User talk:John from Idegon/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

Archive 60

NPA

Turkeybutt can be somewhat difficult to work with, but this edit just exacerbates the problem: it is unnecessarily personalized, insulting, unconstructive, and unnecessary. You would do well to apologize. --JBL (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

No. Goodbye. John from Idegon (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Edgewood High School (Indiana)

I agree with removing the non-sanctioned sports, but I'm surprised that you also removed the school ref for which sports it offers. I added it to show which of the various IHSAA sports the school offers (at least one IHSAA sport, gymnastics, is not offered by the school). Or does the IHSAA list participating schools in each sport? Maybe I missed it. I've spent too much time dealing with pointy concerns by the other user already. Meters (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I removed it so I could legitimately remove the primary tag. I did not follow your IHSAA link and didn't realize it wasn't the correct one. It's in the school directory, which is a pdf linked from the school tab. I'll add it. Didn't mean to step on your toes. I'm sure our position will be quite adequately supported before the end of the day. Hoosiers take their high school sports seriously. They've made movies about it. And I agree on the pointy nature. He templated me for promo. John from Idegon (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, I wasn't bent out of shape, just curious. I see the new association ref you've included that covers all the bases. You are indeed the master. Not just ttemplating a regular but templating a high school project coordinator for school article edit? Meters (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Why was my comment (that you reverted) here?

Apparently, I failed to realize that I posted this on my own talk page instead of yours, but this is what I was trying to ask of you.

Because you said that I as a newcomer sounded dumb to respond to an experienced user in an advisory tone. Experienced users can need some reminders too. You seemed to have been corrupted by your own bragging rights.

WP:AGEISM | WP:DNB | #NoobLivesMatter --Turkeybutt (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I am under no obligation to respond to you and my reverting your previous message was a very clear indication I do not intend to. This is quite clearly a violation of the conditions under which Floquenbeam said he would block you. You're being argumentative. You are misusing policy. AGEISM is an essay specifically about applying for administrator. And you cannot deny being new and expect an essay about new users to apply to you. I'll thank you to stay off my talk page except to post required notices such as notification of being reported to a noticeboard. I'll gladly do the same for you. You are nothing but a bottomless timesink. John from Idegon (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Pecos, Texas

Greetings. I've undone your 4 September edit of Pecos, Texas. It's not enough to declare "off topic," as though one were an authority. There needs to be some line of reasoning. It would be difficult to come up with a strong argument for the removal of a nationally covered event that centered in Pecos as non-notable. Tapered (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's my argument for inclusion. The event was notable, nationally and even internationally. The prime mover of the event was the most prominent citizen of Pecos. That has to be considered on topic for Pecos. Regards Tapered (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Content discussion should take place on the article talk page, not here. John from Idegon (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Quite correct. I'll remedy the mistake. Thanks for the pedantry. Tapered (talk) 06:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I stand by the claim of pedantry, but after reading Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful, the above will be my last sarcastic edit. Tapered (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Tapered, there are some excellent quotes on the pedant article, including "nothing is as peevish and pedantic as men's judgements of one another". Magnolia677 (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Touché. John from Idegon (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree! It describes both of you perfectly! Tapered (talk) 06:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

BTW, are there actually 2 of you? Tapered (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding request on Olsen page

You mark it as not complete, may I know why? I am new to contributing to articles as I usually just read em'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakeContribution (talk • contribs) 18:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The explanation is on the article talk page. If you need clarification, I would suggest asking there or perhaps at the Teahouse. I do not actively contribute to Hollywood articles; I simply watch that article due to the extreme level of vandalism on it. John from Idegon (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok but why must my request be denied? All that info is 100% accurate and I cited my sources. JakeContribution (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)JakeContribution

The explanation is on the article talk page. If you need clarification, I would suggest asking there or perhaps at the Teahouse. I do not actively contribute to Hollywood articles; I simply watch that article due to the extreme level of vandalism on it. John from Idegon (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 September 2016

• News and notes: AffCom still grappling with WMF Board's criteria for new chapters

• Special report: Olympics readership depended on language

• In the media: Librarians, Wikipedians, and a library of Wikipedia coverage

• WikiProject report: Watching Wikipedia

• Featured content: Entertainment, sport, and something else in-between

• Traffic report: From Phelps to Bolt to Reddit

• Technology report: Wikimedia mobile sites now don't load images if the user doesn't see them

