User talk:John from Idegon

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

Project editor retention logo 1.svg WP:RETENTION This editor is willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask.

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

The Signpost: 01 July 2015[edit]

your edit[edit]

Thank you for your feedback. This man deserves a wikipedia page and I am currently trying to get one up. Until then I respect your decision. Jbogs (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

No one "deserves" a Wikipedia article (it is not a page. That implies something like social media, which this is not.) For any subject, eligability for an article on Wikipedia is determined by a concept we call notability. For biographies, the best place to start to determine if the subject qualifies is WP:ANYBIO. There are specific requirements for both musicians and academics. Notability is determined by how much is written in detail primarily about a subject in reliable, independent sources. It has nothing whatsoever to do with either your, or my, opinion of how "important" the person is. A quick search of Google news shows one hit for don ambler and Google books shows one passing mention in a book on clarinets. It is doubtful that the person will pass notability unless their is a bunch written on him in reliable academic journals. John from Idegon (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Concern of complaint[edit]

A Wikipedia user has recently reported me for undoing changes he and another Wikipedia user has made to the UKIP Wikipedia page. This user is using referenced information from biased tabloid media, having deleted a respected political scholars reference in a book. This user User:Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh in tandem with User: Snowded have not properly drawn a conclusion of discussion in the talk page and are at loggerheads with several users including myself, over their posts.

He (User:Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh) has then proceeded to threaten me whilst expressing a clear political bias that should rule him out of editing said Wikipedia page. User User: Snowded is a clear political rival as expressed on his Wikipedia biography.

Both these attitudes are effecting the edits these users post. Because other users have objected to these false edits being made, and the way in which the users have ignored the process of discussion on the Talk Page, it has lead to User:Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh making the false report. Citing the undoing of invalid edits as an example of vandalism. If you refer back to the fabric of the page over the last 12 months, you will see that these edits are in conflict with the recognised status of the party over the long-term.

I hope this information helps. Regards. User talk:RoverTheBendInSussex 03:02, 5 July 2015 (GMT)

I am not involved in this. You both apparently need to calm down and read. I made a procedural note on his complaint, adding a disclaimer that it wad strictly a procedural mention and not a comment on the merits of his filing. He blasts me for dismissing his complaint. You come here and droll on about the merits of the case that I have no interest in getting involved in. The same procedural advice applies to you, and another editor left links for how to do it at ANI. John from Idegon (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Perry High school edit[edit]

I don't think your last revert there was of sock puppetry, but of edit warring. I don't see anything wrong with the revert except your edit summary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)