User talk:John from Idegon

Please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Thanks! Unless otherwise requested, I will respond on this page. Please include links to pertinent page(s). If you came here to complain about my removal of your unsourced edit, don't waste either of our time. Just provide sources for your edits. Click New section to start a new topic. Unsigned and/or misplaced comments may be removed unread.

My talk page may be protected from editing by non-confirmed editors from time to time. If that's the case and you cannot post here, please leave me a message here. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk)

This page was last edited or modified by Bonmot (talk) on Sunday 18:59:38 April 19, 2020 (UTC).

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

Undone edit on Kimono

Could you please explain to me what part of the section I re-added to the Kimono article was unsourced or in some way in violation of WP:BLP? The only thing you referenced in the undo was the entirety of the manual of style - not exactly specific feedback that I can use to improve the article. Please assist me by giving feedback on exactly what you found at issue with in the section you removed. Thank you --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply. I've noted above my health issues, and it's been a bad week. Here's the thing: the article in question (at least at one time) was considered one of the better articles on Wikipedia. Unquestionably it's an important subject. Cultural appropriation isn't. Cultural appropriation by someone whose only fame is being famous definitely isn't a good way to introduce an ultramodern contemporary concept into an article on an ancient subject. I have no idea what part of the world you are from or your age, but from your edits it's easy to maybe conclude that you are from the US and under 40. Cultural appropriation of the kimono happened in the US long before the age of celebrity. Every Pacific Theater WWII vet brought home kimonos and Japanese art as spoils of war. Pretty sure the same could be said for Canadians, Australians, Russians and Brits that served in that area too. That's how culture spread prior to the electronic revolution. If you are the editor that wrote that section, you're missing the point of WP:NPOV. As one entry in a list of items in a "In popular culture" section, a very truncated version of this section might be appropriate. The question is: Is an "In popular culture" section appropriate? That will require a consensus, one I would oppose. If this was a serious attempt to introduce the concept of "Cultural appropriation" into the article, it fails NPOV completely. Ironically, the best way IMO to describe this introduction of cultural appropriation into this article is cultural appropriation. What would you call the discussion of a modern meaningless celebrity in an article about an ancient cultural tradition? John from Idegon (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi - I'm not the author who included that section.

The Kimono article is a mess, has been for a long time, and honestly, I'm just trying to fix it up bit by bit whenever I can.

To be honest, most of the articles surrounding traditional Japanese arts and culture are a mess, and need a careful hand, a lot of good citations, and some not too little time to reshape into good quality.

There are many articles that fall into NPOV territory, might have either too few or literally no citations, or need to be retitled and reshaped. This can't be rushed. The detail necessary is too fine, and so are the distinctions - I spent a while rewriting Mizuage recently as an example of this, and it's not even a long article. It's a very wide-ranging topic, and there's always, always more work to be done.

I would've appreciated if you'd gone back to see I didn't add that in the first place - some stuff is just shit, but has to stay shit for a while whilst I fix up other sections first. As it stands, I didn't add it, so I have to find some of your points a bit moot.

As for cultural appropriation, I think it could probably be better renamed as 'Impact of kimono in Western culture', as this is something that has got a very long history. You can draw a clear line from things like the trends of Japonisme in the 19th century, to the impact of American GIs in post-WW2 Japan, all the way to things like the story about Kim Kardashian. I can't really put value on the concept of Kim Kardashian as a person - she certainly means something to someone, somewhere, and at the very least, meets notability criteria for Wikipedia, even if some might disagree.

I'd also say that the terms "ancient cultural tradition" are definitely more woolly than this sheep at times, as it was just the clothes people wore, and still is. Check out The Social Life of Kimono by Sheila Cliffe for contrary to the belief that the kimono is nothing but ceremonial, as an aside - it's still worn as fashion and everyday clothes, so I don't see the inclusion of Kim Kardashian as irrelevant to the article whatsoever. The section in question needs fleshing ot, but I dont agree with section blanking as a way to achieve this. Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

And that's not going to happen here. Please take it to the article talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Corrections to articles

So, for my updates to both State Prison of Southern Michigan and Jackson MI I should have just deleted the paragraphs or added in my updates at the end of each paragraph? My thought process was to leave something that informs Wikipedia viewer if they were looking for information about Cell Block 7. Thanks, John.3415TTG (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

