Jump to content

User talk:John from Idegon/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

Boise, Idaho

The novel community policing usage of social media/neighborhood watch in the form of Nextdoor is certainly salient. It speaks to the safety and community cohesiveness of Boise, and it belongs to the neighborhood section inasmuch as it is about DIY hyperlocal news. It's as much a feature of the city as, say, the Treefort Music Fest or the Treasure Valley Rollergirls. kencf0618 (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If you could cite it to an independent secondary source, I wouldn't have a problem with it. However, I do have a problem with serving as a PR organ for any city department. If the media is talking about it, it belongs. If they are not, it doesn't. John from Idegon (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Media citations added. kencf0618 (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

Pine Bush Changes

John,

I don't quite know how to communicate with folks here very well yet, but please read the talk message I sent to the last person to edit the Pine Bush page. Binsu Jiro (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

PINE BUSH Changes

Dear Bgwhite,

You removed an edit I placed on the Pine Bush page, and your removal of that content was inappropriate.

I am a Journalist accredited by the Orange County Sheriff's Office and have credentials that they issued after a review of my standing. I operate a Public Advocacy informational web site and have an online news entity in the design phase.

DEVELOPMENT MOTIVE MAY BE AT HEART OF ALLEGED CHARGES OF ANTISEMITISM

Today the Public Advocacy Web Site WALLKILL WIDE AWAKE [1] published the other side to this story of alleged antisemitism in the Pine Bush School District, and the rush to judgement lead by The New York Times, Andy Cuomo and the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

The above information was added to the Pine Bush Page and if the Times and US Attorney's information remains, this information should remain also. While everyone knows who these other entities are, you may not know that some of the information in the NYT article was obtained by a local stringer who took advantage of a mentally challenged worker at the local McDonald's Restaurant and cited that information as credible in the article. He also interviewed a person who was driving through Pine Bush and has no other knowledge of the person or where he lives.

The article was based on a law suit that was filed a year and a half before the article came out and the case was refiled in January in order to make it current to the activities of the developer who along with his father the former Chancellor of Yeshiva university who stepped down in disgrace over a number of sexual abuse incidents which he swept under the "carpet," have coordinated an attack on the community to establish a need for a religious girls school.

Their ties to the NYT and Cuomo have been used to slander the people of the area, and you are helping by not allowing an alternative point of view which is every bit as genuine as the NYT article.

Relative to the development a Sullivan County Supreme Court Judge has issued a Temporary Restraining Order pending a hearing and litigation of a Show Cause Order to have the development stopped in that the annexation of the property being developed was illegally annexed to the Village of Bloomingburg. This is directly related to the Pine Bush lawsuit.

Either take down the references to the Times article and the statement by the US Attorney or put back my reference. Your inclusion of those two items without rebuttal is prejudicial and biased.

Very truly yours, Vincent A. Ferri, advocate@wallkillwideawake.org--Binsu Jiro (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


Wallkill Wide Awake • Public Advocacy News and Information, A Part of Democracy Watch by The Democrat~Observer &

Provider of Environmental and Forensic Investigation Services

Sir: You have said a lot here. None of it explains why the removal of the content was inappropriate. Content on Wikipedia is supposed to be a)neutrally toned, and b) sourced to reliable sources. You are not ever going to be a reliable source. You state you are a journalist, although I have no idea what being "accredited" by some police agency has to do with that.
You also state that you are not sure about how to communicate with people here on Wikipedia. You have properly communicated with me. Generally, if your concern is about the content of a particular article, you start a discussion on that article's talk page, and if you know of parties that have been involved in the issue you want to discuss, you notify them on their talk page about that discussion. I will leave you some info on your talk page on how to go about editing on Wikipedia. John from Idegon (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

Bias edits being added to the Pine Bush, NY • Wikipedia page. No rebuttal being permitted

John,

Thank you for responding, but I must disagree with your assessment of the edits on the Pine Bush page. The New York Times does not have an untarnished record regarding the manipulation of facts in their stories or the veracity of the content of their stories. The have indeed in the past take broad license with the facts in order to advance a political agenda that suited them.

