User talk:Jpbowen/Archive 6

Sandbox editing

Hi. Thanks for your kind help. Just for your reference - the article you just edited is still in my user sandbox. It's to be completely re-jigged before I create an actual article. You are very welcome to have another look at it when it's a real article: it will be named "Manor House Museum". I didn't think people came along and edited you in your sandbox - I'm puzzled about that. Anyway, for what it's worth, the errors you corrected did need to be corrected, and I appreciate it. --Storye book (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sorry I got a bit carried away and of course you can reverse anything with which you disagree. I originally was only going to do a temporary edit of the category to remove it from the main Wikipedia categories for the moment (it was under Category:Museums, which I monitor since it should not include any individual museums), but then spotted category corrections and links. Thank you for your understanding anyway. For the future it is best only to add real categories towards the end of editing, just before the article goes live. Then you won't attract attention! Regards, Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hint, Jonathan - I'll keep that in mind. I was mainly worried that I'd go to save some huge bit of editing in the sandbox, only to find that there was somebody else's concurrent editing to be merged with. Anyway, I've nearly finished now, and should be able to create the page in the next hour. Thanks for the kind support so far. Cheers. --Storye book (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: meeeep! I've just created the page Manor House Museum - edit it all you want now - and the categories at the bottom have not gone into the usual category box. Maybe it takes time and it will happen later? Otherwise - maybe I've coded something wrongly? The rest looks OK, anyway. Thx for your kind help and support so far. Cheers. --Storye book (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2: Solved it - please ignore my worries about the categories. I hadn't spotted the extra colons. I just removed them and the category box appeared. Cheers. --Storye book (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for any confusion, the ":Category" feature allows a link to a category without actually putting the article in a category (e.g., whilst in a Sandbox). I did a few more edits, I hope helpful. By the way, to avoid use of "Ibid", it is possible to use <ref name="xxx">...</ref> followed by <ref name="xxx" /> (for example). — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonathan. Thanks for the advice re "ibid". But I had to put all the full-blown refs back, as otherwise by tomorrow I would forget where I got all the info from - then I'd be in trouble if the article got tagged for lacking refs. But - forgive me - I still don't understand how to use these ref name"xxx"es. Please could you kindly direct me to an article where it's been used? Sorry to be a nuisance. I do want to get this right. (Please notify me of reply on my talk page - Thanks). Cheers. --Storye book (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:REFNAME for info. You don't need to overuse references however - you could end up with a reference for every sentence. If a block of text has a single reference, one is enough in general. It is only if you have a reference in several distinct places that it is worthwhile. Good luck! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please see recommendation not to use Ibid., etc., further down from WP:REFNAME. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:St Matthews Church, Harwell.JPG

File:St Matthews Church, Harwell.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:St Matthews Church, Harwell.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:St Matthews Church, Harwell.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sonning Bridge - 1799.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Sonning Bridge - 1799.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rowing on the Isis.JPG is now available as Commons:File:Rowing on the Isis.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:St George's Cathedral.JPG is now available as Commons:File:St George's Cathedral Southwark.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes at Radcliffe Science Library

Hello Jonathan, I work at the Radcliffe Science Library in Oxford and I was just looking at the the entry for us. I see that you did most of the work on it. Thanks for doing that, I have edited the Bodleian page in the past but it didn't even occur to me to put up a page for my own library!

I just wanted to let you know that there are big changes happening at the RSL so some of the text will need changing soon. I'm happy to do it, but since this has been mainly your project I wanted to warn you so you didn't think it had been vandalised!

PurplePenny (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are very much encouraged to update the Radcliffe Science Library page with suitable information, external references, etc. Just remember that Wikipedia is encyclopedic rather than promotional in nature. Historical and notable rather than transitory information is especially welcome. Anything that is deemed inappropriate will be edited by others in any case, so you are welcome to be bold. Good luck with the changes and happy editing! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnum

curious about this edit, specifically the fact tag. It's in the external link, as all/most URLs are. Do you really think a URL in the article needs to be cited? StarM 12:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not include this as a reference rather than just an external link to avoid confusion? It confused me anyway, so it could confuse others. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

art museum category vs Art museums and galleries category

Absolutely agree, wp:museums is where I asked the question and got feedback. Is there somewhere else you had in mind? (unsigned entry: 01:36, 19 June 2009 Dmadeo)

