User talk:JonHarder/Archive/4

List of applications developed by David Watanabe PRODed for deletion.

The article List of applications developed by David Watanabe is proposed for deletion. You have made edits to this page, so I have informed you as a courtesy. Thanks, Bpringlemeir 21:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I would endorse the prod, but another editor has already done so! ✤ JonHarder ^talk 21:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The prod was contested. The David Watanabe list is proposed for deletion. You have made edits to this page, so I have informed you as a courtesy. Bpringlemeir 14:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP Zimbabwe

You have been invited to join the WikiProject Zimbabwe, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of Zimbabwe. If you'd like to join, just add your name to the member list. Thanks for reading!

Part 19:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I watch the Bulawayo page, but probably won't get more involved than that for the time being. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 03:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico City rewind

Hi there,

I just wanted to say thanks for the "rewind" you did on Mexico City; I'm still an amateur at editing, and basically I got a bit confused with what was going on. So, thanks again!

Richardmtl 20:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Sometimes it helps to look at the recent history and check the diffs of several recent edits to get out all the damage. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 03:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agar Spam ?

Hello. I'm relatively new to wiki and have been trying to do things right. I'm presently making efforts on elements of category:Sea vegetables and would like to help improve any of these articles. I am still getting to know the guidelines. I've visited the external links for Agar and find that the Rose's Kitchen multiple entry does not have anything for sale, so it seems okay in that regard, however, I feel wikipedia's policy is to NOT list recipe links on a food page, but I haven't actually seen that guideline anywhere, so I'm uncertain. HOWEVER, Science Buddies does sell science kits on that main page, does that make it inapropriate?--Tallard 01:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied ✤ JonHarder ^talk 11:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet café‎

If you have some time, would you please read over Internet café‎ (an article you previously contributed to) and make any necessary changes. Some recent edits may not make the grade. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 15:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LON-CAPA

Hi Jon, you twice put reference remarks into this article. I can fully understand the desire to create articles that have information from reliable sources. However, in many cases this is not possible, as there are no third party sources. Nevertheless, this information is factual and not at all of a speculative nature. Information that may appear speculative needs to be backed up, but one need not back up the obviously observable. The LON-CAPA article is very neutral and makes no special claims or judgements. It simply attempts to describe a learning platform that is largely unresearched. As I am an expert in the area of E-Learning, I happen to know quite a bit about LON-CAPA. What do you suggest here? Most Wikipedia articles that contain "new information" don't have references. What do you have against this article specifically? Chorpita (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is one of the core policies of WIkipedia and reliable third party sources an integral guideline. The very existence of an article hinges on these important policies and guidelines. As the verifiability policy states,

If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

As an expert in the field, you are in a position to identify those third party sources. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 22:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I agree with you and I cleaned up the article. Thanks for emphasizing the guidelines. I am new here, so it helps to get some tips. Chorpita 13:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Jimmy Leonard Stolk

Hi Jon,

Could you please elaborate why you nominated Jimmy Leonard Stolk? In the summary you only mention that you could not find his name on the internet, but I assume you read the article, saw what the subject is, and continued your search elsewhere? I am not totally up to date with enwiki's policies, but what made you so sure that this person was absolutely not encyclopedia-worthy, so much, that the article has to be speedied? Thanks for the explanation. effeietsanders 15:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I based my nomination on the fact the Stolk is not mentioned in the December murders article nor could I find any reference to "Jimmy Leonard Stolk" and "December murders" doing a Google search. No reference was provided in the article and it appeared impossible to verify the information (I see a reference has since been added). Biographies of living people gives certain minimum standards about unsupported claims about living people. With the added reference, the article is fine, though it might be more appropriate to merge it into the December murders article. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 22:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that still doesn't make clear why you choose for a speedy insted of regular deletion procedure. By the way, a Google query gives several sources, mainly newspapers, about the december murders. That little information is available in English is to be expected of course. A merger of 25+15 biographies in the december murders article (an article about the happening, not about the people involved) would not seem appropriate to me by the way. I assume you will share this opinion if you look some further into the matter :) effeietsanders 07:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My rule of thumb is to tag articles for speedy deletion that I am 90% certain an administrator will agree qualify. I believed this article did not provide enough context to establish it as a valid article topic. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 01:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, never too late to learn apperently, I always was under the assumption that speedy deletion was not about whether an admin agreed on deleting or not, but about whether it either damages the encyclopedia (vandalism, nonsense, commercialism) either is really really really non-encyclopedic (and generally nonsense), and that with any doubt, one should use a normal deletion procedure. But, well, I am not that long active on enwiki, so I might have misunderstood the principles here (they probably changed from the original wikipedia concept) Thanks for clarifying. effeietsanders 16:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on people, companies and some other topics can be deleted without discussion if they don't indicate what makes them notable. That definitely is a change from the earlier days. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 18:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, really bad haikus from a new admin

