User talk:John from Idegon/Archive 82

Middle schools
Hi John, hope all is well - sorry for the late reply, I noticed you did some work on that school article above, thank you so much and you're right, the athletics section does need serious work. I wanted to ask if you could please have a look at this school; a middle school, I know these are normally blanked and redirected or merged, but I'm a bit unsure on this one. Hardly anything linking to the article (just another school and city article plus talk pages) and the referencing is a bit yeah. I was going to move the article so the name isn't disambiguated as there isn't any other school on here of the same name but maybe this school needs to be redirected or deleted. If you could have a look when you can, I would really appreciate it, thank you so much Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There's enough going on with that article that it might be a notable subject. Perhaps someone with access to Newspapers.com might be able to source it out some more. Also, the wikilinks didn't offer much in the way of help defining the school organizationally. Perhaps you could look to see if any of the high schools listed in the county article can offer some clues (if they even have articles). Sorry, but too busy IRL to do anything with it for now. John from Idegon (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks John and sorry for the late reply, enjoy your wikibreak, busy times, greatly appreciate all your help. Not sure if this is too early, but may as well say it now, I hope you have a good Christmas and a Happy New Year :) Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

You should be contributing content
Than reverting people's edits. You are reverting too much edit that looks almost like a sabotage. 103.212.119.207 (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems to be doing a great job on Wikipedia to me... ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   17:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Too much reverts are almost sabotaging Wikipedia. That is like a gut instinct to revert shit, like a reflex. Have some benefit of the doubt about edits, than just reverting through their reflexes. Contributing contents are tough, reverting shit is much easier. Reverting edits don't really mean you are contributing anything to Wikipedia. Outrageous edits will be reverted by someone at some point fairly obviously, but simple edits that can have benefit of the doubt should at least stay. People shouldn't measure their contributions to Wikipedia through their reverts. It should be about contributing content. 103.212.119.207 (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keeping Wikipedia articles neutral, accurate, and free of vandalism and disruption is just as important as creating new articles and expanding content. Wikipedia wouldn't be so popular if content added to articles that lack references that need them cited were allowed to be kept. I understand that it's frustrating to have your edits reverted. It's happened to me many times in the years that I've been here. You just need to find a reliable source and cite it in-line with your changes, and you'll be golden. The verifiablity of content is important; it's what shows that the content added is legitimate, accurate, and fair, and helps to ensure that the content we write reflects the highest quality possible on the encyclopedia.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   18:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I'm not the only editor that has received this message from this editor. John from Idegon (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   18:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

You just removed validly cited content in your revert of Grand Rapids, Michigan. While I realize that actual editing, and looking for sources, takes more effort then just mashing the "undo" link, it's the responsible, constructive way to edit. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The only one behaving improperly in this instance is you, . Your edits violate a pillar policy. Exactly what dictum have I violated? I'll be reverting you again, and if you put it back without providing a reliable secondary source and some relevant content besides the obvious promo content the OP added, I'll be taking you to WP:ANEW. You are welcome to stick your haughty WP:ASPERSIONS in whatever recepticle you find handy. Got a problem with my editing behavior? ANI is that way ====>. Before you do that though, remember that in the US, it was at one time perfectly legal to own black people. More recently, it was completely acceptable for a 13 year old to walk into a store and buy cigarettes. Things change. Wikipeda is a thing. Following WP:BRD and starting a consensus discussion on the article talk page is a much better way to go. John from Idegon (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You're comparing this to slavery? Your sense of perspective is.... never mind. Not worth it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Guess what they say about the lack of ability to think critically in American society has some merit. Sorry you cannot comprehend the difference between illustration and comparison. But you're right... I see no future in discussion with one who cannot. John from Idegon (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I came here to caution you to slow down on the twinkle reversions and check the sources before assuming there's not one, but this exchange is appalling. Using slavery as an "illustration" in discussing editing here is completely overboard. Jonathunder (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

What happens when someone rejects your correction?
This is my response to John from Idegon, who recently sent me a message stating that my revision had been reverted due to my not being neutral.

