User talk:JonRidinger/Archive 4

Notable Windhamites
Windham was produced and served as home to multiple notable individuals in diverse fields. Politician Laurin D. Woodworth was born in Windham and represented Ohio's 17th district in the United States Congress from 1873 until 1877. Windham is also the birthplace of Thomson Jay Hudson, known for his three laws of psychic phenomena. Writer Angela Johnson was raised in Windham and stated her inspiration to become an author came as a student in the Windham Exempted Village School District. Current Ball State Cardinals head football coach Stan Parrish lived in Windham from 1969-1974 at the beginning of his coaching career and served as head coach at Windham High School from 1972 until 1974 after serving as an assistant

This is what I put together...wanted to let you see it and comment before publishing it. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks great! Thanks, too, for keeping the demonym! -- JeffBillman (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The Continuing Saga of one Brent A. Webb
Yep, same person tried adding him back once again after you undid the edit. Next time, I consider it vandalism. -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I recall your heads up on the Webb bio article and I thought it looked like it should be deleted as non-notable and non-referenced. semi-protected the article. I will leave a 3RR warning on the IPs talk page too. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I see editing has been disabled on the Ravenna page I found this very rude as you did not even try to dicuss your opinions or thought with me on this mater before going to an admin to lock it down. People feel free to let me know if you ever have a dispute with one of my eidts but dont just start citing vand. without first seeing why I may have made the change.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.232.166 (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is still open for editing, but is restricted for new and anonymous editors for the time being. The discussion over the inclusion of Brent A. Webb on the Ravenna High School (Ohio) article (and also in the Ravenna, Ohio article) already happened and because the article on him was deleted twice and non-notability was one of the reasons cited for its deletion (among several others including zero sources) his name was removed (by several editors actually).  Generally, the rule for the notable alumni and notable natives section in the respective articles is that the person mentioned has a Wikipedia article.  Because Mr. Webb currently does not have an article means that his name should not appear on the notable alumni or notable natives lists.  I am not the only editor who reverted your edits as three other editors (two of whom are administrators) also reverted your edits for the same reasons I did.  You could've easily put a posting on the article's talk page if it concerned you.  I also did not request User:Ruhrfisch block the article (though I did say it may be necessary); I merely requested his help with the situation and he felt putting a temporary block on the article was the best solution.  Your edits were only labeled as vandalism after they were repeated.  You'll note mine and others previous edit summaries did not refer to your edits as vandalism, but only did so after the fourth time on.  If you want your edits to not be reverted or scrutinized, first always use reliable sources when adding ANY content, and second, get a registered user name.  --JonRidinger (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Ravenna High School (Ohio)
Hi JonRidinger. No problem! Always happy to help. Cheers,  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 05:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

MF and Stow
I've done my best to participate, both by offering long comments and by reverting to what everyone minus our apparently single editor is wanting. BTW, it looks like we have an attempt to evade 3RR by a newly-registered account at MF; I'm leaving a notice at the 3RR noticeboard. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to contribute to the threat at WP:AN3RR; I don't quite understand the SOCK process, but I'll try to contribute if you feel like opening an investigation. Please don't revert any more at Munroe Falls, since you've hit three reverts, and I don't want to see you getting blocked right now!  Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've now hit 3RR as well, so no more reverts for me; I'd ask Beirne or JeffBillman to participate, but they're obviously not online at the moment. Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * D'oh! So what's that Catholic school on Main Street in Ravenna I pass every day on my way to work? ;-) -- JeffBillman (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Changes
Hi I dont like to read incorrect information on wiki's I may not know where to get a source for something but if it is clearnly wrong and already does not have a source it gets cut.131.123.65.154 (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought I would just point out the mistakes then you can fix them. 131.123.65.154 (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Its ok I am just doing my part to make these pages GREAT!! 131.123.65.154 (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sunny Brook/Sunnybrook
As you can see here, I was in Kent today. Is the road Sunny Brook or Sunnybrook? I didn't pay attention to the street signs when going there, and it was dark when I left, so I don't remember what the signs said. NRIS gives the street name as "Sunny Brook", while Google Maps shows it as "Sunnybrook". Local input, please? Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was there without telling you :-) Thanks.  I wasn't just in Kent: see here.  As you may have noticed, there's a site that somehow wasn't included on the list until now: President Garfield's house in Hiram.  Google Maps satellite seems to indicate that it's a building on the Hiram College campus; do you know if you could get it?  If you're over there, the headless Garfield statue might also be an interesting picture :-)  Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * When I view the image, I get the picture of the building instead of the site; both thumbnails visible at the bottom are of the building. Clicking on the thumbs, I get the building in the first version of the image and the site in the "current" version.  And yes, I saw that building as well when heading to Aurora, but didn't have time to stop :-)
 * I was going to suggest that you request deletion and start all over again, but your idea is better. Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Acres
Not all english readers use acres and hectares http://www.geocities.com/genfriendsghl/research_tips/units_of_land_measure.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.65.154 (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Summa Field at InfoCision Stadium
Thank you for weeding through this article and finding my errors. JEN9841 (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Riddle Block No. 5
I believe that the situation with this photo is more complicated than you originally thought — see my comments at the county listings talk page. Nyttend (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

