User talk:JonHarder/Archive/4: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:03, 27 January 2008

This is the talk page for talking to, with or about me - JonHarder

I nearly always answer on this page, so watch for a response here. If I placed a comment on your talk page, I will look there for your response.

If you are here because I deleted an external link you are particularly fond of, please review the conflict of interest, external links, how not to be a spammer and what Wikipedia is not policies and guidelines.

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page. The easiest way to do this is by starting here.

Please respect

Talk page guidelines & Wikiquette

List of applications developed by David Watanabe PRODed for deletion.

The article List of applications developed by David Watanabe is proposed for deletion. You have made edits to this page, so I have informed you as a courtesy. Thanks, Bpringlemeir 21:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I would endorse the prod, but another editor has already done so! ✤ JonHarder ^talk 21:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The prod was contested. The David Watanabe list is proposed for deletion. You have made edits to this page, so I have informed you as a courtesy. Bpringlemeir 14:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP Zimbabwe

You have been invited to join the WikiProject Zimbabwe, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of Zimbabwe. If you'd like to join, just add your name to the member list. Thanks for reading!

Part 19:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I watch the Bulawayo page, but probably won't get more involved than that for the time being. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 03:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico City rewind

Hi there,

I just wanted to say thanks for the "rewind" you did on Mexico City; I'm still an amateur at editing, and basically I got a bit confused with what was going on. So, thanks again!

Richardmtl 20:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Sometimes it helps to look at the recent history and check the diffs of several recent edits to get out all the damage. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 03:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agar Spam ?

Hello. I'm relatively new to wiki and have been trying to do things right. I'm presently making efforts on elements of category:Sea vegetables and would like to help improve any of these articles. I am still getting to know the guidelines. I've visited the external links for Agar and find that the Rose's Kitchen multiple entry does not have anything for sale, so it seems okay in that regard, however, I feel wikipedia's policy is to NOT list recipe links on a food page, but I haven't actually seen that guideline anywhere, so I'm uncertain. HOWEVER, Science Buddies does sell science kits on that main page, does that make it inapropriate?--Tallard 01:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied ✤ JonHarder ^talk 11:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet café‎

If you have some time, would you please read over Internet café‎ (an article you previously contributed to) and make any necessary changes. Some recent edits may not make the grade. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 15:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LON-CAPA

Hi Jon, you twice put reference remarks into this article. I can fully understand the desire to create articles that have information from reliable sources. However, in many cases this is not possible, as there are no third party sources. Nevertheless, this information is factual and not at all of a speculative nature. Information that may appear speculative needs to be backed up, but one need not back up the obviously observable. The LON-CAPA article is very neutral and makes no special claims or judgements. It simply attempts to describe a learning platform that is largely unresearched. As I am an expert in the area of E-Learning, I happen to know quite a bit about LON-CAPA. What do you suggest here? Most Wikipedia articles that contain "new information" don't have references. What do you have against this article specifically? Chorpita (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is one of the core policies of WIkipedia and reliable third party sources an integral guideline. The very existence of an article hinges on these important policies and guidelines. As the verifiability policy states,

If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

As an expert in the field, you are in a position to identify those third party sources. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 22:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I agree with you and I cleaned up the article. Thanks for emphasizing the guidelines. I am new here, so it helps to get some tips. Chorpita 13:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Jimmy Leonard Stolk

