User talk:John from Idegon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John from Idegon (talk | contribs) at 01:39, 21 September 2020 (→‎September 2020). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Caution
  • 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 John from Idegon (talk) on Monday 1:39:25 September 21, 2020 (UTC).
Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.


The Signpost: 2 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Welcome back, John! BilCat (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, thanks. I did spend my vacation thinking about what I do here, and about what pisses me off here. There are two things: promo editing and editors with more experience than I not following our standards for dispute resolution. I'll spend some more time getting my thoughts into words, but when I figure out how to say it nicely, could you help me with one of those notes that appear when you open my talk page to edit? I don't know what it's called, but last time I was there, Drmies had one on his talk page. I want to say something along the lines of "If you're here because I removed your edit as promotional, please enquire at WP:TEA or WP:HELP as to what Wikipedia considers promotional. If you're here because I removed your edit as unsourced, please source it. See WP:V, WP:RS and WP:RFB. If I've reverted your edit because it was either not verified, or not an improvement, please open a discussion at the article's talk page to attempt to gain WP:CONSENSUS. I'm not always right, but it isn't personal. Follow WP:BRD, and remember that decisions on Wikipedia (all of them) are made by consensus. Thanks." John from Idegon (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know off the top of my head how to create that kind of message, John, but I will look into it and get back to you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328, you (or John) just need to drop whatever message you like into User_talk:John from Idegon/Editnotice. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[[WP:RFB]] This may be a typo I believe? Leijurv (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is. It's supposed to be "Referencing for beginners", but that's only a very rough draft. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah :) WP:INTREF perhaps? Leijurv (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Late to the party, but sincerely glad you're back. This is a classic example of all that's wrong with ANI. Marchjuly's closing comment makes the most sense, and the blocking admin's possible over enthusiastic use of the tool could well be referred to Arbcom who would rejoice in another opportunity to decimate the corps of admins under any flimsy pretext. That said, think yourself lucky you aren't an admin, blocks can be overturned, Arbcom decisions can't. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John was blocked at 04:13, 24 July 2020. I'm not an admin so I'm not sure what the proper protocol is (maybe an admin who issues a block cannot close the ANI thread which lead to the block?), but it seems to be a bit of a fail to have left that ANI remain open for another 8 hours or so. I'm not sure why the discussion wasn't just closed by the blocking admin here since that seems like it would've been the ideal time to close the discussion. The blocking admin could've posted the same thing as a close. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's the first time I've even read that thread. Thanks for helping shut it down, MJ. It's more than a little distressing to have people who do not know me speculating on my mental health. There was a time not that long ago when speculating on a person's mental health would have earned a level 4im warning for NPA. Still should. My shrink thinks I'm coping pretty well. The entire world is under a tremendous amount of stress right now, and it's especially bad in the US. We need to be lighten up on civility issues, not crack down. John from Idegon (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung: I've been wondering if I should say something (I'm here to improve the encyclopedia, not stir up trouble), but I find the blocking administrator's response to this to be unacceptable. What are other people's views? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mildy, you should probably @Ivanvector: to let them know you're seeking comments. This talkpage probably wouldn't isn't the right venue for such a discussion - personally I'd take their advice on board, give it due consideration for next time, and move on. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Under normal circumstances, I would. However, a number of longstanding editors (not least Kudpung and ClemRutter) have basically asserted they want Ivanvector's head on a plate, (I can't see how "the blocking admin's possible over enthusiastic use of the tool could well be referred to Arbcom who would rejoice in another opportunity to decimate the corps of admins under any flimsy pretext" can be parsed any other way) and I felt any discussion he was involved with would have probably got unpleasant blowback and increased the drama level a notch. In this instance, the most effective thing to do appeared to be treating the agreement of a bunch of other admins that we should unblock as a consensus, while remembering to advise the blocking administrator of it (if nothing else, it's common courtesy). Although I wished Ivanvector had said something more akin to "I wish you'd run this past me first, but okay" (which would have been fine), he has also said he doesn't object to the unblock per se. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You really should have consulted them before the unblock. But it's too late now, and further discussion of it won't walk back time. So it's really something for the next block/unblock discussion (with someone else, I'm not suggesting there'll be a next time involving John from Idegon!). -- Euryalus (talk) 10:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW (and then I’ll shut up), when I posted what I posted above, I wasn’t seeking anyone’s head on a platter; I just thought things could’ve been handled better with respect to that thread once John had been blocked. I probably would’ve posted the same even if I never had interacted with John before. It just seemed wrong to leave that discussion open like that, but human beings we are and it’s always easy to look back after the fact and say things should’ve been done differently. I also (I hope you don’t take this the wrong way John) was surprised John got unblocked so quickly; I’m glad he did, but am still a little surprised. John does a lot of good work improving and monitoring all kinds of articles and has helped me out on numerous occasions. John also has helped many others out at the Teahouse. I have no doubt about his sincerity and his truthfulness should be commended. I believe he will return to make positive contributions to the project asap, but (there’s alway a but) EVADE is EVADE and I thought the best John could hope for was WP:OFFER. I’m not criticizing the admin who blocked John, the admin who unblocked John or John himself, but am only saying I was surprised at speed in which things happened. Anyway, I’m not going to post any more about this; it’s over and done with and there’s no need for any more drama. I’m sure that John wants to get back to finding things to improve and helping others and we all probably should do so as well. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree. I have enough trouble with buffer overruns without metadiscussions here. Thanks for the heads up on his comment Ritchie. And of course for the unblock. When did we get to be friends? (ha) I left a polite message for Ivan, and I hope he realizes I meant it. Your message that I conflicted with was spot on. John from Idegon (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back, kid, I glanced over at IVs talk page, and I think that he really needs a welcome back message too, throwing a hissy fit is easy- drawing back is far more difficult. In the staff room you had colleagues to support you and you were under contract. But glad you are back. ClemRutter (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed from your comment at AfD, and wanted to say welcome back and I hope you're feeling better. Thanks again for the tip on GEOLAND, I already know a little more due to your return. Best wishes.   // Timothy :: talk  11:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned you in relation to a previous ANI case you commented

