User talk:John from Idegon/Archive 70
This is an archive of past discussions with User:John from Idegon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 65 | ← | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | → | Archive 75 |
Feedback requested
I posted a question about image use at Talk:Stratford Academy#Images. I would appreciate any feedback you could provide. Billhpike (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, John from Idegon. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Little Caesars Arena
We need to talk about Little Caesars Arena invalid information?! MechaCobre12 (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- MechaCobre12, for the proper procedure to follow when someone reverts a new addition you've made, please see WP:BRD. I'd suggest you also read WP:RS and WP:TRUTH prior to starting a discussion on the article's talk page. I'll leave some information to help you understand how Wikipedia works on your talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- I have authentic information on little Caesars Arena seating capacity from both 313 presents and Olympia entertainment i have links to prove i am not here to vandalize MechaCobre12 (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Please see my initial reply for information on how to properly handle a content dispute. Take it to the article talk page please. There's no need for you to post on my talk page any further on this matter. John from Idegon (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- I have authentic information on little Caesars Arena seating capacity from both 313 presents and Olympia entertainment i have links to prove i am not here to vandalize MechaCobre12 (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Random thoughts
Reading your advices to younger editors these days gives me warm feelings. One of these days I think I'll need some life advice from you too. Thank you, John! Alex Shih (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleting Profile of Edwin "Rip" Smith from Atherton High School
John -
Thank you about your message about deleting the profile of Edwin "Rip" Smith from notable Atherton High School alumni, but I must strenuously disagree. Did you read anything about Rip? The man worked at the White House, was noted in International Law Circles and was the first tenured black law professor at USC Law School. How is that not notable? I am also very concerned that you removed the only black notable alumni from Atherton. Is Rip being black a problem for you?
You also write "No article, no indication of notability", did you even read what I posted? I posted a link to his obituary from the Los Angles Times. what do you call this?
Edwin "Rip" Smith, first minority tenured professor at USC law, dies at 66 - LA Times - Anna M. Phillips - August 13, 2016 I have reverted your deletion and added another link, since you apparently do not think the L.A. Times is not reliable.
If you have a problem with this, please write me at <redacted>
Thanks!
Dann — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybermann (talk • contribs) 19:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'll reply later. I do not see any evidence of you readding this content, so if you haven't, don't. See WP:BRD for the proper way to handle someone removing a new addition you've made. I also removed your copy paste of the LA Times obit, as it is clearly a violation of their copyright. Please do not do that again. Copyright is a serious matter. I also edited your comment above to remove your email address. This page is visible to anyone, including datamining bots, and I assume you don't like Spam. We do things in public on Wikipedia, not by email. Also, you are required to sign your talk page posts by typing four tildes at the end. Thanks, Cybermann. John from Idegon (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
John -
You did not answer my question of why you deleted Edwin "Rip" Smith from Atherton H.S. notable alumni. Instead of dealing with the issues I raised of Rip being notable and the link I provided you, you nitpick over my private posting to you. I assure you that I know copyright law far better than you in that I am a lawyer, J.D. St. Louis University School of Law, have a Masters Degree in Journalism from Columbia University Pulitzer Graduate School of Journalism and a have worked as a producer as a news station.
I really don't think the L.A. Times will have a problem with my sending you all of Mr. Smith's obituary to make the point that Mr. Smith was a notable man. I suggest that instead of being so anal-retentive about rules, you focus in on what people are actually writing and posting.
