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.

Anti-highway bias in Pelham Parkway article[edit]

Discussion will continue at Talk:Pelham Parkway. I'll drop a note at WT:USRD requesting their attention there. (non-admin closure)
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.

The idea that Robert Moses "had gone too far" and was "ruining neighborhoods" with highway construction is a matter of opinion, albeit popular opinion. This is what justified my edit to the Pelham Parkway article. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi DanTD. Basically, when you insert text into the middle of cited content, you have to be aware of WP:INTEGRITY. This is particularly true in the case of WP:OPED types of changes. If the original source didn't really phrase it in such a way, then you cannot really add such content without providing a citation to a source which does per WP:BURDEN; that's really the best way to justify the change you want to make.
At the same time, if the original content is not really supported by the source cited (i.e. is more WP:OR or WP:SYN than not), then maybe the relevant article content should be discussed and reworded accordingly per WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE or WP:RSCONTEXT in order to provide more balance to the article. Since you've been editing for much longer than I, you probably already understand how bias (one way or another) can gradually creep into articles over time. This tends to happen through edits made by people who for the most part mean well, but who seem more focused on reflecting "popular opinion" than complying with relevant Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Perhaps that's what happend in this case? Maybe it would be a good idea to discuss your concerns on the article talk page to see if others familiar with the subject matter share them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I just saw the source that was cited regarding Moses, and that was outrageously biased. It made "The Power Broker," by Robert Caro seem objectionable by comparison. But yes, I'm okay with bringing the discussion there. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't have the background knowledge to add much to a discussion there. I do completely agree with MJ on the proper way to bring balance to the article, and I reverted your change because clearly that is not the way to do it. It would be good to invite attention from WP:USRD to the article as they have a well deserved reputation for good content in "their" articles, and I'm quite certain they'll be able to help balance the content. I'm going to close this now, and again thanks Marchjuly for stepping in to help. Your assistance has been invaluable over the course of my illness, and praise God, it appears the end (of my illness not me) is near. John from Idegon (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2019 (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.

The Signpost: 28 February 2019[edit]

Delete maybe?[edit]

Hi John, hope all is well, it's been a while. I've come across this school; a one paragraph with infobox stub article. I can't seem to find this school on NCES, and sources may be an issue - tried to find some but mainly getting review sites and directory listings. The page was created by an IP in 2009 who hasn't made any further edits to this article. I can see it was also taken to AFD in the same year but only one user voted keep which was the result. However, hardly any further edits or expansion has been made to this article. I'm thinking of PROD but not sure, if you could take a look at this when you can, I would really appreciate it. Thank you so much Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

At AfD. Thanks. I'm curious as to whether a PROD could have been used, as the AfD was closed procedurally rather than with an actual outcome. Drmies or any passing admin, what say you? John from Idegon (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, there would have been no impediment to a PROD, according to my reading of the policy, but that's water under the bridge now given Eastmain's rebuttal. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I see, thanks for sorting this out John and I was going to mention about a directory listing being added as a reference but can see Drmies had already mentioned this, thanks again Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeshiva Ohr Yisrael Page[edit]

we are updating our page with insider information where is that against anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simchaboi (talkcontribs) 16:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:5P, Simchaboi. For the third time, it's an encyclopedia article, not a page, and it isn't yours or the school's. You can learn to make make good contributions to the school's article, but none of the content you've added is sourceable to reliable sources, and none of it is of any use to anyone not associated with the school. All content needs to be paraphrased from reliable secondary sources and anything you add is subject to editing or removal by other editors. If another editor removes content you've added, you are not allowed to replace it without first establishing CONSENSUS for it on the article's talk page. You establish a consensus by making arguments based in reliable secondary sources and Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
What I've briefly outlined above is what Wikipedia is and how it works. I don't know what your preconceived notions about Wikipedia are, but they are obviously incorrect as exhibited by your additions to the article. John from Idegon (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

As you were in at the beginning, here's the end[edit]

[1] Doug Weller talk 15:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

About Saint Edward's School page edits[edit]