• Recent research: Ethics of machine-created articles and fighting vandalism

• Blog: Upload of free photos from Swiss library underway

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Maine Girls' School

I think the correct title for the new school is "The Maine Girls' Academy". The "The" seems to be part of the official title. I'll ask to have the The Maine Girls' Academy redirect deleted for now so we can start fresh under whatever title is correct.Meters (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll change the redlink. Apparently you have page mover rights. Was there much to learn? John from Idegon (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You forgot the talk page....lol. John from Idegon (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk page should have gone automatically when the main page was moved. I'll check. I actually don't have page mover permission. Any (auto confirmed?) editor can move unprotected pages. The page mover permission would have allowed me to move the page back without leaving a redirect. Meters (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The redirect on the TP is still there. I have never manually tagged a CSD and there didn't seem to be a proper choice on twinkle. John from Idegon (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I put a speedy G6 on the main page, and I assumed the admin would nuke the talk page redirect too. I'll add it to the talk page too just in case. Meters (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Montgomery Blair High School

I left alone the sentence regarding racial disparities for which you reverted my August 10 edit as "whitewashing," but the edits I made today were only to add some information regarding the Science Bowl and also to correct factual errors and to add citations. Can you explain why you reverted the edits I made today? DjTj81 (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to leave an edit summary and I apologize for that. I'm at work aand don't have the time to look at it right now. Ill check later and get back to you. John from Idegon (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen any response from you, so I have reinstated my edits. The three edits that I made were: (1) A correction regarding alumnus Josh Oppenheimer, who clarified in a local radio interview that although he attended Blair, he moved to New Mexico before graduating; (2) The addition of some cross-citations in the student activities section, including the addition of the Science Bowl, an activity where Blair's team was the national champion twice; (3) Deleting the statement that the Blair Magnet is eligible to students county-wide, which is no longer correct. As stated on the MCPS website, only students from the southern and eastern parts of the county may apply to the Blair Magnet. DjTj81 (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Your edit to Appleton West High School

Good Evening John,

I see that you have reset the assessment for Appleton West High School back to low importance and start class. Could you further explain where you are getting this rating from? The article is pretty well developed compared to other articles of higher rating. The building has a pretty long list of notable alumni (only a small list are noted on Wikipedia). The building has some pretty important history towards the surrounding area and Appleton, Wisconsin, according to the criteria for the schools project it should land a mid on the importance scale. One last thing, can I ask you what is this "assisted" tag that appeared in the edit summery (The link brings up a page about some rater tool)?

Sorry if this message sounded a little rude and demanding; hope you have a nice night, --KDTW Flyer (talk) 04:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Was explaining at your talk when you sent this. Not rude at all. There is a tool for doing assessment, but it appears you've found the page for it. Just a short point here. You keep referring to the building. School articles follow the school not the building. In other words, if the school moved to a new campus, we would not start a new article. Even if it changed names but was still in the same district we wouldn't start a new article. Let's please keep this conversation at your page for convenient access. Thanks John from Idegon (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Lutheran High School East (Michigan)

I had a feeling about this so I spent an hour doing some research. You may wish to see my new comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lutheran High School East (Michigan). Perhaps if you repeat the research you may come up with something I missed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The building is in use by a private middle school, apparently related to the high school that took over the Catholic High school next door. I lean towards it's existence at one time, but have found no sources yet either. My vote was based on the school website you added and have since removed. Pretty busy with the kid but I'll be modifying my vote and digging further. Freep.com and mlive.com would be good places to locate a closing article if you get time before I. John from Idegon (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, did that. Nothing with the school name as posted on the WIkipedia. Plenty of Luthean High Schools without the 'East'. The only ine with 'East' is the one in Ohio. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Parochial education in Detroit and the close in suburbs is in shambles due to everyone with enough money to support it fleeing to the far suburbs. I'll reach out to some editors actually in Michigan for some help. John from Idegon (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung - This is a self source to its beginning and demise. In light of this, I'd say redirect to the school it was folded into, but that school has no article either. Nor does the school it was spun off from. Nor does the governing body. As a matter of fact, the only mention the governing body has is in Lutheran High School Westland. I'm clueless as to what to do. Have you reached out to the creator? (Of the article....not the universe. I already asked the latter. ) John from Idegon (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

