User talk:John from Idegon/Archive 71

Archive 65

←

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

→

Archive 75

Castle High School

This is Castle's girl's squad warming up at Princeton during the Championship of the 2017 Toyota Classic. The boy's squad also wore uniforms in the same style. They've been wearing black for away games for almost 5 years now Rhatsa26X (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

You didn't start editing here yesterday. Verifiability trumps truth, every time. And what you saw or took o picture of them doing is WP:OR. John from Idegon (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

An additional note, Rhatsa26X. School colors do not always coincide with athletic uniform colors. I used to officiate basketball in Northern Indiana, SW Michigan and south-suburban Chicago in the 1980s. At that time, all three state sanctioning bodies had rules regarding the predominate color of uniforms and whether the home team wore lighter colors and the road team wore darker colors. My alma mater in NW Indiana whose colors are and always have been purple and gold, wore white uniforms at home and purple ones on the road, with gold and white lettering on the road uniforms and purple and gold lettering on the home uniforms. That didn't make white one of their school colors then, and it doesn't now. Another more current example is Boise State University. Their colors have been for many years orange and blue. Since they are one of the "Little Sisters of the Poor" schools and quite the media darlings, with Q-scores to go with it, Nike and other uniform manufacturers are more than happy to supply them with numerous uniforms. I've seen them play in black, silver and white uniforms, along with multiple combos of those colors with orange and blue. Last season, they did not wear the same color combo once. Obviously if there was some sort of correlation between the color of uniforms a school's athletes wear, and the school colors, that would not be possible. Rhatsa26X (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I just love where you tell me, a person with a bit of a fascination with the history of Southwestern Indiana, schools and other things, that I did no original research. I've lived in Southwestern Indiana for nearly 25 years and generally keep up with what the schools in my area do, even some of whom I detest entirely, namely the Evansville Catholic schools, Mater Dei and especially Memorial.

That being said, The picture of Princeton's gym is as good or better quality than those of South Spencer and Gibson Southern's gyms so it needs to stay. Just because it's the picture used to justify the case for Castle's color scheme is an insufficient reason to remove it.

Now let's get into the "research" or lack thereof as you claim. Many of these schools (i.e. Castle, Gibson Southern, Pike Central, Princeton, and Vincennes Lincoln among quite a few) NOT ONLY use the extra color on their uniforms but also on many areas on their campuses, and even school merchandise. I've been inside all these school campuses so I would know and I see their merchandise, namely bumper and window stickers on US 41 every day.

Castle's black scheme comes from the fact that two of it's constituent schools, Chandler, and Yankeetown (Since you say you're from Northern Indiana, you should be aware of the wave of consolidations that took place in the 1960s and 1970s) used black as part of their colors Nweburgh used navy and gold which of course became Castle's colors much to the other's discontent. Likely the black was meant to acknowledge the other two.

This is the case with both Gibson Southern, Princeton Community and Pike Central as well. In Princeton Community's case, all but one their six constituent schools, the exception being Mount Olympus, used black, three of them black and white, while others used orange, and green. In Gibson Southern's case, two of their three constituents, Fort Branch and Owensville, used black and gold while Haubstadt used blue white and orange, colors still used by their middle school BTW. While neither Winslow nor Petersburg used black, most of the other four schools, Union, Spurgeon, Velpen, and Otwell did.

Vincennes has always used green orange and white so I don't get why that has never been updated, and I bet there are plenty of examples, even in Northern Indiana.

Rhatsa26X (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

WILL YOU STOP REVERTING PRINCETON AND GIBSON SOUTHERN!!! Leave the editing of those pages to those who actually live in the area. It should be up to WikiProject Southern Indiana do determine these actions. Rhatsa26X (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow...I guess I have to seek administrative intervention. Your attitude is ridiculous and clearly in violation of WP:OWN. I'll not be replying to any of the above because it is simply nonsense. I have a reliable secondary source....all you are providing is WP:OR. In all cases the source is the IHSAA yearbook. In all cases your source is what you believe to be correct. That is not now, nor has it ever been the way Wikipedia works. John from Idegon (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate it if any one who stalks this page might be willing to jump in here and either explain to Rhatsa26X that original research is not allowed, and that no project is in control of any page, or point out to me what my error is here. I honestly do not know how to reply to someone who argues that his edits are in complete violation of Wikipedia core policies, and that is what makes them the proper content in the article. John from Idegon (talk) 03:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

What core policies are you really talking about? I've been on Wikipedia for just over 10 years. Been a reviewer for almost 7 of those years. Look at many of the High School, even some of the college pages from around the country, whether from Indiana or anywhere else. I have. I, and others, some of whom have been on Wikipedia longer than me, have tried to refine them as best as we can over the years.

At least 75% of them tend to have a lot of original research because information about them is hard to come by, especially rural schools, like Gibson Southern or Princeton. The 25% that don't are in cities where such information is readily available and some of them even contain at least some such research. I even started some of their pages with small stubs, Including Princeton, Gibson Southern, Castle and even many of the Evansville Schools as well as about 85% of the IHSAA conference pages (A project that I started in 2009 that I am grateful that others in WikiProject Indiana have kept up, even adding the disbanded conferences using the same format). Your head would clearly explode if you saw the state that many of these pages were in 10 years ago. There are still nearly 2 dozen high schools in Indiana, mostly in Northern Indiana who don't even have pages yet, they are still red linked.

The conference pages relied solely of information from the IHSAA's website as that is pretty much the ONLY place where you find such information and that project took nearly 3 years alone. The way you talk, It sounds like you would rather every single page on a high school be just a single paragraph stub. I've noticed I'm not the only one that you've been reverting repeatedly. Many of them have the same issues with you that I have. If you don't know anything about the school, which I suspect you likely don't, leave these pages to those who do. I don't mess with any school outside of Southwestern Indiana, unless there's a major problem with it, pretty much because I don't know anything about them, but at least I admit it, usually I bring it to the attention of the local WikiProject. That is after all what WikiProject is there for. Rhatsa26X (talk) 08:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Rhatsa26X: I haven't really looked into this, but your editing style reminds me of Wikipedia 10 years ago, when WP:Verifiability wasn't really enforced. As a matter of principle, if something that cannot be verified by reliable secondary sources, then the information shouldn't be included. I'll look at this again later. Alex Shih (talk) 08:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Rhatsa26X: Just a few general comments to begin with.

