Jump to content

User:JonHarder/Archive/1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User:JonHarder‎ | Archive

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mmcannis (talk | contribs) at 00:18, 30 May 2006 (a thanx reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jon,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm a big fan of Mennolink, so its great to see you here on Wikipedia. Here are some links that I find useful/interesting:

  • Wikipedia:List of WikiProjects - this is a great page to give you an idea of how to plug into a broader project. I find I'm much more motivated to contribute if I'm involved with a whole group of people working towards a specific goal. One good example is Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war.
  • Wikipedia:Village pump - a good way to get a sense of community life on wikipedia.
  • Wikipedia:wikilove - page that attempts to sum up and define what motivates wikipedia users and brings them all together. Best line: "We love accumulating, ordering, structuring, and making freely available what knowledge we have in the form."
  • Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense - a page of what not to post to wikipedia articles. Some are funny, some are not. The best ones have been turned into uncyclopedia.
  • Wikistats for wikipedia - fascinating statistics which chart the run away growth of wikipedia, both in usage and participation in editing. This chart is pretty amazing too.

Well, that's enough to get you started. I hope you have as much fun here as I do. mennonot 23:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Seventh-day Adventist Church Peer Review

Thanks for your comments on Seventh-day Adventist Church Peer Review, much appreciated. I have made an attempt to change it but am unsure at what is correct. Can you have a look at how the paragraph is now and see if that is better. I encourage you to either make the changes yourself or direct some specific suggestions, if possible. Thanks. MyNameIsNotBob 01:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I have made further adjustments to the paragraph in question along the lines of your suggestions. I have also attempted to change the tone of the paragraph by stating the accepted first. Let me know if there are any more problems with the paragraph or in other parts of the article. Thanks for your help. MyNameIsNotBob 02:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome from me, too.

I'm a menno who grew up in ND (have a brother and cousins in Mpls.), presently married to an episcopalean and living in VT. for someone whose s'pose to be a pacifist, i sure seem to get in a lot of fights here at WP or other internet venues. r b-j 06:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


Say, Jon, could you take a look at ...

... the Excommunication article. particularly the amish/mennonite sections. this same anonymous IP editor has been trying to do the same to the Mennonite article. he/she is obsessed and persistent. i certainly think there should be some discussion of the pathological use of "The Ban" you might find in really conservative menno and amish congregations, but this stuff is far from representative of the denomination. r b-j 05:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to leave that one alone for now, and, yes, I have noticed. There are some other things I want to work on. This is the approach one could take on this:
  • Research it in CJDyck's Intro to Mennonite History, Smith, Estep, Mennonite Encyclopedia, i.e. the typical solid sources for this. Cover the history up to about 1945 which would include those removed from membership for being in military service.
  • Footnote it well. Insist any alternate view also be sourced with reliable, encyclopedic citations.
  • Insist that items applying to specific Mennonite groups go in their respective articles, because it is not a practice common to all Mennonites. The same would generally apply for just about any case after 1945.
I'm thinking the above approach will curb some of the more speculative input, but I'm too new to wikipedia to get a feel for it. In the mean time, I'm completing an article on Civilian Public Service in my sandbox, am considering adding a General Conference Mennonite Church article after that and them perhaps expanding the Russian Mennonite article. There is a lot I don't like about the Mennonite article and will keep chipping away at the edges as I work on other things.
JonHarder 05:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Mennonite Ban / Excommunication

I personally think if you will revert to the last revision of the anonymous poster which just leaves it at

(See the Scheitheim Confession below)

(but add a period), that is a pretty good compromise. It may stabilize that the section for now. Eventually someone will have time to research the area better and it can all be replaced with superior material and without a lot of controversy.

Maybe I'm not seeing something here or if you want me to add more, email me. JonHarder 14:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

please do what you think is the best thing. right now 'm phyically indisposed (lower back) and can harldly sit and type. FYI. there is a history of serious problems with this anonymous editor at the Mennonite article regarding the same issue. i believe he/she has been really hurt by some church or leadership somewhere and feels they owe it to the world to make mennos look like some passive-agressive cult. r b-j 17:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Bat/Rat Lake

Well, since you're near there and I'm not, I'll defer to your best judgement. But please give both names on the list and have one serve as a "see Bat/Rat Lake above/below." That way, both possibilities are left open. If you're certain that it's Rat Lake, you can write to

