Talk:Haven Institute (Gabriola Island, Canada)/Archive 1

SPEED DELETION OF PREVIOUS PAGE:

Haven Institute

Haven Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

the page was marked for speedy deletion; I was in the process of adding my reasons for why it should be kept (and my willingness to edit the page) on the Talk page when it was suddenly deleted ... all this took only five minutes ... I would like the opportunity to talk about this ... the Haven Institute page is very similar to the Esalen Institute page, ... they are both nontraditional educational institutions ... I would like the chance to edit this page into a form that is acceptable to Wikipedia. I respectfully request that it be undeleted so I can get to work to do this. Thanks William Meyer 18:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC) William Meyer 18:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Talk: Haven Institute

1. Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well. If a page has previously gone through a deletion process and was not deleted, it should not be speedily deleted under this criterion.

Re:Haven InstituteREASON FOR REQUEST TO UNDELETE

I am relieved that I can now access this Talk:Haven Institute page. When the Haven Institute page was deleted by speedy deletion, the Talk page vanished for me, and I could not access it.

The Haven Institute is an alternative educational institution that has existed since 1983. It has a good reputation, and attracts students from around the world. It is roughly similar to Esalen Institute in that it is a nontraditional school that utilizes seminars and group process in its teaching environment. Since Esalen is listed in Wikipedia, I believe it is appropriate that the Haven Institute also be included.

The reason for the speedy deletion was stated (on the banner that I was able to quickly read before the deletion occured) to be "Blatant Advertising." My intent in writing this article was certainly not to "promote a company, product, group, service, or person" ... Indeed the Haven Institute is owned and operated by a nonprofit society, whose aims are educational in nature. So, this is not a profit group ... it is an organization dedicated to promoting nontraditional educational approaches in a responsible and respectful manner. I believe that their undertaking is worthy, and merits inclusion in Wikipedia.

Please consider my request, and give me the chance to craft the article within Wikipedia's guidelines. I want to "play ball" ... I just want the chance to finish the job that I started (I have hours into this process at this point). Thanks for considering. Sincerely William Meyer 07:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Haven Institute

I am editing the Haven Institute webpage, which has been marked for speedy deletion. I will begin by removing the external links to the Haven.ca webpage in the body of the article. I expect this is what has prompted the sudden reaction from the editors.

In addition, I will certainly correct anything that will interfere with this article's integrity for Wikipedia. I am learning as I go ... but I am honest and earnest. Please do not remove the page until I have had a chance to correct it.

Thanks.

William Meyer 01:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It really isn't the links, it's the whole article and its purpose in WP. I don't actually determine when it gets deleted. An admin will take a look at the reasoning on the article's talk page and make a decision from there. Leuko 02:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand. I will put my thoughtsonto the article's talk page. I appreciate your feedback. Thanks. William Meyer 18:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Two Pages in Process

{{helpme}} I am a first-time editor in Wikipedia.

I object to the two pages I am editing being removed while I am developing them. The problem is that I don't know how to make the changes necessary to keep the pages alive.

Please send me specific suggestions about how to prevent the deletion of the pages, and I'll get to the editing lickety split.Thanks William Meyer 19:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)William MeyerWilliam Meyer 19:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

_ _ Hi, W'm, i'm the nasty deletionist whose ProD you complained about.

_ _ First, i feel obligated to make you aware that no one will respond to your {{helpme}} as it stands. (That may show a problem in how the instructions abt it are stated; if i don't leave you a note saying i've "dropped a flag on the play" it would help if you remind me to.) If you want more help than what i'm about to offer, do an edit where you put the 4 braces and the 6 letters between them alone on a line (ignoring all the stuff in pointy brackets). Both the way the welcome msg codes it, and the way i did in the first sentence of this graph (in each case, what you see in the edit pane), are ways of telling you, on the rendered preview or non-editing page, how to call for help, without saying it "out loud" in the course of telling you. By copying it from the edit page (instead of from the rendered version of the page), you kept it "wrapped in cotton", or never turned off the safety level.

_ _ More directly to the point, the edit summaries you made since sound to me like they are aimed at making a joint bio for the two (IMO pointlessly), probably due to my expressing myself obtusely. My point about together or apart was less significant than it sounded, and in any case is not about how the article(s) should be written or organized: i wanted to make it clear that, to save everyone time, i counted all of the Web refs that refer to either person, combining those for one with those for the other but counting each in the overlap only once.

