my proposed new version for the Retrospect_(software)#Editions_and_Add-Ons section. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Delete?

John, can we just go ahead and nominate this article? No one seems to want to improve the article to establish its notability... Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 15:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. I guess I need to look at those two or three refs and decide if they are at all impressive. The page is pretty feeble though, isn't it? JohnInDC (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Rivalry Postings

Hi John,

I am a college student working on an Independent Study centered around sports rivalry research, known as the Know Rivalry Project. The purpose of our research is to gain an understanding of fan perceptions of sports rivalries. A little over a month ago, I created an account and made edits to a series of college football rivalry articles that cracked our top 10 rivalries according to our research. The edits/additions to the posts were removed due to them appearing to be for promotional purposes. Please know that was not the intent of my professor and I. We believe that our research has value, and that it would be interesting to fans reading about the rivalries.

We would like to post the additions about our research again, and we have edited the section I would be adding to remove any appearance of the posting being for our personal gain. Again, we just think that fans reading the articles would find the information interesting. Below, is the edited piece that I would be adding. Would you mind reading it for me and letting me know if it would be acceptable? I just don't want to post all of them again and have them be removed, or action taken against my account. I've also included the citation that will be used in the post, as this research is peer-reviewed, and for academic purposes.

Edited post detailing the rivalry research for the Top 10 most intense rivalries, according to our research:

In a survey of thousands of fans, the [Team1] versus [Team2] rivalry was ranked as the [ranking in most intense or most unbalanced list] in college football, with [most intense or most unbalanced rivalry mentioned] topping that list. The study was operated by students and faculty at Northern Kentucky University, and measured fans’ perceptions of rivalries by providing survey respondents with 100 “rivalry points” to allocate across their favorite team’s opponents (Tyler & Cobbs, 2017). Specifically in this rivalry, [Team allocating most points] fans allocated [#] of their possible 100 points to [Team2], while [Team2] fans reciprocated with [#] of their 100 rivalry points towards [Team1]. **By aggregating the mean rivalry points allocated by each team’s fans within a rivalry (200 points maximum sum; [sum] in this rivalry), the survey results allow for a comparison of the intensity of rivalry feelings within a matchup and across teams’ opponents.

Please forgive the unedited portions, of course I would include the information such as teams involved in any post I make.

This is the edit to the above for the Top 10 most unbalanced rivalries, according to our research (all the rest will remain the same):

By computing the difference in the mean rivalry points allocated by each team’s fans within a rivalry ([difference] in this rivalry), the survey results allow for a comparison of the balance of rivalry feelings within a matchup and across teams’ opponents.

Finally, here is the citation we will be using:

Tyler, B. D., Cobbs, J. (2017). All Rivals Are Not Equal: Clarifying Misrepresentations and Discerning Three Core Properties of Rivalry. Journal of Sport Management, 31 (1), 1-14.

Again, I appreciate your help. We would love to add this information about our rivalry research to these articles, and we hope (my professor and I) that you can help us make sure we do so while staying within the Wikipedia rules. Thanks!

Lukena4 (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to repost this to the College Football Project talk page, found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football, so that many editors can weigh in. My own concern is that a college student's independent study project doesn't meet the requirements for sources set out at WP:SOURCES. The research may be interesting, and informative, but at the same time "weighty" enough to qualify. Take a look at the sources page, and then head over to the football page and see what the response is there. Thanks for the note! JohnInDC (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

