User talk:John from Idegon/Archive 83
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | → | Archive 90 |
Deletion of post
Please explain why you deleted the post to a matter related to Oakbrook Terrace Illinois. Info is below:
06:36, 1 December 2018 diff hist -453 Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois Reverted 1 edit by 99.14.6.208 (talk): Trivial. (TW) current Tag: Undo
The information posted was not "trivial", was factual in nature and was sourced.
Concerned user 2602:306:30E0:6D00:7CB6:EFF4:9DD2:8089 (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)I agree that the article does not need trivia about the town's red light. I've removed the material again and pointed the IP to WP:BRD. Meters (talk) 08:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Proposed renaming of Nantucket
Hi, please be advised that there is a proposal to move the Nantucket article back to "Nantucket, Massachusetts" at Talk:Nantucket#Requested move 7 January 2019. Note that the current name was determined by consensus a year ago at Talk:Nantucket#Requested move 6 January 2018. HopsonRoad (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
regarding school article approval
Hi sir, I have created an article about veveaham prime academy (cbse school) in wikiproject school,but not yet received any approval for publishing in wikipedia main page .please guide me to publish my first article .Subramanianrangasamy (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Jack Mingo in Alameda
Hey there -- I was the one who added Jack Mingo to the Alameda CA article. There are several sources that are linked in the article about him (the article I just finished) that point to him being a fairly longtime and involved Alameda resident. I wasn't sure if you needed/wanted a source included with the edit but this or this or this would be decent sources. Not pushing for it for any particular reason, just curious about the reversion. Thanks. Jessamyn (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- The standard for inclusion in a notable list is notability (best shown by having a bio) and a referenced tie with the subject of the article containing the list. John from Idegon (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Please un-revert Town of Cary changes (2)
John,
I'm following up on the section from Archive 82, item 7.
What I don't understand is why you accept the current material as authoritative when the sections I have corrected have no citations whatsoever to support the incorrect data, yet you require citations for the corrections.
The information that's there is factually wrong and has no references to support it, yet it remains there.
Thanks.
Please can you check this
Hi John, hope all is well. I've come across a new school article here - a one line sentence with link to website, some info in infobox and no references. I'm not sure if this article should be kept, it does have a long establishment per its website, but the naming format doesn't really follow in line with the other schools and there isn't any other schools of the same name, so I don't think the location is needed at the end. But what I have noticed is that the user who created the page has created an article for the school multiple times in the past which have all been deleted, and surprisingly, this was all in 2012 - possible COI? If you could have a look I would really appreciate it, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Recent Undo of Revision
Can you please explain why you undid the update to the Grissom High School page, specifically the JROTC section? You say that its "not an improvement", but the information I changed was outdated (I should know, I wrote all of that old information seven years ago with an different account). I personally attended this school and took part in this program, they now have a website with more up-to-date information than can be found on any of the sources currently present, and their program as a whole has changed significantly since my graduation five years ago, and the last time the section was edited. I'm reversing your edit, and if you want to keep going back and forth on this, please cite actual reasons to delete what I changed/added, or list some sources that dispute what I've done. Thanks. SlippingOnVelcro (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- An encyclopedia article is not for disseminating information from the subject of the article. Instead, an encyclopedia article is made up of information paraphrased from reliable secondary sources. With the exception of arts programs and AP courses, we do not discuss individual course offerings unless there are reliable secondary sources that discuss them specifically in detail. John from Idegon (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Everly Brothers
Hi John - you know I agree with the principle you are defending, but I think you're wrong about them not being notable individually. Each is in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (among the first 10 inducted( and the Country Music Hall of Fame. That alone I think makes them meet our criteria of notability. There's plenty more about each of them that meet our criteria, see their achievements and honors. That we have one article instead of two shouldn't make any difference. It's just a lot more sensible to have one because they did so much together. We could create an article for each, but why would we? Doug Weller talk 06:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Limitations with Twinkle
Just to let you know, when you intended to revert an unsourced entry at Osborn High School, Twinkle may not have worked how you expected it to. Twinkle reverted all my edits but did not revert the preceding edit by an IP that inserted the unsourced entry the first time (which was also how I came across the page as I was patrolling recent changes for vandalism and encountered the IP's edit). Hence, the unsourced entry remained in place after your reversion, just sans my formatting.
