User talk:JohnInDC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A barnstar for you![edit]

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thanks, JohnInDC! Your efforts in resolving my request for assistance encouraged a new editor to sign up for an account and respond to requests to discuss an article they were editing. Your suggestions for resolving the conflict also resulted in an improved article. Bryan H Bell (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Just be aware...[edit]

I just want you to be aware that your edits will likely be reverted by Pncomeaux and summarized as "vandalism". I'm sure you're already aware of it, but he'll keep reverting until either you quit or it gets taken to an administrator. Just a side note – and I'm sure you're aware of this as well – but I agree with you removing it! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 14:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been following this closely - well, honestly, at all - until quite recently but I looked around enough beforehand to appreciate that I may be stepping into a bit of a hornet's nest. Perhaps he'll respect the actions of yet another (and disinterested) editor more than he has those of the "biased" LSU and LTU partisans up to this point - I don't know. At the very least it will force him away from those extraneous arguments and down to the substance. I may drop him a note on his Talk page - thanks for the head's up! JohnInDC (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I doubt he will, but we can only hope! Corkythehornetfan (ping me)
I did leave a note on his Talk page and hope that it at least spurs some dialogue. I've made a few comments at Talk:Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns that he could respond to. Hope he does. JohnInDC (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

So now, not only has the SBC Conference agreed to settle this once and for all, by accepting "Louisiana" as the correct reference to the UL athletic programs, so has the NCAA, as well as many other media outlets.

So my question to you is, at what point will the Wikipedia editors allow the correct reference to this school within the Louisiana articles? Pncomeaux (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Pncomeaux: Once it is established as the WP:COMMONNAME. This would be shown at,, etc. It has to be on the national basis too, not just the local one. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 23:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

My question was not to you. It was to John. Kindly keep your nose out of is clear to everyone what your agenda is.Pncomeaux (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC) And again, and to John: this has gone 'national' ..... after all, how much more 'national' can the NCAA be? You know, the NATIONAL Collegiate Athletic Association. Pncomeaux (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the conferences or the NCAA may say so much as what various reliable sources do. You really should go read WP:COMMONNAME to understand this issue. Wikipedia isn't a parrot, it isn't a PR-enabler, but rather an encyclopedia that uses the most common and recognizable term to refer to a person, place or thing. When (if) the various sources that report on the schools begin to use formal name then the articles will follow. If they don't, then they won't. And in case you don't want to follow the link above, here is a quote from COMMONNAME that is right on point, and says just what I'm saying: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Okay? I can't give you a date, or an event, where this change will happen, or even if it will. It will depend on what the reliable sources do in coming months and years and - these things not having happened yet - there's no way to know if or when precisely. JohnInDC (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I did read the article, yet still have the same question that I posed to you on 12/14. Maybe I can clarify it for you, so that you can better understand it: there must be some type of baseline number that is used to make a determination that a 'common name' is, rather than an official, correct name, to be used....and I would like to know what that number is. In other words, when you and the other editors made this determination, did you do a search and find that 100 sources used the incorrect "Louisiana-Lafayette" version? If so, would 99 instances of the correct "Louisiana' then give the okay for it to be used? Or would that number be 50? Or is it a percentage that is being 55% with the incorrect one being used, whereas, 49% would mean that the correct name could then be employed? I am just trying to get down what that 'magic' number is for when the school's correct name can be used.Pncomeaux (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pncomeaux (talkcontribs) 00:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, I am not clear on what this part of the Common Name policy means: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently....." I mean, what do you take the "does not necessarily" part to mean? I take it to mean that there is some leeway that can be given in determining which name to use in Wikipedia. Do you agree? If you do, maybe we can discuss why.....all things considered.....that this leeway can be given to other articles, but seems to be so forbidden with this particular issue/article? Pncomeaux (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
There's no magic number. It will be some time after the national media begin to routinely refer to the school by the name it has said it wants to be known by and when people routinely use that name in lieu of the one they've been calling it up to now. As for this case, I think the reason you're seeing resistance is because the earliest instances of this (persistent) name change were plainly being made in furtherance of the school's own rebranding efforts, themselves undertaken for whatever parochial reasons - and not in furtherance of helping readers most clearly understand what's being presented in the encyclopedia. Because of this POV push in the first instance, more neutral editors (such as myself) are inclined to wait until the name change is actually, plainly, in keeping with COMMONNAME than switching it over at the earliest possible plausible moment. Look, just your insistence in calling it the school's "correct" name, which is - again - quite largely beside the point makes it feel, to me, like you've got something else on your mind with this change other than just making a good encyclopedia. In the end, what do you care if it's "correct" or not, if people who are looking for articles about the school and its teams can easily find them? What's the most useful. That's the touchstone. JohnInDC (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

University of Michigan talk page[edit]

Would something like this be better for a user's sandbox? IMO, it is, but I am not really sure... you deal with Univ. of Mich. a lot, and there is a very good chance that you know of more Wiki guidelines than I do, so I figured I'd ask ya. I've been wondering about this for a while now... Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 01:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd noticed that and had been trying to think of a better place for it. There's WP:Articles for creation of course, but that wouldn't capture the Michigan angle. I do agree it's a bit cluttery, and distracting for those of us who have it watch listed! JohnInDC (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

3rd party needed to weigh in[edit]

