User talk:John from Idegon

b WP:RETENTION This editor is willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask.

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

This is John from Idegon's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97

Parkway West Notable Alumni Edit

Hi John. Your deletion of my addition to the Parkway West Notable Alumni section of Mark Neely said it was due to "no references to attendance either here or in bio". The existing Wikipedia bio listing for Mr. Neely Mark Neely mentions his attendance of Parkway West in his personal info section along with a couple of other broadcasters also on the list. Does this help meet your criteria? Thanks for your help.

Radstuff1Radstuff1 (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wikipedia cannot be a reference to itself. If there had been a reference to his attendance in his bio, as I noted, I wouldn't have reverted it. You need a reliable source showing his attendance at the school. Please note classmates.com is not a reliable source, nor is IMDb. John from Idegon (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC) Oops. Forgot to ping you, Radstuff1. Thanks for your enquiry. John from Idegon (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Angelus

Regarding your reversion of my edits to Lake Angelus, I argue that it is neither trivial information nor something that requires an inline reference to merely exist on the pages. It is information one can verify with a street walk in Google Maps, so, per the citation policy you linked to me, it is unlikely to be challenged reasonably. At the same time, it would be unreasonable to require a link to every single road leading to the lake's shore, and I'm not sure of any other way to provide such a citation. But, most importantly, the presence of that information on that page would prevent people like myself from riding all the way around the lake and accidentally through people's yards in search of a way to the shore. Lethargilistic (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lethargilistic. Thanks for your enquiry. You are new and there is a lot to learn in editing Wikipedia. The fundamental nature of an encyclopedia is we do not write about a given subject; we write about what is written about a given subject. In other words, if you cannot produce a reliable source that discusses the fact that all the riparian rights on the lake are privately held, you cannot include it in the article. What you described above would involve you looking at sources and interpreting what they show. That's called original research and we do not allow that. Finding a source that discusses the private riparian rights would also allow you to expand what you were saying to include why it's important. Just an FYI for you: It's not all that unusual. Roughly 25% of the navigable lakes in Michigan have no public access. With a reliable secondary source such as a newspaper or magazine article, I would not oppose inclusion of an expanded version of your addition on the lake's article. Unless your source (and hence your copy) illustrated that it was an ongoing issue for the city, I would oppose any inclusion of that info in the city article. Hope this helps. I'm always happy to help a newcomer. John from Idegon (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"affluent"

Hello. You weighed in on this discussion awhile ago. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sherman_Oaks,_Los_Angeles#Affluence). The word "affluent" has not returned to the Sherman Oaks page, but over on the West Hills, Los Angeles page, it has was recently added, then deleted (with a reference to the Sherman Oaks discussion) and has now been reinserted again by the same user. I am relatively new to all this, but is this how wikipedia is supposed to work? Phatblackmama (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a similar problem on a community in New York. Technically a community concensus is supposed to be respected. Practically, it doesn't work that way always. I'll go visit West Hills and check it out. My opposition in New York is a widely known editor and I was considering letting it go, but your message has encouraged me to not do that. Thanks, Phatblackmama. John from Idegon (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, John from Idegon. With this user, it is like playing a game of "whack a mole". Here in Vermont Square, Los Angeles, he inserted the phrase "low income" into the lead, with the explanation that he was putting it in "to maintain a consistent style" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vermont_Square,_Los_Angeles&diff=prev&oldid=763177150). It was deleted. Of course, he reinserted it. Regarding his explanation: the only "consistent style" is his constant introduction of these sorts of phrases into a number of Los Angeles neighborhood articles, despite obvious disagreement. Can anything be done, or does this have to be fought on every single neighborhood page? I appreciate any insight you can give me. Phatblackmama (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John from Idegon. As quickly as you deleted it, he added it back. A year ago, he was told by an administrator to stop this kind of behavior (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BeenAroundAWhile#Edit-warring_on_articles_about_districts_of_Los_Angeles). Does persistence trump consensus? Can anything be done? Phatblackmama (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave him a note on his talk page. I'm not an administrator, but in the note, I'll ping the admin that warned him. If that doesn't work, you will need to take him to WP:ANI. I'm sorry, but I'm too busy IRL to deal with making an ANI report. If that does happen, just state your case without emotion in your words and provide diffs of where you have talked to him (and Others have warned him), along with diffs of where he has added it and more importantly, re-added it after it was removed. Also link the RfC, which he started, as evidence of editing against concensus which he was quite aware of. It's here. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Clayton Valley