boldface
from boldface mos page: "Boldface is used to separate the article name from ordinary text. It is typically used in the first paragraph of an article, used with proper names and common terms for the article topic, including any synonyms and acronyms. Do this only for the first occurrence of the term."

Florence is not the name of the Munroe Falls article. Florence is not the proper name of Munroe Falls. Florence is not a common term for the article topic (Munroe Falls). The article as a whole is about Munroe Falls, not historic Munroe Falls.

also from boldface mos page(s): "Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text. Use boldface in the remainder of the article only for a few special uses:

* Table headers * Definition lists (example: Glossary of trucking industry terms in the United States) * Volume numbers of journal articles, in some bibliographic formats"

Florence doesn't fall into any of the above categories, so use italics (although even that seems unnecessary). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.103.117 (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You conveniently left out the section from MOS:BOLDTITLE I placed on your talk page: "If the subject of the page has a common abbreviation or more than one name, the abbreviation (in parentheses) and each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance." (emphasis added). While Florence is certainly not the current name of Munroe Falls, it is an historical and former name, meaning the name "Florence" does show up in published histories and is referencing modern Munroe Falls.  Minor yes, but still a fact.  Just because the name isn't current doesn't mean it isn't an additional name.  Bolding makes it easier to find, which is especially helpful when redirects and disambiguation pages direct to a specific article.  The same goes for the previous names of Kent, Ohio.  Also, what's the deal with you constantly switching between multiple user accounts and the anonymous user?  Are you losing the passwords for them?  Pick one and stick with it, otherwise you'll end up getting yourself blocked for sockpuppets.  That's what got the Munroe Falls, Ohio article protected for over a month.  --JonRidinger (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Just because the name isn't current doesn't mean it isn't an additional name."

