User talk:John from Idegon/Archive 89

Archive 85

←

Archive 87

Archive 88

Archive 89

Archive 90

Archive 91

→

Archive 95

Follow up to draft article you offered to review on School of Arts and Science, Uyo

John, I messaged you yesterday on your talk page and added a hyperlink to my draft article you offered to review, but unfortunately, I have recently found out that the draft article was deleted by Fastily yesterday. I am notifying you that I left this message below on Fastily's talk page today.
Hello Fastily, could you please take a look at the published article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hope_Waddell_Training_Institution and let me know how that differs from my draft article you deleted? I literally followed the content format, style, syntax and semantics of Hope Waddell informational article when I created my draft article mainly because both high schools are in the same geographic region and most members of my high school (School of Arts and Science, Uyo) alumni are also members of Hope Waddell alumni being that Hope Waddell offered Junior Secondary School program/courses that prepared students for transfer (upon graduation) to Senior Secondary School program/courses offered at School of Arts and Science, Uyo. This is why I'm very confused as to the justification for deleting my draft article. Your help in recovering that article you deleted will be much appreciated. Thank you. Emman369 (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, Emman369. Got caught up in some junk last night. First, your draft was not deleted due to anything about it as far as I know (since it's deleted, only administrators can see it. I'm not an administrator). It was deleted due to where you put it. The page User:Emman369 is your userpage. It isn't intended for working at developing articles. What it is for is explained at WP:UP. Having a userpage is not required. Many editors don't. You could put it at User:Emman369/sandbox, but since we are collaborating on it (generally other editors don't edit pages in your userspace unless absolutely necessary, like to remove content prohibited by law), please put it at Draft:School of Arts and Science. Once it's up, I'll critique it and we can go from there. It will be most convenient to work on it entirely there, communicating on Draft talk:School of Arts and Science. Ping me (by adding {{u|John from Idegon}} to a message, making sure to sign it. Pings do not work unless your signature is added in the same edit as the ping) on the draft talk page once you get it uploaded. John from Idegon (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you John, I re-created the draft and saved it at Draft:School of Arts and Science. I will need help with adding the school logo and 2 images. Please take a look and review. Thanks! Emman369 (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

MEL B

Saw your ping too late to comment, but I've watchlisted the draft in question now. Meters (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

No worries. Administration is involved now. I don't see this going much further. And I've drained at least 50 l from my emergency AGF tank. Egad. John from Idegon (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The Couve

Would this source suffice? CThomas³ (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not a nickname, it's a marketing campaign slogan. The source you've used here makes that clear. Nicknames do have history, and are generally known outside the immediate area. So now, I also oppose per WP:PROMO. John from Idegon (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

John from Idegon, I don't know if that's how it started out, but it's pretty darned pervasive now. If you talk to anyone around here, they all know the nickname 'The Couve'. It's definitely the only common one. The only reason I'm looking for a source is because I saw someone trying to add it without one and it kept getting reverted, and since I know the nickname well and have heard it for years, I figured there must be some kind of source. If I can't locate a good one, I suppose I won't add it, but it definitely is a pretty well accepted nickname. CThomas³ (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

And just to be clear, I am pretty sure it started out as something derisive, not promotional. I think it's just a case of people taking that and trying to turn it into something they can have pride in. CThomas³ (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

As an example, the Oregonian uses the nickname and doesn't even bother to put it in quotes like "Vantucky" (which is the other, less common nickname you hear). These days it's just what people say in Portland to refer to their neighbors to the north. CThomas³ (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Meh. Go ahead and re-add it with the Origonian source. At least that distances it from the tourism organization. John from Idegon (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

John from Idegon, Heh, I was actually going to say that I'm fine just leaving it out, but I didn't want to clog up your talk page further with yet another note from me. I read what i wrote and said to myself, "you are sounding far more invested in this than you are." CThomas³ (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