Dann Dobson Dann.Dobson@Gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybermann (talk • contribs) 20:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 December 7#File:Brainerdhightn.png. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Central Michigan Life
I added several refs for the awards that had already been listed in the article for Central Michigan Life. I'll leave it to your judgement on leaving the prod; although I think the awards from the Society of Professional Journalists as well as the ACP's National Pacemaker Awards now being sourced make a sufficient claim to notability. However, none of the added refs provide in-depth coverage - so it's a question on if the award listings are sufficiently prestigious enough for the combination of won awards to establish at least weak notability. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- For me, and we have no formal guideline on the subject, if the SPJ award is for newspapers in general, that may be enough. If it's just for college papers, doubtful. John from Idegon (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Speaking of quick
... I was going to post a comment, but ran into edit conflict twice and just gave up, heh. That was a straight forward case anyway. Cheers! Alex Shih (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Jefferson Davis Park, WikiProjects
Please give your input as to why you object to each of those linked projects, I added a section on Talk:Jefferson Davis Park, Washington to discuss each of them specifically. I can make some connections to a few of those projects, others, leave me dumbfounded. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- Please join the talking page discussions prior to making major changes, thank you for your considered contributions. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Wow, Wikipedia has talking pages? How cool is that! I'll respond when I have time, as I told you when I reverted your change earlier today. But yet, you went ahead and changed the content in question anyway. That is simply disruptive. You do not set MY schedule and I'm a volunteer just like you. Like most everyone I have demands on my time that take priority over Wikipedia. You are about the most arrogant disruptive editor I've encountered this year. By the way, please learn how to indent. And while you're at it, learn how to ping. There's no need for you to clutter up my talk with even one, much less two, notifications of a discussion on a page you know damn well I've edited in the recent past, C. W. Gilmore. Now if you're done wasting my time, perhaps I can get to work on responding to the discussion you're so bent on me responding to. Accepting delayed gratification is considered a major marker for child development. One would assume an editor whom has repeatedly played the "Grandpa excuse" card should have passed that developmental marker by now. John from Idegon (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your interest in the article and your interesting input, I look forward to the discussions on the article's talkinng page before major editing. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Cute. More disruption and lack of WP:CIR. Since your comments are not in any way useful and I've pointed that out to you, please do not post anything not directly and specifically required by policy on my talk page, C. W. Gilmore John from Idegon (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your interest in the article and your interesting input, I look forward to the discussions on the article's talkinng page before major editing. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Infoboxes and Modules
Exactly, thank you. My original question wasn't too well phrased. In my draft at User:Gaarmyvet/sandbox#Walter B. Russell Jr. I need to include the {{Infobox military person}} since Russell was a soldier and an elected official; it's the second that gets him a page. Thanks.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 23:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- The issue is that not every infobox template can be used as the secondary one. Actually some don't even have the "module" argument so you can add a secondary template to it. The military one you mentioned does have the module argument, and the one currently on your draft can be embedded as a secondary infobox. In my read of Template:Infobox officeholder, it seems to be saying that if you want to embed, you must use Template: Infobox person.
- To add a secondary infobox, you paste the secondary infobox into the module field in the primary infobox. However, there is one more step. You must add to the secondary infobox (anywhere) the argument |embed=yes.
- It isn't clear whether you can add Infobox Military person to Infobox officeholder. It isn't clear whether you can do the reverse. But you can experiment to see. But I'm certain you can add Template person to template Military person. I hope this helps. Let me know if I can confuse you further :) Merry Christmas, Gaarmyvet John from Idegon (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Blake Ricciardi
Hi John from Idegone. I can't find any better sources which show Blake Ricciardi meeting WP:GNG or WP:BIO. I've also asked about this on the talk pages of each of the Wikiprojects (except for WPAFC) listed on the article's talk page, but so far nobody has responded. So, per the suggestion you made on Oshwah's talk page, I think AfD may be the only option left. It's possible that the "Popular Brand" brand might be Wikipedia notable, and if someday such an article is created then this can be redirected there. At the moment, however, I do not see any other places where this could be redirected or merged. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 December 2017
- Special report: Women in Red World Contest wrap-up
- Featured content: Featured content to finish 2017
- In the media: Stolen seagulls, public domain primates and more
- Arbitration report: Last case of 2017: Mister Wiki editors
- Gallery: Wiki loving
- Recent research: French medical articles have "high rate of veracity"
- Technology report: Your wish lists and more Wikimedia tech
- Traffic report: Notable heroes and bad guys
New Page Reviewing
Hello, John from Idegon.
As one of Wikipedia's most experienced editors, |
New page reviewer granted
Hello John from Idegon. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers
" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.
- URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
- Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
- You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
- Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
- Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- That was quick. Thanks, Tony! John from Idegon (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- I assumed you already had this. I would have given it to you long ago. New school articles are down now since ACTRIAL, but you'll certainly be able to make a dent in the backlog.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello John from Idegon -- I have been battling with Bennett19000, a WP:SPA over what I believe is an WP:NPOV presentation for K12 (company). It's not yet an edit war, but I believe the article would be improved by the intervention of another set of experienced eyes. Would you please look at the article and history? If I need to be smacked, that's fine. Bennett has not responded to entreaties on the article talk page or her talk page. Rhadow (talk) 12:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'll take a look but honestly it's probably not going to be this week. This elf is pretty busy until after Christmas. May all the blessings of Him and His birthday be shared by all you love, Rhadow. John from Idegon (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
"tis the season...."
