User talk:John from Idegon/Archive 68

Northwest Hills (Austin, Texas)
Happy autumn. Do you have a link to the RfC about the use of "affluent" in city/town articles? I'm having an issue with the "upscale" neighborhood of Northwest Hills (Austin, Texas). Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It had to do with Sherman Oaks, LA, California......Lemme look around. John from Idegon (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Archive 19 Here ya go, .  It will be in my sandbox if you ever need it again.  That's where I file links and such. John from Idegon (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Very upscale. Thanks!  Magnolia677 (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

BRD Cycle
Hi, thank you for your note on my edit of Palo Alto High School. I think you might want to look at WP:CYCLE. I made an edit under the bold principle. You then reverted it, but without specifying your reason for reversion as laid out in the Bold, revert, discuss principle. You rather suggested that the responsibility lies with the editor to seek consensus before making change. That's not my understanding of the ethos on wikipedia at all. Possums 11:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I would say be bold, but not reckless. Organizing by the date of graduation runs the risk of original research as... imagine the kind of referencing required. So the edit was contentious and should need some discussion to make sure there is a consensus. Alex ShihTalk 16:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * thanks, . Hi, . Firstly, new messages go at the bottom of a talk page. Second, I'm sorry you interpreted it that way, but all I was saying was to seek consensus prior to making a major change such as that.  You made a bold edit, I reverted it.  If you think it important, you need to start a discussion on the article's talk page if you want it back.  Altho that is the BRD cycle, and that is what is happening here, for stylistic changes, not factual additions, it is better to seek consensus first, if only to save yourself time.  Re-arraigning an entire list like that is a fair amount of work, and it is doubtful that a change such as that would garner a consensus.  Arraigning notables by grad date is really only useful to alumni of the school, and not the wider audience that the article is targeted at. Further it is seldom to never that grad dates are sourced, or for that matter, even given completely for the entire list. You are obviously new, and we are glad you are here, but rather than waste time, wouldn't it be better for you to make edits that haven't been made hundreds of times before and reverted?  No need to re-invent the wheel!  John from Idegon (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Secondary schools aren't notable
Hi. I think you've incorrectly closed Articles for deletion/Rouse High School. All the keep arguments were some variation of SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which is invalid. I'd ask that you revert your close or I'll take this to Deletion Review. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 18:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think not. Do what you feel you need to do;  I will not be participating at that.  WP:STICK definitely applies, and that is quite clear from the AfD.  I'd be surprised if a request for review isn't speedily closed.  There is nothing to debate here, so no need to reply.  You are simply misguided. John from Idegon (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Rouse High School
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rouse High School. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Feel free not to participate. Let's just see who of us is misguided. I'm not dropping this stick till someone beats me over the head with it. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 18:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Justify a reference
John, How would I go about justifying the reference for notable alumni Philip Cioffari in the Mount Saint Michael Academy page? when only one of the 17 alumni have a reference? In the least Wikispeak way (LOL, I'm not an expert) can you explain the process? Thanks TheBronxNYC (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The first step is establishing on-wiki notability. First get him an article. Anmccaff (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I just found a website which mentions his time at Mount S. Michael, can that work also? TheBronxNYC (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Understood TheBronxNYC (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, . In order to be included in a notable alumni list, two things are required. First, the person must unambiguously be notable by Wikipedia's definition. This is best shown by linking to the person's Wikipedia bio. Although having a bio is not absolutely required, if they don't have a bio, you must be able to show the person would qualify with just a couple references. Excepting only a few people who would qualify based on a single achievement (holding certain elected offices, playing big league sports, winning certain awards such as an Oscar or the Medal of Honor), this just isn't possible, so you must write the article first. In addition, there must be a reliable source reference to the person's attendance at the school, either in the list or in their bio. To help you understand what I'm saying here, you should probably review the requirements for biographies at WP:ANYBIO and the specific requirements for academics at WP:NPROF. Simply being a professor is not in itself notable. Just a quick procedural note: There is no need to start a new section every time you post on a talk page. Section headers are used to deliniate subjects, so I've merged the two sections you created here. John from Idegon (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Revert of edit for Maine East High School
John,

Hi, Yesterday I added one of our classmates to the 'arts' section  of notables. Could you advise what was wrong with the edit.


 * Bruce "Buzz" Podewell (1961) was an actor best known for being Mr. Wizard's assistant on the TV show Watch Mr. Wizard from 1953 thru 1955. He earned a PhD in Theater history and was Professor of Theater at Tulane University for 40 years.

Thank you, Richard Paul Maine East Alumni Assn. Maine South Alumni Assn.