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I'm just letting you know as I mentioned you in relation to a previous ANI case you commented on. For clarity, neither case is related to you. Nil Einne (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phew! John from Idegon (talk) 03:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Howell HS logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Howell 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) 17:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your close

According to WP:ADMINACCT, you have given wrong advice to Mr Ernie. "Administrators who seriously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or who have lost the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee." The Arbitration Committee is not at WP:AN. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll amend my statement. Actually that's what I thought. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but trying prior resolution steps typically means discussing the matter with the administrator in question, and then with the community to see if it can come to some solution short of removal of administrative privileges. isaacl (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Read the quote again, including the part "may be sanctioned ... by the Arbitration Committee". ArbCom is perfectly capable of stopping short of removal of administrative privileges, and it adds badly needed structure not present at AN. If you feel that ADMINACCT is incomplete or inadequate, please propose an amendment at VPP. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I indeed read the sentence and am familiar with the arbitration process. All I'm saying is that the original advice to open a thread at the administrators' noticeboard is in line with attempting to resolve issues within the community first, before creating a request for arbitration. isaacl (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That's the first step in all our dispute resolution processes. I don't note things that we all should know, and Mr. Ernie is far from new. It's kinda like saying a US public high school is coed. There is only one (To the best of my knowledge) out of 28,000 + that isn't. John from Idegon (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eh my 2 cents is that it is perfectly acceptable to question or sanction an administrator at AN. Removal of the admin tag would be arbcom, standard sanctions it could be either. PackMecEng (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mildly, while it is certainly fine to open a thread about an administrator's conduct at AN it's usually more productive to have a) tried to discuss the concern directly with that admin first, and then b) to seek consensus on an actual proposal for what any community response might be at AN. Threads at AN that essentially say "I think this admin is bad, what do you all think?" tend toward no real resolution except ill will.
Unrelatedly, thanks John from Idegon for demonstrating a generous spirit of bygones in nipping off this particular part of the thread with the close. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Hey, it looks like you restored some vandalism here. Can you please explain. Thanks. ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 23:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Wonder how that happened? Thanks for catching it. John from Idegon (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. --◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 02:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

School districts

Hey, I saw your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bearden School District (Oklahoma) explaining that school districts are notable. I have never seen one deleted myself at AFD. There are many SD stubs that exist with maybe just one ref, the district website. So what do you think of Draft:Prarieview-Ogden School Community Consolidated School District 197 which has been in mainspace twice. It couldn't be deleted by AFD, but it can be moved to Draft where it will probably be deleted in six months. It is obviously notable by our definition; it just needs some cleanup and is already better than many SD stubs. This doesn't make sense.

