User talk:John from Idegon/Archive 87

This is an archive of past discussions about User:John from Idegon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 80

←

Archive 85

Oversight

I saw you redacted an edit at the Teahouse. When you are redacting edits, be sure to let an oversighter know. Interstellarity (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Apologies. Email I presume? John from Idegon (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi John. The easiest thing to do is go to WP:OVERSITE and click the email link at the top of the page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I was just going to respond to his comment, but thank you for chiming in. Interstellarity (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Totally my bad. First time I used that template and I didn't read the instructions. I have Oversight's email on speed dial. Lol. Now I know. John from Idegon (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Confused

Re this - boomerang for what? R2 (bleep) 15:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Making unevidenced accusations against another editor can be considered a personal attack. There were no diffs there. There was also nothing that merited an ANI report. People are allowed to remove almost anything they want from their talk. Also, (in my best mission impossible voice) human nature being what it is, not all editors are created equal. For many reasons some can get away with things others wouldn't. Just mull on that. If you choose to file an ANI report against someone, especially someone whose name you see all over like the person in question, provide a concise statement of the problem illustrated with diffs and a policy cite and make a call for a specific action. Your edit was I believe completely in good faith, but if you haven't a specific complaint, don't go to ANI. For what I think you were trying to do, contacting a specific administrator or posting at WP:AN would have been better. I doubt the aboriginal weapon would have been targeted at you. Thanks for your question. I hope this response explains things. John from Idegon (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, and most of it is helpful. However I don't understand your first few sentences. (1) Where did I make unevidenced accusations? (2) What do you mean about people being allowed to remove almost anything from their talk? I have no beef with Atsme removing stuff from her talk page, and I don't recall saying anything about that. (3) I don't understand your suggestion that I mull on the fact that "some can get away with things others wouldn't." Can you be more specific? I never suggested that anyone not be allowed to get away with anything. I saw a rapidly escalating situation and thought that further escalation could be prevented by getting more eyes on it. R2 (bleep) 17:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Right....you posted in the wrong place. Reports made at ANI are about some editor violating some behavioral guideline. Those require evidence that was not proffered by anyone. Other than posting in the wrong place, you did nothing wrong. Obviously there was far more heat being generated than light, and in threads like that, people other than the subject frequently end up blocked. In short, if you do not have an actionable complaint about a specific editor or editors, supported by evidence in the form of diffs, it does not belong at ANI. I was thinking more of TP and Mandruss. No one pointed fingers at you. You're looking at this personally; my comments were about the thread in general. I hope this clears it up; in the future, if you simply need an administrator's attention, post at AN or contact an individual admin on their talk. ANI is for behavioral complaints only. John from Idegon (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Pretty spot on. That's why I wrote WP:ANI advice--v/r - T P 23:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

That's helpful. Thanks. R2 (bleep) 18:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Article Advice

Hey John,

I don't know why you say that you dont believe the event is real but let me explain;

My article is not an event, its an article of an honorific title earned by finalists of the event which is an order as there are many levels of awards.

The event is: Intel International Science and Engineering Fair

The finalist award is: Intel ISEF Finalist Medal

And the title to the finalist medal award is my article to be in occasion is: Draft:Finalist of the Intel ISEF

My article is only about the title that the finalist of the competition wins after receiving the medal and about the honorific title (ISEF). By the way, I would also like to know why does this article; Intel ISEF Finalist Medal get to be in the Wikipedia with no sources and my article is not allowed with many sources.

So my article is not an event but its the title and honorific name that comes together as an order in occasion with the competition and the finalist medal award. If you don't believe that my statements are true, just go ahead and look at the articles I have attached about the contest.

Hope you understand and rethink about allowing my article.

Yours truly, Mathew Anderson

Ok....then rewrite your article so it is about an award because all of your references are about a competition. Oh, wait. There already is an article about the award. Perhaps your draft should just be deleted. Further, no one is questioning the reality of the event. This isn't a directory. You must show any subject you want to create an article about is notable. You're getting there for the competition. You haven't one single source that speaks to notability about an award. I'll just leave your draft in the queue. There's about a six week wait at this time. In the future if you wish to discuss your draft with me, start a thread on the draft's talk page and ping me. Thanks. Please sign your messages properly. John from Idegon (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Theroadislong. John from Idegon (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok John, I think you are right, I will delete my article because you have a point that there are not many reliable sources out there which consists of the award itself alone. I will just continue to update other articles and hopefully create my own someday. Thank you very much and I am very sorry for the inconvinience.

