This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.
Thank you for your feedback. This man deserves a wikipedia page and I am currently trying to get one up. Until then I respect your decision. Jbogs (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
No one "deserves" a Wikipedia article (it is not a page. That implies something like social media, which this is not.) For any subject, eligability for an article on Wikipedia is determined by a concept we call notability. For biographies, the best place to start to determine if the subject qualifies is WP:ANYBIO. There are specific requirements for both musicians and academics. Notability is determined by how much is written in detail primarily about a subject in reliable, independent sources. It has nothing whatsoever to do with either your, or my, opinion of how "important" the person is. A quick search of Google news shows one hit for don ambler and Google books shows one passing mention in a book on clarinets. It is doubtful that the person will pass notability unless their is a bunch written on him in reliable academic journals. John from Idegon (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Concern of complaint
A Wikipedia user has recently reported me for undoing changes he and another Wikipedia user has made to the UKIP Wikipedia page.
This user is using referenced information from biased tabloid media, having deleted a respected political scholars reference in a book.
This user User:Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh in tandem with User: Snowded have not properly drawn a conclusion of discussion in the talk page and are at loggerheads with several users including myself, over their posts.
He (User:Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh) has then proceeded to threaten me whilst expressing a clear political bias that should rule him out of editing said Wikipedia page.
User User: Snowded is a clear political rival as expressed on his Wikipedia biography.
Both these attitudes are effecting the edits these users post.
Because other users have objected to these false edits being made, and the way in which the users have ignored the process of discussion on the Talk Page, it has lead to User:Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh making the false report. Citing the undoing of invalid edits as an example of vandalism.
If you refer back to the fabric of the page over the last 12 months, you will see that these edits are in conflict with the recognised status of the party over the long-term.
I am not involved in this. You both apparently need to calm down and read. I made a procedural note on his complaint, adding a disclaimer that it wad strictly a procedural mention and not a comment on the merits of his filing. He blasts me for dismissing his complaint. You come here and droll on about the merits of the case that I have no interest in getting involved in. The same procedural advice applies to you, and another editor left links for how to do it at ANI. John from Idegon (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Perry High school edit
I don't think your last revert there was of sock puppetry, but of edit warring. I don't see anything wrong with the revert except your edit summary. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 12:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Who would best know policy on extrapolations from Census data?
That edit to Williamson County, Texas that you reverted is one of many to Texas counties and, who knows, maybe a larger set of edits to other states using other IPs? (IP6 addresses, yay)
While your edit summary said the ref did not support the inclusion, it sorta does, if you 'like' the ref'd article. In the NYT article, moving the cursor over the location of Williamson county in the large map of the US will popup the text "About 5.8 same-sex couples per 1,000 households in Williamson County, Texas".
The problem I see with all this is that the researcher cited by the NYT article "Where Same-Sex Couples Live" [1] is estimating the number of same-sex couples by corrections of the 2010 Census results. See the PDF cited in the article: "Census Snapshot: 2010 Methodology - Adjustment procedures for same-sex couple data" [2].
At the point someone starts saying "Oh, but here's what the numbers really mean using my extrapolation ..." then we're too far out on the tree limb. I'd compare this to someone saying "Well the trend from the last two censuses is a population increase of N.N% per year for Foo County, so the population in 2015 is ..."
