User talk:John from Idegon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  • 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)

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

Town of Cary edits reverted[edit]


You reverted my edits to the Town of Cary, NC page, indicating that the sources I cited for the corrections did not seem reliable and if they contradicted previous sources, consensus would need to be obtained.

The areas I corrected did not have any prior sources cited, so it is unclear where the incorrect data came from.

As for the sources I cited, Around and About Cary is known locally as the definitive history of Cary and is the "go-to" source for local historians, of which I am one. Cary Through the Years is a publication that includes research from the Town of Cary itself and local historians.

The government of the Town of Cary recognizes the incorporation date as April 3, 1871. Local historians agree that the list of mayors on the current page is incorrect (even having one person's name wrong). The sources cited are reliable, and the incorrect information that is there now cites no sources.

Can you please advise how I can ensure that these corrections can be "un-reverted"?

Thank you.

BrentInCary (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)Brent Miller


The page on the town of Bingham, Maine, listed only one Notable Resident, the TV fisherman Gadabout Gaddis. This was amended by addition of a pastor named Macdougall, author of a dozen books about fishing in the Maine woods and remembered fondly by both Maine historians and wilderness fishermen (documented in two web sites.) The addition was reverted (cancelled) with no explanation. The Wikipedia editor was presumably not prejudiced against fishing, since he allowed Gadabout Gaddis. Perhaps he disliked church ministers, or the denomination to which Macdougall belonged; or perhaps he thought Bingham, Maine (population 900) does not deserve another Notable Resident.Carlsbad science (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Winnipeg Table Hockey League[edit]

Hi John, sorry to hear about your health issues. Hope you get well soon. You recently reverted my changes from the Winnipeg Table Hockey League. I read on their talk page that the use of promotional language should be removed and that they had too many references to links to their organization's own web site and finally not enough citations. So I removed what might be considered the "promotional language" in the lead paragraph as the rest of the article is good and also removed the 9 references to their website as well as added 2 more citations which lead me to remove the maintenance template. To my surprise my edits were reverted back in 27 minutes by you stating "Just different promo tone" which clearly it is not. Kind of discouraging being an newer editor on Wikipedia and this great community to find out your work is not seriously looked at when clearly the issues have been dealt with. Reverting it back to the old way kept all those issues and if we leave it with the new edits the article is improved:) Hope you reconsider and get back on your feet soon. Take care.Wikichamp3? (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Wikichamp3? (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Wikichamp3? (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Please can you check this[edit]

Hi John, hope things are well, found this recently created school article, if you could check this would really appreciate it, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 05:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a cute essay. I'll clean it up a bit when I can. Surprised you've had time for general editing with all the back and forth on the infobox. I appreciate it, as I'd do better conjugating Thai verbs than figuring out the intricacies of template syntax. Wiki work has been limited lately (health still sucks), and Halloween to Christmas is very busy IRL for me. I appreciate all you do. John from Idegon (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much and I know haha, I've been really busy at the moment too, also decorating (you may have noticed/you'll see in my editing history I've been a bit stagnant lately) - the merge had to commence now, but squeezing in a bit of time here and then so I can contribute as much as I can to ensure the merge is a success (especially since I was the one that initiated the merger, don't want editors to think I've abandoned it). Hahaha, well I'm here scratching my head here and then to make sure I'm not getting anything wrong in the merger, sometimes when I'm writing something, I think "is that right, no maybe this, wait, better double check, hang on, might have to rewrite this again, ah.." Hoping you get better soon and this time of the year is very busy. I'm the same here, always grateful for your help, I've seen some of the work you do, what would Wikipedia and the WikiProject do without you; an exceptional editor Steven (Editor) (talk) 05:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Port St. Lucie in South Florida region?[edit]

I have opened a discussion in Talk:Port St. Lucie, Florida on whether Port St. Lucie is in the [[:South Florida]] region. Please join that discussion. - Donald Albury 13:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Portland Christian School[edit]

Can you please make the following changes according the the cited OSAA page where it incorrectly has the school as 3A when it should be 2A. Also referenced on the OSAA page as well is our school color Black. Thanks for your help.

Jay Jafriday (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are asking, but we go by sources only. If you say the school you attend is 2A and OSAA says it's 3A, the article is going to say 3A. That being said, feel free to make any edit based in reliable secondary sources you feel appropriate and add your source. See WP:Referencing for beginners for instructions. If you need further assistance, enquire at WP:TEAHOUSE. If anyone disagrees with an edit you've made, they will revert it. If you wish to contest that, see WP:BRD for how to proceed. Happy editing! John from Idegon (talk) 04:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

CBHS Memphis[edit]

Why do you keep deleting the added information? This information was retrieved from the page's past prior to its deletion by a rival school vandal. Many of the information on the page has been properly cited. I would simply like to return the CBHS page to its historic norm. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:8502:19F0:9DEE:680A:9753:A11F (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Soar Valley College[edit]