Please, if you would, check out the Brecksville, Ohio article. There is an edit war going on. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Got it - thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Broadview Heights, Ohio[edit]

The change from "Civic Awards" to "Crime" made me chuckle. Well spotted! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I credit you - your edit summary at Brecksville about two "awards" not being "awards" stuck in my head, and when I saw this subsection I decided to substitute the more apt caption! JohnInDC (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
[1] HEY!! I know things about those towns..! Now... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Brecksville Reservation[edit]

You are editing out attributes that are appropriate to the reservation. I do not understand why you are so fast to take out. Obviously, you and others have an agenda against this page. Sfo1980 (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)sfo1980

It's not bias or any secret agenda but rather a disinterested concern about the promotional / "Chamber of Commerce" style presentation with which the article had been previously infected. I have added a section to the article Talk page so that if you think that the edits have gone too far, we can discuss it there. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I concur. There is no agenda, and again Sfo, you are exhibiting serious ownership issues with the continuous accusations directed at others with whom you disagree. Since you didn't want to have this talk on the Brecksville Talk Page I will reiterate what I wrote there, here: the article in question is about the suburb of Brecksville, not the reservation in the Cleveland Metroparks system -- which means there doesn't need to be a comprehensive list of what the reservation offers. Mentioning the park is sufficient and through wiki-linking the park properly in the text of the article, anyone can click on it and immediately see the amenities offered there -- on the appropriate page to ennumerate them. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi - Seriously, I am okay with your edits (you seem to be a professional editor) but I have to wonder why it takes four people to edit little old Brecksville, OH. Is this a competition? I have read other city write ups and not one of them have stirred such energy as Brecksville. And I am still find it repulsive the notes that some of the editors made - truly unprofessional. They evoke glee if they can change one word. I have lost enormous respect for the editing of this tool. Sfo1980 (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)sfo1980
I'm not a professional, no, just been around here for a while. You are right that little Brecksville surely doesn't need a ton of editors, but, the article as it was written was not in keeping with Wikipedia's neutrality and anti-promotional policies, and several folks stepped in to clean it up. I agree that at least one editor was a little testy in his edit summaries, and could have been more temperate, but in his (partial) defense it can be quite frustrating to be dealing with an editor who simply puts things back the way he likes them and won't engage (at all) on the article Talk page. Now that you & I are talking it's clear that you aren't one of them, but Wikipedia has to suffer the efforts of a lot of editors who are downright malevolent and, in the early going it was not easy to tell where you were going to fall. Anyhow. I'm sorry your experience has not been satisfying, but really this can be an interesting and rewarding place to contribute, and I really hope you look around a bit to gain a better understanding of how things work, or should work. I bet you'd come to enjoy it after a while! Thanks for the note, good luck and please ask if you have any questions. JohnInDC (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Listing of national titles[edit]

I am not looking for a edit-war by no means. However I am looking for the same type of template/layout for all college football Wikipedia's. You mentioned my edits too "Michigan, USC, UCLA, Minnesota, Illinois" this is to match the football Wikipedia's of; Notre Dame football Wikipedia, Alabama football Wikipedia, Pittsburgh football Wikipedia, Ohio State football Wikipedia etc... I do agree it can be seen as too long at the same time when is that line crossed? I do agree Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football, is a good starting point to disuses this. If nothing is posted on there in the next few days about the listing of national titles in the Wiki Project I will try to create one for discussion. Intill then have a good one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KillerFrosty (talkcontribs) 14:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: Woodmont[edit]

Dear John, I apologize for my rude comments, they came from a place of shock since me along with the community are very passionate about our division from Chevy Chase. I would appreciate if you would either one remove your deletion request, or actually allow us to put sources in, they seem to have been deleted when we tried. I'm confused of where your doubt of Woodmont's existence comes from because what would we gain from making up a community? Woodmont is a very different area then Chevy Chase with a completely different architectural style as well as very different people. This cultural division is significant enough that the people feel a divide was necessary. If you would like to talk to the people of Woodmont about this separation I'm more then happy to give you contact information, Jackson, Woodmont resident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaxeas (talkcontribs) 03:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC) (moved here from User page)