Hello John from Idegon: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ―Buster7 ☎ 21:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
No fancy template...
John, but just but to wish you happy holidays and all the best for 2018. It's probably a lot warmer where I am than where you are 😎 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Bite me. :-). Just got back from walking to the grocery. Wind chill is about 15°F. Hope and yours have a Merry Christmas and a blessed New year's. John from Idegon (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
Happy Holidays | |
Wishing you a happy holiday season! Time flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC) |
Orphaned non-free image File:Astronaut High School logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Astronaut High School logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello I need help
I am trying my best to fix my family’s Wikipedia pages the category is recanati family I have disclosed my coi to everyone but still they are getting upset many things in the articles where dangerous errors and lies and half truths they sat for many years I would like to check them and make sure they are neutral
I came across this article a small portion involved my family I removed it as it has no sources https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/1983_Israel_bank_stock_crisis the rest of the article is full of inflamtory world about other people can you please look at the article Flamingoflorida (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- Flamingoflorida, I have no interest in helping you or any other editor that is on Wikipedia to promote their own agenda. If it were my decision, you'd be site banned immediately, the IP address you use blocked and every edit you've ever made immediately reverted. You're definitely barking up the wrong tree here, dawg, and I'm strongly advising you not to contact me again. No need to reply. John from Idegon (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Mike Bishop Article
Hello John from Idegon,
I was the one who initially created the content for those sections of the article. I'm the one who took them out. I believe now that what I had written had only come from one source and was not substantiated beyond that. I don't believe the content is useful as objective fact if it relies solely on one person's opinion, outside of other documents providing objective evidence.
The references provided come from only source, journalist Jack Lessenberry. I think that's too little to go on for everything I wrote in those two sections.
--The Invisible Walrus (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, Spiteria. Edit summaries are a good thing. Please use them. On some level I agree with you, the sources seem rather "opinionated". However, I do find it bothersome that you feel since you originally added the content, that gives you the right to remove it. It doesn't. It's been in the article a while and no one else objected to it, so I'd appreciate it if you'd post a short bit on the talk page, describing your doubt about the sourcing. I won't object and if no one else does, feel free to remove it after a week or so. Thanks and Merry Christmas! John from Idegon (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Articles for Creation Reviewing
Hello, John from Idegon.
I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. |
- Thanks, but I already am. I don't do much reviewing, as paid editing tends to piss me off and there is way too much of it at AfC, but I do use my tolls to deny poor, usually paid, articles that come to my attention at Teahouse and to approve others that I've worked with the editors on from their questions at Teahouse. Take care, and have a great 018. John from Idegon (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry. I know the feeling. AfC needs some new blood who aren't jaded by the whole thing, so I'm sending out some invites. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Joseph Tabbi article
Hi John. Happy to flesh out the Tabbi page, and I appreciate your feedback and links. Thanks for the welcome, and Happy New Year to you as well! Sundrium (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the eyes on that one. I first removed some of that material more than two years ago, so it's probably the same editor. Meters (talk) 05:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- The controversy crap is a total no go. Reminds me of Jackson High School (Michigan). I'm working on wikifying the article right now. John from Idegon (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi John, I wanted to let you know that I have removed the BLPROD from this article. I found a reasonably good reference on google books that may establish some notability. As the subject died in 1995, he would not have been in scope of BLPROD. If you believe he lacks notability, please feel free to AfD. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jake. I've unreviewed it so another editor can take a look and see. John from Idegon (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
RV/MH Hall of Fame wikilink in Elkhart, Indiana article
