Jump to content

User talk:John from Idegon/Archive 52

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Malarkey Barnstar

Malarkey Barnstar
Thank you for ridding the encyclopedia of that non-sense and clutter. I decided the edit was a bunch of malarkey and stopped reading about halfway through. Buster Seven Talk 02:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Cristo Rey Chicago

Hello. You reverted my placement of a generic logo on this site saying that the "logo of the order that runs the school is not appropriate." But they carry a large version of this very logo on their mission page and point out their close connection with Ignatian values, which the logo represents. If their more specific logo was liftable off their website, for fair use, I'd have used it, but since it isn't I chose this as the next best way to identify them and their deeply help Jesuit values. Why not let them decide if they don't want the logo?Jzsj (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Who is this "them" you speak of? John from Idegon (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Valley Roadrunner

Hello,

On the AfD Page for Valley Roadrunner, you said that you don't believe that it has notability for being a small newspaper with some regional awards, and I see your point. I was wondering if it would be better to simply add a section to Valley Center, California containing local news sources? There are two main local ones, Valley Center Happenings and Valley Roadrunner. I agree with you on the matter that the smaller ones don't really need stand alone articles, so would it be beneficial to include them both in a section on the town's article and redirect the news sources to it? I'm not sure if I should be putting this here or not, but I did not want to modify the deletion discussion and if it should go someplace else, let me know.

Thank you! Vchero (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion to you is to not go anywhere near any article relating to Valley Center for a good long while. If you want Wikipedians to take you seriously, you need to show that you can make neutral edits to pages unrelated to this community. Otherwise, IMO, you are heading to being banned from editing the pages I am suggesting you do not edit here, if not downright blocked from editing indefinitely. John from Idegon (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
That's why I didn't edit anything and instead asked you if that would solve the problem. Besides, I am not affiliated with any business, I've lived in Valley Center my entire life, I've only been editing what I know. The only reason I suggested this was because you didn't think the paper was notable, and on a global scale, it isn't, so my suggestion was offered in response to that, not anything the paper has done. Another news source in our valley attempted to publish an article regarding themselves in response to seeing the Roadrunner do so, and was immediately deleted for not being notable, so I can see your point on thinking the same for this one. I was only asking in order to figure out the best thing to do under the circumstances. Vchero (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Unknown comment

Hello, please describe what you mean by "personal analysis" in the Raggedy Ann article. The context was taken directly from the Gruelle's personal historian's Pelican Published book. It seems, rather, that the previous entry was attempting insinuation of a personal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:203:EDF0:2182:CDEE:E61A:E530 (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. John from Idegon (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Upon investigating your edits, I see the article you are talking about, but I have never edited it. However I agree completely with the editors that have been reverting your additions. They are totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia. You need to stop. As this is a mile out if my "what I care about" zone, I'll not be wasting any more time on the whys. Perhaps you should listen to the editors that are actually involved. John from Idegon (talk) 04:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

More on Raggedy Ann

I want to elucidate further how the previous revisions of this article violated Wikipedia's neutrality policy on several points.

This is important to explain because the previous revisions of the Raggedy Ann article created a historical error of omission at the expense of the reader and to the benefit of a bias:

Inaccurate Citations

The previous revisionist wrote the Origins sections of Raggedy Ann to exclusively address the "myths" surrounding the doll, and to end this argument as describing various uncited myths around the anti-vaccine movement. The first sentence of the revisionist's paragraph read:

"Additionally, Hall notes, Marcella died at age 13 from an infected vaccination, not from the side effects of the vaccination itself, and Gruelle did not then create the limp Raggedy Ann doll as a tribute to his lifeless daughter, as another myth states."

This is an inaccurate citation, ascribing the dispelling of the myth to Patricia Hall ("Hall notes"). Hall did not note this "myth" nor tied in any political myths with the myths of the dolls origin. When going to the source, Hall simply disclosed that Marcella died of an infected vaccine. I have replaced this sentence by a statement of fact, that the girl died of the vaccine.