Thanks for the nice note. The problem with the article has nothing to do with the intentions of the residents of your neighborhood but rather what kinds of articles are suitable for inclusion in this on-line encyclopedia. Wikipedia isn't a place to advance social movements, or to publicize local projects, or anything like that - rather, it's a collection of material about subjects that have already been written up and discussed by multiple independent, reliable sources. I will leave a welcome message on your Talk page, and it would help you to understand if you'd follow and read the various introductory links there. The upshot is that the Woodmont article completely fails this basic measure of Wikipedia suitability, because, try as I might, I was unable to find a single article, anywhere, that even made mention of the creation of this new political subdivision in the District of Columbia - setting aside whether those sources would be sufficiently reliable, or numerous, or independent to support an article. Oh, and setting aside the lack of any recognition by the DC Government. Anyhow, I will be leaving the deletion nomination in place because it's appropriate. Perhaps in a few months, or in a year or two, after "Woodmont" begins to gain external recognition as a new DC neighborhood - maybe then, an article will be appropriate. But not now, not yet. I hope this helps! JohnInDC (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Dear John,
I do not appreciate you making Woodmont out to be a small made up political movement. Wikipedia's purpose is not to be like every other encyclopedia, it is to be a encyclopedia where voices that would not be heard to large companies can be heard. Also it's purpose is to include new ideas or words in the moment faster then encyclopedia's volume releases. Woodmont is an example of this, it's a very real community which until now has been unrecognized. You also failed to answer about why our sources continue to be deleted. I'm confused of why a small area of DC naming itself is such a huge issue worth deleting. The people who live in Woodmont all feel the stereotype of wealth and rudeness that comes with Chevy Chase does not apply to them. It feels unfair your voice of one who has likely never stepped foot in Woodmont is being heard more then many people who are informed thoroughly on the area and it's culture. I would appreciate if you would remove your deletion request,
Jackson, Woodmont resident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaxeas (talkcontribs) 03:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Jackson, you misunderstand Wikipedia and its purpose. I really think you'd benefit by reading those links - particularly the "five pillars" - that I left on your Talk page. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I think you do. Wikidepia's entire edit feature is to encourage people to apply there knowledge of subjects and share it. I attempted to share my informed knowledge of an area of DC but you seem to have missed that. You also again ignored every point I made in my note, stop editing our page when you are not at all more informed on the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaxeas (talkcontribs) 03:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I've read over the rules and if anything you've broken them, you've attempted to start a edit war with us immediately removing anything we add, also no where in the rules does it comment on official approval being needed to be written about on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaxeas (talkcontribs) 03:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure what material you're reading, so I'll quote some of it (this from the 5 pillars page): "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents...." Read Original research, which explains how Wikipedia is - contrary to what you say - not a place where we share our own personal knowledge. It is, to reiterate, an encyclopedia where editors summarize material found in published, third party, reliable sources and cite to them. Another useful page is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which goes further into these policies. Please give those a read to help you better understand the project. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 11:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Here is another essay that hits the nail pretty well on the head: Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth. Among the takeaway quotes: "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it"; "It is not good enough for information to be true, and it is definitely not good enough for you to (perhaps wrongly) believe it to be true. Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability. You are allowed and encouraged to add material that is verifiable and true; you are absolutely prohibited from adding any material that is un-verifiable, with zero exceptions—even if the un-verifiable material is True". Yet another essay in this vein can be found at Wikipedia:But it's true!. Quoting from there: "Perhaps you know something is true, because you were there when it happened. That's great, but unless it's been written about in a reliable source, it's an example of original research, which is defined in part as 'material for which no reliable source can be found.' To show that your edit is not original research, you must be able to cite a reliable source that contains the same information. If you can't do that, then your edit constitutes original research, and is not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia." I encourage you to read these. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Seaholm High School[edit]

Hi John,

I'm new to making any Wikipedia edits, and I thought this subject would be one that I could do so on a factual level, so I'm hoping to get some guidance from you to learn these ropes. As I am new, I'm sure that I have a different perception of the meaning of terms such as notable, etc. I've looked at some of the precedent and I see that there is empowerment for editors to exercise judgement and reasonableness in the spirit of the better good.

Regarding my recent edit of Christy Sica Edwards as an American Actress as being notable, I believe that she is as notable at least as Professor Bryant. Also I see that links to many of the notes and references are dead, so I wonder about how the integrity of those things are maintained.

One could argue that simply being an actress, or a professor, in and of themselves either are or are not notable... it certainly is a matter of opinion.

My first responses as to the authenticity of her status as an alumni I argue are no more formal or informal than the status of the rest of the Alumni under Notable Alumni.

So would you be willing to help me understand the etiquette? I'm wondering how much of the rejection of my edits is based on etiquette or a lack of understanding on my part. Certainly, the edits are based on facts.

What are your recommendations?

Vogeljc0924 (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. First off, when I'm done responding here on my Talk page, I'm going to move the whole thing over to Talk:Seaholm High School so that others can weigh in if they want. Moving along - a really good rule of thumb for these "notable" lists is when the subject has a Wikipedia article about them. While not completely airtight, that is a pretty good indicator of notability. Stated another way, one would probably have to argue for deletion of that underlying article (and succeed) to claim that the subject wasn't notable. Also a good rule of thumb, for avoiding lengthy arguments about whether a person without an article is notable for purposes of lists like these, is that to be included on such a list, there should be a separate standalone article. That appears to be lacking here (and immediately distinguishes Christy from Professor Bryant); so for the sake of discussion we'll go on to the question of notability. The first good place to learn about that is Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers, which lays out criteria for when an actor or actress is typically deemed notable. These are not exclusive, but are indicative, and by these measures, Christy Sica Edwards with her (apparently) minor roles in (apparently) minor movies would seem to fall far short. Next you should look at WP:Reliable to gain a sense of what sources are deemed sufficiently reliable to support information in Wikipedia. Broadly speaking, IMDB is not deemed acceptable - see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Resources#Questionable_resources for a bit more on that. I did a couple of quick Google searches on Christy (with and without "Sica") and came up with precious little reliable coverage of her film career - indeed so little as to suggest to me that, if an article were written about her, it would soon be deleted for failure to meet the notability requirement. So in the end, she really doesn't have a place as a "notable" alumnus of Seaholm - she just fails to meet the test. Is this helpful? JohnInDC (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────(Discussion continued at Talk:Seaholm_High_School#Alumni_again. JohnInDC (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC))

Talk:University of Michigan diff 743211069[edit]

Hi John,

Please see Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded in regards to my edit which you reversed.