San Francisco International Arts Festival (SFIAF) moved to draftspace

Hi John from Idegon,

Thanks for moving the page 'San Francisco International Arts Festival (SFIAF)' to draftspace. It's a work in progress and was published accidentally (I was trying to see a preview). For some reason, I wasn't able to create a sandbox, as I was for the previous page I created). I will keep working on it in draft space. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fhg20 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. Please remember to sign your messages. John from Idegon (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you again! That's all really useful information. Yes, I am still pretty new to the wold of Wikipedia editing...lots to learn!! Fhg20 (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi John from Idegon, Thanks for your detailed message! Do you mind if I ask you a question, or should I post it to Teahouse instead? (BTW: Thanks for pointing out Teahouse to me -- I did not know it!). I understand that Wikipedia should not promote or read like a press release, but I guess I am not entirely sure where or how to draw to the line. When I wrote the article on the Festival, I followed other existing Wikipedia sites (esp. for the San Francisco International Film Festival). Is the main problem of my entry the language I used, or the way I presented the information? The language for the most part is taken from the news sources and articles I am quoting. Also, is it a problem to list past performances/performers? I want to make sure I understand what exactly needs to be changed before I start the editing process. Thank you again!! Writing Wikipedia entires is HARD!! Haha. But it's also fun. Thank you again Fhg20 (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is hard, and there are many things you can do on Wikipedia besides write articles. I've been here for 8 years and have only written 13 articles. Your language was problematic. You used a lot of empty marketing-speak words, such as "platform". I don't know if you know this or not, but all content must be paraphrased from reliable sources. Your style should be straightforward and rather dry. Adjectives and adverbs are not your friends when writing encyclopedia articles. "Blue" is fine, "a deep Cerilluin blue" is not. You should not praise (or slam) the event in Wikipedia's voice. From the length of the article, one single direct quote would be ok. Eg: "In 2017, the Foo Gazette described the event as "a pleasure to view".(reference to the Foo Gazette)" The form was mostly fine, but you should have at least one more section. If the event has a website, add an "External links" section after "References" and put it there, using Template:Official website to format it. Mainly, I'm saying this so the article will have a table of contents. Look at several more event articles (catagories can help you find them). Look at those articles' talk pages and find ones that are rated "good" or "featured". Those should be used for examples. There are a ton of not so good articles on Wikipedia. Good and featured articles have been thoroughly peer-reviewed and vetted against very strict criteria. Please do visit WP:TEA and ask further questions. I'm not that familiar with writing about events. Odds are, some hosts there know more about it than I, and just having it explained by a different person is on it's own, very helpful. Hope this helps. Happy editing. John from Idegon (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply! It's all super helpful. I will look at some more pages and definitely will check out the talk pages. I will also add another category so that there is a table of content. I did include a link to the festival website, but only as part of the info box. Thank you again for your feedback! Yes, I'll probably focus my attention on editing other sites once I am done fixing this one rather than write new ones, haha. Have a nice weekend! Fhg20 (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

State College of Florida Collegiate School

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,

I had to revert The page because the State College of Florida serves only as the parent institution of the State College of Florida Collegiate School. The two institutions operate separately both physically and administratively. The collegiate school focuses on the education of students in grades 6 thru grade 10, while the college itself (parent institution) caters only to traditional college students. Once students of the collegiate school pass grade 10 they become duel enrolled within the parent institution. Upon successful completion, students graduate with a high school diploma from the collegiate school and an associate of arts degree from the college it self. Spaceboy900 (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

See the article talk page, Spaceboy900. A lower school is generally not notable. That means it doesn't get an article on it. The usual procedure is to redirect it to the school district it belongs to. There is none in this case. It belongs to the University, even if they administer it independently. This isn't unique or unusual. Nearly every state has at least one "laboratory school", generally associated with the primary normal school in the state. Most are K-12, and hence presumably notable. See WP:SCH/AG#Notability for details. Please note that you didn't "have to" do anything. You chose to. You should have assumed that I did what's best for the encyclopedia and asked why I did it if you didn't understand. Now it is at AFD, where it will waste a week of the community's time only to most likely just end up redirected to the college again. However, it also could be deleted completely. Be collegial, and assume good faith always. It's much easier around here for all if everyone does. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 10:34, 6 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.