Can I get your opinion on the recent edits at Soar Valley College? I don't often see teacher misconduct in school articles. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting pile of poo. Maybe I'm not seeing it right, because it is certainly very poorly written, but it looks like since there were ongoing issues with the single teacher involved and it received coverage in reliable widely circulated sources, it is likely appropriate content, just not as written. I've asked a British editor to take a look, and you should see my comments to him below. My health sucks lately, so I'm trying to limit myself to just US subjects and overhead work for the school project. BTW, Great Falls has kicked off again. Hope you, Mommy and your little sweetie are doing well. John from Idegon (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Up to my elbows in diapers and loving every minute. Hope your health improves soon! Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
So, has "uh, dad, not grandpa" become a common phrase for you yet? I must say that 50 times a week! John from Idegon (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank goodness Costco puts the adult diapers and baby diapers in the same aisle! Magnolia677 (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Please let me know what you think[edit]

Hi John, hope things are well. I've spent some time revamping the Infobox school documentation such as adding missing parameters, updating descriptions and cleaning the layout etc. I've also added flag icons for country-specific parameters to aid in differentiation (if this needs to be removed, do let me know as this can be easily done, or you can remove them). If you could have a look and let me know what you think; I'm one of those people that likes to make sure everything including presentation etc. is neat and tidy. Thank you so much Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on that. I've got time today, so I'll take a look soon. Let me say up front that I thought when it happened and still do that this whole thing was a bad idea, and the community would have been better served by going the other way, that is, unique infoboxes for all the major countries (US, Britain, Australia, Canada, India) and a generic one for everywhere else. Maybe that's something we can look at down the road.
Perhaps you could help on Magnolia677's request immediately above. A brief scan of the article revealed that it had much better earlier versions. It looks as though whatever the incident that now dominates the article was is significant enough to merit some coverage, but the ham-handed addition of info added on it is not clearly written and also obliterated considerable other good copy. If you can clarify the situation and give Magnolia assistance in fixing it, I'll be happy to moderate on the talk page if it gets contentious. Thanks. I'll get back to you in a couple hours on the infobox. John from Idegon (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you and I see, hmm, I think it’s a good idea to have one infobox, especially because majority of the parameters apply to every school. I do have a plan in mind: The first stage is to get the merge complete, the second stage is simplifying and consolidating - there are too many unnecessary parameters (e.g. r_head/rel_head, colors/school_colors, 6 free labels, I’d say maybe max 4 would be enough? 5 principal labels, possibly reduce? chair/chairman/chairperson - the latter two not needed as chair_label can be used to display this or anything else, and so on) and the proliferation of aliases/synonyms in the code (e.g. medium, mediums, medium of language and medium_of_languge which are all for the same parameter). There is an after-merge discussion on the talk page where this will also be discussed, but after all this is done, the infobox will be so much better. What you think?
Re above school, I’ve cleaned up the article, it’s infobox etc. and rephrased that added text and moved to Criticism section with its references cleaned up (reduced to two, we don’t need more than that do we?) Also noted in edit description that it may be removed. Please let me know, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 07:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
It's gotta wait til tomorrow. I got caught up in a fast moving story about a town of 27,000 getting destroyed by a wildfire today, and I have to get to bed. (1am here). John from Idegon (talk) 08:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I ended up doing an all-nighter (not good) and went to bed after replying to you, didn't realise you had replied a few mins later haha. Just seen the news here, 27,000 forced to evacuate in California, dear me, not good Steven (Editor) (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Lanier Middle School Houston[edit]

Hey John,

As you can see on the link below, the school's website lists the name as "Katherine Bradarich"

Thanks for informing me about the sourcing policies by the way.

Akshay Kapur1 (talk) 05:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC) Akshay Kapur1 11.8.2018

The four tildes add your signature, Akshay Kapur1. There is no need to type your name and a date. This link refers to her as Katie. So, unless you want to dig for several other reliable secondary sources, it should not be changed, as lacking a consensus to change a piece of factual information with discrepant sources, the status quo remains. Especially since either is absolutely correct. Please do not waste other editor's time over something as trivial as this. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the misunderstanding, but the school district's page is a state education agency website, as the school district operates under the state's discretion. Unless you want to see the Texas Education Agency's website, where the exact same statistics are listed for this school, this is a valid source. (Here is the state website:

Akshay Kapur1 (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I see Katherine here (Lanier MS staff page) and Katie here (Lanier MS contact site) WhisperToMe (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I see that too. Two pages of the same source are divergent. Either is correct, obviously, so why change the status quo? John from Idegon (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Final remarks[edit]