Maine East Alumni Assn (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Simple, he does not meet any criteria of notability we have. The requirements to be listed in a notable alumni section are the same as for a biographical article. The applicable guidelines are at WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR, and WP:NPROF. The only one of those he might meet is NPROF. He definitely wouldn't qualify as an actor, and it's doubtful he'd qualify on the general requirements for a bio. The best advice is to WP:WTAF. By the way, your username  is out of policy, for which I'm going to request you be blocked until you change it, and you definittely have a conflict of interest on Maine East High School. I'll leave further information on your talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Further, it is totally unnecessary to post your email address anywhere on Wikipedia, and very unwise besides. This is the 5th most accessed website in the world. I hope you like Spam. John from Idegon (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * One last thing: neither Wikipedia or your alumni website would be considered reliable verification for an edit on Wikipedia, and all edits must be verifiable. John from Idegon (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Marching Band is a Sport.
https://www.omahacentralregister.com/1198/opinions/is-marching-band-a-sport/ gives significant proof that marching band is, and should be considered, a sport. If you do not agree to this, please give me a reason why you disagree, I will be happy to listen to your opinions. Thank you. Phoenix53004 (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, Thank you for helping me become a better wikipedian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix53004 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Gee, I can see why John can seem grumpy sometimes. Did you not read anything he posted to you? Alex ShihTalk 23:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing that out. I did not see the part referring to a magazine not being a reliable source. Phoenix53004 (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, can you quote Wikipedia itself? because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marching_band states that it is considered a sport by Sports Illustrated.Phoenix53004 (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * If you can't quote wiki, here is this: http://www.halftimemag.com/features/musicians-as-athletes.html. Phoenix53004 (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi,. Glad you're here and interested in school articles. I'm one of the coordinators of WikiProject schools and obviously they're pretty important to me too.

Let me apologize upfront, for this is going to be a rather lengthy post. Brevity and concision is highly valued by most Wikipedians, myself included. But the learning curve on this wacky website is quite steep at the beginning, and I'd be doing you a disservice by responding briefly.

One thing new editors frequently have trouble grasping is how we settle content decisions here. You're ahead of the curve here, as you are discussing and not edit warring. Thank you. We have literally thousands of policies and guidelines, most of which refer to content. I've been at this nearly six years and am still learning new things every day. is an administrator and a bit longer tenured than I and I'm sure he'd say the same thing!

The thing about policies and content (with few exceptions pertaining to legal issues such as copyright and libel) is that policies do not actually decide content. Discussion and the consensus formed by discussion are what decides articles content. These discussions are held on an article's talk page if they only affect a single article or a central location for things that affect multiple articles (in this case it would be the school project's talk page.) The editor that wants to change the existing consensus makes arguments based on sources, policies and guidelines. Although I cannot point to a discussion where a consensus was reached to cover high school bands in a section on arts and not in the section on athletics (pinging the other coordinator, ), in the absence of a formal consensus, the way we've always done it can be considered consensus.

So what does that mean to you? You seem to be wanting us to cover marching band as athletics across the board. So you'll need to start a discussion at the project's talk page for that. Arguments such as you (I'm assuming it was you) made as an IP here yesterday will be discounted completely (see WP:ILIKEIT). The arguments you've made today are more in form, but somewhat lack in substance. Why? Reliability of sources. A school publication is never a reliable source (you need to read the link immediately proceeding this for the why), an editorial is never a reliable source, a trade magazine (halftime.com) would only be reliable for objective facts such as who won what when. Since Wikipedia is both dynamic and user-edited, we don't consider it a reliable source. But the Wikipedia mention you made above does point to the existence of a reliable source (Sports Illustrated). So what you've got at this point is a possibility of a single source, against 50 state athletic sanctioning bodies that say marching band is not a sport. Sounds like a pretty uphill battle to me.

I'm happy to help you with any questions you have about the workings of Wikipedia, but on this point, we are in disagreement. That's gonna happen here; actually, Wikipedia is designed so it does happen. Consensus is the mechanism we use to decide the "truth". The subject at hand is quite mundane, but it is the same process no matter what "truth" we are trying to determine. Thanks again, and sorry again for the verbosity. John from Idegon (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok. Thank you, as I am new and I am not fully educated on Wikipedian Policies (obviously...). I will also cease this battle, as it seems you have won (still not happy about that, but I will attempt to act like a professional...). But still, you have helped me be a better wikipedian. I will now try to only work on editing things I know about and can get references on (example, I have an edit request on Moon about the moon moving away from earth.)Phoenix53004 (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * One more thing. Could it be possible to add a list of activities (that I have, which was published by memorial high school itself) to the page? The list I have is on paper, can that be a reliable source? I believe that if marching band is not a sport, then it should be considered an activity, or a club. Thank you for your time.Phoenix53004 (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Before I get to your question, let's share another teaching moment. Please make note of how I've used colons to create indenting in this thread. It makes conversations much easier to follow. Also, just make a horizontal space prior to your signature, not a line feed. Thanks. I'd think band would be a curricular offering. Perhaps marching band is a voluntary activity? In any case, a section on clubs in general is discouraged (as most clubs are strictly for the students and are of little to no interest outside the school. Clubs that engage in activities on a state or national level (robotics comes to mind) can be covered in an extracurricular activities section and existence can be sourced to the school, but achievement needs independent sourcing and is limited to only highest level achievement (state or national championship) just like athletics. Arts programs like band chorus and theatre can be discussed in an arts section with the same limitations. Keep in mind there are things we do not discuss in school articles such as individual students or staff names, details on requirements for participation or anything else that would be primarily of interest to the school community only. Things like competitive speech and debate, Model UN, Quiz bowl, etc can similarly be discussed in the Academics section. Hope that answers your question. John from Idegon (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, Thank you. I will not make a section on clubs, then. You have been very helpful to me, so I will again say thanks. Phoenix53004 (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, like John said, I still learn new things everyday and get scolded occasionally :-) One more thing, try not to think about winning on Wikipedia, it will help you along the way. Once you have everything down, you will find the entire experience very rewarding (I also presumably started editing when I was in high school). Alex ShihTalk 03:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The student news website of Omaha Central High School is absolutely not a reliable source. Whatever it claims marching bands to be is only their opinion and Wikipedia as an encyclopedia does not need to take any notice of it. They could claim the students have discovered the Moon is made of green cheese and put it on a school website (the claim - not the cheese). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring?
Who is edit warring. There are problems with an article and bringing them to attention is edit warring? That is a wonderful welcome.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You made a change, another editor reverted your change, you put it back with a snotty edit summary, and somehow I'm the problem? The truth is not an absolute. We determine where the truth lies by discussion. So if you don't like the existing version, go to the article talk page and engage the other editor in civil discourse about the strength of the sources and the truth they may indicate, ok? Continuing to re-revert will lead to your editing privileges being suspended. Civil discourse won't. You're new and probably didn't realize that; now you do. I'm not a part of this; you need to work it out with Beyond my Ken. John from Idegon (talk) 07:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