Hi Jon,

Could you please elaborate why you nominated Jimmy Leonard Stolk? In the summary you only mention that you could not find his name on the internet, but I assume you read the article, saw what the subject is, and continued your search elsewhere? I am not totally up to date with enwiki's policies, but what made you so sure that this person was absolutely not encyclopedia-worthy, so much, that the article has to be speedied? Thanks for the explanation. effeietsanders 15:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I based my nomination on the fact the Stolk is not mentioned in the December murders article nor could I find any reference to "Jimmy Leonard Stolk" and "December murders" doing a Google search. No reference was provided in the article and it appeared impossible to verify the information (I see a reference has since been added). Biographies of living people gives certain minimum standards about unsupported claims about living people. With the added reference, the article is fine, though it might be more appropriate to merge it into the December murders article. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 22:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that still doesn't make clear why you choose for a speedy insted of regular deletion procedure. By the way, a Google query gives several sources, mainly newspapers, about the december murders. That little information is available in English is to be expected of course. A merger of 25+15 biographies in the december murders article (an article about the happening, not about the people involved) would not seem appropriate to me by the way. I assume you will share this opinion if you look some further into the matter :) effeietsanders 07:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My rule of thumb is to tag articles for speedy deletion that I am 90% certain an administrator will agree qualify. I believed this article did not provide enough context to establish it as a valid article topic. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 01:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, never too late to learn apperently, I always was under the assumption that speedy deletion was not about whether an admin agreed on deleting or not, but about whether it either damages the encyclopedia (vandalism, nonsense, commercialism) either is really really really non-encyclopedic (and generally nonsense), and that with any doubt, one should use a normal deletion procedure. But, well, I am not that long active on enwiki, so I might have misunderstood the principles here (they probably changed from the original wikipedia concept) Thanks for clarifying. effeietsanders 16:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on people, companies and some other topics can be deleted without discussion if they don't indicate what makes them notable. That definitely is a change from the earlier days. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 18:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, really bad haikus from a new admin

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Click there for my RfA spam haikus! → → →

Jon, thanks so much for your support in my RfA.

I just noticed you're not an admin -- can I talk you into standing for adminship? --A. B. ^(talk) 01:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, enjoy your haikus

Congrats on your adminship! This will increase your effectiveness and value to the project. Yes, someday I will stand for adminship, but I am not quite ready yet.✤ JonHarder ^talk 17:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benedictus

Hello Jon, please would you explain why you view it as off-topic to mention (i) another service in which this canticle is used and (ii) its relevance there? [1] - Fayenatic (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reviewing my edit, I removed too much text from that area of the article. I will restore

It is also used in various other liturgical offices, notably at a funeral, at the moment of interment, when words of thanksgiving for the Redemption are specially in place as an expression of Christian hope.

which appears appropriate for that article. The part that I still believe is off-topic is the next sentence:

The name is also given to a part of the Roman Catholic Mass that begins with Benedictus qui venit.

which does not refer to Luke 1:68-79 and is more properly covered in Benedictus or perhaps Sanctus.

Does this help address your concern? ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, excuse the delay in responding. Yes, that's fine now. Thanks, Fayenatic (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to remove Tag on Karnataka/Carnatic music

To date there is clear support to keep the Karnataka/Carnatic music site as is without merging. Rebuttals are given to all comments and they are no counter rebuttals. There appears to be some looping comments. As of now I assume a consensus is reached about not to merge the site. Therefore may I request you to remove the 'tag' so that I can focus on improvising the site. Naadapriya (talk) 10:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to hang on several days or a week. There is an emerging consensus that the article should not be merged. However, the article needs to be renamed to something more clear. The slash (/) means what? If you focus on working that out, perhaps the merge question will resolve itself. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 13:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr. JonHarder, thanks for the response. I will wait till next week. Meanwhile I will research on alternate names without '/'. To rename should I create a site with new title or is there a way to rename the current title.Naadapriya (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very easy to do by using the "move" tab at the top of the article. It would be good to first suggest the new name on the talk page with the merge discussion because that will help bring that discussion to a successful conclusion and you may get some helpful suggestions or alternatives there. There is no rush to rename the page; giving it a little time will make sure everone's idea will be heard. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 19:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I will follow the instructions.Naadapriya (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My article ‘Karnataka/Carnatic Music’ has been mistakenly deleted by an ‘admn’ based on unjustified suggestion by an editor. My requests with point by point responses to the criticisms are not honored. Now I need to rebuild it. Public needs Karnataka Music site based on verifiable facts. It may take a while for me to rebuild since I cannot access the source. Based on some suggestions I received so far I will find a new title. Thanks for your support.Naadapriya (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like the deletion was a mistake. Blnguyen‎ is an experienced and knowledgeable editor and administrator. It would be best to brush up on WIkipedia policy and guidelines and cooperate with the other editors of Carnatic Music to improve that article. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 20:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understand Mexico