Well, what's the deal here John? All I did here was to improve "location info" for a place, and you feel it's "unneeded". I'm trying to improve an article and you keep undoing all my efforts. My previous edit was fully sourced story about recent school history, and I spent few hours making sure it was well researched and fully backed by local reliable secondary sources/ newspapers. It is not insider info and well known locally. I might have used one unauthorized picture, but I own up that mistake, and fully agree with it's removal. You went straight ahead and removed my 5000+ kb edit for "Unsourced and unencyclopedic additions, poorly sourced changes that substituted self sourced info for independent sourced material". I read news articles from past 10 years and described the school's finance troubles and later resurgence. Surely, this is not an info suitble for their Facebook page, but how's this not relevant to the organization's wiki page? Also, information added to the info-box was removed without giving any reasons. You say "if ain't broke then don't fix it", well, THIS IS A STUB ARTICLE. We should be improving it by adding more info. Is adding new information and improving Wikipedia a bad thing? Kinda discouraging to see superusers showing this kinda of edit abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cusechemaratha (talkcontribs) 13:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

First, please sign your talk page messages. Second, where in the article is the school's location on a barrier key discussed? Third, what is your reliable secondary source for that? If you are adding unsourced information that comes from your personal knowledge and imparts information that is of little use outside the local community, you are not improving the article. It's not uncommon for newer users to have mistaken impressions about what Wikipedia is; however, it is hardly productive to tell off someone who doesn't have those misconceptions for correcting it. I don't recall the other edits you've referred to. My guess is your source wasn't secondary. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to summarize what others have written about the subject of the article in reliable secondary sources. That's all. If you wish to try to gain WP:CONSENSUS for your changes, start a discussion on the article talk page and attempt to convince me and other interested editors that your changes are an improvement by making arguments based in reliable secondary sources and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Personalizing the issue is pointless, counterproductive and against policy. John from Idegon (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Abelmoschus Esculentus' User Scripts[edit]

Dear all. Recently, our community lost a dedicated user, Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk). Among their projects were a number of user scripts that they left behind. I (DannyS712) have copied the scripts, and have taken over maintaining them. You currently import one or more of Abelmoschus Esculentus' scripts, and I thought that you might want to import a maintained version. Links to each script are provided below.

If you have any questions, please reach out and talk to me. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit to Newport Harbor High School[edit]

Hi, John. I noticed you removed my edit to the Newport Harbor High school page ( and cited "Not News" as the reason. I have read the "Not News" section and have ideas for how best to reword my edit but I wanted to check in with you first to see if you have any suggestions on how I can better capture the controversy without violating the rules. I think it is an important piece of information to share and given the current state of the nation, very relevant. Blueplaza (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. Needless to say, I disagree. John from Idegon (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Improving the Komoju page to avoid deletion[edit]

Dear John,

I have received your notice regarding the speedy deletion of [Komoju], and I would appreciate your support in saving this page.

Komoju is part of a small niche of Japanese Payment Platforms supporting foreign businesses in entering the online Japanese market. Please note that I haven't received any payments for this page.

Current edits: 1. Removed the "Solutions" paragraph, as it might have looked like a promotional activity 2. Improved the part related to the Japanese and South Korean landscape, adding also links to published resources from the competitors of Komoju (Adyen)

Please let me know if this is sufficient; if not, please recommend alternatives.


Nando — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nando Lo Zio (talkcontribs) 08:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Why are you asking me? No, I am not interested in assisting you. John from Idegon (talk) 09:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

List of schools of the Dallas Independent School District[edit]