2 October 2017‎ Wayne Dyer page, Reverted 1 edit by Dante Dos 2nd try
Sir, I am at a lost to suppose the reason and remedy for your 'revert'. I believe the source references of Sun Sentinel are reliable. Perhaps the wording is not right? Can an edit correct this? Thank you

In November 1991 Dyer was involved with soliciting a female for prostitution, a misdemeanor as a patron of an escort service busted by Florida state officials. He subsequently pleaded no contest to inducing and enticing a lewd act in May 1992 and paid $5,000. Dante Dos (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Discussion of content disputes belong on the article's talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, was unsure of how to proceed. Entry was reverted without explanation other than needs consensus. Dante Dos (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Why are you re editing my amends on Donegal GAA?
Your not even from Ireland, I am. I played GAA. Have you? I’ll keep reediting your amends B166erdn (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

SVHS and WVHS Logos
Maybe you can help. Each of the above mentioned schools has new logos, that were recently sited as violating copyrights. Each school would like their logos updated on Wikipedia, which seems to be difficult. Can you help get the logos uploaded?

WvsdSue (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * , are you simply ignoring the messages on your talk page, or have you not seen them? I know you know you have a talk page, because you responded there when you were blocked for your previous username.  Not only am I not going to help you, I am going to ask an administrator to block your account's access to Wikipedia until such time that you show you understand what our policies are on PAID editing are and have shown a willingness to comply with them.  It galls me that you receive money to do what you are doing and expect volunteer editors to drop what they are doing and assist you.  You get paid for this, you figure it out.  The articles about the school district you work for are not the property of the school district you work for; they are not under the control of the school district you work for; and as an employee of the district, you have less, not more right to edit them than others.  If you show any interest at all in doing this the way you are required to do it by our legally binding terms of use, I will be happy to continue to monitor the talk pages involved and assure that any edit you propose will be dealt with in an appropriate manner. If not, not. John from Idegon (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Request on 20:14:41, 10 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Albert-bell
I cannot understand what in my article is about advertisement. I did neutralize it absolutely, because this is not my product. I just saying that there is another spinal traction product and mentioned the inventor name. As a reference I am using US Paten and that's it. Tell me what I did wrong?Albert-bell (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Albert-bell (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

stop
stop taking my edit down. I cited the info as requested. Additionally your motto would suggest that anyone can add what they want if they are true facts. WHICH MY EDITS WERE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zack212345 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * , I promise I will only revert your poorly sourced addition of an utterly non notable company to the article on Des Plaines, Illinois one more time, because if you add it without consensus again, your editing privileges are almost certainly going to be suspended. Let me ask you something. If you made the basketball team as a freshman, would you tell the seniors they were running the plays wrong on the third day of practice? Not if you were smart. I've been doing this much longer than you. Verifiability is required of all new additions, but verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. CONSENSUS is what decides content, even above most policies. You cannot add whatever you want, no matter what you think. You can either assume good faith that I'm trying to use my experience to help you avoid a serious error that will likely get you blocked or you can continue on the path you are on and likely get blocked. The choice is yours. John from Idegon (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

W. Trespar Clarke HS
John - you took off the comments I made to W. Trespar Clarke HS yesterday. I am new to this and just put those in even though they were about me to test how the whole thing works. I'm sorry if you were offended and thought they were advertising, etc. I will not do it again, but by the way, they were true. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankDeMartini (talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, John
I want to thank you for your help with the Schoolcraft, MI page. I'm not sure if this is how you thank someone, but I thought I would give it a try. My next attempt will be better, I promise. I will also make use of the sandbox. I just thought since there was information already there that was inaccurate, I could just correct it. Anyway, I hope to add value for the Schoolcraft and Vicksburg area. Thank you for your help. --18:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Debchristiansen (talk) Deb Christiansen
 * Hi, . Glad to hear that, and glad to help. May I make a suggestion? There is a big hole in the coverage of my old stomping grounds, and that is in the area of articles on schools. Both Schoolcraft High School and Mendon Middle/High School are missing articles on Wikipedia. There may be more, but those two are quite important due to their extensive athletic history. It's especially embarrassing for me because I'm one of the coordinators for Wikiproject Schools. School articles are relatively easy to do, and I'll be glad to help you in any way I can. John from Idegon (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi John!
Hi John, I seem to keep running across your edits lately, and I just wanted to say thanks for all your efforts. With all the smackdowns a noob gets from experienced editors, I would never have continued on Wikipedia in the early days without the help you offered. Thanks! Jacona (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: School data
Hi, thanks for letting me know! I wasn't aware of the prohibition against using diocesan sources for enrollment numbers, but I see why it could be problematic to use first-party sources as-is. In these cases, all I had done was to update figures that were already citing the archdiocese's annual "High school open house guide", except with this year's edition instead of 2015's. I'd happily switch these articles over to NCES, but a quick glance seems to show that NCES's figures are from 2015–16 as well. The Ohio Department of Education maintains figures from October 2016 that I think would be preferable to NCES. What if we continue to cite the newer archdiocesan figures, but only in the article body, after citing the independent figure, and prefaced with "according to the Archdiocese of Cincinnati"? – Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 04:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * My main concern is that having the NCES figures gives us an even field for statistical comparison amongst all US schools public and private. Unless there is significant growth or shrink between the states most current and NCES, I guess I don't really see a reason to use another number. Having the most up to date facts is for almanacs not encyclopedias. Verified and statistically comparable seems more important. John from Idegon (talk) 06:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