Thanks for the pointer and I agree there is a difference! It will be a huge job to cover the whole world, but well done with your work on the USA. I guess there is a naming problem, which probably varies from country to country. For example, in the UK, many "galleries" are actually museums (e.g., the National Gallery). I think this needs work on other countries before it filters up to the international level on Wikipedia. Are you planning to do this in due course? Good luck in any case. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Lewis Evans

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Porturology (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Sorry this was my error in trying to get rid of some vandalism on the page Porturology (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, at least it alerted me to the problem! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Fellows of Green College, Oxford

Category:Fellows of Green College, Oxford, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.

Apologies for the template; I've nominated the Green / Templeton alumni and fellows categories for merging into "Green Templeton" in the light of the merger; Wikipedia tends to follow the most recent institutional name rather than have overlapping subcategories for people depending on whether they attended institution X when it was the "University Technical College of X", "X Polytechnic", "X Metropolitan University" etc... Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 23:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

overcategorization

I agree, see my reply on my talk page. dm (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, could you place a {{db-author}} on Category:Art museums and galleries in Los Angeles? It's now split between Category:Museums in Los Angeles, California, Category:Art galleries in Los Angeles, California and Category:Art museums in California Thanks dm (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bath cats

Thanks for your good work on categories relating to Bath, however you have added Category:Education in Bath to List of schools in Bath and North East Somerset‎ which also has Category:Education in Somerset & I didn't think we were supposed to include parent cat & sub cat on the same article. I've reverted that one but others eg Somerset and Bath Constabulary, which are wider than the city itself now have similar issues.— Rod ^talk 07:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is the standard rule, but sometimes it is helpful to have both if an article/category is very relevant to one category and partially relevant to a parent category. It is a matter of judgement of course. I often add comments explaining for such cases to make this clear. For example, it could be helpful for someone looking at Category:Education in Bath to find List of schools in Bath and North East Somerset if a separate List of schools in Bath does not exist, as in this case for the moment. I hope this helps. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image sizes

A couple of style pointers for you: as per WP:IMAGE, images on pages should not normally be forced to a size greater than 180px and normally no size should be explicitly set. Also the page title is only embolded when the term is defined and not in image captions. Thanks, Rich257 (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the helpful guidance, I will bear this in mind for the future. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autoreviewer

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that I have enabled the autoreviewer right on your account, as you have created numerous valid articles. This has little or no effect on your editing, and is intended mainly to reduce the workload upon new page patrollers. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this, much appreciated. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter (September 2009)

Headington stone

Nice work! Bencherlite ^Talk 08:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the positive feedback! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Street culture"

Thanks for creating Category:Street culture, but may I ask what the category is for? i.e., what "defines" it, what is "street culture"? As far as I can tell, right now it's just categories that have the word "street" in them. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more categories (without "street" in them!) and a brief introduction, which I hope gives a better idea. This is "in course of arrangement", so I hope to embellish this further. Thank you for your interest. I think this category can link together aspects of street life that are not linked elsewhere on Wikipedia. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mik Kersten publications

Thanks for the feedback on the publications listing of the Mik Kersten page. I just edited the page--could you take a look and let me know if this addresses the comment? Mik Kersten (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest just including just the journal papers and removing all the conference papers, etc., which have a shorter lifetime. (I can see three of these in major ACM/IEEE publications.) If there are any published books (with ISBN) now or in due course, include these as well. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for recording knowledge in the longterm. Add an inline citation including a link to the full list for those interested. By the way, please add comments to the end of this talk page, thanks. I hope this helps. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category deletion

I am unable to delete Category:Kellogg College as you requested, because the speedy deletion criteria specify that this process may not be used for categories that have been "emptied out of process." In this case, the contents of the category were moved into Category:Kellogg College, Oxford without following the process for category merges described at WP:CFD. I encourage you to follow that process now. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same for Category:Templeton College, Oxford. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I have created category redirects to the correct current categories for simplicity. I hope this is OK. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rutherford Journal

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Rutherford Journal, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.rutherfordjournal.org. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a mistake and I have deleted the notice. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astor Court