1. You need to re-indent each new paragraph in a post because the software will not automatically do it for you. So, if you start a post with level 2 indentation, each new paragraph and new line break should be indented to level 2 as well. Not a huge deal, but it does make threads a bit easier to follow.
2. WikiProject don't own articles and WikiProject consensus cannot override a community consensus per WP:CONLEVEL. A WikiProject may provide some guidance with respect to article formatting, etc., but anyone can edit any article at anytime. I don't need to live in Indiana to be a member of WikiProject Southern Indiana and I don't need to be a member of WikiProject Southern Indiana to edit articles like Princeton Community High School and Gibson Southern High School. You yourself are free to edit any article you like on Wikipedia regardless of the subject matter or where you live; the only requirement per se is that you adhere to relevant policies and guidelines when you make such edits.
3. There's no reason to "shout" using all caps and doing so usually further exacerbates the situation. Everyone occasionally gets frustrated when they edit Wikipedia, but it's important to remember that this is a collaborative editing project which means that there will be disagreements over content. When that happens, we need to follow WP:DR to try and resolve things through civil discussion.

Now some specifics about this particular dispute. You were bold and added content and an image to some articles; your additions were subsequently reverted by John who left edit sums requesting that you provide a reliable source in the case of the Gibson article and commenting that the image lacked context in the case of the Princeton article. At that point, you should've followed WP:BRD and engaged in discussion on the article's talk page to see if some kind of middle ground could be found, or provided the requested source(s) or context for the image; instead, you simply reverted and re-added the disputed content/image. "BRD" is "Bold-Revert-Discuss", not "Bold-Revert-Revert-Discuss", and initiating a revert war is edit warring which is something not conducive to collaborative editing at all. Images, like text, can sometimes be the subject of a content dispute and per WP:IUP#Adding images to articles their use should improve the reader's understanding of the relevant article. Whether or how a particular image accomplishes this may be something that needs to be sorted out through article talk page discussion to see if there is a consensus to add the image. Just because you took File:Princeton Community HS Gym.jpg and released in under a free license and want to use it in the Princeton article does not automatically mean that its should be used in the article.

Many experienced Wikipedia editors know lots of stuff about a variety of different subjects, and what they know may be true; however, it's verifiablity, not truth which matters with respect to Wikipedia; so, unless a published reliable source can be provided in support of such information, it's going to be considered original research (OR) and can be removed at anytime. There are 5,000,000 plus articles on Wikipedia and many of these do contain some sort of unsourced content/OR; that's unfortunate, but it's not an excuse to add more unsourced content/OR to other articles per WP:OTHERCONTENT.

Finally, both the Princeton and Gibson articles are also listed under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools and John is one of the coordinators of that project. Being a coordinator does not automatically make John right, but it might mean that he is speaking from experience when it comes to articles about high schools and is not just some random vandal going around reverting people for kicks. I don't think John is saying that the content you adding is untrue and he's certainly not telling you to leave the editing of the pages to the members of WikiProject Schools; he's just saying that the information you want to add should be supported by a citation to a reliable source per WP:BURDEN and asking you to engage in discussion on the relevant article talk pages. Moreover, in case you weren't aware, John is from Indiana (at least he was born there) and he is also a member of WikiProject Indiana so articles about schools in the state are probably of special interest to him. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018. —Donner60 (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

Beauty School Dropout (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

In regards to my recent undone edits

Hi John,

I've recently noticed that you've undone some of my edits to some Wikipedia pages. I hope there hasn't been a misunderstanding. All of the information in those edits I made are already reflected on other Wikipedia pages. For example, the Feeder schools for Walter Johnson High School are mentioned on the Wikipedia page for Montgomery County Public Schools. Under the Table for MCPS Middle Schools, it lists Tilden and North Bethesda as schools routed towards WJ. While I don't want to take up too much of your time (It is New Year's Eve, after all), I'd be happy to go through the edits point by point and show you the existing Wikipedia source on each one.

In the case of Sherwood High School, I added its sports rivals, Springbrook, Paint Branch and James Hubert Blake. It mentions this fact on the Wikipedia pages for Springbrook and Blake in their respective School infoboxes.

Paint Branch High School is the exact same case as Sherwood. Same information, but missing from a different page.

And finally, with Oak Park and River Forest High School, the information is on the page dedicated to the Oak Park Elementary School District in the "school facts" table. The two middle Schools listed are Gwendolyn Brooks Middle School and Percy Julian Middle School, the two schools that I added as the feeders to OPRF.

I appreciate that you want to stop the spread of misinformation. I'm all for that too. I hope I've been able to clarify why I made those edits and to show you that the information really is true. Krookyj (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

As I told you in every edit summary and with multiple messages on your userpage, all you have to do is add a reliable source for your edits. Wikipedia doesn't consider itself a reliable source for itself any more than a professor would allow you to use Wikipedia as a source in a serious paper. This is not because Wikipedia is inherently inaccurate, but because it is dynamic. It may not say the same thing when a citation is checked as it did when you cited it. For feeder schools, you can cite whatever on the school or district website or a secondary source. For rivals, you must cite a secondary source. In any case where you cannot find a citation, you cannot add the information. Period. Although a citation is not always needed, every single fact must come from a reliable published sources without exception. Everything but the most mundane must come from sources independent of the school. In no case can you add something you just "know". When you alter content that has been in an article for a while, you should always provide a source. Believe it or not, people add falsehoods to Wikipedia articles. I'm not saying you are, but since people do, it's just better to eliminate doubt (and provide a usable source for anyone who needs it). In regard the rivals, there has been considerable back and forth on it over the course of several years. This indicates various people are adding their opinion of who the rivals are. Rivals don't change frequently. My Alma mater in Indiana has been playing football since the early 1900s. We've had exactly 2 changes in rivals in that time; one due to the opening of the first parochial high school in the area that was an instant rival as most of the students were students at my alma mater the prior year. The other was due to a school closing. The fact is a true rivalry will be easy to source as nearly every contest between the two rival schools will be journalistically noted as a rivalry. Sources are what makes Wikipedia useful; without them this is just a blog. John from Idegon (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Happy New Year! Beauty School Dropout (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Appropriate content?