AP Classes
Hey John, this is Kenneth. You recently reverted my edits, and while I understand that, I am confused as to why "16" AP Classes got changed back to "15" AP Classes. This year, AP Art History is being offered to students for the first time, so I had attempted to change the number of AP Classes to reflect that, and to add AP Art History. How am I able to edit that if there isn't really a citation for it, it's just that they implemented the class into our school? Kennethkim628 (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The short answer,, is you can't. Everything in the encyclopedia must be able to be sourced to a published source.  You cannot ever base an edit on solely what you know.  However, for something like this, which is not some claim of achievement or praise (such as a championship, an award, a claim of largest, most, first), it is quite alright to source it to the school's website.  Most school websites have a section devoted to AP, and if not that, there should at least be some link to a course catalog. That would be fine.  AP class listings are specifically endorsed as good content in the school article guidelines, but most information you could derive from a course catalog is not.  Hope that helps.  Please note that "must be able to be sourced" does not mean "must have a reference".  It just means a source that can be referenced must exist, and if someone challenges an edit based on lack of reference, it must be added.  However, those claims of achievement or praise that I mentioned above, should always be sourced with a reference independent of the school, right from the start.  It will just save you a lot of hassle. John from Idegon (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Weidman, Michigan page reverts
Dear User John from Idegon: I have restored all the legitimate edits you reverted on the Weidman, Michigan page, adding a citation from the Veterinarynews website employed at the Pol page. It is all valid, and the most notable thing about Weidman is the above record-breaking show on NatGeo Wild.