We won't get any change from the creator, it's an SPA. My guess it's an older, former alumnus who doesn't even realise the place no longer exists. My instinct would be to delete rather than let inaccurate information stay in he encyclopedia. This is one exception where citing outcomes (which of course I generally support) won't wash, but will the closer understand that? If he doesn't, then either you or I ll have to ta it up with him. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Boise BoDo

Friend,

Kindly use the article's talk page rather than using endless reverts to make your point. Two editors have tried to add BoDo, and I'm sure that you don't intend to make it seem that you "own" the article for Boise. Best regards, GetSomeUtah (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You haven't ever met me nor will you. I am not your friend and kindly do not address me as such. An IP added an unreferenced mention of an advertising slogan. I correctly reverted it. You re-added it with a worthless source. BURDEN applies. Boise, like most state capital articles, is a high level article. Addition of promo crap with equally crap references doesn't fly. Between the way you address other editors and the chatty garbage you are pushing, one might reach the conclusion that you might be mistaking an encyclopedia for Yahoo Forums. Follow WP:BRD, respect the encyclopedia, and behave like you might actually take this seriously and things will go much smoother. If you wish to actually discuss the edit seriously, make a reasonable arguement at the totally inappropriate section you added at the article talk page. If not fine. I'm done with this conversation. Bye. John from Idegon (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Friend,

Thank you for reminding me there are other worthwhile pusuits in life than contributing to digital flotsam. Best regards and see you in the American Redoubt, no doubt. GetSomeUtah (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Doubtful. I don't waste my time on people who insist on false intimacy. Got plenty of friends.tata. John from Idegon (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Page deletion

re: Stacee Myers. I should know this by now, having been around WP for years, so I'll ask you instead of embarassing myself on a public noticeboard. How do you tell that an article is a re-creation of one that had been previously deleted? Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Go to the page logs. Hard to tell you where to find them because that's dependant on what skin you use. It's under the page tab on my interface. John from Idegon (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I discovered it when I prodded it. A notice came up automatically. John from Idegon (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Not in any way encyclopedic

Please do not simply delete my work and not provide any additional instructions to correct. Cherry Creek High School Matthew.ishappynow (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Revert

Regarding this revert. The content has been the subject of discussion since the article was created, and AFAIK, there has been no consensus reached for this change. If this is not the case feel free to point to where consensus had been reached on the talk, but I don't believe it has.

IPs and new users do us the favor of stopping by articles like these once or twice a day to insert ISIS/Islamist/terrorist with no source and no discussion, and their contributions are regularly reverted pending consensus. TimothyJosephWood 18:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Completely aware of all that. I edit exclusively from an Android device and after two years still have not mastered touchscreen based input. Sometimes my fingers are just bigger than the target. In the future if you see a questionable rollback without a summary from me feel free to revert on sight. Sorry. John from Idegon (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

No worries. TimothyJosephWood 18:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Further...I believe there has been a more meta discussion on the subject of the label "terrorist". It may have been at BLPN, but I'm not sure. (You look through so many of these discussions and they eventually just blend together. I can only recall the ones I've contributed to.) Anyway, it seems to me there was concensus building to only use that label if official sources were generally in concensus on its use and discounting media sources use of it. John from Idegon (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

This may actually not be a bad thing to bring up at the village pump. As a perennial issue not likely to go away any time soon, official guidance might not be a bad thing. TimothyJosephWood 18:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I had an occasion to look for something at VP the other day so that may be where I saw it. It's been sometime in the last week. John from Idegon (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Idaho school districts

Hi, they're the three redlinks you'll find here : [1]. Be advised, if you re-create them, they'll be subject to the same disruption from the U. of Idaho accounts that you're experiencing now. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:9CA8:8C33:3D8F:7E65 (talk) 04:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The American College of Financial Services

Hi John,

I work for The American College of Financial Services and am trying to update its page since a lot of the current information is out of date. Could you please tell me which section of the new text seemed like advertising/promotion so I can remove it?