Thanks, Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I did look there and wasn't able to figure out which discussion led to your edit. I don't really care one way or the other about it - it seems pretty arcane to me - but it would probably be helpful as you go forward to include in your edit summary a link to the page, and discussion that you're referring to inasmuch as I'm still rather in the dark. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Never mind, I'm an idiot. But edit summary links are still a good idea - I'd never have thought to go look there. Thanks again. JohnInDC (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, JohnInDC. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Notability of Roger Carter in relation to University of Michigan Law School[edit]

Interested in why he is viewed by you as one of the general alumni, rather than as a particular notable graduate. His notability is referenced exclusively to his accomplishments in Canada, particularly post-graduation from the University of Michigan. Receipt of the Order of Canada is decidedly not minor. Is Canadian notability the issue? Dreadarthur (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Interesting observation re Canadian notability - I didn't have that in mind at all but I see that the list really is just of US-notables. Interesting. Anyhow, no, I removed him because these lists are always too long, and have a tendency to grow as everyone adds their favorite person to the list, and I think this list should be shorter still rather than longer, and so my inclination when someone adds a name who doesn't leap to mind as a familiar, famous personage, is almost always to ensure they're on the larger list and then remove it. Beyond that, I think that receiving the Order of Canada may well and all by itself establish a person's basic Wikipedia notability, but I wouldn't say that every recipient of that award (or a maybe corresponding US award, the Presidential Citizens Medal) automatically rates them so high among the literally hundreds of other notable & accomplished alumni of the school. That being said I intended no offense and if you want to add him back in I won't undo it (though if I go through one day and make the list smaller he may still be on the block, at which point come back and we'll talk again!). Thanks for the note. JohnInDC (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I put Roger Carter back on the list, mindful of your future "on the block" caution. He was very significant in terms of facilitating aboriginal access to legal education, having focused on that issue since the 1970s. I didn't notice many Master of Law graduates, though I appreciate that such accomplishment does not, in itself, make him a notable graduate. He was also the recipient of a Cook Fellowship, which facilitated his LL.M. studies in his mid-30s. I don't know how significant the Cook Fellowship is considered to be, but it appears to be regarded as quite significant "up here" in Canada.

Many thanks for your comments. Hopefully The Chopper won't arise too soon. Dreadarthur (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

He was actually in his mid-40s when he completed the LL.M., so the Cook Fellowship would have been particularly important to completion of the degree. Dreadarthur (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry![edit]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC) Lights ablaze.JPG

RAN (Indonesian group)[edit]

You tagged this for G5 deletion, but this was not valid as I had made significant edits after deprodding it this morning. G5 only applies "to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others". Thanks. --Michig (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. This particular puppeteer's work is particularly pernicious and disruptive, see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20151107, and I pretty much reflexively apply WP:Deny whenever I come across his / her work. Since you've more or less ratified this article I should have left it alone. JohnInDC (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding my edits you "flagged"[edit]

Hello JohnInDC, To be honest, I am rather discouraged by the flag that I received in response to my edits to the James Conner page. The only thing I added was that he is a Pitt legend, which is true, that he is an American hero, which is also true (they don't let non heroes on the Ellen Degeneres Show). Even the part about his unclaimed Heisman win is correct because if you look under the definition of a unclaimed win, it is one that is awarded by an entity but is not accepted by the recipient. There are multiple sites that have said varying degrees of the phrase "James conner is a heisman winner", however Conner himself has never accepted the award. Therefore, you have successfully flagged my account for only adding facts to the wiki community, which is both deterring and also distasteful as someone who strives to learn as much as possible. Thanks for your negativity, ESPNstatistics — Preceding unsigned comment added by ESPNstatistics (talkcontribs) 22:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

First off, welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sorry you've become so discouraged so fast. Perhaps it would help if you were to read some of the material that another editor has already linked to on your Talk page - particularly the "Five Pillars", which explain (among other things) how material to be added to the encyclopedia must be tied back to a reliable source, can't be your own opinion, and should express a neutral point of view. After you've had a chance to look at that, you may be in a better position to appreciate how the material you added really isn't suitable for inclusion. For instance, your own inference that Conner is a "hero" because he appeared on Ellen is just - your own personal conclusion; and your argument that he won a Heisman but just failed to claim it is - well, just not true. Being deemed worthy of a Heisman by some writers is hardly the same as actually receiving the award! And, while you didn't mention it, there's no justification at all for awarding Pitt a national championship in football in 2016. That's plain false, and disruptive. So I hope that's a bit helpful - again, read those links! (Also you still need to do something about that username.) Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello again "John"
While the flag in question only cited the James Conner Page, I am more than happy to discuss the unclaimed national championship that Pitt earned in 2016. As anyone with the slightest inkling of knowledge about college football can tell you, Clemson University claimed the 2016 championship as their victory over Alabama secured a 14-1 season for them. The one loss came at the hands of the Pitt Panthers, which is more than enough evidence to award the Panthers an unclaimed championship. I did not feel like I would need to cite logic as a source, but I apologize for assuming that the wikipopulation had a higher IQ than it actually has.
(P.S you also called James Conner a she in your response, but I just fixed it for you instead of flagging your account) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ESPNstatistics (talkcontribs)
Please do read the material linked on your Talk page. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding my "Username"[edit]