I don't see any reason why the RVHOF reference should be removed from the Elkhart article. The hall of fame is located less than two miles from city limits, it falls within the Elkhart metro area, is right on the line of the Elkhart urban area, it's at a highway interchange called "Elkhart East", it has an Elkhart street address/zip code, the website of the hall itself states on one of its webpages "Today, the [RV/MH Heritage] Foundation maintains the national RV/MH Hall of Fame, Museum, Library and Conference Center at its headquarters in Elkhart, Indiana", and, most importantly, it relates to the content in the article section. Removing that would be akin to removing mention of the Cincinnati airport from Transportation in Cincinnati because it's in Kentucky. For that matter, the sentence before the one in question mentions completely different towns than Elkhart. The only contention was the actual location (which, BTW, is still ambiguous on the RVHOF article, infobox vs. body), and I addressed that in my compromise edit. Mapsax (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- The entire article reads like a guidebook. I'd not object to including the museum in the county article. And yes the sentence prior to that is crap too. However the presence of a turd in the living room in no way suggests the solution is to go out in the yard and bring more in the house. John from Idegon (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- There's WP:NOTTRAVEL but then there's giving an essence of the subject. Elkhart was essentially built on musical instruments and recreational vehicles, as the article says, and I believe that one of the best ways to back that up with notability is by mentioning Conn-Selmer and the RVHOF respectively, both of which have WP articles – you could argue WP:OTHERSTUFF but those articles don't ever seem to have had contention. It's just the respective locations that seem to be the problem, but note that Conn-Selmer is just barely within city limits itself: 100 feet or so according to Google Maps. The fact that the industries that define the city happen to fall on its outskirts now are just an offshoot of the fact that Elkhart never really grew enough to encompass its surrounding area, but that shouldn't be a deterrent, provided clarification is given. Mapsax (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- The entire article reads like a guidebook. I'd not object to including the museum in the county article. And yes the sentence prior to that is crap too. However the presence of a turd in the living room in no way suggests the solution is to go out in the yard and bring more in the house. John from Idegon (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I've BOLD-ly redirected it to J. E. B. Stuart High School, which is how it was when I originally created it. If I'm reverted, let's take it to the merge discussion on the talk page rather than PROD or AFD, since I think we both agree a redirect is more appopriate than outright deletion. Also, you probably should have notified BRJ Advocate, who created the actual article content (as opposed to just the redirect), but as I effectively de-PRODded it with the redirect, it's a moot point now. Smartyllama (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- This should be fun. It's always fun dealing with a user whose name indicates a position on the article. John from Idegon (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
You mentioned that my edits "were not an improvement", which is debatable, but what is not debatable is blatantly undoing EVERYTHING i added.
I performed a major edit with updates to the academic programs offered, the style of the article, and the addition of citations to building information.
I'm particularly upset about the building information, as I added specific details one would only find through 1930s Arsenal material.
Frannkly, blatantly undoing everything without even reading to see what was worth keeping and what is not is a serious violation of the Wikipedia spirit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medinites (talk • contribs) 17:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- I love how someone who has been here a day comes here and lectures me who has been here 6 years on "the Wikipedia spirit". Don't worry, you're not the first. See WP:BRD. Follow its guidance. You made a bold edit (which is not gone, ye who knows so much about the spirit of Wikipedia....it's stored in the history of the article), which I reverted. Now go start a discussion on the article talk page about it like you should. You wouldn't know that as you have only been here a day and that was the only edit you've ever made, but now you do. I'd suggest before you dig too deeply into discussion, however, that you actually learn how Wikipedia works. Factors involved in the removal include WP:RS, WP:OR and the guidelines for school articles found at WP:SCH/AG. Getting pissed off will not help you. Every edit on Wikipedia is peer reviewed. If another editor finds fault with your work, it will get removed. That is how Wikipedia works. When it is removed, you start a rational discussion on the article's talk page, taking one piece at a time and defend it by discussing the sources you have and the policies that support its inclusion. Doing things incrementally is usually much easier, but again, you not having experience here, you didn't realize that. Please start with the most important pieces, probably history. Again, getting offended is not helpful. Did it cross your mind that the individual who laid the article out as it was (and is now after your changes were removed) may think the way they did it was great? Are they at your talk page screaming disruption at you? We are both here to build a better encyclopedia. Please start a discussion at the talk page after you have calmed down and read up some on how Wikipedia really works. Thanks. I hope you had a Merry Christmas and wish you a blessed 2018. Thanks, Medinites. John from Idegon (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
New Years new page backlog drive
Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!
We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!
The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.
Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:
- The total number of reviews completed for the month.
- The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.
NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)