User talk:John from Idegon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Gtwfan52)
Jump to: navigation, search

Project editor retention logo 1.svg WP:RETENTION This editor is willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask.

Navy binoculars.jpg Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

Archbishop Mitty High School[edit]


I put up a reference from to prove to you that Sue Phillips attended Archbishop Mitty High School. She was from the class of 1986, and I even have a facebook post from Archbishop Mitty High School for even more proof.

I appologize for not putting up a reference earlier, I am not an official editor.

Muldraugh, KY and Project Zomboid[edit]


I notice you've twice taken down references to Project Zomboid in the 'In pop culture' segment. Considering that the only other entry is that it was set dressing for a shot in Goldfinger, I'd think that a video game that has made replicating the town for the setting a major goal would be interesting to the locals.

You mention that there's no reference? The devs have stated pretty clearly that that's exactly what they're doing. [1]

'loosely based' but here's a screenshot of the map as it currently is:


and the map in real life.


It's pretty clear that's what they're doing, and I'd imagine for the inhabitants of such a small town, knowing that they're the *focus* of something so left field would be interesting.

Do you have any other objections to including a mention?

yes i do. two things. first, drawing a conclusion based on what you have shown here, and a "pretty clear" indication that is what the "devs" (developers?) are doing are not facts, they are conclusions, and we do not write about people's conclusions. What we do write about is stuff that comes from independent reliable sources. So if a magazine were to do a story (developed independently, and not based on some press release from the game company) that stated the game was set in this town in Kentucky, then it could be included. Not otherwise. Second, we do not write articles here for the benefit of the community we are writing the article about. They are written for the rest of the English speaking world. And additionally, Wikipedia is not here to be a publicity vehicle for the game, and I have a strong suspicion that is the real reason for wanting this in the article. John from Idegon (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Cool. I'm not an official editor, so the rules of what belongs and what doesn't aren't clear to me.
To respond, last thing first: I bought the game, have played it, and like it for what it is but I have no financial interest in its success. I can't speak for the other editor (I notice two PZ related edits in the history), but I do question your assumption that editing the wiki of what is basically a wide spot in the road in rural Kentucky with a population of slightly over 1000 people is any kind of publicity strategy. I think it's mostly done out of enthusiasm for the subject, which is what I'd hope wikipedia is about.
Which leads into the point about a 3rd party source. If someone has explicitly said what their art represents, that's what it represents. You can say it's a good or poor representation, which is why I included the screengrabs, but I'm unsure what a magazine article would add to the question. I'm reminded of this comic.
But: [4] There you are, first line. Although I'd question how you think a magazine journalist does their job. How would they determine where a game is set other than asking the devs (developers), or being told by the devs unprompted, and just repeating the answer verbatim? It's likely only fans of the game have googled the town to compare the layout to real life. At any rate, there's your independent 3rd party reference confirming an observable fact.
Can you provide a distinction between the pop culture reference that is allowed to stand - that a shot in the movie Goldfinger uses the town of Muldraugh esssentially as set dressing - and that an admittedly less popular artwork has used Muldraugh and environs explicitly as the setting, and done its best within the limits of the technology to reproduce it as faithfully as possible? Where would a magazine get its information about the setting of this game? I worry that this comes down to the definition of notability, in which case, I'm not here to convince you that a thing I like and you don't like (the fact you're unfamiliar with the abbreviation dev suggests you aren't big into computer games, especially indie ones) is objectively good and noteworthy.
So if in all those words you are saying that you have a ref from a magazine that states the game has a map that is based on the town then you are free to put it in the article. In he future, if you have questions about what a suitable addition to a particular article might be, you should post them on the article's talk page so any interested editor can be aware of them. Happy editing. John from Idegon (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Cool. I will, but lets not pretend that me calling you out on labeling fans of a game marketing bots and ish-canning their work twice without a second thought is some sort of hysteric rant. It seems like a 'citation needed' tag, if not a clarification request on the talk page, if not just googling 'Project Zomboid Muldraugh Kentucky' would have solved the whole problem in half the time and effort. And maybe rules are rules, but let's face it, no one is ever going to cite Wikipedia as a source on anything. There is a hard ceiling on the reliability of any information on this site, so relax and if something doesn't add up, try being constructive and enthusiastic. That's why you have this site to edit in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2014[edit]

Hello, John from Idegon. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

A barnstar for you![edit]

No Spam Barnstar Hires.png The No Spam Barnstar
This is for you! Technmaticity (talk) 09:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Abilene paradox vs Abilene, Texas[edit]