Hey John, I get you want your posts from users to be signed but was it really necessary to outright revert them for failing to do that, especially since he, which is actually my boss, didn't know about signing until I told him about it. As for me doing something useful, been doing that all day. It's called InternetArchiveBot, so I deserve a break at the end of the day. You may do whatever you want with this message, but I'm just trying to understand you better.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 01:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no need for you to "understand" me or any other editor. This isn't a social club or dating site. I was wondering how a brand new editor managed to form such advanced markup, but your actions and words here clarify that considerably. I'm betting your boss asked how to make an archive link, you told him and you didn't bother to follow up on it or did a half-assed job of it leaving it for other editors to clean up after him. Your reinstatement of his edit here actually violated a guideline, whereas my removal of it didn't (not even BITE, as I did answer his question), and the fact you did it based on an external relationship you have also violates COI guidelines. Additionally, in the same vein, you're operating a bot that primarily adds links to a specific website, and the fact that your realworld boss chose for his first edit to add an archive link, brings about questions as to whether you have things you should be telling the community about. Irregardless, your relationship with your boss is not my concern, nor any other editor's, unless that is, you or he are engaging in COI editing. You are not the civility police, and the only purpose your edits served is to piss me off and bring your own motivation into question. I'll tell you the exact same thing I tell anyone who confuses my directness with incivility...if you have a problem with my behavior, ANI is =====> (that way). Otherwise, the door is in the opposite direction. Feel free to use it. There is no need to reply. John from Idegon (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
John from Idegon, since you like to be direct, which I actually admire, I will be just as direct. It speaks a lot more about you, how make assumptions from nothing. The edit here was made entirely on his own, and he only pointed me to it once you reverted him on that article and he asked me what he did wrong, and tried to find the question he posed to you missing. He used an external tool to make the edit so the markup was automatically generated. It was then I told him about signing his posts. I re-instated nothing. Do you see me reverting any edits here? I'm very well aware of the COI I have and so is the community and everyone else going to my user page. Never have I once violated them, or I would already have been on the chopping block. So just as I pissed you off, not my intention, you pissed him off. So no, I won't take you to ANI, and I'm not here to question your civility, but in the end you didn't help him, and I ended up having to explain what your post on his talk page was trying to say. I disclosed the details about my boss, in the interest of transparency, but since you don't care, I won't continue. And I'll say the same thing. If you have concerns about my motives or COI, ANI is in the exact same direction you pointed. I'll head out that door now. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

need help[edit]

hi, can you please help me edit the folowing article for publication:

there seems to be problems with my sources RealityTVfanatic (talk) 09:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no interest in TV (don't even own one), biograhy, and very little in Canada. What would make you think I'd be interested in helping you? Other Wikipedians might be willing to help you with structural issues with your draft, but it is doubtful anyone will do research for you. John from Idegon (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit war at Stephen Paddock[edit]

You appear to be engaged in an edit war at Stephen Paddock. You have made two reverts today, I have made one. See WP:3RR. A consensus discussion was started on the talk page, which you ignored during your last revert. -- GreenC 03:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

See WP:NODEADLINE and WP:BRD, which you should note is not WP:BRRD. I'll respond when I have enough time to do the research to respond properly. John from Idegon (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Edits of Ithaca, New York[edit]

This edit is ridiculous. You have no knowledge of Ithaca, or apparent other interest in this page. You just want to delete stuff and then start firehosing Wikipedia rules. You people are why people get so frustrated editing Wikipedia. Amalex5 (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


Just wanted to let you know that the comments you left on my Talk Page weren't particularly meaningful to me at the time, but one week later, after failing to heed your advice, they suddenly have become meaningful.Tym Whittier (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

A toast sandwich for you![edit]

An image of a toast sandwich, shot from the side.jpg I just found this button, have fun with a toast sandwich MilesPrower1992 (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


Hi John from Idegon do can you please do me a Favor I will do something for you in return. (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

You're going to need to be more specific before I can answer you. John from Idegon (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Strange edits[edit]

Hi John, hope you're recovering ok and things are well, erm I've noticed a series of strange edits and modification to some of the content by an IP user at this school. Oddly, IP/user has uploaded a picture, possibly a pupil at the school, but looks more like a profile picture which has been added to the infobox (be sure to have a read of the caption haha) - I'm surprised they were willing to go this far to upload a picture. Anyway, if you could check this out would really appreciate it. Thanks for replying on school talk page by the way, can't thank you enough for all you do Steven (Editor) (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Steven (Editor): I was bored and saw this post so I decided to see what I could do. Obviously, much more work needs to be done here (it needs copyediting, looks like some COI accounts hit the article too etc.) but I reverted the IP vandalism. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I see, all good, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The athletics section needs serious work. It's full of unencyclopedic and POV info (names, individual achievement, vague allusions to accomplishment) and is all over the place with no organization at all. John from Idegon (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Clarification Request[edit]

Although I will not contest the deletion of my article, I might appreciate some clarification. What types of language (in general or my specific uses) are considered to fall under the category of advertising and are not suitable for an encyclopedic format? --QuantumPen (talk) 06:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Every word. Your sources are largely unreliable, as you've been told multiple times. Most do not even mention the subject of the article. Add to that the fact that multiple articles on this subject have been deleted, and virtually none of your sources, even if they were worth a damn, which they aren't, are recent, leads to the inevitable conclusion that you have no interest in improving the encyclopedia, but instead, get this dude in Wikipeda. That's pretty much the definition of promotional editing. John from Idegon (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry for my lack of experience in improving Wikipedia. However, might I advise that you not jump to conclusions as to my purpose of being here, as I genuinely want to improve Wikipedia. I truly could care less if the individual who is the subject of this article was on Wikipedia. If he does not meet the notability requirements then he should not be on here, I merely thought he was analogous to individuals like Marques Brownlee. I have no intention of continuing any efforts to get his article published, and have no promotional connection to that individual. --QuantumPen (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Additionally, your (assumed) hyperbole is not appreciated. With all respect, did you truly conclude that not a single word could be reused in an article that does improve Wikipedia? I must come to the inevitable conclusion that your purpose here was not to help a fellow Wikipedia user, but instead to assert your superiority in this site's domain. --QuantumPen (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018[edit]

