User talk:John from Idegon/Archive 69

Reply from Teahouse

Hi! Thanks for the comments regarding adminship. I'd greatly appreciate any further guidance you can provide and I'm happy to help with articles where you need some extra eyes as well, as mentioned there. South Nashua (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I've been here nearly 6 years now and have been pretty serious about it almost from the start. Altho I and others feel I've got the technical skills to be an admin, I haven't stood for RfA and likely won't for at least another year. I don't relish the notion of risking getting split butthole to shoulder blades with a dull deer antler by a bunch of strangers just to be able to help more here for the great pay we get. :). If you want to see an example of what I mean, take a look at Buster7s RfA. Here's a great editor, whose skills at mediation are excellent, who was totally eviscerated because of having made an enemy amongst the "old guard", something he and I have in common. Consider that my good faith warning, South Nashua.

I really wasn't looking for help watching anything, just that moderating and monitoring talk page discussions is a great way to learn to assess consensus, and also I was suggesting correctly that your article talk participation is low for an administrator candidate and you need to improve it. Have you ever looked at Mr. X's tools on yourself? You can access them at the bottom of your contributions page. It'll tell you a lot about your wikiwork and can show you where you need improvement. They'll look at RfA. You need to be ahead of it.

What I am looking for help with is creation of school articles. I'm the co-coordintor of WikiProject schools (along with Kudpung, who probably knows more about RfA than anyone else on Wikipedia) and there are tons of missing articles on US high schools. You need more article creation, and creating a start level school article is relatively easy. The great thing is once you've done one in any given state, any more in that state are going to be a breeze. They are very formulistic. It gives you a way to drive up your article count and fills a need for me (being the greedy @$$& I am). Every state has a list of high schools; just pick one and start turning redlinks blue. If this is appealing to you, lemme know and I'll crank off a list of sources for you. The school's website will give you the address the principal's name, probably the athletic conference, a list of AP courses and athletic info, altho that's better sourced to the state's athletic sanctioning body. NCES will give you the statistics. The athletic body can give you athletic achievement, and a Wikisearch plus the "what links here" tab will give you the notable alumni list. History takes a little digging, but sometimes the school's website will give you a start. Pretty easy. Here are the rather crappy guidelines.

If it's ok with you, there are a few more things I'd like to talk to you about privately. Can I email you? It won't be probably until Monday. John from Idegon (talk) 05:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Happy to talk with you privately. I'll see what I can do on that wikiproject. South Nashua (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey, wanted to check in. Haven't seen the email yet. I honestly don't think I've ever gotten an e-mail from Wikipedia, wasn't sure if I was configured properly there. South Nashua (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been really busy. Tonight, probably late. John from Idegon (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

And it's one am and I still haven't written you. Sorry. John from Idegon (talk) 06:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm so tired I posted this in the wrong section. Sorry...should be able to get to it tomorrow afternoon. John from Idegon (talk) 06:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Gah...glad this isn't something that is on deadline. As you can see from my talk page, I've had my hands full. I haven't forgotten, South Nashua. I had time last night, but I was so wiped on the way home from work, I left my phone on the bus. Thank God for small town ethics....it was still there on the first run this morning. John from Idegon (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Maybe perfect is the enemy of good here. Perhaps a smaller e-mail to start and we can build a conversation off-wiki? South Nashua (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey, sorry to bother you again. Just checking in. South Nashua (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Reply from Superdupereditor

I have so many questions!!!
1) Why are yearbooks not accepted as references despite being published by a real publishing firm and verifying the enrollment of a notable person at a certain institute?
2) If I send you a picture of Hugh Livingston in the West High School yearbook, will you finally believe that Hugh Livingston attended West High School?
3) What incentive do I have for misrepresenting some random cellist attending some random school if he wasn't actually enrolled there? Answer: I don't. Anyone person with a Wikipedia page should be linked to their appropriate high school.
4) Why do I see hundreds of Wikipedia pages about high schools with notable graduates and no references? Because assigning a notable graduate to the appropriate high school is part of the honor system on Wikipedia and no one would intentionally list someone under the wrong high school. You have hundreds of pages to pursue with no such references, so why pick on Hugh Livingston? Superdupereditor (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Superdupereditor. I'm afraid I cannot answer your question right now because I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you have any idea how many "West High Schools" there are in the US? Me neither, but I have 17 on my watchlist. If you would have read the notice at the top of this page, there is a request that you leave a link if you are writing about a specific article. I'll be happy to answer your questions as soon as I know what you are talking about. One thing I can help you with now though. Wikis are not coded in HTML, but in Wikimarkup. HTML will sometimes work, but it slows page loading markedly. The wikicode for line break is <br>, not <br/>, but in Wikimarkup, there is a much simpler way to generate a numbered list. Just start each new point on a new line and begin that line with a hashtag. Don't even put a number; Wikimedia software will generate it.

