Jump to content

User talk:Jonpatterns

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Phd.dr.candidate (talk | contribs) at 16:36, 18 June 2015 (→Hey Violet). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Jonpatterns. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

To read-

Read-

Enjoy editing, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! -- Trevj (talk) 08:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Creative Micro Designs, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages C64 and C128 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pfaff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hole (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of taxes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Goods (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Transition Towns (network) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • - e.g. villages ([[Kinsale#Transition towns|Kinsale]]), neighbourhoods of cities ([[Portobello]]], Edinburgh), through council districts ([[Penwith]]) to cities and city boroughs ([[Brixton]]). <

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fractional Reserve

Hello Jonpatterns. I saw your note on Fractional Reserve Banking talk. I suggest you review the history of the article and talk page and archives. The problem has not been a lack of other editors attempting to engage in talk and policy-based editing there. Please have a look if you wish. SPECIFICO talk 13:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eco-industrial development, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Closed loop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zero-sum game, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Simmons (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amazon Coin, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Android and Kindle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: RepRisk (May 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
JustBerry (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Teahouse logo
Hello! Jonpatterns, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! JustBerry (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Special economic zone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DTA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Project update

Regarding this discussion, I created a watchlist so we can get a good look at the current project activity. Here's the last 250 edits. Viriditas (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: great stuff, it may be worth getting the 'popular pages' for the project - if it doesn't already (Wikipedia:Lists_of_popular_pages_by_WikiProject). Jonpatterns (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's an excellent suggestion! More later... Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: as you may or may not know, Toolserver is down, and many accounts are either migrated or in the process of being migrated to the new labs server. The "popular pages" list was, I believe once updated by this tool. It is not yet clear to me if this tool is still in use. However, a similar tool maintained by a bot run by User:Kaldari, appears to be active. I have made a request about using it here. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update, not sure want is happening with User talk:Mr.Z-man, who set up the stats for the economics project. (PS - I haven't forgotten your question regard the Anti-war, but I need to spend a little time to think about that.) Jonpatterns (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of Anti-war project

Regarding the importance scale, I'm still having a problem with the scope, so I'm staying focused on that now for the moment. I stopped using the importance scale many years ago, and several large projects have deprecated the parameter and phased out its usage. It certainly gives editors busywork, but results in little benefit. The way to proceed is to organize by topic, and to figure out the scope from there. Any ideas on how you would change the current scope if you could? At present, the scope says it is focused on anti-war movements and ideologies, but it's so much more than that. Does that scope best describe what editors are currently doing? Viriditas (talk) 11:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: I take your point about the 'importance scale' making a lot of work for little return. Although I find it interesting to look at the statistics. I guess it only becomes useful if there or a few editors willing to work on what ever the scale indicates. Regarding the scope, it does say articles relating to anti-war movements and ideologies - not just those things in themselves. It would be useful to have example which do fall under those categories, and compare to examples which should be included - but which aren't covered by that scope. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if you could identify the top 10-30 articles that are essential for understanding the topic of antiwar. That would help narrow the scope. In addition, a list of key concepts would be instructive. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Intersectionality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Domination. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination Sidebar Template

Hello, Jonpatterns.

Can you assist us by giving your opinion on the matter of inclusion/removal of Antisemitism, Anti-Masonry, and Islamophobia? Rainbowforpeace is not budging on the issue and neither am I, so we need a third opinion (hopefully more) to determine consensus. Could you please help? Thank you. Gstridsigne (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ECONOMICS

I noticed you were in the past an active contributor to WP:ECONOMICS. At the moment it seems rather inactive. Would you want to help me to make it more active again? NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NotYetAnotherEconomist Yes I can help in a limited way. What have you in mind? Jonpatterns (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh great. One thing we want to do is to make the main page more accesible. Is should become easier to coordinate what to do and how to do it. The current draft is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Redesign NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Blackboard Inc

Hi Jonpatterns, I'm looking for some help with a new draft that I'm proposing to update the Blackboard Inc. article's History section and add in a new Mergers and acquisitions section. Having noticed you made a helpful edit to the article earlier this year, I was wondering if you would be interested to take a look at my suggestions? I should note, I'm working for Blackboard Inc. to propose these changes, but as an editor with a financial conflict of interest, I will not be making any direct edits to the article. Instead, I would be very grateful if you could review my proposed changes and make them in the live article, if they look ok.