First, thank you for being so thorough regarding sources. That is great to see on the back end of Wikipedia and makes me think about reconsidering criticism of my students' frequent use of Wikipedia as their source (though they could/should seek original sources, as I'm sure you would encourage as well). As you may have guessed, this is LukenA4's professor composing this reply with him (student). I (NKU professor) am replying in the hope that we can clear up a potential miscommunication regarding the Know Rivalry research data and results. The study is NOT a student's independent study. A small part of his (LukenA4)'s independent study is to make the project's results publicly available. The study itself was undertaken over the course of a couple years to gather data via survey from over 10,000 sports fans. The study's method and academic findings have been published or is in-press (accepted for forthcoming publication) in several peer-reviewed research journals, including Journal of Sport Management (2017, v. 31, issue 1, pg. 1-14), Soccer & Society (doi.org/10.1080/14660970.2017.1399609), and Sport Marketing Quarterly (two articles in forthcoming December edition, one of which used the 'rivalry points' method as an independent variable in demand estimations of sports games). LukenA4 sourced his posts with the citation for the Journal of Sport Management article because that peer-reviewed publication explains in depth the methodology undertaken for the study, while also offering the academic findings regarding three core qualities of rivalry itself. Beyond these peer-reviewed publications, the findings specific to teams have been featured in over 30 media stories (secondary sources) including the Wall Street Journal, Slate, Fox Sports and even Tell Me Something I Don't Know (TMSIDK) by Freakonomics coauthor Stephen Dubner. The full list of these secondary features is available at knowrivalry.com/media/ We fully understand and appreciate your scrutiny for this type of work, but hopefully this information alleviates many of your concerns about the quality and broader dissemination of the work. Lastly, please note there is no monetary promotional purpose here. Know Rivalry has no revenue purpose and is strictly academic (no advertising on the site) for dissemination of data for use by other researchers or the general public. Actually, this line of research started when a faculty colleague of mine and I were frustrated with the lack of cross-sectional, empirical quantitative research focused on rivalry. Hence, we designed and started the Know Rivalry Project and have sought to include students in the research journey where possible/appropriate. Thank you for considering our work to add to the knowledge surrounding this fun and often-debated topic!

Lukena4 (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

___________

Cobbsj1 (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC) First, thanks for your very prompt reply. Second, I apologize for the transgression in etiquette and you’ll see I now have my own account, Cobbsj1, as you recommended. Perhaps I have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. You seem to be suggesting that not only must the topics listed in Wikipedia be well publicized and of the public interest, but also the information included in entries must be well publicized enough to show up in a Google search, for instance (per Lizard reply on 11/30). However, that is not how I interpret the mission statement of the Wikimedia foundation, “to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.” Accordingly, I see your point as related to the bar of public prominence needed for Wikipedia topics/pages, but we are not seeking a Wikipedia page for Know Rivalry, nor do we think it has earned such designation. We are simply trying to disseminate empirically-based educational content regarding a topic (sports rivalries) popular enough to maintain several different Wikipedia entries. The fact that our cross-sectional rivalry research is on such a topic that garners enough attention for many different Wikipedia entries does not—in my opinion—make our research “spammy” or “spotty” (though please note that I appreciate the frank dialog). On the contrary, we have taken great pains to collect data from all these different fan bases in a manner suitable for academic peer-reviewed acceptance, and then analyze it by dyads (individual rivalries) across thousands of possible team vs. team combinations. Do we have distinct data from different fan groups across many different rivalries? Yes. Has some of the media coverage focused on specific teams of most interest to the outlet’s readers? Yes, but I do not see how these factors make the research spam or spotty. While I understand your concern for publishing obscure content (which I’m still not convinced this qualifies as such), it seems somewhat strange to me that you would not welcome empirical, academic research results legitimized by multiple peer-reviewed journals and covered by media outlets such as WSJ as acceptable content within Wikipedia pages dedicated to that exact topic. In some ways, such resistance and insistence on wide dissemination of information as a qualification for inclusion on pages reinforces the skepticism of the use of Wikipedia as a reference source (i.e., wide dissemination by secondary sources in today’s digital world does not necessarily qualify information as legitimate). If the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform users of the most widely disseminated information about the most noteworthy topics, then I am not sure how its purpose differs from that of search engines, apart from compositional format. That being said, I remain encouraged by the source investigation you have demonstrated, though I respectfully question the preliminary judgment here. Lastly, I hope this response is not taken as overly argumentative. I have rather enjoyed the back-and-forth of frank discussion and consideration, and appreciate your willingness to engage and consider the issue in the framework of Wikipedia’s purpose as an informational platform for public.