Also, there is very little honor around Wikipedia anymore. As I'm guessing you are aware, Search Engine Optimization is a thing, and in the past couple years, those whose livelihood rely on name recognition have discovered that placing there name as many times as possible in Wikipedia drives up their Google search scoring rapidly. I'm not saying at all that's what you are doing, just that serious editors look at that closely and with more scepticism than a few years ago. Also, please know I'm not saying you are lying either. Just trying to ensure policy, especially WP:V and WP:BLP, are followed. I'll address your other concerns once I know specifically what we're talking about. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for not including the link. You've thwarted several attempts of mine to add Hugh Livingston under the notable section of the Wikipedia page West High School. I'm actually disappointed to hear that Wikipedia is abused to optimize ones Internet visibility, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I agree with you that such attempts should be scrutinized. I attended Knoxville West High School a few years after accomplished cellist Hugh Livingston, although he does not know me. I can confirm that he graduated from West High School, but the only published proof I have is an old yearbook. Do you have any advice on how I can sincerely verify his enrollment at Knoxville West High School? Superdupereditor (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Superdupereditor. Wikipedia has a very large number of guidelines and policies, most designed in a manner to allow some latitude while still ensuring completely verifiable content that is still high quality, completely legal and useful. Due to the fact that a Wikipedia article might not say the exact same thing tomorrow as it does today (far more than accuracy), no teacher or professor will ever allow a reference to Wikipedia. As we are the 5th most accessed website in the entire world, we have a moral responsibility to provide quality sources that can be used for references instead of Wikipedia itself. The guideline for reliable sources is WP:RS. One thing we don't allow are user edited material, which a yearbook is. Students primarily read it, and exclusively (with minimal oversite) also create it. Further, altho they are professionally printed, the publisher (in the US, generally Jostens) exercises no editorial oversite whatsoever, so are much more simply a printer, not a publisher. Lastly, they are not in the traditional sense published. You cannot buy one (unless you are a student), and except possibly in the school's and the local library, they are not available to the general public.

Outside of a Google search (put his name in quotes and follow that with west), I really don't have much to offer in the way of suggestions. Maybe contact the music department at the school and ask if they know of any published sources. Perhaps the institutions he's associated with may have a bio on him that includes the school's name. Check their websites. Even if there's a newspaper article somewhere that's not online, that can be used. Sorry I can't help more. John from Idegon (talk) 05:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Consesus take your engagement beyond undoing edits

There is currently a discussion on the Talk page. Please engage there before undoing reasonable edits, thanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Again that is not how this works, at all. Do not add change subtract reword or make any alteration to the copy regarding the Confederate monument in whatever town in Washington it is unless or until a Consensus is reached. Removing a clearly superfilous sub header that has no connection to the content under discussion and obviously there just to call attention to the subordinate content in direct violation of WP:UNDUE is not related to the discussion at hand, making your last edit a direct violation of WP:POINT. But whatever. I asked you to clarify your sources at the article's talk page and even provided a talk reflist template to facilitate that and instead you chose to obfuscate them. It's clear you have no interest in collaberative editing both from your behavior at the article in question and in general. Your removal of a warning template from your user page is considered acknowledgement of its receipt. Please do not post on my talk page again unless mandated by policy. I'd suggest you post your proposed changes at the articles talk page exactly as you would like to see it in the article, including properly formatted references. Note that you can assume I will continue to oppose the content that was originally there irregardless of sourcing as it made no sense. John from Idegon (talk) 08:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

(I repeat, I'm [glad] to see the end of October)

Remember back when it was September you hadda worry about? Anmccaff (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven't had a month like October here for three years. It wouldn't stop coming. John from Idegon (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it my imagination, or is the coatracking to Important Causes getting worse these days? Anmccaff (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep up the good work John. You are appreciated! Jacona (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Anmccaff, do you have any idea if the arb American Politics discretionary sanctions decisions apply to political content in what should be non political articles? John from Idegon (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you are on to something here. When the subject is pretty close to an obvious political subject, it's gonna get noticed and brought up, but if, say, folks keep adding borderline stuff to Swastika, Ontario "because bacon Hitler!", and so forth, it's not going to be seen that way. I don't think there is any formal policy that covers this. Anmccaff (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Well now that this joy below is headed to the door, perhaps I can get back to the problem I was asking you about here, Anmccaff. It's gone to RfC now. John from Idegon (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you point me toward the discussion? Kinda hard, at least for me, to even know where to begin it. Anmccaff (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Ridgefield, Washington John from Idegon (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Warnings