All I did was correct information in an article about the Bronx High School of Science, specifically about what students at Bronx Science are called. The statement currently shown in the Wikipedia article is incorrect.

The quote I used as a correction was taken directly from Citation 6 in the article cited as a source by the author of the NAME section. All I did was copy and paste the correct information from the actual citation. Check it for yourselves. I know you are volunteers and don't have a lot of free time but if you read the citation, you will see that it states "Scienceites, as the school's students are known..." Whoever wrote the NAMES section of the Bronx High School of Science Wikipedia article is presenting incorrect information. Below is the whole NAME section.

"NAME The Bronx High School of Science is often referred to as Bronx Science, and rarely just Science.[4][5] It was formerly called Science High and its founder, Morris Meister, is said to have frequently called the school simply as "The High School of Science." Students are rarely called Sciencites.[6]"

Below are plenty of examples from The Bronx High School of Science website itself where the students are called Sciencites (which is the correct spelling by the way).

Here is a recent link (from March 2018) to the Bronx High of Science school newspaper Survey. In the second paragraph the author refers to her fellow students as, drum roll, please - Sciencites. https://thesciencesurvey.com/spotlight/2018/03/04/midyear-edition/

Bronx Science's Science Olympiad Team Crowned "New School ... https://www.bxscience.edu/apps/news/show_news.jsp?REC_ID... In addition, the Sciencites received medals for top five finishes in Environmental Chemistry (Diana Zheng, 4th place and Hosea Siu, 4th place) and in Ecology ... Memories - The Bronx High School of Science https://www.bxscience.edu/apps/memoirs/show_memoir.jsp?REC... Nov 9, 2005 ... so the nurse's office was closed, cause it was about 4:00 by then, and we were at a complete loss as to what to do. real brilliant sciencites, ... The Bronx High School of Science https://www.bxscience.edu/m/memoirs/show_memoir.jsp?REC_ID... Just as the current generation of Sciencites will no doubt remember where they were on 9/11 and exactly what happened for them, such was 11/22/63 for my ... Student Organization https://bxscience.edu/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID... Clubs and teams allow students to relax, have fun, and get to know fellow Sciencites in a social setting, and often enriching way. Clubs range in interest and are ... The Bronx High School of Science https://www.bxscience.edu/student_organization.jsp?rn=5785702 Many students demonstrate leadership skills as club officers. Clubs and teams allow students to relax, have fun, and get to know fellow Sciencites in a social ... Science seniors score Solash and Zhang finish at the top Markman ... www.bxscience.edu/survey/pdf/veb.pdf File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat Jun 4, 2003 ... of many Sciencites. At the popular new web site, “ratemyteachers.com,”. Mr. Brown has been given the high- est average ratings of any Bronx ...

Mundoreiser (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Mundoreiser
 * Hi . What generally happens is what is called Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle. Wikipedia wants us to be WP:BOLD and try to improve articles, but when another editor WP:REVERTs the changes we make, it is then up to use to WP:DISCUSS things on the article talk page. After looking at your edit, there are a couple of things I think were wrong with it.The first is you basically copied-and-pasted content you found on that particular website in to the article as is. This is a problem per WP:COPY-PASTE and WP:PLAGIARISM, even when it's done unintentionally. Everytime you click "Publish changes" you're stating that any content you've just added is entirely of your own creation unless you properly attribute it otherwise. You need to do this in order to comply with Wikipedia's licensing policy; so, when the content is not yours, the chances are pretty good your violating someone else's copyright. Wikipedia content is supposed to be a summary written in our own words of content we find in reliable sources. I'm sure you felt you were just quoting a source, and sometimes short quotations are allowed per MOS:QUOTE, but you need to make sure you add such content properly.The other problem is the source of the quote; basically, you tried to add content from the schools own website which describe how great its students and teachers are. This is overly promotional content (even if properly quoted) which is not really in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:NOTPROMOTION. Wikipedia articles are really only intended to reflect what others are saying about their respective subjects; articles aren't really intended to reflect what the subjects are saying about themselves. Sometimes an official website of some other type of primary source can be used to cite specific factual content, etc., but not very often and only with great care. So, I think John's undoing of your change was correct in this case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

