Jump to content

User talk:John from Idegon/Archive 93

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 90Archive 91Archive 92Archive 93Archive 94Archive 95→Archive 97

Editor of the Week

Thank you all. This is my reward for not paying enough attention to EOW. I've refused this more than once. John from Idegon (talk) 15: 25, 4November 2019(UTC)

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.

Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your steadfast and prolific editing. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:MelanieN submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate John from Idegon as Editor of the Week. He remarkably has made over 96,000 edits, steadily active since 2012 and averaging 35 edits per day. He is active as a new page reviewer and at the Wikipedia Teahouse. He is a long serving member at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools and was a major participant at the creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention. I often see him around Wikipedia, making helpful edits at school articles (with more experience on US school articles than probably any other WP editor) or reporting problems with new pages. I always get a chuckle out of his clever name - combining Idaho and Oregon. One of WP's most active editors (#617 on the list of Wikipedians by number of edits), John has had many years of high quality contributions, with varied interests and pursuits. His diplomatic ability has been honed on the talk pages of hundreds of articles, and in pursuit of creating a healthy workplace for fellow editors. I feel it is high time for him to be recognized for his outstanding contributions here.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: 

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}
John from Idegon
 
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning November 3, 2019
96,000 edits since 2012. Active new page reviewer and Wikipedia Teahouse host. A long serving member at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools and Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention. Has more experience on US school articles than probably any other WP editor). One of WP's most active editors (#617). Diplomatically pursues a healthy workplace for fellow editors.
Recognized for
many years of high quality contributions, with varied interests and pursuits.
Notable work
Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools
Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 12:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations! Absolutely well deserved. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree! Congratulations! - Donald Albury 15:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Three cheers. Well deserved and hard earned. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Four cheers. So well deserved for your many years of work here at the 'pedia. MarnetteD|Talk 15:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Well deserved. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Congrats. Cheers! Archer1234 (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Let me just squeeze into line and say "I knew him when" he was GTWFan57. I could tell then that he would be a Star> ―Buster7 ☎ 20:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

And my congrats too. Well done. Meters (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations John. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes yes yes, pleased to see John receive the EoTW, definitely well deserved — John nominated me for this last year and I'll always be grateful Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I'd never heard of editor of the week, but I'm glad it exists and that you have been recognized! You have done so much good work for a long time. I would not be editing this encyclopedia if not for your help. Thanks for all you do! Jacona (talk) 13:36, 4 November 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.

Talk:Fredericton High School

If you are able to comment on a content dispute at Talk:Fredericton High School I'd appreciate it. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Andalusia, Alabama Pix

How many pictures in an article do you consider excessive ? This is the debatable point. Please let me know.DJ Jones74 (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

It isn't up to me to do shit but respond to your arguments on the article talk page as to why any piece of your huge change should be included. Don't post here again, but do start a discussion on the article talk page. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I consider your talk offensive and harassment. Don't contact me again.DJ Jones74 (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
That's fine. Doesn't mean I won't continue to revert your out of policy additions. I just won't notify you. I love people who have very little understanding of Wikipedia who decide to be offended when confronted with their errors. Your ignorance is your problem not mine. John from Idegon (talk)

High schools and notability

Hi there - wanted to come and ask you a question as I’m just starting as an editor and wanted to clarify a point - hope you don’t mind.

RE: Carihi Secondary School and Hazel Wolf High School - was my error that the schools are in fact notable, or that the PROD process was the wrong route? Would an AfD discussion have been a better process to start?