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello John from Idegon,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
  • Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.
If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.
We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.
With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, John from Idegon. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Middle schools[edit]

Hi John, hope all is well - sorry for the late reply, I noticed you did some work on that school article above, thank you so much and you're right, the athletics section does need serious work. I wanted to ask if you could please have a look at this school; a middle school, I know these are normally blanked and redirected or merged, but I'm a bit unsure on this one. Hardly anything linking to the article (just another school and city article plus talk pages) and the referencing is a bit yeah. I was going to move the article so the name isn't disambiguated as there isn't any other school on here of the same name but maybe this school needs to be redirected or deleted. If you could have a look when you can, I would really appreciate it, thank you so much Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

There's enough going on with that article that it might be a notable subject. Perhaps someone with access to might be able to source it out some more. Also, the wikilinks didn't offer much in the way of help defining the school organizationally. Perhaps you could look to see if any of the high schools listed in the county article can offer some clues (if they even have articles). Sorry, but too busy IRL to do anything with it for now. John from Idegon (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks John and sorry for the late reply, enjoy your wikibreak, busy times, greatly appreciate all your help. Not sure if this is too early, but may as well say it now, I hope you have a good Christmas and a Happy New Year :) Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Vandals list[edit]

Hi Johm from Idegon you nominated by vandalism list for deletion but I recently saw that A 10 fireplane also has a list of vandals see that he keeps an eye on so can you please check his list?Denim11 (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

"Should I" and "How to" Question[edit]

Hi John! If this is not something you prefer to answer, just say so. Also, no rush whatsoever, just trying to learn. I have recently been involved in article Lamar Smith (activist). It is one of four articles in Lamar Smith (disambiguation). Based on my reading of Wikipedia:Disambiguation, I think Lamar Smith should be moved to Lamar Smith (politician), and Lamar Smith should be redirected to Lamar Smith (disambiguation), and then the dab page links be corrected as appropriate. Do you agree? Are there steps that should be taken before doing it? Is it a bad idea altogether? Thanks! Jacona (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons I avoid BLP. You're at the crossroads of WP:DAB and WP:COMMONNAME, and it is almost always contentious. I think WP:RM is the way to go here, JaconaFrere. Sorry to be so slow to reply. Been pretty much in bed the last couple days. But there's finally light at the end of the tunnel! (Just a thought...have you ever considered changing your username to just "Jacona"? It isn't difficult.) John from Idegon (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate the info and it is certainly not a rush. I have a lot of things coming up IRL, so I probably won't pursue this for a while anyway. And, you know, I wouldn't mind losing the second half of the username....I may try that rename bit. Sorry to hear you've been under the weather, hope your recovery is so rapid it makes you giddy! Jacona (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh yeah, someone already has "Jacona", probably someone from the city Jacona in Mexico. :( Jacona (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
They made one single edit in 2012, never had either a talk page or a userpage. I'll bet they'd let you WP:USURP. John from Idegon (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

First Presbyterian Day School Page[edit]

Please take this to the article talk. As one of the coordinators of WikiProject Schools, my talk page is always open for questions regarding school articles or general discussion of school articles, but specific article content discussion should be at that article's talk. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi John - Thank you for your prompt response to my edits for First Presbyterian Day School I am responding to the question about being a paid or unpaid source. My wife is paid by this school, but I am not. I am doing this as a volunteer. We have received lots of complaints from other parent volunteers at our school that the Wikipedia description portrays our school in an incorrect manner "as a segregation academy." As you can imagine, this is incorrect considering we have students from a variety of races and have for decades. I understand the sourcing of the one book citing this as part of the school's history. This book is incorrect and we are trying to track down historical documentation to the contrary. In the meantime, it is definitely not the case today and we would like to cite the school's non-discrimination policy clearly stated on the website Any help or guidance you can provide on how I may better edit the school's page and get this reference as a "segregation academy" removed at least from the initial description is much appreciated. I believe my cited source of the school's non-discrimination policy will suffice, but please correct me if I am wrong. I feel that Wikipedia appreciates a need for accuracy and simply want to provide that. Likewise, I would like to add more description to the school's history section based on former board reports I have been researching. What is the best way to do that? Scan them in and save them to a website for sourcing? Many Thanks Bb2026 (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Bb2026, first the bad news. You are affiliated with the school, if by marriage. The board reports you describe are primary sources and are likely to be disregarded, especially given the source (the subject of the article). An allegation that Manis' book is wrong won't go far.
The good news from your perspective is Wikipedia's insistence on WP:Verifiability. Manis' description, while specific, is not dispositive. In 1971, the IRS reviewed the school's paperwork -- primarily with respect to discrimination policy -- and found that the school met the requirement for tax-exempt status. I have edited the History section. If you turn up other reliable sources, the paragraph in the lede can be changed too. Rhadow (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Addition to edits for First Presbyterian Day School[edit]

