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, please review 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

Please respect

Talk page guidelines & Wikiquette

Advice About Wikipedia GAMEO article

Jon, someone has posted a brief article Wikipedia article on GAMEO (Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online) that is very inadequate and inaccurate. Since I'm the managing editor of that site, I have a conflict of interest in trying to work on it. Do you have suggestions, or could you do a bit of work. Some material could be copied from the GAMEO "Who We Are" page. I'm not sure Wikipedia needs a GAMEO article, but if one is there I'd like it to be better. Sam (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it some time. Note to self: MWC news release is an independent source.[1] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 21:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't get to it before it was deleted. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 17:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dayton, Ohio

Thank you for reverting the recent vandalism edit on the Dayton, Ohio article. I appriciate it, and I am sure that many others do as well.Texas141 (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Fox article

I'm trying to figure out how to contribute/edit responsibly. I picked you to ask because you are the name at the top of a listing of people who have edited/contributed to the George Fox article to which I would like to make a few relatively minor changes. I respect the work and effort that others have expended here. Rather than just up and start making changes as the boilerplate says I can do, it would be my preference to ask the whoevers that have put the most work in on this article if he/she/they feel my changes would be a modification for the better or at least neutral. My question is, then, how do I figure out who is/are the current person(s) honchoing this article or having the greatest amount of time invested in it, and how do I contact them? --75.40.48.187 (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you select the history tab of the article, you will see near the top of that page a link that says "Revision history statistics", which gives a list of contributors ordered by the number of edits. Scanning through that list, and disregarding the anonyous editors, it looks like Lingle would be a good person to contact. There is also a WikiProject Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) where you might consider posting your questions on the talk page if you want a slightly broader audience. I hope this helps. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 21:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mennonite Disaster Service (MDS)

Hello. I am planning on starting a new page for the Mennonite Disaster Service in the coming days. As you've made some great contributions to Anabaptist articles, I thought I'd mention it. Also, I plan on including a blurb about MennoNet in the article as well. Any assistance, info, etc. that you can contribute would be great. Thanks. :) Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll keep an eye out for it. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 17:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind reply. I got a lot busier than I thought this week, so only have the stub up. At least it is a starting point. When you have time, your contributions would be most welcome.

Also, I'm having trouble finding good cites regarding Mennonet. I believe the organization warrants at least one (sourced) sentence in the article. If you have any info, that would be great. Many thanks. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good start. I put it in my watchlist and did some formatting. I think a source for Mennonet is going to be tough to find. A Hesston College news release documents its association with MDS.[2] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 21:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your help. Thanks for the link; I'll check out the article and try to incorporate something regarding Mennonet. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a quick question that maybe you can help with. I'd like to add the MDS logo to the article, but am not sure how this is done considering copyright. I noticed other charity articles (e.g. American Friends Service Committee) have the logo included. Any direction would be great. Thanks. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Convert the logo to .png format if it is convenient for you to do so. Use the "Upload file" link and choose "The logo of an organization." Fill in as much of summary template as you can. The fair-use rationale goes on the "Purpose =" and "other_information" lines. See File:Ttv logo.png for an example of how a similar logo was described. Cut and paste what you can reuse from there. I hope this helps. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll check it out. :) Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pro bono...

You might like to keep an eye on your contribution to the First Great Awakening article which has been vandalized (I think). And thanks to you, I shall never dare to begin a sentence with the word 'increasingly'. Icfworship (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Reverted the damage and warned the user. You can easily do this yourself you choose. One way is to go to the article history, verify the vandalism, and then select "undo" above the right column. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 17:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Enns on Mennonite article

I see Jared Enns in the Mennonite article infobox as "Founder" but I have not been able to find his name associated with the Mennonites. Perhaps you can help.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone was messing around with the article. Another editor has restored the original material ✤ JonHarder ^talk 01:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links in Morgan Hill, California