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Click there for my RfA spam haikus! → → →

Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will new mop act?
Ooops, .com blocked

New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well Main Page

New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault

A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out DRV

A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye

Qatar is blocked
Shucks those range blocks are tricky!
Will get it straight soon.

Colbert's elephants
stampede Wikipedia
Must protect, protect

Wiki fortress not.
Open gates, knowledge wings free
But fiends are about

Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ... A. B.

This RfA thank you card is based on a card originally done by Phaedriel

Jon, thanks so much for your support in my RfA.

I just noticed you're not an admin -- can I talk you into standing for adminship? --A. B. ^(talk) 01:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, enjoy your haikus

Congrats on your adminship! This will increase your effectiveness and value to the project. Yes, someday I will stand for adminship, but I am not quite ready yet.✤ JonHarder ^talk 17:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benedictus

Hello Jon, please would you explain why you view it as off-topic to mention (i) another service in which this canticle is used and (ii) its relevance there? [1] - Fayenatic (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reviewing my edit, I removed too much text from that area of the article. I will restore

It is also used in various other liturgical offices, notably at a funeral, at the moment of interment, when words of thanksgiving for the Redemption are specially in place as an expression of Christian hope.

which appears appropriate for that article. The part that I still believe is off-topic is the next sentence:

The name is also given to a part of the Roman Catholic Mass that begins with Benedictus qui venit.

which does not refer to Luke 1:68-79 and is more properly covered in Benedictus or perhaps Sanctus.

Does this help address your concern? ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, excuse the delay in responding. Yes, that's fine now. Thanks, Fayenatic (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to remove Tag on Karnataka/Carnatic music

To date there is clear support to keep the Karnataka/Carnatic music site as is without merging. Rebuttals are given to all comments and they are no counter rebuttals. There appears to be some looping comments. As of now I assume a consensus is reached about not to merge the site. Therefore may I request you to remove the 'tag' so that I can focus on improvising the site. Naadapriya (talk) 10:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to hang on several days or a week. There is an emerging consensus that the article should not be merged. However, the article needs to be renamed to something more clear. The slash (/) means what? If you focus on working that out, perhaps the merge question will resolve itself. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 13:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr. JonHarder, thanks for the response. I will wait till next week. Meanwhile I will research on alternate names without '/'. To rename should I create a site with new title or is there a way to rename the current title.Naadapriya (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very easy to do by using the "move" tab at the top of the article. It would be good to first suggest the new name on the talk page with the merge discussion because that will help bring that discussion to a successful conclusion and you may get some helpful suggestions or alternatives there. There is no rush to rename the page; giving it a little time will make sure everone's idea will be heard. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 19:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I will follow the instructions.Naadapriya (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My article ‘Karnataka/Carnatic Music’ has been mistakenly deleted by an ‘admn’ based on unjustified suggestion by an editor. My requests with point by point responses to the criticisms are not honored. Now I need to rebuild it. Public needs Karnataka Music site based on verifiable facts. It may take a while for me to rebuild since I cannot access the source. Based on some suggestions I received so far I will find a new title. Thanks for your support.Naadapriya (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like the deletion was a mistake. Blnguyen‎ is an experienced and knowledgeable editor and administrator. It would be best to brush up on WIkipedia policy and guidelines and cooperate with the other editors of Carnatic Music to improve that article. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 20:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into history of ‘Carnatic Music’. Clearly it has several incorrect information which have been pointed out repeatedly by several users but overwritten by some POV pushing editors acting like owners with endorsement by ‘admn’. Many given up due to frustration which is not good for Wikipedia. Very fact it claims Carnatic music as South Indian Classical music has no objective evidence. The second sentence contradicts its own title. Carnatic is a word came to existence to identify a region about 400 years after Karnataka Music, the only South Indian Music was founded in early 15th century. Just because 'Carnatic music’ was attached to ‘Karnataka Music’ by one specific group for political reasons in mid 19th century, it can not be used as the original name. I have not received responses by 'Admn' for three enquiries. Therefore a separate article is needed for ‘Karnataka Classical Music’ to serve justice to the truth.Naadapriya (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you are describing is a content fork, which is discouraged on Wikipedia. A good approach is to try to find a way to cooperate with the other editors of that article. Start with the least controversial changes and clearest sources and slowly work your way up to more difficult issues. Admins won't be helpful until someone clearly violates a policy or guideline. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 22:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The observation after reviewing again is that it is neither POV nor content fork. The carnatic music article has serious embedded deceptive information[2] starting from the title. Several have tried to correct it with vain. Valid corrections were tainted either as vandalism or spam and due to implied endorsement of ‘admn’ users have quit correcting with frustration. Looking at the history, it is not clear if new efforts to correct the existing embedded inaccuracies will work. Alternate and efficient way to accurately present the facts is needed. It will be followed-up Naadapriya (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understand Mexico