User:Bmichelleh/Randolph County High School

Hi John. One of my students, Bmichelleh, wrote this up; I reckon it's good enough to go live. I'm quite impressed, actually. I'd like for her to nominate it for DYK as well: with that racist principal and the fire, there's sure to be some interest. Anyway, I was wondering if maybe you could have a look at it--not necessarily to work on it, since she should be doing the work, but maybe you have some pointers, some suggestions: few people know school articles as well as you do. Are there things that are missing? Are there good places where she might look for more? Are all the sections there? Thanks so much! Dr Aaij (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

That is pretty good for a first effort. A quick look through shows this:

1. Sentence case for all headers.
2. Attendance should be sourced to NCES and infobox expanded to include the parameters "ratio" and "teaching_staff". The data for teaching_staff should be appended with Template:FTE and the enrollment should be appended with the school year they are for.
3. The county census data isn't appropriate. That section should be replaced with a "Demographics" section. The data for that is from NCES also.
4. We do not name names, students or staff. The section on the bigot principal will need to be rewritten. His fame was pretty much only local, so naming him in conjunction with this idiotic behavior is unfortunately a WP:BLP violation. There are also names in the athletics section that need to go.
5. Speaking of the athletics section, the only appropriate achievement is the state championship. However, there should be a listing of all sports offered, including for which sex and any that are coed. This can be sourced to the school, but in most states, the information is available from the state sanctioning body. Not certain about Alabama. For an example of a good approach for presenting this, see Kalamazoo Central High School.

That's not a definitive list, but it's a start. You are hopefully aware that if you go for DYK, and you should, they will copyedit it a lot. The principal thing is a great hook. Let me know when she wants it checked next, and remind her please that everything must be paraphrased from reliable sources and she can't use anything she just knows. I'm guessing that since this is about Alabama, Doc sent you? John from Idegon (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you John. User:Bmichelleh, here you go: with front-page billing as a definite option. Dr Aaij (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that principal--I was surprised to see it, but he has an article here: Hulond Humphries. Dr Aaij (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, then...let us not worry about taking his name out. Notable ppl are the exception to the no name rule, but make sure to link his name. John from Idegon (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing from a Movie

If I am unable to source a movie from wikipedia or iMDB, how do I source it if what I am trying to back up is somethingthat is explained in the plot of the movie I am trying to source? How do I format it?--Christhewalrus (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

You don't. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which by definition is tertiary. If there are no secondary sources, you cannot add it. John from Idegon (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you John!

Thank you John, I re-created the draft and saved it at Draft:School of Arts and Science. I will need help with adding the school logo and 2 images. Please take a look and review. Thanks! Emman369 (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the article. It is a long ways from being an acceptable encyclopedia article. I cleaned up a few malformed links...there are more. I removed a non notable person from the notable alumni list. Most importantly you need to convert your list of references to inline citations (I'll leave instructions on your talk page) and, of utmost importance, you need to provide some reliable secondary sources. Without secondary sources, this will never get into the encyclopedia. Question: do you understand that every single thing in the article must be paraphrased from reliable sources? And all but the most mundane (address, leadership) must come from secondary sources? What you know, what someone else knows that you've been told, information deduced or induced from a source or sources...none of that can be used. The alumni website cannot be used. Facebook cannot be used. You need reliable sources. Good luck. John from Idegon (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

WPSCH

Can I plead, harass, cajole you to come back to your job as coord before I take a plane to the US and drag you kicking and screaming back to it? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Will reply via email. John from Idegon (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Lake Forest College

Hi John,

I'm currently researching whether or not Lake Forest Il. was a sundown town. I became aware of the edit battle occurring on the Lake Forest Wikipedia page and was wondering if you might have any further information on the subject. I looked up the citation that you used for this point, and have checked that particular book, Privilege, Power, and Place by Stephen Higley. I have read Higley's claim of restrictive covenants, but quite unfortunately, Higley does not cite this and I cannot find any of these covenants in my online research so far. I was hoping you might have some more information on the subject.

