User talk:John from Idegon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

Wikischools Infobox Image Size[edit]

Moved to Talk:Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland), where it belongs John from Idegon (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


John, I wondered if you could take a look at Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. and Flavia C. Gernatt, see what you think, let me know, and make a comment regarding User:Carriearchdale's nomination for deletion of the latter. I'm interested in knowing your views. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 22:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

When you have a moment, I would like to ask if you would take a look at this [1] and give me some suggestions on how to proceed regarding the editor's unfounded and untrue accusations. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 20:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Daniella, could you give me a diff (that's the url, from the history, of the change you want me to look at)? I am not sure what you are looking for. John from Idegon (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Carrie has been stalking me, now, on 6 articles that I recently created. She has accused me of paid editing. Those issues are reflected in the attachment that I included in my above-comment. I understand from reading other editors' comments that this is her MO, making Wikipedia her personal battleground. She clearly has an issue with me and my editing, now having unreviewed 3 articles I created. I've experienced some really ugly things here lately, and I'm getting quite discouraged. Most people generally don't act in this fashion, but there have been a couple lately. I'm just wondering how to proceed. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 21:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, the proper place to report a problem with user behavior is WP:ANI. Would I take this there? Most likely not. Why? WP:BOOMERANG! As I already mentioned to you, your behavior regarding this particular AfD is not beyond reproach. Besides the WP:CANVAS issue, all the personal level bickering at the AfD is simply not appropriate. Is Carriearchdale's behavior appropriate? I don't at this time know, but will look into it. One thing that is not ever appropriate is to be arguing about another editor's behavior in the body of an afD discussion. Realize that your own behavior has been called into question by some very respected editors of late. Please take this for what it is, Daniella: a piece of advice that I hope you heed. You seem to take what happens here way too seriously. The articles you write are just that: Wikipedia articles. Articles that will get changed and modified over and over again. Articles that some may not see the utility of. They are not your children and you need to learn to let go. This place is very political as we have discussed before. The single most political place in all of Wikipedia is probably ANI. I am not telling you not to go there (yet...after I analyze your interactions with the editor in question that may change). I am telling you that you may get burned by going there and in any case, I would not do it without a thorough reading of the board, both currently and some of the archives.
What I would advise you is to seriously consider taking a break for a while. There are too many issues spinning around you for them all to be coincidental or not at least somewhat attributable to you. You are a good editor. However, you seem to be not doing too well with your interpersonal skills here. There are some real pricks here. There are some super successful editors who couldn't get along with another soul if they had to. We made some jokes about how addicting Wikipedia is when you were starting. You may have thought I was kidding, but Wikipedia was contributory to the breakup of my marriage. I think you may need some time to get some perspective. So, in short, stay away from the Afd in question and let the chips fall where they may. At this point the worst outcome will be what I asked for (merge). Take a break and after a bit maybe spend some time working to analyze others work; either by being an active contributor at AfD or possibly reviewing at WP:AFC. It will give you some better perspective on what works here and what doesn't. Good luck. I will email you late tonite with what I figure out about your initial question. John from Idegon (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── John, Thanks for your insights and suggestions; I do appreciate it. I have already taken a couple days away from Wikipedia prior to reading your message, so I've returned with a bit of a fresher perspective. I understand about what you mean regarding being invested in Wikipedia. I like to contribute and accomplish; that is where I reap satisfaction. I worked at a newspaper where everyone worked together; while most people appear to do that here, many most completely do not. I have come back today with the approach that some people just cannot be reasoned with, nor are they going to change their perspective no matter how honest or genuine one is. I am open to learning, and I do try to do the best I can, but sometimes I feel that others' actions are destructive rather than contributory, and that is difficult to take, particularly after having invested so much effort and hours into articles in which I am interested. I know that you, yourself, can also understand that. I think that, for me, this was actually a good thing because it helped me to see how much time is taken away from my family and other responsibilities. Over the 4th of July weekend, I created several articles, because I really had no other responsibilities going on. Not only is Wikipedia a hobby for me that I (mostly) enjoy, but it gives me something to do, causing me to feel that I have been productive and have contributed something. I am sorry in regard to the contribution of Wiki toward ending your marriage. I understand that we all must have something that interests us, though (as I also see in regard to myself) perhaps, we must live within a certain structure so that some things don't become prioritized over others. That is what I try to teach my son, but I must remember to also model it for him, as well. Also, I don't check my email account very often, but will take a look to read your message. Thanks again, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 17:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