  • Revisions Department, DeLorme, P.O. Box 298 Yarmouth, ME 04096 with some kind of evidence and they will review this for their next edition. Peace.--Hraefen 02:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up Collaboration at (:Category:Hawaiian geography)

{{Hawaii-geo-stub}} Consider moving sections you challenge to [[Category:Geography of Hawaii|User:JonHarder]] discussion page with constructive feedback comments or citing benchmarking examples for effectively categorizing human geography articles.
RJBurkhart 10:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point, and I have done so. JonHarder 19:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Mennonites in American history

Hi, JonHarder. Take a look at Talk:Testimony of Equality where Ahc has responded to your request. I wanted to point out a couple of things about the "Mennonites in American History" section. First, it seems argumentative to me to say that it was Mennonites rather than Quakers who first adopted an anti-slavery position. If these Mennonites became Quakers, then they were Quakers. If you want to say that the anti-slavery position was developed directly from Mennonite teachings rather than Quaker teachings, that would be more precise and possibly more accurate. Second, in that section it mentions Swiss-speaking Mennonites. There is no such language as Swiss, although there is a dialect of German that is sometimes called Swiss-German. I believe it is that dialect that those immigrants spoke.

By the way, when I get extra time I will see what I can do to help with the Mennonite article, especially in regard to your request. Logophile 12:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Censorware

Thank you for your kind comment. It turned out to be more than I anticipated, but I couldn't leave it until it was finished (at least for the time being :P ). --Halcatalyst 18:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Symbolic algebra and numerical programs

Hello. You put Category:Computer algebra in Category:Numerical software. I reverted this, and I thought later that I'd better explain my reasonaning. To me, these are quite different disciplines because the basic data in computer algebra are mathematical expressions like x2 + y, while the basic data in numerical software are plain numbers. You could make an overarching category like "mathematical software" containing both, but I'm not sure that's worth it. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem, and I wasn't completely sure it was a good fit. There is science software, which would include all of the maths, that is spread around different categories that I would eventually like to group all together. JonHarder 14:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Business process interoperability

Jon,

I appreciate your comments reagrding copyright violations. I am a copyright holder of most of the material used in the following articles:

Neutral Third Party, Business process interoperability, Commonware, Conforming Infra Provider, Universal Enterprise Infrastructure and Information silo. This material is not meant to be protected from uses such as Wikipedia. Much of the language is the same on the web sites because we are striving for uniform definitions rather than confused jargon. Please let me know what I can do to preserve these articles.

Go to each of those pages and follow the instructions in the template. In particular look at item #2 and give evidence that you hold the copyright in the two places listed there. You need to do this within a week. When the administrators are satisfied, the pages will be restored. JonHarder 03:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

20 February

Jon, how long does this process usually take?

It depends on when an administrator gets to it. I think, but don't really know for sure, in a case where the source is clarified and permission is given, it is taken care of sooner than cases where more investigation is required. JonHarder 22:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

SAR

I am a bit confused by your statement, "the Category:SAR Wikipedians subcategory introduces something about the Wikipedia project into the regular encyclopedia." I think that the SAR Wikipedians should be connect to the SAR category. If there is a problem, is there another way to fix it?evrik 18:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:European Transport Wrokers' Federation - CfR

Wrokers'? And I thought I was being so careful when I put those cats together.:) Thanks for catching my mistake. Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 16:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Category Cycles "Fix"

Hi JonHarder,

I noticed you just "fixed" Category:Education. This actually is a valid self-referencing system - education about education in various forms. So, are you saying this is a conceptual catigorization fix or a wiki database fix? Rfrisbietalk 23:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I see there is a categorization discussion currently happening at Category talk:Education. I'll reply there shortly. JonHarder 02:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:The KLF

Hi, is there any reason why Category:Bill Drummond and Category:Jimmy Cauty shouldn't be both members of Category:The KLF and subcats of the same? --kingboyk 00:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Category cycles are to be avoided. You can see some of the reasoning at WP:CG under the "Categories do not form a tree" and "Cycles should usually be avoided" sections. A category being both subcat and cat is mentioned there. Usually one finds the most general category of those in question and puts the others within that category. In the case of bands, the band category is the main one and categories of individuals are subcategories of it. Looking at how some of the other music groups are categorized may be helpful in seeing how it is done generally. I don't believe you will find a case where an individual's category is both a subcagtegory and category of a band. JonHarder 00:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the detailed reply. I'll have to read that link in more detail when I'm not so tired. Thanks again. --kingboyk 00:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I've taken it to Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#.27Cycles_should_usually_be_avoided.27. Thanks. --kingboyk 18:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Workshare

In your comment wrt deleting Workshare you say do not userfy. What does that mean? Just curious. JonHarder 14:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I mean that the page should specifically not be moved to the User: space, which is an option that is often considered in AFDs involving material that may belong there. See Wikipedia:Userfication for more information. Stifle 20:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Participants in WikiProject Physics

You said:

Confusing when cat redirects to article; perhaps should be merged and deleted.