Thank you for your quick response. My next question- why does that have to be in the lede at all? It is not a relevant description of the school. I have researched other private school Wikipedia pages and none of them have any "opinion" related material in the lede. We just want to be fairly portrayed. Here are some examples I have seen:

These both seem to have standard descriptions of the school, void of any controversial implications. What is a way we could enhance our school's page, providing accurate, current information? Use a true volunteer not related to the school? Many thanks for your advice. Bb2026 (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Bb2026. You can request changes be made to the article by making an edit request on the article's corresponding talk page; so, if you feel the wording of the lead should be change, you can propose changes be made to it and let other editors unconnected to the subject determine whether it's something which should be done. These other editors are the only "true volunteers not related to the school" that are really needed. However, it's very important that you understand that the article is not your school's article, but rather it is an article written about your school. It's purpose is not to enhance the school's reputation, provide current information about the school, make student's parents happy or even "fairly" portray the school. Wikipedia articles are only intended to reflect what reliable sources unconnected to the subject of the article are saying about it. Articles aren't intended to make subjects look good or bad, but rather only reflect in a neutral way what others are saying about it. Sometimes this does mean that negative coverage about the subject can be included as long as it's supported by citations to reliable sources, given appropriate weight and considered to be encyclopedically relevant. Disagreements among editors over these things are expected to be resolved through discussion and consensus building in accordance with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. So, if you want to have changes made to the article, you're going to have to establish how how these changes are needed per relevant policies and guidelines, and not simply because the school (or those connected to it) want them made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello Bb2026, there are no standard descriptions, no standard ledes, in Wikipedia. Whether an assertion in the lede is relevant is up to the editor. There are approximately 140 similar articles on schools whose administrations, parents, and alumni (including one recently elected senator) to various degrees would like to change the article. As to the matter of whether the assertion is an opinion, it is. It is the opinion of Judge W. A. Bootle in Bivins vs. Board of Education, a case later affirmed in part by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. I understand and sympathize with your desire to "enhance" the article, but history is frequently inconvenient. Rhadow (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you Rhadow and Marchjuly for your comments here, which I agree with completely. We need to add a "connected editor" template to the article talk page. Bb2026, you may have noticed that I made an edit that both improved the article and portrayed the school in a fair light currently. The demographic mix is much much better than many if not most schools still extant that started as seg academics. If you have any truly secondary sources that can contribute to copy that indicates positive efforts to integrate the school, by all means, propose something on the talk page so we can discuss it. It is important that you not edit the article directly (except to revert obvious WP: VANDALISM), but you'll find when you do propose good neutral content, your fellow editors will consider the changes fairly. I'm sure there are those in Germany that would like to see references to the Holocaust disappear, there are people in the US that would rather we talk less about the Japanese internment, but that's not going to happen, nor can we make the more recent ugliness regarding racial integration go away either. And in fact, the differentiating thing about this school is that it started as a seg academy. Please make sure you read and understand WP:COI. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for all of the input. And thank you, John from Idegon, for editing the article. We are not trying to make anything "disappear." Having it in the History section is arguable since some people might have seen it that way at the time. However, our founding by-laws in 1970 required that race not be a factor for admission. This was even before Runyon vs. McCrary in 1976 that required private schools to do so. I can share a copy of those by-laws if that would be of any use. I am also searching for our initial location request that the school be located near the church, not away from it as the article suggests. The founders were actually not happy that the church be in the suburbs but their request to be near the church was denied by planning and zoning. The suburban land was donated, so they went with it. As soon as I can put my hands on that, I can send a link as well. There are many other things that could distinguish our school. If "segregation academy" is listed in ours simply because of the year it was founded, why isn't that listed for every other school founded at the time? If it is simply the reference to the location of the school, would documentation showing a request for the school to be near the downtown church be helpful? I am hoping our planning and zoning board might have those historical documents, but not 100% confident. Bb2026 (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Bb2026, please post your comments in the relevant section without starting a new topic. You can save the ink defending the motivation of the church elders fifty years ago. They built the school where they built the school. The judge was judgmental. Wikipedia editors are not interested in the zoning documents. A newspaper article would be much better. Better to find some favorable mentions in the press, some better citations, and proofread the article. I see the school has a duel credit program. I'll fix that .. unless it's an intentional reference to Dueling in the Southern United States. Rhadow (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Bb2026, please don't start a new section every time you reply. This is all still the same subject. And frankly, now that you've been informed about how this will need to work, this should all be discussed at the article talk page. And again, we are not ever going to care what primary documents from the church or the school say. Encyclopedia articles are tertiary. That means they are constructed from what secondary sources have said. Although we usually allow completely non-controversial facts (eg what AP courses the school might offer) to be sourced to the school, anything as contentious as whether this school was a seg academy is going to have to have secondary sources. See you on the article talk! John from Idegon (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re: Nineveh, IN[edit]

Posting this again because you deleted without responding...

"Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." -

I didn't vandalize anything. You not wanting something included in an article doesn't make it vandalism.

Adding on, your opinion being the popular opinion or even Stephen Quire failing to meet Wikipedia's stated parameters for what does and doesn't make an individual "notable" don't make that edit vandalism either. If I were to make an edit that was objectively and provably false, THAT would be vandalism.

If you are still confused on what constitutes vandalism and what doesn't, please refer to this article.

This is the last time I will post this. If you just delete it and continue to misuse the "vandalism" label, it will tell me all I need to know. Have a wonderful evening! (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) FWIW, Nineveh, Indiana is still under page protection for "persistent vandalism" and adminstrators typically only protect pages when there's been a serious amount of disruption. Moreover, the page protection is not going to expire until September 2019 which indicates that someone other than John felt that something serious needed to be done to stop this disruption. That should tell you all you need to know. John is not an administrator, so he cannot personally protect an article; if you want clarification as to why the page was protected, you should ask Dlohcierekim, the administrator who protected the article.
As for anything you previously posted on John's talk page being removed without a response, that's his perogative per WP:BLANKING. Just because you post something on someone's user talk page, that doesn't mean they're obligated to respond. If they remove the post, you can assume that they read it and understood it, but for one reason or another decided it didn't merit a response. The last time you posted you didn't sign your post and if you read the header at the top of John's user talk page, he states "Unsigned and/or misplaced comments may be removed unread". Maybe he'll respond this time, or maybe he'll just delete this thread altogether, but once again that's his perogative.
If you want to make a case for adding content to Nineveh article, then you should do so on the article's talk page. You were WP:BOLD in adding content, but were subsequently WP:REVERTed by another editor; at that point, it was up to you to engage in discussion on the article's talk page per WP:BRD to see if you could establish a consensus for the change you wanted to make. You can still do that if you want, but you should be aware of WP:LSC and WP:Namechecking since they might be relevant to the addition you're trying to make. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
What he said. Thanks, Marchjuly. The straight truth is that the ONLY edits made to the referenced article in the last 6 years have been to add these two absolutely nobody YouTubers. It's been explained multiple times what you need to do to attempt to show they are notable, but you (and although I doubt it, perhaps others) have totally disregarded that. At some point, persistent namecruft becomes vandalism. Although I cannot say exactly when that happens, I can say with certainty that the time that occurred on this article was several years ago. John from Idegon (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Delaware Valley Friends School[edit]

Why did you revert my edits to Delaware Valley Friends School? I corrected a misspelling, updated the student to teacher ratio, and extrapolated upon a term earlier in the article that noted "see below." All of my edits included specific citations to current sources. You reverted my edits without taking care to review the updated citations, and that amounts to vandalism. This is particularly concerning to me given your background. What is your explanation? Knowmoore (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I read your sources. They are not acceptable, as I clearly stated in my edit summary. The school has its own webpage to communicate what it wants communicated. An encyclopedia requires secondary sources. Considering my background, perhaps you should follow policy and assume good faith next time you approach another editor such as you have me here. Do you have some connection with the subject of the article in question? John from Idegon (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) In addition the problems of embedding external links which is a mistake editors often make, I sort of agree with John about the sourcing. The article has been flagged for an over reliance on primary sources since 2015 and other issues even before that; so, adding more content supported by more citations to primary sources is not really a positive step towards addressing that problem. It's possible that article could actually be improved (or at least brought more inline with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines) by actually removing some content and focusing on what can be supported by secondary sources. That would create a foundation to build upon as more secondary sourcing about the school is found. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Upon closer inspection, the entire article was based on sources directly connected to the institution, so I stubbed it to basic identifying information. Knowmoore, if you want to assist in locating reliable secondary sources so we can actually create an encyclopedia article here, your assistance would be appreciated. Please first disclose your relationship with the school so it can be determined whether you simply have a conflict of interest or whether you are a WP:PAID editor. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 07:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I'd also strongly suggest you not accuse others of vandalism unless it is WP:VANDALISM. Nothing I've done on this article, including my most recent edit, is anything even remotely close to vandalism. Since you, like many WP:SPA editors dudn't bother learning the basics of Wikipeda prior to using it to publicize your organization, AGF dictates that none of your edits up to this point we're vandalism, but any attempt to use Wikipeda for free publicity going forward will most assuredly be vandalism. John from Idegon (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018[edit]

You should be contributing content[edit]