Cobbsj1 (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, JohnInDC. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

What better way to celebrate the holidays (and bowl season) than "Touchdown Jesus"!
Best wishes for a happy and healthy 2018!
Cbl62 (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 22:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Investcorp Creation

Hi there,

There was no reason for you to delete the entire 'Creation of Investcorp.' All the facts are there with links to site/documents/pictures to prove the company's creation history, including PDF scans of Nemir Kirdar's handwritten statement about Investcorp's creation, as well as PDF scans of original documents in regards to Investcorp's Application for Incorporation & Founder Shareholders’ Meeting and The Incorporation & First Meeting of the Board of Directors.

I firmly believe the facts/history of Investcorp's creation need to remain on the company's wiki page.

Kindest regards, Hashmoder

INVESTCORP + APPENDICES PDF DOCUMENT

INVESTCORP

Investcorp: Chronology of Events

Investcorp: (01) Introduction

Investcorp: (02) Why Writing Now?

Investcorp: (03) The “Project”

Investcorp: (04) Nemir Kirdar at AMF (Arab Monetary Fund)

Investcorp: (05) Retention of the Law Firm

Investcorp: (06) Soliciting Investors

Investcorp: (07) The Summer of 1981

Investcorp: (08) Application for Incorporation & Founder Shareholders’ Meeting

Investcorp: (09) The Incorporation & First Meeting of the Board of Directors

Investcorp: (10) Events Leading to Dr. Jawad Hashim’s Resignation

Investcorp: Appendixes

You're going to need reliable, third party sources that describe these events - not self-sourced materials. When you find them, we can consider adding the material. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

ULL

Hi John, I figured I would be safe than sorry and go ahead and explain just in case... Happy New Year! Corky 20:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem at all, and thanks for both noticing the mass edits and particularly for the ping, inasmuch as I'd only been watching the page while the commonname was still a matter of contention and I would have missed the discussion otherwise - JohnInDC (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem... I figured that a ping would be best otherwise others wouldn't respond! BTW, I have a list of 7 accounts that are more than likely socks for ULL articles... I can give them to you incase you want to add more to the list... Corky 23:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry

Yep, I didn't intend to revert you at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. I didn't even notice. Sorry. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem at all. I do something like that about once a year myself! JohnInDC (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Linkrot

Are you blind? 205.189.94.12 (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The ones that you didn't tamper with got fixed by MarnetteD. Except for the ones that got fixed by Derek B.
Bungler.
205.189.94.12 (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Dude, just *fix* the one or two incomplete refs rather than templating the entire page! Make yourself useful. Now please go away. JohnInDC (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Cajuns

I understand, JohnInDC. As long as the sentence makes sense, it's okay in my book. G. Capo (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Michigan Football Page

I think you made a mistake. All I have been doing is making the page look better. Please quit removing my work! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eibln (talk • contribs) 16:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Friend, you removed an entire section of the article - "Home Venues" - with this edit, and substituted your table in its place. I restored the (substantial) material you deleted, and kept your table, and improved the referencing. I also later removed a column you'd added about number of years at Michigan, in a specific position, which borders on trivial, would have to be updated every year, and did not seem to be entirely supported by the source you cited. This is how Wikipedia works. People add or change material, and then others come by and add or change it some more. If you disagree with something I've done, feel free to raise it on the article talk page. In any case however you need to be more careful about your own work and material that you remove - I guess by accident. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, But...

Hi, John,

Thanks very much for responding to my question. Unfortunately, none of those reasons you cited for possible removal of my edits apply: my source for the solendon entry was a "Nature" article, IIRC; my source for "The Gentlemen" was one of the member's own Facebook page...I'm just really discouraged that if my time is going to be wasted by anonymous whims accountable to no one -- despite the rather rigorous standards I had to go through myself when my very first edit was vetted by long-time Wikipedians -- then I really give up...it's just not worth it for me to be careful and then some God-knows-who decides God-knows-when to just inexplicably wipe it all out.