Hi John. I was wondering if you could take a look at this article when you have a spare moment or two. Some things like MOS:SECTIONCAPS and the citations in section headings (MOS:HEAD) stick out (at least to me), but the street addresses and the websites also seem wrong. The websites in particular seem wrong per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:LINKFARM and WP:ELLIST. I’m away from my computer for a few days, and cleaning these things up on my cell might be a little tricky. Anyway, before I give it a go, I thought I asked your opinion on these things since school list article might be handled differently that a standard list article. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Ugh. I personally would roll it back to December 29, the last different editor. I am not going to be able to help you much. That's going to be a battle. It might be simpler to just go the AfD route. Doubt either will be easy. There is entirely too much junk, virtually all of it added by the unchecked SPA. John from Idegon (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. I didn’t realize at first how many entries the list has, even down to child care centers. I’ve seen lists which include elementary schools, but haven’t come across one that tries to include all schools and links to websites for each entry. I’m not sure AfD is needed, but it’s going to take some cleaning to bring it inline with WP:SAL and WP:LSC. My prior interactions with this editor regarding another article (see my user talk) have been a little contentious which probably is not going to make cleaning this list article any easier. Are school addresses typically added to articles like this. It seems that a Wikilink to school’s Wikipedia article is all that’s really necessary. Does any similar list article come to mind which you would consider to be a good example of how this type of article should be written? — Marchjuly (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The article was restored to the Dec. 29 version by another editor, but even that version seems to have a big embedded external link issue which needs to be cleaned up. The use of colored columns also might be a problem per MOS:COLOR, and seems more distracting than not. I think probably the name of the school is really all that’s needed for each entry, but not sure. What do you think?
Also, thanks for the help on my user talk. Just for reference, it’s not totally unheard of for someone unconnected to the subject of an article to email a copyright holder asking for their WP:CONSENT; it usually happens with images, but it can be done for text content as well. The post you responded to and the editor I referred to with respect to the list article are different people; that editor removed his post about wanting my permission to edit on his own before the one you responded to was posted. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The one I responded to is a UPE editor, she said as much below. I never quite got around to reading the king's missive. And I really do not have the patience to deal with him. That isn't a list article anymore and it needs to be. The advanced formatting is a waste, the individual links to the school's websites are not needed. Preschool - not needed. Achievements - not needed. Sorry if I'm coming off like a grump, MJ. I probably need to just to walk away from here for a couple months. But its beginning to seem like everything is a struggle. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
No worries. My user talk’s been busier than usual recently so I just wanted to clarify my post. As for the list article, another editor has started a discussion about it on its talk page; so, perhaps that will lead to improvements. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: Clarity on COI[edit]

Hello John,

No, I am an unpaid intern. I have not been compensated nor will I be compensated for this article. Most importantly, I will not benefit in any way for the constructing and submitting of this article. Also, I was not asked, instructed or persuaded to create this article. I have a genuine interest in Wikipedia. I spent countless hours and days obtaining accurate information to be submitted. Now I understand being able to secure releases on copyrighted material is not part of the normal process for creating material. The only reason I requested that the copyright consent release be submitted was because I received an email from Wiki stating that the copyright was a concern. Even further, a notice which contained a link to a template that should be utilized in completing and submitting the document. And to satisfy the copyright conflict I pursued the proper channels to have the copyright consent release submitted. Lastly, I would be remiss if I did not mention that I feel completely bullied and it’s hurtful. For example, you responded in an abrasive manner in regards to the term “urgent” that was used in conversing with someone else. Again, I apologize about my use of the term. I am confused as why you are speaking to me in such a way without any cause. All that I am seeking is fair treatment. Staciwilliams126 (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

As an intern, you are still covered by WP:PAID. I'll be leaving a second level warning on your userpage but as long as you comply with the requirements legally required by our terms of use which you agreed to by registering an account, I'll be done here. If you dispute that, you are free to discuss it at WP:COIN, the noticeboard for COI issues. I fail to see how being informed there are rules you are not following constitutes bullying, but whatever. Follow them and there will be no issue. Following them includes submitting your article through AfC and never directly editing it once it's in mainspace, along with making certain declarations on your userpage and on the draft's talk page. The next move is yours. John from Idegon (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

New Castle High School edits[edit]

Hi, John -

You reverted changes I made to the New Castle High School page. You claimed my edits did not have a reliable source, but I did have a citation for an established newspaper report (The Indianapolis Star) and research completed by the Indiana High School Basketball Historical Society. Can you help me understand how these would be considered non-reliable sources? They are both established institutions and should be regarded as so. As for the re-established source that was put back by your undoing, there is no more validity to that article than the one I cited. Based on my understanding, the edits I made should be reestablished. Thanks Bouse (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to attempt to gain consensus for your change on the article talk page. Since there are divergent sources, the accuracy of the figures is in question. Consensus is required. John from Idegon (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Not sure about this[edit]