Can you check this out and let me know what you think. I'm not in the mood for an edit war or being accused of throwing my admin status around which is usually what happens sooner or later in these cases. Of course, if I'm wrong don't hesitate to tell me so. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Please advise as to your revert

I thought my completing the citations and making the infobox less wordy, more elegant, was an improvement on the St. Louis University High School article. Is there some place in Wiki I can learn what is wrong with what I did? Jzsj (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Holy Family Catholic School (Ottawa)

Hi John from Idegon. Would you mind taking a look at Holy Family Catholic School (Ottawa)? I came across this after checking on a non-free image being used in a draft. When that happens I usually check the contributions history of the editor who added the image to see whether they are a new editor and have made similar mistakes in other drafts. Anyway, while checking I came across this article about an elementary school which was created back in December 2010 and looks to have been completely unsourced since then. Someone added an "Unreferenced" template to it back in January 2011 and the article was redirected to Ottawa Catholic School Board in February 2013, but it was recreated by an IP in February 2016. It's basically been unsourced since re-creation with only some minor cleanup (by experienced editors) and minor updates (made by IPs), so I reverted back to the 2013 redirect instead of adding maintenance templates. If this was inappropriate, then please advise. If, by chance, the article is recreated by another IP and no RS are provided, then what is typically done in such cases. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd say close enough. Technically, it probably should have gone to Afd this time as the redirect had already been reverted once, but if nothing happens, it's ok. When it's been contentious, it's better to have an actual consensus to point to. I'll put it on my watchlist. Question for you, tho. I noticed you put colons in front of the words in your wikilinks above. Does that keep them from showing up on the "What links here" page? John from Idegon (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. The "colon trick" is just a habit I picked up from working with non-free content, inter-language wikilinks and category links in drafts, etc.; I'm not sure whether it affects "What links here?". -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Utah Valley Amateur Radio Club page

Please forgive my noob-ness; I don't remember having to defend a page before (editions, yes, page, no).

Could we please discuss what I could do, to prevent the UVARC (Utah Valley Amateur Radio Club) page from being deleted? Other amateur radio club pages have survived, and I'm wondering why this one should be removed. UVARC is the largest ham radio club in Utah, and one of the largest in the western US. They charge no dues or fees, and does nothing more than serve the public.

Thanks, Noji Ratzlaff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nojiratz (talk • contribs) 22:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

As is common for noobs, you're not understanding the requirements to have an article here, which we call notability. It probably doesn't match up with your common definition of notability. Here, notability has no relationship with importance, utility, or even directly, fame. Notability simply means the subject of the article has been a significant subject of discussion (or made note of, hence the name) in multiple reliable sources. Specifically, a club must meet the requirements outlined at ORG. Briefly summarised, the club must have been discussed in detail in multiple secondary, reliable sources, totally independent of the club. Additionally, corporations and organizations must have at least one of those sources from outside their area of service, so as to show that notability isn't just local. Most of the sources on the article are primary sources (the club's website, various license applications, etc). The ones that aren't are both local and lacking detail (in other words, about something the club did rather than about the club itself), and some of the sources would not meet our standards for reliability. You might ask why all this is required. That brings us to something else most new users don't understand. Did you know that per one of our pillar policies (WP:V), every single thing contained in a Wikipedia article must have been paraphrased from an already published source? Most new editors do not know that and hence create articles based primarily on things they either know, have been told or have discovered. That's not allowed. See WP:OR for details. So, to answer your question, you need to find better sources. I'll leave you some more links on your talk (all of the blue phrases here are links) so you can read up on how Wikipedia really works. You could comment at the deletion discussion and argue for the article to be kept, but those arguments must answer the argument I've made to delete. Arguments about the importance of the organization will likely be ignored, as would arguments based on the existence of similar articles. I could however, move it to "Draft space", which is a place where you can work on it at your leisure without concerns about deletion. It isn't readily visible to the general public there, however. Just let me know what you want to do. Thanks, and thanks for what you guys do. I used to be on a volunteer dive rescue team and was a volunteer firefighter when I lived in the Great Lakes area, and have participated in numerous drills and simulations that included radio operators. I'm aware of the importance of your work. Hope 2018 is good to you and yours! John from Idegon (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Elizabeth McKenzie

Your PROD was removed so I've taken it to AfD. As far as I know, just being nominated for a minor prize does not confer notability. Indeed, failing all other sourcee I would expect at least a Pulizer or Man Booker win. And in this case it would still be a BLP1E, I guess. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• A minor prize? Don't be ridiculous. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, K! John from Idegon (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Dan Stone

Hello John from Idegon. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Dan Stone, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Being signed to a notable label indicates importance/significance (WP:CCSI#SINGER, WP:CCSI#BAND). Thank you. SoWhy 07:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

James R. Fouts

Please see the talk page for the James R. Fouts article. I am seeking consensus as you requested of another editor. DeepBluSky (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Bryan Adams high school

Hello jim, I would like to call your attention to Bryan Adams High School. Does wikipedia consider musicians notable alumni?

