User talk:Johnmarkh

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

John M Haskey Location: Stepney, London, UK I am a Civil Servant specifically working in reform and organisational / cultural change, with a particular interest in Knowledge Management and the use of Social Media to share knowledge. I am also a licensed Pentecostal Christian minister and adherent to the Foursquare Gospel movement.

Knowledge Management: Ethics[edit]

You wrote: Noteiced you removed the category. Ethics is an important consideration in the field of Knowledge Management. Many 'in power' use Knowledge as a tool to control either subordinates or customers. There is considerable literature, often from Management Consultyants, who advocate using Knowledge to gain a commercial advantage often under the guise of efficiency. rgds J Johnmarkh 16:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

While I do not doubt that ethics is an important consideration in knowladge management, thew reverse is certainly not true, namely knowledge management is not a central concept in ethics generally speaking. Since categories should contain only pages that are central to the fields they represent, I removed the category. See WP:CG for guidlines. Karol 17:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)



Hello, Johnmarkh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- KHM03 (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

PS - I see you've been here for a while but were never properly welcomed. We're sorry for that...happy editing! KHM03 (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ed redirects[edit]

I noticed that some of your disambiguations for "Ed" are a bit odd- you are aware that the link Ed (UNIX) redirects to the Ed (Unix), right? --maru (talk) contribs 02:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I have realised that I have been a little inconsistent, possibly becuase subconciously I started to think 'Ed (UNIX)' is the correct version - 'ed' after all was an editor for the original UNIX trademarked system.

This all started becuase I moved the original 'ed' page to 'ed (disambiguation), without first checking the 'what links here' page and then thoght I was obliged to change all the links (eventually I was hoping to ask for 'ed' to be deleted so there wouldn't be a need for a redirect but that 'ed (disambig' would be found the search. Since then I have found that 'redirects are cheap' on resources etc and that I could be better employed doing something else. I do get slightly anoyed though when I search for a term and it comes up with a page that isn't (POV) the most common useage and I then have to click on the link to go to a 'see xyz for other uses of the phrase'.


Hi John, and thanks for signing up to the portal! As a member, you have no obligations, but are free to suggest any articles or pictures to showcase, as well as suggest improvements to the portal itself. Hopefully I'll see you round the wiki! Brisvegas 10:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Your question[edit]

See Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Incorrect user reference in revision history.

Prodego talk 17:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, you just happened to edit in between, it happens all the time. Prodego talk 18:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Copy of enquiry:-

Incorrect user reference in revision history[edit]

When comparing versions of a particular document it shows my user name as the editor of some vandalism.

It does not show up in my list of contributions and the 'Article History' shows that the contribution was made by an anonymous IP ( It was quickly removed by someone else and a little investigation will show that I didn't add the comments.

But it still concerns me that if someone simply looks at the 'compare selected versions' window that it appears that I am the vandal.

Is this a known problem that someone is looking at? And can the current record be changed ?

forgot to sign previously Johnmarkh 17:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It is probably nothing to worry about, but just to make sure this isn't a bug could you provide a link to the diff please? Prodego talk 17:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

final entry on Johnmarkh

Mel Gibson Edit[edit]

I am assuming that this edit was a mistake. --Asbl 16:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I know it sounds lame but 'it was not me'. In this instance all I did was to remove the words 'alchoholic and anti-semite' and then saved.(The incident about alcohol and antisemitic comments were already included further down the page and I considered the addition to be unneccessary, possibly a personal attack and POV - however my edit must have occurred at the same time as another user and now in fact it looks like I was doing a more serious unsatisfactory comment.

I have complained once before about the fact that an edit that I didn't do was attributed in the history file to me to be told by an Admin that 'it happens' and not to worry about it! It is of some concern when the language used is not what I would ever consider saying let alone putting into print. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnmarkh (talkcontribs) .

I guess this happened because there was an edit conflict, where another user saved the page while you were editing. Typically, if you work on one section, and another user works on another section, then there are no problems. I think the problem occurs when you work on a section, and another user works on the entire article (or vise versa, you work on the entire article, and another user works on a section). --Asbl 16:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia information team" <>

Dear John,

Thank you for your mail. Unfortunately, the problems associated with deleting the revision outweigh any misunderstanding that may result from the misattribution. Deleting a single revision normally requires that the entire article be temporarily deleted. Due to the large number of edits to the page (1736 as of this message), this has a noticeable effect on server performance.

The bug that causes it is quite rare; it requires that two edits to the same section of the text be submitted simultaneously. Since the rest of your contributions are in good faith, nobody will hold the misattributed edit against you.

I'm sorry I couldn't help. :)

Yours sincerely,

  • I wrote to Wikipedia information team" <>

My user name is Johnmarkh

The edit history on 'my contributions' page shows the following edit 16:56, July 31, 2006 (hist)(diff) m Mel Gibson (rv POV comment) Clicking on (diff) indicates that my user account added the comment ' Total scumsucking racist, homophobic hack'

I would neither attack a person in this way nor use this language. In fact the I was reverting to a previous edit to simply remove the comment "alcoholic and anti-semite " and I am very upset that my attempt to make the article less POV has be turned around to look like I was comitting a greater vandalism. I was at my PC all the time and no-one else could have made it using my PC. There was a lot of activity at that time on this page and my reversion has somehow become mixed with another editors additions.