In your travels/travails here at WP have you come across someone who would know the correct 'label'/characterization to put this to bed? I'm thinking all these edits need reverting, but I'd love to know the best edit summary. :-) Shenme (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
First, my apologies for the delay in reply. RL has been really hectic for the last little while. To answer your question, I don't have an answer, and all I can do for pointing you to someone who would is give you the names of two editors whom I have observed make many changes to census figures. I cannot say whether they would be helpful or not -- I just know I see their names on my watch list in conjunction with census data. They are: DemocraticLuntz and Omnedon. Hope they can help. Not liking that addition at all.John from Idegon (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Lurker jumping in. I do not see any issue with the source reliability; someone else is doing the extrapolation, not us. You could go to WP:RSN to get opinions from editors more used to evaluating sources, but to me the more convincing argument would be editorial. Is this information significant enough to include in every article about every county? I think not; this really is only germane if a secondary source has pointed out that the prevalence (or lack) of same-sex couples makes the county an outlier or otherwise unusually significant. WP:MILL is an essay, but it may apply. VQuakr (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
The problem is more the misleading wording than the reliability. As worded, it strongly implies that the data come from official Census Bureau demographics, along with the other data in the section. I've tried a rewording in a few of the articles that properly characterizes the stats as reanalysis of Census Bureau data: [3]. 32.218.42.245 (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in. Why do we always meet over these sorts of contentious issues? 32.218.45.24 (talk) 06:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
ANI notification
Hello John from Idegon. I wanted to let you know that a thread in which you edits are mentioned has been opened here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#The removal of law enforcement articles. I pinged you there but I wanted to followup by giving you a direct link to the conversation. In spite of this I hope that you are having a pleasant day. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 18:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, John from Idegon. You have new messages at Buddy23Lee's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You beat me to it
Hi again. I was headed to RFPP to ask for protection for the Perry Hall High School article and was happy to see that you got there first. Thanks for your work. If there are anymore personal attack here there are a wide variety of scented Troll-be-Gone available. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Stevens Point?
While Mikeblas's assertions on the article's Talk page are technically correct, they fly in the face of actual practice on thousands of geographic articles on WP. This makes it a larger issue that should be discussed somewhere else than the talk page of a single city article. (See also tagging of List of people from Kenosha, Wisconsin.) But where? RfC? WikiProject Cities? Elsewhere? Can we continue this on your talk page? My dynamic IP makes it hard to follow comments posted to my talk page. 32.218.42.245 (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Need help with possible spam issue.
Hi John from Idegon. I respect your judgement and would appreciate your opinion on something. The article on Tension rings was recently modified. The modification is at the bottom. The change is the addition of a renamed link. The rename is "Tension Engagement Rings" but the URL to which it leads seems to be a website for selling tension rings (http://www.danhov.com/). It looks to me very much like a violation of WP:LINKSPAM. But being a total novice, I don't want to take the chance of reverting someone in error. Would you be willing to take a quick look at it and let me know if my suspicions are correct? And if the change should be reverted. Again the article is on Tension rings and the questionable link is toward the end and is called Tension Engagement Rings. Thank you so much for your help. I really appreciate it. Richard27182 (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi John from Idegon. Thank you for your attention to the issue with the "Tension rings" article. And thank you for correcting it. I'm glad to see that my impression was indeed correct (that the recent edit essentially constituted "spam"). I know I've been depending a lot on you (and other editors) to help me make decisions about what would and what would not be appropriate for me to do; but I am getting more and more confident, and I believe I will be able to make more and more decisions on my own. Anyway, thank you again for your help. Richard27182 (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
License tagging for File:Montebello High School M logo.jpg
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
You have made no attempts to compromise the edits on the Bear Creek High School (Lakewood, Colorado) page. I am a graduate (class of '76), I taught in the Jeffco public schools for 10 years and then I received my doctorate and worked in the administration. I want this to represent my school. You have no right to delete edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caperescientiam (talk • contribs) 02:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, you are incorrect. You quite obviously have no idea of how Wikipedia works. I will leave some info on that on your talk page. Meanwhile, please take my warning seriously. This is an encyclopedia. Read the info I leave you and if you want help making a useful contribution, cone back and talk to me. John from Idegon (talk) 03:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
On a recent reverted edit
When you reverted an image I added to the infobox of Charles E. Smith Jewish Day School, you explained that logo only is preferred. Is this a Wikipedia policy? I couldn't find anything in Wikiproject Schools that said anything either way about including or excluding images from school infoboxes. Is there a policy that I am unaware of? Who exactly prefers that only the logo should be displayed, and where is it written? I have recently added images to the infoboxes of several articles of schools in the Maryland / Washington DC area that were on the list of articles requesting images, so if there's a policy that I'm unaware of, let me know. Otherwise, I see no reason that the image should be excluded from the infobox. Sesamehoneytart 04:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no policy stating that, but there are some that contribute to it. It is primarily a convention of practice among regular editors of school articles. WP:INFOBOX tells us that infoboxes are to be kept short, as there purpose is to provide a brief summary of the important information. Additionally long infoboxes tend to make the placement of other graphic content on the page difficult as they push the image or table down the page. That isn't currently an issue on this article as there is no graphic content other than the infobox. The biggie, policy-wise for my edit is at WP:NFCC. Logos are what is known as "non-free content". That is to say that they are not subject to the copyleft license that most content on Wikipedia is under. They are actually copyrighted by the organization they represent, in this case the school. We can use them as a "fair-use" exception to the copyright. One of the restrictions imposed on fair use images is that they must be used in a primary (meaning top) position to provide a visual means of identifying the subject of the article. If you code a file into the image field of the infobox, it will display above the logo and that cannot be changed. (don't ask why. I only edit here, and templates are wayyyyyy over my head.) Since there are no other images on this page, as I said before, the length of the infobox is not really an issue, so what I will propose, and will edit in, is to place the image and caption at the bottom of the infobox. There are fields for that.