Yours Truly Mathew Anderson (Talk)

Michigan Marching Band

John, why did you add the Discography portion back to the Talk page for Michigan Marching Band? Prior to even seeing those notes, I had added a Discography section to the page and started populating it. Doesn't that eliminate the need to keep it on the talk page? Said differently, why keep it?

Same with other blocks you added back to the talk page. When I removed them, I left notes explaining their removal via resolution (MMB page additions with citations).

Shonebrooks, clearly you are new. That's fine, we all were once. Wikipedia is not exactly straightforward, intuitive or user-friendly. There is quite a bit to assimilate in order to successfully edit here. First, every time you edit a talk page or any other discussion page, you must sign your post by typing four tildes. This triggers the software to add your username, a link to your talk page and a timestamp. Second, I wasn't "focused" on WP:TPG, that is the applicable guideline. Third, when that big orange banner pops up saying you have messages, don't ignore it. We are a collaborative project and communication is vital. You refactored another editor's comment again after your initial warning. If you'd have continued doing that, it's likely your editing privileges would have been suspended. Refactoring is a serious issue. Fourth, you editing the article on the Michigan Marching Band is a problem as you are a member of the band. You have a definite WP:COI. Best practice for a COI editor is to not edit the article at all but rather to propose edits with proper sourcing on the article talk page. Ideally, you would revert everything you've done and start over proposing piece by piece the changes you want so another non-conflicted editor can review them. I'm not going to insist you do that as all your edits have been pretty well sourced and are written fairly neutrally. Fifth, the talk message you were deleting parts of is NOT some sort of to-do list. Instead it is just that one editor's opinion of what needed to be done 9 years ago when he wrote it. It is not by any means a directive to make those changes today. Although your changes have been mostly good, there is more than I can easily go through well enough to say that definitively. And the culture here has changed radically in the 9 years since that was written. We are much more acutely aware of the need for neutrality and reliable secondary sources. When that message was written, there was only about a million articles on English Wikipedia and there were roughly 1 active (1000 edits/month more or less) editor for every 250 articles. Now there are almost 6 million articles and the editor to article ratio is down to about 1 editor per 5000 articles. Bulk is not necessarily good. Rather than add every bit you can find to the article you should be exercising discretion and adding only the most important bits. An encyclopedia article is meant to be a summary of what others have written about the subject, not a definitive history. There have already been a couple books written on the history of this band. Lastly, it isn't up to you to mark anything on my or any other editor's talk page as resolved. Hence, I removed that template. For article talk pages, we generally do not close any threads except formalized discussions such as WP:RFCs or WP:RMs, and those would be closed by an administrator or another very experienced editor.

One last thing: I don't generally edit articles on bands, but I have a tangential interest in this one. Dr. Revelli was a family friend. I can help you with any technical issues you run into or just lend you moral support and guidance whilst you learn your way around the Wiki-maze. Happy editing! John from Idegon (talk)\

John from Idegon, I'm sorry that I didn't see the big orange banner (at the bottom of my Talk Page tab) before applying further TP edits. I rarely ever visit my own talk page and I overlooked the little alert bell icon at the top of the screen as I was busily working away. Those alerts arrived only 17 minutes apart. I never saw the first before incurring the second, or I likely would have stopped and asked these questions sooner. My edits were not meant to be harmful, but helpful, but I see I went about them wrong. I only made multiple edits because there were multiple issues in a single block that had not all been addressed. Also, I am not a band member. I was one over 25 years ago, but the only person I "know" who is still actively involved with the band is Carl G. I am not a paid editor. I am not taking content directions from MMB staff members. I can't remember the last time I went to a football game. I do not attend classes at the U of M and have not for over 20 years. Of the COI criteria enumerated in the WP COI policy (personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial), the only one that comes close is "personal," and as I noted, even that is rather limited in my case. The same WP policy indicates that common sense should govern when there is uncertainty about exactly "how close the relationship" is, and I have attempted to honor that guideline, as evidenced by the nature of the edits I have supplied. I agree with limiting the amount of content published. My goal was to limit the material to an average of 4-10 sentences per decade of the band's history (highlights). Being over a hundred years old, that still presents a significant amount of text. If the collaborative process reduces that amount, I do not object. I also was not necessarily trying to use the TP as a checklist. But some of the edits I had made did seem to resolve some of the concerns raised. I was only trying to show progress, but again, I understand I went about it the wrong way. Thank you for calling that out. As for your talk page, I again apologize if I offended. I do not see an exclusion for Personal Talk pages in the WP policy concerning resolved issues and merely wanted to indicate that I thought I better understood the problems in question than I did when originally posting. From the WP policy that I referenced... "When an issue has been resolved without controversy, this may be marked simply by adding the {{Resolved}} template at the top of the thread, adding a brief statement of how the issue was dealt with. If you took action yourself to resolve the issue you may instead use the {{Done}} template in your own final comment stating what you did. Adding one of these templates will help future readers to spot more quickly those issues that remain unresolved." I didn't find an exclusion on the Personal Talk Page guidelines either, but I'm willing to accept it's out there somewhere and I've missed it. Again, my apologies that my efforts, intended to be helpful and respectful, appeared harmful or rude. Cheers!ShoneBrooks (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I also just discovered that my WP account was still using an email address that stopped working about 10 years ago. I updated it to my current address in hopes of receiving such alerts and notifications in a timelier fashion.ShoneBrooks (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Good plan. There is also a tab in your preferences to control what you get alerts for. Your email is private. I can send an email to it via Wikipedia's email system if you've enabled it, but that wouldn't reveal your email address unless you responded to me directly. Only members of arbcom, stewards and people with account creation privileges can see your email address, and they all have to disclose their real life name and sign a privacy agreement with the Foundation. John from Idegon (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Humanities