This is similar to the issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Resolve the inconsistency between WP:DRAFTIFY and WP:ATD, but since this is a "new" article, it wouldn't fall under that even if it passes. MB 16:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse question

Hi John. Perhaps you can provide some guidance at WP:THQ#Pretty much had it already since it seems to involve school related content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you John and Meters. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

River Forest High School

I see you reverted my edit on River Forest High School because you said my change was unsourced. However, the NCES reference states that the school is indeed located in Hobart, Indiana. Other sources are telling me the same thing. What sources that say that the school is in New Chicago, Indiana? The person who changed the school's location back in 2016 was a newcomer. Sorry if I did not do enough investigating. Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change the infobox address to Hobart, that's fine. Please don't change the lede. The school is not in Hobart, but in the census designated place New Chicago, which is part of Hobart Township. Unfortunately, that's OR. I grew up in that area. At one time, the district was named "Hobart Township Schools". Its address is Hobart, but that wasn't always true either. The New Chicago post office closed in the 70s. John from Idegon (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Wikipedia page

Dear John from Idegon,

I see that my recent edits to my page were undone, and I saw your note suspecting that I might be receiving compensation for editing the page. I don't understand that at all. No one is paying me or will pay me to edit my page. It's just an information page--I'm an author with five books out and I'd like to update it as my career progresses. I added a photo, and that's gone too. I shrunk some old information.

I'm a supporter of Wikipedia and give a recurring monthly donation to the site. I value it highly. Can you please help me understand how my actions have been construed as some sort of violation? No one is paying me anything. I'd just like an accurate page that reflects my status as a public figure (author) and my career, and one that includes a photo. Am I not allowed to do that?

Thank you for your help. I hope you're well.

Patrick Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idahodream (talk • contribs) 16:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) Please reply to messages where you recieve them. 2) Unless you give your work away, you are most certainly PAID. 3) This isn't social media and the article about you doesn't belong to you. 3) You are not allowed to edit your biography directly at all. 4) Instead, if you want a change to your bio, make an edit request on the article's talk page. Nothing whatsoever will be changed simply on your request or on information you provide. Every request you make must be accompanied by a reliable secondary source that verifies it. The process is explained at the link on your talk page to PAID. Thanks for your understanding. John from Idegon (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Idahodream, the article in question isn't a social media "page", it's an encyclopedia article. And it isn't yours to control. John from Idegon (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Holly Academy logo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Holly Academy logo.png. 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) 17:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • For my stalkers, this article was redirected to the locality as a non notable school. It's fine to delete. John from Idegon (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed AFC Submission from Draft:Spring Hill Elementary

Hi there, im Richard Raleigh and you the one that declined the request. Apparently, i have removed the AFC submission from the article until futher notice. If you have problems, come chat at my talk page or your talk page. Hope, you have a great day! Richard Raleigh (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If your link is correct, the draft has been rightfully deleted. We generally do not have articles on elementary schools. No amount of work on that draft would change that. It's better you not waste any more of your time or the time of others. Generally, high schools are usually notable. Lower schools are almost never notable. John from Idegon (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's a misspelling in the title of your draft. It's Draft:Spring Hill Elementray. And again, you should cease work on it. There is nothing you can do to change the fact that this particular school isn't notable. You're wasting both your time and other editor's time. You cannot remove AfC decline templates so I replaced it. You can, however, blank the entire page, after which it will be deleted. John from Idegon (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi this Richard Raleigh again, and I'm here to tell you that I blanked the draft page. Please go check out the page. It haves now been requested to Articles for deletion. Thanks for your support 😁. Richard Raleigh (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Draft!