• John from Idegon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) After my attempts to reduce the rhetoric on [User talk: Barek], the [Hamilton High School (Chandler, Arizona) talk], and my personal talk page; John has pervasively targeted my account and has made derogatory remarks about all posts, anywhere. John was been warned in writing on the pages, yet continues. John was also given a mediation plan of avoid each other and bring down the rhetoric, which was endorsed by [Barek] until he saw that John continued the personal attacks. I tried to reach out to John to calm down and breath before sending these malicious words. Statements made by John, have gone from "who do you think you are?", "illiterate" on multiple occasions, and "I am sorry you had to go through this" on [User talk: Donner60]. I am concerned that he is intentionally targeting my account with the goal undermine my ability to even discuss other material, since I have had to spend so much time responding to John's attacks. AZOperator (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I have a feeling we're not in November anymore... Anmccaff (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Punted to the admin who left the final harassment warning. Meters (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

For the record, the "who do you think you are" and the "sorry you have to go through this" references were in direct response to his impugning Donner60's mental health, no less than three times on two separate pages (once in boldface) and making a pretty clear implication that Donner was asking to see child pornography ([1] [2] [3]). Note that AZOperator did this in response to receiving a level 1 Huggle warning for adding unsourced content ([4]), which, along with him refusing to honor my request to stay off my talk page, was the genesis of the first comment by me regarding illiteracy, which by the way was struck ([5]). Could I have chosen a better way to go than that illiteracy comment? Sure. However, truth is the best defense against libel, and nothing whatsoever I have done is anywhere near a personal attack. This user needs to go away. His absolute only interest here is the thing with Hamilton High School, and he is absolutely uncollaberative, a combination that clearly adds up to WP:NOTHERE. Pinging Kudpung. John from Idegon (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see my comment to Kudpung because it applies to you too. Yeah I know your buddy is going to block me but it would valuable for your interspection. I know you guys are going to try to spike the football tomorrow. That is a really sad existance, refusing to move forward from anything because you get off on stalling anyone. At the end of the day you think you are the biggest guy on a website - a website. Do you really understand the true value off all of your contributions on a hard drive space, not much. Honestly, I wasn’t going to make any more changes to anything, but it really got interesting to me how you and your buddy acted. That was all that engaged me about how you could think you had real leverage over me and you didn’t dissapoint. Bravo. AZOperator (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

You have no one to blame for a block other than yourself. It's unfortunate that you have repeatedly failed to take to heart the guidance that was provided to you - in some instances wrongly taking it as an attack. Even now, you fail to accept the guidance you had been given. You have been given more than sufficient opportunities to correct your disruptive behavior. Sadly, it has become apparent that you have no intent to stop your disruption. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Bearsden Academy

Could you have a look at the 'controversies' section and let me know your thoughts on the relevance of the content for a Wikipedia article? (bear in mind BLP too, and NOTNEWS). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Kudpung. I took a glance at it, and will look deeper later. Haven't had a chance to look at the talk yet. It appears that whole section should go. It's daddy time right now, won't be doing anything extensive til Monday. John from Idegon (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

A very belated thanks for jumping in on my talk page back in August and September (when I was only intermittently on the site due to professional horrors)! I always appreciate your edits and comments. All the best from Calnevari! Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I know what that's like! You've had more than your fair share of all sorts of horrific down there. I enjoy your humor, and you remain my favorite brand of loudspeakers. :). John from Idegon (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

My edits

You undid my edits to Cleveland High School (Tennessee). First of all, do you realize that some of what you undid was simply realignment of text? And if I didn't provide a reliable source, why not find one yourself instead of get rid of it? And for alumni, just read their page. JUDAS MAIDEN (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC) And what's with removing the links? We are supposed to provide useful links for the school. I didn't provide links to every single website for the school.JUDAS MAIDEN (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, JUDAS MAIDEN. First, as soon as you press the "Save changes” button, the material you add to Wikipedia ceases to be yours and becomes subject to editing or removal by other editors. school article guidelines specify what we do and don't link to. Activities websites are specifically mentioned as something not to link to. Alumni websites are not to be linked. The school's official website, the district's website, a site that provides education statistics and sites that provide reliable historical information are mentioned as sites to link to. The ones I removed were, as I stated in my edit summary, not appropriate.

You need to understand that this website is peer reviewed and collaberative. If someone reverts a change you've made, the one thing you should not do is restore it without discussing it first. See WP:BRD for how this works. Also, it is a policy violation to restore unsourced material that has been removed for being unsourced without adding an appropriate source. See WP: BURDEN. I'll be re-removing the content you restored. If you take exception to that, you must seek consensus for your changes on the article's talk page prior to restoring them. Verifiability is required, but does not guarantee inclusion. Content is decided by consensus. Consensus is achievement by reasoned discussion on the article's talk page, based on reliable sources and informed by policies and guidelines. Arguments that are not effective include ILIKEIT and OTHERSTUFF. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 07:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Again why did you revert me? The content I added was not controversial or disputed. Do you have any doubt about the truthfulness of what I added? I don't see other editors reverting me all the time by failing to remember to provide sources. Why not find one yourself?JUDAS MAIDEN (talk) 03:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