You reverted the edits I made to the page about the school, though I cited that the information I added back was available on the school's website. Is the school's website not an acceptable source for information about the school, it's course offerings, the degree held by its executive director, or the school colors? Frigmous (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Nope. It is an acceptable source for the principal's name. We do not use titles, we do not discuss employees or individual students, and every single thing needs to be verifiable to reliable secondary sources. Our definition of a reliable source is here. Guidelines for content for school articles are here. Edits are peer reviewed here. What to do if your edit is reverted by your peer that is reviewing the edit is here. Special rules that you as someone in the employ of the school must follow are here. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

John, do you mind if I use this response? It very neatly states what I often want to say to users. - Donald Albury 10:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't real thrilled about the 'edit Nazis' reference [1]. Close to asking for a block based on COI and that comment. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Following the changes you keep making to the entry, I have to applaud your enthusiasm. I think if you keep going, you can just get the entry to consist of the words "The Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Humanities is." But at least you don't have to worry about me trying to put any of the information back. You've successfully hounded another user out of trying to add information to entries. Congrats. Frigmous (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism on Adlai Stevenson Highschool Page

John from Idegon No Wikipedia page is not grounds for removal of a list of notable alumni. She has been recognized by the school, covered in reliable sources, fits all criteria to be listed. I ask you to not vandalize this article further or I will be forced to contact an administrator on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppizzo278 (talk • contribs)

Ppizzo278, you're very new so I understand you have misconceptions - every new editor does. First, neither your edit that I removed nor my removal of it constitutes WP:VANDALISM. Assuming good faith is a pillar policy. This message does not do that. I did not assume bad faith on your part nor did I refer to your edit as vandalism. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Content inclusion is decided by WP:CONSENSUS and verifiability does not guarantee that. Both notability and attendance must be verifiable. You gave 0 sources for attendance and no reliable sources for notability. No wiki, not even this one, is ever a reliable source. It's up to you to demonstrate notability and you have not done that. Please be aware that "notable" as it is used on Wikipedia may not match with your conception of what "notable" means. I'll be removing your addition again and I strongly suggest you not replace it without consensus, which if you desire to pursue it, should be formed on the article's talk page by making arguments based in sources that do meet our standards for reliable sources; and Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which you will need to specifically cite. I'd suggest that you will not obtain a consensus unless and until you write her biography on English Wikipedia (German Wikipedia, although also owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, is an entirely separate organization) and provide a reliable published source to verify that she attended the school in question. Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia. John from Idegon (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Admn Nomination

Hey there John,

I have seen how experienced you are on Wikipedia and would like to ask, I have seen many other great Wikipedians and want to nominate some of them, how do i go about this.

Mathew Anderson(Talk)

...

My brother is in a wheelchair. I have buried both of my parents. My mother-in-law currently has skin cancer. I have lived in Detroit and seen my neighbors cry after a relative of theirs was shot.

But nothing has shocked me more in my life than your behavior. You have the audacity to order me to fix my edits, then shoo me away when I ask for help? I am utterly speechless. After I finish writing this, I am going to go edit Livonia and add the crime section. If I am blocked for this than I will appeal and talk to administrators until I am reinstated.