I agree, although everyone who works on Wikiproject Physics has been putting their name up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Physics/Participants and only a few folks (including me) have used the template to join the Category:Participants_in_WikiProject_Physics. I'm the one who put the redirect in since I figured that the information that's at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Physics/Participants is what anyone who looked at the Category page would be looking for. Shall we start a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics? I don't much care one way or another, but if we're going to preserve Category:Participants_in_WikiProject_Physics, we should urge the relevant people to join. Alison Chaiken 01:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not put a "See also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Physics/Participants" in the category? That way one can go both to the category and also follow that link. That's probably better all the way around. In my opinion its not worth starting a discussion about it. I don't have a big enough stake in it, other than prefering any solution other than redirecting a category to an article, that I would likely participcate in a discussion. Just do what you think best. JonHarder 01:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. The new system links the information as desired but isn't logically weird. Alison Chaiken 01:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Psst

Please check out this page. Pass it on! — Catherine\talk 01:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Operational risk management

Hi Jon,

Thanks for helping out with the article on Operational risk management. I read the article WP:SPAM and I could not find where is said that listing companies that offer a product without making judgement about the companies is considered spam. For example check out Computer mouse or check out the pages that link to Oracle Corporation. It would seem like a valuable service to provide a listing of companies in a market space and would not impact the NPOV aspect of the article. If we do change policy, we should be consistant with the rest of wikipedeia and delete all reference to all companies. Do you have any further published guildlines that we should use?

I do agree this can be a touchy subject and good judgement should be used. I am not affiliated with any of these companies by the way. Let me know what you think.

Thanks for your work! - Dan User:dmccreary --Dan 03:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My preference (and I'm somewhat new to wikipedia, so my ideals change from day to day) is for an article to explain its topic thoroughly without using external web links to commercial sites. In general I dislike using almost any external link unless it is an exceptionally excellent addition to the article or it is used in a notes/reference section to cite source material. As for the mouse article, I think the links to commercial sites should be removed. Oracle is slightly different in my way of thinking. An article about Oracle should have an external link to Oracle's official website. Any other article refering to Oracle should use a wikilink to the Oracle article.
I'm not trying to defend my editing of Operational risk management, but rather explain the thinking behind it. I don't question your good judgement nor would I revert it if you decide that the links pass the WP:SPAM test and you choose to put the links back in place. JonHarder 14:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

CPS

I regret the problems with my edits of this article. Thanks for your fix. Hmains 03:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

And thanks for the note. I'm sure you'll get things working better soon! JonHarder 03:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Mennonite article

Jon,

I am going to step in here (just once) and try to explain where I am coming from so we have less possible misunderstandings as we edit the Mennonite article. I hope that by doing so you will have less cause to misinterpret me or to falsely assume that I am out to be negative about all things Mennonite. I value your contributions because they often complement my own.

My bottom line as I have said many times in discussion is a complete, balanced NPOV article. I want to see it match the common guidelines too as much as possible...(I note that there is immense variation among other articles as they attempt to address issues specific to those articles). My other goals are to make the content clean, succinct and as representative as possible of the whole picture.

I generally can handle people who disagree with my POV as long as they have cause and as long as they state their specific POV's for discussion and comparision. I know that everyone has their POV. To me, NPOV means to include all reasonable and sourced POV's in this article be they 'positive', 'negative' or neutral (demographic data) as is done somewhat well in the Religion article.

Contrary to assumptions you seem to have about me I am quite willing to include content that is 'positive' in this article. For example, I believe that Mennonite influence was quite strong in the development of Vermont's statewide Restorative Justice system. This exceptional, innovative, and nationally recognized program is one example of Mennonite contributions to peacebuilding. There are probably many examples too that could be used to show how the Mennonite 'Third Way' works better than the status quo ways. I welcome this 'positive' content and given half a chance to breathe after fighting all the other battles would be glad to add it myself too.