Do you honestly consider Florence another name for Munroe Falls? Have you ever heard anyone refer to Munroe Falls as Florence? Ever? Florence IS not another name for Munroe Falls. The name is historic, not current, and therefore IS not an additional name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.103.117 (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Read history. It's referenced in the Wikipedia article from both the Munroe Falls and Stow city websites.  Again, it is a previous historical name and also happens to be the first name of Munroe Falls.  Historic names are additional names since older histories do use the old name at various times, particularly if someone notable was born in the settlement during that time.  It's very common in studying history...try it sometime.  --JonRidinger (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Butting in - USGS GNIS lists Florence as an alternate name, so it seems fairly official (though not in current usage). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That one anonymous editor
Thanks for your help with that anonymous user, particularly in reverting the edits on my user page. I removed the refimprove templates on both the Kent, Ohio and Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio) articles because they really aren't needed. Both articles can still be improved in many ways, but they both are well-sourced. Their placement was done in spite, not for any actual encylcopedic reason or concern over content. It seems that when editors, particularly new editors, get in a disagreement with me, their solution is to edit the pages I edit the most. Same thing happened with a newer editor who edited the Akron, Ohio article a little while back if you remember. I feel the latest edits, particularly what was placed on your and my talk pages and in my user page could be considered Harassment. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's definitely harassment, and the anti-Mormon tone to it makes me sad-- even though I'm not LDS. I actually considered posting this to WP:ANI... probably will if the editor persists. -- JeffBillman (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I left a warning on the user's talk page (diff) and will block the account for a short time at the next PA or harrassment attack (please let me know). Sorry this has happened and thanks for letting me know. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a WP:SPI is in order - I feel dumb as I had the school on my watchlist and did not notice all the different BullDogDog2 variants before. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is harassment; maybe it isn't. I've never actually seen that page before.  I do know, however, that it's quite disruptive, and some of the edits are good examples of edit summary vandalism, not to mention the obvious personal attacks of putting this kind of thing on userpages.  I would issue a final warning or a block (more likely a block) if Ruhrfisch hadn't just stepped in; as is, if I see any more problems from this IP, I'll block unless Ruhrfisch deals with it first.  Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If the problem had been ongoing I might have blocked, but since it had been two hours or so since the IP's last edit, I figured it was OK to give a final warning. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you! Yeah, this isn't the first time I've had a disagreement with this editor (Nyttend you helped me on the Munroe Falls, Ohio edit problems), but this is the first time he/she's brought my religion into it (including derogatory comments in edit summaries) and vandalized my user page.  Hopefully it will be the last. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've blocked for 48 hours. Quite the interesting vandal, dragging in both classical poetry and some contemporary song...although s/he must not pay much attention if she confuses an LDS, a Neomarcionite, a Reformed Presbyterian, and someone who hasn't declared his religious views :-)  Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nyttend...though as I said to Ruhrfisch, it seems he/she assumes that anyone who helps or agrees with me is also Mormon! Just remember all of the multiple other user names this anonymous user has created.  I listed every one I could find at User talk:Ruhrfisch if you didn't already notice.  I'm all but certain it's the same person based on identical edit types, articles edited, interactions with, and always blanking the talk page after anyone posts a comment.  --JonRidinger (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, is "an LDS" the right way to say it? I know "a Latter-day Saint" is right, but I guess I would normally refer to a member of the LDS Church as being "an LDS person", not "an LDS".  Nyttend (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is something wrong with this user's edits to the highschool article? If I were to have found that article by Special:Random article, knowing nothing about the history, I wouldn't see anything wrong.  Nevertheless, if you see anything that we could say is concrete evidence of this being the same editor, tell me and I'll block for evading the first block.  Nyttend (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I understand quite well. However, the block I levelled included a block on creating new accounts, so this must have been done from a different IP.  Nyttend (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the user creation log, both GoldenSpike and this user created accounts after I made the block, so they must have been created on another IP. Perhaps a school IP address?  FYI, another editor reverted some of GoldenSpike's edits, and Egraham replied at that user's talk explaining the edits; it's just more evidence that these are all the same person.  I've asked the other editor to come here and read this section.  Nyttend (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(out) I opened a sockpuppet investigation at Sockpuppet investigations/Smfhs photographer. Will notify all involved parties. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

smf chamber of commerce v. library
please justify including one and not the other; i understand not listing "every educational institution," but why no library (when there is one and only one)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.103.117 (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the first reason for this article specifically would be because the library isn't within the city limits of Munroe Falls, though it could be mentioned in the education section since it serves the city residents. If you did that, the reference would most certainly be a link to the library website, then you would have a link there. Second, the external links section is more geared towards the city in general, which is why a chamber of commerce, historical society, and government page would be appropriate.  Really, according to WP:EL, external links should be kept at a minimum which is why the WP:USCITY guidelines were created.  And since no featured article has the local library included in their external links section, we really can't justify it being here.  --JonRidinger (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * first point-- the chamber of commerce is in stow and you've authorized that listing; second point-- "geared toward the city in general"... exactly, by including the city's only library, the stow-munroe falls public library71.64.103.117 (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh and I totally understand your points. True the chamber of commerce is in Stow, but it promotes all of Munroe Falls with Stow, so it would have general info.  The library is much like the school district; it's part of the educational aspect of Munroe Falls.  If you include the library in the external links, why not the schools?  How bout the parks and recreation department?  Why not a local large business?  That's probably why the guidelines were written the way they were; to keep the external links section from getting out of hand.  The only place an external link for the library would be appropriate would be if the library had a Wikipedia article and I don't think it is notable enough as most suburban libraries aren't.  The only reason Kent's library is notable is because it's a Carnegie library.  Honestly, if you really feel an external link is needed, use it in a citation.  I think it would be a great addition to the education section as most libraries in this area are associated with the local school district.  It could also be mentioned in the general history section.  --JonRidinger (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

removed several stow-munroe falls high school athletic home-game citations
better?