Ral 33 (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there a particular edit you wanted me to look at, Ral 33? In general, to appear in a notable alumni list, a person must have a Wikipedia article about them (them particularly, not a group they are a part of), and either their bio must contain a source connecting them to the school or one must be added at the alumni list. One's career has no bearing on notability. John from Idegon (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, someone added a person by the name of angel bedoy recently and they do not have a page. I was also just curious about the requirements for future reference.Ral 33 (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Deprodding of Los Angeles Police Department Cadet Program

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Los Angeles Police Department Cadet Program, which you proposed for deletion. My reasoning has been posted to the talk page of that article and I would, of course, welcome input. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Et0048 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow, thanks....I didn't know that. Please see WP:DTTR, Et0048. It's especially galling to receive a condescending template like that from an editor that has clearly exhibited an absolute ignorance of the deletion process (removal of a prod is final, as the very template you left me indicates. There is no need to invite discussion, or make arguments to keep, at the article talk page. If the deletion process continues, it will be at AfD, not the article talk page.) I'd strongly suggest you read up on deletion process, as the article is most likely going to AfD. The arguments you made at the talk page do not speak to notability in any way. If a subject's notability is disputed, to contest that you need to show, using reliable sources, that somehow the subject meets the applicable notability guidelines (in this case, ORG). Unless I've missed something big, it's virtually certain you will not be able to do that. Merge is the best option, and of course that will be subject to consensus at the PD's article. John from Idegon (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Naperville Page

Hi John, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and have been spending some efforts lately to improve the Wikipedia pages for Naperville, IL and DuPage County. Today you reverted my edit where I added information about the Naperville Municipal Band, and it appears the reason is undue weight. Is the new text that I added too much information? Is it because I gave the Municipal Band its own section? I would like to know how I can improve my edit to the page. Thanks so much. Bcsimon15 (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Both, actually. There should be a culture or arts section in the article. You should add one, maybe two sentences should suffice. There is no need to mention the director by name, altho you do need the source you used for it. For a city the size of Naperville, in my opinion, we shouldn't be talking about any institution that isn't notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. But, others disagree and that's fine. However, you do have to have secondary sources showing that someone thought it important enough to write about. The only one you had was the Tribune article on the new director, so you need it. I'd say something like:

The Naperville Municipal Band is a non profit organization founded in X year. They have an annual concert series at whatever venue and consist of x volunteer members.

References

This is just a rough idea. Keep the following in mind please:

1. The article you are editing is already way too promo.
2. An encyclopedia article is intended to be an overview and summary of what has been written about a given subject in already published reliable secondary sources.
3. There are over 5.5 million articles in English Wikipedia. Quite a few of them, like the one on Naperville, read more like Chamber of Commerce sales brochures than encyclopedia articles. I encourage you to add solid summary information about the subjects that interest you. I encourage you to do what you did here, and enquire and discuss if changes you've made are reverted... and thanks for becoming a Wikipedia, Bcsimon15. John from Idegon (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, John. I will follow your advice. Bcsimon15 (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox UK school

Template:Infobox UK school has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox school. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion/Re-Direction of Robert M. Emery

As a relatively new author, could I respectfully recommend that the decision to re-direct Robert M. Emery (refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_M._Emery) also include Emery Barracks? Although the Mira (AK-84) may sound more substantial, less than 1,000 personnel could have every served on her in her 21 years as a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Port Repair Ship. Many tens of thousands of soldiers were stationed at Emery Barracks between 1945 and 1992. It was for this reason that I originally created the article for Robert M. Emery.

Thanks!

Lmbowling (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

You need to talk to the editor that closed the deletion discussion, but you'll need to make an argument based in sources and policy. He may suggest you take it to WP:RFD. I just patrolled the article and nominated it for deletion. The closer felt the consensus was to redirect it to the ship. I've got no say in that, and without sources, would be unwilling to comment. John from Idegon (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done that. Lmbowling (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Deprecated parameter lastupdate

Hello John from Idegon -- I have added lastupdate to probably fifty articles, ignorant to its deprecation. It is part of the school template. I'd like to be involved in a revision of that template. How do I get involved? Rhadow (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It functions, but it isn't in the template documentation. See Template:Infobox school. Discussion of the subject can be had at that talk page. I cannot point to where its use was deprecated, but it used to be used in several infobox templates and isn't any longer. That says to me that there must have been a community consensus somewhere. Perhaps a template editor would know. John from Idegon (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, Rhadow, I'm at a loss for what it's useful for. It does not update unless it is manually updated, I'm not aware of any categories or lists it transcludes to (please let me know if I'm wrong on that). So if no one updates it, it's factually incorrect the next time the page is edited (does it apply to the page or just the infobox? Who knows?) It's so rarely used, no one looks for it to update it. If it hasn't been formally deprecated it should be. John from Idegon (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Why was this revert necessary?

As regards this article, please tell me where I can find the reason why you eliminated the significant operating officers from the infobox. Also why remove the designation of the religious order which is a part of the person's name, with variations often used to identify the person in an article's name? Where does Wikipedia give a basis for these changes? Also, where does it give guidelines for determining whether the external links you eliminated might be retained? They show the significance of the organization and listing them at the end is an alternate to writing up each of them in the article. Jzsj (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I fully intend to look at the external links sections of all of the Cristo Rey Networkschools (as I did with Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School) since they all have the same problem of somewhat promotion use of the tangentially connected links and external links that are already used in the article. I'm just letting the current discussion sink in. Meters (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Memorial High School (Eau Claire, Wisconsin)

Yes, this is the party to whom you are speaking. ... Thanks for your work on this article. I'm so glad that the Sarge Boyd memorial section is gone. You're a much more vigorous editor of those school articles than I am. I tend to shrug my shoulders and give them the benefit of the doubt. My day is at an end now, but I'll try to find some school history or something that's not sensationalistic tomorrow. 32.218.42.249 (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Mine too. Thanks for all you do. John from Idegon (talk) 05:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I did some searching last night and again today, both on the web and at NewspaperArchive.com, and came up with nothing useful to add to the article. All I found were sports scores :( 32.218.32.95 (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Otay...thanks! John from Idegon (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice of ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is BLP concerns on school article talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Mobile Editing

I’m impressed by your ability to edit from a smartphone. Billhpike (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd be so much more productive if I didn't have to. It used to be a bit easier, as I had a nice powerful Galaxy S5, but it got stolen. So now I'm using a cheapo LTE. I'm going to get a new S6 in about 6 weeks, and I'm looking at having a more convenient and conventional setup by this time next year. If you want a good overview on using small format technology, there is a link to an essay he wrote on User talk:Cullen328. However, he offers no advice on editing with a 5 year old boy climbing all over you. John from Idegon (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Your definition of concensus

