User talk:JonHarder

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

Young Enterprise

Thank you for pointing out that the Young Enterprise article does not cite any references or sources. I'll be expanding the article in the near future and will make sure that it has plenty of references.

Toytown Mafia (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 11:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Pacifism links

Hello...I don't know how to respond to the nasty message that was left for me regarding a link I supplied for the pacifism entry. Please contact me by email so we can discuss this. You are being unnecessarily paranoid about spam here. I'm not spamming anything. The site I supplied offers the best collection of early Christian primary source material on the subject on the web. You should be thanking me for the link, not threatening me for it. Good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.113.241 (talk) 02:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same link has been inserted into a number articles repeatedly and removed by experienced editors. Wikipedia doesn't need more external links and this attempt to promote a website is not appropriate. Besides self-promotion, the external link and reliable source guidelines discourage blogs and other self-published personal opinion sites. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 11:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 23 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Groffdale Conference Mennonite Church, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Vishnava_talk 02:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i am right

as i am friends with one of the creators of bape and either correct the change now or the bape page will be deleted

thanks, edmond jones a bathing ape inc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.151.243 (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AFD for the process, but I doubt it will be successful. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 20:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air in tires

Sorry, I did not know that the subject was contriversial, I was only quoting the gentleman whose carriage I was admiring. He did not want his picture taken, but he did like to talk about his carriage! I have no references other than his statement. Johnherrick (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on user's page.[1] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 12:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amish‎ GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Amish‎ and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages of a few other editors and several related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Age

Nun liebe Kinder gebt fein acht ich bin die Stimme aus dem Kissen ich hab euch etwas mitgebracht ein heller Schein am Firmament

Thank you for revising, adding, and other things. I began the article and stop to check its evolution/devolution sometimes. BF (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Press

As far as I can tell, the misspelling is intentional.[2] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 19:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! It is indeed. Thanks for catching that. I've added an exception to my bot so it won't try to miscorrect it again. Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one

This one cracked me up. I just found and also, again, cleaned up and fixed all the found ones I could find. Have a good one! — Satori Son 19:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! My favorite is still increasingly less which must be the opposite of decreasingly more. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Civilian Public Service

Hi. It looks as if you've nominated this article for GA under the Religion and Mythology category. Perhaps you meant to put it under Politics and Government or something similiar? Take care, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides those two categories it could also go under History -> War and Military. What does one do when it is a toss up? ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thank-you

Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jon, We're interested in improving Eastern Mennonite University's page. You've reviewed it and tagged it in several ways. How can we improve the content and be rid of the tags? Really would like your input. The wiki interface is a little confusing to a beginner so please bear with us. Marcy G, EMUMarcygineris (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EMU page

Jon, We're interested in improving Eastern Mennonite University's page. You've reviewed it and tagged it in several ways. How can we improve the content and be rid of the tags? Really would like your input. The wiki interface is a little confusing to a beginner so please bear with us. Marcy G, EMUMarcygineris (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a conflict of interest, but there are still several ways one can contribute. Responded an talk page.[3] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 18:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ordnung

Jon, you placed a comment box that there were too many external links on the Ordnung article page. Can you explain? I have seen other articles that contain a great deal more links, where as the Ordnung contains less than ten. What is the criteria and how was that derived? Rabbit Runner - Those who dance, appear insane to those who do not hear the music. 18:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe in doing some upfront work for the reader, which includes presenting them with only the very best external links that are not already used as references. Usually that means there are only two or three high-quality external links left. Some of the links currently at the end of the article do not address "Ordnung" specifically, some don't add anything that we don't already have, some have an objectionable amount of advertising and some are difficult to gauge for reliability (and probably aren't!). You are likely familiar with the external links guidelne that addresses some of these issues. I'm about to go on an extended break and won't be too concerned about that article, but will eventually come back to it.

You do good work as an editor and I appreciate that. Recently you added new material to Amish. Would you mind adding sources to some of the new paragraphs that have none? Since its restoration to good article status, I have an eye on trying to make it a featured article. The references would help, plus any other ideas you have to round out the article and make it complete. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 18:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a question. One of the external links, I would agree, is from a website that is not neutral. However the linked page presents Ordnung information which I've not been able to locate from any other source, either online or from the printed page. http://www.amishabuse.com/ordnung.htm. I'm new enough to Wikipedia that I'm still learning my way around. So how should this page's information be presented while attempting to maintain a neutral position? There are a fair amount of details which would enhance the reader's understanding of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbit.runner (talk • contribs) 12:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that site as helpful either as a source or external link. It is self-published, which conflicts with the verifiability policy. With respect to topics related to the Amish, there are volumes of scholarly works available from historians (Nolt), sociologists (Kraybill), anthropologists (Herd, to some extent), and others that are published by top universities. If a topic isn't mentoined by the experts, major coverage in the article is probably undue weight. Consider making a trip to the library and to find some of these authors! ✤ JonHarder ^talk 13:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Anabaptists Article

I have read your comments on why you deleted the major corrections made to the article on Anabaptists. I have tried on numerous occassions to make gradual changes in clear errors on the article both in linguistics and content that is not factual Anabaptists history, but Mennonite history. These small changes you deleted as well. I am open to discussing a major change in the entire Anabaptists article. And though as the Continental Bishop of the Anabaptists Churches of North America, I may be new to Wikipedia and how to use it, the fact remains, that the article is completely dominated, edited and controlled by Mennonites and about Mennonites and those branching off from the Mennonites. The article is not about Anabaptists.