The reason for the convention is really very simple. There is value for the reader's ease of access to information in formatting articles in the same broad subject area in a similar manner. Do some articles have images on top? Sure. there may be a couple reasons for that. Sometimes, it is impossible to get an image for a logo, due to either the school's website design or the fact that it simply does not have one. In those cases an image at the top of the infobox is good. Just set the size parameter to 200px or less so it doesn't stretch the infobox. The image field and the website field are the only two fields in Template:Infobox school that will stretch the box. All others will size to fit the default size of the infobox. The other reason may be that just no one has changed it yet. There are nearly 5 million articles on Wikipedia. Happy editing! John from Idegon (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that non-free images used under fair use must be used in the top position, and I think the pages I looked at for examples must also have been built by others who also didn't know this rule. Considering that rule, I think you're right about keeping an image off the top of the infobox. Adding the picture under "image" as you did in the Charles E. Smith Jewish Day School article could work as an alternative if an article is too short. Sesamehoneytart 02:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Butler University Police Department
Just wondering why you got rid of the BUPD page by redirecting it to Butler University, stating that it should redirect there because it's the institution it serves. BUPD is a full police department with jurisdiction that is not limited to the University, and I believe having its own page is completely warranted. They work their own cases, and should be distinguished from the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department and State Police. BUPetey (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Petey. The basis upon which it is decided whether or not a subject has an article is called notability. The specific guideline for a police department is WP:ORG. Notability is judged not by how important you or I or anyone else judge the PD to be.It is determined by what is written about it in reliable sources. For companies and organizations there is an additional requirement that at least some of those sources be geographically disperse. I realize that's pretty convoluted language, so to simplify it a bit, if the department is not covered in books or magazines of wide circulation, or covered in newspapers from outside metro Indy, it isn't notable. Hope this helps you understand. Most municipal police departments are not notable, even less college police departments are. State police departments are all notable, due to the wide geographic areas they serve (and the subsequent coverage from that wide geographic area) . John from Idegon (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation; that makes sense. BUPetey (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:West Bloomfield High School graphic logo.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:West Bloomfield High School graphic logo.png. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Your note to Rswallis10 was wonderful. I left one, too because I thought some editors were a little harsh. I was bitten very hard at one time and didn't even understand what the administrator was referring to. Even now I'm feeling the 'bite' of having my edits reverted and my editing 'hounded' by a very respected editor who seems to own a whole project. Thanks for encouraging Rswallis10. Best Regards,
Read the edit summary. And stay off my talk page. Content issues go on the article's talk page. Unless you have a required notification to make, don't post here. John from Idegon (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Fuck you 2.0
You are an idiot and an admin abuser.
I will keep coming back until my edits stay!
You know, I don't recall editing an article by that title, but it sure is intriguing. So is this the alpha version, the beta, or the final? I've been using the same old version for over 40 years and I've gotten tired if it. I sure hope there will be regular upgrades. Perhaps one of them may even address the special flavor of stupid that surrounds some political issues in SE Wisconsin. John from Idegon (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Pinnacle High School logo.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Pinnacle High School logo.jpg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
available. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