I'll try digging into the "history" of the entries as you suggest but a precursory initial glance revealed nothing to me, not even notes by someone as to why an edit was deleted.

Thanks again for taking the time to explain; I'd be interested in you have any further more specific advice to offer.DChou88 (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

As it happens, the Solendon entry was the single one I happened to follow up on. What appears to have happened there is that someone took your original sentence, clarified it, expanded on it, found a better source, and ultimately left your contribution in place. Here is your original, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solenodon&diff=718831324&oldid=718533178, which if you'll forgive me doesn't reflect the very best syntax; and here are several edits that improved your sentence structure, added information, and gathered a better source. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solenodon&diff=821161247&oldid=816808479 The newer version substantially improves on the valuable seed that you provided, and that's precisely how the encyclopedia is supposed to work. Don't take it personally! JohnInDC (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

As for The Gentlemen, it appears that someone entirely removed the "Where are they now" section, which included the material you added. They didn't say why they did, but if I were hazard a guess it would be because the material is trivial and follows the personal paths of individuals who are not in and of themselves notable in a Wikipedia sense, that is, apart from their association with the band. It could go either way but on the whole I think taking it out was the better choice. Again - don't take it personally! JohnInDC (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

UMich logo

Hey, John. You're a Michigan fan, right? Do you know if the athletics department has moved away from using the blue border as seen in File:Michigan Wolverines logo.svg? If they have, I'm going to remove it... They are very inconsistent with this -- publications seem to use both versions (border/no border), while pix on the website do not use the border! Thanks, Corky 19:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Huh, good question. The school's branding materials show Ms without the border, but don't say anything about it; plus the athletic department has always had kind of its own rules anyhow (e.g. its "maize & blue" were different than the official "maize & blue") but I couldn't find anything on point this go-round. You wouldn't be wrong to substitute the borderless one, I don't think - JohnInDC (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The brand guidelines was one of the first places I checked, then looked to see if maybe they had their own separate brand guide... which I wasn't able to find! I think I'll wait and think on this some more! Thanks, Corky 21:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

My edits

John, I am sorry for the edits that I have messed up. I will definitely try and do better than others. But remember, some things don't make sense. PS, I hope I did this correctly by adding this conversation to the page. If not, let me know.

User talk:RedsRock

You did a great job here and thanks for responding. I left you a (belated) welcome message on your Talk page - give those links a look and read through them when you have some spare time. Good luck in your editing going forward! JohnInDC (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Identity of "my friend", and general thank you

When I talk about "my friend" in connection with articles on the particular data processing activity that has become my Wikipedia specialty, I am really talking about myself.

I am known by my real name on the Forums run by the software company that develops the application for that activity that I use—about which I have essentially written one WP article and about 20% of another article. If you remember from the fall of 2017, when you started drastically cutting that 10-screen-page article, it originally contained discussions that—within the bounds of NPOV—were quite critical of that application's documentation. I was quite active on those Forums, and was concerned that the developers and T.S. for that application would be angry with what I wrote in the WP article. I therefore on those Forums have pretended to be merely a friend of and go-between for the person who writes the WP articles. By contrast, on Wikipedia I have pretended that the person who participates in the Forums, and who actively uses the application, is merely "my friend".

I don't really think I'm fooling the developers and T.S. for that application. I'm sure they have a very strong hunch that the two of us are actually one person. However I hope that, so long as I don't admit to my dual identity, I have enough "plausible deniability" to avoid any wrath they may wish to direct at the writer of the WP articles.

Sorry to have to discuss this subject so elliptically. If you permitted it, I would have written you a Private Message (or whatever Wikipedia calls it) instead. Since I can't do that, I've tried to discuss this matter in such a way that most people casually looking at your Talk page wouldn't know what I'm talking about.

