User talk:John from Idegon/Archive 43

Need some help; not sure how to proceed
I've come across some problem editing that I'm not sure how to deal with and I'd like a second set of eyes on it, along with some thoughts on how to proceed. An editor has been adding content to the history and demographic sections of American communities that appears to be totally bogus, or at best, contains only a kernel of truth. Many of the edits consist of a canned paragraph about the settlement and pervasive influence of Yankees in Midwestern communities. (See and, for example.) The edits each contain a source, although a different one for each edit/community, even when the edits are identical. Usually the source is an old state or local history book. Usually there is no link to the book, although it can be readily found in Google Books. When I've checked the page numbers in the citations against the GB books, I don't find anything remotely supporting the paragraph inserted. In addition to the canned edits, other questionable edits to demographic sections of community articles (e.g., ) and to biographical articles all emphasize a pervasive English/Yankee influence.

This has been going on for many months. I noticed it quite some time ago, and at the time tried to remove one of the edits, but was out-edit warred by the editor in question (see: . Recently I've been able to make several deletions of content that was added months ago:, , . Still, I don't know how many articles have had some sort of English/Yankee-biased content added by this editor. A complication is that the editor appears to have been making edits under several registered and unregistered accounts: , , , , , , , , , ,. There are likely to be other accounts, as well, but I haven't made an effort to find them. I've begun to try to find them.

I'm not sure what to do. Reverting the edits is only a short-term solution, as it appears that this editor is on a mission. Reporting it is a possibility, but no one ever listens to an IP. Then there's the question of where to report it: WP:AN/I? WP:SPI? WP:NORN? WP:NPOVN?

I'd certainly appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

tldr: 32.218.43.175 (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Bogus (biased?) information is being inserted into American community and biographical articles.
 * The editor making the edits is using several registered and unregistered accounts.
 * I haven't identified all the accounts making the edits or all the articles in which the edits have been made.
 * Attempts to stop this editing activity have been largely unsuccessful.
 * Not sure how to proceed.
 * To the IP user: I've invited an admin to review this. Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 09:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I looked over a lot of the edits made by two of the IP addresses associated with these edits. The assertions made by 32.218.43.175 seem pretty accurate at first glance.  Magnolia677 (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank God for people who watch my talk page! I have not had a chance to look but I will. Seems to be moving forward tho. John from Idegon (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a note to add that the IP user has indicated that he/she has a dynamic IP address, and commented on my talk page from 32.218.43.89. Additional comments about this issue may be from different IP addresses. Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 09:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks,. FYI, I'm quite familiar with 32.218. He is actually a very prolific settlement article editor, specializing in articles on Wisconsin. For whatever reason, he chooses not to register, and I respect his decision and afford him the same treatment as a registered editor. (As we all should all IP editors but usually don't). John from Idegon (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * (Yeah, there's some additional commentary about that on my talk page as well. As I indicated there, I'm all for IP users making positive contributions to the encyclopedia.)
 * The more important question is in regard to the issue being raised here. Any one of these edits, standing alone, would likely pass muster with Cluebot or any page watcher who is watching just one or two of the pages.  At a glance, the info appears to be sourced (even though it won't pass a deeper review, most people don't verify info with the sources), and it sounds scholarly; that is, it sounds like something that, if true, would be documented in a historical text.
 * The more important question is in regard to the issue being raised here. Any one of these edits, standing alone, would likely pass muster with Cluebot or any page watcher who is watching just one or two of the pages.  At a glance, the info appears to be sourced (even though it won't pass a deeper review, most people don't verify info with the sources), and it sounds scholarly; that is, it sounds like something that, if true, would be documented in a historical text.


