User talk:John from Idegon/Archive 31
 | 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 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
The Signpost: 03 September 2014
- Arbitration report: Media viewer case is suspended
- Featured content: 1882 × 5 in gold, and thruppence more
- Traffic report: Holding Pattern
- WikiProject report: Gray's Anatomy (v. 2)
Thank you for correcting me on my mistake with Iowa City Regina, and Hoyt I thought I was in sandbox.:-) sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephencurry999 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
New editor
I see that you have made over 29,000 edits - thank you for you valuable contribution, and well done!
At Talk:Archbishop Mitty High School, you are in discussion with an editor who has made just six. Please consider how you can help them to become a more productive editor. You might explain, and provide links to, for example, our polices on referencing. That would surely be in keeping with the WP:RETENTION header at the top of your talk page. Cheers, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 10 September 2014
- Traffic report: Refuge in celebrity
- Featured content: The louse and the fish's tongue
- WikiProject report: Checking that everything's all right
The Signpost: 17 September 2014
- WikiProject report: A trip up north to Scotland
- News and notes: Wikipedia's traffic statistics are off by nearly one-third
- Traffic report: Tolstoy leads a varied pack
- Featured content: Which is not like the others?
I am not 99.7.82.7
I apologize. My friend must have gotten the wrong idea when I was talking about this. It will not happen again (if I can help it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePenultimateOne (talk • contribs) 01:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
On the robotics section...
I (and many others whom I have asked at said school) believe that it is an important part of the school's culture and deserves to be treated as such on the page. Do you think you could outline for me exactly what criteria it would have to meet to be listed? After all, it is certainly not a club, it's more of a sport. And yet it cannot be listed under athletics.
By the same logic you've used on my page (if I'm following) there also should not be a music program listed, as it has been some time since there was any truly remarkable achievements, and there are no citations at all in the section.
Can you try to help me understand?
ThePenultimateOne (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- I explained on your page. What the students at the school think does not matter a whit. They have no more say than any other editor. And most of the content guidelines for school articles has already been decided. The link is on your page. We can only talk about state or national champion achievement. We must give reasonably equal coverage to all activities. Athletics only gets one section for all the sports. Why should one single activity get its own section? School article guidelines endorse a section for music programs; academic teams can have a section of their own, so if robotics fits there, put it there. But be sure to discuss any other academic teams, too (We, the People?). And details are not needed. Wikilink First Robotics; add the ref you had before. All the details that are important can be found there.
- BTW, you do not need to insert HTTP markup in most cases on Wikipedia (e.g. <br>). The same result can be had by leaving a vertical space, i.e. hitting "enter". And when you post on a talk page or a forum, you need to sign it by typing four tildes (~~~~). John from Idegon (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Activebackup as
Please link the AfD discussion in the template or talk page when nominating an article for speedy deletion under criterion G4. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Swastika, Ontario
The Mitford connection to this gold mining settlement is well-documented. Why must we revert this edit? OntarioBoy 06:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- The reason I reverted it is because you only mentioned the mining claim in passing and that mention was not referenced. The bulk of your edit was to insert some trivial connection between the family and Adolph Hitler, which is not on subject for the article. In addition, your entire edit was not written in encyclopedic style. It was written more like an essay. We do not use words like "remarkably", "scandalous", and "dire" in the way you used them. This is an encyclopedia. When writing for an encyclopedia, adjectives and adverbs are not your friends. We stick to the facts (verifiable facts) and leave it to the reader to draw their conclusions. All content on Wikipedia must be verifiable. That does not mean each and every fact must be referenced, but every main idea should be referenced to a reliable source. However, all facts must be able to be referenced, even if the reference is not included. I am at a loss for how you would propose to verify the conception of a child took place there. In short, if you want to write about "The Mitford connection", that would be a good addition if you include references. Your opinion of the morals of certain members of the family is not a good addition. Neither is the inclusion of the ironic (not remarkable) association of some member of the family with the person who founded an organization that uses a symbol that happens to have the same name as the settlement. Ask yourself this: "Does knowing that someone in the Mitford family was an associate of Hitler increase your knowledge about Swastika, Ontario?" The answer to that question is no. Since you state the connection between the lady and Hitler had nothing to do with the choice of symbols, that information has no connection to the article and doesn't belong there.John from Idegon (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Owensville, Missouri
invalid email: i tried to send you a mail via the site to request my edits on the owensville missouri wiki be left as i have pulled them from the city website. I also live in owensville missouri. also please update your email as it is invalid. also i did cite my sources Winsdor2252 (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- There are NO citations in your edits. What you know from living there is not important and cannot be used as a basis for an edit. See WP:OR. And if you want to communicate with me, this is where to do it. i got an email via Wikipedia this morning, so I don't know what you are doing wrong, but my email works fine. Just don't use it except for sensitive things. communications on Wikipedia should be via talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Also, the introduction, or lede, is only to summarize what is in the article. The stuff you have added should be in a couple different sections which do not yet exist. Feel free to add them. You should also probably familiarize yourself with the proper layout for a city article. See WP:USCITY. John from Idegon (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 September 2014
- Featured content: Oil paintings galore
- Recent research: 99.25% of Wikipedia birthdates accurate; focused Wikipedians live longer; merging WordNet, Wikipedia and Wiktionary
- Traffic report: Wikipedia watches the referendum in Scotland
- WikiProject report: GAN reviewers take note: competition time
- Arbitration report: Banning Policy, Gender Gap, and Waldorf education
The Center Line: Summer 2014
 | ||
| Volume 7, Issue 3 • Summer 2014 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
| Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS | ||
- —MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979, 21:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)