Hi Richard Raleigh here once again, and I'm here to tell you since I summited articles for deletion at Spring Hill, I made another article about an High School Draft:Trezvant High School Please go check out the draft I still have to add more to it. Richard Raleigh (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Richard Raleigh: Nice start, but the article will need some more work before moving to mainspace. May I suggest you review WP:WikiProject Schools/Article advice? — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 05:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Iris Network

John, how could you delete my entire article? I've worked on it for months and multiple people have reviewed it. I have references from books, magazines and newspapers. It was approved for the main space in June by Bkissin. I am a new user amd have tried to follow all of the Wikipedia guidelines as I understand them. I understand if you might have issues with some of the references, but to remove the whole thing is just wrong. Please move it back to the main space. Btbky (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Your article has not been deleted it has been moved back to draft here Draft:The Iris Network where you are free to continue to improve it. Theroadislong (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. My article was approved for mainspace in June, and has been reviewed by others since then. I understand that it has been moved back to Drafts, but I do not understand why. I believe it is correctly sourced, and of better quality than many short articles already in Wikipedia. I am an amateur at this, even though I work for the Iris. I am in Rehab, not marketing, and this project was a labor of love. This is a terrible way to treat a new editor who is trying really hard. Btbky (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Yes you have tried very hard to promote the company, but Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion. I have trimmed back the draft, you are free to re-submit. Theroadislong (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see this as "promoting a company". I am proud of the historical non profit agency where I work. Most of the work we do is free to our clients, who are blind or otherwise visually impaired. I am trying to reach people that need help. Btbky (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Btbky: Wikipedia makes no distinction between for-profit and nonprofit organizations when it comes to conflict-of-interest promoting. Being a nonprofit does not bestow special permission for biased editing. Read WP:NOBLECAUSE. Moving the article to draft space and removing the bias are appropriate. Sundayclose (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Btbky, here's the thing. Wikipedia isn't a directory. Only notable subjects have articles (note notable means something specific here). Notable doesn't relate to accomplishments, importance, social significance and only marginally to fame. Instead, notability for a company or organization is shown when you have multiple reliable secondary sources, totally independent of the subject, that discuss the subject in detail. Some of those sources will need to be from out of town to show interest in the organization isn't strictly local. I can sympathize but please understand a Wikipedia article isn't written about the subject, but rather it's written about what others have written about the subject in reliable published sources. John from Idegon (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
John from Idegon Thank you for your reply. This is an excellent and very idealistic explanation for why you did what you did. I completely disagree with your decision however. There are many, many articles on Wikipedia that do not meet these criteria by any stretch of the imagination. For example, I use Wikipedia to look up zip codes for small towns in Maine. And the reason I thought this would be a great project is because there are other similar articles. Check out Cleveland_Sight_Center for example. I contend that if that stays in mainspace, so should my article. Btbky (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Hi Btbky. Maybe those other articles shouldn’t stay in the mainspace for the reasons explained in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; in other words, it’s better to base your argument on the reasons why you think this particular article should exist based upon how it meets relevant Wikipedia notability guidelines instead of that it should exist because other similar articles exist. In addition, it’s not “your article” so to speak as explained in WP:OWN. Neither you nor the Iris Network have any control (editorial or otherwise) over article content and the fact that you’ve declared yourself to be PAID editor with respect to the subject matter (thank you for doing that btw) means you sort of have even less of a say than anyone else. The one thing in your favor (if that’s the a good way to put it) is that the draft was accepted via WP:AFC; however, that still isn’t a 100% guarantee since different AFC reviewers sometime can look at the same draft and assess it slightly differently. I’m not an AFC reviewer, but the three others who have responded to you so far in this thread are; so, if they’re suggesting draftifying is appropriate, then there’s probably something to what they’re saying.