Hello Jon, you recently put a comment on my talk page regarding my external links to UnderstandMexico.com I'd like to have a discussion about my project and wikipedia with you and get a bit of advice. I'd like to do this on my talk page so that if other users want to see our dialog as a result of any of the external links I have/will create they will have easy access to it. See you there, Aburda (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of reference material submitted by goldrush1849

John, I was a bit surprised to see the removal of reference material submitted by myself and a reference to my company name "Les Kelly Enterprises" as a spam.

I am the co-author/illustrator/photographer of a number of biographical photo books written by Williamt T. Anderson, the noted and awared winning biographer of Laura Ingalls Wilder, i.e., Laura Ingalls Wilder Country, The Little House Guidebook, et al, and http://lauraingallswilder.com, all of which have authentic biographical information about Laura Ingalls Wilder ... some of the books are published by HarperCollins and others are self published. I am at a loss as to why these would be consider "spam" but then I grew up way the heck before "spam" became more than the stuff in a can that we ate after WWII and didn't know that it was not good stuff.

Each of the above books contain images, some historical, some current, all provide bio and authentic images of things that were and are today of interest to millions of people around the world. They are consider reference books, hence they were listed un resources and reference materials. That fact that I am also a writer, photographer, publisher doesn't seem to me, at least, to meet the moniker of "spammer".

Same goes with the books about the Amish. America's Amish Country I and America's Amish Country II. They are excellent references. I would also note that you have websites about the Amish that contain advertising and are commercial enterprises but listed as reference material and so while I am at it, I would question their inclusion when http://amish.net is not included.

Forgive my ignorance but I did read each of the subjects carefully before posting ... and if you would like for me to point out the various books and websites that are very similar to mine that you removed, I would be happy to do so. I am spending the week in Fairbanks, am snowed/frozen in but have very workable internet access and not a lot to do as I wait out the weather while overlooking (so I am told) an incredible view of the southern edges of the Brooks Range.

I just took a look at the Wikipedia's listing of Kelly v Arriba Soft. I am the Kelly in this landmark Internet image and copyright infringement/intellectual property violation lawsuit. I see that Wikipedia references a good bit of the factual information taken from http://netcopyrightlaw.com, a commerical venture that I operate based on this case. Is its listing here in violation of the "spam" clause. I didn't post it but then ...

Your thoughts?

With best regards,

Leslie A. KellyGoldrush1849 (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC) User "goldrush1849" at http://wikipedia.org[reply]

Author, Photographer [2] [3] [4]

The issue here is the conflict of interest policy, which in a nutshell states, do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests … If your site or books are valuable, another neutral editor will discover and add it eventually. It is acceptable to point out resources that you have an interest in on the discussion page of an article, but don't expect that a neutral editor will decide to include it. In general, articles do not helped by more external links; to be improved article text itself must be expanded and refined. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 22:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop editing the WIKIPEDIA page for MENNONITE BRETHREN COLLGIATE INSTITUE. As principal, we take this matter very serious, already contacting WIKIPEDIA about you reversing the changes that we have made. We have had issues with some students defacing the page, but it has been taken care of promptly. We thank you in advance for letting us "run" our page, adding what we feel it needs, and reverting vandalism. All we ask is that we are able to change the WIKIPEDIA page for the school which I am principal, allowing us to better our public view.

Thanking you in Advance,

The MBCI Adminstration & Norbert Bargen.