the other citations (e.g. PACE NSC) are okay, no? 3227Egraham (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say so...basically, the only time you would need multiple citations on the same fact is if it's highly controversial or if its a short sentence with several cited facts in it. That can go for anything in the article.  Again, sources are GREAT, but too many just crowds the article.  As long as a fact can be verified, we're good.  Thanks for your help.  --JonRidinger (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. i understand having too many citations-- although i began adding so many b/c i remember a certain user stressing their importance ad infinitum ad nauseam (i.e., being unable to edit whatsoever unless citing every. single. little. fact.) 2. how does one citation for say, only the football team, or only the girls volleyball team, verify the statement that "most teams" play at stow high school? 3. let's not patronize, you'd prefer i just go away 3227Egraham (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Answers my question
OK so you are the anonyous editor who has like 15 additional names. I never said "every little fact" had to be cited. You misinterpreted what I said. Having a good amount of sources is fantasic, but you usually only need one, especially for non-controversial statements. Like pictures, there is such a thing as overkill. For instance, saying that the school is commonly referred to as "Stow High School" would only really need one source (and really, the athletics page itself is a source since its name is "StowHighAthletics") if any at all since using a shortened name of the school (especially in a long name like "Stow-Munroe Falls") is pretty normal and hardly unique. You also don't need to source the statement that Stow is a suburb of Akron or that the school is located in Stow. Those are pretty much a given. Really, the places where sources become an issue is when you make outstanding claims. If I remember right, this became an issue with the academic teams, particularly the JCL, which does make some pretty outstanding claims. As for your question on athletics, a general reference to the Stow athletics page would suffice for the statement that most teams have their home games at the school, since the page has schedules for each team. Again, it is not abnormal for a school to have the majority of its athletic teams play in or around the building. Having one additional citation per team that plays elsewhere (like swimming and bowling) would be appropriate as well. Also, if the fact has a marked citation one place in the article, it doesn't need to be marked every time, especially in the lead and infobox. The high school article I have used as a guide along with the Schools Wikiproject is Plano Senior High School, which is one of only 2 featured school articles.

Also, what's the deal with all these different user names? Do you keep forgetting your password or something? --JonRidinger (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. actually, I wouldn't prefer you go away, I prefer you stay and work with people rather than against them. I wouldn't keep giving you suggestions and pointers and checking and rechecking Wikipedia and project policies and guidelines if I just wanted you to go away.  I also wouldn't use the talk pages here or on the articles to communicate my reasons for edits if I wanted you to just go away.  Your little outbursts yesterday and your constant creation of new user names leads me to believe you're not really here to work with people to improve articles.  --JonRidinger (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Brent Webb, revisited
Hi Jon! Have you read today's Record-Courier? Turns out that Brent Webb guy was right about being admitted to the Ravens Hall of Fame. Of course, saying so before now was original research, and-- more importantly-- it still doesn't demonstrate sufficient notability. Still, I thought you'd get a kick out of it! Cheers! -- JeffBillman (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I did see that today and was reminded what a creepy, crooked individual he is! ;)  Soon after that incident, there was a big section with bios for each inductee in the Raven Hall of Fame that did confirm at least that part was true.  Honestly, though, I never used that factor in my argument of notability anyway and was surprised it was even brought up.  Thanks for the heads-up though!  :)  --JonRidinger (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