Hello Jon, you recently put a comment on my talk page regarding my external links to UnderstandMexico.com I'd like to have a discussion about my project and wikipedia with you and get a bit of advice. I'd like to do this on my talk page so that if other users want to see our dialog as a result of any of the external links I have/will create they will have easy access to it. See you there, Aburda (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk page. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 22:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of reference material submitted by goldrush1849

John, I was a bit surprised to see the removal of reference material submitted by myself and a reference to my company name "Les Kelly Enterprises" as a spam.

I am the co-author/illustrator/photographer of a number of biographical photo books written by Williamt T. Anderson, the noted and awared winning biographer of Laura Ingalls Wilder, i.e., Laura Ingalls Wilder Country, The Little House Guidebook, et al, and http://lauraingallswilder.com, all of which have authentic biographical information about Laura Ingalls Wilder ... some of the books are published by HarperCollins and others are self published. I am at a loss as to why these would be consider "spam" but then I grew up way the heck before "spam" became more than the stuff in a can that we ate after WWII and didn't know that it was not good stuff.

Each of the above books contain images, some historical, some current, all provide bio and authentic images of things that were and are today of interest to millions of people around the world. They are consider reference books, hence they were listed un resources and reference materials. That fact that I am also a writer, photographer, publisher doesn't seem to me, at least, to meet the moniker of "spammer".

Same goes with the books about the Amish. America's Amish Country I and America's Amish Country II. They are excellent references. I would also note that you have websites about the Amish that contain advertising and are commercial enterprises but listed as reference material and so while I am at it, I would question their inclusion when http://amish.net is not included.

Forgive my ignorance but I did read each of the subjects carefully before posting ... and if you would like for me to point out the various books and websites that are very similar to mine that you removed, I would be happy to do so. I am spending the week in Fairbanks, am snowed/frozen in but have very workable internet access and not a lot to do as I wait out the weather while overlooking (so I am told) an incredible view of the southern edges of the Brooks Range.

I just took a look at the Wikipedia's listing of Kelly v Arriba Soft. I am the Kelly in this landmark Internet image and copyright infringement/intellectual property violation lawsuit. I see that Wikipedia references a good bit of the factual information taken from http://netcopyrightlaw.com, a commerical venture that I operate based on this case. Is its listing here in violation of the "spam" clause. I didn't post it but then ...

Your thoughts?