John, I wanted to follow-up that I did check my email, but didn't see any messages from you. Communicating here is fine. Also, I neglected to mention that I am divorced, so I know how that goes. Thanks again, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 21:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I am so sorry. My health has not been good and I haven't got to it. I'll try to tonite. John from Idegon (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
No worries. Take it easy and feel better, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 00:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2014[edit]

Inappropriate user conduct[edit]

Per the guidelines found on Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution page, I am adding this grievance to your user talk page, citing your inappropriate attitude in your edits to the Northwestern High School) article. It is clear that you have hurt feelings from this on-going editors ordeal. Lots of snide, condescending, rude, and inappropriate commentary in your comments for the edits you have made. If you want to behave like a seasoned and well-versed Wikipedia editor, it would behoove you to abide by ALL policies, not just cherry picked one's the support your agenda. I have never claimed to be an expert on Wikipedia policy, but from what I do know, I see a lot of policy violations from you. Wikipedia explicitly states: "To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page. If you are reverted, continue to explain yourself; do not start an edit war." In addition to that, running off to find one of your editor buddies, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)—which not only helps your cause—but causes a conflict of interest, is not the answer, either.

Kudpung erroneous claimed, "Prior to your last edit, there was, in this ongoing discussion, a consensus not to re-increase the image size." Could someone point out the consensus?? A consensus has to be majority conclusion. In regards to the issue at hand (infobox image size) the only dispute regarding this has been the one currently going on in the articles talk page, never a prior one as I can recall. Since there have only been two editors disagreeing on this, a consensus would mean there would have to be at the very least, a third editor involved, who (in this case) sided against me and claimed I refused to comply with the said consensus. Please point out the other editor involved?? The good part about things written down, is that the evidence is always there. This wasn't a verbal conversation. My last reply specifically stated that I had no issues going through a FORMAL third party process, if neither one of us TWO editors could come to an amicable agreement. Out of the blue, here come some random third editor, who has conveniently sided with John from Idegon, and who is speaking in a manner that suggests he's been a part of this dispute the entire time. I have not discussed anything with him, prior this. I take issue with being accused of doing something wrong, when that hasn't been the case. Finding buddies to side with you isn't the way to go. Wrong is wrong, and if I'm wrong, I have no problem dealing with being wrong and following guidelines or constructive criticism or someone showing me specific guidelines that I should comply with. So far, it seems like the only wrong I'm seeing is from the two people I have mentioned.

You (John from Idegon) keep citing things that I have supposedly done wrong that are either entirely frivolous or they have no relevance to any of my edits, and you use irrelebant Wikipedia policies that reflect your attempt at justifying your claims against me. I am not a novice. When I add photos, such as the infobox logo of the school in question, I thoroughly read Wikipedia guidelines to make sure I haven't violated copyright policies. Since apparently I didn't make myself clear the first time I mentioned this, I will reiterate that this IS NOT my first rodeo when it comes to editor disputes or attempting to get more knowledgeable editors to critique the edits or contributions I have made. I have had more than one expert Wikipedia editor look at the logo that you found issues with, and NONE of them cited there were any copyright violations or even questionable violation issues. Moreover, you run to a non-school official PSTA Facebook page, which has no official affiliation with Northwestern High School, and take a self-made logo that is not an official logo of the school, then throw it up on the page, just so you can get your "HA! I'll get the last laugh moment." Then, you even go as far as to state that I just wrongfully modified the schools official logo (not true), uploaded it to Wikipedia and the schools' page without citing I had made any changes to the logo (also not true), and then replace it with some radom logo that YOU erroneously cited as being a logo of an organization, which it is not! I won't even bother entertaining the other questionable edits that you made, some of which are edits I will not spend time disputing and will accept, but others that were once again either (A) made because of your own personal preferences and not actual policy violations or (B) you made due to having an attitude because you couldn't prove your original point about me having violated infobox image size policies, something your buddy Kudoung didn't manage to do, either.

