User talk:John from Idegon/Archive 53

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

→

Archive 60

Lynn, Massachusetts

I am trying to add verifiable information about the religious/ethnic make-up of Lynn, MA in the 20th century. As it stands, the page only includes Jews and Latinos, so I searched out information and sourced it, but it seems that it was removed. I signed in and tried to add it back, but now it doesn't look right. Can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LynnieU (talk • contribs) 04:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, LynnieU. You seem like you might be kinda new to Wikipedia. So let me cover a few basics first:

1. Thank you for adding your comment at the bottom of my talk page where it belongs. However, since it is unrelated to the comment above it, you should have given it a new section header which I have done for you. You make a new section header by typing 2 "equals" symbols, your title, and two more equals symbols. A Wikilink to the article under discussion is always helpful too. The wikimarkup for this sections header is ==[[Lynn, Massachusetts]]==.

1. Anytime you post on a talk page, or virtually anywhere on Wikipedia except for in actual articles, you need to sign your post with 4 tildes (~~~~). A bot did it for you here. This adds your username and a timestamp.

1. It is poor form to edit the same article both anonymously and signed in. Please watch that.

1. Content discussions should be held on the article's talk page, not user talk pages. It appears you are asking me to review your edit rather than come to a consensus on what should be in the article so for now here is fine.

I ran a tool that filled out your citations just to make looking them over and discussing them easier. The first time I reverted you the only reference you had was what is now reference 16. It came up as an error page.

The second time I reverted you your content was all the stuff on religion. Let me say now that I have no problem at all with the stuff you added about the shoe industry. That is a solid well sourced addition. The stuff on religion, not so much. The difference is the degree of separation of the sourcing. An encyclopedia, by definition, is a tertiary source. We only cover subjects that have been written about in secondary sources (exceptions do apply. An example is it is fine to source something totally uncontestable like an address to a primary source). All of your sourcing about religion is primary. You need to find newspaper accounts or books, magazines or peer-reviewed academic journals that discuss this information. As long as you have secondary sourcing, you can use the primary sources to add "color" to your additions, as long as you are not sourcing anything controversial or any claims of what I call "wow" factors (achievements, victories, firsts, etc) strictly to the primary sources.

I will not revert you again for now, but please improve your sourcing. If you disagree with my assessment, please take it to the article talk page. If you ever have any questions on your work here, feel free to drop me a note. I'm always glad to help those who ask. Wikiland is complicated. I have not been to your talk page yet, but I will leave you some resources there. Happy editing! John from Idegon (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 July 2016

• News and notes: Board unanimously appoints Katherine Maher as new WMF executive director; Wikimedia lawsuits in France and Germany

• Op-ed: Two policies in conflict?

• In the media: Terrorism database cites Wikipedia as a source

• Featured content: Triple fun of featured content

• Traffic report: Goalposts; Oy vexit

• Blog: Jimmy Wales names Emily Temple-Wood and Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight as Wikipedians of the Year

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Vestavia Hills High School: 10 July 2016

You reverted the following minor edits with the comment, "The source you provide does not say that":

• an outright misspelling of "The Birmingham News"
• a redundant "their son" occurring one sentence after another "their son"
• a cited faculty figure of "127" from U.S. News & World Report
• a cited enrollment figure of "approx. 1900" from U.S. News & World Report (rounded in keeping with the Horace Mann School's Infobox, which rounds 1792 students to "approx. 1800")
• a reversion of team_name to mascot in the Infobox (in keeping with Flintridge Preparatory School's Infobox... they are, in fact, also the Rebels)
• a reversion to once again include the school's Southern Association of Colleges and Schools accreditation... VHHS is a two-time Blue Ribbon school that has never lost accreditation
• a grammatical expansion of one sentence in the History section, "The land on which the school stands was originally owned by..."

I endeavored to make only the most minor, unobjectionable edits, and do not understand how any failed to pass muster. Please explain the meaning of your comment.

Prior to this you reverted the following changes with the comment, "Get a consensus for your changes."