Here is the full draft of the History and Mergers and acquisitions I'm proposing in my user space, and here's a diff between the live version and my draft History section, so that you can see the changes I'm proposing. Let me know if you have any questions or comments! Thanks in advance. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, just a quick note to let you know that another editor has responded to my request and I'm all set now. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 12:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 20 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of New Economy movement

Hello Jonpatterns,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged New Economy movement for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. One life to live (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eusko, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Blind and Traders (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Promoting Enduring Peace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Environmental (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Capitalist mode of production. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.
Redirect warring over Capitalist Mode of Production and Capitalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: hence, I brought it to wikipedia:third opinion. Jonpatterns (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Barthélemy de Laffemas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Gobelins
Kevin Carson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Mutualism

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the thanks! aoxiang翱翔(user)(talk) 14:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Labour economics

I see you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics, can you review the edits made to the labour economics article from 22 March to 25 March? Some(but not all) of the old material was unsourced, however the neoclassical perspective is more widespread in economics courses than the older labour theory of value, the article therefore ought to give a balanced view of the different theories. Lbertolotti (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lbertolotti: Thanks for the notification. The second part of the new lede appears to be obscure, Labour economics being a combination of Labour and Nature? I will need to check refs to confirm. Having had a brief over look of the changes, I think some/most of the new material can be kept but some of the old article needs to be brought back and referenced - as you say it is important to get a balanced article that reflects the broad understanding of the subject. Note, I have recently had a disagreement with the editor making the changes. Therefore, it would be better for another editor to review the changes. Labour economics diff March 22 -> March 26
Jonpatterns (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the ideal would be:

1. Labour theory of value: concept and history

2. Neoclassical theory of labour and an explanation of why LTV is no longer used by economists

3. Information economics: expand this section with classic references on the field

4. Personnel economics: someone needs to check the old references

5. Criticisms

Reference errors on 29 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jonpatterns. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User:Hendrick 99

I saw you revert a edit of his. as well as you are a member of wikiproject economics , you may interested to look up his whole edits in recent weeks in order to check whatever his merging articles is rude or not. Matthew_hk tc 09:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew hk: Thanks for the comment. I'm going to bear in mind that Hendrick 99 hasn't always use the correct merge procedure. I don't want to review the editor's recent weeks updates at the moment, in case it may come across as a personal attack. Other users will pick up any specific problems. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Capdown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Dub
Doug Casey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Equity
Household Name Records (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Dub
Kevin Carson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Counterpunch

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re Grey box completion and validation

See also reference to this removed. See talk:Systems theory BillWhiten (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: RepRisk (April 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Fiddle Faddle 21:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sharing economy

In case you did not know Wikipedia is not a reliable source for sourcing articles on Wikipedia as you seem to have thought on adding that link to Venus Projects page. Also there is no connection to Venus Project ideas and the information you are adding to that page about Sharing economy. You can not add non-sourced information to an encyclopedia. I hope you understand this now. If you start reverting for no reason in essence you may be edit warring which is something you do not want to do. Thanks Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Earl King Jr.: Thanks for the message. I am aware that wikipedia is not a reliable source. I referred to Venus Project being on the the Sharing Economy article to show that another editor thinks there is a link between the two subjects. In my opinion there is a link, the link is they treat property relations in a non-conventional way. Another article worthing linking to is Gift economy. An improvement to the Venus Project article would be more details about the project and its proposed resource-based economy.Jonpatterns (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion there is a link, the link is they treat property relations in a non-conventional way. Another article worthing linking to is Gift economy. An improvement to the Venus Project article would be more details about the project and its proposed resource-based economy. That is your opinion and not a reliable source. Also it has zero to do with a gift economy. The problem with improving Venus projects article is that they are not particularly notable with little being written about them. Also, resource based economy ideas are not orginal with Fresco. I doubt much of anything he did was original at least except for a few failed inventions and so forth. Mostly he has tried to garner up money and has done very little in the real world that I am aware of except for media speculation things. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Earl King Jr.:Thanks for the reply. I did not think my opinion was a reliable source. There is a link, how tenuous is debatable. What are resource based economy ideas, and who had similar ideas before? Jonpatterns (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google or search will tell you. Do a search on Thermoeconomics and also Technocracy Movement, also the physiocrats Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might find this history of biophysical economics interesting also [1] it kind of gives an overview of the subject. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

hey you thank you for disambiguating the results of my wiki-insomnia the other night. Usually I run back through and do it myself with Dabsolver, but you beat the bot to the punch! I never even got notified! In case you were wondering what all that was about with the table, I find the current layout a bit boring and was nerdifying a bit over the fact that the pictures were not lining up with their respective sections. But apparently there is some wierdness about the way wikipedia handles css and I'll have to look into it some more some other time. I think some of the documentation is out of date. But anyway, I eventually decided to leave well enough alone for the time being.