@Sundayclose, Theroadislong and John, maybe adding a {{Please see}} to the user talk page of the AFC reviewer who approved the draft would be a good idea, even if it’s done just as a courtesy, to get their input as well. — Marchjuly (talk) 14:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Btbky: Thanks for your continued communication on this matter. As Marchjuly correctly points out, there will always be problem articles that should be deleted or improved. Wikipedia is always a work in progress. Citing one article with problems is not a sufficient rationale for creating another article with problems. In the case of the article we are discussing, deletion is not necessary. That's why it was moved to draft space so it could be cleaned up. As for zip codes on Wikipedia, having a zip code in an article does not make Wikipedia a directory. I think the disagreement you express to John from Idegon may be misplaced; I think you're disagreeing with the policies that he describes. We can disagree with a policy, but ignoring a policy without a strong consensus is not an option. Feel free, however, to express your disagreement with policy on the talk page for that policy. Sundayclose (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Btbky You day..."Check out Cleveland_Sight_Center for example." I did just that and found it stuffed full of inappropriate marketing promotion, I have hacked some of it out, thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Btbky, I can sympathize. I was the ED of a 501c3 in Eastern Oregon for a bit, and their CFO much longer. Please keep two things in mind. First, there are over 6 million articles on Wikipedia. I'll guarantee you that well over 100k of them, and perhaps as many as a million, are quite substandard. Our rules haven't changed much over the 20 years we've been around, but how seriously we take them has. If you know anything of the history of Wikipedia, it's clear that in the beginning, no one thought it would be what it is today. Starting about 2012, it became clear we had to take it seriously as we were becoming an important resource for the world. Everyone here is a volunteer (no one gets paid by Wikipedia to work here, although some do get paid by third parties to promote their companies or themselves). And we have less volunteers than in 2012. About 2015, we started screening new articles much closer. We're slowly cleaning up the junk here, but we are able to control the amount of new junk much better. Note, your organization isn't junk and neither is your writing. I'm speaking purely about the encyclopedic suitability for what you wrote. Which brings me to my second point.
Encyclopedias are tertiary. We don't write about the subject of the article, we write about what has been written about the subject of the article. Hence, our requirements for having an article are based entirely on what is available to write from. You need multiple reliable secondary sources, which discuss the organization in detail. Those sources must be entirely independent (not the orgs website, not something written off a press release and not an interview with someone from the organization). These sources need to discuss the organization in detail, and every single thing you write must be paraphrased from those sources. Nothing you just know from your experience can be in the article. It must be written in neutral language. Unless a source says the organization is (for example) "awesome", the article can't say that. Unless the preponderance of sources calls the organization "awesome", you can't say the organization is "awesome" in the article. You could say, for example "according to the Portland Bugle, "the organization is awesome", with a reference to exactly where you got the quote. Writing for an encyclopedia is a cross between journalism and extemporaneous writing. And most newer contributors are fairly clumsy with it. Don't feel bad.
One last thing: Wikipedia is the last stop on the PR train. You've got to have coverage before we can write about the org. Your organization can handle their publicity in a way that will help generate the coverage needed to have an article here. We are not a directory. WP:TOOSOON kinda applies. For 501c3's, you've got to generate more publicity, and that can be hard. Get to know some journalists and lobby for coverage. It's not all that hard. Send press releases every time you get a grant, start a new program, end a session, get a nice donation. Get the name out. When I started working in charity work, my first ministry was a community meal site. I was able to charm two TV stations in Boise to do feature stories on our efforts (and we weren't even formally incorporated yet), I timed the coverage to coincide with our first big fundraiser, and we netted over $10k. In a town of 11,000. If I can do it, so can you. Good luck. John from Idegon (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