Thanks

You have no business editing the page at all. Is it part of your job to manage the school's web presence? If so you need to read WP:PAID. If there is content you believe to be factually incorrect, make an edit request on the article's talk page. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for you to promote your school. John from Idegon (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Um, did you really intend to revert my post? Meters (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I see you caught it already. Meters (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. Small screen fat fingers bad eyes. On my watchlist, 90% of the time rollback for one entry is directly (like less than a mm) above the button for the diff on the next. Sometimes I miss. Rarely if ever do I use rollback, preferring twinkle instead. If you ever see a rollback without an edit summary from me it is safe to assume I oopsed and revert on sight. Sorry. Now I'm gonna go read what I reverted. Hope you had a good weekend. John from Idegon (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Big fingers and bad eyes... do I know what you mean. Meters (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic?

How do you figure that? He's a family member, within the discussion of the family, and is added as a note specifically because he's not living with the family while at military school. (Edit: I've restored only that he exists to be certain it's on-topic.) —ATS 🖖 Talk 23:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Why point all the zillions of readers of one of the most popular websites in the entire world toward the location they can harass this entirely non notable person over his sister's newly found fame? It has no bearing on any understanding of her, who is the topic of the article. John from Idegon (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the point you're making, John. Our readers are no more likely to harass Jakob than any other member of the VanderWaal family—and nor are viewers of WIS, for that matter—and Wikipedia is not censored for no reason other than he doesn't currently live with the family. For the same reason, he is also no less a family member than her mom, dad and sister. —ATS 🖖 Talk 00:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I removed the names of her siblings, per WP:BLPNAME. I will also leave a comment on the article's talk page. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I have replied there. —ATS 🖖 Talk 00:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Langley Covered Bridge

I just wanted to let you know that I reverted your deletion of the gallery on the Langley Covered Bridge page. I did this because I am in the process of expanding this article and adding more images. From several different angles of the bridge. I understand your concern and working to add more content to help improve this article, I do it when I can. With the season and leaves changing I hope to get out and take some different season shots of the bridge to showcase how it looks during summer/fall/winter. So for this I feel that a gallery is best. I am also working on adding images of histoical places during this month for the wiki commons push.Jsgoodrich (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC) See discussion on article talk page. Thanks. Good work on finding more sources. John from Idegon (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. I am placing you on notice you have twice made edits to an article I am working and removed a galleryJsgoodrich (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC). If you do it again I will report you for violation of the rule of three.

The Signpost: 29 September 2016

• News and notes: Wikipedia Education Program case study published; and a longtime Wikimedian has made his final edit

• In the media: Wikipedia in the news

• Featured content: Three weeks in the land of featured content

• Arbitration report: Arbcom looking for new checkusers and oversight appointees while another case opens

• Traffic report: From Gene Wilder to JonBenét

• Technology report: Category sorting and template parameters

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Commons image

The issues you address are relevant considerations. Someone always owns any copyrighted work until copyright protection expires or until it's explicitly released into the public domain, even if the original owner is an entity that no longer exists. A corporate owner going out of business is comparable to an individual owner dying, in the sense that the first owner's intellectual property (just like any other property) becomes the property of someone else, even if that someone else doesn't know that he's now the owner. And of course this image is a derivative work of the original, so as you said, any copyright protection attaching to the original is attached to this too.

The situation here is different, but for a totally different reason. In 1976, the US Congress decided to reject the concept of copyright as an inducement for artists to create more works (create an item, and if you care about it, and you and your licensees are the only one allowed to benefit financially from its first sale) and replaced it with the European model of copyright being a very-long-held entitlement. Until the 1976 act took effect in 1978, you were required to comply with certain provisions if you wanted your work to be copyrighted, with one provision being the placement of a single-sentence copyright notice on the work (if you can't even go to the bother of claiming copyright over something, why should you be able to control its use?), and failure to comply caused the work to enter the public domain immediately. Since the creator of this image says The Newspaper when published had no copyright notice when published, and since the image already bears the correct license template for this situation ({{PD-US-no notice}}), there's no problem: like any other work in the public domain, this one can be exploited without any regard for copyright. If you were to go through the newspaper's archives and discover that the claim was wrong, that the image had originally been published with a copyright notice, you would have proven the uploader wrong here, but going through their archives would be the only way to do this, and without such evidence, both Commons and en:wp are happy to host the image. Nyttend (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the very useful reply. I thought I'd asked the right person! John from Idegon (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. I can't claim to be a copyright expert, but I'm a good deal more familiar with US copyright standards than other countries'. I suppose being an admin here since 2007 gives me a bit of experience. Nyttend (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)