With best regards,

Leslie A. KellyGoldrush1849 (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC) User "goldrush1849" at http://wikipedia.org[reply]

Author, Photographer [3] [4] [5]

The issue here is the conflict of interest policy, which in a nutshell states, do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests … If your site or books are valuable, another neutral editor will discover and add it eventually. It is acceptable to point out resources that you have an interest in on the discussion page of an article, but don't expect that a neutral editor will decide to include it. In general, articles do not helped by more external links; to be improved article text itself must be expanded and refined. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 22:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mennonite Brethren Collegiate Institute

Please stop editing the WIKIPEDIA page for MENNONITE BRETHREN COLLGIATE INSTITUE. As principal, we take this matter very serious, already contacting WIKIPEDIA about you reversing the changes that we have made. We have had issues with some students defacing the page, but it has been taken care of promptly. We thank you in advance for letting us "run" our page, adding what we feel it needs, and reverting vandalism. All we ask is that we are able to change the WIKIPEDIA page for the school which I am principal, allowing us to better our public view.

Thanking you in Advance,

The MBCI Adminstration & Norbert Bargen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Batfinkw (talk • contribs) 23:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia policy, administrators must avoid editing articles about their own school. Will you be abstaining from now on? And it is not your page. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 00:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Action Can be persued by MTS, and out Legal team is now looking at possible legal action, you keep editing the page with copyrighted material. Any questions can be forwarded to our legal team at 986-5700. The following is a copy of the Copyright Ingringement Act:

[long legal document removed]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Batfinkw (talk • contribs) 04:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 22:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the idea that the school could be attempting to control a webpage about it is appalling, I don't think that Batfinkw could possibly be an official representative of the school. He made this inappropriate edit. He may have some knowledge of the school, but he is just fooling around, you could call it vandalizing, in my view. doncram (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Fortunately the mischief related to the article has abated. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SmackBot and capitalization.

Yes it will be rare that it does this, but it happens - usually when an article moves out of one of the undated categories during a run, but I have just included two new templates, which may have thrown up a few more cases. Rich Farmbrough, 23:01 10 February 2008 (GMT).

IM+ and IM+ for Skype

Hello again, we've had a long debate about keeping an article about IM+ back in April-May.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JonHarder/Archive/3#IM.2B_deletion The article we had up was not a repost, it was a stub. Just like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_Messenger Could you please reconsider the deletion. Kind regards Leanalove (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles were basically a repost of the originals. Once an article is deleted through the AFD process, it should not be recreated. If there is substantially new information that satisfies the earlier concerns, the avenue for creation is the deletion review process. I prodded Agile Messenger. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 16:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Issues

Thank you, JonHarder, for your comments. I appreciate your suggestions and will incorporate them in my next try to edit Tourism > History > Creative Tourism.

Kind regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pikoura 2008 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will also want to consider whether "Creative Tourism" is well enough established (notability) to include in the article. If it is mostly used by the NZ pair, it may not yet have enough significance to merit mention. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 21:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Job

Thank you for assisting me in making my contributions more concise and flowing. You do it very well. I will try to be less "wordy" in the future. Steel212 (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pentecostalism article seems to have a bit more reference to Jesus Only Oneness history then necessary. Since a separate article on them exists wouldn't a concise reference be enough? Since there is so much material here I will make no attempts to edit it. I will leave that to your expertise.

Also since many people never look up references it seems Dr. Ward's name should appear in the article. He is NOT Jesus Only Oneness but they have quoted his writings. It seems he should be mentioned in the mainline camp he is properly a part of. Also not all Pentecostals subscribe to the view of Pentecostal succession although the ranks are rapidly growing.

In the Landmarkism article there needs to be a clearer definition of "Baptismal Succession." I am not sure how or where this could be placed but it is a popular doctrinal position among Independent Landmarkists and should be addressed. I would attempt to contribute it myself but I could not do as well as yourself or perhaps someone who subscribes to this doctrine.

Steel212 (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a good judge of whether Jesus Only Oneness is receiving undue weight in the article. In similar situations, what I have done is adapt the lead paragraph(s) of the separate article as a replacement for overly long text in another article. This assumes the ideal, where the lead text is a good summary of the separate article. This would be a good topic for you to bring up on the article's talk page, and if there are no objections to your suggested changes, then implement them!