• removal of a misdirected reference to segregation academies, which were private, whereas VHHS has always been public
• removal of a comedian's purposefully crude reference to a sex toy, which is neither encyclopedic nor appropriate for a school's wikipedia entry
• consolidation of information about the Mascot Controversy to its dedicated section, in keeping with the Horace Mann School's treatment of its Sexual Abuse Scandal

Please explain why such edits require consensus. I believe they adhere to Wikipedia's existing mores.

Doppelstern (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

All content decisions are based on consensus. There is no such thing as an edit that doesn't require one. I am curious about how you, a user that started today and has only made 10 edits, all concerning this article, thinks he is better capable of assessing the "existing mores" of Wikipedia than an editor with going on 5 years experience, most of which is in editing school articles. What is your connection to the school? Are you employed by them or a firm such as Knight Eady that contracts with them? John from Idegon (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

You've made a number of assumptions here. Who I am should not matter to you, as Wikipedia edits should be judged on their merits. However, to satisfy your curiosity, I will tell you that I am not male, I am not white, I am not a PR mercenary, and I am not new to Wikipedia. I am a former valedictorian of this school, with degrees from an elite university, and I contributed edits on Wikipedia long before you found your way here. It's just been so long since I've been active that someone overseas has taken my former username.

Yesterday it was brought to my attention that the school's Wikipedia page no longer mentions certain academic teams that won consecutive national championships for many years, and hall of fame teachers who won national awards for lifetime achievements deemed notable by various entities including but not limited to the American Economic Association, TIME Magazine, the Mathematical Association of America, Amherst College, and the American Regions Math League. The awards that are well-documented online represent only a tiny fraction of the achievements of the school, which were earned before many organizations established comprehensive online records of competition results and national awards. I will be adding documentation of the school's achievements from credible online sources with full citations. As such, they do not require the blessings of draconian editors such as yourself.

The spirit of Wikipedia as stated on Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia is, "to be bold in editing in a fair and accurate manner... perfection is not required... incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles." Improvement over time is not possible when edits are blanked out en masse. For a number of edits, I have pointed to comparable content on the pages of other schools for comparison. It is not your duty to make an unduly difficult and hostile environment for those you perceive to be Wikipedia newcomers. The task at hand is to ensure "fair and accurate" portrayal, supplemented with citations whenever possible. Not every alum or departmental description of every school is fully documented by multiple news sources. It is not your place to put the page on lockdown from good faith edits that are truthfully accurate. And editorials and comedians are not objective, unbiased sources for an encyclopedic entry. In fact, they tend to be gratuitously inflammatory. Opinions from such sources may pass as "controversy," but not as "history."

You have ducked my substantive questions with the fig leaf of five years. Take a moment to reflect. Your present manner and behavior will not stand up to scrutiny, and if it persists, I will bring that scrutiny and review to you. Frankly, you are failing spectacularly in your intended mission as a welcoming, even-handed volunteer editor of Wikipedia.

Doppelstern (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

So we are right back to where we started. If you wish to make changes to the article, get a consensus at the article talk page. What was your previous username? John from Idegon (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

References

New page patrolling help

Hi, I need some help here. While I patrolling, I came across one user who keeps on moving articles which were tagged for CSD deletion from mainspace to draft page. I want to know that is moving pages from mainspace to draft allowed when it's already tagged for CSD deletion? Here an article which you tagged for CSD A7 for example. Thanks. :) Ayub407^talk 07:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Left him a note asking him to stop and will post a request at ANI for help sorting out the considerable mess he made. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Ayub407^talk 08:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Please do not continue with your EEZ edits.

Ask the vandal who made this [[1]] to provide the source for the same. That figure was on there for a long time and many admins have been on the page too for long. This figure is sneaked in now and then and duly reverted every time. Go through the rev history and see. Read the Talk Page as well. It was repeated on the 10th and I reverted today. (The vandal is a han (chinese) you can see from his User Page) I could have quietly reverted like he reverted in that edit a rightful edit. Just because I used complimentary vocab does not mean I am wrong I have clarified that multiple times. Why ARE YOU NOT asking for the "reliable published source" for the figure over there? Why was a universally-accepted and long-existing figure changed? Why has the vandal not provided source for that change? 59.92.144.113 (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Difficult editor

John, we both seem to be dealing with the same tendentious editor. Have a look at the edit history and talk page of Kodak Black. Is it too soon for ANI? Magnolia677 (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd say ROPE would be the way to go. John from Idegon (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you could add Kodak Black to your watchlist. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Please get rid of the discussion page you created about me

John,

There is no conflict of interest and my name is clearly stated, in fact my title was part of the correction. Regardless, I do not want a discussion page about me with a topic called "conflict of interest".