You're calling it a consensus when one of your close collaborators in the high schools project agrees with you to a point. This is not what I see defined by Wikipedia. I have repeatedly asked that you furnish me references in Wikipedia guidelines and you fail to give me indications of where you're getting much of this. To simply revert all my work is unhelpful, when I've tried to correspond to what I've read in Wikipedia on what an article may contain. Please don't revert with such a heavy hand, and rather show respect for the hard work I'm putting in to make this article better. Jzsj (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Confine your discussion to the article's talk page. You have 3 separate editors opposing you and none supporting you. Your changes are in no way an improvement. Your "hard work" is misguided. You are taking a small article on a small subject and trying to use it to promote an issue, subject, whatever. Your attitude is one of OWN, and I strongly suspect you have a COI in this area. One more edit against consensus and we'll be headed to the appropriate notice board for a determination on that. Again, there is no purpose to be served by you posting on my talk page regarding this. John from Idegon (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jzsj: Please assume good faith on the part of Wikipedia editors. Several different editors have trimmed your edits, citing their promotional nature, their violation of external links guidelines, and other Wikipedia policies. John isn't using his personal definition of consensus; he's merely employing Wikipedia's definition. Please read it. 32.218.42.196 (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.218.42.196 (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2018

• News and notes: Communication is key

• In the media: The Paris Review, British Crown and British Media

• Featured content: History, gaming and multifarious topics

• Interview: Interview with Ser Amantio di Nicolao, the top contributor to English Wikipedia by edit count

• Technology report: Dedicated Wikidata database servers

• Humour: Why don't we have an article about _________?

• Arbitration report: Mister Wiki is first arbitration committee decision of 2018

• Traffic report: The best and worst of 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Questions on high schools

I've read the guidelines on notability of schools, and they haven't cleared things up for me. It seems as though the practice, or rule of thumb, is to automatically grant notability to any secondary school, even though the guidelines say it must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" ("In practice articles on high/secondary schools and school districts are usually kept"). Is this true internationally? Is every high school in every country given a pass? 32.218.32.187 (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The past practice was yes, but supposedly the last of the perennial RfCs on school notability changed that. That same RfC also acknowledged that sourcing may be strictly local and hence difficult to find, and that we need to guard against cultural bias due to the fact that sometimes, especially in "3rd world" countries, there are no "findable" sources, altho sources may exist. Sorry to sound like a Washington goofball politician, but there's no easy answer. For me, 100% of the time, I will !vote keep at AfD for any diploma granting school in the US, Britain, Canada or Australia, as the government required sourcing is enough to convince me that better sourcing exists. For the rest of the world, if I find an unsourced article, I usually just boldly redirect it to the logical settlement and drop the creator a note inviting them to recreate it when they have some sources. TLDR version, yes some foriegn schools have been deleted recently for lack of secondary sources, but not many. John from Idegon (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me both the current interpretation of the guidelines and your personal point of view. That's what I was looking for. 32.218.32.187 (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Add some isuess tag on this article

here is --Siddiq Sazzad (Chat) 05:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

No, sorry. I don't work for you. I'll edit what articles I choose when I choose. See WP:OSE and WP:OWN. In the future, if you wish to correspond with another editor, adopt a different tone and write sentences. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you're in the wrong this time.

Hey genius, don't get smart with me. Here's proof of what my edit entailed. It wasn't vandalism, open your eyes.

https://twitter.com/fhspatriots/status/953440481991675904 (in your defense, it could have been a reference)

Being you're not even remotely from the area the school in discussion is, and I myself live in the city itself, I'm sure I have more insight on this than you, pal. Quit sticking your nose into it and do something productive on here.

Thanks,

- TS — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.smith098 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

T.smith098, you've made some very incorrect assumptions about Wikipedia. First, what you know, have seen or have been told is never a valid basis for making an edit on Wikipedia. See WP:OR. Second, not all sources are usable. Twitter is not. Social media in general is not, nor is anything else user edited, such as IMDB, Maxpreps.com, YouTube, or even Wikipedia itself. As the tweet has now been posted to the school's website, the school website is an acceptable source, as a newspaper article about the staff change would be. See WP:RS. Third, in all cases, verifiability is considered more important than TRUTH. Fourth, this article on this school is not in any way for the school. It is about the school. More accurately, it is meant to be a summary of information of pertinence to a world wide audience that has been paraphrased from already published reliable sources. I have as much business editing it as you. As one of the coordinators of WikiProject Schools, I've edited on thousands of high school articles all across the United States, and a few from other countries. Since all information must come from published sources, you are not in any better position to edit it than I am. For what it's worth, I spent 10 years of my life in Metro Detroit, and the majority of it in Michigan, so I'm not ignorant of the area. But that matters not. Your assumption that somehow you have a greater right to edit the article in question (Franklin High School (Livonia, Michigan)) is simply incorrect. See WP:OWN. Lastly, Wikipedia is a consensus based, cooperative project. Throwing around attitude is never going to serve you well here. Thanks for your message. Wikipedia is pretty complicated. If you need help, holler. John from Idegon (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

G-11 tag removals by T.smith098

Hi John from Idegon. Just for reference, it appears that an explanation was given at User talk:Meters#For the sake of convenience. Whether its a sufficient explantion which needs further discussion at one of the ANs or even possibly an SPI, I'll leave up to you to decide. FWIW, in my opinion, as long as the inappropriate content remains removed and the account stay dormant, there's no need for any thing else to be done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I went with G13 on the speedy, with the username add-on, so that should get all but the main account blocked. If it also gets the main account blocked do be it. Looks like NOTHERE to me. John from Idegon (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The other accounts have been blocked per User talk:T.smith098#Drafts moved. The userpages are now drafts. So, things appear to have been resolved for the time being. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

