User talk:JonRidinger/Archive 11

The Center Line: U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter, Winter 2013

 * —EdwardsBot (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Ohio Wiki Page
Hi Jon,

I was the one who left the comment about adding the link to the Ohio page. Could we discuss the link I would like to add privately? I believe it would be helpful to many people. If you are not responsible for the ohio page let me know. The page is semi-locked and I am confused about how to go about talking to someone about it.

Thank you for your help,

Ohio Wiki Page
Hi Jon,

I was the one who left the comment about adding the link to the Ohio page. Could we discuss the link I would like to add privately? I believe it would be helpful to many people. If you are not responsible for the ohio page let me know. The page is semi-locked and I am confused about how to go about talking to someone about it.

Thank you for your help, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carbonegm (talk • contribs) 17:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I am happy to discuss it, but I think it would be more appropriate to discuss it on the talk page for the Ohio article. That's always your best bet when an article is protected or semi-protected like that. Again, there is no one specific person who is "responsible" for the article since Wikipedia works by consensus. The semi-protected state of that article means that established editors can edit it, but new and anonymous editors can't since there have been quite a few problems with article vandalism. So far, any new or anonymous editor who wishes to make a change simply puts an "edit request" on the article talk page and explains why. It may or may not draw discussion from other editors, but it usually gets some kind of response, either doing on the action or explaining why the action cannot be completed. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Poor Man's Talk Back
I replied to your post here. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 04:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The Center Line: Spring 2013

 * —EdwardsBot (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Kent spam
I semi-protected the page for a month, so only auto-confirmed users can edit it. There is a WP:Spam blacklist, but a more nuanced solution might be to try adding the link to User:XLinkBot's list of link that will be automatically removed from the article. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The Center Line: Summer 2013

 * —EdwardsBot (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Stow, Ohio and Agenda 21 Issue
Hello Jon... the Agenda 21 controversy in Stow, Ohio as well as other towns and states, will be in more mainstream media soon and then it can be put back in with the new source (I'm in the media and will be discussing in future meetings since I think it's a good subject for further investigation and discussion in Stow, Ohio as well as other towns). There seems to be a number of legislatures passing bills to stop some of the objectives of Agenda 21 which don't adhere to current American laws regarding private land ownership rights. Once there's another media source covering this subject, which will be current, what type of section is recommended for this to be placed under within the Stow, Ohio article as well as other listed towns, in your opinion? Please advise.GoGeo (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It needs to be significant and clear coverage to really make sense in an article like this, meaning it can't come from a group that has some kind of connection (be it for or against) Agenda 21, and mentions Stow specifically. In other words, an article needs to verify that the city has indeed adopted measures from Agenda 21 in their long-term planning and that it's generating controversy in town. A controversy would be what people think of that (visible opposition or support), not whether or not that plays a role in Stow's infrastructure development. Definite reliable sources are things like the local Cleveland TV stations, or newspapers like the Akron Beacon Journal and Stow's local paper, the Stow Sentry. Then the source has to verify what is said in the Wikipedia article, but my guess is that it's going to take at least two sources to really establish that there is a controversy and what role Agenda 21 plays in it for Stow. If the sources are there and attest to Stow's use of Agenda 21, it will warrant a mention in the history section, like a sentence or two, or in the Infrastructure section. Basically, it needs to have some context and not give it undue weight (meaning it dominates a section or is a section of its own), since it's only a part of the bigger picture. You also have to be careful that the sources aren't self-published either, otherwise we run the risk of the source not being reliable and/or a conflict of interest. Just remember the overall point of the article: to give the reader a thorough, but still general, idea of the subject, which is Stow. If you aren't sure, try using your sandbox to try some options out. I'm not opposed to adding info about Agenda 21, but I want to make sure it's properly sourced and totally relevant to the specific article. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Cowboys Stadium/AT&T Stadium
Why the delay? First, you have an article that refers to the stadium by one name, but the title of the article is different; that looks shoddy at best and we should be about improving articles. It looks even worse when ALL major sources use the new name and Wikipedia is still on the old one. Second, it's been a week of very little discussion (complete even with a pointless accusation) and even less involving actual policies and precedents, at least for the "argument" it should stay at Cowboys Stadium. Further, one user has, on 3 separate occasions, made edits to the AT&T Stadium page to prevent others from moving it back (which I consider in very poor taste), which is why admins have even had to be involved in the first place.

I'm all for taking time for a discussion when needed and have participated in many, but for very clear cases like this, we're just wasting time. When an argument is being made where the main points have absolutely no bearing on the final decision (i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT), having a "discussion" is pointless. As soon as it was moved back to Cowboys Stadium and the user presented his or her reasons for opposing the initial move and they were clearly based on personal opinions of the topic and not Wikipedia naming policy, that should've been the end and it should've been reverted back to AT&T Stadium. We do not need to discuss every page move. Move discussions are for times when it isn't totally clear which direction to go with a title (See Talk:Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome) based on naming conventions, not just because someone doesn't like the name. There was no discussion in July because no one thought it was necessary based on the name not needing disambiguation and the fact it was properly, and clearly, sourced in multiple outlets. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Franklin Hotel (Kent, Ohio), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Record-Courier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The Center Line: Fall 2013

 * —EdwardsBot (talk) 03:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Service Awards
You're welcome. You put in the time and work to qualify for them.

Vjmlhds (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The Center Line: Winter 2013

 * —MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)