Just curious--you don't think Chinese Art is an appropriate cat? Did I overcategorize? Thanks for your work. Alawa (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created a new sub-category Category:Ming Dynasty art and put in it here. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Museums established in 1840

Hi Jpbowen. I recently declined a C1 speedy deletion tag placed on Category:Museums established in 1840 as you noted here that the category should be kept despite being empty. Now the user who applied the speedy tag (User:70.150.94.194), is well, rather rudely, badgering me about the decline. If it's not too much trouble, I'd appreciate some input on my talk page. Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for bringing this to my attention. To avoid further disagreement, I have created an article on the Goya Museum under this category. I hope this will satisfy all concerned. While rules are important, common sense is too! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Arabnia

Hi Jonathan:

This is Hamid Arabnia. Someone from Texas created a wiki biography of me (in Jan. 2009). The page was probably created with good intentions (although that person had included his own publications, photos, ... as references!). Since the text suffered from many errors, I decided to revise it (I also mentioned "in the history" that I, hamid arabnia, is changing the content of the page.) The page is correctly tagged with the message "It may have been edited by a person who has a conflict of interest with the subject matter." The page started receiving vandalism, ... Someone undid the vandalism and emptied the page. The page is also tagged with "The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed. Tagged since June 2009." I noticed that you recently cleaned up the page and that is why I am sending this request to you. Can you please delete the page? I would be most grateful. I do not think I am notable. Many renowned scholars and scientists/professors in my area of specialty (who have been my mentors) do not yet have wiki pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arabnia (talk • contribs) 15:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor of the Journal of Supercomputing and an active research professor (I checked your home page) I believe you are eligible for a Wikipedia page. Just because others who deserve a Wikipedia page do not yet has no real relevance. I guess there are two options. I can add evidence of notability if you wish - this is what is lacking at the moment. Or you can try requesting deletion on the page. This is controlled by Wikipedia administrators and I am not an administrator I am afraid. Let me know if you wish me to get your page into better shape to demonstrate "notability" and I would be happy to do so. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jonathan: That was fast - thank you so much for replying to my message. One reason that I would rather not have a wiki page is because of vandalism, false editing, ... This wiki page has lowered my quality of life :( I check it every day for vandalism. I would like to request deletion of the page. I guess I will have to post a message on the 'discussion" tab of that page (requesting deletion). I hope an administrator would get to see my request on that page. Once again, thank you so much, Hamid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.4.63 (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid, see WP:DELETE for information on the Wikipedia deletion procedure. There has to be a vote, etc. Good luck! I am afraid there is no guarantee that the page will not be re-created by someone if it is deleted. I promise not to do so if that is you wish anyway! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jonathan so very much. I will read the page you provided. Indeed, I do not wish a wiki page be created (I know that there is no guarantee) - thank you for respecting my wish. I will be reading the information you provided. I noticed that you are the chair of the British Computer Society (I had not realized that when i sent you my request). My first couple of publications (1987/1988) were published by The Computer Journal (a publication of BCS at that time). Cheers, Hamid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.4.63 (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid, for info. I was Chair of the BCS-FACS Specialist Group rather than the BCS, although of course I know the Computer Journal well. Best wishes, Jonathan — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of polymaths

Hi
In this article, which you seem to be mainly responsible for, I'm intrigued to know why Da vinci isn't included.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess nobody added him to the original list under Polymath and he is under the related List of Renaissance men anyway. I hope this helps. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Hartley

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sue Hartley, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-royal-institution-christmas-lectures/articles/2009-lecturer-professor-sue-hartley. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this as a reference and reworded further. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I appreciate that you made some efforts to paraphrase the text on Sue Hartley so it would no longer be a copyright infringement. Unfortunately, adding synonyms and minor alterations in the sentences won't relieve the plagiarism issue. As it is currently written, the text will need to be deleted as a copyright violation. You are welcome to rewrite the text using original language. The page on WP:Close paraphrasing can provide you with some explanations and help. In the long run, it is always better to simply write the text from scratch using your own words. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Regards, The leftorium 00:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback and advice. I have reworded and edited further, and added material from more references. I hope this helps. She is worthy of inclusion in my view even if more work is needed. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely happy with your rewrite (some sentences are still borderline), but I think it should be enough to satisfy the copyright policy. The leftorium 19:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may do some more work on it when I have time. And you would be very welcome to do so as well if you wish of course. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Steve Reeves (computer scientist)

