User talk:John from Idegon/Archive 54

The Signpost: 04 August 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Attack on Firefighter
Your deletion of the family names of the firefighter and his family whose home was destroyed by fire after a racist threat is inappropriate. You explained you did it because you thought Sundown Town did not need to be explained. A few words explaining what a Sundown Town is not reason for wholesale deletion of facts and links. Skywriter (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No. What you quoted was my explanation for removing the bit on sundown towns (which is not a proper noun by the way). The reason for removing the other is based in the policy WP:NOTNEWS. Please take any further discussion to the article talk page so more people can participate in the discussion. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

School logos
I was wondering, how come I couldn't put the school logo up, but that's acceptable? I'm just wondering, because i tried a while back but it was taken down within minutes. I'm pretty new to wikipedia, I'm just now starting to actually figure stuff out. I was just wondering Slipperyslopes (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I'm not really sure what you are asking. One thing that would help is if you could point me to the article in question. As one of the coordinators of Wikiproject Schools, I watch over 3000 US high school articles. Let me know which one you are talking about and I'll be glad to help. Logos are subject to copyright and that makes them tricky. Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia.  John from Idegon (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Gilmour Academy
Thanks for your work on the page. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of knowledge or familiarity with the school. I just came across it when I was looking at possible spelling errors and saw a dismally spelled attempt at vandalism. I fixed it and kept an eye on the page (without reading it through). I read over what had been there after you lopped off most of the article and, indeed, it looked like it was straight out of a PR pamphlet. I'll help where I can. Thanks again. Plandu (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Vestavia Hills High School
Our friend is back. Once again claiming that he will provide additional supporting information some time later. This time he restored your removal

On a different note (as long as I am on your page) WP:ALUMNI could use a bit of clarification with respect to whether attendance needs to be sourced in the school article even if it is already sourced in the alumnus's article.

It currently reads "When alumni have their own articles in mainspace, it is not necessary for their notability to be referenced, as long as it is done in the biographical articles. Be sure to check the existing biography article to ensure that it demonstrates alumni status with a cited reference." The first sentence only deals with notability, but the second sentence seems to imply that an attendance source in the bio article is also sufficient. If this is the intent then I suggest replacing the first sentence with "When alumni have their own articles in mainspace, it is not necessary for their notability or attendance to be referenced, as long as both are referenced in the biographical articles." Meters (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * ALUMNI is an essay. I've never worked on an essay, although in theory I endorse your proposed change. The only problem I have is the existence of the article shows the notability (in theory). The actual policy is NLIST and it is equally vauge. Personally I'm fine with attendance only referenced in the bio. Others aren't. To me, it makes a difference if the article in question is your typical article that is somewhere between a stub and a C; or if we are talking about one of the very few GA and FA articles. Better quality dictates better sourcing. John from Idegon (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Suwannee High School
Thanks for trimming the rest of that article. It was on my list for today once the coach issue was settled.

A continuation question for you on the subject of sourcing school attendance. The same user who was insisting that a citation in the subject's article was not sufficient to show attendance in a school article is now arguing that a school's website showing that a student attended there is not an acceptable source. It seems to me that that should be acceptable to show attendance (but obviously not notability). Arguing that this violates WP:SELFSOURCE as a self-published source making claims about a third party (the student) would mean disallowing the use of school or school board pages listing a principal's name, or further afield, such things as roster listings from sports teams' pages, or listings of Congressmen from government sites. Seems an obvious case of common sense use of primary sources where no interpretation of facts is involved. Thoughts? The thread is on my page, but I've given up responding. Meters (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you 100%. I wouldn't accept a yearbook as it is edited by the students and therefore not a reliable source. It would be better of course if it came from her, but as this is a public school, there is no reason to doubt the school's website. If it were a private school I'd be a bit more dubious. I've seen private schools manipulate just about any piece of information to make themselves sound better.  Surprisingly, parochial schools seem worse for this than just plain private schools. John from Idegon (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Interesting point about private schools not necessarily being reliable. Meters (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Peters Township High School
Hello again. I see that for some reason you enjoy this, so let's bring this up again shall we? I noticed you reverted my edit claiming that I gave "no reliable sources" for my trivial information. However, both websites are reliable, thanks for not checking though. Golde62 (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * How exactly are they reliable? Because they are correct in this instance? That is not what makes a source reliable. And it is trivial. I would oppose its inclusion even with solid sourcing in the article currently. It, with a good source, would be appropriate content in a larger section on the school's history. Discussed in that context, it would be appropriately a piece of the school's history. As a separate piece though, it does not increase any reader's understanding of the school in any way. It's trivia and WP:RECENT. Please get consensus for inclusion before adding this material.  You won't find that here. Take it to the article talk page. And you will get much further if you do not take things personally here. We disagree. That is the basis for editorial decision making here.  At this point, I have explained reasons.  If you expect to reach a consensus, you'll need to make a persuasive arguement against those reasons and for inclusion.  That is how this works in all cases. Personalizing editorial differences is only going to harm your position. John from Idegon (talk) 05:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Explain, how they are not reliable, then explain how it fits under being recent ? Golde62 (talk) 06:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Is reading a problem for you? If you want something included you need to get a consensus ON THE ARTICLE'S TALK PAGE, basing your arguement in wikipedia policy and reliable sources. I asked you to explain how your sources are reliable in terms of the policy on reliable sources I just cited you and have cited you previously. I cited you a guideline on content titled RECENT. IT explains why your edits are unduly weighted toward recent events. Do not post here again. Take it to the article's talk page.  John from Idegon (talk) 06:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