My edit to Las Vegas shooting article

Greetings,

I don't see what wasn't neutral about it. It's pretty hard to characterise an event so terrible it led to the early, unprovoked deaths of nearly 60 people as merely an "incident." Regardless, such language is pretty broad, and atrocity better describes such an event. I understand why you wouldn't call it neutral, but I am sure all (reasonable) people could accept that's what it is. Signing off, trainsandtech (talk) 09:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Trainsandtech, Wikipedia has no interest in your, or my, interpretation of anything. We are in agreement that "incident" is a neutral word; indeed, that was your complaint. "Atrocity" is a charged word. It conveys an opinion of condemnation. NPOV is very clear that we don't do that. If a significant number of reliable sources used that term then we could use it. We could quote a source that used it. But we cannot say it in Wikipedia's voice. I agree the event in Vegas was an atrocity, but that's my opinion, not a citable fact. Our opinions shouldn't be part of our writing here. John from Idegon (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I see. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

"On Paid Editing"

For an unfortunately large number of paid writers here, Prostipedian sums 'em up nicely.

Nice writing. Thanks. Anmccaff (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

16:24:01, 18 January 2018 review of submission by AbeAbeModiin

• AbeAbeModiin (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Wes Nichols (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi John, first thank you so much for taking the time to review the page! Sorry you didn't think it fit Wikipedia standards, but I really want to make this work. Can you help me understand what's not right? Based on the talk page and official feedback, there's a feeling that page feels biased and the sources don't appear to be relevant. I'm a little confused about the tone--I think I see where you're coming from but if you could point to examples in the page, that would help a lot. As for the sources: not sure what's wrong with them? If you could clarify what sources were wrong and specific examples of the tone being wrong, I'd really appreciate. I really do believe Wes has done a great deal to advance the field of marketing analytics and would be happy to make any changes to fit within Wikipedia guidelines, so any suggestions you could provide would be wonderful. Thank you again!

Best,

AbeAbeModiin (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)AbeAbeModiin

Stow it with your "best". Jesus hung out with prostitutes but he didn't help them turn tricks. You're getting paid, you figure it out. Next time you ask an editor for assistance and do not disclose your paid editing, which your disclosure on the draft talk page does not adequately cover, I'll look to have your editing privileges revoked. John from Idegon (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm PRehse. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Vacaville High School, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

PRehse (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank You!

Hi John,

It has been a few days since I have logged in. Thank you for the edit to the Harding Academy page. I think it is a more accurate reflection of the school and current culture. I am thankful to see it represented in this more balanced way. Could you tell me how you did that? Have an enjoyable day. KE (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

good luck in the new year

		The Purple Barnstar
		For not attempting suicide with a hammer. Gabriel syme (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Had my own troubles with that editor and eventually ended up moving into entirely different areas of editing to avoid ever having to deal with his incoherent nonsense and nothere behavior. "Please join the conversation on the talking page." ghaaargh. Anyway, just happened to see that hammer comment while snooping elsewhere and I very much sympathize!

Thanks for the barnstar, Gabriel syme! I seen to have forgotten that SUICIDE BY HAMMER reference. Could you kindly point me to the page where I made it? I'd really appreciate it, as SUICIDE BY HAMMER is a topic of great interest to me. Probably comes from the fact that in the late 20th century, a house I had lived in when I was my son's age was the site of an infamous SUICIDE BY HAMMER incident, in which the person who committed the aforementioned SUICIDE BY HAMMER killed himself (or as it is more commonly known, committed suicide) by striking himself in the head 89 separate times with a hammer. The coroner reported that in that particular case of SUICIDE BY HAMMER, the person who committed SUICIDE BY HAMMER struck four separate blows to his head that in themselves were fatal. It made the national news. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

A rant as beautiful as the above requires background music. Thanks. Anmccaff (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

For some reason, I think this is more fitting, Anmccaff, but thanks for the laugh. John from Idegon (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:HOUND

This is not a joke [1] and suicide should never be a joking matter. My uncle took his life when I was young because he could not deal anymore with the demons he has seen in war. Suicide is not a joke and suicide by hammer happens. P.S. This is very upsetting, every time you joke about it at my expense. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)Actually, that is a joke. Patch.com is a clickbait parody of real news, seldom to be taken seriously. Anmccaff (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Gilmore, if you do not like what you see on my user talk page, there is a very simple solution: Don't look. You have been asked more than once not to post here, so I'll be blunt this time. If what is said on my talk page "triggers" you, stay the fuck away from my talk page! You may risk being triggered time and time again, and frankly Scarlett, I don't give a damn. John from Idegon (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Shit fuck goddam, I don't think apologies serve much purpose, but I must say that it was in no way my intent to bring this bulllshit onto your talkpage, I was just trying to expresss common feeling. Very much my bad. Gabriel syme (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

As far as the suicide by hammer reference goes, and I hope you understand that I'm linking this strictly for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADimadick&type=revision&diff=816283332&oldid=816008588, I got no skin in this game, again, just trying to express common feeling, I might have gone about it poorly. Gabriel syme (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Nah, Gabriel syme, you're fine. Thanks for the memories. I got 0 problem with you. I've just had waaaaay too many SPAs in the past few months. John from Idegon (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Awesome, I felt pretty weird about my sentiment being turned on it's head that way. Good luck! Gabriel syme (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

In retrospect, it probably was a bit impolitic to use the storm you brewed up for my own purposes, and for that I'm sorry. I'm also sorry that others had to crap on your nice gesture, which I sincerely appreciate. On good days, Wikipedia can be very stressful, but there are some that seem to go out of their way to make it worse. I'm getting pretty tired of people pushing their views on here, whether they are trying to sell widgets or right great wrongs. I chose dealing with social geography articles mainly because that should be fairly clear of that kind of stuff, but apparently some didn't get the memo. John from Idegon (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

My word, I'd been falling into wikiholes for more than a decade when I decided last year to start editing and it. has. been. an eye-opener. I haven't found a solid home yet here but HOLY CRAP I never in my wildest dreams imagined that it was anything at all like this on the backend. Apologies appreciated but unnecessary, I think that storm was doing a good job of brewing itself without my interference. As far as crap on my gesture goes, well, it got me more involved with other editors and the process so I'll call it a net gain. But, wow. Just... wow man. Gabriel syme (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy Catholic High School Revisions

John, I understand your point of view. Here's mine: It appears as though the Kennedy page is being held to a different standard than the pages of the school's nearby competitors Maria Regina (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Regina_High_School), Iona Prep (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iona_Preparatory_School) and Our Lady of Lourdes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Lourdes_High_School).