_ _ Your removal of the ProD tag is appropriate and can take the pressure off, since i don't think forcing a deadline (5 days of discussion) is urgent, and since i'll probably be the one to add the {{AfD}} tag (which you wouldn't be allowed to remove), if we don't reach agreement abt this. AfD is the gold standard for deletion criteria, in the sense that that is where everything stated elsewhere as policy is converted from general principles into claims as to which policy principles mean something applicable to the article in question. In this case non-notability (insufficient significance) is what's likely to be considered, and while i don't want to take on the project of tutoring you on the subject, i'm willing to suggest that the ideal cram course for you is to look on WP:AfD,

1. on one hand, following some of the lks that appear (identically) at the top of each discussion, and
2. on the other, looking at the arguments made for and against, in biographies previously challenged re notability.

(AfD discussions in progress, on WP:Afd itself, are more exciting, but the AfD archives will show the outcomes, which are more important for you than excitement.)

_ _ I'm hesitant about saying WP:CoI is probably also worth your attention (even tho two editors appeared to be instances of it, and you may be asked whether you are free of such conflicts). When CoI gets mentioned, it's hard to keep it from sounding more important than it should be. I mean that the issue in contested deletions is distinct from the then-current content and from the authorship, and rests properly on a single question: is an encyclopedia-worthy article feasible under this title. If the article is written wrong, or a predominant author is hopelessly biased, the remedies are not deletion, but further editing and/or more, less biased, editors. The significance of that goes beyond CoI, and, for example (even tho such cases are quite rare), the principle is admirably illuminated by imagining an article Mud, about boots and mud pies: that article would pretty surely be found un-encyclopedic, but the title is not, and the article should be, rather than deleted, rewritten from scratch, to adequately cover the erosion of rock into mud, adobe, delta formation, metamorphosis of mud into classes of rock, and conceivably, if Drilling mud were too small a topic for its own article, a section on that topic. In our case, it's not worth considering keeping these titles as bios of different people; still, the fact that discarding the content without a deletion is an occasional AfD outcome serves to dramatize the important distinction, between the content at hand and the potential of the topic it addresses or hints at.

_ _ (Ah, good; i wasn't sure of any title, but my guess was good, and may save you some browsing:) WP:NN certainly is also worth your attention. And, especially if i was too terse this time, WP:Google test should offer some insight at least into what i was getting at. Hope this'll at least get you started.
--Jerzy•t 06:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

W'm,
_ _ Yes, wikis are crucially a tech innovation, but IMO WP is even more crucially also a product of developing the social institutions that enable the tech to do something worthwhile.
_ _ I'm not the touchy-feeliest of editors (e.g., i didn't drop anyone a ProD notice in this, nor have i any confidence that i've ever done so). But even tho i remain skeptical abt the articles, your note made it clear you needed & deserve some help getting on your feet, not least for the sake of keeping WP striving in the right directions.
--Jerzy•t 22:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: Deletion of Jock McKeen Page

Hello William Meyer. It seems another administrator has already done so for you. The reason why the first version of the page was deleted was because the author did not indicate the necessary notability to pass the WP:BIO guideline. Often subjects are encouraged not to write about themselves due to the difficulty of referring to their biography in a third person style. Thank you for rewriting it. At least now it meets the standards much better than its previous state. If you have any other questions feel free to contact me at my talk page again.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

March 2007

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles, as you did with Haven Institute. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:

1. Place {{hangon}} on the page. Please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag(s).
2. Make your case on the article's talk page.

Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Leuko 01:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Haven InstituteDeletion

I am editing the Haven Institute webpage, which has been marked for speedy deletion. I will begin by removing the external links to the Haven.ca webpage in the body of the article. I expect this is what has prompted the sudden reaction from the editors.