Hi John, hope you're well. Did some cleanup for this school, only concern is I'm unsure about some of the info in the article and whether it is needed, such as graduation rate, college remediation, unsourced championships table etc. If you could take a look at this article when you can that would be amazing, really appreciate your help. Please let me know, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Roncalli High School (Indiana)[edit]

Not sure why you reverted my edits to Roncalli High School (Indiana). I provided a reliable source for the content, and worded it neutrally (indeed, better and more accurately than the previous editor). The controversy made national news, and is relevant to the subject of the article. Could you please explain? Citing WP:NOTNEWS doesn't seem to fit. Thanks for your time. Waggie (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes your version was a big improvement. But carrying anything about this is an issue of WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT. You've phrased it here and the previous editor phrased it as having received national attention, but the only source is a local TV station. We don't name non notable staff in school articles. And what do we have? The school terminated an employee and she has filed a complaint. Anyone can file a complaint. There are no facts here, and there won't be. The school is barred by law from commenting, so no neutral coverage is possible. We won't have any real facts until the labor board reaches a decision. And unless they decide she was wrongly terminated, which would fly in the face of the current case law, and the school refuses to reinstate her, we've still got nothing. There isn't any history whatsoever in this article; not even a source for the founding. So the school has been around for 50 years, and the only thing worth mentioning is this? No. You are of course welcome to start a discussion on the article talk page to gain consensus for inclusion. Barring better sourcing, and further facts, I will continue to oppose this. After it settles, I would likely be ok with a mention in the context of a more complete history section. I can't see any way I'd ever endorse a separate section for this. John from Idegon (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi John, thanks for your reply. I fully understand WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT. If you'll note, I kept everything extremely brief and to the point, in deference to those guidelines. It has received national attention, including the subject being interviewed by ElLen Degeneres on the topic. It's also worth noting that this particular subject weighs strongly in a national context of other catholic schools and their relationship with staff engaged in same-sex marriages - ie: it is of historical importance in a larger context (falling in line with inclusion per WP:RECENT). I was focused on citing secondary content quickly and concisely, and frankly didn't spend a lot of time on it. Am I to understand you're looking for further sourcing at a national level? I can add some, but I have no desire to get into an edit war with you if you won't be swayed by that, so I'm trying to collaborate here and find a middle ground of sorts. It's worth noting that the school did comment (and they are not legally barred from commenting within certain limits), actually, and a summary of their commentary is included in my text (summarized from the source I provided) - perhaps you should have read the source that I cited? Thanks for your time. Waggie (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello John from Idegon,

Discussions of interest
  • Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
  • {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
  • A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
  • There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
  • NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
  • Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
  • copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
  • The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
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.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Lanier Middle School (Houston)[edit]

John, while Sidney Lanier was an individual who was a confederate soldier; that's really not what he's known for - he wasn't much of a soldier. While it's right to include that he was a confederate soldier (and wrong to omit it!), I don't think it's right to define him as that and nothing else. And I'm certainly not a whitewasher! Anyway, that's my two cents. on Lanier Middle School (Houston). What do you think? Thanks.Jacona (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the kid that made the edit should start a discussion at the article talk page like I told him he needed to 6 months ago. If you want to do that for him, feel free. John from Idegon (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Whitefish Bay High School logo.jpeg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Whitefish Bay High School logo.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Sinai Akiba Academy[edit]

Hello. I'm not understanding your issues with the article. I'm not a member of their community and the page simply lists facts about the school with citations. Is there a problem? Thanks.Egw1119 (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia is not a directory. We only have articles on notable subjects. Lower schools are presumed to be non notable unless a strong showing is made of notability. It would need to meet the standards set forth at WP:ORG, and I see nothing in the article that indicates it would. Nor did my own research turn up any better sources. The confusion may result from the fact that diploma granting schools have a general assumption of notability. For a diploma granting school, all we require is a detailed secondary source to prove its existence and the standard sources such as NCES, the state athletic sanctioning body and US News & World Report. For a school that ends at 8th grade, you'd need to have at least three reliable sources, totally independent of the school, that discuss the school in detail, with at least one of those sources being of wide (ie, outside the LA area) circulation or from an out of town location. There were no independent references that discussed the school in detail. The standard for an article to exist (WP:N) is a much higher bar than the standard for content in an existing article (WP:V). Further, there are content guidelines for school articles (WP:SCH/AG), and the majority of the article content was outside them. Although I am the coordinator of WikiProject Schools, my opinion carries no more weight than yours. You're free to undo my redirect, but unless that comes with substantial improvements to the article, I will take it to Articles for discussion, one of our deletion processes. I'm sorry you are being put through this, but I'm at a loss as to how it ever got this far. Perhaps Legacypac could help us understand why the article passed AfC. IMO, it shouldn't have. John from Idegon (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi John; I received quite a different message here [2]. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Who is this? John from Idegon (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Oops...sorry, Bob. John from Idegon (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019[edit]