BTW, I would suggest that both users cited take a look at the Featured Articles page. It states: "Featured articles are considered to be the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. They are used by editors as examples for writing other articles." So, for Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) to argue that Plano Senior High School's article was last assessed more than seven years ago, and therefore isn't an appropriate article to use as a article building example, is the fault of Wikipedia and its school article editors, and not me! I followed exactly what Wikipedia, itself, has stated which is the featured articles are used as examples for creating other articles. --Khemistry (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I have taken my time replying to this because like all of your communications, it falls into the category of WP:TLDR. In addition, I wanted to wait and see how this all shook out. It is becoming much clearer now.
If you insist on wasting people's time with your walls of text, at least get it right. The word you attributed to Kudpung regarding consensus were actually mine. And as far as a consensus goes, I stated on the article talk page that I was changing my position in deference to Kudpung's superior experience and agreeing with him that all the infobox should have is a logo. He and I were in agreement. You disagreed. Guess what? That means he and I had formed a consensus. You don't like it? Feel free to request DR. I am betting they will turn you down, but feel free to ask.
Lastly, I am tired of your self important walls of text and your refusal to enter into constructive discussion, not to mention your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude you have shown over where they keep the files. If you wish to discuss an article, discuss it at the article talk page. I am not asking you, I am telling you in no uncertain terms...Do not post on my talk page again. I am required to enter into discourse with you about edits on articles...on the article's talk page. If you have a problem with me, either take it to a noticeboard or eat it. Clear enough? John from Idegon (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Cathedral Prep[edit]

Why did you undo the edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Several reasons. Firstly, everything you added was unreferenced, WP:V. Secondly, you restored all the titles. We don't use titles unless absolutely necessary (like when an individual has a sexually ambiguous given name such as Francis. That would not apply here as all the individuals are Catholic clerics and that is clear from the context. Since Catholic clerics are definitively male, even that exception would not apply.) WP:MOS. Lastly, see the comment on Talk:Cathedral Preparatory Seminary (Queens) where all this was covered. John from Idegon (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

How do you re-title the page then? Also, with the change in governance, the Rector-Principal position has been transformed into two positions: Rector-President, who is a clergy member of the Church, and a Principal, who is a layman. Therefore, titles may be necessary to distinguish between clergy and laity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

If you can provide me with a reliably sourced secondary independent reference to the school's name (ie a mention in a newspaper), I will be happy to move it for you (that is how an article gets a name change--it gets moved to a new page).
The only persons that would be appropriate to list are the people that were actually the head of the school, and that would need a reference (if the information is on the school's website, a link to the exact page that has the information would be fine for a reference). You could cover the change in job title and the info that before a certain time the position was held by a clergy with some copy above the list in the section (eg "Prior to 20xx, the title for the head of the school was FOO and the position was held by a member of the clergy. After 20xx, the position was called FOOFOO and was held by a layperson.")
If you need help with any of the technical stuff, feel free to stop back here and ask. You may want to consider establishing an account here to simplify communication with other editors. John from Idegon (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. If you can, can you move the page to the new title "Cathedral Preparatory School and Seminary"? Here are some references that will establish that: (1) (2) (school official website) (3) (alumni official website). We do not wish to establish a certain tone or bias here, but we just want the article to reflect the changes in the school objectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Who is this "we" you speak of? John from Idegon (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG Thanks for your time and suggestions regarding my questions and concerns. :-) Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 21:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

from WaukeshaWi[edit]

I would kindly appreciate that you cease any further engagement in any content I have engaged in or created, I find your edits rude and uncivil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waukeshawi (talkcontribs) 14:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I wanted to follow-up with you regarding the report against me that was filed by Carriearchdale, and in which I have mentioned you. Thank you for all of your support, and comments regarding this. The link, as you know, is at: [2]. For the record, I would like to state that the user's accusations are completely unfounded. Thank you, again, for your support, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 21:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Owhee Grand Opening[edit]