In addition, I will certainly correct anything that will interfere with this article's integrity for Wikipedia. I am learning as I go ... but I am honest and earnest. Please do not remove the page until I have had a chance to correct it. Thanks. William Meyer 01:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It really isn't the links, it's the whole article and its purpose in WP. I don't actually determine when it gets deleted. An admin will take a look at the reasoning on the article's talk page and make a decision from there. Leuko 02:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand. I will put my thoughts onto the article's talk page. I appreciate your feedback. Thanks. William Meyer 02:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I was in the process of adding my reasons for why it should be kept (and my willingness to edit the page) on the Talk page when it was suddenly deleted ... all this took only five minutes ... I would like the opportunity to talk about this ... the Haven Institute page is very similar to the Esalen Institute page, ... they are both nontraditional educational institutions ... I would like the chance to edit this page into a form that is acceptable to Wikipedia. I respectfully request that it be undeleted so I can get to work to do this. I have placed this request in the Deletion Review process. William Meyer 06:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Haven InstituteREASON FOR REQUEST TO UNDELETE

I have pasted the following sections from the Talk:Haven Institute page to keep the communication trail clear in my Talk page.William Meyer 07:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

from Talk:Haven Institute

I have put in a request for a DELETION REVIEW for the Haven Institute page.

I am relieved that I can now access this Talk:Haven Institute page. When the Haven Institute page was deleted by speedy deletion, the Talk page vanished for me, and I could not access it.

The Haven Institute is an alternative educational institution that has existed since 1983. It has a good reputation, and attracts students from around the world. It is roughly similar to Esalen Institute in that it is a nontraditional school that utilizes seminars and group process in its teaching environment. Since Esalen is listed in Wikipedia, I believe it is appropriate that the Haven Institute also be included.

The reason for the speedy deletion was stated (on the banner that I was able to quickly read before the deletion occured) to be "Blatant Advertising." My intent in writing this article was certainly not to "promote a company, product, group, service, or person" ... Indeed the Haven Institute is owned and operated by a nonprofit society, whose aims are educational in nature. So, this is not a profit group ... it is an organization dedicated to promoting nontraditional educational approaches in a responsible and respectful manner. I believe that their undertaking is worthy, and merits inclusion in Wikipedia.

Please consider my request, and give me the chance to craft the article within Wikipedia's guidelines. I want to "play ball" ... I just want the chance to finish the job that I started (I have hours into this process at this point). Thanks for considering. Sincerely William Meyer 07:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User:William Meyer/Haven Institute

Your blank page is at the above link. Please take care of WP:N and try to include as many sources as possible as well as writing the article in a encyclopedic tone without bias. Good luck and feel free to ask for another pair of eyes whenever you feel like it.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see a lot of references but can you tell me whether you have any conflicts of interest here? You clearly know the subject very well. For such a long article, and for the others you have written you need to include citations in the text to show where the information comes from. This is a good way to make sure that information is properly sourced because if you can't cite it, you can't include it. Also, I think for a marginally notable institution, this is a very long article and citations will be helpful to you to get the balance right. Remember that this article has already been deleted because of concerns that it may be advertising so its important to get this nailed down before you try and restore this to the main space. Let me know when you have made the citations and I'll have another look and make some pratical suggestions for any required changes. Finally, how specialist are the references? Are the national or local? That's important for verifying notability. The more widespead the coverage the better. I hope this helps - this is much improved and definately on the right path. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

To Humbug re: William Meyer/Haven Institute

I have a draft done now that I think might be okay.

My questions:

• 1. How is the length? I could shorten the section "The Haven Institute History" (or remove it completely) if you think the article is still too long.

• 2. Are the citations correctly done, and appropriate for this page?

• 3. Any other suggestions?

Thank you for handholding me through this. William Meyer 18:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for Request to Undelete

I have pasted the following sections from the Talk:Haven Institute page to keep the communication trail clear in my Talk page.William Meyer 07:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

from Talk:Haven Institute

I have put in a request for a DELETION REVIEW for the Haven Institute page.

I am relieved that I can now access this Talk:Haven Institute page. When the Haven Institute page was deleted by speedy deletion, the Talk page vanished for me, and I could not access it.

The Haven Institute is an alternative educational institution that has existed since 1983. It has a good reputation, and attracts students from around the world. It is roughly similar to Esalen Institute in that it is a nontraditional school that utilizes seminars and group process in its teaching environment. Since Esalen is listed in Wikipedia, I believe it is appropriate that the Haven Institute also be included.