Best, A curious researcher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.68.41.1 (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, cant help.John from Idegon (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok John

If you want me to write out sources too I will and I respect that. If you are going to revert my edits, fine. But how bout you get rid of all the other unsourced crap on that page cause I guess you are god and are in charge of all of Wikipedia. [[[User:Luke12334|Luke12334]] (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)]

Congratulations on your elevation to the position of Supreme Godness of Wikipedia, John. Is there a script we can use to ensure that all proper forms are followed henceforth? I hope it comes with a "smite the non-notable alumni" button and other useful tools. If so perhaps you would consider franchising the buttons to those of us less fortunate school project members? Meters (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I wish there was a script that would automatically tell me wtf people are talking about. For some reason, my God powers do not include omnipotence. I think I'll ask for my money back on that. A "smote" and a "smote with fire" button would both be very useful. John from Idegon (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Must be Hamilton-Wenham Regional High School Looks like this is the same editor who has been there as an IP. Meters (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm tying to imagine a "smite with fire" button. Would that overwrite the text with flame emojis or cause the editor's keyboard to burst into flames? Meters (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

No....if the text had been smote previously, re-adding it after smote with fire deletion would cause 60V @ 14 A to pass thru the mouse upon hitting the publish changes button. John from Idegon (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Re: Adding references can be easy

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.

---

Thank you John for the tips you provided on my talk page about adding references to my draft article Draft:School of Arts and Science. However, given that approx. 98% of my article contents were derived from a hard copy/printed "Programme of events For the 2015 Annual Reunion and Award Ceremony/Lecture of School of Arts & Science, Uyo Old Students Association" - a 7 page order/agenda of events for the annual reunion held on 12/11/2015 as compiled by our fellow alumni (Late Engr. Anthony J. Ekong), such hard copy/printed event agenda does not fall within the listed categories for citing i.e. web, news, book and journal. This explains the reason I cited that source in references in the format I did considering that I have a copy of the event agenda here with me. In this exceptional case, how do you advise I proceed bearing in mind that nobody uploaded the event agenda to any website, online portal or web server? Please kindly advise. Emman369 (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

You cannot use unpublished sources at all for anything on Wikipedia. Even if you could, a class reunion program would hardly be considered reliable. What is needed are published sources written by someone with no connection to the school whatsoever (eg a journalist or an academic). Lacking those, you simply do not have an article. John from Idegon (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Question: If a 7 page printed program for a high school reunion, printed at a traditional printing press with business contact info at the back cover, and that was used by all attendees at the reunion including the 2nd principal of the school is not considered reliable, how do we define reliable? I think either we are misunderstanding the meaning of "reliable" or we are simply confused. The simple fact that the program was not uploaded/published to a website or web server, does not exonerate its existence or the existence of the defunct high school and/or the existence of thousands of alumni members now living/working all over the globe like myself who attended the defunct high school. John, with all due respect, I will be glad and ready to email you or someone in wikipedia a scanned copy of all pages of the reunion program front cover to back cover if that helps. Please lets continue the dialogue to arrive at a reasonable solution as we both understand that this might be an exceptional situation that demands flexibility, creativity and innovation. Thank you. John from Idegon Emman369 (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Emman369: The program for the reunion does not qualify as a reliable source in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a clear and unbending policy that anything added to an article has to be verifiable from reliable sources. Please read the content guideline at Wikipedia:Reliable sources to learn what is considered a reliable source in Wikipedia. - Donald Albury 02:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: Thank you Donald for chiming in. Per your advise, I read the content guideline at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Under Definition of a source, three related meanings are stated; the first being • The piece of work itself (the article, book). On dictionary.com, a book is defined as "a handwritten or printed work of fiction or nonfiction, usually on sheets of paper fastened or bound together within covers." Going by this definition, the program for the reunion qualifies as a book. It's actually 10 pages from front cover to back cover. Just below the third related meaning, the guideline states "Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials within a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." This book was published within a reliable publication process (scanned copies of all pages of the book will reveal that), the author (Late Engr. Anthony J. Ekong) - a respected civil engineer, was the chairman of the planning committee (satisfies the authoritative requirement in relation to the subject), and finally those qualifications are clearly demonstrable to other people (all members of the alumni and yourself if and when you see scanned copies of the book which I'm ready to send your way). So yes, the program for the reunion - a 10 page printed work of nonfiction is a book that clearly qualifies as a reliable source according to the content guideline at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Donald Albury Emman369 (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources must be published. A program for an event is not a published document. Have you read the links you've been given, or are you simply so invested in getting what you want that you are twisting them to fit your situation. Published means it is catalogued in a library somewhere, that it was or is available for purchase somewhere, it is published by a website that meets our standard for reliability on the internet. What you are describing is much more an internal document. It's akin to a school printed rulebook, or a corporate internal memo. You cannot use it as a source at all. Even if you could gain consensus to use it as a source, it would be a primary source, and as such, would not speak to the notability of the subject. Verifiability and notability are two separate issues. If I don't fall asleep first, I'll leave you an example on your talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 04:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Yes, I read the Definition of published in the content guideline. The first line states "The term "published" is commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online." The 10 page book is text material in traditional printed format. It is a reliable secondary source that satisfies wikipedia's Reliability in specific contexts requirement. Why not provide an email address so I send scanned copies of all 10 pages of the book for confirmation and so we quit wasting time back and forth? John from Idegon Emman369 (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Anything that you would need to send me via email rather than directing me to where I could find it is by definition not something we can use. I do not have the time for this. You've edited only this draft. You've been here for a matter of days. I've made over 75,000 edits, the majority to articles on schools, over the course of eight years. I have no patience for people who will not listen. You are wrong. End of story. Goodbye. John from Idegon (talk) 06:06, 17 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.