Anabaptists history did not start, nor did it cease with Menno Simons or his followers. Neither did it cease with John Smith and the Baptists. It is a historical fact that will not go away, because Mennonites want the name to go away, or at least be associated with themselves alone. Anabaptists were here long before Menno, and have been here ever since. We did not drop the "Ana" from our name, nor did we change it as a memorial to one or more leaders. But Anabaptists are still here, and we take great exception to the false slant of this Wikipedia article that follows the typical Mennonite twist of factual church history, in trying to convince people that Mennonites are Anabaptists and the only Anabaptists. I believe that one of the tennets of the Wikipedia rules is that information be factual and true. This article IS NOT TRUE as it relates factually to Anabaptists today or yesterday. And it makes absolutely false claims that the historic use of the word relates to Mennonites, Amish, Hutterian etc. and that the only Anabaptists are the Mennonite lieneage of today. This is absolutely false. This article does not even define the word Anabaptists correctly. The Greek word anaBaptizo is a transliteration upon the Latin as it first appeared in the Justinian Code. The Greek prefix "Ana" does mean "re" as derived from 'again' in the link to the verb Baptizo and no Greek lexicon would remove it from its position and define it as a prepositional phrase in an attempt to produce a translated meaning of a noun. The word Anabaptist is a transliterated noun from the presupposition koine Greek term "anabaptisma", "another baptism". And in that useage, the "ana" stands as an adjective not a preposition. Hence, ana is "another" in connection to the noun useage. The Imperial Code condemned anyone baptizing a person from "another religion", whether that was the person's first or second baptism. Thousands of Christians were condemned as "anabaptists" who never baptized anyone. They were condemned for be baptized themselves, many for the first time.

As the bishop of the Anabaptists Churches of North America, I take great exception to this article as not being true and factual, and editorially is slanted and domineered by Mennonite editors that have no intention of allowing the factual histories of Anabaptist today and past to counter the Mennonite corruption of Anabaptists history. Bishop Ron McRae (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to start discussing your proposed changes is on the article's discussion page. I think the article needs a lot of work. I don't know the background of the other editors of the article, so I have no way to know if it is dominated by a particular group. The notes and references section indicates a variety of sources were used, and they are by no means dominated by Mennonite sources. There have been a couple of tendentious editors who have made similar claim, which just works against consensus building. There is much high quality scholarly material on the topic of Anabaptism that this article has not yet touched, so there is a lot of good information yet to be added. The better the source, more likely it is that consensus can be formed to accept the new information. Though the article is for from perfect, I think in the long term these problems will eventually be worked out. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 01:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

siting references

You left a message about a change I made to the article on war bonds. You said that I need to have references for what I wrote about. I attempted to follow the example of the original author but apparently I didn't do a proper job of it. If you would be so kind as to be specific and show me where I need these references I will be more then happy to supply them. Gb2g —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gb2g (talk • contribs) 05:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on user's talk page.[4] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 14:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian Public Service GA

Jon,

Civilian Public Service has been on hold for over a week, with no subtantial improvements. I see that you, as major contributor and nominator, haven't edited in that time, so I'm hoping you're on vacation. However, if I don't see improvements to the article by the end of this weekend, I am going to procedurally fail the GA, because "hold" is not forever. However, if you don't get back until after I've done this, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page when you fix and re-nominate the article. I'll be happy to review it in an expedient manner if and when that happens. Jclemens (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am away and have had much less network access than I expected. I will get back to the GA changes once I have better access to sources and the Internet. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 13:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any update on when that will be? Jclemens (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to get back to this in April. Unfortunately, between being away and having a number of other significant responsibilities I have not been able to give that kind of quality time to Wikipedia that it takes to do justice to quality article writing. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 00:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest?

Jon,

You posted that I might have a conflict of interest. Let me state that 1) I do not work for any theological organization, 2) Do not have my own organization, and 3) Do not profit from my posts/edits to Wikipedia.

While it is true that I may hold to a minority opinion on various points, all my posts are accurate (and documentably so). I strongly believe that Wikipedia has many editors in the realm of Christianity that are incredibly biased and not neutral. A case in point is that any time I have posted anything that indicates that there are non-Greco-Roman forms of Christianity that did not proceed from them, that is always removed. I try to add balance to many articles and am academically qualified to do so.