3415TTG, our messages crossed. Ive already replied on your talk, prior to your question here. Generally, you should respond to messages where you got them. You can use either Template:u or Template:tb to notify the other editor, but it's not necessary to notify experienced editors of a reply. Generally experienced editors will "watch" (via their Watchlist) any talk page they edit for a reply. If you have any further questions, please reply at your talk. Thanks. (Wikipedia is fun and educational, but not really intuitive). John from Idegon (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Derry NH edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This content shouldn't have been deleted, and references a town park, "the splash pad", including a link to the town ".org" webpage regarding the place of interest. Andywho56 (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

{(talk page stalker)See your talk page, the edit summary on the article, and the article's talk page. Meters (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Andywho56, Talking about this on John's talk page probably isn't the best of outlets, as pointed out in his edit summary, a discussion about the addition of that link is already taking place onthe subject's talk page. You should consider continuing your discussion there, particularly since the issue has drawn the attention of multiple parties. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 03:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm still getting used to how wikipedia communications are structured as this is the first (and probably last after this experience) time I've added content. Andywho56 (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pocahontas County, WV, revert

Hello. You reverted my recent edit on Pocahontas County, WV. This is not a matter for consensus, as the references I provided in the edit are the actual history of the county, it is not an opinion. Pocahontas never voted to be in the new state, Pocahontas voted in favor of secession from the United States on May 24, 1861. It was one of 8 counties of WV who never voted to leave Virginia in any way. I will revert your revert unless you can state some good reason that referenced material can be reverted willy nilly. Dubyavee (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

You are introducing an entirely new concept into the article. Requesting discussion on a new point that diametrically opposes the concept it replaced is certainly not controversial. Show me where your claim that I have no right to revert you is ensconsed in policy. You can't, because it isn't. Surely you are not claiming that verifiability somehow guarantees inclusion? It doesn't. Article content disputes are settler via consensus, not rules per se. The WP:ONUS is on you to gsin consensus. Please take it to the article talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Hyde alumni revisions

Hello, John from Idegon! I see you reverted my cited inclusion of Elijah Blue Allman on the list of Hyde School (Maine) alumni. His inclusion had two citations -- one from the school headmaster saying he's an alumnus, and another interview with Allman himself in which he and Renn Hawkey confirmed their attendance.

It also looks like you removed the source for Robert King (photojournalist)'s inclusion. This was again from an official school publication, and the source material was an interview with King in which he spoke about his attendance. When both the student and the school confirm someone attended, that seems pretty definitive to me.

I'm not sure what other type of sources you'd prefer, but I really don't see any reason to remove these names or sources. Please help me understand. Thanks in advance for your response. Beginning (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry you don't understand what an encyclopedia article is. Not my problem. Your changes fail a core policy. There are numerous help assistance available. If you have policy based reasons to dispute my change, bring it up on the article talk page. Nothing whatsoever you've mentioned here is in any way relative to the question at hand. John from Idegon (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add my tendentious editing to the ANI discussion

I'd be glad to see a WP:BOOMERANG Do you know what you're edit warring over or are you just reacting? I took it to the talk page to explain. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Explain all you want, you still need a fucking consensus. Until you change your attitude, I'll not be replying to you any further. Status of your edit has not changed. I will not waste my time discussing with you whether that's necessary or not. The fact that you think you have a FUCKING RIGHT to change things is the entire problem. I'll not discuss the ground rules with you. You agreed to follow them when you registered an account and with every single edit you ever made. John from Idegon (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not need a consensus to fix an obvious error. Sorry you think I have an attitude. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh? Please quote the policy backing that position, oh lord and master. Who decided it was an obvious error? Who decided that your change is the solution? I've got no time for your ignorance. Kindly go away. Permanently. John from Idegon (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

John, please tone it down. I won't ask you again. El_C 02:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

To answer your question: User_talk:Tony1#Link_mangling is where the discussion about the problem—obvious error as you call it—was opened. Do you understand the obvious error that I fixed and why there's consensus to fix it? You have still not shown why you think it's not an obvious error. Can you show my why it's not? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Then indeff me now. You've got no grounds. He posted here. There is no policy backing his position. He's here stirring the pot. And refusing to discuss it in good faith. And somehow, my frustration is the problem? Sanction me or drop it. Good bye. John from Idegon (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I would really rather not, which is why I am appealing to your better nature. El_C 03:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

This is John's better nature. EEng 04:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