Quick question about high school rankings

I'm guessing that yearly area high school rankings, such as this, are deleted as promotional cruft given that they are rarely updated beyond the year that they are ranked and only apply locally? Just want to be sure. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Yup...local polls are also pretty insignificant, rarely last long, and have wildly varying criteria. I believe the Newsweek poll is now dead, leaving the only one's worth anything US News & World Report, and the Washington Post. John from Idegon (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thought so. Also, I'm assuming that you aren't supposed to list every single AP course and extra-curricular club/activity? I'm trying to do a sweep and get rid of some of the promotional editing in the articles of Suburban One League schools, which are mostly the public schools in the area where I grew up. I'm sure I'll have a lot more questions. Thanks for the help. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually we do list AP courses. Don't worry...AP is a national thing, and there are only between 35-40 possible. Very few schools carry more than half. As far as clubs, for the most part you are correct. A list is inappropriate. Discussing clubs that have had significant and widespread coverage is appropriate within reason. If a club is interscholastically competing, we can assume there is coverage. Achievements must have secondary sources, and we only discuss top level achievements. If a school has state championship athletic teams, then the only achievement we would discuss is state championship or higher, for athletics or anything else. Please take a few minutes and read WP:SCH/AG. And I'm always glad to help, despite how the section above this sounds. You aren't a WP:SPA. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Cookies for your patient and friendly Teahouse responses

		Cookies!
		Elfabet has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks for your great efforts at the Teahouse recently. It's much appreciated, and dealing with such a wide variety of subjects shows a real mastery of the site! To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Indiana edit

Hi John from Idegon. You recently reverted a simple, factual, objective edit I made to the Indiana page, saying it was not "constructive." Can you please explain your reasoning, and what you did not find constructive? I'm very confused by this and would like to understand your viewpoint. Thank you, André Le Nôtre (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi André Le Nôtre