This is a known limitation when using Twinkle's "Rollback" function to revert edits - it will always revert all consecutive edits from only the most recent editor; it cannot revert editors before the most recent editor (extended reversions), and also cannot do partial reversions (i.e., reverting 2 out of 3 consecutive edits from the same editor). This will always happen regardless of how you set up the revision comparison tool. In order to do partial or extended reversions, one would need to use Twinkle's "Restore this version" or stock "Edit" functions to restore the specific version one want, or the stock "Undo" function from the revision comparison tool to undo the edits being compared.
Anyway, to address your original concern about the entry being unsourced, I have added a source that is also used at Esham to support attendance, so that should hopefully resolve the concern of it being unsourced. Thanks for your hard work cleaning out guff on Wikipedia, and I hope you have a good day! (: ― A Poor Historian (talk) 07:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Hi, enjoy your day!
Montgomery Blair High School edits
John- This is Calhat and I am new to Wikipedia. I thank you for helping to show me the ropes and for your commentary on my edits to the Montgomery Blair High School page. However, I must dispute with your changes of my edits. As I hope you have deduced, I attend the high school in question and have witnessed the portables with my own eyes. Google Maps photos are out of date and do not show these portables,and if you would like, when I go back to school on Tuesday I can take a photo of them. On the matter of the rifle range on the Wayne Avenue campus, a person I know attended this campus as a high school student and relayed to me their experiences on the rifle team. I concede you were correct in reversing this edit, as I had no reputable source, but in the future, I would greatly appreciate it if you would provide me the benefit of the doubt on matters of this specific high school.
East Liverpool, Ohio
You've labeled content "disputed" without disputing it. You've merely deleted it over and over again, without saying why. You've said consensus needs to be gained on the additional information, however, there are no sources disputing the information either present or otherwise. Can you offer some sort of justification for this historical information to not be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.84.42 (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Discuss_with_the_other_party, I would like to discuss with you to resolve this as I believe the deletion is unjustified and the information is both well-sourced and relevant.174.70.84.42 (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi John. I was wondering about this article. My understanding is that elementary schools aren't typically considered notable per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES unless they meet WP:GNG. What about school districts? WP:OUTCOMES#School districts states they are generally considered notable per WP:NGEO, but this district has only one school; so, it seems that the school equals the district and vice versa and that any content (or lack of content) about the district is going to be directly related to the content about the school itself. The article is quite old and had gone a number of years without any updating until recently. I guess it's possible in that time the district has expanded to include more schools, but the official website is dead (at least to me). Should this be redirected to Deaf Smith County, Texas if the district has pretty much remained the same all of these years? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay. The health issue I thought would take a couple months to resolve is still causing problems 8 months later. I'd say, using the arguments for why secondary schools are virtually presumed notable, that a school district of any level is likely more notable than a single school, even if the district consists of only one school. There are elected officials, they levy taxes. These things will be written up somewhere. John from Idegon (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice. It's quite clear now that there's consensus for my preferred version and no further back and forth has occurred. I'm not across 3rr and neither is the reporter. This can be closed and I'd appreciate you looking it with an eye to doing that. Of course, YMMV, and I accept your decision whatever it may be. Thanks, NinjaRobotPirate. John from Idegon (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oy. Should have reviewed the history before writing you, Eh? Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Please can you check this 2
Hi John, hope all is well, please could you take a look at this school. It was originally a redirect and the majority of the text was added by a user in consecutive edits in September 2017. I'm not sure if a lot of this is needed, mostly stats - graduation rate, performance profiles, AYP history and a wellness policy etc. Looks like it may have been copied from its district article, if you could have a look I would really appreciate it, thank you so much Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 January 2019
- Op-Ed: Random Rewards Rejected
- News and notes: WMF staff turntable continues to spin; Endowment gets more cash; RfA continues to be a pit of steely knives
- Discussion report: The future of the reference desk
- Featured content: Don't miss your great opportunity
- Arbitration report: An admin under the microscope
- Traffic report: Death, royals and superheroes: Avengers, Black Panther
- Technology report: When broken is easily fixed
- News from the WMF: News from WMF
- Recent research: Ad revenue from reused Wikipedia articles; are Wikipedia researchers asking the right questions?
- Essay: How
- Humour: Village pump
- From the archives: An editorial board that includes you