This has to be the most idiotic thing I've seen in my 8 years here. MPS1992 has been requested to stay off my talk page, and warned that further stalking of my edits will result in a harassment case. Anyone is welcome to view his posting at the school article talk page and see if there are any points to discuss. It's ludicrous that I've got to resort to formally closing a discussion to get him to stop. (non-admin closure)
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.

Information icon Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Lanier Middle School (Houston). There is a discussion there which may interest you; but you will be required to keep a civil tongue. Please remember to respect other editors, even when their opinions are different from your own. MPS1992 (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Wow...a preemptive warning? Get this straight....I do not know or care why you've got a hard-on for me, but it stops now. You've been following me around for over a year now, undoing perfectly legit edits I've made, now you warn me while inviting me to a discussion? Here's how this works. You change the article without gaining a legitimate consensus (one based on sources and policy, not the appeal to emotion you've made there), I will revert you. You make a legit arguement, I'll participate. I don't know that I'm right, I just know no-one has made any logical arguments for the change. That's all.
Further, MPS1992, you don't get to define civility. You don't like my style? I DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK ON A ROLLING DONUT! Stop following me around, stop making snarky comments about me in edit summaries and stay off my talk page. If you have a problem with me, take it to a noticeboard or keep it to yourself. And if you ever pull a ridiculous passive aggressive bullshit act like the one right here again, I promise you'll find yourself at a noticeboard. Got it? Don't let the door smack you in the ass on the way out. John from Idegon (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Donuts? Hard-ons? Flying obscenities? "arguement"? What? Wow. MPS1992 (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
So are you ignorant or illiterate? DO NOT POST HERE AGAIN. And I just hit you with a final warning for harrassment. I'd strongly suggest you not touch any of my edits again. It'll take me a week to assemble a harassment case on you, but it's there. Just stop. We are making an encyclopedia here, the #1 source of information in the world. Quality matters far more than niceties. I talk this way in interpersonal communication. Sorry if that's problematic for you. The simple solution is LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE. Again, don't let the door smack you in the ass on the way out. BYE. John from Idegon (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand why, if you are so keen for me never to post on your talk page, you explain this by posting on my talk page? (repeatedly). Isn't it quite simple? Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Top tip: calling other editors "ignorant" or "illiterate" does not strengthen your case. MPS1992 (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Gladly done. Just filling out the paperwork. You who are so keen on civility should certainly realize that a significant portion of society takes great offense at being referred to as "boy". I haven't been a boy for over half a century. Fuck off. John from Idegon (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Now, you got me. I didn't call you "boy", and I am not aware of anyone else doing so either. Are you OK? MPS1992 (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher)Things are beginning to go off in a direction that is neither beneficial to the two of you nor Wikipedia. So, it would probably be a good idea for both of you to take a step back and let things cool down for bit. John you could've fixed the ref tag at Frank Cody High School quite easily without removing the entry yourself. If, however, you removed it for reasons other than a syntax error, it might have helped in you made that clear in the edit sum your left. At the same time, MPS1992 your reverting of John's edit (including re-adding the same syntax error you said John should've fixed) was just as bad and probably even worse because it appears you did so out of spite over issues you're having with John. John's removal might have been wrong, but it seems to have been in good faith and not personal. I don't think the same could be argued for your revert. The same goes for your posting of a pre-emptive "uw-agf2" warning here in this thread for a talk page where John has not edited since 2013. Your recent reverts and templating of John do seem to be an attempt to try be a WP:BAIT approach that is not going to help strengthen your case in anyway and will certainly not lead to a resolution of whatever issues you have with John. There are plenty of WP:PNBs where the two of you can discuss each others behavior; I suggest that both of you make use of them if the two of you are unable to put aside whichever differences you have and get back to editing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2019 (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.

