User talk:JonHarder

This is the talk page for talking to, with or about me - JonHarder

I nearly always answer on this page, so watch for a response here. If I placed a comment on your talk page, I will look there for your response.

If you are here because I deleted an external link you are particularly fond of, consider reviewing the conflict of interest, external links, how not to be a spammer and what Wikipedia is not policies and guidelines.

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page. The easiest way to do this is by starting here.

Archives: 0-a 0-b 1 2 3 4 5 6

Please respect

Talk page guidelines & Wikiquette

	The Barnstar of Diligence For your endless work in improving Wikipedia. I can't think of a better way of thanking you, so, thanks! And keep up the great work. ♠ SG →Talk 18:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
	The Editor's Barnstar Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping article clear of spam and other nonsense. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you! — Satori Son 01:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar To JonHarder for his tireless battle against the scourge of linkspam and excessive external links. Jon, Here's a little something (it's not much, I know) for all your hard and thankless work. I wanted to make sure that you know you're not alone in the battle. Keep up the good work. Regards -- Moondyne 05:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
	The Spamstar of Glory Presented to JonHarder for perserverance in fighting spam on Wikipedia --A. B. 18:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
	The Rusty Plow award I hereby award you the Rusty Plow for your endless- and I mean endless- struggle to defend the Amish article. Wachholder0 04:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]
	The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar For going back to 2006 and checking copyright violations in Wikiproject Hinduism articles and others. I would have never thought of doing it. :) Kudos. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
	The Editor's Barnstar For applying commonsense when editing this Project, including excision of unnecessary words and for avoiding senseless visual impairment, I award you this Editor's Barnstar. Tally ho! 98.82.34.167 (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fistral Beach

Hi JonHarder, I'm the editor who tagged Fistral Beach for tone and refimprove. I notice you have done some tidying and judicious chopping – thank you very much. The article is on the WP:Cornwall 'to do' list but it's nice to see an editor from further afield casting a fresh eye over it. Best wishes, Andy F (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS Spurred by your edit, I've revisited the article ans substantially re-worked it in line with other WP:Cornwall articles on places. Thanks again, Andy F (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I've noticed a number of articles that have become "surfing travel guides" and don't read like an encyclopedia article. Glad to hope out on this one. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 10:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For applying commonsense when editing this Project, including excision of unnecessary words and for avoiding senseless visual impairment, I award you this Editor's Barnstar. Tally ho! 98.82.34.167 (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You first came to my attention when I saw a slew of edits like this one, where (unlike most taggers) you placed a ref needed tag in the ref section (can you say "logical"?) instead of cluttering up the top of the page with a tag that would literally be bigger than the text of the article itself! Then I come to your User page and I read your list of peeves, and I realized that you are the kind of person that this encyclopedia needs more of. I hope that, in your work in the public school system, that someone has had the sense to take you out of the lab and put you to work teaching writing, which ALL students need, and which you could certainly teach. Good job! 98.82.34.167 (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note! ✤ JonHarder ^talk 14:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Lysergic acid diethylamide

Hello. You recently removed two links used as references and added two facts tags in their place. Visiting that site leads me to a seminal article by writer John Whalen called "The Trip: Cary Grant on acid, and other stories from the LSD Studies of Dr. Oscar Janiger" that was published in the LA Weekly on July 9, 1998. Since that time, the article has been referenced in various publications and copies of it are widely hosted, such as on the website for the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. Because of the wide availability of this information, I'm surprised that you didn't add the reference but chose to add fact tags instead. Furthermore, in the very same paragraph, this information is already sourced to a website run by Murdoch's family. Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! ✤ JonHarder ^talk 11:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: amish population

You were looking for a recent source. "By 2009, the Amish in North America numbered nearly two hundred fifty thousand in twenty-eight states and Ontario, Canada (Hurst and McConnell 2010: 15)." Another quote: "As of December 2008, there were 410 Amish settlements in twenty-eight states and Ontario, more than half of which had been founded since 1990. In 2008 alone, 16 new settlements were founded, an average of one every twenty-three days (Hurst and McConnell 2010: 29)."

Thanks for the tip. It looks like this is from An Amish Paradox: Diversity and Change in the World's Largest Amish Community. I've made a note of it and will get back to it when I have time. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 16:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Atitlan edits

John,

Are you aware that the link you are removing because it contains "little content" contains 1400 pages?

200.49.162.24 (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The individual pages of that site typically have little encyclopedic content. Consider summarizing useful content and placing it in the main body of the article. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 14:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Volleyball players

I have seen that you edited some volleyball articles. Some players articles, most of them looks outdated. I would like to improve players by country. Could you please choose a country to contribute with? Please take a look on Yekaterina Gamova, Hélia Souza, Serena Ortolani and Kenia Carcaces for a model to follow. Please can you please improve some volleyball players with infobox and some addons? References are very important. Let me know. Oscar987 22:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to be able to help with improving volleyball articles, other than some of the link work I have been doing. It is not an area I know a lot about and I have a long list of other things I am working on and want to work on during the next several months. Sorry I can't help, and I hope you find other to chip in on the volleyball articles. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yahshuah