In any case, thank you for your help and understanding over the last 7 m noonths. Even though we have frequently had a semi-adversarial relationship over our editing of the articles, I'm very grateful. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry to see that I never responded to this. Thanks for the note, and I agree. JohnInDC (talk) 11:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Football rivalries

There already is consensus on this change. It is the standard for all pages. The more encyclopedic way is to include mascot names. Please don't undo again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomad3919 (talk • contribs)

Well, no. The consensus is precisely the opposite, and you are edit warring by repeatedly inserting your personal preferred phrasing. Tread lightly. JohnInDC (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Western Governors University

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know that I've started WikiProject Western Governors University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of WGU. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! Paul Smith111977 (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

WGU

"The OIG audit appears to go to the heart of WGU's business model and as such is pretty significant." - Based on what I've seen in the comments there is a bias against WGU in that you and others editing the page want to put it in line with schools like DeVry. I am a student at WGU, now working as a software developer - thanks to the education I've received there. The school has become one of the top schools for educators and has a lot of nursing students as well. I think the OIG audit should be noted on the Wikipedia page but I also think the school deserves more respect than to blast it all through the article as if it's some degree mill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbnetdev (talk • contribs)

Thanks. You need to raise your concerns at the article Talk page, though, not here! JohnInDC (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Please stop

I feel like you are specifically targeting my edits and inhibiting my contributions. See WP:Hound. Thanks.Bangabandhu (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

You must be joking. You are talking about one single page. Do you own all the DC council member pages? What precisely was wrong with my edits, save the adjustment you made to them subsequently? JohnInDC (talk) 11:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

That response is very unsympathetic and more hurtful. I wouldn't choose what entries I edit based your history and don't think you should edit that way, either. What is the relevance of WP:OWN? The project needs more editors on all of its pages, regardless of the creator.

Unrelated to the comment above - I would have thought that you're more professional than leaving bare citations for others to cleanup. Who is going to fix this? Bangabandhu (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Bang, if you are going to come to my Talk page and accuse me of editing in bad faith by stalking you and editing pages you have previously edited, for the sole purpose of causing you distress (see WP:HOUND) - when you don't seem to have any substantive problem with the edits! - then you are going to get a testy response. Surely you appreciate that. Now - I'm happy to move on from this; call it a mutual misunderstanding, okay? As for the sloppy cite - I copied it verbatim from the Mary Cheh page, where it is similarly afflicted. I agree that it was a bit slapdash on my part but in the grand scheme of things no worse than, for example, flagging something as a dead link without bothering to look up an archived version. (I fixed it.) How about we call that one even too? JohnInDC (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, we good. Bangabandhu (talk) 04:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

O-H-I-O

Hey John, it's me RedsRock. Are you a Michigan fan? If you are, I have one thing to say: O-H-I-O! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedsRock (talk • contribs)

Hey dude, I sure am! Happy to met another sworn enemy! JohnInDC (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I bet you were sad after Ohio State won the national championship in 2002 and 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedsRock (talk • contribs)

Nah, I know how important it is to you all. It's nice for you. JohnInDC (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

See you next year in the Shoe! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedsRock (talk • contribs)

Oh man, I went to so many games there. I was lucky (for me) - it was during the Cooper years and I hardly ever saw Michigan lose. Haven't been to so many games lately - not as much time - but I think the rivalry's looking up again! JohnInDC (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Baseball team?

Hey John, are you a baseball fan? If you are, who's your favorite team? As you can tell by my nickname, I'm a Cincinnati fan. RedsRock (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Tigers all the way. Grew up with them. I became kind of an Os fan here in DC, before the Nats (the Baltimore park is a real treasure) but the Tigers will always have my heart. The Reds - fine old team, magnificent history - you are lucky! JohnInDC (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Your thanks