. I think you might better understand what John meant in the edit summary he left when he undid your edit here if you take a look at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (i.e. WP:BRD) and Wikipedia:Edit warring (i.e. WP:BRRD). Basically, you were WP:BOLD in making a change to an article that you believe needed to be made, another editor disagreed with your edit and reverted it. The editor who disagrees with you left an edit summary explaining why and their edit wasn't just a case of random vandalism; so, you then are going to be expected to initiate discussion on the article's talk page per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and see if you can establish a WP:CONSENSUS to make it. John is interested in topics related to Indiana so he probably had the article on his watchlist; his edit was an attempt to prevent any further back-and-forth reverting among editors which is a form of disruption if not done for a very good and clear policy/guideline based reason. Your change though small in terms of the number of "bytes" actually seems like a major change contextually and is probably something which should be discussed per WP:CAUTIOUS on the article's talk page; it might even be a good idea to try and get feed back from the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Indiana as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Pretty much what Marchjuly said. Your initial bold edit was a perfectly reasonable change (no comment here and now on its factual corectness), André Le Nôtre. Indyguy reverted you because he didn't agree with your change. Also perfectly reasonable and completely within policy. However, when you put it back again, that is out of policy. Neither you, Indyguy, Marchjuly, myself or even Jimbo are the sole arbiters of truth. Truth is decided by consensus. If you want that change, you'll need to convince Indyguy and any other interested editors of your version's correctness. You would do that by starting a discussion on the article's talk page and making arguments based in reliable secondary sources and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. IMO, you'd need to show reliable sources refer to NW Indiana as Indiana's largest metro area, and you'd have to show that more say that than say Indianapolis is. I doubt highly you can do that. But this is not the place to discuss it. Talk:Indiana is. Not following BRD is disruptive, which is what I cautioned you about and which you have done. I reverted the article back to where it was before your change. Your choices now are drop it, talk about it until consensus is formed, or continue to edit war, which will eventually get you blocked. Take it to talk. John from Idegon (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly and John from Idegon, thank you both for taking the time to elaborate and educate. That has not been my experience so far with ranking editors, and I really appreciate that. I did not intend to violate BRD and should have read your initial message more closely, John. I am still learning Wikipedia's many policies and somewhat opaque architecture. It is also an adjustment to get used to the whole "consensus is truth" ideology, which actually seems sort of counterproductive to the mission of spreading knowledge and information. In this case, it seems to me that Indyguy's reversion, not being backed up by facts and being defended by a subjective opinion, was the bold edit in need of being defended. In any case, again, thank you both for your time and effort. When I have time and energy to try to build consensus on Indiana's talk page for something that is emperically true, I will do that. Same for the talk pages of other state articles that get it wrong. To be sure, there are state articles that do get it right; I think moving toward consistency and accuracy is a noble cause, even if the result is not the popular view among residents of a given state. André Le Nôtre (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Heinrich-von-Gagern-Gymnasium

Hey, an alumni list that needs cleanup if you are looking for something to do! MB 21:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Clarify please

Hi John, would you care to clarify what you think needs to be cited? Do you think that the status of Jeffe_Kennedy as an alumuna of Overland requires some sort of external verification? It seems that status is unlikely to be challenged, unless of course, you are challenging it. If not, what is your actual complaint? JeffBerry (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, since you said "alumna", I assume your talking about a school, but I have no clue what school. If you want an answer, provide enough information so I can give you one. John from Idegon (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be regarding this edit. MPS1992 (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

JeffBerry, what is your source for her attendance? There is 0 information in her bio on her early life. John from Idegon (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi John, I've provided a source, citation, including page number. If that is inadequate, what would you consider to be suitable for proof of high school attendence in the pre-Internet era? Several of the other 'notable alumni' appear to referenced only to their internal wikipedia page, which contains a note about their high school attendence. EG Eddie Gill's page mentions, without citation, that he attended Overland. JeffBerry (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

No you didn't. How exactly do you think a high school yearbook meets any standard for reliability, much less our standard? A yearbook is put together by kids, with no professional oversight. There is no mechanism for error correction and no reputation for accuracy. This isn't Facebook. Wikipedia is meant to be a serious work. Content disputes belong on an article talk page, not here. And disputed content stays out (see WP:BRD) until a consensus is reached to include it. The WP:BURDEN is on you to achieve said consensus. Do not replace your edit again without it. You are not new here, JeffBerry. WP:CIR. And we are talking about this edit, not others. If you find a dog turd in your living room, is their anything about that that suggests the solution is to go get more dog turds to keep it company? John from Idegon (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