I’m trying to specialise as an editor on the notability / obsolete information backlogs so any advice would be greatly appreciated. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cardiffbear88: I can't speak for John, and he has been aware of these issues for longer than I have, so is likely to have a more nuanced view than I do. Anyway, here are my thoughts ...
There used to be a consensus or agreement, or something of that nature, that secondary schools should generally be considered notable "automatically", and primary and elementary schools should generally be redirected to the article about their school district or similar authority. I believe this practice may have expired or been overturned in some manner. There is a lot more information at WP:WPSCHOOLS, and I think queries on its talkpage WT:WPSCHOOLS are normally quickly answered.
PROD is for uncontroversial deletions. Therefore, your PROD being overturned is not always because you are in error, it is often because someone else considers the proposed deletion to be controversial. Given the previous arrangement mentioned above, it is not surprising that deleting an article about a high school might raise concerns or objections.
There is the further point that your PROD rationale for Hazel Wolf High School was plainly erroneous -- the article in its state at that time did indeed have secondary sourcing, limited as it was.
If you're really sure that a topic is not notable according to Wikipedia standards, then the correct approach to having a PROD declined is to raise an AfD explaining why the topic is not notable. Reading WP:BEFORE and related material is a good way to check whether you are really sure. As for raising an AfD instead of using a PROD to begin with, yes if you are really sure then that might be a better way, but it can't hurt too much to try PROD first. MPS1992 (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
@Cardiffbear88: I would add that there is nothing "wrong" with having a PROD declined, as can be seen from the notice immediately below this ... it is an everyday thing. MPS1992 (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Cardiffbear88, MPS1992, I've been active here for 8 years, and I recall at least three RfCs on school notability. None have straight out said there isn't some level of inherent notability for schools. Also, none have straight out said there is. The best indicator we have on whether or not schools have inherent notability is what we've always done at AfD, that being we keep secondary diploma-granting schools (high schools) and we redirect lower schools. Now for why...First, Wikipedia is supposed to be a gazetteer. High schools are almost always prominent enough institutions (and generally structures also) to be included in a gazetteer. Second, there's always been a presumption that the end of Google comes well before the end of information. Local sources that discuss the local schools almost certainly exist. Third, at least in the largest countries, there are central primary sources for a wealth of information that can be used to build an article. And a final, non policy based reason: editing one's school's article is one of the most common gateways into Wikipedia editing. John from Idegon (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • John from Idegon, MPS1992 - thanks for the advice, I will certainly bear this in mind (and not rush to PROD a school again!). I didn’t realise there had been quite so much discussion around schools and notability in the past, will go and check this out before getting too deep into this again...Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Deprod: Jeremiah Rivers

Hello, I have deprodded Jeremiah Rivers because I think that his playing in a fully professional league (admittedly not one that's listed in WP:NHOOPS) makes for a borderline case for notability. At the minimum, I think that this should undergo a community discussion before being deleted. Thanks. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia has ranked me the 14,376th best editor!

Hey there. I'd like your opinion about something (and the many watchers of your talk page). I so often see on city articles stuff like "XYZ Magazine ranked this town the 58th best place to catch a fish", or something like that. Have a look at the lead on Trussville, Alabama. The Canadians formed a rough consensus against inclusion of these rankings (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian communities#Are city rankings published by magazines, newspapers, etc. appropriate/encyclopedic?), and I'm wondering if US articles would benefit from a similar consensus (much like this one). Would an RfC be the best route? Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it would. If you've never done a policy RfC before (I haven't), I'd suggest getting some help. Tony Baloni has a great rep as far as RfCs go, but he's really busy IRL at the moment. Perhaps he could reccomend someone, or maybe some of my watchers might have a suggestion.
I'd support banning, but that won't fly. But perhaps limiting content to "First" only, and limit the polls to only those that are notable (are there any?). Not from a notable publication but where the poll itself is notable (like Fortune 500). That's my twopence. John from Idegon (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Maybe only recent "firsts" as well. Some of the rankings are pretty dated. Thanks for the lead. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Re: November 2019

Then we've got different opinions of what unconstructive. 95.233.84.46 (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Michael C. Taylor

He's the mayor of a city of over 100,000. I would !vote to keep it if this were at WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Not a big fan of hard lines. The mayor of any community with city manager government is pretty secondary in the first place; a city with only marginally more than 100k as an inner ring suburb of a major city is even less likely to be an important addition. If you want to remove it, I'll think on it a bit prior to AfD. Not sure why you just didn't do that in the first place. John from Idegon (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Your perhaps unintentional contribution...

... has been duly memorialized [1]. EEng 06:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Why was Yung Pinch removed from notable alumni from Marina High School? Can I improve it?

Hello John! I see that you removed Yung Pinch (Blake Sandoval) from the Marina High School notable alumni page. Is this because he is not considered notable, needs a Wikipedia page, or I need to use his real name instead of his stage name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NT1036 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In general, any list of notable persons in Wikipedia, such as a list of notable alumni, is restricted to persons who meet the requirements of the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Many editors feel that the existence in Wikipedia of an article about that person is required to include the person in a list of notables. So, start an article about the person, citing independent reliable sources that demonstrate that the person does meet the criteria of the notability guideline. - Donald Albury 02:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hillel Day School ‎Heads of School: lists of nn people have been deprecated in school articles?

Please discuss content disputes on the appropriate article talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

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 from Idegon, and thank you for reviewing my write-up!

First, fully agree with your removal of certain NN alumni based on "no wikilink, no reference no entry" - THANKS.

But removal of Heads of School section? You see, I based the structure of this article on the WikiProject advice page https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Article_guidelines#Other_sections which recommended the following sections among others:

  • Notable alumni,
  • Notable teachers/faculty/staff,
  • Former headteachers/principals.