No problem. This was in fact the opening of a major renovation, but folks can dig into the links to find that. kencf0618 (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yup...saw it on 7. But it is still promotional. I don't even really see any reason to name the building in the caption...the pic is of the view. But I'm not gonna grouse about it. Happy editing! John from Idegon (talk) 06:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
John, Thank you for all of your support and communications regarding the recent issue encountered. I really appreciate everything! Really, thanks very much. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 23:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
You are very welcome! John from Idegon (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet - advice requested[edit]

User:Waukeshawi was doing a lot of editing and new article creation on Waukesha-related and Milwaukee manufacturing articles, adding information that was minor and of little interest beyond the local scene. He got upset when we edited out some of that information and when you submitted Katherine E. Tuley for deletion, threatening to leave Wikipedia. I tried to talk him down from his fit of pique, to no avail. Shortly after Waukeshawi stopped editing, a new user, MilkweedPods started editing Waukesha- and Milwaukee-related manufacturing articles, using the same writing style as Waukeshawi: random, disconnected sentences, using historic Milwaukee newspapers from Google as unformatted sources. It seems highly likely that Waukeshawi and MilkweedPods are the same person and that the second account was created to avoid detection of edits. While this is technically sockpuppetry, this editor just doesn't seem to understand how Wikipedia works, so I'm not ready to submit this to ANI. Given your interests in retention of editors, your suggestions on how to deal with this would be appreciated. (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I suspect you may be right. But it is just a suspicion and not enough for a WP:DUCK SPI case. He is not using the two accounts in a way that would really even be in violation of policy. There are situations in which you are allowed multiple accounts. Pretty much, unless you are using a second account to evade a block or to make it appear more people are on your side in an arguement than actually are, it is ok to have two accounts.
He just edits poorly and I suspect that may be due to a language issue. I have problems reaching out to people who have language issues, but perhaps I can find someone who will try. let me think on it for a while! Ouch that hurts. :) John from Idegon (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed the last paragraph of this article by MilkweedPods, and my suspicion became much stronger, given Waukeshawi's previous edits to Chenequa, Wisconsin. I think it passes the duck test. Nevertheless, I'm far less interested in disciplining this editor than in education and attitudinal adjustment. The editor is making some valuable content additions, but seems resistant to improving formatting and wording fluency, and certainly has been turned off to any previous efforts to help. I also think that he should know that others are aware of the username change. Perhaps a suspected sockpuppet tag on his talk page? Or that may push the editor further over the edge. I just don't know. Maybe the editor could benefit from a mentor. (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I sent that article to AfD. I see nothing in it that shows notability. He was a big businessman running a fundementally local business in Milwaulkee. It is possible his business might be notable, but I see nothing that shows he is. John from Idegon (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure you get it. While the AfD is certainly legitimate, this is one editor who doesn't respond well to a lot of templates shoved down the throat. The editor will surely think you're out to get them, probably quit Wikipedia, or resort to establishing another illegitimate sockpuppet. (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I do get it. If that is the route he chooses, then we are clear on what you are alledging here. If the way he deals with the inevitable conflicts here is to run, cry hide, etc., there is probably not much a mentor would be able to do for him. I have someone in mind to ask, but I wanted to see how he would act over this first. No sense in wasting the time of a good and legit Wikipedia editor if all this cat is is a crybaby. My nomination wasn't at all WP:POINTy. I absolutely do not see any notability for that guy. John from Idegon (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry you got the impression I thought the nomination was pointy. It wasn't, and I agree that the article so far does not establish notability. I was actually referring to the manner in which the AfD and the notification to the article's creator was implemented. It seems to me that this editor is a well-meaning contributor who is making a substantial effort to contribute well-sourced information to Wikipedia. At the same time, the editor clearly does not understand how Wikipedia works, thinks that some individuals are out to get them, and has had a strong, resistant emotional reaction to that. I wouldn't call that "crybaby". I think that a personal message that explains in greater detail the issues (notability, formatting, style, whatever) the editor is creating may go a longer way toward bringing the editor into the fold than smearing the editor's talk page with perfunctory, authoritarian-worded templates. This is about retention, not about deletion. The editor is a human being who expects to be treated as such. Imagine that the editor is a co-worker or employee. To get them to improve, would you plaster their work with pre-printed yellow stickies, or would you talk to them about their work and explain the employer's practices and procedures? (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
They are not a co-worker or an employee. I will go ahead and link this conversation to the editor who I was thinking of asking to mentor him, but sorry. We are going to have to agree to disagree on the merits of retaining this one. Certainly you do not advocate going the extra mile to retain all new editors? This one may have some redeeming qualities but I am not the one to try to redeem him. If a person cannot write a decent sentence, what is the purpose of trying to get him to stick around? Meantime, he is creating a huge workload for copyeditors and other gnomes; all in the name of creating articles that are of marginal at best value and adding useless info to existing articles. Sorry, I do not see it. I respect that you do and wish you luck. I'll message the person that was looking for adoptees and let them know about MilkweedPods. John from Idegon (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I would concur with the IP user that mentoring could be helpful here, especially given the possible username hopping. I haven't seen anything in the contribs of either user causing doubt to any good faith assumptions here. I'll leave a message for them offering to mentor, they have to take it though. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 21:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for volunteering. I would agree that the mentoring has to be completely voluntary. I was hoping that the editor would take the bait in my message about mentoring on the editor's talk page. We'll see what happens... (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────That's why Wikipedia is great. People play to their strengths. Thank you both for being a benefit to our project!John from Idegon (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional--There is now proof that 32's suspicion of socking are correct. No opinion on whether they are actionable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert F. Gallun. John from Idegon (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I answered in more detail on an AFD than I ever have. If that doesn't answer his question as to why his articles are being nominated, I don't know what will. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 03:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I thought you deserved to receive another barnstar. For all that you have done regarding your support of me and suggestions to me, from the beginning, I appreciate it. Thank you, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 00:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2014[edit]