In general, I prefer to keep the names associated with sources out of the article text. It detracts from the main points being made. In this case, what is important to me are the different views with respect to the "continuous line" and presenting both views in a neutral manner. Listing individual proponents detracts from that flow. In this case it sidetracks my thought process, making wonder who Ward is, but I am provided no clue. As an aside, the Wikipedia manual of style says to avoid using titles such as "Dr.". People who want to know more about the specifics will read the notes!

I have not edited the Landmarkism article and am not likely to do so. Our editing has coincidentally intersected on several articles, but I will likely be moving on to other articles in the near future as I have no long term interest in the Pentecostalism or Southern Baptist Convention articles that we have both been editing. I'm sure you will do a fine job editing the Landmarkism and other articles. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Conflicts

Pvsamrat (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)pvsamrat Hi I just colected the information from those sites,but they are not the exact blatant copies.[reply]

I disagree. They are pretty much word-for-word and phrase-for-phrase. You cannot do that! You must paraphrase. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 03:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt

Pvsamrat (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)pvsamrat hi JonHarder I have one small doubt,can i collect the information from the sites and can i write it in my own words attaching the references,kindly clarify my doubt.[reply]

Yes, write the articles in your own words and supply the references. Don't copy whole sentences and phrases. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 04:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammy Award records

I am unsure as to why you tagged the GRammy awards record page when the page is referenced. I have fixed the other ones that you have tagged, but this one I don't know that I agree with. I did put a ref in, but I don't think your tag was appropriate. Thank you Canyouhearmenow 22:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, of course. The I took your new ref out, as it was not really necessary. Since the {{reflist}} tag was not present I completely missed that there were inline refs. Sorry. Keep up the good work! ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Munster

I know you have some history with the radical reformation - I noticed minor edits to the Grebel Page - and that you've created some decent Articles(I ran in to you when my friends tried to deface CMU's page to my detriment) on mennonite-related topics before. Presently, there's no article on Munster. I'm radically under qualified to write it... so I was wondering if you would pick it up(yes, I know, he never baptized himself or any other adult...) Jethro 82 (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the article you are referring to: Thomas Müntzer. There are a lot of articles in this area I would like to spend some time on and some missing ones that need to be added. I hope you pitch in as you can! ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Leone

Yes it was supposed to be Category:, I thought I had sorted it. Thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 23:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Glutamate & cooking

John,

Yesterday, you suggested that a new category I created, Glutamate & cooking, be deleted or revised. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_March_6#Category:Glutamate_.26_cooking

I agree with your points, and my category was poorly named. But I think the concept is good.

The theory is that "Umami sources" are analogous to "sweeteners", and I was thinking it should make a good category. Another option is to make it into a list, but I think it is interesting to readers how soy sauce, nam pla, and ancient Roman garum are effectively quite similar.

You seem very experienced about these sorts of discussions, and I feel some of the other commentators are not really paying attention to the point of the category -- so perhaps you could take another look at the above talk page, now that there are more comments (and I clarified the original category page), and lend your opinion.

Thanks, Wxidea (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another look has been helpful. I now support rename.[6] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wxidea (talk) 04:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How should I cite these sources?

You tagged the article Robert Abbett (Illustrator) with needing sources, and you are right. My question is how should I do this--my sources are the bookseller lists at Abebooks, which are temporary, and not likely to be there in a year. Jacqke (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely let us know where you are getting the information. Perhaps later you or someone will find a better or more reliable source. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 12:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I added 2 references which seem to cover what I put into the article. The tags cover the information in the article, so I am pulling the tag. I'll watch to see if there are any objections. Jacqke (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added more references today, taking care of every fact I could see. Is there an expectation for the lists to have book by book references--I haven't seen that anywhere on Wikipedia. Those lists are really covered by the same sources in the introductory paragraph. Jacqke (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references you provided are more than adequate. You need not duplicate references that are covered in the introductory paragraph, unless it is something quite controversial, which doesn't really apply to this article. The references help others find more information on the topic and verify facts that they may have questions about. There are a few style changes that I may step in and help with: your headers should not be linked and the references in the header itself should be moved out, somewhere in the main text. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am not sure what you mean with the headers, so I will watch for that change. Then I'll clean up the duplicate citations.Jacqke (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Reversion of reference requests

I will just suggest you to go for AfD for those articles where finding reference in hard. There are many articles which really impossible to provide reliable source, hence those article fails WP:N. So AfD will the right place for many of them. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally accepted that deletion is good process instead of fact tagging. Even Jimmy Wales said that instead of using fact tags, remove unsourced material.