We require sources for all achievement added to school articles, period. Answer me this: If you don't have a source, how do you know it is true? I'm not saying you are lying; but lies about school achievement are added to Wikipedia all the time. It isn't up to me to source your edits, it's up to you. Nothing whatsoever can be added to Wikipedia based on one's personal knowledge. It all has to be verifiable. That does not mean you have to proffer a source for everything, but if you are adding information that points to achievement, prominence, primacy or any other exceptional claim, you should always source it. If you don't know how to cite, that's a problem that can be addressed. If you don't know where to look, that too can probably be addressed. The {{cn}} tag dies not exist to allow editors to skate on their sourcing; it is there to alert editor's to existing content that needs to be fixed. Something to understand about Wikipedia: there are myriad policies and guidelines, but (with the exception of legal issues such as copyright and libel), they only serve as guidance. Content is decided on consensus and the existing consensus on school articles is all achievement must be sourced. If you wish to dispute that ongoing long term consensus on the article's talk page, you are free to do so. Can't imagine how you could possibly argue it, but go for it if you like. Please don't reinstate the content again without sources. You should be able to find the appropriate citation at the THSAAA website, and you might take a look at other Tennessee high school articles for a lead on specifically where to look. A cite to a newspaper article is also acceptable. Rivalries need to be sourced, but all you need is a newspaper article that describes a contest between the two schools as a rivalry. Frankly you are making this much harder than it needs to be. I'm sure you're aware that academics don't allow cites to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is putting the traditional encyclopedias out of business. So in order to provide some use for those doing research, more citations are needed. Adding them isn't hard at all. We've got templates and wizards to simplify it greatly and it's far easier than citing an academic paper. John from Idegon (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Is a website of the school okay for things like state championships? Because, at least in Tennessee, I don't think that they would lie, and I know the TSSAA periodically monitors for such and has strict penalties for doing so. For newspaper articles generally older than 10-15 years it is hard to find anything online, and you often have to pay. And are things such as the construction of a new building or notable alumni who already have Wikipedia articles (and information about their Alma Mater cited) that controversial? It makes sense that school articles are probably a top target for vandalism. JUDAS MAIDEN (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

You totally just reverted an addition I made with a source! I've since restored, and added a source for wrestling. I think you are taking it too seriously; wp:burden states to consider using a {{:citation needed}} first.JUDAS MAIDEN (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I and others have considered it and rejected it. If you add unreferenced content on achievement to high school articles again, it will be reverted again and you'll get a final warning for it. Read the rest of burden, the part that says if an unsourced edit us removed, a source us required before replacing it. This isn't social media. It's an encyclopedia. Please confine your discussion of article content to article talk pages. I'm done with this conversation. There is no need to reply. John from Idegon (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

FJ Reitz

First of all, sir, I am not edit warring, as I haven't "repeatedly undone other editors works," even though you flagged me for it. Under what circumstances does filling out FIVE THOUSAND bytes of information and reformatting count as edit warring? I never even reverted other authors works, besides moving a few things to the infobox. Did you even check the sources? One of them is operated by a teacher at Reitz, and another was literally the school webpage. How is the history of the school only trivial to it? If that is the case then why are there history sections on literally any other school page? I don't care that the page is low importance or whatnot, I'm filling it out anyhow. If the article is a stub, then let us fill it out, rather than watching the page like a vulture undoing the good faith attempts by others. It would seem that you are the one edit warring here.

Secondly, the comments on the talk page of the page LITERALLY say to remove them when they become irrelevant. Don't post warnings about it on my own talk page when you haven't read the comment I removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Invinciblewalnut (talk • contribs) 20:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Newspaper style trivia and BLP topic ban violation.

Please see: User_talk:SuperMarioMan#Zoyetu_again and User talk:Zoyetu, and if you can, see if Tedder our other WPSCH admin, is around to use his mop. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Zoyetu has been blocked for a month by Yunshui. Do be sure to have the articles on your watchlist. I've reverted the edits again but that's all I can do without an edit war or a discussion on the talk page of each each affected school. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Reply from EnyapCo

Hello. After reading the guidelines for editing a school page, I see now that my contribution was indeed promotional. My bad. Is it promotional to mention the accomplishments of the band or to mention the band at all? I just feel that the page is very short and leaves quite a bit to be desired. EnyapCo (talk) 08:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, EnyapCo. Thanks for toning it down, but you're still making claims to achievement without sources from outside the school to verify them. As far as that goes, first division really isn't the kind of achievement we list at all. Here's what you can do: provide a listing of all arts activities (band, chorus, theatre) and source it to the school website. The only achievements we discuss are victories in competitions at a state level or higher, and only with a citation to a source independent of the school. It's quite an accomplishment to pull a first division for that many years in a row (my alma mater is around 70 straight years last I checked, but that isn't in the school's article), but in the sad reality of band geekdom, that's just not something the world cares about and that shows by the lack of anyone writing about it. And the facts of Life at Wikipedia are, every single thing in here is supposed to come from something someone wrote in a reliable source. Neither what you know, or what I know matters. John from Idegon (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Osceola

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, John from Idegon. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Activist (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You've broken the 3R rule, claiming some sort of prerogative for doing so. Help me out here. How does your argument differ from the Sutherland Springs, Texas article?