I saw you resized that one image, by the way -- I made it bigger on purpose because I think that ribbon-like effect is kinda boring and I'd like to address it, but eh. We don't have to argue about this. Let's see if I can even get what I want to do to work, and then perhaps we'll talk :) I did solve a similar problem on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_in_Otwock_Wielki kinda, I thought, but there was more text there to work with. Elinruby (talk) 07:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: thanks, that coffee was very nice. Regarding the pictures, I agree that the layout is a bit boring at the moment. The reason is because the article was too long, someone trimmed the text but left all the pictures. I made the pictures small as a work in progress. Probably some of the pictures will have to go. Alternatively, the 'gallery style' could be used, like you did on 'Palace in Otwock Wielki'.
The article needs re-balancing, organizing better and perhaps shortening. I have attempted to fix the table you created, ending up with just the frst paragraph in the table see my sandbox. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonpatterns: yeah it was a hot mess. I was kept thinking, someone is going to come onto this page and say what the hell. I really shoud have started it in the sandbox to begin with, but I have done tables before and I actually do speak css, and it looked like a trivial problem to begin with. I am not against pictures -- pictures are good --- they just shouldn't be screens and screens from their sections, not that it is quite that bad. I saw one example I rather liked but wasn't feeling ambitious enough to try last night, but I can't finc it just now. This here, though, appears to be a group of people having the sort of problems I was having. Possibly is is useful https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help_talk:Table.I will go look at your sandbox in a bit; I am on another advernture just now. Elinruby (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC) @Jonpatterns: hey, I see you got that caption working on that ship picture, what was the problem there? Elinruby (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: When using an image without <gallery> you need to add the |thumb| option - to add the frame and caption. Inside of <gallery> you only need the filename and caption.Jonpatterns (talk) 11:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jade Tree (record label), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lifetime (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Defiance Records (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Never Surrender
Ninja Tune (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Dobie

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Difference without a distinction

There is no difference between "merge" and "redirect" when the original article contains no reliably sourced material to merge. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedPenOfDoom:So why not use the Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers. This will allow more editors to consider the issue.Jonpatterns (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you edit tendentiously over a period and are a single purpose editor as your record shows you will be subject to being blocked. Read talk page histories if you have an interest but stop editing information for your groups and making it a showcase of their Faq's material and a format for your pov. You can be blocked from editing for tendentious behavior and it appears you are edit warring or trying to edit war information without consensus on Zeitgeist and Venus Project etc type of article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Earl King Jr.:I have not acted tendentiously over a period and neither am I single purpose editor. All I appear guilty of is having a different opinion to you. Regarding the Zeitgeist you are the one that is editing without discussing first. For the second time accusations without proof will be seen as a personal attack. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bowers Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Test equipment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 27 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your interest in the caregiver articles. Those articles get a fair amount of traffic and I am sure that some of it is from people who are dealing with family changes. I wish that they could be better, along with the set of articles on nursing, physical therapy, and basic nutrition. I appreciate the article sorting you have done. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry: That was a lovely cup of coffee, thanks. I am studying economics which plays apart in many areas of life. One problem may be that caregiving doesn't seem to fit easily into any WikiProject. Is there a place anywhere that lists improvements that could be made to this collection of articles? Jonpatterns (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jonpatterns No. If I had to choose a place then I suppose it would be either the talk page for caregiver or Template:Care navbox. We do not have wiki-vocabulary to describe all the articles within a category which is too small to be a wikiproject, except to maybe call it a "task force" and discuss it on a sub-project page of a wikiproject. If there were enough suggestions then I could come up with a place to put them, but for only a few suggestions, it would make sense to post them in a usual way like on an article talk page than in some extraordinary new way.
I participate in WikiProject Medicine but this does not quite fit in there. I might call caregiving "alternative medicine", but WP:ALTMED includes things like energy healing and that is not the same as caregiving, home therapy, and home nursing. It it tough to know how to organize change.
I could say more if you were really interested in this topic, but for casual collaboration if you get a small idea, ping me anytime. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Simmons Pet Food