Could you look at an article?[edit]

Hi there. I've seen a lot of your edits and you have good wiki sense. Would you have a moment to comment on Talk:2014 Spring, Texas shooting? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


John, could you take a look at Benton Academy and see if you think I am handling this well? Do I need to stop reverting this guy to avoid being accused of edit warring? Thanks!Jacona (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

when in doubt, always stop. both of you are over 3rr at this time. sorry it took me so long to get back to you. spent the whole day in the capital and only had my not smart phone to access the web. it hates Wikipedia. even if the burden isn't on you, start a discussion at the article talk and direct the other editor there in an edit summary. CYA, as we used to say when I was in the business world. I'll go through the edits and get it how I think it should be and see what he does then. Rpp isn't going to do much good unless he just created the account today, as he is over ten edits into just this article and that probably means he's autoconfirmed. semiprotection only stops ip's and unconfirmed editors. He did just start today. Thanks for the heads up. John from Idegon (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I reported the other editor to WP:UAA. when someone names themselves after the only page they have edited, that's deceptive and most likely disruptive. John from Idegon (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Stephen K. Benjamin[edit]

Edit war? I didn't start an edit war.

I'm simply trying to keep Wikipedia honest by patrolling these multiple anonymous edits to the article. I have been constructively editing since December 31, 2011 and have contributed 410 edits.

This is the first time I've ever encountered a politician and his anonymous cronies go to work to try to blatantly sanitize an article. JaneOlds (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I live in Idaho and didn't even read the whole article. I have no idea of what this dude is even mayor of nor do I care. Very simply, you CANNOT put negative information about a living person into an article without referencing that will lead you to the exact place that information can be verified. NONE of the sources on the stuff you have been repeatedly reinserting do. You have done it 7 times since June 26 and have not posted one word on the article talk page. Numerous editors have reverted your edits. So yes, you are edit warring. Find the correct references and you shouldn't have any problems. The stuff you are putting back is written pretty poorly (which is not a factor in its removal), but if it is accurate, and I can verify it is, I will help you get it back in and clean it up a little.
Insinuating people have a motive other than improving and protecting the Wiki is not assuming good faith, which is one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, and is a borderline personal attack. I will be glad to overlook that andhelp you if you can improve the references to the point where they can be verified. John from Idegon (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2014[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for July 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frederick High School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tuscarora High School. 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) 08:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thinking of opening WP:SPI into User:Rollbama4 and User:DylanWayne0606[edit]