Thanks for cleaning up the formatting a little... AnonMoos (talk) 05:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links to credenda.org

I've noticed that you've marked as broken quite a few links to credenda.org on some articles that I watch. The site recently overhauled its format, and older articles are slowly being reposted. It'd be great if we could leave the broken links as placeholders till the items are reposted so the Wikipedia articles don't have to lose useful info in the meantime. Is that feasible/within the guidelines/a good idea? Also, is there any automated way to find all the links on Wikipedia to the site? If so, we could appeal to the site's editors to prioritize those articles. What are your thoughts? Kyriosity (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typically refs labeled as broken are not removed until they can be fixed or replaced with something equivalent, so I wouldn't be too concerned about losing the information. Dead links in the "External links" section typically are just deleted. The external links tool will show all of the credenda.org links. (The external links tool is listed under special pages in the "Redirecting special pages" section.) I don't know how one would alert other editors unless all of the articles fall under one of the WikiProjects. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I sent that list to the Credenda folks for their consideration as they prioritize reposting articles. Kyriosity (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Howdy, I just wanted to drop in a say that I like your username (or perhaps it is your real name as well). It's like there is some guy named Jon and you're also Jon, only more ass-kickingly! That's it. Hope you have a great day highlighted by the madness that is the internet and the random folk populating it. Joe407 (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HAP I

Sorry about the revert, I was in a rush. I have put a couple of links up which should be useful. From the beginning this site has been problematic since it was put up by their communications person. I pointed it out at the time. It has also been pointed out on the disc page. I have also passed on the message to those in their office. I am not sure if they just don't get the point or are just too busy. Even then, it would be a pity if it were taken down completely as there is useful info and links.Joel Mc (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Keep up the good work. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 10:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Evangelical Mennonite Mission Conference

The article Evangelical Mennonite Mission Conference has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Hardly edited since 2004, ambiguous 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. I dream of horses @ 01:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule of thumb, any church body that is the main topic of a Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online article (this is a web version of a published work in print) and is a member of Mennonite World Conference is my standard for qualifying a topic as sufficiently notable. On that basis I am removing the prod. True, the conference is tiny and the article is not edited frequently (stability can be a good thing!), but a few articles link to it and there are some things that can be done to make it a better article and more fully develop its quality and usefulness to our readers. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 10:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I won't do anything more to get the article deleted. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 17:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckHarder (talk • contribs) 00:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When is a link a duplicate one or not?

Hi Jon, You obviously do a lot of good work for Wikipedia but I noticed you "Remove link that duplicates internal link in lead sentence" for the entry for Birmingham Humanists (on 8th November I think it was).

I'm not an expert on Wiki, having only written a half dozen or so entries, and so didn't want to click on the "undo" button without checking.

The lead sentence has an INTERNAL link to the Wikipedia article on the British Humanist Association but the link you removed was an EXTERNAL link to the British Humanist Association's own website. Therefore, I don't see that it was an exact duplication and would like the external link to be restored. I've checked Wikipedia rules on what should be linked & found:-

1. Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. You have removed the link to the official site!! I'd be interested to know your views on this. Best wishes John Edwards, Solihull UK Signyred (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am missing something, "the subject" in the case of the article in question is "Birmingham Humanists" and its official link is the still there, the first link. The link I removed is the official link of a different organization, British Humanist Association. The way I read number one quoted above, an article has one topic and, except in rare circumstances, one official link. By this reading, related organizations don't qualify under #1, but do fall under #19 for sites not to link to. In general, Wikipedia prefers linking to its own content when possible; when we have an article to direct our readers to, that is sufficient. The other external links at the end of Birmingham Humanists, aside from the official site, probably do not belong either; someone should take a closer look at those. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 11:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying; I see what you mean. I just think a link to an external site is very useful to users of Wikipedia, although from what you say this is not their view. Signyred (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link removal

Hi. Here, I've restored the item you removed because of a dead link and linked it to an archive copy. Please take a look at WP:CITE#Prnd it ineventing and repairing dead links. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links in the external links section are different than those used as references. Only occasionally, for example in case of the official website, are they worth recovering. See WP:EL#What can be done with a dead external link. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that, but didn't look in EL. A quick look at the item once I found the archived copy gave the impression of usefulness, so I re-added it with an updated link to the archived copy. Revisiting that now, I think it should be a Further reading item, so I've moved it there. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If dead links are useful, finding a non-copyvio archived version is a good alternative. My general rule of thumb is to remove dead links (from the ELs section only) without checking, because there tend to be so many, especially in lists that have grown uncontrollably long. The quality of a typical EL tends to be low or it would have been used as a ref, and usually it just isn't worth the effort to find a replacement. Sometimes when the dead link appears to be useful as an EL or a potential ref I will comment it out so it remains available for editors to use for building the article in the future. Editors with more specific knowledge are free to rescue the better ones. The alternative of always leaving dead links until an replacement is found seems unworkable because the EL section would continually grow until dead links outnumber the good entries. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 12:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I posted a question about how to proceed re a dead link you found in the Weldon Angelos Case article. I happened to keep an .mp3 of the radio program that the link refers to but I do not know what are my responsibilities in this regard -- if it should be put somewhere. Createangelos (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Trinity article: Two links to two books

Hello! JohHarder.