Why the inconsistent editorial policy for schools all in the same area? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichKirby (talk • contribs) 01:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

RichKirby, the policy is consistent. Wikipedia is a volunteer effort. Pages get attention when a volunteer notices they need attention. Many people, myself included, follow a list of changes to articles and look at those changes. As your changes were inconsistent with policy, I reverted them and looked further at the article, where I found a PR piece, masquerading as an encyclopedia article, something not at all uncommon for private schools. (Truth be told, in this day of charters, resurgence of the parochial school movement somewhat stimulated by the current Washington administration's promise to revitalize voucher programs, and schools of choice, some public school districts are getting nearly as bad). I will take a look at those pages soon. Also, many editors interested in school articles have my talk on their watchlist, as I'm a coordinator of the WikiProject on schools, so another editor might beat me to it. Also, the essay WP:OSE speaks to the issue of inconsistent articles. Someday, they all will be better.

Just a quick tip. If you are linking to a Wikipedia article, there is no need to write or copy the url. You can use a wikilink by simply copying the article title and enclosing it in double square brackets, eg Maria Regina High School, Iona Preparatory School and Our Lady of Lourdes High School. BTW, we will accept history sourced only to the school's website, if it is paraphrased in a completely neutral fashion, pulling only facts and omitting all flowery language and claims of achievement. We do not use the pretty language, and all claims of any achievement need independent verification. Please note that we also do not mention staff or students by name, unless the individual has achieved a level of notability such that they have a Wikipedia biography on them. Also, please sign and timestamp your communications by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

John, I am trying my best to work through this while maintaining proper form, only adding info where there is a citation available from a third-party source, etc. But it is difficult when the list of clubs (encouraged by Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines) I enter is deleted, yet far more extensive and unsourced club lists from neighboring schools Iona Preparatory School, Maria Regina High School and Somers High, etc. remain intact. It is also confounding when my properly cited mention of the soccer team's championship is deleted for being an "unencyclopedic" achievement while a grocery list of unsourced lesser sports achievements at Somers HS is left intact, along with a description of their "magical" football season. (Yes, "magical.") I'm not paranoid, but this feels as though the school is being singled out, while neighboring organizations in the same small region are getting a pass to violate WP's rules. I recognize that your role here as the overall coordinator for WP's school pages makes you very busy; is there another volunteer to whom I could reach out? Would it be better if I took this up in The Tearoom? Thanks. RichKirby (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Rich, Rich, Rich, you may ask whomever you choose, but it isn't going to change the answers. You did not provide an independent secondary source for the clubs. As a matter of fact, outside the NYT reference you added early on, you haven't added a single independent source. The publication of the organization that owns the school is not an independent source. Further, no matter how you feel about it, what may or may not be in a different article has no bearing on what should be in this article. See WP:OSE (also known as OTHERCRAPEXISTS). I don't understand why you're not grasping this. If your dog takes a dump in the living room, is there anything in that action that suggests the solution is to go out in the yard and find more turds to keep it company? I don't work for you, and you have no right or cause to imply that something must be done about other crappy articles before something can be done about this crappy article. Get over it. I actually like helping new editors that are interested in learning how to edit an encyclopedia; one's whose sole interest is to get the info they want published about a single subject into the encyclopedia, not so much. So yeah, go ask someone else. You won't get different answers, but you're certainly free to ignore someone else's advice. John from Idegon (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your work at Bourbon County High School today, and for your efforts with school articles in general. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! John from Idegon (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Nomination (Miss National Sweetheart 2011)

Hi, I am braniac2000, I was just wondering why my pages Miss National Sweetheart 2011 are being deleted. I really put a lot of effort in those pages, and I wouldn't want it to go to waste. Would you please tell me all errors to avoid from being deleted. Thank you and appreciate your time.

Have a great night Braniac2000 (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

My speedy deletion nomination was denied, but the "mother" article, National Sweetheart, is at WP:AFD also. If the beauty contest itself is found not notable, then obviously an article about one year's results would be non notable by default. John from Idegon (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Westhampton Beach High School

Sorry for my mistake. I didn't intend to revert your edit. Billhpike (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

No worries. After 3 years of editing on a phone, I know better than most that s*** happens. BTW, I asked an admin to have a friendly word with the parrish priest. Didn't seem to help. John from Idegon (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of User:Phoenix-Five/sandbox

Sorry for bringing you up to this, and I don't mean to be mean, but all I was doing on my sandbox page was creating a fake Wikipedia page for my friend's micronation. I would not in a million years intend to publish the page, but I was just using it as a fun little "fake" document. No hard feelings and have a good day. Phoenix-Five (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Phoenix-Five, I want to congratulate you for finally using a talk page. You're obviously a very motivated editor, but you need to understand this is a collaborative project. Communication is required. I hope you understand that that page you're writing me about is completely unacceptable, even in your userspace. This isn't Facebook, and even though you're granted fairly wide latitude in how you use your userspace, it still must always be towards the goal of improving the encyclopedia. Let's not do that again, ok? Meanwhile, it would serve you well to open lines of communication with Imzadi1979. He's a very talented and experienced editor who most likely has more good and featured articles to his credit than any other editor on Wikipedia. He is also one of the most knowledgeable editors on the subject of Michigan I've yet encountered here. You must find editing Wikipedia fun, as you are still here doing it even though many of your edits haven't stuck. Imagine how much fun it will be when you learn how to make topical well sourced edits that do stick nearly every time! People will help you. All you have to do is ask. John from Idegon (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Extra credit reading