I will undo my edits that corrected false information for the benefit of everyone.

No good deed goes unpunished.

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8501:70E0:A829:D9E1:6F35:D0D3 (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. This edit here is the only edit ever made from the IP address you are using.John from Idegon (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Revert on Bluffton, Indiana

I saw that you reverted my edit on Bluffton, Indiana. The explanation behind the revert was "No reliable sources" however I question this comment. I've seen these links to these sites just about everywhere in articles relating to places in Indiana, and they were all added by users like Gilliam, who are well respected in the community for their work. May I ask why these sources are unreliable in the first place, even though they've been used in many Indiana place articles? Evking22 (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The small print at the bottom of Epodunk's home page does not jive with the requirements of WP:RS in any way. The postalhistory site is a commercial cite selling items relating to phillately. Not a good sign. However, I will ping Gilliam, to this discussion to get his input. Thanks for writing. John from Idegon (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Evking22, I will look at Epodunk only for leads to verify elsewhere. While I would not have an objection to citing Epodunk for non-controversial place names origins, many other Wikipedians here do, so I gave up using it long ago.– Gilliam (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Redlinks on Deaths in 2016

Rule of thumb here is if an individual who doesnt have an article!e but have the potential to have one is listed, they are given exactly one month to see if an article can be made about them. If not they are removed. Rusted AutoParts 05:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Rusted AutoParts. I noticed that and was in the process of self-reverting when you beat me to it. There is always something new to learn about Wikipedia. That's part of the fun. John from Idegon (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 13 July 2016 and following

I have seen your proposal to Mercy Career and Technical High School, adding High School to the OP request, addition on which I agree (I made the same in the article). What I am asking is, about your choice of "and" instead of "&", as per own branding. Some few samples: John Wiley & Sons, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, Procter & Gamble, Frost & Sullivan, Frankfurt School of Finance & Management, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Boston College Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. --Robertiki (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Notability in a non stand alone list

Hello John. Thank you for your comments. You may wish to review Wikipedia guidelines on adding content to non stand alone lists within articles, such as: Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article and Notability_(people). Thanks. -- 1630ab (talk) 09:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I believe this is about the addition of Mary "Molly" Gregory to the Concord Academy article. While WP:Source list does not preclude the addition of persons to lists who do not have a Wikipedia article, it does state in a few places that, when in doubt, a talk page discussion should be initiated. To borrow from the guidelines for city articles (although this is a school not a city), having a wiki article "is not the sole rationale for inclusion, since some people who might meet notable standards may not have an article, but it is a quick reference. If challenged, additions without their own article should be removed and discussed on the talk page of the city, until a consensus is reached." I would suggest you seek consensus for your addition on the article's talk page, though in my opinion John was correct in removing Mary Gregory, who was probably a wonderful teacher, but appears to have no independent notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, 1630ab. Welcome to Wikipedia. And thanks for stopping by my talk page. Sorry it's taken me so long to reply. Unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to give you a fair reply at this time. I've just gotten out of a hospital, and my energy is very low. I got about a quarter done with what I needed to say and woke up with that finishing with 37 lines of c. Please forgive me, but realize Wikipedia has no deadline. I'll get back to you in a few days. Thanks. Perhaps Magnolia677, might be willing to explain BRD and the difference between importance and notability. John from Idegon (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

lil ugly mane

The Fader article is very reputable and thus that makes it a reliable source to show LUM's notability. There are also other references used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.164.63 (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

• News and notes: Board faces diversity and skill-base issues in new FDC appointments

• Discussion report: Busy month for discussions

• In the media: Women in science editathon gets national press; Wikipedia "shockingly biased"

• Featured content: A wide variety from the best

• Traffic report: Sports and esports

• Arbitration report: Script writers appointed for clerks

• Recent research: Using deep learning to predict article quality

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Braintree High School edits

Hi John,

I tried editing the Wikipedia page for Braintree High School a few months ago, but you reversed it twice. I had been using an IP at the time because I was too lazy to log in. I was hoping you could help me with it. I'd like to add a section about the academics and other prominent groups (such as the theater guild) at the school. Being from Braintree, I can help provide sources, but I feel like it would be a good addition for the page, seeing as there's an entire section for the athletics. You seem to be a dedicated editor, so it'd be great to have your help. If there are any issues, please let me know.