I believe that I need clarity as to your issue with the section. According to my understand, you are saying that it meets WP:NOTNEWS (at least as I understand it) and does not belong on the article. I am curious as to the exact issue as it does not qualify under the sections for 'original reporting' nor 'who's who'. That leaves the sections of 'news reports' and 'a diary'. Regarding the 'news reports' section, it seems clear that this is not just routine news, but an incident that occurred at a school and the reaction of its staff. Regarding the 'a diary' section, even if that might be a stretch to guess would be the issue, the event of the suspensions seem to be more significant than ordinary suspensions regarding the number of suspensions issued and how a student would incur a suspension. While I doubt that this will clear up everything, I do hope that this can lead to some sort of middle ground in understand. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you start a discussion on the article talk page. If you have sources showing this event has been the subject of widespread enduring coverage, use them to argue for inclusion. Since this event occurred recently, we cannot possibly have the perspective to understand their implications. If in a year or two, the view back shows this was important, we can add a much briefer bit to the history section. I generally oppose including current events in school articles as they are seldom as important as they seem at the time. Cannot see why this would be any different. John from Idegon (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles E. Smith Jewish Day School

Hello. You reverted six edits on the Charles E. Smith Jewish Day School page with the message "Provide reliable independent sources for your additions".

The sources cited were from newspapers and other periodicals (The Washington Post, Washington City Paper, Washington Jewish Week, and Forward), and an independently published book ('Great Lives from History: Jewish Americans).

Kindly explain why these are not reliable independent sources.

Thank you.

~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

undid. John from Idegon (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SH

This is such a waste of time, really why bother. If you're a deletionist like that you can probably delete half the encyclopedia under Burden, but you'll be wasting everyone's time. The content is verifiable, so you had no right to delete it. In other words, this system is messed up. $ɱ$ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is not the only concern for article content. "In pop culture" sections are for the most part nothing but useless trivia, and this particular entry is no exception. The fact that some screenwriter decided to give a fictional character this community as a home town tells the reader absolutely nothing about the town. You didn't add the content originally. I am at a loss for why you want to promote trivial garbage such as this. John from Idegon (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crossgates Mall

There is no current consensus on the facts you reverted. MarketMartha (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Untrue. There is long standing consensus. Scr★pIron^IV 19:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean not true right? Unless you're untrue... :) MarketMartha (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look it up. Your selected definition is the secondary definition.

un·true ˌənˈtro͞o 1. not in accordance with fact or reality; false or incorrect. "these suggestions are totally untrue"

synonyms: false, untruthful, fabricated, made up, invented, concocted, trumped up

Scr★pIron^IV 20:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MarketMartha: Seemed to be a consensus. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take this off my talk page and to the article talk page please. John from Idegon (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Hunt High School reversions

Reading through the innumerable complaints about you on your talk page above, John, I had to shake my head. "Your deletion of my addition..." "Regarding your reversion of my edits..." "You reverted six edits..." "If you're a deletionist like that you can..." I have been editing professionally for over 34 years. My additions to the "Fort Hunt High School" article were short, factual, and sourced. I can't spend my life battling your senseless reversions. Life is too short for such mediocrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian B Martin (talk • contribs) 06:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sign your postings. Bye. John from Idegon (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for informing me of the regulations, I was unaware and edited the post to the wiki project of Oregon.Pittsburghangelsforever (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]