“

In general, I find the "fact" tagging to be overdone in Wikipedia. A better option is to nuke the unsourced material. Sometimes "fact" is warranted, I don't mean that it is always a bad idea. But it is overdone.I very often see completely preposterous claims tagged with "fact", usually because an editor is being excessively cautious. Be bold.

”

If you add tag for reference, it will stay for long time without any change. I will tell you to simply go for AfD. There are many articles which are really need to be AfDed. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your tagging for unreferenced will not be inappropriate, but your AfD will be more appropriate. No matter if BLP or not, we cannot have a lot of garbage here. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

French commune stubs

There are something like 30,000 of them, recently added as a Wikiproject: tagging them for refs is kind of pointless (what kind of ref do you provide for an inherently-notable locale anyway?) and futile - they are generated from the French Wikipedia, and the intention is to translate the French content to fill them in. I've translated a few myself, so if you speak (or read) French, that would be the best thing to do. Acroterion _(talk) 21:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An atlas or gazetteer would be an appropriate source. Those are typical sources in other location related articles. The information must have come from some place originally. Why not share that source with the rest of us? (And no, Wikipedia itself does not qualify as a reliable source.) ✤ JonHarder ^talk 21:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, you're right on all counts: however, historically, geographic article stubs have begun in this manner to get the ball rolling as an encyclopedia-building exercise. While it would have been better to include a standard reference for the sake of form with each article, this wasn't how it was done. I merely observe to save you the impossible task of tagging all 30,000. Many of the fr:wiki articles I've encountered are appropriately sourced, or are no worse off than comparable US stubs. Acroterion _(talk) 22:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not planning to tag all 30,000. I have just been patrolling new articles and I probably will continue to tag the new ones that no one else has patrolled. Or, like some other editors, include the "unreferenced" tag yourself and save me the extra step! Most new geography articles (stubs) that I am checking do give a basic source. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 22:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem: my newpage patrol today has consisted of speedy-deleting vanity pages, protologisms and general hash. There are a lot of people on the wiki today who think their cat is notable - merely unreferenced is almost a relief. Acroterion _(talk) 22:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I typically patrol pages that have not been marked as patrolled and are more than a day old. So I generally see a lot of good stuff, such as the stubs we are discussing, that no one wanted to "sign off" on. I sort by user, because they are a either equally good or have similar problems. That's why you see all of these commune stubs being tagged at once. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 22:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced tags in stubs

I have removed only the unreferenced tags you added in some geographical stubs like French communes. There are thousands of such geographical locations and communes. Do you tag all them? I think tagging of the French commune is not good. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they are not referenced, it is entirely proper to tag them all. And highly improper to remove them without adding the references; Otolemur crassicaudatus chooses to ignore that and removed my comment on that line from his talk page. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now he's taken it to WP:ANI#Unreferenced tagging of Frech commune stubs [sic, though somebody may eventually fix the spelling]. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 17:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in Croatia deletion of sourced material

Hi, I see that you have acted to stop removal of sourced material form the article Tourism in Croatia. I just wanted to point your attention that some editors (apparently Croatian) are deleting it again. You can see form disucssion page and history that this was a concensus version reached in summer 2006 after long dispute, but since then it gets removed occasionally. I hope you can help this page is dealt with in accordance with wikipedia rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revamap (talk • contribs) 11:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to pass on this one and let editors more knowledgeable in this area work it out. While factual, the material does add a certain bias to the article. I don't believe removal is the answer, but there needs to be a solution that gives a more well-rounded approach to the topic. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 21:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rubber stamping patrolled edits

You have patrolled scores of articles in the last couple hours, sometimes spending only seconds between edits.