I am adding the correctly sourced, accurately sourced, FBI crime statistics into a relevant section of this page. All Wiki procedure has been followed and this edit has no grounds for removal.

I thank you for your help, but I ask that you no longer reverse any changes without a reason that is supported by Wikipedia.

I hope that your health improves, your taxes get done, and that you become a better person. Ppizzo278 (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Reminds me of Hermione's prioritization issues..."we could be killed. Or worse, EXPELLED!"Jacona (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Alaric Wooten, Romulus Senior High School

I've been working on this page. I've seen you taken down a few things I put, what exactly can I correct so that the information I post is valid and able to stay up, thank you. --Alaricx3 (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Image use in Columbia International College

I saw your ping about this last month, but then just completely forgot about it. Anyway, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz checked the images and removed those non-free ones which seem to be problematic. Generally, non-free PR-like photos of buildings located in the US are never going to be allowed per WP:FREER except when the image itself is the subject of some type of sourced critical commentary. The US allows freedom of panorama for buidlings publically accessible; so, basically anyone can take a picture of a building and upload it to Commons under a free license. This means pretty much any picture of an existing building located in the US found online, downloaded to a computer and then uploaded to Wikipedia as non-free will never be allowed, and those uploaded under a free license will only be accepted when WP:CONSENT can be verified. Things do, however, get a little tricky when copyrighted logos or signs, etc. are also shown in the photo; however, as long as they are not the focus of the photo, any copyrightable elements are usually considered incidental or de minimis and the photo is typically OK to upload. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I barely remember the issue, but thanks. And thanks for the help with the guy from Livonia. Some days, I think I'm just getting too old for this. I just woke up from a dream that someone had made me an administrator by caveat, and somehow that was ok. Perhaps that was a nightmare. John from Idegon (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Head scratcher

If you have any desire to scratch your head and say "how very cheeky", see User talk:SheridanFord#Kyra Gaunt and User talk:SheridanFord#COI. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Rockridge High School

I'm wondering why you removed my addition to the list of state titles in this article due to the lack of a citation. All of the current state titles are covered by a single citation, i.e. #5, which links to a list of state titles at IHSA.org. My addition is also covered by this same citation. Why would my addition require a separate citation when all 5 are currently covered under the same one? Thanks. CliffordClifford Alvarez (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Clifford Alvarez. Thanks for enquiring. You really should verify your statements. The link you mentioned does not link to a list of titles. It links to the "R" page in the index of the school directory. The link to this school is actually located on the "T" page. That link leads to the school directory page for this school, which also does not verify the content. The needed information is linked from that page. I believe the IHSA website was redesigned about 4 years ago. The needed link is this: https://www.ihsa.org/data/school/records/sum2004.htm

Also, if you'll take note, all the other references have an access date appended to them. If the citation was correct, you could have indicated you verified the content by changing the access date. I'll fix it for you. I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia. You've taken the best route by discussing rather than getting angry and just replacing the disputed content. References are very important. Most educators won't let students use Wikipedia as a citation (in fact, we don't allow citing wikipedia either). Having references gives kids something they can cite. Happy editing! John from Idegon (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Rocklin Schools

Hi,

I had made an edit to Rocklin, CA and changed 11 elementary schools to 12. This was reverted because I did not include a source. However, I initially made the change to reflect the Rocklin Unified School District which listed 12. I have since edited Rocklin, CA again with a citation, but I was curious on this process for the future. If I am changing an un-cited line in the future, should I reuse citations from the sub-page if they have them? (In this case they did not).

Thank you Rtbittaker (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Rtbittaker, if add or change a fact, add a citation. It's as simple as that. If the fact is supported by an existing reference that has also changed, change the "accessdate" parameter in the citation template when changing the fact. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Multiple warnings

Hi John from Idegon. If you could, if you give a warning to a user, can you limit it to one warning unless they continue to perform that action? A couple of times I have noticed that you give users multiple warnings, creating the impression that they ignored the first one, when they haven't made any intervening edits. This could result in an unwarranted block. Thanks! - Bilby (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll remove the last one. It was a mistake. He took his editing to an entirely different type of article (and that was not only non-consttuctive, but demonstratably false). Putting MSU on a par with U of M on a list of Ohio State rivalries is obviously wrong. John from Idegon (talk) 02:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Holland, Michigan

I made updates on Holland, Michigan to update the outdated photos. BenHerrera1979 (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Edits to Victor Vescovo wiki page

Hi John. A little frustrated because there is inaccurate information on the wikipedia page about the dives I just made to the bottom of the Challenger Deep. The news paper articles made up specifics that actually did not occur - I know, since I was the pilot of the sub that went down there. I know I am a related party (the page is about me) but the wiki page refers to an article with incorrect information, while I edited the page with a different news article citation that was correct. Everything I edited is based on my direct experience on the dives, as confirmed or written about by third party periodicals - which I cited. Any help to put back my edits are appreciated as the edits that I did not make were incorrect or incomplete (they completely left out the first-ever dive to the bottom of the Sirena Deep). Thanks, Victor V.