Old town, notable occurance. Activist (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC) P.S. Allie Ostrander really should have an article. Look up her athletic history including her Mount Marathon performances. You're a Boise State booster. Why not? Activist (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what is on any other page. we are talking about this one. Stop fracturing the conversation and I don't give a flying fuck about track. If you ever email me again i will copy it here. Take it to and leave it at the talk page. And I have NOT violated 3RR. Feel free to take me to ANEW if you think that is the case. You're going to end up on the wrong end of that stick. John from Idegon (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to copy whatever you want to this page or any other. Do you usually result to vulgarities when your arguments are wanting? Activist (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I love it.....At least I'm making argument and not trying to obfuscate to the best of my abilities. Now kindly keep it o the talk page. This is a waste of my and your time. John from Idegon (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Per your recommendation, I've filed an ANI complaint. Activist (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

And yet more obfuscation. You reported me at WP:ANEW, not ANI. A report, which not incidentally, was closed with you being censured for coatracking, which is exactly my argument in the TP discussion. I'll respond further there. Please respect my request to stay off my talk page (and out of my email account). John from Idegon (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2017 (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.

Thank you.

Greeting, John from Idegon! Thank you for the additional Barnstar for Elcor, Minnesota. The article is up FA review as we speak, so lots of recent edits from the suggestions of the reviewers to tighten things up and make the article more encyclopedic in tone. I still have one reference to source as well (the plat map used in the article was a free leaf found in the Minnesota Collection in the Reference Section at the Wilson Library at the University of Minnesota). I suspect this came from the Superintendent of Mines subject files of Frank Wildes at the Minnesota State Auditor Land Department sometime between 1921 and 1933 (the scale of the map is one he used), but I have yet to track it down. I am currently collecting information to expand the articles Manganese, Minnesota and Withrow, Minnesota as my next projects. Good to hear from you! Have great holidays, whichever ones you celebrate! DrGregMN (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

RE: WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??

OI DO YOU OWN WIKIPEDIA?? I HAVE NEVER HAD PROBLEMS EDITING WIKIPEDIA BEFORE. IM USING VERIFIED SOURCES!! IM USING CITATIONS. FROM US CENSUS OWN STATS. ARE YOU OK?? OR DO YOU GO AROUND LOOKING FOR PROBLEMS?? BLOCK ME? WHO ARE YOU?? LAST TIME I CHECKED WIKIPEDIA WAS A FREE SITE. IM USING US GOVERNMENT SOURCES, CITATIONS INCLUDED. STOP ACTING LIKE A CLOWN MAN. IM INCLUDING THE SOURCE AND YOU ARE SAYING ITS UNVERIFIED. ITS FROM THE US CENSUS BUREAU. WHY DO YOU KEEP UNDOING MY EDIT FOR?? DO I NORMALLY EDIT STUFF ON HERE??? ARE YOU SAYING THE US CENSUS BUREAU IS NOT A REPUTABLE VERIFIED ORGANISATION WHEN IT COMES TO THE US CENSUS??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JACKSONVILLE (talk • contribs) 16:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING? CONSIDER TURNING YOUR CAPS LOCK OFF. IT'S GENERALLY CONSIDERED BAD FORM TO YELL AT PEOPLE. GMG^talk 16:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@JACKSONVILLE:, The VISUAL LOUDNESS aside, I'd guess that the problem JfI might have, and any editor or reader might have, is that you are mixing census data and census.com data, and they might not be based on exactly the same geography. Commercial census extracts are made to determine what the general commercial characteristics of an area are, and if you have an incorporated town surrounded fairly closely with unincorporated outskirts, the general trend of commercial extracts is to use the combined population. So, if everyone in Purplesville is proudly Purple, but the surrounding North Purplesville, East Purplesville, South Purplesville and New Purplesville (hey, somebodies gotta be different) are almost entirely populated with Magenta people, selling products that appeal only to the Magenta community still might make sense there.

In areas like Los Angeles, the ethnic makeup of the area contained withing the city borders and the city proper used to vary quite radically. The county hated, actively despised, restrictive covenants; the city actively supported them. So, county land, sometimes completely surrounded by LA proper, was where it was easier for Black and Japanese people to build. In the late '80s, at least, you could still see, visibly, some of the current and former "county land" enclaves, despite the fact that the buildings were similar in style and quality, and the inhabitants had the same or higher economic status; there's a particular light green house color that appears to have limited appeal to Honkies. God alone knows why.

