User talk:John from Idegon/Archive 48

James M. Bennett High School

I was looking at the article for James M. Bennett High School... With the exception of a few edits made in the past few days, why are the claims of achievement which you have deleted unencyclopedic, if sources are provided? Why must an achievement be a state championship? Who made these rules John, and where can I find them? Jangodom (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Jangodom. Welcome to Wikipedia. I will leave you some new user instructions on your talk page. If you have questions after studying them, feel free to come ask them.

Unencyclopedic means the content is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, not that it isn't true. Articles are not written to include every fact about the subject, only the most important facts. Other than completely mundane things, all information must be verifiable to reliable sources independent of the subject. We have no interest in what the school says about itself. This is one of the 10 most viewed websites in the entire world. We routinely omit names of people, as their privacy is more valuable than assigning a name to something that the understanding of does not require a name. If you were to read a school article about a school in Nevada, would your understanding of the school be increased by knowing the name of the football coach? Or a kid that won something in 1987? Now if those people were already notable enough that we have a biography on them, then yes, it would and we would use their name. Otherwise, no. In general, all articles in the encyclopedia are to be written to a potential audience of the entire English speaking world. Britain, India, Australia, Canada....the list goes on. Almost half the countries in the world list English as one of their official languages. Articles are not written to promote. They are not written to be a repository of facts primarily of interest to people already knowledgable about the subject or people who are associated with it. Content of articles is decided by consensus. For broad categories of articles such as schools, there are guidelines that represent long term consensus on what should and shouldn't be there. Content on individual articles is decided by consensus building discussions on the particular article's talk page. These discussions are based on good sources and policy.

Hope this addresses your concerns. If not, feel free to come back with more specific questions. Happy editing. John from Idegon (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Sock news

You may be interested in a message I have posted at User talk:Magnolia677#Fairview Alpha, Louisiana again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

• From the editors: Help wanted

• Special report: Board chair and new trustee speak with the Signpost

• In focus: The Knight Foundation grant: a timeline and an email to the board

• Op-ed: So, what’s a knowledge engine anyway?

• News and notes: Harassment survey 2015; Luis Villa to leave WMF; knowledge engine background

• Arbitration report: Catching up on arbitration

• Traffic report: Bowled

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Re Grafofoni

I'm not seeing personal attacks (and no warnings about that, even if it should be common sense), just some BLP violations. I do think they're going to get blocked (and could see them getting blocked soon), but I'm not quite sure I can get away with blocking them just yet. Going to give just a little more WP:ROPE and maybe get away with an indef. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Compton, California

I would like to discuss the undo edit's in which you made to Compton, California page. Reason given by you was "Seems a bit like whitewashing to me. Discuss on talk page." I respectfully disagree and would like to discuss a reasonable resolution. I am new to Wikipedia in regards to performing edits but do believe that it was factual, cited and verifiable and written as such. Due to the blanket reverted edit another user was required to undo and add some of which was undone. I believe that we can come to an agreement of relevant edits that further the value of this page. Thank you and please advise how you propose we can accomplish such.Steven Brinkley (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Start a discussion at Talk:Compton, California so all interested editors can participate. John from Idegon (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey...

Thanks John. Just doin' some random article clean-up. I really did think of you since it was a school. Hope all is well. I'm going to a casting call for a Wrigley Field job on Tuesday...dreams do come true!!! Wish me luck! Buster Seven Talk

Individuals in School infoboxes

John, was there ever a final decision about removing vice principals (and even lesser) positions from the infobox fields? I've noticed you removing them (and I don't disagree) but they are still in the template. I was happy to realize that the custodian field had been done away. Meters (talk) 03:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

There was no opposition to changing it. Seems to have been forgotten by the guy who was going to actually change the coding. I pinged him. Let's see what happens. John from Idegon (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

• Special report: New internal documents raise questions about the origins of the Knowledge Engine

• In focus: An in-depth look at the special report's newly revealed documents

• News and notes: Another WMF departure

• In the media: Jeb Bush swings at Wikipedia and connects

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Traffic report: A river of revilement

• Blog: Wikimedia Foundation removes The Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law requirements

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Moving to Draft Space

Yes, I'd like your help in moving the Meadow Wood Condominium piece to draft space. I'd also appreciate your help once I've fleshed out the piece. As I mentioned, there's plenty of material, not just the NYT article, but I'd like to know beforehand if I've achieved sufficient NPOV. Thanks. --JEParsons787 (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)JEParsons787

Requesting edit to Walgreens Boots Alliance page

Hi John,

Thanks for responding to my post on the TeaHouse page.