 * I think the first step is to formulate a strategy to systematically investigate the issue. John, would you be willing to host a sub-page where we can collaborate on this issue?  If so, do you know how to create one?  I'm thinking of something like a mini project page where we can outline what needs to be done, what has been done, which articles have been found, etc.  At the end, we can involve  (creator of Cluebot) and/or initiate an SPI, as appropriate. Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 18:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not going to be able to offer much but yea, I can handle giving us a work space. User:John from Idegon/Yankee.  John from Idegon (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you John for making that. Here's the link, let's continue this there. Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 04:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Houston Christian High School logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Houston Christian High School logo.jpg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Wichita Falls, Texas
In reverting my last edit, you removed virtually the only properly sourced passages in that section. I requested page protection, and have started discussion at the article's talk page. Thank you for the edit warring notice. Consider me done with the subject. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B169:DAFB:E15A:DBC4 (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It takes two to edit war. I also posted the same notice on the other party's talk. Since you are both IP editors, I cannot know you are seeing your talk, so I needed to make an edit to get both your attention. At this point, the content dispute is not the problem. You did the right thing by posting to the talk page, but yet you continued reverting. The edit warring is the problem. A lot of this could be avoided if you would simply register.... John from Idegon (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If we're observing the guidelines of the website, then I'd be on solid ground to template you for removing sourced content, but doing so would look pointy. And no, my editing as an IP has no bearing on the matter; the implication is that I'd be cut more slack as a registered account. I bit my lip before reverting the (multiple) IPs, because I know they're editing in good faith, and are likely adding content that indeed derives from their, or their relative's publications. But none of it has been properly sourced, and there's a tangle of WP:COI issues involved with the implied self-sourcing and repeated addition of the author's name to the notables section. I'm sure you're aware of all this, which enhances my disappointment. Best of luck, 2601:188:0:ABE6:B169:DAFB:E15A:DBC4 (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And now the article is semi protected. I removed all the content on historical railroads from the transportation section as it is for information on contemporary transportation per guidelines. Anything in the stuff you added might be worked into the history section, but really, the article is on the city. The only parts of the stuff either of you added that actually belong in this article are things that relate directly to the city. Shops, stations, terminals, interesting relevant and well referenced trivia. The rest? Well, that's why we have wikilinks. John from Idegon (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * John, I see only two edits from this IP, and they're very different ones--one to remove unsourced content, one to restore sourced content. The other IP is the one who keeps removing sourced information and adding unsourced information (which was removed also by, so the template for this IP was a bit hasty. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Want sources?

Fort Worth & Denver Color Pictorial by Steve Allen Goen (1996)

Texas & Pacific Color Pictorial by Steve Allen Goen (1997)

Cotton Belt Color Pictorial by Steve Allen Goen (1998)

Kansas City Color Pictorial by Steve Allen Goen (1999)

Santa Fe in the Lone Star State by Steve Allen Goen (2000)

Down South on the Rock Island by Steve Allen Goen (2002)

Texas & New Orleans by Steve Allen Goen (2004)

Miss Katy in the Lone Star State by Steve Allen Goen (2006)

Source-all eight published by Four Ways West Publishing, copyrights on file at Library of Congress

Guest speaker at the George Bush Presidential Library twice (source, Robert Holzweiss, curator of the Bush Library)

Guest speaker at the Cotton Belt Railroad Symposium at Texas A&M-Commerce (see their website, source Dr. Jason Davis at TAMUC)

Author of "Zephyr, a Crown in Wichita Falls History" by Steve Allen Goen (source, Times Record News)

Instead of deleting everything why don't you try looking him up? Or would that take to long? His books are listed as either references or in the bibliography of just about every Texas railroad that Wikapedia has posted. If others are referencing him then how is he not notible? Want to try answering that?