Hello again "JohnInDC" I see that you also took offense to my username, ESPNstatistics. I feel that it is rather unfair for you to assume that because my name is similar to a corporate entity, that it means that I am attempting to steal credibility from said entity. Although I consider the meaning behind this username to be rather private and sentimental, if you must know, the "E", "S", "P", and "N" in this name stand for 4 different people who are very meaningful in my life but are no longer with us. "Statistics" is to pay homage to my favorite subject in grade school, statistics. I hope that this clears things up; however, if you continue to heckle me in regards to my completely appropriate wikibehavior, I will be forced to consider it as an extreme and unfair form of targeting that borders on harassment. Thanks for all of your "concern", ESPNstatistics — Preceding unsigned comment added by ESPNstatistics (talkcontribs) 23:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, okay then. JohnInDC (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Wolverine killing a Polar/Brown Bears[edit]

1. The alleged case of a wolverine killing a polar bear is from a book from 1944 titled "Wolverine - a look into the devil's eyes" where it is stated that a wild wolverine managed to kill polar bear in an Alaskan Zoo. However, there is nothing more to it. No photographic evidence, additional reports, no video evidence, etc. The description itself is rather short as well and lacks elaboration. Not to mention, no description of the polar bear.

2.There is a case of a black bear killing a wolverine that tried to steal it's kill in 2003.

3. Yet again, your "plenty" reports of Wolverines killing brown bears have no actual evidence to support their authenticity. I've never heard of those "plenty reports" of Wolverines killing Brown Bears (your side bringing that up will definitely make this debate a lot difficult.) that blatant statement puts a dent in your credentials. I'll assume bias until proven wrong. Now, since we lack essential evidence, let's have a basic animal debate.

Wolverine's weight: 20 - 50lbs. In addition: sharp claws, sharp teeth and durability.

Brown Bear weight (including all species): 180 - 1,300 lbs (Kodiak bears can grow 1,500=680kg and Russian Kamchatka bears can be 650kg as well, Polar bears are said to be even larger.) with the weaponry of: immense strength, paws, sharp claws, sharp teeth with a great bite force, huge additional fat that is very durable. Now, weather or not the size can serve as an advantage against a smaller, agile creature can be debatable, everything else seals the deal.

Now, either prove me wrong, provide evidence or get back to the reality, because in the one we're living, wolverines don't kill mooses and bears.

P.S. there has never been a case of a wolverine killing a brown bear. (if there was, why does it say nothing about it on your 110% reliable wikipedia or anywhere else aside from forums composed by 12 year olds??? where are your sources now??) now, either step up, or point and keep shouting "vandalism!!!!" prove me wrong or give up your seemingly massive egos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you'd benefit by reading some introductory information about Wikipedia, starting with WP:Five pillars, which explains the way the encyclopedia is intended to work. Focus for now on the second pillar about sourcing and personal opinions. All material in Wikipedia should be tied back to a reliable source. Material that isn't tied to a reliable source may be challenged and removed. Material that is tied to a reliable source should, as a general matter, stay in place. You've repeatedly removed sourced material from an article because you personally do not believe it to be credible. That's not good enough. It's also not good enough that the source is 70 years old, or that there are examples of bears killing wolverines rather than wolverines killing bears. Honestly - do yourself a favor and learn how things work before persistently trying to make the encyclopedia look the way you personally think it should, and before insulting other, experienced editors who are doing nothing more than implementing well-established and well-understood basic policies. Then come back and talk. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

There's a video about the case on Youtube. Check the people's reception towards it. My opinion is mutual with the majority.

At least remove the Polar Bear case from the wolverine's "Diet and Hunting" since the report states that event occurred at a Zoo. With all due respect. It's even stated in the indicated source.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

edits and interference[edit]