At this point, you've got no choice. You haven't anything to block me on. The problem behavior is not occurring now, so it would be punitive. However the other parties', especially Walter, is ongoing. He's insisting again that his edits are beyond reproach and came here again with it. Ignoance means lack of knowledge. Clearly either that, or willful disregard, is in play. And again somehow I am the problem? If he cannot be bothered to discuss it and insists on coming here to further the argument by failing to acknowledge that, IMO that's enough for me to tell him in no uncertain terms to stay away. And in this case "ignorance" is the more flattering description. Would you prefer I use more colorful words so you'd have a reason to block me? And why does my phone think the proper word is "blick"? And will we ever play baseball again? All good questions and far more useful than this conversation or an ANI thread. So, again, block me or drop it. John from Idegon (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

John, I do not want to block you — believe me. El_C 03:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

ANI Noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:John from Idegon and civility. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

ANI report

John, please try to tone it down a bit. Even though you're right on the content or procedure, please convey that in a less confrontational tone, even and especially when you become frustrated. Thanks. Best regards, El_C 01:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

IP edit

An IP claiming to be you has posted some personal attacks on ANI. Can you please verify whether that was you or not? El_C 10:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't. I'm almost always on a Verizon network. Never have figured out how they allocate, but sometimes it is in Phoenix, sometimes Indianapolis. Funny, as I'm in Oregon. John from Idegon (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, John. I thought as much. Just an LTA looking for thrills. El_C 12:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Alta Loma HS logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Alta Loma HS logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Undone Edits on Morristown Junior-Senior High School

Hi John from Idegon, I just wanted to start off by saying I read your reasons for removing my edits, and I appreciate you taking the time to explain some things to me. Thanks also for doing your due diligence to ensure the quality of Wikipedia articles. That being said, I still had some questions regarding all that you removed and on certain Wikipedia policy (very short questions), if you don't mind.

I understand why you removed my Demographics & Trends section, as well as the fact that NCES is a better source for the information I included. I am confused, however at why my edits simply directing readers to a corresponding wikipedia page, or to fix broken links, were removed (perhaps this was in error?). Additionally, you mentioned on my talk page that I could not add content and say "". I understand that completely, and I did not do this. In all cases where I put , I simply requested citations for existing content that was added by another user which lacked (I believe) necessary citations. Lastly, if I'm not mistaken, you seemed to take issue with the very minimal data analysis I used in my Demographic & Trends section, and I was curious as to what the problem with analysis like that was, as I made no claims, but simply made note of ongoing trends and noteworthy statistics. Is this type of surface-level data analysis not allowed, or am I missing something? Additionally, while Compass may not be the best source available, it does provide updated and accurate information on stats such as enrollment and number of faculty, so could it be cited as a source for updating information this is by now six or seven years outdated?

Thanks for taking the time to help, and I am grateful for any help you can give. (I do believe that your removal of certain information I added, such as updating the school's current principal, along with my adding and fixing of broken links was in error, so I have re-included those changes, and am awaiting your response.) Jumpin'Joey (talk) 04:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Jumpin'Joey: I didn't look too deeply into that article, just at your edit. I did look closely at it this morning and I stubbed it. There's some Wiki-history involved here. Most of the school articles for Southern Indiana were written by one guy, about 15 years ago. Nobody took Wikipedia seriously back then. We do now. I removed all the clearly WP:OR stuff and there isn't anything left. I'll add the base stuff back, with sources (IHSAA, NCES). An academics section will be needed. It should contain a listing of AP courses (which can be cited to an appropriate page on the school's website), the latest US News and World Report ranking, any notable awards for academics the school has received (Blue Ribbon School notably, other prominent national awards, not honors for individuals associated with the school), a listing of any academic teams that compete interscholastically (these should be sourced to whatever organization sanctions the competitions) and any state championship (or higher) they've achieved. It should also have an arts section, listing the performance art programs the school has (the listing can be sourced to the school.) Anything else (including a specific name for a particular program ie if the band were called "The Marching Morrises", that would need a citation to a reliable secondary source...if only the school uses that name, we will not be), requires reliable secondary sources. I'm not recalling the organization in Indiana that sanctions music programs, but I do recall it's cited at Avon High School (Indiana). Thanks for your interest. I'll be happy to help you with this. I'll also start an article on the district at Draft:Shelby Eastern Schools for us to work on. Keep this in mind: the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to summarize what others have written about the subject in reliable secondary sources. It is not to tell the school's story, although ideally that is what will happen. If it isn't written about somewhere else it doesn't belong here. John from Idegon (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