Do you think this is wise? I suspect that DylanWayne0606 (talk · contribs) may be a sock of User:Rollbama4 (talk · contribs) based off his edits to Frederick High School. The only edit that the account has ever made was to revert an edit of yours on that page. The account was registered the same day as that edit. It just seems like a highly specific first and only edit to ever make. If not a sock puppet, I would suspect a meat puppet. I've never opened an SPI before, do you think I might have a case and do you think its worth making? I don't want to scare off User:Rollbama4, but he seems to be violating community norms despite multiple warnings and outreach attempts. Zell Faze (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

In January it appears that @Tedickey: may have thought that Rollbama4 was actually a sock of Crimsonxxtide22 (talk · contribs). Looking at the contribution logs, but not having looked at the edits, this seems somewhat reasonable to me. (Noticed the message about multiple accounts TEDickey left in January and looked into edits Rollbama made and edits other users made around the same time.) Zell Faze (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Waukeshawi and User:MilkweedPods again[edit]

Waukeshawi has resumed editing, after a stretch editing as MilkweedPods. He doesn't seem to understand what the problem with this is. I wrote up an SPI report on this, but discovered that I have to be a registered user to make such a report. Would you be willing to submit it? (My draft SPI report is below.)

User:Waukeshawi and User:MilkweedPods have admitted that they are alternate accounts. The user has provided no rationale as to why multiple accounts are needed. It seems as though the MilkweedPods account was created in order to avoid the scrutiny of other editors. (See also: [3]) This is a clear violation of the WP:SCRUTINY policy. The two accounts edit the same articles, giving the misimpression that multiple users are editing an article, when in fact, it's the same editor using multiple usernames. User:MilkweedPods has even edited User:Waukeshawi's talk page as if they were the same editor. This misleading and inappropriate use of alternative accounts is a violation of WP:ILLEGIT. Most concerning is that the editor just doesn't seem to understand what the problem is with using multiple accounts and insists on playing games about the issue. Further discussion of this issue can be found here.

Thanks for looking at this. (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Gahhhhh. Your report looks great. I will weigh in when you file it. (Can you even file it? I am not sure whether an IP can do that or not. If not, lemme know.) Did he acknowledge Solarra's invitation to mentor? With the socking, and without the acceptance of mentoring, I don't see a future for this dude. Too bad, because I am thinking that his contributions, even in their narrow scope, were pretty useful. John from Idegon (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't file it because I'm not a registered user. I was hoping you could do that for me. You can attribute the report to me, or change it however you like and file it yourself, if you prefer. Or do whatever you think best. But I think it's time to do something. I agree about the potential of this user's edits, but the attitude problems seem to interfere too much. I think mentoring could have helped, but the editor never responded to that. (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I will file it on your behalf. Hopefully, I can get to it before dinner, but it'll get done before I go to bed. Got another iron in the fire on Wikipedia (see above) plus what I usually do, and this may be the only day I get time to work on the pedia this week. It'll get done tho. Unfortunately, I agree with you that it must. John from Idegon (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yes check.svg Done You are obviously a good and productive editor. While I respect your wishes to not be registered, they frankly baffle me. You are much more anonymous as a registered user than as an IP and you have the added benefits of uploading, a watchlist, a talk page that is yours and so on. The choice is yours and as I said, I respect it, but I just felt I should let you know what I thought. John from Idegon (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again! And I appreciate your restraint in not pressuring me to register. (Many, many other editors haven't exercised such restraint...) Q: Shouldn't Waukeshawi and MilkweedPods get notices of the SPI? I can do it since I wrote up the report, but it would be OK if you did it, too. Whatever. (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
No. You do NOT notify of reports at SPI. John from Idegon (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 22 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)