That said, I have a big problem when ALL content is positive or comes from ALL positive POV because this seems to be pandering to Mennonite positions rather than showing Mennonites in NPOV. I know that Mennonites have been far from peaceful inside their demoninations and far from peaceable to those who have chosen to question or rebel against Mennonite restrictions. I also know that there is a lot of 'negative' content that has been ommitted in this article about Menno Simons, about Mennonite history and about current Mennonite realities. This is problematic to me because it speaks to an unwillingness to show things as they were/are in NPOV. I know the pain of orthodox Mennonite theological poison up close and personal. I refuse to allow Mennonite violence to be mischaracterized, misrepresented, or ommitted just to satisfy a few people with parochial positive POV interests. I also am trying to be quite careful not to unfairly slander all Mennonites against a steroetype made from a few. I have done my best to make clear distinctions between groups with both demographic data and descriptive content.

As for you personally here are my concerns and compliments:

    1. I watched you watch editor RBJ viciously assault me with ongoing and gratuitous character assassinations when I first came aboard. This made me wonder about who you are as a person. To me, all editors have a responsibility to confront ugliness when it occurs no matter whose 'side' they are on.
    2. I am not sure about your POV about NPOV. I notice you always seem to have problems with anything 'negative' I add even when it is clearly based in fact. I also notice that you rarely seem to have problems with other (say demographic) content I add. This makes me wonder about how willing you are to be balanced and assist us to get to complete NPOV.
    3. I am not sure you will deal with me rather than going behind my back when you have issues with me.
    4. I am sure you know how to develop good guidelines and insist on standards for this article. This is quite valuable to me. I intend to follow you here wherever possible as long as I understand and concur with your intent.
    5. The historical content you added seems like a good foundation for further discussion and edits to me. I have no plans to make wholesale changes to that content but I do have many unanswered questions that I would like to discuss about it. I will try to be careful to discuss major issues on History/Theology prior to any edits so you have time to respond.
    6. I see you as the elder wise man on this 'panel' of editors. I wish I could trust you enough to follow you where you are wise. However, I am suspicious that you will use the standard Mennonite forms of covert aggression against me as you are a long time Mennonite with what seems to be a big attachment to your faith. I am willing to be wrong here but I cannot risk respecting you unless I have good cause to.
    7. I am able to separate people from their faiths. I try to see people as human beings here rather than Mennonite members. However, I am not sure you are able to separate me from your faith. I know the foundation of the faith itself is quite dangerous after a glance at the theology section. This concerns me because after reading Scott it is clear that many Mennonites in the past put their faith above fundamental human rights. This concern makes me cautious about how much to trust you or your POV about the content I have issues with.
    8. My preference is to work with you and the other editors as long as there is some reasonable willingness to face facts with facts. However, I know my people's people far too well for comfort so I know this might be impossible. I welcome your commitment to some sort or reasonable rules of engagement that might allow this to happen.

That's about it. Again this might be a complete waste of time. If it is just ignore it..but if you want to be respectful long term, I would be glad to be respectful back (as long as you are able to separate yourself from specific content issues I might be unable or unwilling to respect). Anacapa 01:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

categorisation

Just dropping a quick note to commend your fine work in cleaning up the Computer security-related categories, it was sorely needed. Cheers! Warrens 18:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! JonHarder 18:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Peace/pacifists

Please let me put the category Peace in category:Pacifists otherwise you can't directly communicate between pacifists and peace categories.User:Prof75

WP:CGZ guidelines state that articles, and by extension categories, should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory. The question to consider is, how is Category:Pacifists different than any of the other subcategory in Category:Pacifism. Should they all be in both? JonHarder 18:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Packet drop attack

Could you expand the Packet drop attack article and explain more in-depth what it is, and how it works. When such an attack is possible to conduct, if it can be traced or detected, and if there is any way to prevent such an attack? -- Frap 19:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have references to expand it further. I found it as a red link in an article (blackhole attack, was the actual red link) and went hunting around to see if there was already an article under a different name. There was none, but more searching proved that there was such an attack. So I stubbed it and added the bit I could find about it. Hopefully an expert can expand it. JonHarder 19:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

