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)

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)