Best regards, HistoryThD

HistoryThD (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Christianity articles do need much work and I also see much bias. Please continue to make improvements as you can. My chief concern is that you mainly use one website as a source, cogwriter.com, which appears to be a self-published website that in my opinion does not qualify as a reliable source as defined by WP:RS. Can you find a better source, and if this is your own website, avoid linking to it? ✤ JonHarder ^talk 00:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft

Hello. Would you have any interest in translation the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft [5] article into English? Thank you. 66.191.19.150 (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will pass on this one. I have translated some of the Anabaptist-related articles, which are easier for me to do, as I know the topic and have English sources to double check facts. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 00:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, said article now exists in English. Albeit, with less information that the Deutsch version. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive edits

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to 75.38.79.95. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ✤

P.S. I've never even viewed the article you said I vandalized. Do you understand the concept of dynamic IPs? A word to the wise, know what you're talking about first if you're going to be a busy body. (You'd think an encyclopedia editor would already know that!) It's people like you that have made Wikipedia almost unusable. Why can't you apply your self-important b.s. attitude to something that isn't supposed to be for everyone? -- 75.38.79.95 (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard practice to warn IP addresses so that if the problem persists, they can be blocked. If you continue to have problems, the solution is to create an account and sign in as a registered user. Try not to get too stressed over this! ✤ JonHarder ^talk 00:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voth, Henry R.

Hi, saw you improved my Voth remark on the Mennonite site. I· m interested in him because the german art historian Aby Warburg visited him at Oraibi, bought Hopi photographs and stuff from him. I could give you my bookmarks on him, if you were interested--Radh (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your change was helpful,[6] and I was glad to document it further.[7] I would be interested in your links, if you want to share them. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 00:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Backslash paper

An article that you have been involved in editing, Backslash paper, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backslash paper. Thank you. Cybercobra (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Robert Greenham - Conflict of Interest

Hi,

I have just added a warning to the above user for blatant promotion of his own publication. I noticed you had warned him back in 2008 for conflict of interest 'violation' having also removed some of his links. I have removed several other links to his blog he hasadded since that time, regards Tmol42 (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad my documentation has been helpful. I have a backlog of such edits from other authors to check on… ✤ JonHarder ^talk 00:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:French Republican Calendar

Would you mind going to comment I left on French RC page? Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on article's talk page[8] and reverted the edit in question, pending further discussion. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 19:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Order of sections

Is there a "standard" order for what you call the end sections? In nearly all Wikipedia articles that I am familiar with, the References (footnotes) section comes immediately after the text, and the "See also" section comes immediately before the "External links" section. To me it seems logical to have the footnotes close to the text, and the suggestions for further study, whether inside or outside Wikipedia, close together. But perhaps you know of some rule on this matter of which I am unaware. Lima (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a standard order defined in the style manual at MOS:APPENDIX:

(a) a list of books or other works created by the subject of the article (works),

(b) a list of internal "wikilinks" to related Wikipedia articles (see also),

(c) notes and references (notes, footnotes, or references),

(d) a list of recommended relevant books, articles, or other publications that have not been used as sources (further reading), and

(e) a list of recommended relevant websites that have not been used as sources (external links).

See the note there for the rational of giving priority to internal material as opposed to external content. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 17:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice About Wikipedia GAMEO article

Jon, someone has posted a brief article Wikipedia article on GAMEO (Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online) that is very inadequate and inaccurate. Since I'm the managing editor of that site, I have a conflict of interest in trying to work on it. Do you have suggestions, or could you do a bit of work. Some material could be copied from the GAMEO "Who We Are" page. I'm not sure Wikipedia needs a GAMEO article, but if one is there I'd like it to be better. Sam (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it some time. Note to self: MWC news release is an independent source.[9] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 21:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dayton, Ohio

Thank you for reverting the recent vandalism edit on the Dayton, Ohio article. I appriciate it, and I am sure that many others do as well.Texas141 (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Fox article

I'm trying to figure out how to contribute/edit responsibly. I picked you to ask because you are the name at the top of a listing of people who have edited/contributed to the George Fox article to which I would like to make a few relatively minor changes. I respect the work and effort that others have expended here. Rather than just up and start making changes as the boilerplate says I can do, it would be my preference to ask the whoevers that have put the most work in on this article if he/she/they feel my changes would be a modification for the better or at least neutral. My question is, then, how do I figure out who is/are the current person(s) honchoing this article or having the greatest amount of time invested in it, and how do I contact them? --75.40.48.187 (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you select the history tab of the article, you will see near the top of that page a link that says "Revision history statistics", which gives a list of contributors ordered by the number of edits. Scanning through that list, and disregarding the anonyous editors, it looks like Lingle would be a good person to contact. There is also a WikiProject Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) where you might consider posting your questions on the talk page if you want a slightly broader audience. I hope this helps. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 21:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mennonite Disaster Service (MDS)

Hello. I am planning on starting a new page for the Mennonite Disaster Service in the coming days. As you've made some great contributions to Anabaptist articles, I thought I'd mention it. Also, I plan on including a blurb about MennoNet in the article as well. Any assistance, info, etc. that you can contribute would be great. Thanks. :) Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archives