You twice removed the link with edit-summaries such as "nothing about the paradox is about abilene". The paradox is exactly based on a trip to that city. However, I agree that the broader paradox concept is not tied to it. I don't have a strong position on whether to include the link, but your comments as written don't seem to support removal. DMacks (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the parodox is about a trip to Abilene. However, it could be about a trip to Beaumont or Bangor. There is nothing in the Abilene paradox article that informs a reader one bit about Abilene, Texas. You could compile every bit of knowledge forever available about Abilene, from what kind of decayed snails make up the soil to what time the postman delivers the mail to the businesses on Main Street, and it would not be necessary to have any knowledge whatsoever of the Abilene Paradox. If people wanted to know about a behavior model, which is the best description of the paradox I can muster, they wouldn't be looking at an article on a city. And since there is not any information on the city in the paradox article, why should people be referred to it from the article on the city? We put that "See also" section in articles so people can find more on the subject of the article it is in, not so they can discover that trivially something totally unrelated to the city was named after it. I could even understand including that link if there was any information whatsoever in the paradox article on why it was set up to be the "Abilene" paradox. but there isn't. I hope that makes my position a little clearer. John from Idegon (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi, This is just to inform you that Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr. has been nominated by another editor for deletion. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 17:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2014[edit]

Hello, John from Idegon. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

School Articles[edit]

Hi, I am Anderson7575 and I've recently been working on the Park Center school page. Thank you for your help editing the page and getting it organized according to the Wikipedia guidelines. I appreciate your explanations alongside your edits, as they help me understand your rationale. However, there are a few points I'd like to further discuss with you. As a side note, the marching band info and school song were on the page prior to my edits. While I agree that the band info was excessive for the main school page, do you believe that this info should be moved to a new separate "Park Center Band" wikipedia page, and linked to from the main school page?

On a separate note, we primarily disagree on the name of the school. Since I work at this school, I'm invested in the accuracy of the school's wikipedia page. While I agree that in passing, students often casually refer to the school name as "Park Center" or "Park Center Senior High", the school went through a multi-year process to become a magnet school that offers the IB curriculum and diploma. As such, the school name has been rebranded with the additional tag "An International Baccalaureate World School" to reflect this. All print and online references to the school now include this tag, including a new banner hanging on the side of the school [1][2][3]. While the physical structure has not been rebranded (which would be very costly), the school name has been changed and it only seems reasonable to include the full name on it's wikipedia page. You noted that wikipedia school articles are supposed to reflect what is different about each school – the IB designation is very unique and should be noted. As far as I'm concerned, as long as the IB information is included on the page introduction, I will drop the matter.

Thank you for your help cleaning up and editing the page. I think that we both are working to make the page better. I also appreciate your links to the school wikipedia guidelines – they will help me in make better edits in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anderson7575 (talkcontribs)

Bad faith edits, removing rail from transportation section in Bowling Green, Kentucky[edit]

You have not given adequate reasons for removing content on rail history in Bowling Green, KY. You remove the rail section, but allow other forms of transport in the article. You claim that no references were given, when I did give them. Please refrain from reverting the edits. I have through this process have spoken my reasons in edit summaries and on the Talk Page.Dogru144 (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

No you haven't. I had reverted the entry before I saw your talk. I have since replied. You have not engaged in any dialouge. I explained my reasoning to you on your talk page and added some more in the discussion at the article's talk page. Please engage in discussion and quit reverting. It was not proper for you to have made the first reinsertion of the copy. When an addition you make gets reverted, you do not put it back without reaching a consensus on the talk page. that is hard to do when you are not talking. John from Idegon (talk) 06:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Chaminade High School[edit]