They are both reliable, and not recent. Retract your seemingly endless personal attack on me. Golde62 (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I shan't respond to you any more here. If you wish to discuss the content take it to the article talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Brea Police Department
Hello, I noticed that you claimed that the Brea Police Department is not notable enough to have its own article. This is not the case since it has received significant coverage from regional news sources (which are included in the article), not to mention that I am currently in the process of expanding the article.--MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) (please reply using &#x7B;&#x7B;ping&#x7D;&#x7D;) 01:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you can find sources not from metro LA that cover the department in detail (as opposed to crime stories or brief mentions of personnel changes), by all means revert my redirect and go for it. However experience tells me that very few cities of less than 50,000 people have police departments that meet this bar. There is no inherent notability to a police department. John from Idegon (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Care to share some of your new sources that are going to make this article notable, ?John from Idegon (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that these refs would have been sufficient:
 * --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) (please reply using &#x7B;&#x7B;ping&#x7D;&#x7D;) 01:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really. All local, none discussion in detail. They are all about events the depart was involved in and not about the department itself. Further, inclusion of the material they cover is most likely not appropriate per WP:NOTNEWS. Are you beginning to see why generally speaking, nothing but the biggest departments (think NYPD), which have books written on their history, and highly innovative (see Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety) departments, whose policies and procedures have been widely covered in the media and even in some cases in academia, make notability? A long history of corruption is another place notability may be generated. Crime gets written about extensively. Police are like streetlights - we only care when they don't work. John from Idegon (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Would it be appropriate to move some general info about the departments (including the Brea Fire Department) in a section in the Brea, California article? -- MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) (please reply using &#x7B;&#x7B;ping&#x7D;&#x7D;) 03:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) (please reply using &#x7B;&#x7B;ping&#x7D;&#x7D;) 01:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really. All local, none discussion in detail. They are all about events the depart was involved in and not about the department itself. Further, inclusion of the material they cover is most likely not appropriate per WP:NOTNEWS. Are you beginning to see why generally speaking, nothing but the biggest departments (think NYPD), which have books written on their history, and highly innovative (see Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety) departments, whose policies and procedures have been widely covered in the media and even in some cases in academia, make notability? A long history of corruption is another place notability may be generated. Crime gets written about extensively. Police are like streetlights - we only care when they don't work. John from Idegon (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Would it be appropriate to move some general info about the departments (including the Brea Fire Department) in a section in the Brea, California article? -- MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) (please reply using &#x7B;&#x7B;ping&#x7D;&#x7D;) 03:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

A bit. Really it is more important for a community article to mention the lack of a police or fire department. Having public safety departments is the norm and unless there is something out of the norm about them (like the city in Minnesota where the officer involved shooting that streamed live on Facebook happened. They contracted with a neighboring city for police protection.) not much need be said. We generally do not name non elected officials in community articles. The details of the command structure are unencyclopedic, as is the location of the stations and details about equipment. Unless controversial stuff received ongoing national attention, that's out per NOTNEWS. What's left? Not much. John from Idegon (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Wage War
Hello John from Idegon,

it seems that Wage War are back on Wikipedia. I am asking what the difference between the new-written article and my article is. I guess the band still doesn't meet GNG and NMUSIC or am I wrong in this case? If it doesn't meet these criteria would you be able to put an deletion request on the article. I tried it once at To the Rats and Wolves but it is really complicated to put an deletion request on an article here. --Goroth (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Shorty's Lunch
I didn't even see the AfD. I think the non-admin closure was premature. If you decide to take it to DRV, I'd support re-opening it. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Willing to lend a hand? willing to ask help
Hi John, you messaged me cos I did something wrong in editing, learned, thanks, still learning.

If I could figure out how to email u a question I'd do it that way but hey at least I got this worked out.