I came across this article the other day and it helped me understand some editors' reasoning and commenting. You might be interested. (You might not.) This comment won't self-destruct as on Mission: Impossible, but if you want to do it manually, feel free. 32.218.34.145 (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, to have the vigors of youth. If I hadn't had a child in my 56th year on the planet, the plan was to move to Marquette this year and take up my education again, seeking a masters in Industrial Archeology. I must remember to thank my son. Thanks for the interesting and enlightening read. Not that it will change anything..... John from Idegon (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, thanks for introducing me to that field; I'd never heard of it before. Sounds pretty cool. As a child, I wanted to be a traditional archaeologist, specifically an Egyptologist. Then my interests moved on to paleoanthropology. Then I took my first anthropology course at college, and that ruined everything. 32.218.34.145 (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Last I looked, there were only three schools in the country offering a degree in IA, and NMU had the only post graduate program. Figured with a masters I'd be a lock for a faculty job somewhere. And then I could take a year off every 4th year, travel around and look at old junk and get paid for it. My old pastor had a philosophy I loved. Find a job you'd do for free then figure out how to get paid for it. John from Idegon (talk) 03:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't believe you are an industrial archeology fan too. I can't remember the last time I ran across anyone who even knew what it was. let alone liked it. Meters (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I knew there was a reason I liked you, Meters! I'll bet there's a lot to see in your part of the world. I think that's why Northern Michigan has an IA program. There is so much innovative infrastructure up in Yooperlands, primarily associated with the copper mining industry, but also with iron mining, logging and basic transportation infrastructure. Ah, now I'm homesick. John from Idegon (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Advice requested

Do you think I should file an SPI report for the user posting on my talk page about the Hammond School? I try to remember to assume good faith, but I'm starting to feel a bit skeptical about this user's backstory. Billhpike (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I share your feelings. I'd ask her point blank if she's receiving any compensation from the school or any organization connected with it, especially the one already mentioned. If she evades it, then yes. I'd also suggest moving the thread to the article talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Editing Campolindo High School

“When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text.” Per Wikipedia’s resolving disputes. I am adding reliable content to this and making sure to source and you slash it away. If you do not stop, I will report you. This is your final warning. NotCIA (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Go for it, NotCIA! I need a good laugh. John from Idegon (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

High Point High School

Seriously, restore the lead/community discussion of the article that you destroyed. This is the source: http://www1.pgcps.org/schoolboundaries/ I can understand why your stubbornness and aggression would make you remove my map, but you removed almost all content from the article. You are the one creating the issues, even if it doesn't look that way to you. ~ Mellis (talk) 07:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

And again, that is a picture which requires interpretation to extract the facts you claim it sources. That is WP:OR. I'm not trying to be difficult, but you are simply not understanding the nature of an encyclopedia. The graphic you were trying to add is the same thing. You took data from one database and combined it with data from another database to produce a graphic output that showed the synthesis of the two datasets. That violates our policy on OR, particularly WP:SYNTH. Example: The NYT says, "Bennie is a Jet." The WSJ says "All Jets are cool." You make a Wikipedia edit that says "Bennie is cool", sourced to the NYT and the WSJ statements. How is that any different? John from Idegon (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: There was no 'interpretation' or tracing of lines. It is not a 'graphic', it is map data. I downloaded the GIS map data from the county government, and uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons, here: c:Data:High Point High School/Data:Boundary Map.map. I made absolutely no modifications to the data. NONE. It is not original research or fabrication of any kind. It is straight from the source, straight from the county government. I did not combine data from multiple sources. One Source: County Government GIS DATA.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.

— Daniel Patrick Moynihan

I can understand why you think I interpreted, traced, or merged data, but I simply did not. ~ Mellis (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

If that's the case, why did you confound the situation by listing two sources? I see now that your data is from one source and not synth, but I still do not see why it is needed on this one particular article. How does it improve the readers understanding of the subject on this article? What does it show that words cannot? And Mellis, you're not improving communication by splitting the conversation. I'm done for today. There is a third editor involved, and he's a very good editor. I'll be back Monday evening. Thanks for settling down. Things get fixed when you talk. They don't when you rant and revert. Please remember that your like for what you like is no more important than my like for what I like, and the argument will be settled by referenced facts and application of policies and guidelines to them. In truth, policy (except where laws are involved) does not decide content. Consensus, based on sources first and policies and guidelines second, decides and consensus can and does overrule and even dictate policy. John from Idegon (talk) 08:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Citing two sources for the boundary map was a mistake. please move on from that issue. I will keep the conversation within the Discussion page, but I very strongly disagree with your claim that you were not an equal part of the Edit War.~ Mellis (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

NCES Data for High Point High School

I noticed you updated the NCES data for High Point High School. I think you may have forgotten to update the school year in the first sentence of the demographics section. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Bill. And thanks for olive branches, if you catch my drift. John from Idegon (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

00:38:40, 31 January 2018 review of submission by Aspkom

• Aspkom (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Rahul Mittra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The Content is not any form of advertisement or praise for the Producer, it also refers to the information which is available already on Wikipedia about Rahul Mittra as Producer of 5 Movies and his upcoming movies too listed on Wiki with his name mentioned there. For Awards and Honours, Reference Sources included were not from any blog or Own website of subject but media websites only. Only for his Date of Birth and Place included his official website as reference source because nowhere on web the Date of Birth was listed. Rest while writing the wiki content for him i compared it with other film producers of similar fame and related and that's the reason actually the content is very brief because i never wanted to exaggerate about the subject, my sole purpose was to ensure that anyone on wiki checking about his films wiki page must also get reference notes about the producer. Still if you feel my content was not worth inclusion to wiki, i may delete those lines, and can we keep it in very brief introduction, hopefully someone else may write about him in future with more relevant content or reference notes. So if its not worth inclusion, can i keep just his filmography already included in wiki and delete rest of content and resubmit? although I ensure rest of the information is also authentic and reference links are chosen to be most relevant. Being my first move ot wiki content, i wish this doesn't gets rejected outright and in future i'll develop more skills towards writing to wiki. Aspkom (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)