ANI thread where I mentioned your edits

I believe you're already aware of this thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated problems with Walter Görlitz, but since you haven't participated I'm just letting you know I mentioned your edits, albeit without naming you. Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up. I'll pass. I'm too irritable to deal with any of this, which, for the most part, appears to be (2/3 anyway) about some interactions between en.wiki and wikidata. I won't understand ever why I need to understand wikidata to edit Wikipedia. Isn't it there to make things easier, not harder? I can link a photo from Commons seamlessly. I can upload a picture to either en.wiki or Commons almost as seamlessly. Every damn time a problem exists between Wikipedia and Wikidata, the solution always seems way too technical. I'm sure I'm not alone, and reasonably sure my feelings are common: if I wanted to do heavy coding, I'd be getting paid to do heavy coding. I guess what I'm saying is that whatever Walter's problem is shouldn't be a problem in the first place, but like you, I think he needs to communicate better. Also probably should clarify his thinking about what represents a community consensus and how local consensus applies. See his remarks above, which I'm not replying to in an effort to disengage. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Saint Mary's Cathedral, Limerick

Dear John, May I ask why you deleted information from the above page? As Dean of the Cathedral, I inserted this information. Niall J. Sloane, Dean of Limerick NJS26 (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Will reply at User talk:NJS26. John from Idegon (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Cardinal Mooney Marine City

Hi John, I am just informing you that the history information and the cutting of the one former alumni who died in the line of duty will be undone as per request of the school. I appreciate your dedication to preserving the Wikipedia community but I have to ensure that the information for this page is accurate as per what the school requested. Thewiselexicon (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Reverted your edits again and replyed on your talk page. You have some very very incorrect ideas about how Wikipedia works. John from Idegon (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi John,

I am just placing the information that the school is requesting so that their Wikipedia page is maintained. It was there for almost a decade until your edit on March 6 2020. Thewiselexicon (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• So? This isn't Facebook. This isn't a directory. Subjects of articles do not maintain the articles about them. Your assumptions are ALL completely incorrect. John from Idegon (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi John,

That is on the website currently. If you need me to send you a screenshot of those people who work there I would be more than happy to. If you require further verification of those people, I’d be happy to give you the contact info for the school. Thewiselexicon (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi John,

You are correct that this is not Facebook. However, the goal of Wikipedia is to display and provide free information to millions about an area and what is there. That is the role of the community. As much as I respect the numerous years of editing and hard work you have done, it appeara we may be at an impasse over this article. I would like to ask how would you like me to accurately reflect the school’s information satisfactory to your standards. Please let me know. Have a good day. Thewiselexicon (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• • That's yet another incorrect assumption. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to summarize what others have written about the subject in reliable secondary sources. Ideally, that will tell the school's story. The enrollment stats should come from NCES. The athletics information should come from MHSAA. The only things we consider the school the best source for are staff names (of which, we only use principal and for a private school, the corporate head) and its own address and website. We don't even consider the school to be the best source of the school name. Wikipedia, by pillar policy, is not a directory.
  • You need to explain this to whomever you are talking to at the school. WP:OWN is another relative link. So is WP:NOTFACEBOOK.
  • I'll add some basics. If you want to look for reliable secondary sources for more information, go for it but please wait till I finish. Thanks.
  • I'm sorry if I sound flippant about the kia soldier. I know the locals all felt it. I lost two friends in Nam and 3 relatives in WWII. But that's the point. Kids get killed in war. Lots of them. It's noble, heroic, gallant, tragic....the list goes on. But individuals dying in war does not make the individual notable. Literally over a million kids have worldwide in the last 150 years. The scope of this encyclopedia article is world-wide. That also factors in to the removal of the history section. It was completely meaningless unless one has a knowledge of the geography of Marine City. Lacking that knowledge, none of the information in that section can be strung together to mean anything. Therefore nothing there was encyclopedic. I'll take a look at the school's website and see if I can get a grasp of something neutral and informative for history. Basically the qualifications to be on a notable alumni list are exactly the same as having a biographical article on Wikipedia. Getting killed in action does not in and of itself make a person notable. The only presumptive notability for military is making general officer or winning a country's top military honor (ie, the Congressional Medal of Honor). He would have to have pretty much been notable for something else prior to his death to be considered notable. No disrespect intended. In the bigger picture, sadly, his death is not considered important enough for continuing coverage outside the local area. And that is what we base inclusion on.
  • If you really want to improve the article (according to our standards, not the school's), I'll be glad to help. John from Idegon (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

ok thx for the help. I understand youre just trying to do your job. I'll make my reccommendations in the talk page of the article due to my COI and find reliable sources. Let me know if I can help in any other way. Thx. Also, sorry for the loss of your friends and relatives in Nam and WWII. :( Thewiselexicon (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I think he does this voluntarily, which makes it even more commendable that he takes this much time to explain the issues to every single user he seems to have encountered over the last couple of years. Wish you all the best John, just a random user passing through! (Is this agains't the rules too? :D) --LKS1990 (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Need a hand?