The sources I have cited for my suggested amend to the Walgreens Boots Alliance page are the Nasdaq and USA Today websites (http://www.nasdaq.com/article/-walgreens-boots-tops-q4-earnings-set-to-buy-rite-aid-cm535840 and http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/10/28/walgreens-earnings-rite-aid-acquisition/74727440/). Are these sufficient?

Unfortunately no one responded when I used the request edit function in my initial post on 20 January.

Thank you for your assistance. SourcingABC (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Princeton Community High School

I removed the picture. I will make another attempt to take a better picture in near future. Not all of us have professional cameras. However, the state titles stay. as they have been found on numerous high school pages and are a way to save a little space on the page. Rhatsa26X (talk) 1138 16 February 2016 (CST)

No, it doesn't. Just to remind you, a consensus is needed and you do not have it. Take a look at WP:WHENTABLE. Please start a discussion on the article talk page. Your statement here reeks of OWN. John from Idegon (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Accidental revert

Haha, it's cool! I only had a moment of, "Oh no, did I ask for help in the wrong place??" Thanks for noticing and adding it back in. :) PS: I am entertained by "Idegon"—very fun.

Verbistheword (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Jim Brown

I noticed you removed this content from Jim Brown last year, so I just wanted to make you aware of this discussion I started on the BLP noticeboard. Rowssusan (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Alumni references

Hello, John! I have been following the Oakland Technical High School article, and I am not clear what you are asking for when you say "references". It is not general practice to add an actual reference to every entry in a "notable alumni" section. I know you asked for one a week or so ago when someone added a person, and I did add a reference, but I was puzzled why you asked - since none of the others had a reference citation (and still don't). Now you are deleting many entries and accusing the user of "vandalism" for re-adding them. Are you requiring an actual inline citation for each name? Or what? I'm sure the other editor doesn't understand what you are asking for, since I don't understand it myself. Thanks for any clarification. --MelanieN (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at the editor's edits? He's adding names with no wikilinks, some with Wikilink to articles that have no mention of the school, alternative names with nothing in their bios to show that, and straight promo material; no references in sight for any of it. I too am fine with someone being in a notable list without a reference as long as their is referenced content in their bio connecting them. Having a reference on their bio without any content is not enough although, time allowing, I will usually fix that. Here we have a user who had a COI username who we blocked for that, changed his name with no process, and immediately started adding half assed edits again. AGF is not a suicide pact and we both know "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" is a joke. It most assuredly is, nearly as much as the government. 02:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

So when you ask for a "reference", you are asking for a statement in the linked article, naming the high school they went to and citing a reference? There have been two of you demanding "references" and I haven't really understood what you are asking for. Do I understand it correctly now? I would add that whether his edits are "half assed" or not depends on whether he understands what the expectations are; that has not been made clear up to now (assuming I understand it now), and it still hasn't been made clear to him. As for "changed his name with no process", that is what he was instructed to do in the block notice. --MelanieN (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

And you still have not bothered to look at the entirety of her contributions. COI editors making COI edits should be indeffd. If you wish to try to reabilitate them, feel free. IMO, Wikipedia's evolution into shillopedia over the past few years is a much bigger threat to its future then losing the editors that are doing it. John from Idegon (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Could I please have a "yes" or "no" as to whether I understand correctly what you are asking for, when you ask for a "reference"? I believe you are asking, not for a reference in the Oakland Tech article as I initially thought, but rather for a reference in the linked article - the article about the person - documenting their connection with the school. Is that right? I don't understand where you are seeing "COI edits" and "shillopedia" (do you think the user is listing people that didn't really go there? or what?) but at least I would like to understand what is necessary to make these names acceptable to you. Let me try one more time: I agree the alum should have an article, because that demonstrates notability. Your issue is that the person's article should say, with verification, that the person went to this school. If it does, then the person can be listed as an alum. And if it doesn't, then the person should not be listed as an alum. Is that correct? --MelanieN (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