editing northern ohio railway museum page
I will be happy to have you help improve the page for the Northern Ohio Railway Museum as long as it is accurate. Another individual created this page without the museums knowledge and that original post was full of inacurate and incomplete info. That is why I became active in this endeaver. You can edit and add links, etc as needed as long as I can proof them before going public. My interest is in seeing that the museum and technical facts are represented accurately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Motormansteve (talk • contribs) 06:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

editing northern ohio railway museum page
I will be happy to have you help improve the page for the Northern Ohio Railway Museum as long as it is accurate. Another individual created this page without the museums knowledge and that original post was full of inacurate and incomplete info. That is why I became active in this endeaver. You can edit and add links, etc as needed as long as I can proof them before going public. My interest is in seeing that the museum and technical facts are represented accurately. Motormansteve (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate your desire for accuracy and attention to detail, please read WP:OWN and WP:COI. No editor can claim to own an article, especially to the point of inspecting other editors' changes before "going public."  Remember, the article is about the museum; it is in no way owned, maintained, or under the direction of the museum in any way, nor do museum volunteers/members have any more control over the article's content than any other Wikipedia editors.  Your best bet is to make sure that the article is properly sourced.  Without sources, your word alone is not good enough to withstand a deletion debate.  Remember, we have no way to verify that your knowledge is accurate unless it is published somewhere (a book, a website, etc).  Also use the edit summary section to let other editors know what you did and why when you edit.  But I can't emphasize enough the need to have reliable sources.  Right now the NORM article is tagged for notability because the article does not show why it is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia.  Simply being a railroad museum does not automatically make it notable.  To "prove" notability, you would need to find outside sources (i.e. not from the museum itself) that talk about it: what's special about it like unique collections, unusual or unique coverage of a topic, or something like that.  --JonRidinger (talk) 07:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Garrettsville question
What would you think about restoring and rewording the water department? In my mind, it would be reasonable to say simply that the department employs a large number of minors; this is likely unusual enough to merit mention, especially since that section was sourced. Nyttend (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The source didn't indicate much of anything as it was the minutes from a previous meeting. It really didn't support what was being said in the section from what I read and made no mention of any specific policy to hire minors or use them on any notable scale.  The one specific person it mentioned makes no reference to the fact the individual is a minor and the editor who added it put the person's graduation year ('08) which would not make him a minor anymore.  If a better source can be found, of course it could be mentioned in the article, but maybe one or two sentences in the government section or something.  --JonRidinger (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see; thanks. I'd not looked at the source myself; I simply figured that you'd removed the section (rightly) because it was a rather trivial subject and not noticed that it had a source.  Nyttend (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Stadium edits
I gave the user a 3RR warning and reverted his/her latest edit. I will block if s/he reverts again. And all this for an unsubstantiated claim of SEVENTH place?? "We're number seven!! We're number seven!!" Just doesn't have that much appeal to me... ;-) Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing it up - I knew it was more complicated, but I just saw all the reverts and no sources and did not try and figure it all out. See it still has not been reverted (yet).
 * I also notice that several edits have been made to Stowe-Munroe Falls HS by a series of editors with compound noun names followed by a number. Hmmm. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