I added two links to two books in the Trinity article (and the article 'Jesus in Christianity') in November, which were subsequently removed. May I request you to reconsider the appropriateness of the links and the possibility of reinstating the links to the article.

Before inserting the two links, I had noticed that one of the two books were cited by someone else in the reference section of the article on the 'Theology of Karl Barth' in Theopedia. The title of the book is Jesus' Revelation of His Father: A narrative-conceptual study of the Trinity with special reference to Karl Barth. This book was strongly recommended by the late Prof. Daniel Hardy, the most senior theologian in Cambridge University then, who wrote the foreword of the book ((see http://www.jesus-trinity.co.uk/another-book/introduction-to-jesus-revelation-of-his-father). Also, the book received a number of very favourable reviews including a theologian and a Biblical scholar, both from Oxford University. These two reviews can be seen at http://trn.sagepub.com/content/25/2-3/166.extract and http://trn.sagepub.com/content/25/1.toc . It is no coincidence that this book was included in the reference section of the article 'Theology of Karl Barth' in Theopedia; it was included because of its high quality. Now, Theopedia is a more specialist reference resources for theology than Wikipedia. However, it is appropriate to include such reference from Theopedia into Wikipedia if the latter is to contain as much useful information as possible. Concerning the link to the other book, The Forgotten Jesus and the Trinity You Never Knew, it needs to be said that this book is highly recommended by no less than seven eminent scholars and theologians from around the globe. These endorsements/commendations can be seen on http://wipfandstock.com/store/The_Forgotten_Jesus_and_the_Trinity_You_Never_Knew or http://www.jesus-trinity.co.uk/gallery. By virtue of the quality of these two books and the strong recommendations given to them, they are qualified to be included into the appropriate articles in Wikipedia so that they can be made known to the public, who may then access them if they desire to find out more.

In view of the reasons given above, may I request you to kindly consider reinstating the two links for these two books in the following two articles in Wikipedia: 'Trinity' and 'Jesus in Christianity'. Your favourable decision will avail the public some useful resources on these theological topics.

Colterne (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I decline to reconsider. On high-profile articles like those, there are thousands and thousands of 'good and useful' books. We need to be more selective. A quick check at Theopedia reveals a user "Colterne" has added the links there. I can't begin to tell you how insulting it is for you to present its inclusion there (and here) as anything other than (self?) promotion. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A different user, Jordan Barrett, added the link to Theopedia back on 8 September 2008, see http://www.theopedia.com/index.php?title=Theology_of_Karl_Barth&diff=prev&oldid=43117, which is about the article 'Theology of Karl Barth'. He added the link specifically to the section on Further Reading: Trinity, along with other books by well known authors in the field. The community of Theopedia has happily accepted that link for more than two years. It was only very recently that Colterne has added that link and a second link (to a new book by the same author) to the article 'Trinity' in Theopedia. The community of Theopedia has accepted both links in that article. Therefore, it is correct to say that the insertion of these links was initiated back in September 2008 by another user and Colterne has merely made these links more widely available, i.e., beyond the community of Theopedia to the community of Wikipedia. If the community of Theopedia, which is more focussed on theological matters, thinks the links to these theological books are acceptable, perhaps the community of Wikipedia, when considering such matters, should give serious consideration to the acceptance there. Please re-consider your position. Colterne (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas 2010

Happy Holidays. Thanks for all the help in 2010. I can't give out physical gifts, so here are some ebooks :-)

A Christmas Carol; Charles Dickens; Chapman & Hall; 1843. (Online HTML eBook)
Wikipedia : The Missing Manual; John Broughton; O'Reilly Media; 312 pages; 2008; ISBN 9780596515164. (Download 30MB PDF eBook) (Online HTML eBook)
Kansas : A Cyclopedia of State History, Embracing Events, Institutions, Industries, Counties, Cities, Towns, Prominent Persons, Etc; 3 Volumes; Frank W. Blackmar; Standard Publishing Co; 944 / 955 / 824 pages; 1912. (Volume1 - Download 54MB PDF eBook), (Volume2 - Download 53MB PDF eBook), (Volume3 - Download 33MB PDF eBook)
The Story of the Marking of the Santa Fe Trail by the Daughters of the American Revolution in Kansas and the State of Kansas; Almira Cordry; Crane Co; 164 pages; 1915. (Download 4MB PDF eBook)

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the Christmas greetings and links! Best, ✤ JonHarder ^talk 13:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-missionary. You have been one of the major contributors to the article.Borock (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weldon Angelos dead link -- what to do next

Hi, can you have a look at the talk pg of the Weldon Angelos article? I uploaded a short ogg file excerpt from the radio program that seems to have disappeared from the internet after some years. Should there be a link to the ogg file in the article itself? I haven't dealt with a dead link before and am not sure what to do next. I do not have a recording of the entire radio program. Createangelos (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS A bot has given me a copyright warning on the excerpt too, now I am really confused what to do next. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Createangelos (talk • contribs) 19:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]