There are a series of artists from Kansas City we've just worked with and I'd like to add the songs that they did with us to their discography but: soapbox, selfpromotion, rules, oops, argh. So before I do something wrong, how do I do it right? This is legit stuff, it's a big deal in the local community, not so big a deal in the Universe. Please be kind, we do not seek to be irritating, just wikinewbs.Stormcellar (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Stormcellar, but I can't let you edit under that user name. John, Wikipedia is not here to promote rock and roll, of course, but perhaps you could point them to NBAND and offer some more advice. I know you write hard rock jams for hard rock fans. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Redirects
THanks for catching thus. It's the third or fourth time this has happened. It's obviously a bug in the script but I don't know what to do about it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd probably do better trying to communicate with your neighbors than to fix scripts. John from Idegon (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

La Lumiere School
You're welcome. Excellent work on that article yourself. Do you think anything's left that might require that template? I looked but I might have missed something. RunnyAmiga (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please continue to watch it, . It is a target for inflated content....A generic problem with US private school articles. John from Idegon (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Watchlisted. And believe me, I know all about it. RunnyAmiga (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

LeafyIsHere
Hey, thanks for the feedback on the LeafyIsHere page. I think I got three news sites, using https://www.google.com/search?q=Leafyishere&gws_rd=ssl#q=Leafyishere&tbm=nws, so can you check it agian. Thanks. Also I'm hoping if it becomes an actual article more people will edit it, because Leafy has a lot of other things about him, besides those three small paragraphs. Plus this is my first time trying to edit on Wikipedia, so it's not that good. Also I hope this is how I contact you, and I'm not being a jerk by adding a random thing on your page. Also here's the link back to the wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:LeafyIsHere&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.148.105.34 (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not gonna dig thru hundreds of search results to look for some that will help you create this article. Read the links you've been provided in the denials and comments and you decide if any are reliable detailed and independent. If you find any, bring some real articles to look at. If you don't, give up. One of the most basic principles of Wikipedia is that all content must be based on reliable published sources. With very very few exceptions, reliable sources don't write much about YouTube. From my searches, I don't see notability for this guy. No notability means no article. John from Idegon (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * How do I tell if a source is 'reliable and indepedant?' Also in my opinion YouTube is reliable for telling how many subscribers a person has on YouTube, and I also believe if a person has almost 5 mil subscribers, and gets about 1-2 million views per video then they are notable. Especially since there are articles over YouTubers with half his size. i.e. GradeAUnderA, H3H3, Gunnarolla, who only has 80 thousand as apposed to 4.6 million, and growing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.148.105.34 (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Several things. First please type 4 tildes ( ~ ) to sign your posts on talk pages. Second, AfC volunteers are here to help you write the article. We are not going to do the work for you. You've been provided links to the guidelines for reliable sources (WP:RS) and for independence (WP:INDY). We don't get paid for this anymore than you do. Lastly, and I know this sounds harsh, but for purposes of AfC, your opinion on whether or not subjects should be notable or sources should be reliable are irrelevant, especially since you've refused to bother reading the links to the guidelines on those subjects. Editors input on those policies and guidelines are encouraged, but frankly if you cannot even read them, how are you going to comment in a useful fashion on their validity? Don't waste my or other AfC volunteers time complaining about a subject you've refused to make yourself knowledgeable about. John from Idegon (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Marquette, Michigan
John, on 16 July you reverted most of the changes I made to the article on Marquette, Michigan. I appreciate your feedback on my edits. Your feedback and the reading I have done to understand the issues you raised have improved my understanding of Wikipedia standards and practices. I accept that some of the changes you made are appropriate, but I question other changes. I have added my concerns and a proposed path forward to the Marquette Talk page. I would appreciate any further feedback you have.—Steve Sf9000 (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I've replied at the talk page. I proposed there that you write the article on the light and offered my assistance. However, in retrospect, there are other editors who may be able to offer you more assistance and one of them may possibly be working on the article already. A good guy who goes by the name of User:7&6=thirteen and an administrator named are both UP experts and thirteen has written numerous lighthouse articles, including all the ones on the lights in open water on Lake Superior and Lake Michigan. He may have an article in progress on the Presque Isle Harbor light. John from Idegon (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * John, thank you. Good suggestion. I'll check with thirteen. Sf9000 (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Evelyn Hartley
Hi, I just left two sources that are news stories that credit my article. Now that I have left better sources as well I don't see why my article should not be kept. (talk)Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)   22:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * My guess is it will. Just please stop saying she is notable. Notability has a specific meaning here. It means that a subject has been discussed in detail in multiple reliable sources. Realistically there are no details to discuss. She was a 15 year old kid when she disappeared. The circumstances of her disappearance most likely are notable and a decent article can be made on that. Please remember this is an encyclopedia. Everything written here should be based entirely on things that have been published elsewhere in reliable sources. Nothing whatsoever should come from your personal knowledge. I outlined what a reliable source is at the AfD discussion and the guideline is linked above.


 * One last thing. When you write a message anywhere on Wikipedia, you need to sign it properly by typing 4 tildes. ( ~ ). This adds a link to your talk page and a timestamp. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)