First, let me note, that I've removed the edit. As far as sources go, for high school attendence, I would suggest the High School yearbooks are a reasonably good source. They are overseen by staff and faculty, entries (at least in my experience) contain photos and lists of activities. I agree that I would not think they were a good source for most things - but this is a very specific thing, presence in the school's student body. I will take the conversation to the article talk page, as you suggest. I would still be interested in what you would consider a good source for something as relatively straightforward as high school attendence. JeffBerry (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

A book, magazine or newspaper, Things that actually have professional oversight. An academic journal. In a pinch, TV or radio news. Even if we make the (far-fetched) assumption that a yearbook is reliable, all it shows is that someone by that name attended that school. There is nothing there to show that person is the person who we are talking about. It's abundantly clear you are editing based on your personal knowledge. First you say she doesn't need a reference. Every fact concerning a living person needs a reference, period. Next comes an WP:OSE argument, concurrent with the addition of a totally crap source. If you were finding facts in reliable sources and adding them, this problem wouldn't occur. You'll hit walls whenever you try to force what you "know" into the encyclopedia. John from Idegon (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Edits on Renton, Washington Page

Hi John,

Hope you are doing well!

I'm about to publish my second edit to Renton, Washington.

I received your earlier message, thank you for that, and I will explain in details why I made these edits.

I'm new to this community, it would be greatly appreciated if you could please talk to me first before reverting all my work. I have been in Renton for 4 years, not very long, but I know about Renton more than a lot of people, just wanted to contribute what I know to this community. Some info on that page is outdated.

Thank you! SEAsheke (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

SEAsheke, like most new editors you have misconceptions about Wikipedia. Firstly, no I won't be discussing your edits with you prior to removing them, and neither will anyone else. See WP:BRD. Second what you know is completely irrelevant. As is what I know and even what Jimbo knows. Verifiability is one of our pillar policies. In short, nothing you "know" goes in the encyclopedia. See WP:OR. Instead, you use what you know to guide yourself to reliable sources. All (not some, not most...all) content is paraphrased from reliable sources. That is what an encyclopedia is. John from Idegon (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

You have been reported for edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adervae (talk • contribs) 01:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Which closed with you getting warned for edit warring. John from Idegon (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Missed that one, but for future reference, along with the other issues with the report, the listed reverts did not even constitute 4 separate reverts. Multiple sequential edits by the same editor count as only one revert (since they all could have been made in one edit). Meters (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Egads!

Egads! I've been busy irl. It's good to see you're keeping things going here. Happy Summertime! Jacona (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Junius H. Rose High School

Horribly overblown, unsourced article. I've trimmed about a third of the article so far [1] and I'm going to let it sit for a while before returning. Meters (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

List of school shootings in the us

I think the the shooting of Matthew Lange should be on the article since it happened at school and thus makes it a school shooting Cadeken (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Cadeken please discuss this on the article talk page (preferably), or at WT:WPSCH where more users will be able to join in. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Notability issues about secondary schools

Hi there. You recently ruled on my AfD proposal about Harding High School. I wonder why are secondary schools generally accepted to have its own articles. It seems that my AfD did arouse some attention to give the article its first independent citation. Otherwise, it would only have one primary source and one "about us" source. Also, when do you think I will pass the experience threshold for involving in deletion policy? Any time range? Sociable Song (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Sociable Song, just wanted to let you know I saw this. I'm not able to respond in detail tonight, but I'll leave a note on your talkpage. It's rather detailed. Enjoy whatever is left of your weekend. John from Idegon (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sociable Song, see WP:OUTCOMES. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

List of parochial and private schools in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area (John from Idegon) ??????????