Do not summarily revert edits when you have a beef with one. You want to fix or contest something, fine, but do not just revert an entire series of them en toto without specific MOS cause. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please establish the guideline of WP:Lede the Pol inclusion in the lead at the above violates. Do NOT revert: Take it to Talk!  You've been around here 40,000 edits, you know better than to launch a trivial war like this.  Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is what YOU should have done when I reverted you initially, rather than come here and make a totally dick like argument from authority. I'm at work; someone walked into my office or I would have replaced your source. The lede is the issue. You put it in the lede not me...that makes you responsible for gaining consensus. I'll reply when I have the time on the article's talk page. Get off your high horse. John from Idegon (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Done what, engage in ad hominem attacks? Just because this is your Talk page does not allow you to call someone names and degrade them. I made no "argument from authority", merely stated affirmatively some facts, first about the reason for moving the content to the lead and second about the proper way to handle reverts. You have a beef with one, change it and cite your reasons, don't summarily revert an entire series wholesale. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Bear Creek Secondary School
Hi John from Idegon. I'm wondering if you'd mind taking a look at Bear Creek Secondary School since you have lots of experience dealing with these types of articles? I came across it why checking on some non-free files being used in the article, and tried to clean it up a bit. It probably needs more work since some of the article content is unsourced and some of it seems a bit trivial. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, ! Wow... trivial, peacock, puffery,off topic. Running out of negative adjectives. I removed the section containing the logo as off topic (it may be on topic, but IMO too trivial for including in the school district's article), so the logo is an orphan fair use. Also removed the section on the student council as unsourced and pointless (every school has a student council, so what?). That removed the scan of the poster from a dance, probably the most pointless illustration I've yet encountered on school article. I'm not much in appropriate content for a Canadian school, so I'll ping, whose much better equipped to deal with it. I haven't marked any image pages any further than you had, but I'd suggest Googling the image in the Infobox. It looks pretty professional, and I'd bet it's a copyvio. John from Idegon (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll take a run at it later today. Meters (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Meters. John from Idegon (talk) 06:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The picture of the school is likely the uploader's own work, as claimed. He uploaded a few pictures from the same area at the same time, and the metadata looks like original work. Meters (talk) 06:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Only looked quickly on my phone. John from Idegon (talk) 06:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Clear Brook High School
I noticed that you removed my addition to the Fine Arts Achievements category as well as the category itself citing that "The encyclopedic achievement is unsourced". I was wondering what you meant by that. I understand the removal of the Color Guard achievement as I didn't have any other source than the fact that I was there when it was awarded to them. I mean no disrespect as I'm sure you're way more experienced at Wikipedia than I am but this particular subject is important to me and I'd like to see the Drumline recognized for their achievements. 70.139.59.5 (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)LiquidSnake31170.139.59.5 (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, 70 etc. First, if you want a username, I encourage you to register and get one. Just click the log in button and follow the instructions. There are many benefits including a talk page that is only yours, a watchlist so you can be notified when articles you are interested in have been changed, and the ability to receive pings (with which I could have notified you I've replied here). School articles have guidelines which ensure all school articles are similarly constructed for the convince of the target audience, the entire English speaking world. Minutia about various school activities is only interesting to the school community and hence we don't include it (that's what unencyclopedic means). We do not include content about individual school groups or teams achievement (and nothing at all about individual students or staff achievement) unless two requirements are met. One, you must have a reliable source independent of the school for it. You had that for the drumline (note small "d"), but not for winter guard (note capitalization). Two, the achievement must be ultimate. Winter guard won a state championship. That's an ultimate achievement. Drumline did not win their competition, altho it was apparently a higher level (calling the competition a national championship is probably not accurate, as most groups like marching band, robotics, cheer, compete in one of several nationwide organizations. None are recognized as THE national championship). If you can find an independent source for winter guard's achievement, that can be included. A tip for you: there is no reason to refer to the winter guard as the "Clear Creek Winter Guard". What other winter guard would it be in an article about Clear Creek High School? John from Idegon (talk) 04:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Spinal Traction (Orthopedic) Method Detensor
And it's back again, quite frankly this is getting rather annoying. As if AfC wasn't backlogged enough.  Whispe ring  03:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Tell me about it, . I'm not a steady reviewer, I just sometimes do it in the course of my work at Teahouse, which is how I came upon this. I'm removing it from my watchlist. If you know an administrator who works around AfC, you could ask him to block the guy for CIR/NOTHERE and likely PAID. It would be way too much hassle to go to ANI, and AIV wouldn't block for this. He's clearly not getting it and he has had a clear final warning. Wish I could help more at AfC, but I've got enough on my plate with WP:WPSCH and Teahouse. And frankly, it would probably increase my frustrations with the PAID issue to the point where I'd say fuggitall. John from Idegon (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Update, . I have a lot of talk page stalkers, and one (who happens to have a mop) CSD'd the draft. Another admin will review it and then hopefully we're done. John from Idegon (talk) 04:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Guilty. I've had a quick look and couldn't find the connection between the user and Avazo Co (that makes the product). I've dropped a note for the user explicitly (again) asking not to re-submit again. If that warning is ignored, then it's time to block. Alex ShihTalk 04:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Revert
Hey John! This revert you made is probably because of WP:COI.. but I've been watching his edits and they don't seem to be adding things unencyclopedic or biased. In fact I thought the additions were quite helpful. Thoughts? S EMMENDINGER  ( talk ) 16:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , my main concern was his addition of (presumably) himself to the notable person's list. Cannot see how a mayor of a smallish city would ever be notable, even if he were the national chairman of the Council of Mayor's. Further, any government official editing a settlement article on the community they're representing is a serious COI, and likely PAID. He should not be editing the article at all. Whether his contributions are good or not now is irrelevant. If we let him cruise because his edits are unbiased now, what traction do we have if the time comes when they're not? There's also the appearance that his edits are somehow 'official'. Lastly, and because primarily of the previous, he should be username blocked until he proves his identity. I have very strong feeling on how badly we've allowed Wikipedia to be sold down the highway in the last few years; YMMV. John from Idegon (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair explanation then, I agree with the part that he shouldn't be in the notable people's list, though I do believe the rest of the information he added has merit. Do you mind if I re-include that information with my account (barring the notable people entry)? S EMMENDINGER  ( talk ) 17:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No problems. I really didn't look at it. If you're willing to put your name on it, I trust it's good content. John from Idegon (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Camp Quinebarge
Hi John, We are having difficulty adding an entry about our organization. I see thousands of organizations start their own entry and hundreds of summer camps have done the same. We first got dinged posting a long entry with our history, program,, etc. emulating the format of Camp Mowglis and others. When that was deleted (but Mowglis and others were not), we went short like Camp Fatima and others. Again, we got deleted and others did not. We are staying factual, not promotional (though many camps are clearly the latter). Please work with us if you have issues so we can get it right. We will continue to add small sections using the same format as other summer camps in the US that have no tags at the top of their entries and will note the camps in the Talk section. Again, please work with us. Thank you, Eric — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emcarlsondc (talk • contribs) 05:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in help you use Wikipedia to advertise your organization. Be aware that using multiple usernames is a policy violation and will result in your IP being denied access to Wikipedia. John from Idegon (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh,and by the way,, it has been deleted again and this time it has been create protected. That means that it is no longer possible to create an article on this subject. I'll thank you to please leave me alone. Perhaps you should go to your board of directors and request some funding for advertising, cause you are not gonna be getting any for free here. John from Idegon (talk) 05:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