Than reverting people's edits. You are reverting too much edit that looks almost like a sabotage. (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be doing a great job on Wikipedia to me... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Too much reverts are almost sabotaging Wikipedia. That is like a gut instinct to revert shit, like a reflex. Have some benefit of the doubt about edits, than just reverting through their reflexes. Contributing contents are tough, reverting shit is much easier. Reverting edits don't really mean you are contributing anything to Wikipedia. Outrageous edits will be reverted by someone at some point fairly obviously, but simple edits that can have benefit of the doubt should at least stay. People shouldn't measure their contributions to Wikipedia through their reverts. It should be about contributing content. (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Keeping Wikipedia articles neutral, accurate, and free of vandalism and disruption is just as important as creating new articles and expanding content. Wikipedia wouldn't be so popular if content added to articles that lack references that need them cited were allowed to be kept. I understand that it's frustrating to have your edits reverted. It's happened to me many times in the years that I've been here. You just need to find a reliable source and cite it in-line with your changes, and you'll be golden. The verifiablity of content is important; it's what shows that the content added is legitimate, accurate, and fair, and helps to ensure that the content we write reflects the highest quality possible on the encyclopedia. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Oshwah. I'm not the only editor that has received this message from this editor. John from Idegon (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
No problem. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

You just removed validly cited content in your revert of Grand Rapids, Michigan. While I realize that actual editing, and looking for sources, takes more effort then just mashing the "undo" link, it's the responsible, constructive way to edit. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The only one behaving improperly in this instance is you, JasonAQuest. Your edits violate a pillar policy. Exactly what dictum have I violated? I'll be reverting you again, and if you put it back without providing a reliable secondary source and some relevant content besides the obvious promo content the OP added, I'll be taking you to WP:ANEW. You are welcome to stick your haughty WP:ASPERSIONS in whatever recepticle you find handy. Got a problem with my editing behavior? ANI is that way ====>. Before you do that though, remember that in the US, it was at one time perfectly legal to own black people. More recently, it was completely acceptable for a 13 year old to walk into a store and buy cigarettes. Things change. Wikipeda is a thing. Following WP:BRD and starting a consensus discussion on the article talk page is a much better way to go. John from Idegon (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
You're comparing this to slavery? Your sense of perspective is.... never mind. Not worth it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Guess what they say about the lack of ability to think critically in American society has some merit. Sorry you cannot comprehend the difference between illustration and comparison. But you're right... I see no future in discussion with one who cannot. John from Idegon (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I came here to caution you to slow down on the twinkle reversions and check the sources before assuming there's not one, but this exchange is appalling. Using slavery as an "illustration" in discussing editing here is completely overboard. Jonathunder (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

What happens when someone rejects your correction?[edit]

This is my response to John from Idegon, who recently sent me a message stating that my revision had been reverted due to my not being neutral.

All I did was correct information in an article about the Bronx High School of Science, specifically about what students at Bronx Science are called. The statement currently shown in the Wikipedia article is incorrect.

The quote I used as a correction was taken directly from Citation 6 in the article cited as a source by the author of the NAME section. All I did was copy and paste the correct information from the actual citation. Check it for yourselves. I know you are volunteers and don't have a lot of free time but if you read the citation, you will see that it states "Scienceites, as the school's students are known..." Whoever wrote the NAMES section of the Bronx High School of Science Wikipedia article is presenting incorrect information. Below is the whole NAME section.

"NAME The Bronx High School of Science is often referred to as Bronx Science, and rarely just Science.[4][5] It was formerly called Science High and its founder, Morris Meister, is said to have frequently called the school simply as "The High School of Science." Students are rarely called Sciencites.[6]"

Below are plenty of examples from The Bronx High School of Science website itself where the students are called Sciencites (which is the correct spelling by the way).

Here is a recent link (from March 2018) to the Bronx High of Science school newspaper Survey. In the second paragraph the author refers to her fellow students as, drum roll, please - Sciencites.

Bronx Science's Science Olympiad Team Crowned "New School ... In addition, the Sciencites received medals for top five finishes in Environmental Chemistry (Diana Zheng, 4th place and Hosea Siu, 4th place) and in Ecology ... Memories - The Bronx High School of Science Nov 9, 2005 ... so the nurse's office was closed, cause it was about 4:00 by then, and we were at a complete loss as to what to do. real brilliant sciencites, ... The Bronx High School of Science Just as the current generation of Sciencites will no doubt remember where they were on 9/11 and exactly what happened for them, such was 11/22/63 for my ... Student Organization Clubs and teams allow students to relax, have fun, and get to know fellow Sciencites in a social setting, and often enriching way. Clubs range in interest and are ... The Bronx High School of Science Many students demonstrate leadership skills as club officers. Clubs and teams allow students to relax, have fun, and get to know fellow Sciencites in a social ... Science seniors score Solash and Zhang finish at the top Markman ... File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat Jun 4, 2003 ... of many Sciencites. At the popular new web site, “,”. Mr. Brown has been given the high- est average ratings of any Bronx ...