The article Steve Reeves (computer scientist) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No claim of notability. He's just a scientist doing his job.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Damiens.rf 14:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Nick Schlee

I have nominated Nick Schlee, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Schlee. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Damiens.rf 15:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Nick Meers

I have nominated Nick Meers, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Meers. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Damiens.rf 15:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Ian Mackenzie-Kerr

I have nominated Ian Mackenzie-Kerr, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Mackenzie-Kerr. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Damiens.rf 15:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Clive Seale

The article Clive Seale has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No claim of notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Damiens.rf 15:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi, Bowen. Do you personally know this people you write bios for? --Damiens.rf 19:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess some minnor research answered my question. Would you consider taking care with WP:COI when articles about people you know and about yourself? I haven't seen anything great yet, just some peacock language ("...his work is very important..."). Sometimes it's better to let others do this kind of work, due to our personal attachment. --Damiens.rf 19:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some are academic colleagues in the field of formal methods, since I know this area very well, but I understand your point and only add people that I believe are notable from an independent point of view in any case — for example, research-active full professors that have made a significant contribution over the years — see WP:ACADEMIC. Of course the standard Wikipedia processes can be used if this is ever deemed wrong, but this has rarely been the case in the past. Your editing for improvement is welcome of course. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have always found Jpbowen's contributions to be very worthwhile and am not aware of any particular concern regarding WP:COI, which is not an issue from simply "knowing" someone. Ty 21:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius, many thanks for your support. It seems that the arts are under assailment again too, but hopefully sense will prevail. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe that WP:BEFORE was not followed correctly in the three AfD cases above. In particular, under section 3, it would have been appropriate to add a {{notability}} tag before proposing deletion for this article. I would request that the proposer follows WP:BEFORE before nominating any further AfDs in future. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Libraries in Oxford

This would seem entirely reasonable; it is something I have thought about before now, but have not acted upon myself. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the same for the Cambridge libraries; good idea to do them both at once. Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 10:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, many thanks. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

	The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
	Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue \| Next issue

Content

The community is currently

deciding whether

60,000

articles should be deleted.

background

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Jpbowen! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 467 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Peter Bayley - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
William de Silva - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Gerry Malone - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 09:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references for all these articles, improved them, and removed the notices. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of David F. Haight

An article that you have been involved in editing, David F. Haight, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David F. Haight. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary Jazz Awards

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Parliamentary Jazz Awards, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.ppluk.com/en/News--Events/Archived-News/Voting-Open-for-2009-Parliamentry-Jazz-Awards. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworded further. The list of awards is standard. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:ELP songs

It sounds reasonable to me! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Reeves (disambiguation)

Hello, just to let you know that this page has been nominated for deletion per Template:db-disambig. If you have any questions about this, please contact me. Best wishes, Boleyn2 (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rules are rules, thanks for letting me know! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice finding you here!

Hi Jonathan, just saw this name while editing the article on the Yankee Group, and thought: that might be Jonathan! Greetings from Germany, --WiseWoman (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC) (Debbie)[reply]

Debbie, Nice to see you here too! I hope all is well with you. I mainly work on museums here, but some formal methods, history of computing, etc., too. — Jonathan Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:People associated with the University of York

I have nominated Category:People associated with the University of York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Rodhull andemu 01:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Grant Ogilvie

Would you mind reading the history before you make stylistic changes to the article. It is normal to keep the style used by the original author (that's me) as long as it meets guidelines (which it does). You may prefer "References", I prefer "Footnotes", which is fully mandated by guidelines. By adding the obituary as a footnote it implies that this only applies to a specific sentence as opposed to the whole article, which was based on the obituary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes I missed the history and thought I had forgotten to save my edits previously. Personally I think it looks messy having a single footnote and single reference. Obviously you disagree and I am not that fussed about it! Currently I am going thought updating and adding Directors of the Science Museum, hence my interest. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear orientation

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Nuclear orientation, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www-nog.physics.ox.ac.uk/www/gen/gen.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded to avoid copyright problems. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Htein Lin

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Htein Lin, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.questgallery.co.uk/index.php?id=186. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have done further editing, rewording, additions, references, sections, etc., to avoid copyright issues. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Bitan (Bengali)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Bitan (Bengali). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitan (Bengali). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Htein Lin

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Htein Lin, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.questgallery.co.uk/index.php?id=186, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Htein Lin and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Htein Lin, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Htein Lin with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Htein Lin. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Htein Lin saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing!