Wait? I'm confused. You just told me that the information on the page "Outline of Washington Area Catholic High Schools" was a duplication of this "List of parochial and private schools in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area" page. So all I did was add a template and changed the name to be representative of what was already written. Now you're saying it must be deleted. (Undid revision 908439707 by John from Idegon (talk)) Llakew18 (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Plus do you know how small DC is and how the Metro Area Works. This place is so darn small that people who live in one jurisdiction go to another just for school. Especially when it comes private schools. And its not only the rich and upper class who do this, even low-to-middle income families do this. This may sounds like a paradox but that's just how the Washington Metro Area (DMV Area) works. The DMV area is different from other parts of the country and this page should authentically reflect that, which it had already done in the past until this "deletion" incident happened. Whoever started this article page in the beginning knew how things are in reality. Llakew18 (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC) Llakew18 (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't tell you to do anything to the article. I proposed it be deleted, for the reasons I stated. After you removed the PROD, I nominated it for deletion. Since Wikipedia is a tertiary source, I don't need any specific knowledge of Washington DC to know what makes a viable article. We don't have lists of schools in Metropolitan New York which covers 5 states, nor for Chicago, which covers 3 states nor for LA, which is entirely in California. And I do know what an MSA is. I have no clue what a DMV is other than Department of Motor Vehicles but that's not what the list is. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of writing. It is organized and there is an existing set of articles on schools by states. The archdiocese should have a list of the schools under its auspices in its own article or in a subsidiary article. You'd need pretty convincing arguments to assert that DC needs to be handled differently. Those arguments will need to be based in reliable secondary sources or Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You are of course welcome to comment at the AfD discussion, but I'd strongly suggest that you read the instructions first. John from Idegon (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

revert

I reverted your reversion of a reversion yada yada at Faith Academy (Mobile, Alabama) because I think this is the state you want the article to be. Please double check and make sure I got it right! Jacona (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Help in addressing concern, proposed deletion

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.

---

Hi John,

Thank you for your attention on the Hillrom pages.

Following the suggestion of a Wikipedia community member, I'm reaching out to you for advice on the community's preferred method of contribution in this case. Ordinarily, I understand that, given the COI guidelines, I would post suggestions or request factual edits to the company talk page, citing reliable sources for non-affiliated editors to author. In order to discuss the pending article deletion, would it be best to follow this course?

I had posted a thread to the teahouse, asking for advice on updating the company logo following a rebrand, with the aim of replacing an incorrect logo file on the company pages with a correct one. Following that request, several community members offered great assistance and the logo was uploaded and updated on the page. Here is a link to that point in time: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hill-Rom&oldid=908010547

Shortly after this, a community member made significant revisions to the page, removing long-standing content supplied by the community over time, stating it was marketing language. Would you be able to review these changes and help me understand if this was marketing speak or factual information about the company?

If the article should be deleted, revised, or possibly merged with subsidiary brand pages that exist, I'd be happy to help provide you cited, reliable sources that could support that effort.

I'm hoping we can help provide relevant and objective information to serve the encyclopedic purpose of our company page.

Appreciate any guidance you could offer. Thanks, John.

Jack at Hillrom (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC).

I'm more than willing to help any of the many volunteers who've worked for years to produce and maintain this collection of the sum of human knowledge. Those who shill for individual for profit corporations, not so much. And that's the mild version. If you want to know how I really feel, see this. I'm retired and live on the income of the stock portfolio I amassed over the 50 years I worked. My single largest holding is Stryker. You sure you want my help? John from Idegon (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi John,

Thank you for your quick reply. I appreciate the guidance and sentiments you have shared. I am an employee of the company, but serve in a design role. My aim was only to request help in replacing an incorrect image in the encyclopedia. To help address the issues you have noted, and to support the effort of improving the quality of the page content, I located sources for the remaining content and have added them in a request on the talk page. I hope that helps. Thank you again.

Jack at Hillrom (talk) 22:20, 31 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.

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

• News and notes: Wikimedia grants less accessible for travel, equipment, meetups, and India

• In the media: Politics starts getting rough

• Discussion report: New proposals in aftermath of Fram ban

• Arbitration report: A month of reintegration

• Gallery: Classic panoramas from Heinrich Berann

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Community view: Video based summaries of Wikipedia articles. How and why?

• News from the WMF: Designing ethically with AI: How Wikimedia can harness machine learning in a responsible and human-centered way

• Recent research: Most influential medical journals; detecting pages to protect

• Special report: Administrator cadre continues to contract

• Traffic report: World cups, presidential candidates, and stranger things

• In focus: The French Wikipedia is overtaking the German

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)