Hello, John from Idegon! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! John from Idegon (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

ANI Result

 Warning I have closed the recent discussion at ANI with the following result. You are Formally Warned that the community has found a pattern of unnecessarily acerbic and at times uncivil communication with your fellow editors. This is inconsistent with the collegial environment we seek to foster and contrary to our policies and guidelines. You should make every effort to avoid language and edit summaries likely to cause offense to others. Persistent failure to abide by our guidelines may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you for your long record of contributions to the project. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Understood and acknowledged. I was waaaaay off the reservation yesterday and will log off sooner if I feel the patience ship is leaving port. John from Idegon (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Like. El_C 14:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi John, I have observed from time to time that you have some days you get cranky. No big deal, but so do I. I have an idea, if you see me headed in an unhealthy direction, post a joke, any joke, on my talk page. It would serve as a wake-up call for me, but not serve as fodder for the drama lovers. If you like, I'll do the same for you. What do you think? Jacona (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks friend. John from Idegon (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cardinal Mooney Catholic High School (Marine City, Michigan), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edward Mooney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

There is Bigmike2346 (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

https://247sports.com/Player/Devin-Ross-19823/high-school-31840/ Bigmike2346 (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

https://247sports.com/Player/Devin-Ross-19823/high-school-31840/ Bigmike2346 (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

It is on his page https://247sports.com/Player/Devin-Ross-19823/high-school-31840/ Bigmike2346 (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

https://247sports.com/Player/Devin-Ross-19823/high-school-31840/ Bigmike2346 (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Health Issues

Sorry to hear of your current health issue/s, John. I have prayed for a quick and favorable outcome. ShoneBrooks (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Bishop Alemany High School

May I ask how Devin Ross an nfl football player isn’t relevant but a cheerleader and cfl player is? Bigmike2346 (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Bigmike2346, I didn't review the article, just your change. New changes are patrolled. I don't remember the specific edit, but if he doesn't have an article, he doesn't go in the list. If there's no source tying him to the school in his bio, you have to add one when you add him to the list. If you want more details, please link to the edit in question. John from Idegon (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't even know what article you are talking about. I linked the name you gave, and this is the only place on Wikipedia that name occurs. Is there a spelling error? John from Idegon (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Ok, it was a spelling error. I'll get rid of the other non notables. The person in question doesn't meet notability guidelines and their bio is nominated for deletion, which will in most likelihood result in the article's deletion. He's no where near notable. See WP:ANYBIO, WP:NGRIDIRON and the deletion discussion linked from the person's bio. John from Idegon (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Offgassing/Outgassing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hey John from Idegon I have been using the previously titled Offgassing page for its references for research I have been doing. I noticed the title was changed to Outgassing. I could not find an answer to my question anywhere else so I tried to find the source on Wikipedia and I have been led here. I don't know if I am even doing this correctly but nonetheless here is my question. Why was the title edit made? I want to know if the process is now going by a different name in the scientific community. I simply am curious as to whether I need to revise my terminology used in my research. Sorry to bother you but I could not find the answer elsewhere and felt it best to contact the source. 2601:7C0:8102:6D40:B546:EA7E:B8C4:CA4D (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC) (2601:7C0:8102:6D40:B546:EA7E:B8C4:CA4D (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)curious researcher2601:7C0:8102:6D40:B546:EA7E:B8C4:CA4D (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC))

• I have no idea what you are talking about. I know nothing at all about that subject. Please stop bothering me. John from Idegon (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

John from Idegon The article history clearly states you made that change. I just wanted to know why you did. I don't intend to be a nuisance whatsoever; however, the correct name for that process is something I would like to have certain as I move on in my research. 2601:7C0:8102:6D40:B546:EA7E:B8C4:CA4D (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but please leave me alone. I reverted an unsourced change. Nothing else. I know nothing about the subject. And sorry, but this is sounding like trolling. Who uses Wikipedia for serious research? John from Idegon (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cape Fear High School