onlineutah spam
I've been removing onlineutah.com from all the pages it is currently on, because (a) it's spam (for a realtor, and for Google ads) and (b) it appears to be copyvio, copied from a Utah encyclopedia. It certainly shouldn't stand as a reliable source, and probably not as an EL either. I'm not reverting your reverts, but wanted to let you know the rationale behind removing the refs. tedder (talk) 06:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I found the onlineutah.com link via a Google search. If it is indeed copied from a Utah encyclopedia, it would be helpful to know that encyclopedia so that the source may be updated.  By the way, though copyright violations are certainly a concern, if they occur outside Wikipedia they're pretty much also outside the scope of WP:COPYVIO.  Thanks!  -- JeffBillman (talk) 07:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks both of you for the heads-up. In looking at the source it didn't jump out at me as pure spam and even after reading WP:SPAM I still can't say this specific source is blatant spam.  Yes, it does have a ton of ads, but the link in the article is not placed to promote anything and the page does indeed have information directly related to the article.  And as a citation, it never was just an external link.  I am definitely searching for an additional source (or at least the source of OnlineUtah), but for now I think it is OK, epspecially for a relatively non-important article and fact.  I have seen many reliable sources online that have a lot of ads on them. Thanks again for all you do with spam removal, though!  :) --JonRidinger (talk) 07:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's likely copypasta from "Utah History Encyclopedia", seen in this ref. In any case, it isn't much of a reliable source, let alone the spam issue. tedder (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
Please refrain from the rouge side, also i can assist you when you struggle at times, im available daily so just ask.--Threeblur0 (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The "rogue" side? Do you even know what that means?  It's even more interesting given your sockputtetry history and general lack of understanding and willingness to work within established Wikipedia policies and with other editors.  Just stick with Wikipedia policies and the actual definitions of things like vandalism instead of making up your own.  Also remember to include reliable sources that actually reference what you are saying when you add information. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah and if you think about it it makes since. Your history to bring up my history of "sockpuppetry" that i eplained which is why im still here, in benign efforts to make a statement is irrelevant, such is the false "lack of understanding andd willingness to work within established Wikipedia policies and with other editors" fix of words, i and other seem me working on top of what other editors do and fixing the problem when other say they are present.--Threeblur0 (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't make *sense* like about most of what you just wrote here. Again, calling what another editor does "vandalism" when it doesn't fit the definition just makes people not want to work with you and shows that you do not understand the Wikipedia policy on what is vandalism and what is not.  It would be one thing if he had removed it repeatedly after consensus had been established, but he reverted an untrue and unsourced statement that you added, so you adding one thing back does not constitute you undoing vandalism.  You could easily just say "OK...I'll keep that in mind" or something like that and let it go.  But instead, you have to try and come up with some "clever" post that ends up bringing up irrelevant points and lacks any kind of coherency.  Sorry, not being on the forefront of edits for a particular article does not mean I am now in the "rogue".  It just means I am focusing on other articles when I'm on Wikipedia.


 * Also, when using quote marks to quote what someone says, use the actual quote via cut and paste rather than trying to paraphrase. Your "quote" of what I "said" isn't what I said. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well to anyone with *common sense* it does. Again, repeatidly jumping to the defense of an editor who should be capable of eplaining his revisions, is constant unsual waste of time to all parties involved. I could tutor both of you. You could just use your skills more wisely and realized my far exceeding progress. But instead, you do exactly what you accuse me to do. Sorry also, cause i didnt say that. Yes, it was young John.


 * Also, an its the exact same besides an extra "d" in "and", sort of like the extra "t's" and mising "p's" in "sockputtetry"in your "previous post".--Threeblur0 (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Beirne did explain his edits, so again, your use of vandalism was uncalled for and unnecessary. That was the main point of contacting you: if you're going to accuse someone of vandalism, make sure they actually DID something to vandalize.  Also, PLEASE do not try to point out errors in other's posts when your posts here are littered with mis-spelled words and incorrect grammar and conjugation.  It only weakens your already incoherent statements.  And finally, I will always "jump to the defense" of any editor who I feel is being accused of something falsely.  This discussion ends now.  --JonRidinger (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * He removed the company completely, vandalism. Also remember that you only pointed my "quote error" because amis-spelled word, so your again, doing what you accuse me of doing on your statement curious John. It only increases other's doubt of your inteligence and sense of reality. And finally, as we concluded a time ago, everyone has feelings and differ many times, ours differ this time cause yours were wrong. Now its really over due to my confirmation of its cancelation.--Threeblur0 (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, read the policy on Vandalism, which I have linked several times for you. He reverted your unsourced and false edit which stated that Sterling was a Fortune 500 company.  That is not vandalism; nor was your initial edit, despite being unsourced and false.  And as far as my mis-spelling, again, pointing out an error does not mean I'm perfect; never said I was.  But if you're going to quote someone, make sure it's an actual quote and not a paraphrase.  You didn't just mis-spell things I said (I was ignoring the spelling); I pointed it out because you rearranged words, meaning it wasn't exactly what I said. When you quote someone, you are saying exactly what they said.
 * Hmmm, my views are wrong, huh? Sorry, that's your opinion, which I disagree with. --23:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I guess I need to jump in. I undid the addition of Sterling because it was erroneously in a list of Akron's Fortune 500 companies. I suppose I could have moved it over and patched up the Fortune 500 sentence, but I'm a busy person and just did not have time to work on that.  What I did, though, improved the article, as it kept a mistake from being disseminated further.  When Threeblur then put Sterling in the list of Akron companies I was perfectly happy with that, because unlike his previous statement that the company was in the Fortune 500 this one was actually true.  His putting Sterling in the right place after my undo is perfectly normal Wikipedia process.--Beirne (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't care for the vandalism comment, though. I did not do anything, though, because it does not seem to help.  Threeblur has a history of ignoring discussions of topics under debate and the last time he accused me of vandalism I explained my motivations for what I had done and recommend that he assume good faith, a request he has chosen to ignore.  And, to tell you the truth, I didn't feel like dealing with the incoherent arguments from Threeblur that Jon has had to listen to.  Even though Threeblur has a history of sock-puppetry, edit wars, additions of false material, ignoring discussions on debated topics and general bad attitude toward other editors, I have never attacked him or his motivations.  A few years ago I got in a war with someone more obnoxious than Threeblur and it was such a bad experience that I walked away from Wikipedia for a few years.  So this time I've been sticking to the facts and policy and have tried to ignore the personal issues involved.  Akron is my hometown and I can't let all that incorrect information remain in the article, so I have quietly put up with Threeblur's actions.  --Beirne (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments and for all your work on the Akron, Ohio article and Wikipedia in general. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