You wrote, on the talk page of a huckster: 'Be respectful of the fact that virtually everyone else here is here for solid altruistic reasons and you are here to make money.' I wish that were true. I wish that there weren't so many hucksters here. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We both remember when it was. Alas. John from Idegon (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alpena High School (Michigan)

Hi John. A couple of questions about this article. First, if you remember, someone replaced the infobox image with an updated version a few weeks back. Since you uploaded the file that was replaced, you received a notification on your user talk. The problem was that the "new" logo was uploaded to Commons as "own work" when it really wasn't; so, it ended up deleted as expected. Are you familiar with this school and can you tell whether it uses a new logo? If it is, then the new one can probably be uploaded as non-free content. FWIW, the school's athletic department's website seems to show an updated version of the logo being used.

Next, "question" has to do with this edit. I'm not too familiar without content about high school rivalries in school articles, but anyone who's gone to high school knows that most schools have rivals. The text seems a bit WP:PUFF and the source cited seems more about particular individuals than a rivalry, but I'm wondering if this type of stuff is generally OK to add to school articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a secondary source for the logo in many states. The athletics sanctioning body might have it on their website. Alpena doesn't have their logo on mhsaa.com. So I'd say, the school website would be the best choice, followed by the athletics department website, Maxpreps, school's official Facebook or Twitter page. So in this case, I'd mark up the bad licensed one for deletion on Commons, and reupload the image from the arhletics website as the fair use logo on the article. I'll email you re the other, but generally no. John from Idegon (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look at this John. Just to clarify, the logo that was uploaded to Commmons has already been deleted. Since it seems way too complex for PD and unlikely to ever be OTRS verified, the only real viable option would be to upload it as non-free content to Wikipedia. Your explanation of the school's "official website" is quite helpful. The school doesn't really seem to have one per se as in www.alpenahs.com, but instead seems have a page on the its school district's website. The school's athletic department does have a Twitter account which shows the same logo. Perhaps that's enough of a verification that it is now the "official" logo? One interesting thing though is that alpenaathletics.com actually shows two versions of the logo: the one currently used that you uploaded and the one that was uploaded to Commons. So, maybe there's not been a real change at all and the "older" is still being officially used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say, given the prominence of the new graphic vs the old one at the athletics website plus the correlation with Twitter should be enough to support use of the newer logo. You want to do it? I think I need to steer clear of it a bit. John from Idegon (talk) 05:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and in most cases, I'd consider the school's official website to be the one on the SD website unless there is info on the SD site that links to another website. Sometimes (esp on the .com domain) other websites are student operated, not official. John from Idegon (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saw this discussion and uploaded the new logo RickH86 (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing that RickH86. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! John from Idegon (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown District High School

I do not understand why you removed my changes to Georgetown District High School. To know that the web page has changed, you only need to click on the link and see that it is correct. To know that the sports team has changed their name, you only need to click on the link I provided and that you asked for: https://www.theifp.ca/news-story/9450821-georgetown-district-high-school-officially-has-a-new-nickname - 103.246.99.80 (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need the sources, the readers do. John from Idegon (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I included it, but you removed it and said that it wasn't there. - 103.246.99.80 (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hindrise (NGO):

I think the issue was more that I acted w/o regard for all the hard work put in at the AfD. TBH, it's never been a problem before. Ironically, I have a higher CSD threshold than some people, and in this instance I tried to rewrite, but it just wasn't there. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Locations in article titles

John, I have a question about consistency. Some high schools have the state in the title - Union High School (Iowa) to differentiate from schools of the same or similar name in other states, but others have the city and state Centerville High School (Centerville, Iowa), and there doesn't seem to be any reason why. RickH86 (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, RickH86. The only reason a location should be appended to a school article title is for disambiguation. If there are more than one school (anywhere in the world) with the same name, it will need to be disambiguated. For US schools, we add a location in parentheses. If there are other schools by the same name in other states, we use the state name. If there's more than one school by that name in the same state, we use city, state. If you want to check the properness of a disambiguation, you can go to the NCES website and search the school name with no location information in the school locator tool. The results will tell you what level of disambiguation you'll need. Good to hear from you. If that's not clear, let me know please. John from Idegon (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's clear, but I've been unable to move the ones I've found with the city and state to just the state, and I'm not sure why.RickH86 (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, there was a redirect on the proper title. I marked it up and a administrator should move it soon. John from Idegon (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops...Centerville was the school I was referring to. If there are others, I think you can see what I did at Centerville High School (Iowa). John from Idegon (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Though I saw what you did, I didn't write it down. Please look at John F. Kennedy High School (Mt. Angel, Oregon) and Liberty High School (Louisville, Kentucky). I don't see how to get of the circle of renaming when there is already a redirect with that name. RickH86 (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) I use {{db-move}}. I'm also a Page Mover, so I don't need to do it much anymore. As long as John is OK with those moves (since you asked him first), I can do them. BilCat (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem whatsoever with that. John from Idegon (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This won't affect my move, but Liberty High School (Kentucky) is unsourced. Do sources exist to verify notablity? Also, it's actually about 2 topics ( not allowed), as it contains an (unsourced) mention of a school in Liberty, Kentucky which doesn't appear to have an article either. BilCat (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moves  Done. BilCat (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thanks BilCat! (You do realize I'll come to you directly if I find more), please see Washington High School (Sioux Falls, South Dakota) RickH86 (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do realize that, and I welcome it. But you do realize in return that I'll judge each move on its own merits, and I may decline to make the move and recommend a formal move discussion instead. BilCat (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"School district " vs "schools"