Hello. What is the big issue here? Why intrude on trivial stuff like this, and ignore "no rules"? As far as "edit warring", get's people such as you who always START the edit wars.... I simply respond. But I won't violate 3RR. But again... What part of ""no rules"" on Wikipedia don't you get? This is not some big addition or major change...IF IT WAS, that's different. Why make a big deal about this? Namarly (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I've already commented on your Talk page. "Closed discussions" are closed. Not "closed to big edits" or "closed to edits that people had time to make when they are open", but closed. You've already been blocked once for 3RR violations. Don't call your judgment further into question by edit warring on the 3RR Noticeboard page. Sheesh. JohnInDC (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
As for "No Rules" - read it carefully. It says, ignore the rules when you are improving the encyclopedia. Augmenting your own comments in a prior discussion (which resulted in your being blocked) isn't improving the encyclopedia but improving - maybe - your own image. And TBH as I said I don't think you're doing yourself any favors in that regard. JohnInDC (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
already hard fixed rules on Wikipedia to make a giant case over, and to uptightly intrude...... Yes, there was an 'improvement' in that there was some wrong grammar and things I meant to fix (but was wrongly blocked instead of just warned by a hasty Admin "King" the other night, as NEITHER ONE of us "Jytdog" nor I should have been blocked, as other editors on that discussion have said too.) But yeah, a minor thing on the discussion, and no major change, is not something to get so hot and bothered by, like you and lemongirl did. I'm letting it go NOT because you're right (you're in actuality wrong, because "closed" or not there are NO RULES on Wikipedia, just general policies and recommendations to adhere to...and things should be taken case by case, as not everything is so black and white (as you're wrongly making it in this case), as minor mods were never that big a deal even on closed discussions, sighs, and double facepalm), but only cuz it is so trivial, and I don't need unnecessary stress from obvious Wiki-lawyering types who can't let a minor thing go, that does NOT alter anything significant. So I will instead. Cheers. Namarly (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Dude, "no rules" doesn't mean you can do anything you want because it pleases you. I'm sorry you're not happy with what you said in the first place but you don't get a do-over a couple days later after the thing is wrapped up. Now three editors have reverted your after-the-fact edits - I hope by now you get the message that it's not acceptable behavior. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Here's a helpful essay for you - Wikipedia:What_"Ignore_all_rules"_means#What_.22Ignore_all_rules.22_does_not_mean. It explains - as do many other essays that you can easily find - that "ignore all rules" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. I think, with fewer than 250 edits to your credit, you should gain a bit more experience in learning what the rules are, and how to follow them, before you think you've got the judgment to ignore them for the betterment of the project. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
No need to erect straw-men, about "doing whatever you please". Sighs. I know that "ignore all rules" does not give cart blanche to any editor to mess with things willy nilly. No need to talk down to me, thanks. You're acting like what I did on that closed discussion was some horrible or earth-changing thing, or completely changed the drift or tone of my initial comment, when it didn't at all in the least. The point that you (and wikilawyer types like you) don't get, in the inflexible granite-mind attitude, is that when you say "no edits at all at all AT ALL NOTHING AT ALL EVER EVER EVER should be done on a closed discussion" you're quoting it and putting it as a HARD RULE...when there are "no rules" at all on Wikipedia, just general policies and standards. "Ignore All Rules" means that you (and editors such as you on something like this, because just cuz you have others agreeing with you does not necessarily make you right or cool on the matter) could theoretically have left this trivial minor mod alone... But with typical stuff-shirt and stick-in-sphincter syndrome, and IGNORING the fact that there are "no rules" on Wikipedia, just couldn't. I don't wanna go around in circles about this, since I told you already I will let it go, and not continue with that, just to avoid the unnecessary stress and aggravation that you and your crowd are giving me. Not all editors would be reacting like you on this specific matter. You do realize that right? Because it's not that monumental. Some do, some don't. Some respect a minor mod after the fact, cuz of "no rules", and others obviously do not. But at this point, it's whatever. Good day. Namarly (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not a straw man. You're insisting on making changes to improve your own comments in a discussion that has run its process and is closed. You haven't offered one single reason that improves the encyclopedia for those edits - for making changes to a closed discussion that expressly says, "don't make any changes here". All I see is, you personally are unhappy with the way you expressed yourself previously, and you personally are trying, after the fact, to improve your own phrasing and grammar. The only justification you've managed to muster for this is that "it's trivial" and "there are no rules". Please don't keep insisting that you've got the "good of the project" at heart with these (admittedly) trivial edits. It's insulting to me and it diminishes you. (Also please go look at WP:Civil. You might profit from that.) JohnInDC (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Image edit recs[edit]

It's pearls before swine really. Blagamaga (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's my sense too. But one time in fifty or so (maybe, well, closer to a hundred) editors like that can be saved, so I try - for a bit, anyhow! JohnInDC (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts on an I.P.[edit]

What do you think of this user... are they this user disguising themselves as an I.P. or is it someone completely different? They've edited the university article to reflect name changes a couple of times and are now focusing on the baseball article. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 05:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to say. The registered user is not shy about making this edit, but also seems to realize that policy is against him and changes will be reverted until things change. He's gone quiet for now. The IP has made the edits a few times now and seems to quit between passes at the issue. They could be the same person, but I think the registered user probably would realize that trying the same edits as an IP is a waste of time. (Just my hunch.) Also it strikes me as plausible that there are more than one or two people for whom this particular issue has become a personal mission - the edits aren't so idiosyncratic that it has to be the same person. I guess in the end, I think it could easily be a sock but don't yet have that sense of, "oh yeah, that's him!" So for now anyhow I'd just deal with him on his own terms, without the additional layer of possible sockpupptry. Helpful? JohnInDC (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
JohnInDC, sorry about the late response... I completely forgot about this post! This was helpful! The sock puppetry is not a major issue to me versus the fact that both the I.P.s and known user (not much anymore) have been going thru the articles and changing it to the School's preferred naming. Both have started discussions, have responded to them, etc. Wonder if page protections are an option? Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 13:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)





Have a look at Oldest public university in the United States and State university system. Georgia (1785) and UNC (1789) are both older than UM; William & Mary (1693) is older still. The 50states ref is wrong, and probably not a reliable source in any case. You may in fact be right about Deandre Windom - the Highland Park web page (as of 1/1/16) shows Yopp, but his personal FB page says "former" mayor. I can't figure that out myself. I reverted you based the web page but - heck, who knows now. The UM thing was just wrong however. If it were the first state university in the country, it'd be emblazoned on every piece of marketing material they send out; and it's not. And indeed, several other schools are older. JohnInDC (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


The "Public Ivy" designation has been discussed at great length and many times, most recently at Talk:Public_Ivy#Remove_Public_Ivy_from_college_and_university_article_leads.3F. The general consensus is that the material, if it belongs in the articles at all, shouldn't be highlighted - its a single book from many decades ago, and pretty stale by now. So probably it's best to leave it as it is. As for its founding, I don't dispute that it was founded in 1817. The issue is whether being the 5th or 6th or 8th public school founded in the country is sufficiently noteworthy as to warrant mention. TBH it seems more like trivia than any kind of meaningful distinction. JohnInDC (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)