That is the case with the article on Antisemitism in Pine Bush. The interviews were shoddy; the local stringer abused a source who did not have the full mental capacity to make a statement and used an unknown and undocumented source who happened to be passing through the town to make a damning statement on the topic. The Times article was orchestrated and coordinated with the Cuomo statement that followed two days later that condemned the Pine Bush School District.

With a Federal Civil Suit pending Cuomo proceeded to interfere in a matter that was over two years old on a case that was over 1.5 years old. No one was interested in this matter until the developer needed to justify the need for a private religious girls school in a neighboring community that was part of the same school district. At least one of the litigants, a fact not mentioned by the Times, was/is employed by R.J. Smith Realty which has been doing business with the developer. This important fact was ignored, in addition to the fact that two other litigants may have ties to the developer. One of them to Lamm's Energy Distribution Scheme, Ambit Energy, which also has decision making local public officials collecting commissions from that firm. And, another litigant involved in the aviation services industry with possible ties to Lamm's operation of the Mamakating Airport. Both of these individuals have names identical to the other two parents of the remaining named litigants.

You might say that it is irrelevant to the charge, that is charge, as in allegation...not proven and being litigated, but I contend that Bullying is commonplace in most Orange County School and the ALLEGED incidents in Pine Bush have more to do with that persistent problem than anything else.

Regarding my credentials, they are not for you to question; I have them: they were issued by a legal authority, and additionally, I am an experienced investigator having worked for the last three years as such for a noted Civil Rights attorney and his firm. I am also a former U.S. Army Intelligence Analyst.

On the other hand you have no first hand knowledge about anything that is happening here locally; outside of your contributory roll at wikipedia, you apparently have no qualifications as a journalist or an investigator, and are not in any position to question the credibility of my work or the investigative efforts undertaken to obtain my data.

The fact is that you have cavalierly decided to help smear a community of people who have been wrongfully accused having not one shred of evidence to prove the allegation, or any understanding whatsoever of the political corruption behind these events and the events surrounding the development in the neighboring community, which needs to justify a girl's Yeshiva to satisfy the populating of an illegal exclusionary monolithic religious community that violates HUD Fair Housing Law and is being built on property illegally annexed to the Village of Bloomingburg from the Town of Mamakating.

You are completely ignorant of the situation and the facts and complicit in prejudicing a Federal Civil Suit just as Cuomo and the U.S. Attorney are doing for personal political gain. Cuomo stands to receive many thousands of promised block votes and the U.S. Attorney gets the favor of the Governor Cuomo who was not so coincidentally the head of HUD where large sums of money disappeared during his tenure there.

Take down the references that you placed on the Pine Bush page to the Times article and the U.S.Attorney's statement which present a biased point of view or keep them and repost my references to balance the picture.

I have recommended to the Community Group that won the Restraining Order against the developer to file against Wikipedia and have stated so in a formal complaint that I filed with Wikipedia.


Very truly yours,

Vincent A. Ferri, advocate@wallkillwideawake.org Binsu Jiro (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Wallkill Wide Awake • Public Advocacy News and Information, A Part of Democracy Watch by The Democrat~Observer & Provider of Environmental and Forensic Investigation Services to the Legal Profession

Pine Bush Edits, Dispute Resolution Notice Board Request Filed

Dear John,

As per the policy you referred me to, I have submitted a DRN request. Regarding what you consider a threat, you are mistaken in your representation of my comment, which I myself have reported in my resolution request. As an investigator and community advocate, I have an obligation to protect the interest of the people I advocate for. I can make recommendations to them which they may or may not act on. My recommendation for a method they might take to protect their good name, is not a threat as you have represented.

The maintenance of the two references in question without an adequate alternative view, is a clear and present threat to the fairness of any litigation currently in progress, and so helps paint a biased picture of Pine Bush prematurely.