The point is, the people mentioned in the first two sections had to be notable (e.g., have their own wikilink); but "Former headteachers/principals" don't have a notability requirement.

Has this guidance on "Former headteachers/principals" been deprecated? If so, can you point me to more current guidance?

If the guidance on "Former headteachers/principals" still stands, please reinstate the section that you deleted from Hillel Day School.

Best regards, Yymmff (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not remembering exactly where that discussion was, but it would have been either WT:SCH or WT:WPSCH/AG. John from Idegon (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
@John from Idegon:, I found that discussion complaint at WT:WPSCH/AG#Oswestry School: an outside view is needed here, please where Moonraker said "There is a determined editor ... who ... insist[ed] on removing a list of the headmasters," etc. I couldn't find the discussion between Moonraker and his (or her) oppenent, I just see that in the end, Moonraker added the list of headmasters to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Oswestry_School#List_of_headmasters for preservation purposes. However, I don't see how this incident changes the guidance https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Article_guidelines#Other_sections which recommends the section "Former headteachers/principals" without imposing any notability requirement on those former school heads. Last but not the least, two out of eight WP:WPSCHOOLS#Featured articles enumerate the schools' former heads without wikilinks: see Baltimore City College#Principals and History of Baltimore City College#Principals. (I know, I know - two articles about the same entity, yet, two distinct articles on the school project's featured articles list.) Then there are quite a few WP:WPSCHOOLS#Good articles that list the schools' former heads without wikilinks: see Barnard Castle School#Headmasters, Carre's Grammar School#Headmasters, City of London School#Headmasters, Elizabeth College, Guernsey#Principals. Best regards, Yymmff (talk) 01:51, 19 November 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.

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Revert?

Hi, just curious why you reverted me here and restored a red link to a high school student? I assume a slip but want to make sure I'm not missing something... Praxidicae (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

No, you didn't miss anything except I need a cup of tea. Sorry foy the troubles. John from Idegon (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
No worries! Hope you get your tea. :) Praxidicae (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Raleigh Academy content deleted

Hi John from Idegeon, I'm responding to a message you sent me about some content I had posted about Raleigh Academy on the Raleigh, North Carolina page under 19th century history. That content was removed yesterday by another editor, who informed me she believed that 1) I was possibly a robot and 2) that I was posting self-published material. The message you sent me states that you believe I may be a paid editor or financially compensated in some way to post on Wikipedia. Not so. I'm new to Wikipedia and just created an account today. Not a robot at all--I'm a historian who has recently retired from full time work and thought I'd make a contribution to Wikipedia. I did enter some information that is not "self published" as defined by Wikipedia, it was published by the University of North Carolina Press, and I am the author. I thought it would be great to put an interesting bit of women's history there and that readers would be interested. I did look up the Wikipedia policy on "self citing" and I do see that it states an author can cite his or her published work if it is published by a reliable source but that the author should generally avoid excessive self citing and be sure to cite a wide variety of researchers. I will do this going forward. Kfhtoll (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)kfhtoll

Bushwackers Drum and Bugle Corps Revision Deletion

Hello John from Idegon, I appreciate your concern about this article, however, I don't think it is fair for the revision I made to be deleted. When I looked for this article today and found it was deleted I was confused and soon found myself at the deletion log. After reading the deletion log I decided that I would request for undeletion so I could attempt to improve to article by providing more proof of notability. As suggested to me by C.Fred on the request for undeletion page, "@MartiniHoff: Make sure that you assert that the corps is notable; otherwise, it could be nominated for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)" I had tried to add a source as the one source currently listed is to a website that has moved. When I was trying to follow the advice I was given, it was removed instantly which I find to be very unfair. - MartiniHoff (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @MartiniHoff: Since the article is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bushwackers Drum and Bugle Corps, the best place for you try and establish a consensus to keep it will be on that page since that where things are ultimately going to be decided. Before you do post there though, you might want to take a look at WP:AFD#Contributing to AfD discussions and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and then Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) since that what's primarily going to be discussed. AfD discussions can sometimes be hard to follow, particularly if you're not very familiar with things Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
MartiniHoff, the place to discuss keeping the article is at the AfD discussion my colleague has directed you to. You've got a lot to learn about how Wikipedia works, so please read the links he gave you. None of the reasons you mentioned at undeletion are valid reasons for a Wikipedia article to exist. Please don't waste other editor's time by making them again at AfD. For an article that was deleted via WP:PROD, no reason is required for undeletion, so please don't put any weight on the fact that the article was undeleted. The only reasons it wouldn't be is if it were libelous or a copyright infringement. John from Idegon (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Spearfish

I disagree with your logic because we cannot be making judgments as to why some city is warmer than another; we can only say that it is. Now, both your version of the sentence and mine are correct, because they are simple statemnts of fact, but mine is more precise. —Soap— 15:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Vandegrift HS

I don't know what to do. This page is completely out of date and inaccurate.