John you shoulf be ashamed of yourself, as everyone can look back and see, im right, so ima let this roll like the Wagon Wheel at UA.--Threeblur0 (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You go ahead and keep telling yourself that. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wagon Wheel--Threeblur0 (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Look up straw man. That's what bringing up the Wagon Wheel is here.  It is irrelevant to this discussion, which I thought was over due to your "confirmation of its cancelation" [sic]  --JonRidinger (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Look up mad. That's what emotion you are using here. It was irrelevant to start a discussion, which is based on events not relating to you and but other parties. [ winner ].--Threeblur0 (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the laughs Threeblur! Mad I certainly am not; amused and smiling I definitely am! And no, it is not irrelevant to point out incorrect usages of Wikipedia policy, which is what I did and will continue to do to you or any editor who I feel misuses words like vandalism when making edits (and yes I have done it before; you aren't the first). It is, however, completely irrelevant to bring up the Akron Zips football and soccer teams. Goodbye Threeblur...see you on all the Akron-related articles! --JonRidinger (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

{outdent} So if Kent had won, would that mean that Beirne's edit would not have been vandalism? This isn't a straw man... it's a total non sequitur. Threeblur, you were wrong to label that edit as vandalism. It wouldn't have mattered what the overgrown rodents had done on the football field, even if Akron had beaten a real team. In other words, no matter what the Zips do on any given date (say November 20, 2009), it still won't make one lick of difference as to whether your claim of "vandalism" has merit. Don't fear the rouge side, fear the orange side. ;-) -- JeffBillman (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Despite the fact your comment made mines not save and that your completely right like i knew in the beginning but ignored because John has gone mad. I agree with most of what said, and yeah now i remember watching one of their games, miss the people from that area... John yelling is a clear sign of your anger, im confirming the cancelation of this conversation, i bet your gonna try to explain who they are but i already know the team John but your inteligence wont stop you.--Threeblur0 (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the laughs guys. Oh, and Threeblur, the "orange" Jeff is referring to is Bowling Green State University.  I'm not suffering from insanity...I'm enjoying every minute of it! But you still used vandalism incorrectly on the Akron, Ohio article. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * See John, your so predictable.--Threeblur0 (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Thanks...I strive for consistency. Hmmm...yelling is usually demonstrated by using all capital letters, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. It may be from the same mystical place as me being "mad". As for explaining the football team, no, I really don't need to any further. It has nothing to do with the conversation and Jeff was kind enough to place links to the articles in his post here. Hey you said you didn't know who Orange was (before you edited your comments), so I made sure you didn't remain in the dark. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Welcome JohnnyBoy...your failing also. Hmmm...yelling is alo usually demonstrated by using exclamation marks at the end of sentences like you did so many times. You should contact GreenLeaf on East Exchange street in Akron, i hear they have great service for anger issues. Again you are predictable.--Threeblur0 (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, sorry, Exclamation marks do not indicate yelling in typing, though can accompany yelling; they normally indicate emphasis when used by themselves. Again, yelling is accomplished via typing by using all capital letters.  And seriously, I thought you "confirmed the cancelation" [sic] of this discussion. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In your case its accompanning yelling. I did, this is the post-disussion.--Threeblur0 (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