Katy Goen Wichita Falls, TX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.205.10 (talk) 07:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , I strongly suggest you register as an editor. Your IP address changes frequently and makes communicating with you difficult. Just click the login tab and follow the prompts. I'm quite familiar with your father's work, having been a railfan for many years. You are making a common mistake for a new editor, that being not understanding what an encyclopedia is and particularly what Wikipedia is. Our motto may be "The encyclopedia anyone can edit", but it would be much more accurate if it were "The encyclopedia anyone may edit." There are many many policies and guidelines you have to understand if you are going to make edits that stick. When you register, you will have a personal talk page like this where people can communicate with you and help you succeed.
 * An encyclopedia is a tertiary source. That is to say that every single piece of info in an encyclopedia must come from an already published source. Not everything needs to be referenced, unless you are writing about a living person, which you are. When writing about living people, you must provide references, and those sources must be both reliable, and independent of the subject. The linked standard for reliability above primarily deals with the reputation and policies of the source for fact checking. It therefore excludes most web content. The requirement for independence eliminates sourcing info on your dad to his books or his publisher for everything but the most mundane, uncontroversial facts (such as verifying he lives in Witchita Falls.)
 * The other areas where your edits have been problematic are based on the difference between your understanding of what notability is and Wikipedia's definition of notability. Notability is simply what we call our standard for having an article on Wikipedia. It is called that because its basis is what has been written (or made note of) about any given subject. The standard for inclusion in a list of notable people is the same as the standard for having an article. Best advice would be to figure out what you will need to create an article on him (the applicible standard for authors, which is your father's primary notability, is at WP:NAUTHOR. The general requirements for a biography are at WP:BIO) and do so. I seem to recall a fairly extensive write up on your dad in Trains. That would be the place to start. Simply being an author does not make a person notable. Being written up in a reliable source such as a newspaper, magazine, book or academic journal is what makes for notability. Register please. I can point you to tutorials and forums where you can get help. I will be happy to collaborate with you. But we need to be able to communicate effectively. Thanks, and good luck. Happy editing. John from Idegon (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The Center Line: Summer 2015

 * —MediaWiki message delivery (talk) delivered on behalf of Imzadi1979 05:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Whitmore Lake Secondary School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tri-County Conference. 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) 10:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Cape Coral HS
Those numbers are so far off from the source that they're vandalism. Every one was changed to a completely inaccurate number. The source says the school is 10% black, not 63%, as one example. Did you even view the source? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit summary
Regarding this edit summary you wrote, I fully understand that admins do not "approve" content. I could've simply removed the content unilaterally since, in my opinion, it is clearly not enyclopedic (per relevant policies or guidelines). It's a lot of unimportant, random, unsourced and/or original research content. However, instead of simply removing any or all of it, I chose to first get feedback from the coordinator of the all the school articles to see if I was on base or completely wrong. Keep in mind that most removal of content from articles is done with no discussion and certainly no consensus. That's normally done after a legitimate objection is raised. To me, much of the removed content clearly doesn't belong and almost certainly was inserted by students, alumni, employees, or others associated with the school, as speculated by other editors as well. In any case, I just wanted to address that my edit was not at all based on someone's "approval" but rather on the fact that the content wasn't encylopedic. The coordinator's input simply reinforced what I already thought. However, I anticipated initially that he could simply tell me that all the content was perfectly appropriate. Had he done so, I would not have removed any of it. Lootbrewed (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Whereas I understand your actions, they were completely incorrect. It is fine to educate yourself by asking questions. To take the answers you got as justification to make an edit isn't. It is tantamount to asking your doctor health related questions and using the answers to diagnose someone else's malady. That person needs to see a doctor. Period. You need to make arguements, perhaps informed by the info you got, at the article's talk page to gain consensus. Period. What  said on his talk page is irrelevant up to the time he inserts himself into the discussion on the article's talk page. I happen to agree with much of what you are trying to do, but absolutely do not have time for all this drama. I'm out.
 * One last thing: making bold edits is how change happens here. Take some advice from someone who radically changes school articles all the time. Look at the talk page first. If they are huge like the one on the article we are discussing, make small incremental changes so you can get consensus for your changes one at a time. Now, you got a great big pile of poo, and it is going to be hard to find support for your position. The talk page has become a cespool that is almost certainly going to end up at mediation if not ANI. John from Idegon (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, at least you agree with much of what I'm trying to do. Haha, that's good to hear. I have to disagree, however, with your doctor analogy. The doctor in this case was Tedder. And he's a specialist, board-certified in WikiProject Schools articles. Dr. Tedder thoroughly examined the patient, the St. Paul's School article, from head to toe; he read every word of the article. Then, he gave his diagnosis and clear, detailed recommendations on how to cure the patient of its disease (non-encylopedic content). The patient is now very sick again, so I'm glad to hear that you are "someone who radically changes school articles all the time". Help to save this patient. Haha. Have a good evening. Lootbrewed (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I know who tedder is and you are still wrong. He made those comments as a critique of the article, not in response to any comments made in the discussion. His comments are not part of the formation of any consensus. Can't speak for him, but I'll bet it was not his intentions for them to be used in that manner. He was only commenting on the state of the article viz the guidelines, which are just that. Guidelines are useful in deciding content, but they do not overrule consensus. Perhaps they should, but that is a different discussion. As I said before, I have no intention of getting involved in this bout, so I'll thank you not to post any more about it here. You are welcome to enquire on other matters anytime. Happy editing. John from Idegon (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia
Hey John my name is Sanjev and I am a new editor at Wikipedia. I saw you're replies to me on magnolia677's talk page and I see you're an experienced editor. Could you possibly point in the right direction as to where new Wikipedians can learn more about how to edit and improve articles (i.e citiations, references, notability guidelines) I heard there's a mentoring forum on Wikipedia but I can't seem to find it. All the best --Sanjev Rajaram (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, . You're miles ahead of many new editors. At least you know how to sign your name. I'll leave you a link to the Teahouse, a Q&A forum for new editors, on your talk page. There is also The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive learning game and a new one on one mentorship program that I cannot for the life of me remember the name attached to it. If that interests you, ask at the Teahouse. John from Idegon (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you John from Idegon. Have a pleasant day. --Sanjev Rajaram (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Clear list of what leagues qualify one for notability under WP:NFOOTY
The page WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues has a very clear list. Also known as WP:FPL. Nfitz (talk) 04:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's also linked from Notability (sports). Number   5  7  20:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I have a question
Can u help Jasonlentz1981 (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for stopping by the AfD discussion regarding the Claycord.com article. I really appreciate it.