1) These articles need tags, and need to have their information checked. References? Citations? Notability?

2) The links often have no mention of the subject! (And in the case of Yanbol Synagogue, looking around the site, it appears the name is Yambol Synagogue.)

3) You are apparently rubber-stamping all articles written by other Wiki authors who are also using some automatic process (E.g., Kleinzack.)

You are taking scores of articles which need and might get attention, and burying them where they’ll be somebody else’s problem to discover and sort out.

24.130.9.194 (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I follow the edits of particular editors because their articles all tend to have similar problems or pass my basic set of criteria. I tag lots of articles with problems. I pass lots of articles that experienced editors get right the first time. I don't believe an article needs to be perfect to be marked as patrolled, so that the more difficult cases are highlighted for further investigation. I should have spent more time inspecting the Synagogue sources. What is your strategy for marking articles as patrolled? ✤ JonHarder ^talk 21:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I similarly have "heuristics". Mine are time-consuming, tending to avoid tagging that might be controversial (because I don't care for the grief of disputing with someone). So, different personal goals, and different methods to accomplish them. But my methods are still, as you may be pointing out, just "rules of thumb". I.e., a certain number of mistakes are unavoidable.

What I'm responding to is this sentence in Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/patrolled_pages "Any page that is not speedy deletable but still has issues should be marked as patrolled after it has been fixed or tagged." What I'm not seeing is the fixes and tags in patrolled articles.

However, a serious problem is introduced when the articles are created AND patrolled very quickly, AND created in great numbers. That process allows great numbers of poor articles to enter Wiki. If articles are to be created by stripping: asteroid catalogs, census data, biographical dictionaries, computerized sports records, etc., I don't see that my heuristics for marking as patrolled will work. But I'm not sure yours aren't also more fallible than necessary. If someone is to be allowed to enter hundreds of similar articles semi-automatically into Wiki, some other review process is necessary. (Possibly a small group reviewing the proposed source, the method for stripping that source, and the Wiki result.) Particularly, I would like to see some assurance that a "stub" would ever migrate from that status into an encyclopedic article. I've noticed these semi-automatically generated articles seem to hang for months and years in "stub" status.

The current review process is inadequate, and I'll give an example: working on Random Articles, I tagged a couple of cricket players for whom no information was entered, except their names and the team they played on. Immediately I got two complaints, the substance of one which was "Mind your own business, we've already decided this is important," and the second, more revealing one, that it "had been agreed" that all first-class cricketers should appear in Wiki. I was given a Wiki policy reference. In fact, I discovered, the policy didn't say anything of the kind, it said, almost oppositely, that notability was important, but that just being a first-class cricketer wasn't an absolute indicator of importance (nor was the lack of being a first-class cricketer). The policy made perfect sense to me, but the actual practice was unreasoning bureaucracy. Some groups are creating masses of articles mechanically, or almost mechanically, and responding to legitimate editorial tagging with inexact blanket assertions about their propriety. This has the net result of encouraging, then protecting, poor Wiki contributions.

Regards,

24.130.14.173 (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My experience is that the one thing that seems to most upset editors is requesting some type of source for every article besides disambiguation pages (and I let some lists go). I am yet to be convinced that most articles don't need some sort of source for verification. I also tend to look for some of the basic manual of style issues, copyright violations and clearly non-notable topics. I don't often encounter outright fraud because I tend to patrol only articles that are more than a day old and written by the more experienced editors. I don't have a problem with approving a sourced, well-formatted article and letting those involved in specific areas or wikiprojects with sorting out the gray areas with respect to notability. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 21:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section titles for List of NHLs in VA

Hi JonHarder -- I note your edit of section headers in List of National Historic Landmarks in Virginia. I think you do have a valid point or two to make, and I would like to take advantage of your perspective to improve the article (and other similar ones), but the replacement section titles that you put in don't work for me, either. I comment further at Talk:List of National Historic Landmarks in Virginia#Appropriate sections / header titles. I wonder if you could please discuss there? Thanks! doncram (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]