Very truly yours,

Vincent A. Ferri, advocate@wallkillwideawake.org Binsu Jiro (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


Wallkill Wide Awake • Public Advocacy News and Information, A Part of Democracy Watch by The Democrat~Observer & Provider of Environmental and Forensic Investigation Services to the Legal Profession

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Pine Bush, New York". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 04:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello. You reverted a change I made to Buffalo Grove, Illinois regarding Vince Vaughn. If you don't like the citation I included then you might consider altering the Vince Vaughn page as well since it reports the same fact with the same citation. If it isn't good enough for one page, let's keep Wikipedia consistent. I made the change because it the person who removed it (Special:Contributions/216.125.166.29 made many other acts of vandalism and the Vince Vaughn page verified it's likely accuracy with a citation. Thanks. --Morphovariant (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Fairview High School

Dear John,

I reverted your edit. I read the policy. She is an academic at a research university. If individual achievement cannot be mentioned, we should take down all of those athletes and entertainers. Best wishes and take care. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Revert

Hi John. This is ASO. I locked myself out of my old account, so I've created a new one. It was a legitimate redirect. Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 02:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Color me red! John from Idegon (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I know, Northern Antarctica is a bit of an odd name (then again, so was AutomaticStrikeout). Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 02:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
This is why (sometimes) alternate accounts may be a good thing. Once you verify it, and get locked out of your original account, at least you have a backup. ZappaOMati 02:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I cannot imagine how I would get locked out of my account, but I will take that advice and consider it. Happy editing! John from Idegon (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Councilman David Yates

John,

I understand that local politicians might not be perceived as notable, I have worked diligently to prove he is a notable person within the regional community. David is revolutionizing this city's and neighboring city's approach to fraud and embezzlement of tax payer dollars through KRS 67C 143(1) which is in the hands of the State of Kentucky Government's Kentucky General Assembly, whose capital is inFrankfort, Kentucky.

David gained the Louisville Metro Council's approval of a resolution calling for changes in the Kentucky Revised Statues to give subpoena power to the Metro Ethics Commission.[2] [3] The resolution called for clear definitions of misconduct if it becomes necessary to remove a Metro Official. The resolution also asked for a clearer definition of KRS 67C 143(1) to require “misconduct”, “incapacity” and “willful neglect” be defined under KRS and that upon a finding by the legislative council sitting as a court of official misconduct, fraud, theft, embezzlement or misappropriation of public funds committed by an elected officer, the elected official shall be removed from office. Current state law says that an official may be removed if found guilty of misconduct.[4] [5]"

Furthermore, if Councilman Yates is "non-notable person" then how can 3 other Metro Councilmen for Louisville have wikipedia pages? None of the following pages have in-depth research, secondary sources, or provocation of notability. Please see:

  1. Tom Owen
  2. David W. Tandy
  3. Kelly Downard

All of which are members of the Louisville Metro Council and have approved Wikipedia Pages.

I have been working diligently to create this page and am completely frustrated to find that my work is not adequate when it shares peer pages with the above. All help and consideration would be a relief.

Thank you,

Bboles90 (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)bboles90 (talk)