JoeBot edits

yow! one arm hair, officially pulled. my mistake - i've changed my settings so as not to make that mistake anymore. it must have seen the misspelled word process and replaced it with processs. it will now only look for the word proces_ (with a space). thanks for the catch, i appreciate you keepin' an eye out. :) JoeBot 14:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it is more than an encyclopedia (this is a paraphrase of an eminently sensible statement somewhere in wikipedia guidance). To slavishly attempt to emulate the restrictions of a traditional encyclopedia without consideration of the pros and cons is not how I interpret the aims of this project. Some may feel an article demeans wikipedia if it is genuinely useful, or if it links to useful free resources outside of wikipedia or, even more outrageously, acknowledges the existence of the commercial world and provides links to various commercial services relating to a topic. I personally do not. There are many, many articles on wikipedia on specific companies, and every one of these articles should contain a link to that company's website. I personally see no harm in having links to several commercial websites, or sources for free resources from an article that deals with a more general topic, as long as this is motivated by informing the reader in as balanced a way as possible about the state of the industry and the services that are available. This is entirely different to someone providing imbalanced information to draw attention to one, usually unheard of, commercial website, which is easily classed as spamming. It might well be worth separating links to free resources from links to commercial resources so a reader can choose to avoid all links to websites that provide a service that requires payment.

In the article Internet security you decided to delete virtually all of the external links. Those of us who live on planet Earth would view this as being excessively pedantic. You may believe that no commercial links should be included (I disagree in this case), but in your enthusiasm to protect either wikipedia, or the reader, you also deleted all of the links to sources of free software. As I pointed out on the talk page for the article some time back, it was clear that the article had developed as a very simple guide to the threats to a typical computer user, and as such is a lot more useful if it contains a comprehensive set of links to companies that provide the software needed, and especially those that provide free software. You may think there is no place in wikipedia for an accessible, practical guide to the threats to internet users and how they may be addressed, but I think that the fact that this is an article that might not appear in a paper encyclopedia is an excellent example of wikipedia being more than a paper encyclopedia.

Perhaps you would like to ignore the pros and cons and point out some guidance somewhere that was conceived without thinking of this type of article, or perhaps you would suggest that there is no room in wikipedia for an informative, balanced, practical, accessible article about internet security threats and countermeasures for an average internet user? Personally, I think whatever knowledge you have about this topic could be better used to improve the article than to make it less useful, rather than removing information that would seem appropriate to almost everyone, and useful to many. Elroch 01:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, but that's OK. I prefer external links that don't duplicate internal links, which aren't primarily commercial products or cluttered with ads and that clearly add encyclopedic information to the article. Eventually someone should add any valuable information from an external link into the article and move the link to a references section. I may go back into the Internet security article at some point in the future and try to organize those external links so they are grouped in some logical way. JonHarder 02:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Short advice required.

Hello Jon,

I wonder if you could advise me how to proceed with this issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ViPNet

I really want to share information about ViPNet, but based on the information, which I got from the debate page, it is saying me that it is impossible. My previous posts were in rush and were looking as ads or something, I agree – my fault. It is not met a Wikipedia policy – I understood that I did a re-writing of article, make an explanation, saying my apology, but it was not good for the debate. As a known and very experienced person, would you mind to explain me what proper steps should I make to be able to post a new article (own words) about ViPNet. Thank you in advance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AlexeyN (talk • contribs) 08:40, 24 May 2006.

My suggestion is to first create the best article you can in your own workspace, for example at User:AlexeyN/ViPNet. Make sure it meets at least one of the criteria listed in WP:SOFTWARE. Once it is complete, go to Wikipedia:Deletion review and make your case for undeletion there. Make sure you provide a link to your proposed revised article, User:AlexeyN/ViPNet (or wherever you choose to create it). State that you would like an administrator to unprotect that page and move the your new article there. Also place a note on the Talk:ViPNet page directing readers to the request on the Wikipedia:Deletion review page and end with {{Editprotected}} to get the attention of an administrator who can help.
In the mean time, it might help if you would work on improving other articles that you are able to contribute to. This will show your good faith and you will gain important experience in helping to form good articles. JonHarder 14:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Categorization of web browsers

I think that these categories are right, I don't see the reason of changing they Atenea26 18:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


Indicator species

Thanx JonHarder. I was travelling by the indicator species so fast, not with a clear mind, I forgot what a colon(:) was for. At least you understood. The main indicator species article, also needs some alterations. It is kind of sparse, and does not include a "type species". The same concept goes thru all of Geological formations, etc., as you may know. MichaelMcA,, in hotYumaAZ, the Sonoran Desert area. --Mmcannis 00:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:JonHarder/Archive/1&oldid=55831151"