The previous revisionist added on to this by stating in the second sentence:

"Gruelle's patent application for the Raggedy Ann doll was already in progress, and the artist received final approval by the U.S. Patent office the same month as Marcella's death."

This instead is what the cited source actually said regarding the patent application:

"When the real-life Marcella Gruelle died, at age 13, from the ravages of an infected vaccination, her parents were, understandably devastated. Under different circumstances, this would have been a time of great rejoicing for Gruelle and his family. He was connecting with juvenile publishers, and was working on several sets of illustrated fairy stories. In November (the same month of Marcella's death) Gruelle had been granted final approval by the U.S. Patent office for his doll called "Raggedy Ann." But all was overshadowed by the death of his beloved daughter."

I revised the revisionist's bias to summarize and reflect the actual source. It would be reasonable to add the revisionist's information regarding "patent pending" if it serves the reader--but not at the expense of the factual history of events regarding the death and the affect it had on the Gruelle family.


Lack of Evidence for Widespread Belief

The third and last sentences the revisionists wrote indicated:

"Regardless, some journalistic sources repeat the myth. For example, {2015 internet journal article} Indeed, [the anti-vaccination movement's] most visible symbol was the smiling but entirely limp Raggedy Ann doll created by a popular cartoonist for his daughter, who had fallen ill and would later die, he believed, from a smallpox shot she received without his permission."

This presents several problems violating Wikipedia policy. First, these sentences describe hearsay (example, "someone said that someone else said this"). As Wikipedia states, this does not belong in encyclopedic literature unless it rises to a commonly held opinion by a wide range of people. When following the cited source, the source requires the reader to register in order to access and verify the information. Once you do this, however, the cited source does not back up the claim with evidence or demonstration that people are in fact perpetuating the myth--nor that this stance is widely held. Therefore this is a false hearsay statement.

If revisionist feels readers should know of this "myth," they must qualify the myth to be a substantial viewpoint and that it rises to the level of importance for a reader, as Wikipedia's neutrality policy indicates. Further, according to policy, this myth must be evidenced with a verifiable source.


Error of Omission

Further, by deleting my additions, the revisionist has created their own person bias in the article by providing their view (again unevidenced) AT THE EXCLUSION of providing readers with the link between the anti-vaccine movement of the 1930s to J Gruelle--which is real and factual (note that Gruelle's own words in his own handwriting are found on Page 89 of the historian's published book as cited). This exclusion is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Should the revisionist like to include details regarding the "myth" they must meet the test of evidence, and allow the factual history of event to also be presented by its side. This serves the reader well, as it will clarify why two opinions might be held.


Summary If you are truly concerned about readers getting confused by a "widespread myth," you would want these readers to be able to surface the accurate information on wikipedia. The accurate information would explain in an unbiased way, the entire story of this "myth"--not the half truths. It seems the revisionists are withholding from the reader John Gruelle's actual stance on vaccine and the factual history surrounding the Raggedy Ann doll.

This information is important to be able continue the article describing how the doll was used by various hospitals and medical organizations following the events of J Gruelle's life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:203:EDF0:380E:BB7D:FE56:C76 (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not my circus, not my monkeys. Please work it out with the editors involved on the article's talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Please explain

This revert. Materialscientist (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Fat fingers. I fixed it. Sorry. John from Idegon (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
This is what I thought. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Backup