John, If we are seeking free advertising as you suggest, please see every camp in "Summer camps in the US" and delete them. But you are not. This is unfair. As for using multiple users, I forgot to login (thus the IP address) and then did. This whole thing is ridiculous and unfair and we would kindly appreciate a review that would allow us to list our organization on Wikipedia (without advertising). We know Liz first shot was from our website but we are new to this (obviously) and future iterations were most certainly not advertising. Please reconsider your position or be consistent across all Summer camps in the US. Thank you, Eric — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emcarlsondc (talk • contribs) 06:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hamilton's 'stalled' State
John, I just wanted to follow up with your statement regarding discrepancies between me and Donner40 about the controversy section. I believe Donner40 has invested interest to either view illegal content through citations or had no intention on letting the topic ever be available. It does appear Donner40 has recused himself from further edits. I, in good will, explained my comments about Donner40's mental health because of his insistence to cite the actual videos and pictures of child abuse - which is illegal. It is also illegal to release the names of minors and victims of sexual assault. So I believe it is not stalled, just a profound disagreement on being accurate without breaking the law. Unless you have an issue with the section, I would advise either modify it or explain the issue and it will be dealt with. Therefore I believe the section should stand as is, so I am going to revert it back to original section. Feel free to contact me through my talk page and I will respond as soon as I can. AZOperator (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , that's not the way this works. First, and you can consider this your only warning on the subject, if you disparage another editor's mental health again, anywhere on Wikipedia, at any time, for any reason, you will most likely have your editing privileges revoked. Who exactly do you think you are? Second, content is decided by consensus and nothing else. You do not have it. It is not up to me or any other editor to convince you this content should not be in the article; rather it is on you to convince the ones that do not want it that it should be in. The version you are currently proffering will never gain consensus, as it is longer than the rest of the article combined. Please confine your discussion of this topic to the article's talk page., an administrator who is watching the progress of this so he is aware you've been given a final warning for WP:NPA. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * , I'm watching it too. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe the statement, "Who do you think you are?" is a personal attack. Please see WP:NPA. Really undermines the moral high ground. AZOperator (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I really don't care. If you feel my behavior is egregious, report me. There is absolutely nothing I care to discuss with you on my talk page. Make your case for your content at the article's talk page. There is no need for you to post here again. John from Idegon (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I will say thank you for the statement about the length. I can be a little long winded in my writing. It has always been a crux in my writing, so I am still working on that. As for reporting you, I can understand people have off days - so it really isn't worth making a temper tantrum about. It is something I believe a lot of people can benefit from understanding this piece of human nature. AZOperator (talk) 03:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Bear Creek Secondary School
I think you undid the wrong edit here. Meters (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Already self reverted. John from Idegon (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I should have just waited a few minutes to see if you would notice. Nice to know we both agree on that new photo. Meters (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

www.schooldigger.com
Is schooldigger.com considered a reliable source for school rankings? I'm dealing with a series of questionable edits on Pennsylvania high schools sourced to this site. The site seems to be based on recent standardized testing by State DOEs which is good, but it only ranks the school which have published their test results (not all). For instance, in PA it ranks them out of 659 public high schools, but https://high-schools.com/directory/pa/ says there are 952 public high schools in PA. Edits saying that such and such a school is 200th out of "all public high schools in PA" are clearly not  correct when based on school digger data. Meters (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * School digger is ok for a source for things like test scores, but I'd say the actual agency that compiles them is better. As far as rankings, school digger and niche are useless. We should stick to Newsweek and usn&wr. Guidelines specifically discourage making comparisons between Schools. That's what rankings are, altho we've been using Newsweek and usn&wr forever. Id actually relish an RfC on the subject so there's something to point to. I'd site "ling term practice" and go to an RfC if you get hard resistance. John from Idegon (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * According to NCES there are 767 public schools offering grade 12 in Pennsylvania. John from Idegon (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Meters (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Outdoor recreation templates
Hi, John. I have been browsing through some of the camp pages (mostly Summer camps in New Hampshire, "inspired" by the comments above), and I was wondering if there are any specific notability guidelines/past discussions to clean up these pages. It appears that some of them can be merged to a primary topic if there is one. I can't seem to find any project nor task force for this topic. Alex ShihTalk 03:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I know of no guidelines for this. However, in the only AfD I've participated in on the subject (which was before I logged AfDs so I can't find it), it was kept on an argument centering on "feature on the landscape", the reason we keep every settlement that has ever existed with the only requirement being a proof of existence. I've got more to say but no time right now. John from Idegon (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank You
Thanks for your comment on the Hamilton High School matter. It seems to me that to the extent I may not have fully stated the main reasons why the proposed edits are improper, reference to the talk page discussion - both to see the well-stated reasons for the objections of others to the additions to the articles and as the proper forum to discuss the matter further, if at all desirable - should be sufficient. As should be apparent to anyone familiar with Wikipedia, I was merely trying to keep the article on topic and to insist that legitimate references be given. This was an add-on because it seemed to me that no such references would be forthcoming to support any involvement of the school in the incident - which apparently is still pending proof in a court. The user seemed to want to avoid giving any verifiable references, relying on "secret" information. Of course, I probably should have avoided that line altogether, even though it would be a valid reason, and simply stood on the reasons in the talk page. The user is so desperate to get this material into Wikipedia, and on the Hamilton High School page, that he makes the ludicrous charge that I am asking to see child porn as a reference. His use of personal attack reflects on the weakness of the case. I did not expect such a reaction, and continuation of it, from what I viewed as an ordinary action by me on vandalism watch. Thanks for paying attention to this. I have appreciated your work and our occasional intersections while trying to maintain Wikipedia's standards. Donner60 (talk) 03:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Didn't you work on Steubenville, Ohio/Steubenville High School and whatever article came out of the criminal controversy there? There are some similarities, but not many. The difficult individual is no doubt a student trying to build an argument from authority, not realizing that arguments from authority are pointless here. Hope you're considering the source and just "getting on down the road". Since I became a coordinator at WP:WPSCH, I've encountered more than a couple of these. Thanks for your kind words and what you do here. John from Idegon (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't recall the Steubenville articles and no edits by me are shown in the history of those two articles. I have reverted vandalism or disruptive edits to quite a few high school articles over the years - as they come up on Huggle. So that is why I have had occasion to see your work and you have encountered me before. From my experience, you have chosen a very difficult, but necessary, topic to keep watch on and I again commend you for it. I think your opinion that the difficult editor is a student (with some sort of grudge, I suppose) or maybe a recent graduate now, is most likely. I had the initial impression that he might be a somewhat older person from his first message which though flawed, was civil enough. The deterioration in the comments, personal attacks and flawed logic suggest that may not be the case. I will move on from this. I have encountered many vandals and have always tried to move on and not let them bother me. By the way, a kind administrator, DeltaQuad, noticed the number of vandalisms to my user page over time and indefinitely semi-protected it almost a year ago, showing I have experience with this sort of thing. Donner60 (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Reply on Commons
I've replied at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Official Logo of Kenowa Hills High School.jpg. —Guanaco 02:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Justice Young
Please explain why you chastised this user. The content she added, albeit negative, was sourced; that's hardly the sort of thing I'd call "disruptive". DS (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Try looking beyond the immediate edit. They removed positive content and added negative content. I reverted and asked them to take it to talk (got busy and failed to leave them a level one warning). They readded it under a false edit summary, at which point I left the level two warning. Here we have a brand new editor who on her first edit, makes a change to a political figures article, with perfectly formed references and a politically charged edit summary? That doesn't make you go hmm? Tell you what, I'll disengage from the article and you can be as nice or not as you see fit. Adios. John from Idegon (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Avertising a book?
The essay that I added as further reading on Lazarillo de Tormes is neither a book nor is it for sale and is freely available Robert condron (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly, . It's an unvetted paper. We don't link to things like that. And whether you believe it or not, promotion is not strictly linked to profit. We see academics promoting their works here all the time. We see churches promoting their ministries. We see non profits promoting their work. If you were not trying to promote the paper, I apologise. Doesn't change the fact that you cannot add it to that article. Doesn't change the fact that everything you've added has been inappropriate. Doesn't change the fact that everything you've added has been added with the unambiguously uninformative and frankly arrogant edit summary "added knowledge". Wikipedia is not a place to share your "knowledge". Any encyclopedia is simply a summary of what has been written about a given subject. If you approach it like what it is, you'll find it a rewarding experience to edit here. If not, not. John from Idegon (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