Could you please explain why you keep removing perfectly valid content from the Cape Fear High School article? I'm trying my best to add information, but you keep deleting every edit I make with even the slightest concern. If you see something wrong with what I'm adding, please undo the edits manually. You said that I can't unilaterally decide content, but if anything, it seems that you're the one doing such. I'm simply adding as much information as I can on a stub article. Of course, I have made some errors, and I am completely fine with you deleting content that is deemed unfit, such as when I added a "Clubs and Organizations" section, that had little to no noteworthy information. However, you keep undoing my edits with no explanation. I am highly doubtful that every single thing I've done in the past two days was unfit to be in the article. However, you have deemed every single edit as invalid, and blindly have removed everything possible. If there is no reason to keep the article in an underdeveloped state, then please don't resist my efforts to build it up. Once again, if there is content that should not be in the article, I encourage you to remove it so that the article fits Wikipedia's guidelines. But the removal of absolutely everything that I've done is uncalled for. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

If you're so unwilling to make an effort to correct improper information without removing all of the proper edits, at least tell me what needs to be removed, and why, so that I can appropriate the information to be considered publishable, or remove it altogether. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, on reading the BOLD, revert, discuss article you have linked on your edit, it says explicitly to revert only when absolutely necessary. However, you have continually reverted on a whim. Unless I am seriously mistaken about the validity of the content I've added, reverting could have been easily avoided, as the majority of what I have edited is valid, or at least, has been undone with no explanation. I see that a talk page would be needed to significantly advance the page. However, with the exception of the extracurricular/club section, almost everything I've added should not need a talk page, and is information that other school pages add with no trouble or concern. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Special:Diff/951520093

really? you prefer the version of the page with syntactically invalid markup and obvious vandalism. why even bother putting a TW edit summary anyways if you're just going to revert everything? ⁓ Hello71 02:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't know why the user changed the ref name, but I fixed the broken ref. Meters (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

SurVision Magazine

• I don't appreciate unfounded assumptions, nor do I like personal attacks. Please refrain from mutilating articles if you have an issue with a particular institution that they describe. This is not nice, to put it mildly. --Bonmot (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use

the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.--Bonmot (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• • You haven't answered the question which isn't optional. You continue to edit war which isn't allowed. I've never even heard of the subject of the article and don't give a damn about poetry. I do care about Wikipedia. You are editing the article in a way that violates pillar policies WP:NPOV and WP:V. And you are getting emotional about it. That's what people who have vested interest in a subject do. The entirety of your edit history involves this magazine and authors published in it. It isn't unreasonable to believe you may have a WP:COI. And questioning you about that is my responsibility as a Wikipedian. Sorry if that troubles you, but I'm doing nothing whatsoever wrong here. You are the one breaking policy, both with your edits and your editing style. Why do you refuse to follow WP:BRD? And this isn't personal. Stop taking it like that. We are here to make an encyclopedia. Period. This is about how you are going about it. You've only made a handful or so edits in the 6 months you've been here. I've been doing this for 8 years and have made over 100,000 edits. Logically, who is going to have a better grasp of how things work on Wikipedia - me or you? WP:AGF is a rule for very good reasons. I didn't say you were stupid or a defect, or anything personal. I informed you your edits are out of policy and they are. Do you believe yourself beyond question? No one can challenge you? If so, you are in the wrong place. Everything here gets decided by WP:CONSENSUS. If you cannot deal with having your work removed, challeged or edited, this will not ever work out with you here. After all, you re-agree to allow just that each and every time you press the "publish edit" button. I wii be asking an administrator to re-explain all this to you, but that shouldn't be necessary. AGF says you should assume I made my edit in good faith. You've shown ample indication of connected editing to justify me asking if you are doing this for reasons other than to improve the encyclopedia. I cannot revert you again, as then I would be in violation of policy. You should revert your last re-addition of the disputed content, then start a discussion on the article's talk page, arguing for your preferred version by citing reliable secondary sources and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you cannot do that, then clearly the content you want doesn't improve the article. This isn't an emotion subject. Quit taking it that way, answer the question on your talk page, and discuss the edit on the article talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

→ You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. I understand that you bear the grudge against the whole world and against everybody who disagrees with you, this is your problem, but you are not supposed to take it on Wikipedia articles and Wiki editors who haven't done you anything wrong. By making disruptive edits and then by nominating this article for deletion (!!!), obviously NOT made in good faith, you only show that what you are doing is counterproductive. By maiming and deleting articles about Irish culture you only show that your attitude is not beneficial for Wikipedia Project. My advice is, stop that, you are only making a spectacle of yourself. Concentrate on the positive, help improve articles as I am trying to do. This would be the right thing to do.--Bonmot (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)