Any thoughts on this[1]? -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Not me. Obviously relates to the ongoing silliness at Perry Hall High School. Please block revert all edits and salt the name. Thank you for spotting this. This stuff has been going on for over a year. If possible, Block the IP too. John from Idegon (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
At your service. Feel free to double-check the extant edits. *watchlisted* -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I still have PHHS on my watchlist. Oh, how I was fooled. [2] Sorry. Admire PHHS for instilling persistence in their pupils. They should drop Changing the World with Petulant Pushing against Consensus 101, though. It'll be interesting to see if that cohort can graduate and be effective in improving things. Willondon (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
This nonsense has been going on for going on 2 years. DMacks, an administrator, has handed out several long IP blocks, some other indefinite User blocks and protected the page repeatedly. Thanks for keeping your eyes on it. I guess impersonation is a form of flattery? At least that's how I am going to think of it. Take care. @Zzuuzz:, sorry if my reply came off as bossy....I thought you guys had a magic button to undo all User edits. I've reviewed them all. Most were just vandalism. The talk page comment on the current decade article bothered me and I really appreciate you reverting it. Thank you again. John from Idegon (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome! Thanks to everyone else for vigilance too. I don't have the magic button for knowing exactly which IP is behind a named account, but can ask those who do to take a look if we need it. DMacks (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


Palo Alto High School

You may well be right that the gentlemen I asked about might not be notable. Indeed, that was rather much my enquiry. I take exception to your odd claim that the story is not well-cited. I believe I can easily cite many mainstream news sources, whose editors all found his name notable. My potential cites could include the San Jose Mercury-News, the San Francisco Chronicle and at least one television station. How are such cites not adequate?

I have added your talk page to my watchlist so that we might discuss this here. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

See WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. Also WP:NOTNEWS. Per BLP, we are not going to mention him by name unless and until he is convicted. If he were already notable and coverage of his arrest was widespread, that could be mentioned. But he is not. Per NOTNEWS, unless the coverage of the event is both widespread (all the sources you mention are Bay area) and enduring (which we obviously cannot know yet), we don't discuss it. These are both policies, not guidelines. Following them is not subject to consensus.
I watch approximately 3,000 US high school articles. Allegations of student teacher affairs come up roughly twice a month. Commonplace. Unless there are allegations of the school covering it up, it really isn't encyclopedic. Its more about the individuals (who are not and will not be notable) than it is about the school.
As this is the 7th decade in which I have walked this planet, I appreciate your comment on my youthful exuberance. John from Idegon (talk) 02:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Please forgive me, John. When you said I was "inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content" I thought by that you meant I was " inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content." Now I see you meant to say it was not news. Again, I am sorry for my lack of comprehension. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 03:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Telephone exchanges

I seem to be spending a lot of time reverting IP editors, and my Wiki time is starting to seem a lot like work. I see you've also been reverting the irrelevant addition of telephone exchanges, such as at Bowmanstown, Pennsylvania. I don't even know what a telephone exchange is. User:Ammodramus left a nice edit summary here. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

My dad installed the rotary dial exchanges in NW Indiana when dial phones first came out. In the 10 digit phone number scheme, the second group of 3 numbers designated your local exchange. Those numbers were allocated to specific communities. In my Hoosier hometown, the exchange was (and for landlines thru the traditional phone company, still is) 942. You knew your town was getting big when a second exchange was added. However now, in this age of cell phones, competitive landline providers, and the ability to take your number with you when you move, that information is trivial to the extreme in settlement articles. John from Idegon (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Gregory Irwin

I meant to Afd the article, as there was no tag on it. Then pressed the wrong button and somehow ended up at your AfD. Very strange. Cheers again. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Honourary degrees

I'm working my way through adding citations (or citation needed tags when I can't find one) to a long list of mostly unsourced alumni of Luther College (Iowa). Dagfinn Høybråten is listed as having graduated in 1979 but it seems very doubtful since he is Norwegian and there is no evidence that he has ever lived in the US. His article does contain an unsourced claim that he was awarded an honourary degree from Luther in 2005. I'd appreciate your insight at Talk:Luther_College_(Iowa)#Dubious_claim_of_1979_graduation_for_Dagfinn_H.C3.B8ybr.C3.A5ten Meters (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Meters (talk) 03:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_from_Idegon/Archive_52&oldid=729714417"