about New York City housing crisis
I'm almost certain that Seahawk is going to just remove the PROD tag, do you think the article should go to AFD after that? TheMesquito buzz  02:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that would be too simple. It likely is a notable subject, but the editor in question does not seem to have an understanding of the basic tertiary nature of an encylopedia. And I certainly don't have the patience to explain it to him at the moment. (See page notes above.( Perhaps you'd be willing? John from Idegon (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Peace Dove Christmas
Happy Holidays. &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   15:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Please Un-Revert Town of Cary corrections
John,

I'm re-posting my query from a few weeks ago. It is important to the Town of Cary that these historical facts be corrected. The Town Clerk is in agreement with my edits, as are local historians, and I have cited reliable sources (the original incorrect data doesn't cite any sources).

Details as posted a few weeks back: You reverted my edits to the Town of Cary, NC page, indicating that the sources I cited for the corrections did not seem reliable and if they contradicted previous sources, consensus would need to be obtained.

The areas I corrected did not have any prior sources cited, so it is unclear where the incorrect data came from [and there is no contradiction because there were no previously cited sources].

As for the sources I cited, Around and About Cary is known locally as the definitive history of Cary and is the "go-to" source for local historians, of which I am one. Cary Through the Years is a publication that includes research from the Town of Cary itself and local historians.

The government of the Town of Cary recognizes the incorporation date as April 3, 1871. Local historians agree that the list of mayors on the current page is incorrect (even having one person's name wrong). The sources cited are reliable, and the incorrect information that is there now cites no sources.

Can you please advise how I can ensure that these corrections can be "un-reverted"?

Thank you.

BrentInCary (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Your sources local reputation is irrelevant. It would never meet our standard for reliable sourcing.  The fact that the town clerk agrees with it is even less relevant.  This article on the city of Cary is neither for nor under the control of, the city.  When you have some good sources, start a discussion on the article talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Update School Image
I work for the school. We are trying to update the images on our page, but you have falsely reported copyright violations. We created those images. Funkpipe (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "You" are just an anonymous made up internet handle. You cannot just upload an image to Wikipeda commons to use on this article. When you uploaded the image, you released all rights for it. That means someone could use your schools logo in a porn flick if they wanted to. Please stop. John from Idegon (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018
Hello ,

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
 * Reviewer of the Year
 * Thanks are also extended for their work to (15,059 reviews),  (12,760reviews),  (9,001reviews),  (8,440reviews),  (8,092reviews),   (5,306reviews),  (4,153 reviews),  (4,016reviews),  and  (3,615reviews)., , , and  have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only sevenmonths, while , with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top100 reviewers.

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
 * Less good news, and an appeal for some help

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
 * Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minutevideo was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Training video

Draft Mareeg Media
Dear Idegon ,After You reviewed this entry you have deleted the page I drafted on this website. I am on board to make the changes other reviewers requested, it just took me longer to get back to the editing than I had anticipated. Will you please restore the page so I can complete the draft to address your concern? Thank you. Please note I am new to community but I have review other similar article and they all have similar reference for example Read and //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garowe_Online I will be going to rewritten the article to conform with Wikipedia. This Org has a number of reference but need more time for research. NOTFORPROMOTION.Thank you in advance Warsamedhuje Warsamedhuje (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not an administrator, so I couldn't have deleted the draft in question. John from Idegon (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Please can you look at this
Hi John, hope all is well, please could you take a look at this school, a series of edits by a possible COI editor, pretty much to the infobox with one edit description: "As I am the principal/Teacher-in-Charge of the School." with a similar description on the users page. If you could take a look, I would really appreciate it, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Goodsprings, Nevada
Look buddy, you should just let this one slide. Goodsprings is a town of like 200 people. They have nothing. What do you think most of the traffic on that page is? People curious about the town? No, its mostly people like me looking up the real life equivalent of a town in a video game. The only reason this town is somewhat relevant is due to this game. So to not include it on the town's page seems silly, doesn't it?