The reason for the speedy deletion was stated (on the banner that I was able to quickly read before the deletion occured) to be "Blatant Advertising." My intent in writing this article was certainly not to "promote a company, product, group, service, or person" ... Indeed the Haven Institute is owned and operated by a nonprofit society, whose aims are educational in nature. So, this is not a profit group ... it is an organization dedicated to promoting nontraditional educational approaches in a responsible and respectful manner. I believe that their undertaking is worthy, and merits inclusion in Wikipedia.

Please consider my request, and give me the chance to craft the article within Wikipedia's guidelines. I want to "play ball" ... I just want the chance to finish the job that I started (I have hours into this process at this point). Thanks for considering. Sincerely William Meyer 07:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User:William Meyer/Haven Institute

Your blank page is at the above link. Please take care of WP:N and try to include as many sources as possible as well as writing the article in a encyclopedic tone without bias. Good luck and feel free to ask for another pair of eyes whenever you feel like it.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see a lot of references but can you tell me whether you have any conflicts of interest here? You clearly know the subject very well. For such a long article, and for the others you have written you need to include citations in the text to show where the information comes from. This is a good way to make sure that information is properly sourced because if you can't cite it, you can't include it. Also, I think for a marginally notable institution, this is a very long article and citations will be helpful to you to get the balance right. Remember that this article has already been deleted because of concerns that it may be advertising so its important to get this nailed down before you try and restore this to the main space. Let me know when you have made the citations and I'll have another look and make some pratical suggestions for any required changes. Finally, how specialist are the references? Are the national or local? That's important for verifying notability. The more widespead the coverage the better. I hope this helps - this is much improved and definately on the right path. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Spartaz

Thanks for your reply. Glad to hear you think I'm on the right track.

I do not have any conflicts of interest. I am not involved in this Institute other than to write about it. I do know the people involved reasonably well however.

I thought I had included citations in the text in my articles. But apparently I have not done this to your satisfaction. Please show me a place where I am derelict here, and I'll fix it. I have tried to follow Harvard Referencing, and then add a (Smith 2003) indicator in the body of the text that refers to a 2003 article or book by Smith. What am I missing?

You mention this is a very long article. Good information for me. I will cut it down.

I'll let you know when I have cut down the article and made the citations so that you can offer any further suggestions.

How specialist are the references? Most are reports from journalists who have done articles on The Haven Institute, in newspapers and magazines.

Two articles are from Gabriola Island's newspaper; one more is from Nanaimo newspaper (nearby) and three are from Vancouver/Victoria publications .... both cities are in the same province, but at quite a distance (their coverage is province-wide). Finally, two articles are from a publication in Taipei, Taiwan to back up the international coverage.

William Meyer 21:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to come back to this another day as I am busy with something else at the moment. I hope that is OK. {you can reply here btw I have the page watchlisted). --Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Humbug

I appreciate your telling me that you are onto something else so I won't think you have disappeared. I have shortened the article considerably, and I have placed the citations in the body of the text ... have I done this correctly?

How does this article look to you now? Better length? Citations correct?

I want to be squeaky clean with these citations/references ... once I know I am doing it 100% properly, I will fix up the other pages I have written to the same standard. So, I value your tutoring.

Many many thanks for your human interaction with me.

William Meyer 21:46, 2 March 2007

To --Spartaz ^Humbug!

Perhaps you are too busy to deal with my request for help ... if so, please just say so, and I'll seek help elsewhere. I have redone the Haven Institute page, and I would appreciate your eyes on it to see if it looks acceptable.

1. Is it ready to resubmit for use on the Wiki pages?

2. If it is ready, how do I go about putting it on the regular pages? Just do it? Or do I need to ask permission of the review committee that reviewed the original pages that were deleted?

3. Any other comments or suggestions?

I think the references on the article are a little weak and they are rather dated. Is there nothing more recent you can cite? Otherwise you have done a good job with the rewrite. I think its still a work in progress but we have no deadline for getting this thing done. :-) If you wanted to have it restored to mainspace, I would suggest that you took it back to DRV with a request for consideration. You could just restore it but there is a danger of it being speedied again as recreated content - ideally you need a few more recent sources if you wanted to just restore it without going through DRV. Good luck and let me know what you decide to do. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Your comments are very helpful. I agree that there is no deadline ... I want to get it right the first time. I will find some more recent references ... I don't think this will be difficult to find ... just will take some leg work to get them. I'll get more recent references, and then get back to you when I think I have satisfied what you suggested. Best wishes, ... William Meyer 23:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