Mundoreiser (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Mundoreiser

(talk page watcher) Hi Mundoreiser. What generally happens is what is called Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle. Wikipedia wants us to be WP:BOLD and try to improve articles, but when another editor WP:REVERTs the changes we make, it is then up to use to WP:DISCUSS things on the article talk page. After looking at your edit, there are a couple of things I think were wrong with it.
The first is you basically copied-and-pasted content you found on that particular website in to the article as is. This is a problem per WP:COPY-PASTE and WP:PLAGIARISM, even when it's done unintentionally. Everytime you click "Publish changes" you're stating that any content you've just added is entirely of your own creation unless you properly attribute it otherwise. You need to do this in order to comply with Wikipedia's licensing policy; so, when the content is not yours, the chances are pretty good your violating someone else's copyright. Wikipedia content is supposed to be a summary written in our own words of content we find in reliable sources. I'm sure you felt you were just quoting a source, and sometimes short quotations are allowed per MOS:QUOTE, but you need to make sure you add such content properly.
The other problem is the source of the quote; basically, you tried to add content from the schools own website which describe how great its students and teachers are. This is overly promotional content (even if properly quoted) which is not really in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:NOTPROMOTION. Wikipedia articles are really only intended to reflect what others are saying about their respective subjects; articles aren't really intended to reflect what the subjects are saying about themselves. Sometimes an official website of some other type of primary source can be used to cite specific factual content, etc., but not very often and only with great care. So, I think John's undoing of your change was correct in this case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

about New York City housing crisis[edit]

I'm almost certain that Seahawk is going to just remove the PROD tag, do you think the article should go to AFD after that? TheMesquitobuzz 02:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that would be too simple. It likely is a notable subject, but the editor in question does not seem to have an understanding of the basic tertiary nature of an encylopedia. And I certainly don't have the patience to explain it to him at the moment. (See page notes above.( Perhaps you'd be willing? John from Idegon (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Peace Dove Christmas[edit]

Peace dove.svg
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.
Happy Holidays. ―Buster7  15:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Please Un-Revert Town of Cary corrections[edit]


I'm re-posting my query from a few weeks ago. It is important to the Town of Cary that these historical facts be corrected. The Town Clerk is in agreement with my edits, as are local historians, and I have cited reliable sources (the original incorrect data doesn't cite any sources).

Details as posted a few weeks back: You reverted my edits to the Town of Cary, NC page, indicating that the sources I cited for the corrections did not seem reliable and if they contradicted previous sources, consensus would need to be obtained.

The areas I corrected did not have any prior sources cited, so it is unclear where the incorrect data came from [and there is no contradiction because there were no previously cited sources].

As for the sources I cited, Around and About Cary is known locally as the definitive history of Cary and is the "go-to" source for local historians, of which I am one. Cary Through the Years is a publication that includes research from the Town of Cary itself and local historians.

The government of the Town of Cary recognizes the incorporation date as April 3, 1871. Local historians agree that the list of mayors on the current page is incorrect (even having one person's name wrong). The sources cited are reliable, and the incorrect information that is there now cites no sources.

Can you please advise how I can ensure that these corrections can be "un-reverted"?

Thank you.

BrentInCary (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Your sources local reputation is irrelevant. It would never meet our standard for reliable sourcing. The fact that the town clerk agrees with it is even less relevant. This article on the city of Cary is neither for nor under the control of, the city. When you have some good sources, start a discussion on the article talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Update School Image[edit]

I work for the school. We are trying to update the images on our page, but you have falsely reported copyright violations. We created those images. Funkpipe (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

"You" are just an anonymous made up internet handle. You cannot just upload an image to Wikipeda commons to use on this article. When you uploaded the image, you released all rights for it. That means someone could use your schools logo in a porn flick if they wanted to. Please stop. John from Idegon (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018[edit]

Hello John from Idegon,

Reviewer of the Year
New page reviewer of the year cup.svg

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.

Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.

Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft Mareeg Media[edit]

Dear Idegon ,After You reviewed this entry you have deleted the page I drafted on this website. I am on board to make the changes other reviewers requested, it just took me longer to get back to the editing than I had anticipated. Will you please restore the page so I can complete the draft to address your concern? Thank you. Please note I am new to community but I have review other similar article and they all have similar reference for example Read and // I will be going to rewritten the article to conform with Wikipedia. This Org has a number of reference but need more time for research. NOTFORPROMOTION.Thank you in advance Warsamedhuje Warsamedhuje (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not an administrator, so I couldn't have deleted the draft in question. John from Idegon (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Please can you look at this[edit]

Hi John, hope all is well, please could you take a look at this school, a series of edits by a possible COI editor, pretty much to the infobox with one edit description: "As I am the principal/Teacher-in-Charge of the School." with a similar description on the users page. If you could take a look, I would really appreciate it, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Goodsprings, Nevada[edit]

Look buddy, you should just let this one slide. Goodsprings is a town of like 200 people. They have nothing. What do you think most of the traffic on that page is? People curious about the town? No, its mostly people like me looking up the real life equivalent of a town in a video game. The only reason this town is somewhat relevant is due to this game. So to not include it on the town's page seems silly, doesn't it?

Thereal pappy (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Thereal pappy

Discuss content disputes on the appropriate article's talk page please. John from Idegon (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)