Followup:

Hi. I appreciate that you've tried to reword the articles to avoid infringement, but unfortunately minor alterations aren't enough to alleviate the copyright problems. The structure and language is too similar to the original and will need to be completely rewritten before we can use it. Regards, – Toon 15:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been further reworded/improved in the problematic sections and checked/reinstalled by Moonriddengirl, thank you. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix

Thank you for fixing my horrible typos in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 19#Category:Squares_and_plazas_by_city. I dunno what I was doing leaving that sort of mess uncorrected, and itr looks a little more like English now :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome and I hope my corrections are correct! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for starting the Charles Morton (librarian) article. I was considering making one - but for some reason didn't. However - seeing yours appear - it gave me some added energy I needed. Linuxcpa (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your expansion of the article. Some comments:

The inline external links need to be made into proper references using <ref>...</ref>.
The extensive material on relatives should not be in this article, which should be about Charles Morton himself. If any of the relatives are notable in themselves, create new articles for them, interlinked appropriately. I have removed this part of the article.

I have also added sections for structuring, some footnotes, general tidying, a category, etc. I hope this helps. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start off with another thank you. Hi Doctor Bowen. Yeah I tried to do to much. Hey it looks better. I chose a bad time to do the article. Can I advocate making an article linked about his descendants? Reason being - what happened to Dr. Morton's family and some of the things they did (on the whole) - seem both extraordinary yet with a "hand on the pulse" of the time. So extraordinary if I didn't know it was true - I wouldn't believe it. Anyway I think that's what you said above. I'll reread after tax season here in America - I am employed as a CPA in America by one of Doctor Morton's descendants through Edward Morton & wild Jack. 66.134.78.162 (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If and when you have time, perhaps you could fix the rest of the inline external hyperlinks to be proper references <ref>...</ref>. Perhaps you could do a "Charles Morton family" article if you think the family is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, using the material that was in the Charles Morton (librarian) article as a starting point. Good luck and have fun! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well in about a week I'll be free to fixup more. Sometimes I think of stuff at the end of the day. Just something interesting - I'll be able to back it up more - maybe - there seems to be some disagreement (out there) about if Doctor Morton simply didn't do the work he was supposed to do on Domesday - vs. other accounts that Finley, being the custodian was non responsive and therefore preventative. The Oxford Dictionary of Biography in its article on Charles Morton - doesn't seem to be even handed in this regard, as well as having his marriage at 1772, not 1767. (Scanned copy of marriage record I have obtained from a genealogy web site) Anyway I'll come up with something moree substantial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.134.78.162 (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC) 66.134.78.162 (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duuude! I actually figured out the references!!! I got 45. Linuxcpa (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - I wanted to say thank you for providing examples as to how to fix, I used the examples as best I could and I'm done, I think. Experience will be my best teacher, however. Linuxcpa (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brandywine Museums & Gardens Alliance

Hello,

The Brandywine Museums & Garden Alliance is a association of museums with 2 members in Pennsylvania and 8 in Delaware. 3 of these have significant gardens. The recent removal of the Museum Organization cat and the addition of 3 Pennsylvania cats (but no Delaware cats) confused me. Was ths just a misunderstanding about what the organization is?RevelationDirect (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I copied the PA Museum and PA Garden cats so they now also have the Delaware equivalents. I also replaced the general organization cat with a more specific museum cat. Let me know if you think we need to refine this further.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you create a Brandywine Museums & Gardens Alliance article ASAP explaining what this association is, with references. It seems that this is a very local organization compared with the others under Category:Museum associations and consortia without even an article on it at the moment. The category should be in much lower-level categories than this, in my view. Can you create a suitable article and put it in suitable categories? — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. Misunderstandings are bound to happen when there's not an article so I'll add that to may to-do list. There's a broad range of different organizations and consortia in the cat:

Global: 2
Multi-Country: 1
National: 2
Regional/Local: 3
Specific Musuem Types: 10 (Whch themselves inclued all of the above geographic sizes.)