To Humbug! -- References Enhanced and Updated

I have added more recent references, and cited them in the text. I believe I have satisfied your recent suggestion. How does this look now? Is it ready for mainspace now? William Meyer 17:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

DRV

Do you think you are ready to try and have this restored in main space? There are lots of references now. If so, I'll list it for you at DRV. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please. I am ready to try to restore this to main space now. Please list it at DRV for me. What do I need to do? Is there a page I should be watching? Thanks for all your help. William Meyer 16:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Move to mainspace

Following talk at the talk page of the admin who initially deleted this as an speedt advert, there were no objections to restoring this to main space after work by the main editor to fix the article. I forgot the move summary. Sorry. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup of Haven Institute Page

I have cleaned up the article, and established the Harvard reference style for footnotes. William Meyer (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Merging Wong and McKeen into Haven Institute

Sent to Sticky Parkin

You suggested merging these two articles. This is an interesting idea that I have contemplated in the past. When I first created both of these pages, I considered having only one entry, but I had difficulty in keeping what seemed like two topics clear of each other ... it seemed to be an excessively large sweep to try to include the Wong/McKeen development into the Haven Institute current state. As the the Wikipedia pages have developed, I can see how they could indeed be part of one entry now. However, I strongly recommend that this not be done for the following reasons:

1. Wong and McKeen have now retired from the Haven Institute, and have passed the ownership into a nonprofit charity (The Haven Foundation). So, as such, Wong and McKeen are now at "arms' length" from the Foundation and the Institute. There could be some possible confusion created by merging the two entries, implying that the Wong/McKeen collaboration is entirely within the scope of the Haven Institute. Wong & McKeen are "Emeritus Faculty" but are not part of the day-to-day operation or decision making of the Haven Institute or Foundation. The Haven Foundation/Institute functions on its own with its own Board of Directors. So, in many ways it makes sense to keep them separate. Wong and McKeen continue to be active on other fronts, with occasional input into the Haven Institute/Foundation.

2. The Haven Institute is only one of the contributions of the long association of Wong and McKeen, albeit a significant one. For example, their current work with Hua Wei University in China and Hua Wei Global Corporation worldwide is outside of the operation of the Haven Institute, and this chapter of their collaborative career is still unfolding.

3. Their books are being translated into other languages separate from the Haven Foundation, and they have been travelling and working in many other countries, but not on behalf of the Haven Institute.

So, in summary, I recommend against merging Wong/McKeen into the Haven Institute page on the grounds that they are now quite separate endeavours. They relate to each other, but one does not fall inside the other. I am interested in your responses to this.

William Meyer (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wong and McKeen both have their own articles so there's no need for an article on 'wong and mckeen'. You'll find nothing like that on wikipedia IMHO, unless it's a law firm or something. It's not encyclopedic in tone or nature. All of it can be covered in their own articles, or the haven one, and probably most of it already is.

Sticky Parkin 14:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually,there is a similar situation with Simon and Garfunkel. There are separate articles for Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel and then a separate article for the duo. Indeed, I followed this prototype when I created these separate pages. In the Simon and Garfunkel situation, this works well to keep a clear distinction of their activities separately and together. Then, the parallel continues when Wikipedia deals with the creative contribution of the duo of Simon & Garfunkel. There is a separate page for the Simon & Garfunkel discography, which points to a "Main Article" on a separate Wikipedia page Simon & Garfunkel discography.IMHO, this works very well indeed.

Wong and McKeen is a unique duo, in much the same way Simon and Garfunkel is unique. The Wong/McKeen teamwork crosses the borders between art, science, and philosophy. If their work were simply subsumed into the container of one of their contributions, this wider significance could easily be missed.

If the main reason for considering merging is "duplication" or "overlap" I believe this can be handled with some clear and sharp editing, which I would propose to undertake. As an initial action, I would propose to remove almost all of the section from the Wong and McKeen article entitled "The Haven Institute" .... this is adequately covered in the Haven Institute article and should not be duplicated.