While I appreciate the thanks, I'm not comfortable with this hasty reversion. I just don't have the energy or time to talk about it now. Bangabandhu (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I shouldn't have removed the ref, which is relevant, and my thanks was for your restoring it. However, the fact that the company has the same initials as his dead first wife (not that it was "named for her" - your own inference) isn't relevant to anything about him, or his positions, or Digi, or anything remotely in the public interest. (Or - maybe it is! But we sure can't tell that when it's no more than a reporter's little flash of insight set out as an aside in a City Paper article.) I can't imagine what you had in mind when you added it. JohnInDC (talk) 11:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Input

I know that you don't agree with some actions I've taken, but I am hoping that that will not sway you in a current issue I am having. The issue is this article:

Louisiana_Tech–Louisiana–Lafayette_football_rivalry

Here are my issues:

1. Fact: both schools have had several names throughout their history, which both date back to the late 1880's. But in the above article, which traces the history of the rivalry, only one school is required to list their prior name: "Southwestern."

2. Fact: LTU was called (officially, casually and throughout the state of La) "Louisiana Polytechnic Institute," or "LollyPolly" by most people outside of Ruston, from 1920-1970. Fifty years. Roughly half of their existence. As long, or longer, then their current name. Of course, UL was also known as "USL" for about as long.

3. In her defense of reverting my edit, Allison Foley states that it was decided by "consensus" that LTU would be referred to as "La Tech....all the way back to 1920." I have seen no evidence of Wiki consensus, and when I questioned her on this she was unable to provide the proof behind that assertion.

So my questions are:

1. Why should one school have to be listed by the name they were called at the time of the games, but the other one does not? 2. Are you aware of of a "consensus" on Wiki that LTU should be referred to as "La Tech....all the way back to 1920"?

And before you ask, I did try to reach out to Ms. Foley, on both the "talk" page of the article, as well as on her own page. No response. FYI: she seemingly refuses to answer anyone who questions her on her dealings with UL....including TannerSpearman, who wrote the article in question and whom I have absolutely no relation to whatsoever.

I would appreciate your feedback on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pncomeaux (talk • contribs) 13:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice note. I'll be happy to shoot over and have a look. It may be a few hours though! JohnInDC (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pncomeaux (talk • contribs) 17:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I should have said this above: "....and when I questioned her on this she was unable to provide the proof behind that assertion....BUT DID MANAGE TO MAKE A NASTY PERSONAL ATTACK ON ME." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pncomeaux (talk • contribs) 19:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Just wondering if you had a chance to view the article yet..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pncomeaux (talk • contribs) 17:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I can't easily fit this into express policy, but the current arrangement makes pretty good sense to me. For years, Louisiana at Lafayette was formally University of Southwestern Louisiana, and colloquially, Southwestern Louisiana. You and I argued about what the school's current common name is, but I think there's no disagreement or confusion about what it was called up to 1999. It's a bit more complicated for Louisiana Tech. Obviously they formally changed their name to that in 1970 because that's what people had been calling "Louisiana Polytechnic" informally for at least some time. (It's a stupid name otherwise, don't you think?) I don't doubt what you say about "Louisiana Poly" or "Lolly Polly" for at least a good part of its history, but there's no easy (or reliably sourced) way to figure out what people were calling the school commonly during the years before 1970, and it makes sense to me just as a matter of expedience to stick with what's now the current formal and common name for that school for all of the rivalry listing, because to do anything else without sourcing re the common name for La. Tech during those years - a common name that didn't always match its formal name - would be confusing. So I guess for me the rule is, "use the common name, which is often going to match the formal name, unless the older 'common' and 'formal' names always don't match up and you can't really tell what was what". I know that's not what you were hoping for but maybe it was helpful? JohnInDC (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me and looking into this with me. Of course, lol, you know I respectfully disagree with your opinion. I especially have an issue with your comment "....because that's what people had been calling "Louisiana Polytechnic" informally for at least some time." On what facts are you basing that statement on? I was alive and living in the Louisiana during that time, and I can assure you that that is not the case....so am curious as to why you say that. And then, IMHO, you completely contradict yourself right after that when you say: "...but there's no easy (or reliably sourced) way to figure out what people were calling the school commonly during the years before 1970," which I do not agree with. So then it gets back to my original question: why is it that one school is treated so lightly in regards to this matter, while the other one is held to the very strictests of interpretations? Seems to me that if there is no way to determine what the common name during a period in the past would be....and I again, disagree with this theory...LTU was known as La PolyTech in that era, NOT La Tech....than the most logical and fair thing to do is use the offical name of the school at that time. Actually, let me rephrase that: the logical and fair thing would be to use the offical name of BOTH schools, not just the one. BTW, there is now a discussion of this issue on the Talk page of that article. Thanks again and take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pncomeaux (talk • contribs) 15:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Request