Hi John, I've recently moved 2 articles with "school district" in the title to utilize "schools", as this is what's used on the district websites. (See Chickamauga City Schools and Walker County Schools.) I just wanted to make sure I didn't violate a naming convention. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like any other article type, COMMONNAME is the rule. Lacking info to the contrary, I'd say the actual name would be the best choice. There's even a third choice in some states, and that's "school city." John from Idegon (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Specialist editors are rare in topics like this, and I'm glad you're back. BilCat (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would check the state department of education or NCES to verify. For example, several Iowa school districts use "schools" on their website, but officially they are "community school districts" for the most part.RickH86 (talk) 11:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although almost any organization should have their official name in their article (even if the only source is primary), but I'd say the name on their website would be a much closer approximation of COMMONNAME. Of course, that's subject to local consensus. John from Idegon (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - in Iowa, virtually every school district is a Community School District, so when I created a large number of articles recently, that's what I used, and updated the list of school districts in Iowa to reflect that.RickH86 (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unika ray

Yes you must edit Realunikaray (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a point, make it. I've got better things to do. John from Idegon (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Alpena High School (Michigan) logo.gif

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Alpena High School (Michigan) logo.gif. 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) 17:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mackenzie High School (Michigan), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Collegiate.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Punta Gorda Middle School

This was rescued from deletion in 2007 with WP:GNG established by the coverage it received as a result of it being destroyed an rebuilt per consensus. Redirecting it without discussion is inappropriate. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 21:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're certainly welcome to disagree, but this article doesn't meet 2020 notability standards. That it did in 2007 isn't relevant. Permanence of notability refers to changes in the factual situation of the subject, not changes in our notability standards. If you revert the redirect, I'll most likely take it to AfD, where it can be discussed. Nice to hear from you, PCHS-NJROTC. Out of curiosity, are you active duty in the Navy? If you are, or are retired, thanks for your service. Me, I'm Captian 4f, but my dad was Navy. John from Idegon (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to go into the Navy but was deferred for medical reasons. As Wikipedians we all run into disagreements, but I don't take it personally. Now I'm a school employee taking online college courses (different district than where PGMS is in, so there's no WP:COI). PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 23:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello John from Idegon, PCHS-NJROTC has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 23:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • So your Captain 4f too....I'm a bit familiar with your area. My grandparents lived in Northport, and had since it was still North Port Charlotte. I lived in their home and took care of Geandma while Grandpa was hospitalized in Sarasota with his terminal illness, 1985-86. I can recall NPC before anything was built west of 41.John from Idegon (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. It's a small world, I actually work in North Port and my girlfriend graduated high school from there. That city has really grown in the past couple of decades and is continuing to grow. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 00:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bilby (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tried adding a longer explanation, but it didn't come through. Unfortunately, while I'd hoped that things had changed, it has been less than an month since you were unblocked and this goes well beyond what is acceptable. I've reinstated the previous block, so I didn't try and work out a different duration, however if other admins think that a fixed term will be more appropriate I'm ok with that. - Bilby (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I give up. Now pointing out that someone who can't write or read English to a point where he can effectively communicate is a personal attack? He flat out stated he thinks it is everyone else's problem to clean up after him. What changed that makes that not disruptive? I didn't call him bad names, I didn't use foul language,  I simply pointed out to him that his language abilities leave much to be desired,  then he replied with a totally off point remark, clearly showing he doesn't understand English, either. Need I point out to you that a link to a pillar policy actually exists for that situation? So sorry. We are here to make a product, not to have a tea drinker's society. John from Idegon (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I just looked at the edit, and I am really disturbed that you think that was ok. I endorse the block, with regret. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
John, I was ready to come to your defense until I read the diff. You blew your stack and went way over the line. You should have shouted those thoughts to the sky instead of typing them and then hitting that big blue "Publish changes" button. Goodbye. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

fine. fuck you all. im done. enjoy your

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_from_Idegon&oldid=979482463"