WP:ATD is tagged as a WP policy, not as a guideline.

I tried to keep the discussion dry and neutral.

Thanks again for checking in. I hope you can do some research and help save the article.

Checkingfax (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Duke Ellington School of the Arts, formerly Western High School
Hello John from Idegon, regarding the request for verification, on notable alumni, I find this, where Marja Vallila is mentioned, as well as the BadEmails. doc - Western High School on this search .Please let me know--DDupard (talk) 08:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the newsletter would suffice. John from Idegon (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Wood Dale
Thanks for the recognition. I originally came here in a freak out about how you reverted my edit and then thankfully realized my mistake. That would've been awkward. Question, what project are you on that cares about a small town so far away from where you're at? I'm just curious.


 * First, please remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes.


 * Second, I may be way out here now but I grew up in NW Indiana and lived most of my life around Kalamazoo, Michigan. I belong to several wikiprojects concerned with places, most notably Indiana, Michigan, Chicago, Idaho and Oregon. I also edit US high school articles extensively. I like schools and places because what does and doesn't go in those articles is rather well defined and that leads to fewer talk page skirmishes. The guideline for US settlements is found at WP:USCITY. Hope that at least partially answers your question. The specific answer would be "beat's me!" :)  John from Idegon (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The Center Line: September 2015
  Volume 8, Issue S1 • September 2015 • About the Newsletter
 * Happy 10th Anniversary!

1=

• USRD through the years

• A goal for success

• From the first spinning cogs to controlling the power of the moon 1=

• Article assessment over time

• How to measure a WikiProject's load

• Conflict over article titles 1=

• Arbitration case closes

• Collaboration

• Our valued contributors

 Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
 * —delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk) on 23:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

This word "merge"; I do not think it means what you think it means
You seem to have redirected Moyers Corners Fire Department with the comment "Redirected per AFD". Except that Redirect wasn't the result of Articles for deletion/Moyers Corners Fire Department. Merge was. You didn't keep any of the information of the article, and if you really wanted "per AFD" really should have. --GRuban (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * When you merge an article, you move all the appropriately referenced content that is appropriate for the target article. In this case it was already there. If you dont agree, add what you wish to the city's article. I'll most likely revert it and then we can discuss it on the talk page. And I've got much better things to do than read crappy dialogue from a crappy movie. John from Idegon (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I highly recommend the movie. It has swordplay, giants, miracles, true love... --GRuban (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)