As the documentation improves on the museum industry, it's reasonable to revisit whether this cat has become too broad. I'm more concerned with redundant cats like Category:Museum-related professional associations than splitting existing cats though.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blackhall Road, Oxford : Alphascript publishing book in references

Hi, Jpbowen. In the Blackhall Road, Oxford page, you've referenced an Alphascript Publishing book: Frederic P. Miller, Agnes F. Vandome, and John McBrewster (editors), Keble College, Oxford: Colleges of the University of Oxford, Parks Road, University Parks, Keble Road, Blackhall Road, John Keble, Oxford Movement, Church of England, William Butterfield, O'Reilly Theatre. Alphascript Publishing, 2010. ISBN 9786130611156. Do you know what kind of books are produced by this publishing house? See: User:PrimeHunter/Alphascript Publishing sells free articles as expensive books, VDM Publishing, and a scanned example. Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for spotting this, I have removed the reference, added more information, and better references. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Cambodian Cultural Village

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Cambodian Cultural Village. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambodian Cultural Village. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cowper & Newton Museum

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Cowper & Newton Museum, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.cowperandnewtonmuseum.org.uk. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banner Mill

Hi, did you know that there's an infobox for use on windmill articles - {{Infobox Windmill}}? Mjroots (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. Do add this to Quainton Windmill if you wish, or I will if and when I have the time. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaurland

For what it's worth, there's a Dinosaurland [1] in White Post, Virginia, and I can assure you it's the cheesiest roadside attraction you can imagine. I can't quite see it being notable enough for WP, though. Acroterion _(talk) 22:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. The full name of the Lyme Regis museum is Dinosaurland Fossil Museum and Dinosaurland now redirects to this. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly appears that the one in Lyme Regis has more scientific underpinnings than the one in Virginia. There are several like the White Post version in odd corners of North America. Acroterion _(talk) 23:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Path.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Path.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Dinosaurland Fossil Museum

I have nominated Dinosaurland Fossil Museum, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinosaurland Fossil Museum. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Simple Bob (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Oxford Today

I have nominated Oxford Today, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford Today. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Codf1977 (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Walton Well Road

I have nominated Walton Well Road, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walton Well Road. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Deor (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Exhibition centers

Category:Exhibition centers, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. TheGrappler (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodes Scholars

Good stuff! And obviously needed too. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the positive feedback! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion?

You might like to think about archiving the older stuff on your talk page. (Then again, you might not!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought I had set up auto-archiving but it does not seem to be working. I will do this manually soon! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford categories

I've been trying to tidy up (as I saw it) some of the OU-related categories, but on checking through the history I think I may have ended up giving the impression that I was undoing many of your recent edits on purpose. That wasn't the plan, I assure you! You've done an excellent job in clearing out the top-level category Category:University of Oxford, first of all. My concern is that some of the articles (and categories) have overlapping parent categories, or parent/grandparent categories, which makes the structure less than clear. So, before I realised quite what you'd been up to, I removed Category:Organisations associated with the University of Oxford from the colleges, PPHs etc on the basis that these are much more than "organisations associated with" the university. I would have thought that was best left as a category for odds-and-ends with much looser connections. I also put the articles about individual colleges into the "buildings and structures" category, rather than the college categories as sub-categories, otherwise there was the odd situation of having a "building and structures" grandparent category for the college alumni and fellows categories! I was going to do the same for the departments and museums etc (as Bodley's Librarians ought not perhaps to be a grandchild category of a buildings and structures category) but have paused for now.

I'm not sure about sticking so many articles and sub-categories into Category:History of the University of Oxford e.g. just because the Botanic Garden is old, does it have to go into a "history" category? I would have thought that was best left for articles about the history of the university more generally or specific episodes of its history e.g. the Laura Spence affair. That's enough from me for now. I'll perhaps have another think about this when my thoughts are more fully formed. Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 00:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts and thoughts. Of course there are all sorts of possibilities. I was trying to move articles to lower categories where possible. Re history, I have included articles with significant sections on history in general — again a matter of judgement. Time will tell what is best. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough – perhaps categorisation will be easier when the articles relating to the university and colleges are in better shape, although I really don't fancy writing History of the University of Oxford! Bencherlite ^Talk 12:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wellington Square, Oxford