<---If you want to believe it was yelling, go ahead. In no way could you actually prove that (beyond your personal interpretation), but hey, believe what you want. Seriously, time to move on. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the truth, the thing you deny. Seriously, look into it and im still available daily for Wikipedic help.--Threeblur0 (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you can't know what I was thinking when I typed, plus you aren't assuming good faith. Everything you read from me is all what you choose to "hear" and interpret.  So, if you think I was yelling, so be it, but that wasn't my intention and I did nothing to indicate actual yelling.  Emphasis does not mean yelling.
 * If by "Wikipedic" help you mean awkwardly worded phrases, frequent misspellings, frequent unsourced (and many times blatantly false) edits, and introducing topics in discussions with others that have nothing to do with what is being discussed (such as Akron football and yelling in this discussion on the improper use of the term vandalism for instance), then I think I'll pass. Have a nice day! (oops, was I yelling again?) :D  --JonRidinger (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Headless Garfield statue.jpg
Don't know if you've heard, but they've found the head. Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a perfect opportunity for a before-and-after effect :-) Nyttend (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you gotten a picture of the recapitated statue yet? Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No I haven't had a chance to go up to Hiram lately...I'd like to! --JonRidinger (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Something's in my newspaper tonight — apparently they've arrested a couple of guys for the beheading. Had you heard of that?  Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, two men from the Hiram area (not Hiram College students) were arrested for that. It was a top story in the local Record-Courier yesterday.  --JonRidinger (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Martin L. Davey.
Hi, you commented on the page I worked on for Martin L. Davey. I am still kind of new to wikipedia. My article focused on John Davey, only a little on Martin. I was looking for something little to finish that section of my paper and saw how little there was on him so decided to add what I have. My article is being published in a journal soon, when that happens I will link citation to the online site.

The majority of my references are primary source papers from the archives. Do you reference that? I referenced the two books that I am working with.

I am still working at getting formatting right. I just copied over my references in turabian style originally. I edited that with the citation template you attached.

If you have any advice for me please let me know. Nice to see a fellow Kent Stater here :) Jackknive (talk) 06:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Stone Building
I see; sorry, I was confused before. Do I remember rightly that you requested the nomination and thus are certain that this spot is the correct one? Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Akron edit war
Looks like all of you have violated 3RR; instead of blocking everyone, I've put the page on full protection for 24 hours. In order to avoid appearing as if I protected a revision that I liked, I've not yet looked at the way things have been going back and forth; I'm going to do that now and see about participating in the discussion. Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably right...it's just one thing after another and the discussions have gone nowhere. Time for a break.  I can see why this article has gotten so bad...most editors just give up.  --JonRidinger (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I gave Threeblur0 a 3RR warning as s/he was the most blatant violator, but agree with Nyttend that it looked like everyone could get one for the last 24 hours. I also notified User:Versageek, who originally let Threeblur0 come back after the whole Sleepydre sockpuppet incident. I may also add some thoughts - I agree that most of the edits by Threeblur (a whole subsection on "the Grassman"?!?) seem less than helpful. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks...like I said, you're probably right as we all kind of lost count. Thanks for your help!  If you feel I need a 3RR block to be fair, that is OK with me.  --JonRidinger (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd tend to agree with Ruhrfisch's comment — frankly, the little bit that I've read so far leads me to tend to agree with you in general; I wish that removing unsourced bits, especially OR, were permitted under 3RR. As it stands, I think it less helpful to block everyone, so I'm not going to levy any blocks with this incident.  Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks...appreciate the help and insight. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)