Thereal pappy (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Thereal pappy
 * Discuss content disputes on the appropriate article's talk page please. John from Idegon (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts about this
Hi John, hope all is well. After tidying up infobox and other things, I removed the see also section on this school with edit description "...all these articles are not needed here. This article is about the school." which was reverted with "You are wrong". Was I wrong? Or should I have removed some instead? Surely all of these are not needed here, which also includes portal links. If you could have a look I would really appreciate it, thank you :) Steven (Editor) (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Church sponsored education in the US is a very highly POV area. SDA is the second biggest church sponsor of schools, right behind the Catholic church. And many of the articles are quite promotional of the church. I did some more selective editing, but I don't disapprove of your approach. Hospitals? Universities? Theology? Sheesh. That's evangelism not encyclopedia writing. John from Idegon (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I see and yep haha, thank you so much for sorting this out. This is another school, a huge number of edits by the same user, possibly some unsourced changes, if you could take a look when you can that would be amazing, thank you for everything you do, really appreciate it. I hope you had a good Christmas by the way, I'm recovering from flu, not good Steven (Editor) (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello Steven (Editor), yes, a single editor has taken an interest in another school to the extent they might be called a WP:SPA. No particular damage is being done there. In the process, the article loses granularity.  My school, similarly situated, has had its article pared significantly over the years.  Here's why: the press never writes about prep schools unless there is a terrible scandal. The alternative source is the book about the school, which is generally uncritical. Rinker Buck, an author I've met and have great respect for, did WP a great service by publishing material about the school in the Hartford Courant. One learns more about this class of school by looking at the alumni. We do a pretty good job keeping that section clean and well referenced. I don't spend much time worrying about how many league championships these schools win. I regularly delete assertions of AP and SAT scores, which could not be documented in any case. I don't think there is much cause for worry. Rhadow (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
John, I appreciate all the work you do to make the encyclopedia better. You have certainly helped me a lot along the way. Thanks and Merry Christmas! Jacona (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

If you don't have time for it, don't do it
In this sense, arbitration is meant to engage in discussion about whose edits are more accurate and encyclopedic and not whether one editor feels someone else's edit is less acceptable for a current article revision. You have reverted several of my edits which have improved articles in the form of more descriptive maps and information listed in introduction section and infoboxes, and you have done so with no clear explanation other than reverting to a lesser-quality version of an article. You have ignored a previous message I left you but continue to do your unexplained revisionism. Unless you have an explanation, I will continue to override your reverts to the point where further discourse will be necessary. Notorious4life (talk) 06:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't up to me beyond giving you an explanation that it isn't an improvement to seek consensus to remove a new addition. It is up to you to seek consensus to replace it. If you wish to edit disruptively I'll be happy to continue reverting you until I hit 3rr, at which time I'll take you to ANEW. I will not discuss content disputes here. Tata. John from Idegon (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Threatening to keep reverting until you hit three times is not productive, and 3RR is not an entitlement. Jonathunder (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas, John. I saw the kerfuffle earlier, so just want to say take it easy and hopefully we can catch up soon somewhere along the coast. Alex Shih (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Reverted your removal on Pueblo
I reverted, the sourcing could be better but please see Dutch Clark. I will look for a little better sourcing but that should at least show you that some of that is indeed notable Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 2014 CSU–Pueblo ThunderWolves football team Entire article on the 20104 season of the college football.
 * [], they do one national event televised a year at the State Fair Event Center but I need to find a good source.
 * Discussion on Bell Game, went through deletion and review process. Looks like it could use TLC again though. []
 * Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I made some changes see []. I sourced it and removed what I couldn't. Tell me what you think. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year; Best wishes and good health for 2019


Happy New Year! John from Idegon, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Donner60 (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, John!


Happy New Year! Some celestial fireworks to herald another year of progress for mankind and Wikipedia. All the very best, John,

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:OMGitsGARRET/sandbox


A tag has been placed on User:OMGitsGARRET/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Whpq (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)