  1. ^ http://www.wallkillwideawake.org/true_false.html
  2. ^ Hyatt, Tony (August 11, 2013). "Councilman Yates to propose sweeping changes to the policies and procedures of the Louisville Metro Council". LouisvilleKY.gov. Louisville Metro. Retrieved February 8, 2014.
  3. ^ Shafer, Sheldon (August 8, 2013). "Louisville Metro Council pledges 'sweeping changes' in discretionary spending rules". The Courier Journal. Louisville, KY: The Courier Journal. Retrieved February 9, 2014.
  4. ^ Hyatt, Tony (August 11, 2013). "Councilman Yates to propose sweeping changes to the policies and procedures of the Louisville Metro Council". LouisvilleKY.gov. Louisville Metro. Retrieved February 8, 2014.
  5. ^ Shafer, Sheldon (August 8, 2013). "Louisville Metro Council pledges 'sweeping changes' in discretionary spending rules". The Courier Journal. Louisville, KY: The Courier Journal. Retrieved February 9, 2014.
Hi! Thanks for your note. Procedurally, new threads on talk pages go at the bottom. In reply, I agree with your assessment that the other articles you have mentioned are not notable and will be researching them and possibly nominating them for deletion. However, there is an essay here called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that cover why that does not matter when we are discussing the article you are working on. Local politicians are not deemed notable unless there coverage extends past their own city. In other words, if all the guy has done is things that are important in Louisville, he will not be notable. Major cities, like Chicago and New York have widespread coverage of their local political scene so people there holding the same office as your guy probably would be notable. Just a note: Notability is not a "perception"; instead it is the nearly objective standard for inclusion on Wikipedia. Notability standards for biographies can be found at WP:BIO. The particular one for politicians is WP:NPOL. Notability is defined as coverage by secondary sources that are deemed reliable, independent of the subject, and whose coverage of the subject is in-depth. Altho there is quite a bit of local coverage from the C-J and area TV and radio outlets, the majority of your sources are not the reliable independent sources needed to show notability. And I think you can understand why strictly local coverage is not enough to show notability for local politicians. Nearly every town of any size has a newspaper. Would you expect the village president of Vicksburg, Michigan to be notable just because he was covered in the Vicksburg Commercial? John from Idegon (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Bartlett High School (Anchorage, Alaska)". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle Creek, Michigan, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lakeview High School and Lakeview School District (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 February 2014


February 2014

Information icon Hello, I'm Evrik. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Saint Francis High School (La Cañada Flintridge) because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please don't edit war --evrik (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Saint Francis High School (La Cañada Flintridge). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators can block users from editing if they repeatedly vandalize. Please stop edit warring. --evrik (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --evrik (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Premature Accusations

You appear to be involved in some premature accusations, I do not see how agreeing with an editor that added info, which was swiftly removed by someone else, consists an edit war. I made ONE edit to the whole section. Perhaps you should look at the course of events before insinuating that a discussion was not initiated. A discussion was initiated on the talk page AFTER I re added the info, initiated by the removing editor. A discussion to which I have not had a chance to even see until I logged in again a few minutes ago. But instead of discussing, and allowing discussion, and allowing the established process, YOU re-reverted the article. It would appear to me that if anyone should be served notice about disruptive editing, it should be YOU. If any comments about "three reverts on a page from one editor" leading to blocks, you are two reverts too premature. My one action, does not constitute an 'edit war', but yours shows a lack of - I'm not sure what to put as many things apply - in this situation. The concept of "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD)" is all we were at on this edit. As the original edit was an anonymous editor, with no real input - IP editors often do not get notices of reverts or discussions as IP address are often dynamic and not tied to a single user, and that the "revert" was "not necessary" as the add, in my opinion after some investigating about the movie series, was "fixed by a refinement", AND that I was not the original editor - did some refining - and left a concise edit summary, I did not feel that it violated the spirit of the 'Do not revert again' "convention". Even if "technically" found to be at the step of "BRRD", there was NOT a semblance of a real edit war, until your re-revert, which "technically" turned it into "BRRRD" - something that the guideline says to not do. So does your "two wrongs make a right"?.. --Notwillywanka (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The templated remarks were just that, templated remarks. Very simply, reinstating edits that are under discussion on the article talk page is edit warring. Slinging remarks back and forth in edit summaries is not discussion. I do not care one bit about the content or who is right...that is to be determined by consensus on the article's talk page. Sorry if you were somehow offended by having it pointed out to you that edit warring is edit warring, but if you discuss the matter at the article talk page, that is where it will get resolved. I'm not a party to it. I just reverted your edit warring edit. Take it up on the article talk page. Happy editing! John from Idegon (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_from_Idegon/Archive_24&oldid=1141136243"