1693 - 1776 (ROYAL) 1776 -1906 (PRIVATE) 1906 - PRESENT (PUBLIC)


Reo Sunn (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)





Before making any changes you'll need to find a reliable source that discusses what you want to add, in the terms as you add them. That is to say, it won't be enough to point out (as you do) that UM was founded before Michigan became a state, and that you've calculated that that makes the school unique - you'd need a source that makes that very point. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


Reo Sunn (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not sure how that bears on UM. JohnInDC (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


Only if you can find a source that lists it as #3. There are a lot of years between 1785 and 1789 in which others might've been founded. Also it's hard to say that 1817 is the date Michigan became a state school, when it wasn't a state - so now we're up to 1837. A lot can happen in that time - like University of Vermont in 1791. University of Virginia, 1819. University of S. Carolina, 1801. I don't know where Michigan falls, but "6th or 7th" isn't much of a distinction. JohnInDC (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Adam L Bailey Edits[edit]

I'd like to inform you that I made the very first addition based on the article. You are the one who technically has gone against the three-edit reversion rule. Additionally, you have insistently reverted to information that is wrong and in error when compared to the attributed article. This is in direct contravention to the guidelines related to "Tendentious editing": a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions. I am willing to accept an accurate portrayal of the facts, but I will not stand for Tenditious Editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djpeebs (talkcontribs) 22:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Please take this discussion to the article Talk page, and address the merits of the edit, not your opinion of me. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
User:Richterer11111 made the first edit about the lawsuit to this article, about half an hour before your first edit on it (link) - I may be misunderstanding, and if so, please forgive me, but - are you saying that you are also Richterer11111? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
For someone who claims to have no connection to Bailey or any particular interest in him, I find it notable and significant how much time you have spent watching his page since at least 2012. Such steadfast attention belies the heavy hand you have used to lord over his page. I'm not accusing you, but there is a hint of circumspection here that grows the more one digs into your involvement on a page where you claim no personal interest whatsoever. A curious oddity for the moment... DJPeebs 19:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djpeebs (talkcontribs)
I will admit that you've been on both sides throughout the years and seem to believe you are balanced and equitable. Still, your incessant involvement on virtually every edit made is glaring. DJPeebs 19:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djpeebs (talkcontribs)
Well, it's pretty easy to understand once you understand! I put the page on my Watchlist back then, which alerts you whenever a page is edited, and just left it on because from time to time someone would, eventually, come back and try to lard it up with more promotional nonsense. For a while, it seemed like every few weeks some or another Bailey intern was trying to make the guy look like the Second Coming. (Lately that has subsided.) And then sometimes too, someone with a bone to pick would put in something nasty. I'd fix that too. More generally I sort of learned my lesson on that page when I got into a disagreement about some criticism that I felt should be in the article (it's all in the Talk page if you want to go read it) and a disinterested editor came in from the BLP Noticeboard and said it had no place - putting me in mine at the same time. So now I try to keep the thing in the middle - no unwarranted or excessive praise; no gratuitous or disproportionate sniping. I keep the page on my Watchlist it because it needs attention from time to time, and I figure because I have no dog in the fight at all, I'm as good a person as any to try to keep it neutral. JohnInDC (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

JohnInDC- the very next time you make unnecessary edits to this page, I will have you banned from Wikipedia. This goes beyond a disagreement but your attempt to do a public disservice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StudProSeLitigant (talkcontribs) 15:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Please take your concerns up on the article Talk page. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

A link to the actual lawsuit and inclusion of all the allegations and not the one you want is allowed. I am not going to let go of this one and will appeal as a matter of principle to those who can decide on this once and for all. You also deleted and my comments on the Talk page. You are have assumed ownership of this page with a heavy hand that knowingly has omitted material and relevant information on public record. I had come to believe - you convinced me - that you have Wikipedia's integrity at heart, but have shown that the only thing you care about is your view of what attributions can be made and then you take it upon yourself to delete my comments on the TALK page. How wrong I was. MALPRACTICE is a single allegation out of four. What gives you the right to determine that ONLY malpractice can be included??? DJPeebs 17:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djpeebs (talkcontribs)

I neither reverted your edits nor your Talk page comments. That was done by another editor, who shares my concerns about the BLP and undue weight issues raised by the detailed recitation of the plaintiff's claims. That other editor also is the one who issued your the Final Warning on your Talk page re reintroducing this material, and (as an administrator) is the one who'll likely block you if you continue in it - as he did that other editor. Really. You need to stop; it won't end well for you. JohnInDC (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I am adding attribution to the actual, factual lawsuit. That is allowed, but instead of getting kicked off by the old guard who is more intent on maintaining inaccuracies than a balanced encyclopedic entry, I'll stop trying to get the Truth out there. I see now Truth has little place in Wikipedia. It comes down solely to how entrenched feel personally. It is a sham. You have taken a single allegation to the exclusion of the other three mentioned. That is a fact. You justify your bias by stating that the claims are inflammatory, yet you mention one anyway to the exclusion of the others. This is not how a free society works. I was intent on a balanced and true entry. You have bastardized and minimized it beyond the Truth. This is an absolute mockery of what Wikipedia represents. Congratulations. DJPeebs 17:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djpeebs (talkcontribs)