Thanks! Alexkill51 (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Athletics have sections in school articles because reliable sources independent of the school write about athletics. The things you mentioned not so much. A mention that the school has clubs is acceptable referenced to a listing of said clubs at the school's website. If that list is not overly long it would be acceptable to replicate it here with reference. As far as the arts go, a mention of what the school offers is cool referenced to the school. Same with academic competition groups. Accomplishments for both however must be referenced to independent sources and should be limited to state championship victories. We don't talk about gold divisions or first divisions. We don't talk about competitions that are not state championships. We do not talk about individual achievement of staff or students and we do not use staff or student names. A limited number of noteworthy appearances may be discussed for performing arts groups (like the most important for each group), providing it can be sourced to an independent source. If you follow these guidelines, you won't get reverted. If you want to run drafts by me feel free. I'm one of the school project coordinators and would be happy to help. However, now as always my primary editing is to schools in Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Florida, Texas, Idaho and Oregon. Good luck.John from Idegon (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is Attention required about a misbehaved editor. --Robertiki (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glen Cove, New York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ashanti. 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) 10:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

typo revert on John Marshall High School (Minnesota)

Hi, thanks for thanks for calling my attention with the revert! I apologize if I made a hasty error. I've been going over hundreds of typos of boy's/boys'/girl's/girls' and may have missed some context or meaning on the page.

The Typo Team has boy's hockey on Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings/Grammar and miscellaneous. There are cases where it can be correct, as when referring to the hockey team of a specific boy, or a team organized by a person whose name is Boy. (I've seen both of these in my searches.) But in general use, when referring to a hockey team with more than one boy on it, I believe it should be boys'.

In cases where I'm doubtful, I try substituting with men and see how that sounds.

• The John Marshall man hockey team
• The John Marshall man's hockey team
• The John Marshall men hockey team
• The John Marshall men's hockey team

Only the last one sounds correct to me, so I go with the possessive plural: boys'. What do you think? I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Thanks! - Reidgreg (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Walnut Creek, California

You keep reverting my edit on Walnut Creek, California. This violates WP:GF You are clearly an experienced editor, but in case you are not familiar your edits may be causing a WP:EW situation. You are right, its not your job to do my research. Its not mine either. This is volunteer and in view of this your last response was not great in view of WP:CIV. I added multiple references on the talk page for the article in question if you would like to add the reference yourself, but I will not add them as doing so would justify the disregard for WP:GF. RonSigPi (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm very offended

And will be reporting you at WP:ANYouHurtMyFeelings post haste. TimothyJosephWood 23:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks....I'll be happy to do the same for you sometime. In the alternative feel free to FedEx me a PC so I can stop trying to type on this stupid phone. Best! John from Idegon (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. I realize this was probably an accident. Please be careful not to remove others' comments as you did here. Gestrid (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

It edit conflicted and I guess something must have gotten lost. Thanks for catching it but in the future please be aware of who you are communicating with before you drop a template on someone like they are a noob. Accidents do happen and an editor with nearly 5 years and nearly 50,000 edits does not need to be instructed. I appreciate you fixing it. Thanks John from Idegon (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I realize the template is more-so directed at new Wikipedians. I opted to use that instead of using a harsher template that doesn't say welcome, because I knew it was likely a mistake. -- Gestrid (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Here are some better options. Just fix it or Write a note (humor works well in situations like this...see above). This is a collaborative project. Use your communication skills to advance collaboration. Don't rely on templates to the exclusion of real communication. Misplaced, they can really piss people off. There is no need for a template when education or graduating warnings is not necessary. John from Idegon (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the pointers. I'll try to be less Twinkle-happy. -- Gestrid (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)