False claims[edit]

It's really irritating, when I make an edit and leave a summary, to see someone undo my edit claiming it was "unexplained". Why did you do that? If you disagree with the explanation, say why; claiming there wasn't one is obviously ridiculous. (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

That's nice. Leaving a summary does not necessarily equal leaving an explanation. I'm speaking in general, because I have no idea what you're on about. I edit dozens of articles every day, and I'm not going to waste my time searching through my contributions to figure out what this pertains to. If you want a better explanation, leave a clearer message. In fact, that could be the answer to your initial question too. John from Idegon (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I think the IP is referring to this edit at Blue Water Bridge. @ While its true that you did leave an edit summary, it would've been better if you'd had explained why the content was being removed by citing a relevant policy or guideline instead of just writing "removed incoherent nonsense", particularly since the content you removed was supported by a citation to a reliable source. Moreover, you were bold and removed the content, but another editor disagreed with you and re-added it; at that point, you're expected to follow WP:BRD and try to resolve this disagreement through article talk page discussion. Continuing to remove the content after the first revert is edit warring, and the fact that you're reverting multiple editors makes it even worse. Your second revert here did not have an edit sum and that is the edit John referred to as "unexplained". Anyway, your best bet to try and keep the content out is to start an discussion at Talk:Blue Water Bridge and explain why in terms of policy and guidelines it needs to be removed. If your argument is strong and persuasive enough, a consensus will be established in favor of removal. Nobody really wins in an edit war, but you're already at the three-revert brightline which means you're almost certain to be WP:BLOCKed if an WP:ADMINistrator is asked to step in and take action if you continue reverting. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
And, in addition, the exact single edit I reverted here did NOT have an edit summary. It had an automatic summary indicating you'd undone an editor (and administrator) with many years experience who happens to have written nearly 100 Featured Articles, most of which concern Michigan transportation subjects. Please follow BRD, as suggested above. The content in question, although well sourced, is marginal and may merit removal or modification. John from Idegon (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Chicago Bulls College Prep[edit]

Hi John from Idegon - do you have time to have a look at Chicago Bulls College Prep? I came across it accidentally and it has problems to the point where I'm dubious about my ability to fix it - CoI and lots of schoolcruft. Best wishes, Tacyarg (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Yea that was a mess. I stubbed and tagged it. If you'd like to add NCES stats and athletic info sourced to the Illinois High School Association, that would be grand. The notability tag could be removed after that. Also, the bit about the Bulls supporting the school is a remarkable claim, so that requires a good source. There is almost always negative info to be found about charter schools owned by chains like this, so there may be something there too. I'll be glad to help, but really haven't the time or strength to do much. Thanks, Tacyarg. John from Idegon (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Whilst I have your attention, John from Idegon, I am wondering if I might be applicable for any roles, or positions on Wikipedia? My most dearest thanks, DaedalusGodOfWisdom! DaedalusGodOfWisdom (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment from new user who got an automated Teahouse invite over my signature[edit]

“Advanced toilet user” DaedalusGodOfWisdom (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

DaedalusGodOfWisdom,you can read! Is there a point? John from Idegon (talk) 03:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Not particularly, I had never seen anything like that before. DaedalusGodOfWisdom (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
“Nice” title for my comments. DaedalusGodOfWisdom (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Figured I should try to make some use of a pointless comment, so please remember to title new threads with a neutral descriptive title. Also please note how I've indented the conversation with colons. It's bizarre humor, of the self deprecating kind. If you look up this page a bit, you'll see that sometimes things get stressful around here. Humor helps. Use Teahouse by all means. I sometimes answer questions there and it's a very helpful place. I'll leave you some info on your talk on how Wikipedia works, and am happy to answer questions if you have any, although I'm not a video game editor. Welcome aboard. John from Idegon (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)