Please correct this error in the history as soon as possible. This kind of incorrect attribution of edits has only ocurred to me once before but I feel that it is essential that they should be avoided and the bug that allows it to happen be fixed. (Note that on both occasions the error seems to have happened when two users reverted the page at the same time). I appreciate that the history file should wherever possible not be altered however in this instance the information recorded is incorrect and should be modified.

rgds Johnmark

Still not happy but can't see how to move forward? Johnmarkh 21:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Whilst searching for the origin of:

Representation of a problem-solution in a human-mind is knowledge.

in the WP:Knowledge article, i found most if not all the references to be copies of the WP definition-usually without referencing WP as the origin.

Whilst this shows the effect of WP on the web it also raises the difficulty of knowing which is the original source (especially as WP wants not to be original though/research).

As Google especially weights searches to those items that are linked to each other we have a virtuous circle whereby WP gains importance simply from others who link to it (through either reasons off efficiency or as they value WP).

If this continues then won't we end up with WP dominating the web and thus effectiveley becoming the 'web index'?

In any case I could not immediateley find the source of the statement which appears to be out of synch with the rest of the paragraph and theis note is to remind you to improve the article

Hindu temples[edit]

In view of your recent edit, I'm curious where in Europe there is a larger Hindu temple than Neasden. -- Arwel (talk) 10:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

see also bbc news

Johnmarkh 10:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I hadn't heard of this new one! -- Arwel (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Scotland infobox[edit]

Template:Scotland infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Durin 18:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Marking changes minor[edit]

Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! —Celithemis 05:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Val K Seamus vandalism[edit]

Looks like you made it pretty plain that non constructive edits are not appreciated. He was too clever for me to catch the vandalism. His contributions are all blank now. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


rgds, +|:) johnmark 16:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Knowledge is what is now known.[edit]

Thanks for your question. I've replied at talk:knowledge. Banno 22:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


removed material regarding Stepney Red House gang as unsupported /original research. Left following on users home page 'Thank you for the observations regarding Stepney. Wikipedia however is an encyclopedia that seeks to support all of its material by references to existing works. If the material you have added has support by references in local newspapers / coucil reports etc than please supply the references and the material can be returned. rgds, ||:) johnmark† 19:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)'

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Button sig2.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 19:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Carrie Hayden[edit]

Thanks for the notice; I have nominated it at WP:AFD. It'll no doubt keep coming back until it's deleted by the community - after which it can be deleted on sight WP:CSD#G4. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 21:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Date wiki-linking[edit]

'Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic' In light of this is it appropriate for every mention of a date in an article to be wikilinked ? I'm looking at your edit of 'Torchwood' and can't see how the links add to the understanding of the article (forgive me if I'm just being thick). Also by linkking to each day and year seperateley doesn't that break the date auto-formatting ? Trying to understand rather than just revert johnmark† 23:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmarkh (talkcontribs)

Please read MOS:DATE#Autoformatting and linking; it describes the policy and basic rationale. Unfortunately, it doesn't give the history for it (not practical in a policy page). The reason for using the linking syntax for full dates is not to provide links to the separate articles, although this is obviously a side effect (and one that many Wikipedians wish wasn't the case). The reason is that Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia whose readers use many different date formats. Somewhere in its history (I don't recall when), as the community made an effort to get away from its early American style biases, the developers made it possible for the rendering engine to display dates in one of several common styles by using the link syntax.
The autoformatting works in two different ways. Dates like "2002-04-03" need only a single link. But dates in which the months are spelled out require separate month-date and year links, which signals the rendering engine to combine these consecutive links (with or without an intervening comma) into a fully formatted three-part date. Some people use the "YYYY-MM-DD" notation for just this reason. But I'm sure you'll find in MOS:DATE (and probably in WP:MOS as well) that spelled-out months are highly desirable in article prose, both for easier editing and avoidance of error and confusion. (There's nothing "obvious" about what "04-03" means globally, and Wikipedia aims to be editable by anyone, not just technologists and bureaucrats who know standards.) The result is that most of the time, one must use the odd two-link system.
In summary, date linking really doesn't add anything significant to the context of the article. The tiny utility of such links, while inadequate to justify linking all date text, is (grudgingly) accepted in the specific situations set in "Autoformatting and linking" because it globalizes the encyclopedia. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: I can't type that fast[edit]

Hi, I'm sorry that I removed the image so fast. It looks like everything's OK now, so I hope that there's no hard feelings. I've got one small request though - can you include a link to your user or talk page in your signature? east.718 at 01:25, April 11, 2008

Glimpse of insight - lightbulb goes on - doh - I didn't realise I had taken the links out of my signature - it might explain why bots kept on adding the 'this unsigned comment was added by ...etc' when I had already signed it..[User:Johnmarkh:johnmark†][UserTalk:Johnmarkh:talk to me 22:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC) just checking it works now
didn't - cos' I got the syntax wrong - [User:Johnmarkh|johnmark†][UserTalk:Johnmarkh|talk to me 22:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
one could get angry with oneself....johnmark†talk to me 22:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Red Arrows 003.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Image:Red Arrows 003.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Red Arrows 003.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)