Hi, Dustyperiwinkle. First, messages posted on talk pages need to be signed by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. This will automatically add your usrrname, a link to your talk page and a timestamp. You do not use the tildes in article edits, just tallk pages.
Second, I totally agree that article needs work. The thing you're going to need to understand is that this is an encyclopedia, not a blog or social media. Content for Wikipedia articles is paraphrased from reliable secondary sources. That means that what you "know" is irrelevant as far as our content goes. Information added here has to be paraphrased from reliable sources, not based on your knowledge or for the most part, not based on information supplied by the school or the district. You cannot break Wikipedia. Just WP:BEBOLD, with the knowledge beforehand that if someone has a problem with it, they will remove it. Then you engage that editor in discussion on the article talk page and attempt to gain consensus for your change. See WP:BRD. I'm here to help if you need it. Editing Wikipedia might not be what you thought it was but it's fun, and educational. John from Idegon (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Kohelet Yeshiva High School

Hi! I see your history and respect your knowledge. I don't do "edit wars" so you can set that fear aside. I do not understand your edits or your edit notes to Kohelet Yeshiva High School. I removed the dead links and links to the school's own pages. I cited current references with live links. I improved the copy. The article (was) more accurate, cleaner, and has current references. I'm asking a serious question. Your revisions of my edits seem to have made the page a bit worse - not better. Thanks so much! Very kind regards. PHILA19147 (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)PHILA19147

From Keith Vincelette- Managing Broker- Coldwell Banker Faith Properties- Utica and Rome NY

John from Idegon, I see you reverted the edits I made to the Utica NY Wiki page. Let me explain. Utica has traditionally been split into four sections. I know this because the owner of my company, John C. Brown, whose family has been here since 1821, told me so, as well as seeing that there are long held member clubs for all four areas. Also, for many years, the local real estate market has divided Utica into four sections, which have been unchallenged by the local historians, populace, etc. for the decades that the maps have been in use (back to 1954 at least because the Thruway is not shown on the maps). In your Neighborhoods section, you mention East Utica and West Utica, but don't mention South Utica (the area south of Burrstone road/ Memorial Parkway) and North Utica, (which is traditionally the section north of where the Thruway is now). My reasons for wanting these mentioned are simple. First, they are traditional areas of the city. They are known and agreed upon macro-neighbiorhoods. Second, The powers that be concerning Multiple Listing Service listing areas only allow areas that are mentioned on the city's Wikipedia page to be included in searches. This is because about a year ago jurisdiction of areas in this area was given to the Syracuse MLS Board. Before this there was no question as to the four city areas. I know this definition-giving by people from another city is strange but that is the way it is. So right now people are able to just search Utica in general. Besides being a handicap for local realtors (I know, poor us) it is a larger handicap for the public. They literally have to go through every listing in the entire city to get what they want. As I said, these maps were made long ago by local people according to local custom and, again, for decades they were the norm, and people were used to them. This is why I added the phrases: "North Utica is the area North of the Thruway (Route 90)". "Finally, South Utica, which borders New Hartford, is south of Burrstone Roand and the Memorial Parkway". Could we please add these sentences back in? The important fact, as all locals know, is that these are actual, well known areas of the City of Utica and the neighborhoods arcticle does not currently reflect this. The ethnic groups I added are just a fact. But the addition of these was not my primary goal in editing. Please advise. Keith V.216.171.185.166 (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC) Here is a recent reference to South Utica in the local paper- The Observer Dispatch:

[SAMANTHA MADISON / OBSERVER-DISPATCH] By Samantha Madison Posted Jun 5, 2019 at 9:25 PM Updated Jun 5, 2019 at 9:43 PM

UTICA — Residents of South Utica flocked to Wednesday’s Common Council meeting to express their frustration that they had only just heard about an apartment complex being built in their neighborhood.

Also, a link to Zillow's North Utica listings. As you can see they are all above the Thruway. How they got it right with the MLS being wrong I don't know. Lastly, I am just trying to contact you about this, but am baffled by the instructions in Wikipedia to do this. Not the simplest format. So if this goes public, my apologies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.171.185.166 (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

This is very interesting historical information, although the original city has an even longer and more interesting history. MPS1992 (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
As it says in red letters at the top this page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~ - Donald Albury 20:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_from_Idegon/Archive_93&oldid=933877672"