User talk:John from Idegon/Archive 88

Archive 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

Archive 88

Archive 89

Archive 90

→

Archive 95

A kitten for you!

I don't know the specifics of your frustrations right now, but I do know things generally get better. Please stick around, though.

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Heres your sandbox link

Wikipedia:OMGTHISISJUSTWAYTOOMUCH is actually an incredibly appropriate redirect for billy's CCI. I'm looking through the articles history and saving what wasn't inserted by billy, although I'm not even sure if it's notable. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 02:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Money emoji, all high schools are pretty much presumed notable. So just put something back, trying to save as many viable local sources as possible. Lemme know and I'll fix it up from there. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Reverting

Ummm, why did you remove the sourced addition with the un-sourced addition [[1]]? That makes very little sense to remove all the edits and the added source because two words were added. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse question

Hi John. Could you take a look at WP:THQ#Creating and publishing a pre-created article since it seems to be right in your wheelhouse? Perhaps, at least a stub could be started since the OP seems to be asking about a secondary school. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do that. I hope they take you up on your offer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

School articles

Hi John. I've started following the two new school article discussions (Prairie school and the one above from the Teahouse). I've realized school articles are a weak area for me and I'd like to understand more about them. Orville^talk

Orville, the best place to start is at WP:WPSCH then work your way through its many sub-pages. By the time you have done that, you should have all the answers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

School of Arts and Science, Uyo - draft created by Emman369

Hello John, thanks for your thoughtful answer to my question titled "Creating and publishing a pre-created article". I followed your instructions and created the draft that I believe can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emman369 Could you please review? I will need help with adding the school logo as seen below and 2 images. Thanks.

File:Https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:School of Arts and Science, Uyo.jpg
Type Secondary
Established 1975
Location Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria

Emman369 (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Removed Edit to MEL B

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello John this is AbbyCarroll . I saw you removed my post but I am confused as to why? there are several credible sources I just cited a main source. Daily Mail, Celebrity News , The Sun , and hundreds of other sources posted this story. it was also broadcasted on several radio stations across the US, Australia and Europe. Please undo its removal. Thanks. John from Idegon Abbycarroll (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I won't be doing that, Abbycarroll, and in the form I removed it, you shouldn't either. I'm also wont to repeat myself. I told you exactly why and linked to the applicable policy that justifies my removal on your talk page. Wikipedia may be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but nothing in that implies you can add anything you wish, especially about living people. Content must be within policy and a useful addition to the article. Those things are decided by WP:CONSENSUS. None of the sources you named by name here would be reliable sources in all likelyhood. One in particular, The Daily Mail, is banned for any reference use on Wikipedia at all. They are all nothing but gossip rags. So, if you want the content you added in, you'll need to do the following:

1. Read and understand our policy on biographies of living people.
2. Read and understand our policy on verifiability, especially on reliability of sources
3. Since the subject is a living person, read and understand WP:BLPSOURCE.
4. Review your possible sources for reliability.
5. Then, and only then, go to Talk:Mel B#Assault allegations, and in a new section, start a discussion about what you wish to add, making arguments based on your good sources and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you make solid arguments, others may agree with you and your content may go in. More likely, others will partially agree with you, and colligially, you'll work out a compromise on which you all can agree. Another likely outcome is no one will agree with you and your change stays out. This process is called WP:BRD (which stands for bold, revert, discuss), and it is the way we've always determined article content. So, my removal of your change was normal process. The next step is on you. John from Idegon (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

John from Idegon

I DID what you asked and started a discussion on the Mel B talk page. I have not edited any other pages besides the draft for Dujuan Thomas page. so what are you talking about? Im currently talking with live support. Abbycarroll (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

No maam, you did not. You have not had enough time to have read and understand the things I asked you to. If you had, you'd know that BLP statements, no matter where they are made on Wikipedia, require inline citations. That means that the specific source that references the specific statement you've written, must immediately follow that statement. I've asked that some of what you've written be redacted, as it must be. You've made your primary source TMZ, and we never accept TMZ as a source for living people. Except for news reports from television news uploaded on the station's official channel, we never accept YouTube as a reliable source, as it is user generated. The only possibly reliable sources you've given are the newspapers, which I have not had a chance to read. And, you totally disregarded the part about making arguments from reliable sources and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In fact, you made no argument at all. You are new, and I get that...but when it comes to writing about living people, there are no free passes. Your on a path that can only lead to getting blocked. Every new editor comes to Wikipedia with misconceptions. Those who stay around to enjoy editing, listen when editors with considerably more experience tell them they are going about this wrong. Those who don't either end up getting frustrated and quitting or get their editing privileges revoked. I've answered your questions here, and am not willing to continue helping one who doesn't want to listen to good advice. Except for templated warnings, I'll not post further on your talk page. You have no reason to post here. I'll continue to oppose you on the article talk page until your arguments convince me not to. John from Idegon (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Abbycarroll. Wikipedia's policy on content in articles about living persons (WP:BLP) is pretty clear about this type of thing and John is right in advising you about. Any content about a living person is going to be scutinized, but that will particularly the case when it deals with claims such as this. The more contentious and stronger the claim, the stronger the sources need to be in support. Now, that a discussion has been started about this on the article's talk page, it's best to leave it out until a consensus has been established to include the content. Whenever they are serious concerns like this, the best thing to do is to follow WP:BLPREMOVE and try and resolve things through discussion.