The south is particularly prone to this; in many areas, the ethnic makeup of a general area might be heavily black, but the town it centered on was not. Even in areas that did not pursue the nastier kinds of racial exclusion, economics often had a similar effect; much of the local white population lived "in town," along with the the LBADNW, who were usually in a separate neighborhood. Similar effects happened in some northern areas, and not just along color lines. To say you were from Bleah vs West Bleah might tell a Maineiac that that you were Protestant, or just possibly Irish Catholic, not a (Catholic) Quebecker, or an Indian, for example. Anmccaff (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

PS: All that said, @JACKSONVILLE:, comparing the census.gov data with the census.com data you used, they are on the same sheet of music here, and your numbers are supported by both sources, but as JfI wrote in the edit summary We only use the official census bureau data for pop and demo data on settlement articles. Anmccaff (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

And that is exactly why we only use the official demo data from the Census itself, not compilers and mirror sites. John from Idegon (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hey, I just thought I was improving the clarity and flow of the article on Berkeley, Missouri, for example by condensing the city's racial makeup to one paragraph rather than two. Was there some specific rule that I broke in doing this? Elf tandem (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious you're new. Content is not dictated by rules. With the exception of rules on legal matters (copyright and libel primarily), rules only serve to inform consensus, which is what dictates content. The very widespread consensus, across numerous subjects, is that when dealing with facts presented in the source in tabular form, such as census data, we present the data in the order the source presents the data. This is done to avoid arguments over favoritism, discrimination or just people like you injecting your personal preference. You can doubt it all you want, but the simple fact, this is the only US settlement article you've edited. I've edited thousands. You can start a discussion on the article's talk page and try to gain a consensus for doing it in a different manner on this one particular article, but without that your change is not going to fly.

On another note, we do have a guideline that makes the discussion of changes much easier. It's called WP:BRD. What it says is if you think a change makes an article better, you make it (which you did). If someone disagrees, they will revert your change (which I did). At that point, discussion should ensue before any further changes are made. As I said, content is dictated by consensus. If someone removes your new addition, obviously you didn't have consensus, so until a discussion produces one, it stays out. You shouldn't have put it back and I'll be reverting you again. You of course as I mentioned above have the option of trying to gain consensus, but in this case it is safe to say that would be a waste of time. John from Idegon (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay. My problem was not with the order of the numbers (although I merely put them from greatest to least), but with the awkward phrasing. For instance, it's very awkward and unprofessional to begin a sentence, let alone a paragraph, with "and". Is there a way I or someone else could fix the wording while still following consensus? I may not have edited other geographical articles but I've read others, and they have phrasing that flows much better.

Also, just a word to the wise, your answer struck me as arrogant and unfriendly. If this is how you normally talk to new editors you may want to reassess this, because someone more timid than myself might just give up and leave the site. Elf tandem (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Your words to the wise were read and given their appropriate weight. You're welcome to copyedit to your heart's content. Just realize that if someone reverts your changes, discuss don't replace. Approximately once a week, someone changes the order of the demographics in some settlement article I watch, or equally frustrating, changes "White" to "European-American" or "Black" to "African-American". Or totally trash them trying to get them to add up to 100% (they won't due to the way the Census bureau reports on people of Hispanic ethnicity). When I first started editing 6 years ago, it occurred to me that if I felt something was stylistically incorrect, perhaps I should look at some similar articles before doing anything about it. But I started out with a general notion that, even tho I was doing what I now know are the "typical" things (editing my hometown, other places I've lived, my or my kids alma maters, people I know or are related to that have bios), no matter what I was working on, it was part of the bigger work that is the encyclopedia. Probably came from the ten or so years I spent freelancing photos to newspapers. I'm a volunteer, just like you. Having a thick skin is an asset here, as you might guess now that you know how things get decided here. I'm sorry if I came off rude, but I'm pretty blunt no matter what I do. This can be a very tough environment. I'm happy to help anyone, but I'm not gonna be all praise sandwich about it. I don't think that does anybody any favors. If a person bluntly telling one that they are wrong is offensive, that one is probably not gonna be happy here anyway.

One last thing: much editing here is done with machine assistance. Once I saw you'd switched the order of the data around, I simply pressed a button and reverted your edit. I didn't evaluate your copyediting at all. My writing leaves much to be desired and copywriting is better left to you! Go for it. John from Idegon (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. I'm sorry if I came off as accusatory. Elf tandem (talk) 05:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Fruitland High School

Hello John from Idegon (talk), I have a question for you: would this edit diff at Fruitland High School be acceptable to you? I do not want to engage in an edit-war with you over this, so I thought I would ask you at your own talk page. I want to know what it is about my edits at Fruitland High School that you disagree with. Hopefully we can reach a consensus on this particular topic. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