Please do not edit out properly sourced additions to articles again. Thanks Maravelous (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop the edit warring on the page. You want two sources you got it. This is NOT BLP it is a school. Maravelous (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, even though the article is about a school, there are BLP concerns with the lawsuit bit, because the parties to the suit are living people. It would probably help things if you explained the removal at Talk:Chaminade High School to see if there's broader support for removal now. —C.Fred (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't wish to have it removed. It happened. It is well sourced. Cameras in the locker room of a school run by priests is a BIG deal. John acts like he owns the article. He doesn't. Maravelous (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
It is a big deal to make statements implying that people engaged in illegal activities without some substantial proof. Someone filing a lawsuit proves nothing. If you do not have reliable source references as to the disposition of the lawsuit, it is not usable as a reference. There are issues of potential libel here. Without substantial proof that others are writing about this stuff, we cannot. An encyclopedia only reports on what others have written. Please read WP:BLP, and please park the attitude. I do not give a crap about Chaminade High School. I only care about Wikipedia. Removing this edit until it is properly sourced is the right thing to do. And discussion of this should be taking place at Talk:Chaminade High School, not here. We simply cannot publish the things this edit says without some legal proof that they did happen. There were no criminal charges filed, so that makes this appear dubious at best. Without a disposition on the lawsuit, sorry, you got nothing. Anyone can claim anything they want to. Without something establishing it actually happened, we cannot make the kind of statements about probably living people that you have made in this edit. I have further concerns about the encyclopedic value of this content, but those can be addressed on the article talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
one must wonder if you have a reading disability. NO PERSON is named on the article page NOR is anyone specific accused of using cameras. You are being disingenuous at BEST. You obviously give a crap (not very nice tone there) since you keep reverting. You are revealed as a hypocrite and a fraud. The story is sourced and legit. Maravelous (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

May I add my 2 cents? Lawsuits are filed all the time, and they're normally not notable, because Wikipedia isn't a newspaper or a purveyor of trivia. The outcome of lawsuits are sometimes notable, and that's how Wiki works. If you don't like the Wiki rules, find a forum on here and try to change them. But getting mad at experienced editors who keep removing your edit is kinda like ordering a triple, venti, half-sweet, non-fat, caramel macchiato and not leaving a tip. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You could add your two cents if your analogy made a lick of sense. I'm an experienced editor too. Experience doesn't mean he gets to obfuscate and ignore the rules. The fact that a school run by priests had cameras in the locker room is SO notable I can't even fathom your comment. Thanks.Maravelous (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You say "the fact that a school run by priests had cameras in the locker room is SO notable" (I added the emphasis to the word "fact"). I guess my question would be, why didn't you add a source to support that? I went back and read both sources you had added to article, and the first said "Creamer’s suit also alleges routine inappropriate staff behavior, including secret video taping of the locker room", while the second said "among her charges: Students were secretly videotaped in the boys locker room, though the stated purpose was to protect against theft". As I said earlier, allegations made in lawsuits are typically not noteworthy. Do you have a source to confirm that this woman's allegations and charges were actually true? If you do, that would be a noteworthy addition to the article. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Bowling Green, Kentucky. Thank you.Dogru144 (talk) 07:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Bowling Green, Kentucky rail section is removed from transportation section". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 August 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 07:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Cumberland, MD[edit]

Reference to "Dr. McNinja" webcomic reinsterted with reference citation to Cumberland Times-News. Additional references can be found on the Adventures of Dr. McNinja Wikipedia page itself. My understanding is that "In Media" is the correct section heading when discussing how a real-world place appears in fiction, although if you can show me some rule requiring an alternate section title, I'll consider a reclassification. One-Off Contributor (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

First off, a quick lesson in how editing works here. There is something called WP:BRD, which stands for Bold, Revert, Discuss. You made a bold edit. I reverted it. At that point the proper thing for you to have done would have been start a Discussion on the article's talk page. The editing model is BRD not BRRD. If you put something in an article and someone else takes it out, you are required to justify it's place in the article and it does not get put back until a consensus is reached on what to put back. What you are doing is known as edit warring and it can lead to you getting blocked. I have several reservations about your edit. Remove it again and start a discussion at the talk page. I'll be happy to participate. John from Idegon (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I have left the edit back in place for now, but have set up a discussion on the Cumberland, MD talk page to invite discussion and see what further adjustments if any are needed to ensure consensus. One-Off Contributor (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Graduation requirements[edit]

Where in the Article guidelines does it say that grad reqs shouldn't be mentioned?--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 05:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The guidelines changed radically this week. They were streamlined considerably. It does not say they shouldn't. It also does not say they should. Grad requirements are set by the state not by individual schools here in the US and as such are not really information about the particular school you are writing about. The Wikipedia page on a school is not intended to be a duplicate of the school's webpage. With minor exceptions, info on the school's webpage does not belong in a Wikipedia article. all articles on Wikipedia are intended to be an overview of information on the subject of the article previously published in secondary sources. that is what an encyclopedia is. John from Idegon (talk) 06:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Bowling Green, Kentucky rail section is removed from transportation section, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Struggling new editor[edit]

Hi there, would you have a moment to look at the edits of "WikiImprovment78". Seems to edit high-traffic articles with good intentions, but nearly every edit gets reverted. I tried to help by adding a welcome banner on their talk page, but it was deleted. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 20 August 2014[edit]