At 230am? No, you can't. Like many serious Wikipedia editors, I get an email when my talk page is edited. When I get an email, my phone goes "bing". When my phone goes "bing", I wake up. For people in my generation, the only time someone communicates with you in the middle of the night is when someone you care about is grievously ill or dead. This person that you are so darn concerned with has not communicated on the article talk page, my talk page, the other editor you are harrassing about this's talk page, your talk page or either of his talk pages. So all you are doing is meddling. If your idea of good editor retention practice is to annoy long-standing productive editors over a COI editor who isn't talking to anyone, you are dense. Subject closed do not come here again about it. I'm going back to bed. John from Idegon (talk) 09:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for waking you up. I had no idea. I will not bother you again. --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

• Special report: Search and destroy: the Knowledge Engine and the undoing of Lila Tretikov

• Op-ed: Shit I cannot believe we had to fucking write this month

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Traffic report: Super Bowling

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Blog: Antonin Scalia and the editor tracking his legacy

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

article for creation

Sorry john but I have not created a article in about 6 years. Errors happen. Krj373^{*(talk), *(contrib)} 09:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the oversight on Carl Rinsch article. I'll keep watching it as I suspect this pattern of editing will continue.79616gr (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Username blocks and block evasion

Just as a FYI: User:Ms. Gemma Linas Buquiran Live At Hashtags was soft-blocked merely for the username. In such cases the users generally are welcome to create a new username (or edit without one); that is not considered block evasion. In fact, the block message explicitly encourages creation of a new account. Of course the legal threats are a separate issue. Huon (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

• Special report: WMF in limbo as decision on Tretikov nears

• Op-ed: Backward the Foundation

• Traffic report: Of Dead Pools and Dead Judges

• Blog: Wiki Loves Africa brings the continent’s fashion to the world

• Arbitration report: Arbitration motion regarding CheckUser & Oversight inactivity

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Peoria

Hi. Saw your revert earlier. Just so you're aware, I opened an spi about this issue some time ago, you can find it here. Take it easy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

OWNTALK at Cullen328's talk page

With regard to this revert, can you explain how WP:OWNTALK is relevant? The editor in question, Jayaguru-Shishya wiped an entire section from another user's own talk page, not their own, which as far as I can see, is all that WP:OWNTALK covers. That section included comments from other editors, including Cullen328, the actual owner of the talk page, who has so far had no say in the matter.

I deem the removal to have been good faith in nature, since Jayaguru-Shishya was just removing a section they had started and thought no longer relevant... but it's the talk page owner's prerogative to decide to archive or remove it. So when Chris troutman restored the content, that also seems like a legitimate action according to the various policies about talk pages. Why not just leave it up to Cullen328? LjL (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not want to make a big deal of this with any of the editors involved. The matter just came to my attention. I will say that I agree with LjL's analysis. But let's all move on. I will say that I appreciate other editor's watching my talk page and reverting the occasional vandalism and overt trolling. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi LjL and Cullen328. Yes, I did that completely in good faith. I removed the section because I thought I've kept it unarchived by the bot in an unintended manner. This is to say, I should have established the section under its own header in the first place, and my editing in the section above prevented the bot from doing what I did manually.

Of course, if Cullen328 so wishes, I can restore the section with no problem. I just thought it's already a bit of an obsolete one, and would have got archived automatically without my edits on the section above. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Apologies to all. Guess I shouldn't check my watch list prior to drinking my coffee. My revert was in error. John from Idegon (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

San Francisco Police Department

Please justify your edits on the SFPD page. The four incidents actually happened and were reported widely in the media and are still being discussed in the ongoing debate over SFPD. They are well within the parameters of the page. Hank Chapot - Wikipedia editor since 2005 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hank_Chapot~enwiki

Hank, if you've been an editor since 2005, shouldn't you know how to properly sign a talk page message? I removed it as a BLP violation and NOTNEWS. I assume you're talking about History of the San Francisco Police Department, since I've never even looked at SFPD. Please direct any further comments on this subject to the talk page of the relative article. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)