I want to deal with this respectfully and cooperatively. Will you give me the chance to clear up the duplication and edit it as I propose, and continue this dialogue? Sincerely, William Meyer (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Simon and Garfunkel were a well known band or duo, these aren't. If you see how often this phrase is mentioned, you'll see they are not notable independently of their own articles, which already exist.[1] compare to simon and garfunkel [2] They're mentioned 10,000 times more, and about 5000 times more in newspapers [3] [4] so you can see it's not at all comparable. Let's turn the question around. I'll see what is not already mentioned in the other articles. That way we can see how much this article is needed.:) Oh and the pic, I would love it to be changed, it's just cheesy, but that's my personal preference and I have no other reason for it.:) Sticky Parkin 17:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course Wong & McKeen are not comparable in terms of sheer numbers. But the structure of the articles is surely what is at issue. They are well known (although not superstars) and the references that are cited in the Wong and McKeen page prove they are notable; if you follow the list of references, the topics covered in these media articles are on many topics, not just what they have written ... and they are third-party. Indeed in the WM article, the references are from independent news and reference sources for the most part. Even though your Google search does not come up with a lot of "hits", The Alan Thicke show [Alan Thicke Show Archives] shows that they have been well known for decades.

I get your spirit of cooperation in your willingness to see what is not mentioned in the other articles to determine how much this article is needed. I appreciate your willingness to investigate like this.

In the meantime, it is clear to me that the mention of the Haven Institute in the WM article is a duplication, and I will deal with this forthwith.

I will await your reply. William Meyer (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wong and McKeen Decisions

To Sticky Parkin: You wrote: delete is unencyclopedic and unnecessary due to their individual articles and separate article about the Haven Institute that they founded.

Not notable as a collective entity. Plus the pic is painful. Sorry WM.:) Sticky

I yield ... you are intent upon deleting this page. I will not resist this further.

Will you put a redirect so that other links to Wong and McKeen will be redirected to Haven Institute? Please advise. William Meyer (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I just underdid the other couple of links and put "Bennet Wong and Jock McKeen instead, so it should be fine.:) Sticky Parkin 21:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wong and McKeen Major Editing Completed

I have completed a major editing of the this article to respond to the criticisms from the editors, who are discussing deletion or merging of this article.

I believe I have addressed the criticisms of the different editors who have written about this article, and request that this article be retained, or merged with the Haven Institute article. William Meyer (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Haven Institute Merge Tag

To Sticky Parkin: The Wong and McKeen page has now been deleted. The "merge" tag is still on the Haven Institute page. Can I remove this tag? Or do you want to do it? William Meyer (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I just removed it. What are you going to work on next? Hope you stick around.:) My first article was deleted too. Sticky Parkin 03:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply, and for your encouragement. I'm not sure what I will work on next ... I see lots of pages that need tweaks, and I'll concentrate on that for a while. William Meyer (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

status

1. The refs are ok , except for needing links to any online version that may be available.

... DONE William Meyer (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

2. Is the institute accredited to give the degree it gives, and if so by whom? If not specifically accredited, is the degree accepted? I do not know if BC accredits specific degree programs.

Terminology ... in B.C., it is not "accredited" but "registered" ... see the new section "Institutional Registration and Credits"

3. It might be better to mention only the visitors who have articles in Wikipedia so readers realise they are notable.

... DONE William Meyer (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

4. try to give numbers rather than the word "many"

.... DONE William Meyer (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

5. It would be very good to try to find some refs in national publications,, not just the local ones.

... IN PROCESS I am researching this, but so far, I have not found a national publication listing William Meyer (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll check back in a week. DGG (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE: There is still a "Category:Items to be merged" and "Category:Articles to be merged{{#if:" which I have not touched William Meyer (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Improving Bennet Wong, Jock McKeen and Haven Institute

To: DGG (talk)

• I have given close attention to all three articles now, to address each item you suggested to improve these articles. In particular, I have upgraded the references and footnotes for Bennet Wong and Jock McKeen and taken into consideration your previous feedback.
• Have I satisfactorily addressed the issues you outlined? Do you have further recommendations to improve the articles? What is next?
• Please note the trailer on the Haven article regarding "Category:Items to be merged" and "Category:Articles to be merged{{#if:"... I think it is a partially removed tag ... but I have left it, not knowing if it should be there or not. Should this be there?
• I look forward to your feedback. Thanks. William Meyer (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)