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello John from Idegon,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News

Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Discussions of interest

A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Warren Consolidated Schools

Hi John from Idegon I just wanted to send you this https://www.wcs.k12.mi.us/Departments/Superintendent/docs/050319FAQ.pdf one of Warren Consolidated Schools Angus is closeing if you can look into the page that would be great Thanks.96.36.68.29 (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Normanhurst Boys' High School

I inadvertently got into the middle of some edit-warring between two relatively new accounts that both seem to be quite WP-knowledgeable. If you want to keep an eye on this also.... MB 15:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Please see this article again. Editor has ignored warnings at their talk page. MB 12:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

MB, best suggestion at this point would be to engage with the other editors at the article talk and form a consensus for what should be obvious. The editor that started the discussion there is an extremely clueful editor having much more experience with schools in Australia than I. They will be very helpful; likely more so than I. With a clear stated consensus, getting PC or ECP protection will be much easier and I'm guessing that's what is ultimately going to need to happen. To put it mildly, this has been a bad week for me (two emergency unrelated surgeries and a lawsuit and there's still six hours left.) I cannot ride herd on this article. You've got it, Tacyarg is on it. Y'all will be fine. One thing I'd do (YMMV) is to simply decimate the notables section, and I'll get at that in a few minutes. I do appreciate you bringing this mess to me, but between you and T, I'm sure you've got it covered. I'm gonna walk to the store, and assuming I don't witness an airplane crash on the way (this week, nothing is a foregone conclusion) I'll get at the notables on my return. Have a good holiday weekend (if it is a holiday in your world), and thanks for all the good things you do around our little ol' shop. See you in the trenches. John from Idegon (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, John from Idegon, that's a great message you've put on Editoraust's page. Tacyarg (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I left a message here back on May 26 to the affect of just take care of whatever you need to and, other editors got involved after I left you the last message, forget about it.... , just go and avoid more surgeries, lawsuits, plane crashes, etc. (not sure why it wasn't saved.) MB 18:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

On another subject, what do you think of details that don't go into the infobox being put in the text, like VPs. Wausau East High School is an example that has things like "attendance director" and "police dog". MB 18:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Central Catholic

Hello John from Idegon! We are new to providing updates on Wikipedia. There are several updates that need to be made on our school pages. I am the Director of Advancement for the Lafayette Catholic School System and have complete school histories, current ethnic data, enrollment data, etc. The edits made yesterday were 100% accurate and more clearly describe the institution.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Booman99 (talk • contribs)

Responded to this editor who holds a PR position with the Lafayette, Indiana diocese of the Catholic church and concerns Lafayette Central Catholic Jr/Sr High School on his talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Notable people lists question

Hi John, I have a question regarding splitting lists of notable people to a stand-alone list article. Do you know of a reasonable number that such lists reach when they are generally split off? The Vancouver, Washington#Notable people section is at 30 people, and I'm wondering if it ought to be split off to a stand-alone list article. As a comparison, List of people from Chattanooga, Tennessee was at about 70 when I split it off several years ago, and is now over 130. I imagine this is usually done on a case by case basis depending on the main article's size also. Any thoughts? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

You're analysis of practice is spot on, BilCat. I'd likely support a fork, but forking the notable list brings problems and benefits. The pluses include the ability to illustrate it with images (which we generally don't do on embedded lists) and the size reduction for the main article (a big plus for me as I edit mostly from my phone and have to deal with the inherent cache issues that mobile editing brings). Downside can be endless argument about having certain people named in the main article. Other than the civic pride folks that insist V isn't a suburb of Portland, there hasn't been much strife there since the kerfuffle over the Confederate Highway markers, so I doubt that's going to be an issue. If I were you, I think I'd just do it, placing the appropriate templates on both articles' talk pages for history attribution (see WP:FORK). Keep me in the loop please. John from Idegon (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the response. I'm on a semi-Wikibreak, so I'm not doing much work in articles right now, but this question has been on my mind for some time, so I went ahead and asked now. I think about it for a few days, and either do the split, or leave a suggestion on the talk page about it. Thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Castro Valley High School

Hi there, You reverted my edits to Castro Valley High School, calling them "vandalism" because I didn't provide a source.