John, this is Jack Evans. Can you contact me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B027:8236:E1B8:FAF0:1446:EBAA (talk) 03:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome to email me - there's a link off to the side, or should be, and I'm happy to correspond - but I doubt that I'd say anything different in substance than I'd say on one or another Talk page. Let me know - JohnInDC (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Liberty

Re: "Liberty University describes itself...", etc., Universities are unable to describe themselves. Not to mention the wording in the entire portion of the paragraph is quite stilted and not really reader-friendly. Muddy, even. That's the reason for the changes I made. I'm happy to discuss it on the article talk page, but would rather see a cooperative effort between you and I to make the description and language improved rather than just go back to the awkward and unwieldy status quo prose. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Certainly. I've started a Talk page discussion. JohnInDC (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Didn't see until just now, I will check it out. Thanks for starting a discussion. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you didn't miss it. I started it because of your note here! JohnInDC (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

era usage

Hi John, "era" is currently used almost universally in coach tenure headers in the History section, regardless of tenure. Right or wrong. There is a related discussion, edit war, and radio-silence at Talk:Western Kentucky Hilltoppers football. Unrelated, you can check my edit history for "Verizon" and quickly understand what is going on at Michigan. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 02:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. TBH the misuse drives me crazy and I'm willing to arm-wrestle you anywhere and any time on it - Consensus Take All, of course. Otherwise - there's someone with a Verizon account who's pretty determined to do things his own way, isn't there! JohnInDC (talk) 03:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Jack Evans's parking history

Can you please provide clarification as to why my edits were removed? Evans's history of parking illegally throughout Washington D.C. has been well-documented and publicized extensively among his constituents. Everything I cited was directly taken from legitimate sources.Yung wun105 (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, I explicitly suggested in my edit summary that you review the prior Talk page discussion on this, and other, issues relating to the Evans page, where the parking issues were specifically discussed. How about you start with that? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

List of University of Michigan arts alumni

I am re-adding Kristen Roupenian to the University of Michigan Arts Alumni. Her story, "Cat Person," HAS a wikipedia article because it was the second most read story in a major publication, The New Yorker, in 2017, DESPITE being published in December of 2017, one month before the year's end. Her vital short story was written about in MANY major publications, and resulted in a bidding war for her first book, which sold for so much that other major publications, including the Boston Globe, and Forbes, wrote about her story again. She has also sold a horror film script to a major producer.

She is a significant alum, and if you remove the article about her again, I will report you to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meltedicecrema (talk • contribs) 19:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The article is not the person - the notability of one does not establish the notability of the other. Further, you have violated Wikpedia's 3RR policy - about which I informally warned you - and have now followed it up with a formal warning. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Rivalries Ohio state

Why are you posting penn state and Michigan state as Ohio state rivals? They are not rivals with Ohio State. We have only two historic rivals in Michigan and Illinois. Although penn state and MSU have usually have good games with Ohio state that is akin to posting wisconsin or Nebraska as our rivals. Good games but not recognized as a rivalry. Jpanther24 (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Both of those matchups have rivalry articles here at Wikipedia, meaning that either 1) the rivalries are sufficiently documented to warrant their inclusion; or 2) some editor created an unwarranted article that hasn't been deleted yet. If the former then the links are appropriate, and your edits are disruptive. If the latter, your edits are still disruptive, until you manage to persuade people that the articles should be removed. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)