14:04:51, 26 October 2017 review of submission by Iainmf
Hi John from Idegon, I'm sorry if you see it that way, I was not blatantly ignoring the comment left by an earlier reviewer, not was I attempting to be disruptive. I had removed the words 'highly regarded' from a reference to our then guitarist Graeme Duffin and had linked the word 'influential' in the summary about the band to two citations from well established publications in the field of the band's music. I've now removed the word 'influential' from the summary, as well as the word 'eclectic' and resubmitted the draft for review. It seems I'm unable to use any adjectives about the band, even when they're supported by citations throughout the draft, so I've removed other adjectives from the draft as well. This leaves a very stark but factual draft, which I hope might finally be accepted. I had been given advice by another Wikipedia reviewer GreenMeansGo before I started this draft and thought I'd followed his instructions. Have the rules been tightened recently? An ex member of New Celeste has a Wikipedia page Joe O'Donnell (musician) which uses many adjectives about his playing and reputation, some supported by citations and some not. And he uses Discogs as citations, something I was advised was inadmissible? I'm not suggesting his article be revised, simply confused by the strictness that seems to be getting applied to my article, despite it being supported by numerous citations. Iainmf (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Mendoza, Texas
If you are able to have a look at Mendoza, Texas I'd appreciate it. Except for the first two lines in the history section, which were added by a previous editor, it's all original research added recently by a local editor. I've been unable to source any of it, and I'm at my 3-r's trying to delete it. All the best. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