You are already edit warring, but whatever. Read WP:BRD. The revision you just edit warred into place is acceptable. Useless, but acceptable. There is absolutely 0 reason to make all the spacing adjustments you made; they do nothing whatsoever and are in no way by any standard an improvement. They are not what the template documentation shows, and as it has no effect whatsoever on how the template renders, that leaves it as only your preference. The school colors were never in dispute, just your obvious OR in changing the rendering of the colorbox to some unnamed shade of orange, something I noticed you've been warned about more than once in regard college colors. High schools are a different breed. They don't have major sporting goods companies sponsoring their uniforms. The local booster club generally buys them and there are sometimes even variations in uniform colors on the field at the same time. In the case of Fruitland, the football jerseys are a different shade of orange than the basketball jerseys, and the cap & gowns look like flagger's vests. So, there is no particular shade of orange, just orange. The reference was totally unneeded. All that needs to happen is for you to stop imposing your interpretations and preferences on articles. John from Idegon (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Goodsprings and Popular Culture

Frankly, I'm offended at how you are insulting my intelligence. I am fully aware of what a consensus is, yet you continually continue to revert edits based off of a "consensus" that you say does not exist. I am not the only author whose work you have written off, and I may note that you are in the minority on the Talk page concerning this question. WP:POPCULTURE is clear in stating that video games count as references, especially one as notable as New Vegas. I resent any accusation that my edits are disruptive when it is your groundless reverting, if anything, that is disruptive to having a conversation. The sources provided corroborate our claims--and the Goodsprings page is short enough as it stands--no reason to be so pedantic about additions to it. I have contacted the Mediation Committee, so hopefully they will be able to offer some thoughts. Evanash24 (talk) 06:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Evanash24, there is no need for mediation, and they will not accept your request. No one has made any good faith efforts to form a consensus; look at the discussion. You state you know what a consensus is and then turn around and state it's a vote. It's not. There have been no sources cited by anyone to support an argument. There has been no policy referenced to support an argument to include (POPCULTURE is an essay and carries no weight. It isn't even very strongly supported by the community, and none of the arguments made referencing it are even in line with what it actually says in whole). Simply put, there has been a ton of words but no actual arguments other than ILIKEIT put forward. What you are definitely not understanding is that new edits that are opposed stay out until a consensus is formed. Three editors saying "I like it" is not a consensus, and lacking any substantial arguments to include (of which there are none), the editors opposed do not have to provide an argument. Feel free to make a substantial argument at the article talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

BTW, you may may not be aware that inserting content about this game has been contentious on multiple settlement articles. Further, with proper supporting sources, there is a possibility that I could endorse a single line "Goodsprings is featured in the video game Fallout Last Vegas. So get off your battlewagon and work with the other editor's in this collaberative project please. John from Idegon (talk) 06:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Evanash24, WP:AGF is an important piece of guidence on Wikipedia, but it is not a suicide pact. Wikipedia is collaberative. Collaberative projects all have one thing in common: the collaberative parties are expected to deal with each other in good faith. Unfortunately, with the only post you've ever made to an editor's talk page you've made that impossible. Are you not aware that every edit you've ever made is recorded and viewable by anyone? You flat out lied in your OP here. You've not edited any page connected with the mediation committee, or any other dispute resolution process, this is the only user talk page you've edited, and the mediation committee does not maintain a public mailing list. You can take your lies elsewhere. Buhbye. Feel free to be offended. Ask me if I care. Unlike you, I won't lie about it. John from Idegon (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Your revert on the Searchlight, Nevada article

Sorry, I wasn't thinking straight and didn't realize that notability section lists are arranged by alphabetization (and not decreasing notability). Thanks for catching my mistake:

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		cnzx (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hello, John from Idegon. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

South Nashua (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 November 2017

• News and notes: Cons, cons, cons

• Arbitration report: Administrator desysoped; How to deal with crosswiki issues; Mister Wiki case likely

• Technology report: Searching and surveying

• Interview: A featured article centurion

• WikiProject report: Recommendations for WikiProjects

• In the media: Open knowledge platform as a media institution

• Traffic report: Strange and inappropriate

• Featured content: We will remember them

• Recent research: Who wrote this? New dataset on the provenance of Wikipedia text

• Humour: Good faith (but still incomprehensible)

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

"‪Concord High School (Indiana)‬"

John - thanks for the detailed explanation of why you reverted my edits. Makes sense, and I will keep those things in mind as I try to clean up and update other pages. Bbeachy2001 (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Request

Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week about move request. ―Buster7 ☎ 19:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

User talk pages, blanking

FYI: According to WP:BLANKING, users may remove anything from their talk pages except for declined unblock requests (for current blocks) and some other uncommon things; they are free to remove block notices and discussions about them. So the creep I blocked was allowed to blank his page. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Otay....so tell me what you really think.  :) not that I disagree with you. John from Idegon (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I think the rule should be stricter -- active block notices and any discussion regarding the block and unblock requests should be kept there too. Only restricting it to declined unblock notices seems silly, but that does seem to be our policy. I only brought it up because the jerk blanked his page again after you reverted him. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

John Kelly being added to Glendale Wiki

Dear Sir , John Kelly co-produced the first movie alongside Stan Lee . He grew up in Glendale Arizona and attending performing arts classes at Glendale High School . http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1431045/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuck Reed (talk • contribs) 21:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Read the notice on your talkpage please. John from Idegon (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

John Kelley

I am trying to add John Kelly to notable people on the Glendale Az. Wiki . He produced the Movie Deadpool alongside Stan Lee and is a Glendale boy just like myself . If you have ever seen the movie - you would see his name right there on the big screen along with Stan Lee . I am sorry if I am not doing this correctly . I will research and try to meet your specifications . Thank you for your consideration ! Chuck Reed Chuck Reed (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

NCES Data

Thanks for add the the NCES data to a bunch of school articles.