Hello Jonpatterns,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Simmons Pet Food for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Ormr2014 (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ormr2014: a company with US$1 billion revenue is not notable? I'll add some more links that may help. Jonpatterns (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonpatterns: You're right. I was mistaken and have removed my nomination. I apologize for the hastiness. Ormr2014 (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Africa for Africa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Day by Day
Finance (No.2) Act 2010 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to 2010 United Kingdom Budget
Finance Act 2010 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to 2010 United Kingdom Budget

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages are not for general topic chat

Hi Jonpatterns! I saw your message on Earl King Jr's user_talk page and I just wanted to let you know that his removal of a message from the zeitgeist talk page appears to be justified under WP:NOTFORUM. Thanks for all your hard work in helping to build an encyclopedia! :-) OnlyInYourMind(talk) 07:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OnlyInYourMind: Hi, thanks for the comment. If you look at the removed comment, the first half of it was off topic. The first is about how bias may creep into Wikipedia, and how sources should be weighted. The second half was directly related to article discussion, how to characterise the Zeitgeist film.
If the comment was off topic, why not reply stating that. It looks using a collapse box is standard practice. Rather it seems part of a larger behaviour of Earl King Jr.'s to accuse editors with different opinions of bias and using single purpose accounts (SAG), rather than assume good faith. While the work Earl King Jr. is generally good, and sometimes SAGs have been involved, his attitude to other editors creates a hostile, non constructive, environment. It may be because he lacks the knowledge of how to check a users history when determining whether to use good faith.Jonpatterns (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he does appear combative. Not sure how to get this article back on track to cooperative characterizing of the topic. I have no experience with disruptive editors. OnlyInYourMind(talk) 08:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@OnlyInYourMind:Any edit to the article that is potentially controversial will have to be discussed on the talk page. If editors persist in editing the article without engaging on the talk page, record these events. If editors make personal attacks, again record these events. If the behaviour continues use the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, it is good practice to discuss problems with the user before hand.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New discussions on Portal:Capitalism

Here, your input is appreciated Lbertolotti (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lbertolotti: Thanks for the message. Do you mean in general or did you have something specific in mind? Jonpatterns (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the issues listed on the talk page.Lbertolotti (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding Intersex discrimination to discrimination template.

Ideally I think the best way to handle it would be to have an article on anti-Intersex discrimination. However I think that linking to the Intersex page and a section on discrimination is a good start. Thanks for being a thoughtful editor :) -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rainbowofpeace: I agree that a separate article would be the way to go, especially as currently the information is spread about different sections and articles. I may look into that when I have more time.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

70% of GDP answered

IRT your "who?" tag on a page. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finding solutions to biased editor dominance

I've also tried to find solutions to problematic editors. I guess the WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard is the best place to start. Unless you have something else in mind? OnlyInYourMind(talk) 20:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OnlyInYourMind: thanks for the message. I've had a problem with an editor on that page. They do not engage with making the article neutral and reflecting what the sources says. Instead they accuse editors of being biased single purpose account, but then go on and insert there own bias into the article, regardless of what the sources say. Also, reverting any new edit to the article. The problem is that proving they are inserting their bias into the article and they are not engaging in meaningful discussion would means watching the article over time, and recording the order of events and discussion - as they also have an annoying habit of commenting later on discussions, after they have edited the article to their own pleasing! This can give the appearance of some engagement in debate, when really they are patrolling the article. Frankly, I haven't got the time. Jonpatterns (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are really not a good place to agitate negatively about other editors. I suggest you use caution with building a case and assuming you are right calling other editors this and that. This could boomerang. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Violet

Can you please watch what you're reverting? At the Hey Violet article, you said "Restore removed information", but you actually ended up removing a lot of helpful and sourced content that had been added to the article from that wholesale revert. Kokoro20 (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kokoro20: Thanks for the heads up, I may have restored the wrong version. Someone had removed information from the top of the article. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Jonpatterns

Thanks for welcoming me, I look forward to working with you and wiki colleagues Phd.dr.candidate (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jonpatterns&oldid=667511763"