I added "Filipino" to "Asian" under Demographics, because Filipinos are generally classified as Asians and it makes sense to combine them into one category. Before my edit, it didn't mention Filipinos at all. This is all in the source provided.

About "Honors Afrocentric U.S. History", you may be surprised, but that is a real class. Check this link. https://4.files.edl.io/cb19/02/08/19/163736-a302b2c3-d913-415a-9a86-4f2fc5986c18.pdf I see no reason to exclude the most up to date information just because it has not been cited in a news source.

My former IP address was 2601:640:4000:a875:2840:1c40:6fc:af67 (talk). Naddruf (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Naddruf. Just some general comments. Wikipedia is not really the news, so there's really no great urgency to make sure all of the information in a particular article is up-to-date. In fact, it often can take time for some changes to be covered in secondary reliable sources to allow them to verified. The link you've provide looks like a primary source at best, perhaps put out by the school, which means care has to be taken as to how such a source is used. In addition, It's not really the point of a Wikipedia article per WP:NOTEVERYTHING to including all that may be real about the subject of an article or to add content to an article just because the subject has mentioned it somewhere on one of its websites or in some other medium. A Wikipedia article is written about something, not for something; moreover, the point of an article is mainly to reflect content written by others about the subject which can be verified through citations to reliable sources (preferably independent and secondary), not to reflect what the subject is saying about itself. A Wikipedia article is not owned by its subject and the purpose of the article is not to act as PR for the subject.

So, if the school is receiving coverage in newspapers or journals, etc. about this particular class, then perhaps there may be a way to add relevant content about it to the article. Just because the school is offering such a class, on the other hand, doesn't mean it should be mentioned on Wikipedia. If you can find such secondary sources, then maybe citing them in support will be enough to stop the content from being removed; if not, try discussing things on the article's talk page to see what others think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Naddruf, as our colleague mentioned, this article isn't here to tell people about the school. Instead, its purpose is to summarize what others have written about the subject. There are guidelines for what should and shouldn't be in a school article. For the most part, we do not discuss any individual courses. There are a few courses that over the years we've decided we should mention simply because they are verifiably there. These would include AP courses and courses in the arts area. Other than those specific exceptions, we only mention specific courses if they've been the subject of significant commentary in reliable secondary sources. Regarding the attendance figures, having the most current available numbers is secondary to having numbers sourced and presented in a consistent manner on the broad range of articles for schools across the country. The best source is NCES. The second best would be the state's DOE, but in the case of California, the state presents those figures in an idiosyncratic manner. You should be able to make comparisons between schools in Florida, Maine, Michigan and California by looking at the numbers. Since California breaks their figures down in a manner no other state does, using the state's numbers makes comparison to schools outside California impossible. If, after the explanations given here, you still feel the information you added is a worthy improvement and have the sources to show it, you are welcome to start a discussion on the article's talk page to attempt to gain consensus for inclusion. Thanks Naddruf and Marchjuly. John from Idegon (talk) 06:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

An Overdue Apology

Dear John from Idegon, You know my editing history well enough that if I am apologizing to you it's either because of the "edit warring" on Carmel High School (Indiana), The ANI report, or that deal I can't find in your talk page archives. I'm mainly sorry for the ANI Report, and once User:Billhpike did what I was trying to do, I should have left it at that. Instead of that, I went to a mediation level too high for it to the first, and accused you of something that, so far as I know, isn't even defined in Wikipedia Policy. You are not a cyberbully, you merely enforce WP:V strictly. As for the other two things, I regret them, but not in an "I wronged you" sort of way. Caleb The Wipper (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Slate's clean, Hoosier man. I don't even really know why we were bickering, but I don't hold grudges. I only have a couple allies here, but I have the respect of many. If I can help you with technical stuff or support hollar. It's not so much I'm hypervigilant about sourcing (ok, I kinda am), it's just i will not let an encyclopedia article (esp. schools and places) become advertising or fan pages. Strictly enforcing WP:V and WP:NPOV is the best way to accomplish that.

Thanks for the thought, Caleb The Wipper. Like I said....it wasn't necessary (and likely wouldn't be reciprocated :) ), but it does show you have character. I'd suspected that all along. I'm not your pal or buddy but I'm proud to be your colleague. Happy editing. John from Idegon (talk) 04:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)