A barnstar for your work[edit]

BLP Barnstar.png The BLP Barnstar
Thanks for your work at Adam Leitman Bailey and its Talk page. You were firm and yet tactful, single-handledly defending WP:BLP against multiple users.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You're invited...[edit]

Note: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Navigation boxes in coaching articles (again) regarding the issue of whether or not the navboxes in coaching articles should be collapsed or stay as is. Please comment there and not here. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The Michigan Daily[edit]

A donor has paid to make the archives of The Michigan Daily available online for free. The database can be found here. Enjoy! Cbl62 (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

can you please leave my talk page[edit]

i dont need someone commenting every time i make a mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacktime34 (talkcontribs) 18:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

It appears in fact that you do, because probably half of your edits contain basic mistakes in spelling, grammar or capitalization, and need to be fixed by someone else. If you stop making mistakes, I'll stop commenting; but if you continue in the face of my comments making you aware of the problems, eventually your sloppy editing may be deemed "disruptive" and get you blocked from editing at all. Deal? JohnInDC (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah sure I will do better — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacktime34 (talkcontribs) 18:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. By the way, you should sign all your comments by adding four tildes ('~') in a row at the end of your comment. Have fun editing! JohnInDC (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
By the way, Jacktime34 was right about the Good Article Icons for those...dunno what the bot was doing (or not doing...). Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Sigh. What do they say about "assume"? It caught me that time. Thank you for fixing my mistake and for the polite note - JohnInDC (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


Hi, John. Remember AlexLevyOne? Do you have any comment on User talk:DGG#Alexandre Gilbert? Deor (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Yup, thanks. Looks pretty clear to me. I mean - setting aside everything else that we see: What other human besides ALO himself would take the time to draft such a meticulously (and misleadingly) referenced article about this obscure Paris gallery owner (operator)? JohnInDC (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

D.C. United 2011 MLS MVP[edit]

I read that pretty interesting debate you had in the D.C. United talk page. What is your opinion of De Rosario being listed on the Toronto FC page as a TFC player to win MLS MVP for the 2011 season? MLS' website has him listed as a D.C. United player to win MVP as he finished the season on DCU and played 18 games for them. He played 18 games for DCU, 12 for RBNY and 2 for TFC in his MVP winning year. If you are interested in the topic please stop by the Toronto FC talk page and let other DCU fans know. I'm not sure how to have an official "debate" with voting and the like on Wikipedia. 1 soccer fan 1 (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Albion (once again...)[edit]

Hi there,

I think you won't be able to deal with this problem, but for your information, Albion has created a new version of his page Alexandre Gilbert in... Spanish. Do you think it might possible to warn the bureaucrats this cross-wiki spam? NAH 17:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC).

Yeah, interesting problem. I was for a while routinely sharing information with the folks at French Wikipedia about him, but there he had already established himself as an abuser of multiple accounts. On Spanish Wikipedia (as best I can tell), he's just an IP creating a page that hasn't existed there before. The page can probably be deleted on notability grounds - and it wouldn't hurt to point out the puppetry elsewhere - but for me anyhow, with my rudimentary Spanish skills, that's not something I think I can help with! JohnInDC (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Michigan Alumni Page[edit]


It seems that the Category page for Michigan alums has a count reduced by some 400 alumni pages (approximately) from around 4100 to around 3600 pages (again, very approximate counts) over the last few days.

I'm not a very sophisticated Wiki user, so I'm wondering if you know where those pages might have gone to: were they reassigned to some other category? Were they deleted? If deleted, do "we" know why? Any thoughts/comments/conjectures would be appreciated.

Bluedudemi (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, and like you I'm not conversant enough in some of these areas to be able to think up a reason - but: I did notice this edit on the page of a Michigan alum, and wonder if that could account for it? The editor who made that change made a lot of similar changes around June 19, but I don't know how many, or how many of them were UM alums. Maybe that's it? JohnInDC (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

John: just belatedly noticing your detailed reply. Thanks for the thought, which I'll try to trace/research. Some alums have degrees both from the undergraduate institution as well as one of the graduate schools and can, justifiably/logically, be accorded both categories/templates. That said, University of Michigan graduate schools are all authorized by the "University of Michigan" to grant diplomas and all graduate diplomas carry that text...another reason/theory under which any graduate student could carry both categories/templates (being a graduate of the law school necessitates that one is, in consequence and as a result, a graduate of the University of Michigan...graduates of the graduate schools/colleges are a subcategory of all Michigan graduates) and a fact of which the editor may not be aware? In any event, thanks for the courtesy of your detailed reply. Bluedudemi (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


It may or may not have been intentional, but I wasnt notified about the SPI because you linked to my contributions instead of my user page.[2] No big either way. I just stumbled upon it anyways, but in case you really did want me to be aware of it. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Ack, sorry - certainly didn't mean to leave you in the dark! JohnInDC (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
@Bagumba: - Though, while you're at it - Special:Contributions/2601:247:C005:1B20:8E4:19F7:5BA6:494A. That didn't take long! JohnInDC (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
No activity on that IP since then. The problem is that IPv6 addresses usually rotate more often, so it ends up being a game of Whac-A-Mole. If we saw similar edits on an IP range e.g. 2601:247:C005*, a range block would be an option.—Bagumba (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)