User talk:John from Idegon/Archive 47
 | 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 40 | ← | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 |
Disambiguation link notification for January 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cherry Creek High School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew George. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Schools
Hi. I'm not going to be available much for Wikipedia for a couple of weeks. Look after the shop while I'm gone and if you need any admin intervention don't hesitate to ask our senior co-ord, CT Cooper. All the best for 2016! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
AfD
Request to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huntley Fitzpatrick per sources presented there. North America1000 01:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 06 January 2016
- News and notes: The WMF's age of discontent
- In the media: Impenetrable science; Jimmy Wales back in the UAE
- Arbitration report: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 case been decided
- Featured content: Featured menagerie
- WikiProject report: Try-ing to become informed - WikiProject Rugby League
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
Hello there! Look, as much as I hate "popular culture" or "trivia" subsections, your blanking of said section is tantamount to making it irrelevant. Either delete the section altogether or at least reinstate the entries I had reinstated. The fact they're all referenced by primary sources is unavoidable given the topic in question. Why did you deem PBS more notable than an Isabel Allende book? We should be striving for consistency and relevance. Cheers, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Who are you and why do you care so much about imposing your preferences relating to "In popular culture" sections on the Berkeley High page
Cedarcrest High School
Most of this information is easily verifiable, and was there before. Why do you care so much about the deleting club information for un "encyclopedi" information. Most of the page is unsourced, so why does it even exist!!! Wikipedia is no longer the haven of free information and is becoming a tyranny of technicality and where only "big schools and important things" have information available to the world.
edits reverted
Somebody reverted my edits on Muncie, Indiana. Why is that? Angela Maureen (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 January 2016
- Community view: Battle for the soul of the WMF
- Editorial: We need a culture of verification
- In focus: The Crisis at New Montgomery Street
- Op-ed: Transparency
- Traffic report: Pattern recognition: Third annual Traffic Report
- Special report: Wikipedia community celebrates Public Domain Day 2016
- News and notes: Community objections to new Board trustee
- Featured content: This Week's Featured Content
- Arbitration report: Interview: outgoing and incumbent arbitrators 2016
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
There's a lively discussion going on at Talk:Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles. I'm sure it will make its way over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Ed retention barnstar
|
The Feedback Responder Barnstar | |
| Nice ed retention work! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC) |
AIV and you
Hello!
Thanks for your great reports to AIV.
One small request: if you're making a report such as this one, please don't say 'obvious sock of blocked IP' without actually specifying the IP. Otherwise I have to hunt through contributions to see which IP matches your report (for this specific case, I assume it was 73.169.85.220 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)).
Thanks much! m.o.p 23:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yea, that was kinda dumb. I mentioned it at RPP, where I requested protection for those articles. My bad! Thanks for the quick fix. John from Idegon (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- No worries at all.
- I've also dealt with the RFPP reports. We generally don't protect a page if there are only one or two users editing maliciously. In this case, it's easier to just block them.
- If more sockpuppets come out of the woodwork, let me know and we can create a SPI report and deal with them accordingly. Best, m.o.p 23:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Stand-alone lists for city articles
I'm wondering if you've ever seen a discussion about how long a notable people list should be on a city article before it gets cut and placed into a stand-alone list. Canadian cities follow pretty much the same guidelines as US cities, and I noticed that a List of people from Richmond Hill, Ontario was recently created with just 22 entries. Part of the fun of reading a city article is seeing who lived there. This is also a red-hot area for unsourced content, and in my experience the stand-alone notable lists get neglected. Curious to know your opinion. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Visalia, California is another. There is no guideline that I know of, but I have heard some old heads say 30. John from Idegon (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Morgantown, WV
Hi, John. If you say generals are automatically notable, I will take you at your good-faith word on that; I guess it's an editorial understanding, since I couldn't find a guideline specifying it. If it's proper to restore it, then of course, please do so.
The one thing I would offer is that if he's notable for being a general, then the sexual predation is irrelevant and wouldn't belong in the log-line description any more than it would at "Bill Cosby - actor, comedian" at List of people from Philadelphia. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- FYI, It's here. And I agree completely about the rest. John from Idegon (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Upon further investigation, he had an article once. It was deleted, because the closing administrator felt the BLP issues outweighed the presumed notability. See here. Thanks for your work! John from Idegon (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
My edit of new castle, indiana
It's a little too complicated for me I guess. Peter Malnati is a PGA golf tour player. His PGA bio on the PGA tour.com site lists his birthplace as new castle, indiana. I have no idea how to cite this so that he can be listed under the notable persons list for that city.