I noticed that you reverted 3 of my edits to Gladwin High School. The first edit was about citation style. I felt that when a citation pertains to facts multiple paragraphs, it should be repeated in multiple paragraphs, per WP:UNDERCITE. I recognize that this is something for which reasonable people can disagree, so I will defer to the more senior editor.

My more serious concern is that you also reverted my next edits, which fixed MOS:DATERANGE issues in other paragraphs. You edit summary did not explain your justification for reverting the MOS fixes and restoring the MOS violations.

I recognize that importance of WP:BRD and I appreciate you dedication to monitoring recent changes. Could I request that, when you revert edits for specific reasons, you either

• limit your revert to the specific changes addressed in the revert comment, or
• address all issues in all edits being reverted in the revert comments?

We both want Wikipedia to be a welcoming place to new editors, so I think we should take pains to limit our reverts to narrowest scope possible. Billhpike (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Reading this again, I realize that I sound a bit winey. That wasn't my intent. I just frustrated per WP:BABY. Thanks for your contributions. Billhpike (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

Hello, I appreciate you trying to improve articles on Wikipedia but if you want to make large changes or remove cited material, you should post your suggestions in the talk page and we can have a discussion about it. Certain items from Gladwin High School that you removed were well cited such as the current enrollment (from the MHSAA website) and the other schools in the hockey co-op (from an MLive article). I don't understand why these citations are not good enough for you. Thank you. Rungladwin (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't remove the school's in the hockey coop, I do not believe. If I did, I apologise. I didn't see an MLive source for it. The only source I saw attached to it was a link to a non existent page on the Harrison school district website. The enrollment however, I feel was a quite legit revert. MHSAA does provide an enrollment figure, and of course they are considered a reliable source for athletics. However, there is a full stat set that is generally accepted content for school articles (teaching staff, enrollment, student-teacher ratio and enrollment demographics). Since the only piece of that pie provided by MHSAA is enrollment, it (and other state's sanctioning bodies) are not considered good sources for enrollment. Cannot say for sure this is the case for the MHSAA, but the enrollment figures from both the IHSAA and the IHSA are not even actual enrollment but athletic eligible enrollment instead. They include freshman in schools that are 10-12 and exclude students who turned 18 prior to the start of the school year. They also exclude certain non-graded students such as some special Ed tracked students who would be included in the NCES or state DOE enrollment figures. So it is a general (and yes unwritten) consensus not to use enrollment figures from sanctioning bodies.

More troubling tho, is the fact that I reverted several pieces of unsourced and likely unsourcable information about dubious athletic achievement which I explained in detail in edit summary and you restored. Please do not restore unsourced information if it is removed for being unsourced, unless you can provide a source. I can't see how that is possible, as every "championship" achievement I removed predated the beginning of a state championship in those sports.

Just a tip, Rungladwin; when editing articles that have a commonality with your username, it's wise to make sure your edits are bulletproof. That might not have been a big deal in 2011; it really wasn't much of a deal when I started in 2012. Unfortunately, and through no fault of yourself, it is now. As one of the coordinators of WikiProject schools and a frequent editor of settlement articles, I cannot begin to tell you the number of times I've had to drastically cut self promotion in those types of articles, many times by editors with usernames like yours. This is a recent development in Wikiland (+/- 2 years), and one I dislike intently. I'm not saying that you are doing that but rather that because of your username, you can expect closer scrutiny when editing subjects related to Gladwin. John from Idegon (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I am from Gladwin and perhaps that is a conflict of interest. I'll leave the page alone. I was doing what I thought was making the page better but I'll admit that I do not have a lot of Wikipedia experience compared to some people. I just edit pages when I think I can improve them and I try to find useful citations. However, I see your point and the page looks fine the way it is now. Thanks. Rungladwin (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

"reduced price lunch" vs "reduced lunch"

I'm having trouble understanding this edit. You stated that you were using "reduced lunch" per this source, but that page uses the term "reduced price lunch"

I'll concede that NCES occasionally uses the term "reduced lunch", but it is usually only in the context of an abbreviated field name. There are about 10 times more references to "reduced price lunch" than references to reduced lunch. However, Wikipedia is written for general audiences, so I think we should use the term "reduced price lunch" since it is easier for non-experts to understand. Billhpike (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Demographics for the Hammond School (South Carolina)

Could you add demographics for Hammond School (South Carolina)? I could do it myself, but I like how have a consistent style. Billhpike (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)