Hello. In February you added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this). I'm removing a lot of similar references; many other editors have also been deceived by these sources. A similar publisher that reuses Wikipedia content is Alphascript Publishing. Fences&Windows 22:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for letting me know and correcting this. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At Oxford University Broadcasting Society, you also used az-encyclopedia.info but this is a Wikipedia mirror. Fences&Windows 00:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting this too. I guess this is an increasing problem. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Driver Location Signs

Hi Johnathon,

Thank you for your comments on the Driver location signs article. I notice that you requested two further citations - I agree that the first citation should be given - I will see what I can do, but as you are probably aware, HMG very secretive about their codes.

However I think that the second citation request refers to an obvious statement - if I was being pedantic, I would have added the phrase "It is axiomatic that" Would you object if I removed the second citation request, particularly since there is a Wikilink to the topic.

BTW, how did you find that article?

Regards Martinvl (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have moved the second one. However the whole "Rerouting" section has no citations at the moment. It may well be that one or more of the existing references will suffice, but it is not clear which one(s). The article was under Category:Motorways in England where I found it, but it is not a motorway, so I removed this. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I have acted on it. Regards Martinvl (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linking

Re these edits - 1, 2, 3, 4 - we don't generally link years, see WP:YEARLINK; and per WP:OVERLINK, London should generally not be linked (if people are unsure where Dulwich is, all they need do is click that), and we would also not mention England at all (if they don't know where London is, well...). --Redrose64 (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your guidance, which I will bear in mind for the future. Personally I like location links and information. There are plenty of different Londons around the world for example. Is there any explicit Wikipedia guidance on this aspect? — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been able to find any since the above - but I'm sure that I've seen some somewhere. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expand template

Re this edit - see the documentation for {{expand}} where it states "{{Expand}} should not be used on articles concurrently with stub templates - a stub template is an explicit request for expansion." Since the article already bears a {{Worcestershire-geo-stub}}, I've removed the {{expand}} again. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. This is a particularly short article even by "stub" standards. Is there another way to encourage expansion? — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've seen shorter. Have a look in the biological articles; there's a rule somewhere that says "every species must have its own page", so you might see an article like this - ignoring the two templates, it's just seven words. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worcestershire sauce

Hi, could you please revert the problems you inadvertantly caused to the images when helpin to tidy up the Worcestershire sauce article? Thanks. You can avoid this with future edits by clicking the 'Show preview' button before actually saving your work. --Kudpung (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting and correcting this problem with such a very tall thin image. Maybe there should be a "tall" or some such markup instead of "upright" for such cases. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

De Havilland Aeronautical Technical School

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of De Havilland Aeronautical Technical School, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.dhaetsa.org.uk.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated and augmented the text to avoid copyright issues. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armageddon theology WritersCramp (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Institute of Continuing Professional Development

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Institute of Continuing Professional Development, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Institute of Continuing Professional Development and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.|Jpbowen/Archive 6 Şłџğģő 21:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Institute of Continuing Professional Development

A tag has been placed on Institute of Continuing Professional Development requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Codf1977 (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status and Advice

As reviewing administrator, I declined both requests. But it is not altogether clear to me that it is actually notable, and you might want to try to strengthen the article, such as with refs from other well-known similar bodies showing they recognize it as an equal. I'd advise you to do this very quickly, before the article gets nominated for deletion by a regular deletion process. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have added more book references, other references and further information. There are plenty of external references. Hopefully this is enough for a stub article. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Hamilton, New Zealand

Hello Jonathan, thanks for your efforts with politics in New Zealand in general, and Hamilton in particular. Your category additions to Mayor of Hamilton, New Zealand weren't in line with the category tree, though. I've documented on the article's talk page what the problems were and thought to bring this to your attention in case you might repeat the same edits with other articles. Should you have any queries, please place a talkback on my talk page, or add to the mayoral talk page (which I have watchlisted). Schwede 66 17:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your notes on this, I will bear them in mind for the future. Note that I restored some polishing that was lost in your roll-back and did some further polishing. It may be best to hand edit rather than roll back in the future. For information, one of the references includes a dead link and I have marked this. If you know a better references, do update this. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Whoriskey article