Pupjr (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 January 2016
- News and notes: Vote of no confidence; WMF trustee speaks out
- In the media: 15th anniversary news round-up
- Traffic report: Danse Macabre
- Featured content: This week's featured content
Park Tudor
I admit that I am not fluent in markups for Wikipedia. As a just-past member of the alumni association board with careful knowledge of its history, I am fully aware of the official colors of the school, the former heads of school, and each other detail. Many of the changes are noted on the school's website. I'm not sure how to take care of this without spending two or three hours doing so. If you can, please help me to do so. Currently the article is incorrect. 2602:306:C45E:97A0:C45:1754:4BAD:8B50 (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- This is an encyclopedia. Each and every fact in it must be able to be cited to a reliable, independent source. That is not to say everything must be referenced, just that it can be referenced to a published source. What you know is irrelevant. Mundane things, like the address, type of school and staff names can be referenced to the school. Anything regarding living people must be especially well referenced. Before someone can be added to a notable alumni list, there must be proof that they meet Wikipedia's somewhat unique definition of notability. This is generally shown by Wikilinking to a biography of them. Additionally, there must be reliable sources to their connection to the school, either on the list or in their bio. If an independent source disagrees with the school, we will go with the independent source. The IHSAA School Directory (available as a pdf on their website) disagrees with what you added for school colors. We don't use school generated approximations when independent statistical info is available. (here) We generally do not add empty words. A list of 24 entries does not need an introductory sentence stating there are 24 entries.
- The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to summarize available published information on a subject. It is not for the subject to disemminate information. That's what the school's webpage and social media are for.
- You had stated that you have a connection with the school and then removed that information. The fact that you have tried to hide that is suspect, to say the least. As far as I am concerned, that means you are a COI, editor and need to behave as such.
- Lastly, I am unwilling to "tutor" an IP editor, due to the communication difficulty. Who knows what IP you will be on tomorrow? Also, to engage in dialogue like while reinstating your disputed edit is quite rude. There is no deadline here. And please remember that on Wikipedia, verifiability is far more important than the "truth". John from Idegon (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- I was trying to edit this talk in order to change the tone to be friendlier, but you started editing while I was doing so. I apologize. I am not a Wikipedia editor and not overly familiar with what is apparently needed to edit correctly. I'm not sure what is gained by using a username as opposed to the IP address since you and the other editors also are anonymous. That said, I was connected to the school simply as part of the alumni Association board. I'm not sure why that would be "suspect." The notable people that I added are also listed on Wikipedia in their own separate entries. Since I'm not going to spend hours on this, and sincerely do not want antagonize you, I will simply leave the article as is. Despite our differences on these particular things, I very much appreciate your trying to avoid vandalism of sites. I wonder, however, if you could do me a favor and change the colors to red and white which, as you note, appear on the IHSAA site. You have changed them to red and black, which were the colors of Park School prior to 1970. A previous editor had changed them from red and white to red and black. I changed them to red, white, and black (which, despite the IHSAA) are the correct colors. You then changed then to red and black. Thanks.
- John - Looks as if we were editing the opening paragraph at the same time.
- John - I agree that an independent source is probably necessary for the college placement rate. Curious as to why you removed "non-sectarian" from the opening line.
- John - Looks as if we were editing the opening paragraph at the same time.
"Non-sectarian" is rather different, I think, than being "independent."
Have you confirmed whether the above editor is indeed paid for his or her edits? <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- He has disclosed on his user page as a paid editor. Has he edited? For paid editors, as i understand it, they are not allowed to edit at all. It must be proposed on talk only. I may be incorrect. The PR tone of his disclosure does not bode well. John from Idegon (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- The account has been "blocked" but his active participation could be a sign that he might appeal his block. Let's just wait and see. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 January 2016
- News and notes: Geshuri steps down from the Board
- In the media: Media coverage of the Arnnon Geshuri no-confidence vote
- Recent research: Bursty edits; how politics beat religion but then lost to sports; notability as a glass ceiling
- Traffic report: Death and taxes
- Featured content: This week's featured content
My edit of Edinburg, Texas
Hi, John,
Maybe Wikipedia is too complicated for me to use. This is my first edit. Edinburg is my hometown, and the attraction I added is a vital part of the economy there. It attracts tourist from all around the world. I provided an external link, as you suggested, to a New York Times article profiling the birding center (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/travel/11explorer.html?_r=0).
1) I could put under the "Entertainment and Sports" heading, but it doesn't really fit there. Would that be a good compromise?
2) I could list more ecotourism sites in Edinburg under the "Ecotourism" header. Alternatively, I could expand on the description of the birding center and cite other articles that have been done about it. There have been several national, and even international, publications that have written about it.
Which would you prefer I do?
Thanks,
Rachel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldwearywhore (talk • contribs) 17:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- When edits are in dispute, the procedure is to go to the article's talk page seeking a consensus on what you want. I have started a discussion there. I'll leave you some links on your talk page that may be helpful. Please note that pages do not exist in a vacuum. You should study other articles on communities for ideas on how the article in question should look. There is also a guideline for US settlement articles at WP:USCITY. I am always glad to help. Just drop me a note here. Interesting username, BTW. John from Idegon (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Well this is going to be interesting - this user got blocked and she's appealing. Let's see what happens. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)