✅ and watched. Pinged you in my note to them. John from Idegon (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hamilton High School - thanks
I hit the wall of text and decided life was too short to read all that - thanks for replying so I didn't need to do more than a cursory skimming of the most recent reply to my post over there. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. Today's dose is down to a thousand characters from 5000. I need to eat and meditate prior to tackling it. John from Idegon (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent History Ridgefield Washington
What is wrong with this, you reverted it (again) without discussion or explanation? It is on the Talk page, yet you revert without bring up your reasons.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll discuss it on the article's talk page when I have some time. Meanwhile, perhaps you're not aware it's WP:BRD, not WP:BRRD? I gave you one of the reasons in the edit summary which you acknowledged in your edit summary when you replaced it. Then you come here and flat out lie, saying I gave no reason? Beyond stating a reason, I do not have to justify removing your new addition. It is up to you to seek consensus for its inclusion, without which it stays out. I'll respond to whatever arguments you proffer on the he article's talk, and will not respond further here. John from Idegon (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no need to copy and paste what I reverted here. I know very well what I reverted and it is not going to get discussed here. Please read WP:TPG and WP:DIFF. John from Idegon (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You listed 'unreliably sourced' as the reason for taking it down, yet the sources quoted were 'reliable enough' for List of Confederate monuments and Removal of Confederate monuments, so pardon if it seem to me to not be a reason for deleting the entry (twice). Now it sound like you are arguing lack of consensus, yet you contributed nothing to the Talk page between you reverts.  So what is the real reason that it may be address, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ..which is to say, sourced to the same cite that led to a fairly contentious Rfc or two? Huh. Anmccaff (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is to say that there are more than enough sources and if this editor would just engage on the Talk page, first; we could all agree on which sources they want as I have listed another 4 sources available but not used. Reverting without discussion is the problem, as I can quickly find another ten or more sources.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No. "Which is to say" has an actual meaning; it says that one thing explicitly said (or written) proves or implies something else. That isn't the case with your writing above; the fact that a source is contentious doesn't mean there are other sources, or that the other sources are better.  That said, I suspect this is more than enough blather from us on someone elses's page; JfI, you won't offend me by nuking this. Anmccaff (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Stuart
In regards to my photo, the "flare" is the sun. Maybe you've heard of it. We can't all wait for perfect lighting conditions all the time. It was good enough. With ridiculously high photo standards, it's no wonder there are so few photos on each page Jessejess (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * , you've got a rather mistaken impression of what Wikipedia is. This isn't social media. It's a formal encyclopedia. It isnt't a place to "share" what you want known about the subject of the article. See WP:NOTFACEBOOK. Instead, it is a place where significant information from already published sources is summarized. Every single fact in the encyclopedia must be referencable to a reliable published source. It is not a place for either you or I to share what we believe to be true.
 * The reason you don't see many pictures on Wikipedia articles has nothing to do with high standards (altho our standards are high). The only thing we use photos for is to illustrate the copy of the article, and then only to help the reader understand the copy in a way words cannot.
 * All content on Wikipedia is peer reviewed. Altho everyone here is a volunteer, we expect all copy to be written in formal English, targeted at an audience that reads at a college level. The quality of equipment is not the issue with the particular photo you've mentioned. Altho I do make a portion of my living with a camera, I've taken some fine photos with my phone. You simply cannot take a good photo through a window when the sun is shining on it at an angle. You'll get flare every time. There is no reason to add a poor picture to Wikipedia, or to publish it anywhere for that matter. The subject of your picture would have been there at a different time when you could have created a quality image of it.
 * If you wish to contribute here, your contributions need to be in line with our policies and guidelines. You also need to be doing it with the motivation of creating the best content possible in collaboration with the other editor's here, not as a place to display your work. Here's an analogy: If you were going to donate food to a food bank, you wouldn't donate spoiled or otherwise poor quality foodstuffs, right? So why donate a poor picture, especially when you could have gone back to the location at a different time or simply shot from a different direction? John from Idegon (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

So unless people find articles about things getting better in an area (tough to find, albeit usually true when an area regroups after a storm), the reader is left believing the area is as good as gone. I wasn't even allowed to add text to a pre-existing photo explaining that it once again looked like that, which I know to be true as I was just in that exact area. It wasn't through a window, I was walking on the boardwalk there. I had other places to go to when I was there so that was the only time I could be there. I DID shoot it from a different direction, that was the second photo which you also had deleted. There was no obvious sun in that one. Not everyone gets a new camera every year. Some of us rely on older cameras where you can easily tell what the images are. I don't know if it makes it worse that it's a still from a video (it might though). There was no problem with the other photo and you deleted that one too. With either photo an average person would accept it without problem. It's as good of a still from a video as is possible with that camera, which although being 8 years old, is not bad. There's no reason for any non-professional photographer or anyone with a camera that costs less than $500 to even try on this thing. It just ends in frustration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessejess (talk • contribs) 05:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC) I have added yet another snapshot from my video above. I can't see anything wrong with it, but I'm sure YOU can, your lordship. You master of the camera who wouldn't use anything less than 100 megapixels. Remember, most people aren't as picky as you are. Jessejess (talk) 05:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, so much for trying to be helpful. This is the real world, not middle school. Your photos suck. My 5 year old son takes better pictures than the one above. For your contributions to be acceptable here, competency is required. When it comes to photography, you are incompetent. I like to toss the football around with my son. That doesn't mean I can play in the NFL. Post them on Facebook. They are of no use here. Want me to get a couple dozen more editors to tell you the same thing in varying degrees of niceness? We are trying to build a professional encyclopedia here. Quality does matter. Sorry you don't get that. Please don't post in my talk page again. I'm more than willing to help new editors that are willing to listen, but teaching you how to make a decent image with a camera is beyond the scope of the help anyone can give over the internet. BTW, the very first photo I ever had published I shot with a totally non-adjustable 30 year old camera I bought at a yard sale for a buck. Photography is a skill. You've got to learn and practice the techniques to be good at it. Good equipment isn't the issue. And to answer your other point, yes, you have to find a source for anything you add here. Sorry you can't grasp that concept either. I'm guessing Wikipedia is probably not going to be a good fit for you. John from Idegon (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

So Wikipedia is basically just filled with jerks like you. I don't have $1000 to spend on a camera like your kid probably has. These are not pictures, they're video stills and that may or may not make a difference. You can't adjust settings on my camera in video, and that's what that was. I'm done with Wikipedia, it's the worst excuse for a site. No wonder it's a joke and information is often said to be unreliable from it. And you are the worst excuse for a human being I have ever encountered in my life. Personal attacks over something so stupid as a photo/video still. I've been on Youtube for many years with many viewers, I've never had someone attack my videos' quality. Maybe the lighting was bad at the time with the sun being bright, I have no idea. The last thing I posted on your page I honestly couldn't see anything wrong with it. Sure, it wasn't amazing, but it was ok and I've definitely seen worse quality pictures on Wikipedia before. And I have seen many unsourced things on Wikipedia (they always say citation needed but they stay on the site). The papers don't usually report things like riverwalk restoration, I don't believe, so how do you get a source on that? I'm through with jerks like you, and this entire site. Life's too short.Jessejess (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)