Hi there, in August you put some tags in the article about Kate Whoriskey that I had started. I have tried to fix the problem(s) and have revisited the various places in the article that you had identified as needing citations and I have added in-line citations. But I did not feel it would be appropriate for me to remove the article tag that you had placed there (about the article needing more citations) but I thought I would ask you to take a look and see if it passes muster or needs more attention. Thanks. --Mdukas (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a bit more editing and have removed the notice. Thanks for letting me know and happy Wikipedia editing! You can remove the notice yourself in the future if you think it justified, as here. Also, if you could find the definitive birth year (1971 or 1970), that would be worthwhile. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks for nearly instantaneous response! --Mdukas (talk) 08:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: The Crufixion of St. Peter (Michelangelo)

Hello Jpbowen. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of The Crufixion of St. Peter (Michelangelo), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: R3 requires recently created. 2007 is not recent. Use RFD if required. Thank you. Courcelles 06:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it is not essential, just tidying up a misspelling that has not been detected before for a page that is not used anyway. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sciama2.jpg

File:Sciama2.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Hi, I can see you recently added this photo to the lecture series named after him. Please do not forget to update the associated fair use rationale on the image page, this needs to be extended for every intended use to be valid and to avoid later removal. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. I have commented out the image, I guess it is not really essential. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. Gereon's Basilica dome

Jpbowen, I am interested in adding to the Dome article a fact you added to the St. Gereon's Basilica article, but was unsourced: that the dome of St. Gereon's was the largest Western dome built between those of the Hagia Sophia and Florence Cathedral. I have looked for such a source online but found only one mention in what may be an unreliable source (a tourism guidebook). Can you help me here? Thanks. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references to the St. Gereon's Basilica article including one on the size — the best I can find. Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's better than what I had. Thanks for your help. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue tags on proposed renaming of categories

I have removed the three {{rescue}} tags that you recently added to categories which are being discussed at this CfD. Note that the rescue tag is reserved for pages which are facing deletion, in the hopes that someone will come along and improve the page such that it no longer qualifies for deletion. Also note that CfD stands for "Categories for Discussion", not "Categories for Deletion", and therefore listing a category there doesn't necessarily mean that it is at risk of being deleted. In fact, if you read the nomination in this case, the proposal is simply to rename the categories, not delete them. There is no "rescuing" needed (or even possible) at a discussion which only seeks to find a standard naming scheme for a large number of categories. SnottyWong ^chatter 15:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the reasoning and letting me know. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of SIGSOFT

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on SIGSOFT requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. mabdul 15:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the SIGSOFT article with additional information and references. ACM SIGSOFT is notable as the leading software engineering specialist group in the world, started as SICSOFT (not SIGSOFT originally) in 1976. I am interested to know why you deleted this fact from the article; is it deliberate or an oversight? — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turingery

Hi Jonathan, You created this as a stub and I have been extending it since. I plan to create a page with a name such as 'Cryptanalysis of the Lorenz cipher' in due course. I am a little stuck at present and wonder whether you can help. It relates to Differencing. That the delta of L9GOO is PV4/ is clear from the table of additions. However if PV4/ has been generated e.g. by Turingery or Tutte's method, how does one get back to L9GO ? It seems to me that there are 32 strings that delta to PV4/ including YAX8 BDQY and COI9 for example.--TedColes (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ted: thank you for your query and sorry I cannot help you. I am more interested in Alan Turing the person and computer science in general than cryptanalysis in particular. You could try Prof. Jack Copeland at the University of Canterbury, who runs the online Turing Archive. Thank you for expanding the Turingery article and good luck with your quest! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of David Bomberg House for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Bomberg House is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bomberg House until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mtking (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Lighthill House

Hi, just wanted to say well done on James Lighthill House, I have now changed my vote to keep based on your work, and also having found a couple of other new sources myself.

Also wondered if you might be interested that there is currently a deletion discussion open on another UCL building, Ramsay Hall, which in my view at least is even more notable than JLH.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should just add as a post script that the same editor proposed Ramsay Hall and James Lighthill House for deletion, and has generally been showing an unseemly haste to get the Ramsay Hall article deleted. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't think WP:BEFORE is being followed appropriately by this relatively new Wikipedia editor. Thank you for the extra references for the James Lighthill House entry. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]