One more thing about this policy is that it appplies to all Wikipedia pages (not just articles) and all living (not just the subjects of articles), which means you also need to be careful to try and comply with it in Draft:Dujuan Thomas. Unless, as John pointed out above and also per WP:BLPCRIME, you need to be very careful in how you phrase content of this type (even in a section heading) unless reliable sources clearly show that to be the case. Even then, you still need to be careful to only reflect what those sources say in a neutral way per WP:NPOV.

You seem to be fairly new to editing Wikipedia and might not be aware that there a quite a lot of policies and guidelines that all editors are expected to do there best to try adhere to. Everyone will make mistakes, and mistakes are OK as long as they're not repeated. There's a bit of a learning curve and it takes time to get a fair grasp of how Wikipedia works, so nobody is going to fault you for not knowing everything right from the start. We all learn a little bit each day, and the more you edit the more you'll pick up as well. However, WP:BLP is one of the first and most important policies that you should try and familiarize yourself with because it's one where a well-meaning editor can quickly find themselves in trouble even if they unintentionally violate it. There's very little wiggle room with respect to this particular, so you need to be really careful with respect to it.

Finally, I have some comments/questions about an image file you uploaded to Commons, but I'll discuss that on your usertalk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

John from Idegon I Want you to STOP harassing me and leave me alone. I want you to be blocked from contacting me. you have been nothing but a jerk to me since I joined. I am slowly grasping Wikipedia's concepts and you have been very rude by removing my content and declining my Draft of Dujuan Thomas. ( Who I do not not personally or financially. Inn regards to the commons , I believe that is being taking care of. You sir need to leave me alone. Stop removing my content. I was in the process of fixing my draft page. but it was deleted without my consent. I have credible sources. YAHOO , and other THE SUN. Abbycarroll (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not harassing you. I'm doing my volunteer job on Wikipedia. You are taking this personally and there is no reason for it. I've not violated any policies or guidelines, I've not been rude to you in any way, simply direct and to the point. You're not taking what your being told to heart. I'm sorry you're not understanding what I'm trying to tell you, but the fact that you don't does not make your actions acceptable, as Marchjuly pointed out to you above. Also, Abbycarroll, I've not said one single word to you about Commons. It's clear you are new and not understanding many things, and that's ok. But continuing to do them after you've been told, even if for whatever reason, you don't like the way you are being told, is not ok. Feel free to report me to ANI if you believe my actions are in violation of policy. Although I am willing to help you if you'll listen, my allegiance is to the encyclopedia, and as such I will continue to watch both the Mel B article and the draft you are working on, especially for BLP violations, and will remove them if I see them. You do not WP:OWN anything you've done here. You gave it irrevocably to Wikipedia as soon as you pressed the publish changes button. John from Idegon (talk) 06:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

John from Idegon Okay John. I am trying to listen but when you are so blunt and not helpful its hard. please check the draft and mel b talk page. I believe I have corrected my errors. Abbycarroll (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Now that you've summarized what the sources say, there is no way we will ever have the bit about Mel B in the encyclopedia. All you have is he alleged something happened and filed a police report. No charges were ever issued and no arrest was ever made. Mel B is WP:FAMOUS, so we could report an arrest, but certainly not an allegation. If she were simply WP:Notable and not famous, we couldn't even report an arrest. It would take a conviction. As far as the draft goes, you've got nothing. The sole reliable secondary source you have (after the Mel B stuff is gone) is a single article from a small newspaper that isn't about him but merely mentions him. That isn't anywhere near enough to support notability. It generally takes three (more or less, depending on the quality of the source and the depth of the coverage) reliable secondary sources, totally independent of the subject, that discusses him in detail. You have one source that is reliable secondary and independent, but it isn't about him and doesn't discuss him in detail. The majority of sources on him are in relation to the incident with Mel B, which will not be allowed as they are BLP violations for her. Even if they were, with the total lack of sources acceptable for showing notability for anything other than the Mel B incident, he would not be notable per WP:BLP1E. Marchjuly, would you concur with my analysis? Meters? The draft in question is Draft:Dujuan Thomas. John from Idegon (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it might be best to pick one place to have this discussion (perhaps Draft talk:Dujuan Thomas) and keep everything there, but right now at this moment I don't see how Thomas is sufficiently Wikipedia notable per WP:GNG or WP:BIO for a stand-alone Wikipedia article to be written about him. It simply might be a case of WP:TOOSOON for a Wikipedia article to be written about him. He may be a rising star who in the future may explode on the scene and take the world by storm, but that type of person is not who Wikipedia articles are written about. I think it might be possible to mention Thomas in the context of the alleged incident with Mel B in the Wikipedia article written about her, but that would be something which needs to be carefully discussed and done in accordance with WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE; pretty extraordinary claims generally require some pretty extraordinary well-established reliable sources be cited in support per WP:BLPSOURCES and claims about third-parties need to be supported by secondary sources which an excellent reputation for editorial control, self-published or otherwise questionable content WP:BLPSPS or WP:BLPREMOVE. (@Abbycarroll: Please don't be put off by all of the short-cut links like GNG, BIO, and TOOSOON, etc.. I'm only using them for the sake of convenience, not as some secret code to try and exclude you from the discussion. If you click on those blue links, they'll take you to Wikipedia pages or sections of pages that I think are relevant to this discussion.) -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.