I see you removed a boatload of external links from the Morgan Hill, California article a few weeks ago. When I checked the revision just prior to your edit, it was rather shocking to see how that section had grown since I last visited the article. However, you "threw the baby out with the bath water". I restored the link to city-data.com. A link to that site has been included in most Wikipedia articles on cities and towns in the United States as long as I can remember. The site is good — mostly charts, graphs, and statistics, and doesn't push businesses. In the process I removed a new spam link posted on June 16 by an account called RedCamaro, who seems to be an individual named "Ken Young", promoting his personal Web site. Oh, well, at least it wasn't the usual spam for tattoo parlors and palm readers that has afflicted articles for cities in southern Santa Clara County from time to time, posted from accounts that seem to be created for that one purpose. —Quicksilver^{T @} 17:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, wonder how I missed the spammer; I'm still watching the article. If your inclined, make a case for include city-data -like sites in WP:USCITY#External links, which prefers only "official websites". I like the "official website" approach because it is so clear cut. I would rather see city-data included in the "References" section by using to source some bit(s) of information in the article. Keep up the good work. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 00:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of this CfD

Please be aware of this CfD to rename Category:Universities and colleges by affiliated with the Stone-Campbell movement to either

Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with the Stone-Campbell movement or
Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with the Restoration Movement, and read and comment there if you wish. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 16:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Hill resident?

Hello Jon, This is Natalie Everett from the Morgan Hill Times. I was just curious about who updates Morgan Hill's wikipedia page. Are you from Morgan Hill? Why do you update the MH page? Thanks, Natalie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalie212212 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not from Morgan Hill. I probably have been no closer than Modesto. I stumbled upon the article recently and am slowly fixing little problems to make it conform to various guidelines. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 20:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Yes I was, but thanks for your note anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 18:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Anabaptist article

Hello. I like what you did to the Anabaptist article. I am wondering if the following should be incorporated into the "heritage" section (if not totally removed): "In addition, it may be argued that one of the historical Anabaptist doctrines, specifically that one must volitionally, consciously, and personally relate to God, is likewise found among much of Evangelical Protestantism, even though these churches may not be historically linked to the Anabaptists.[original research?]"Mikeatnip (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point. It does fit better in the heritage section. My inclination is to wait a few weeks for documentation and remove the paragraph if none is forthcoming. The statement may vaguely be true, but it should be referenced. Any substantial source on Anabaptists will include these types of contributions to society, which we can use to improve that section. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 18:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Sámara page

Apologies for having created a problem. There was no intent to spam. I was just restoring the links that have been in the section for many months. Some of those links were providing really useful information about the location.

121.203.19.184 (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on cities and regions tend to collect many links, few of which are appropriate. The WikiProject Cities guideline addresses this by stating a preference for linking only to "official" sites. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 11:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quince recipe

Hi, I see your point that this recipe is on a site that claims copyright and is self-published, but I think that the intent may not have been nefarious, and whoever put in the link would be very puzzled by its summary removal. I'd be happy if you remove it again with a longish explanation, sufficient to let a novice understand the problem. I'm a bit too busy with other things to dream up a non-copyright quince recipe and type it in ... something along the lines of longer cooking=better colour ... Nadiatalent (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

Dear John:

You wrote

I second this concern. Insertion of links to your own work has become excessive. Before you add more, ask for an opinion at the conflict of interest noticeboard. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 22:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

First, the original concern was about an article cited in the Bosnian pyramids, which is a very controversial topic, and that I cited a popular, non-peer-review article that had serious and valid concerns about it meeting the Wikipedia standards for criteria for verifiability and reliability. Given the lack of any serious controversy about the current geologic mapping of Louisiana that has been published in the peer-reviewed literature, I am not promoting my point of view over another point of view by putting links to the PDF files of geologic maps to the web pages from which you reverted them. There is no conflict for me to have a conflict of interest in. I am just putting links to where people can find free PDF files of geologic maps that cover these parishes. I fail to see where a conflict of interest exists in providing URLs to where people can find free, peer-reviewed information about the geology of these parishes.

Second, given that the Quaternary geology of Louisiana is my specialty, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to add links up-to-date publications about the geology of southern Louisiana without referencing my own publications. If you will look at the publications that I have added, none of them are self-published. Before publication, as is official policy of the publisher, they have all been intensively peer-reviewed by geologists both inside and outside of the publisher.

If was to write a short paragraph about the geology of each parish, I would have to, in addition to the peer-reviewed publications of other geologists, also cite my own peer-reviewed publications, to provide an accurate and up-to-date summary of what has been said about the geology of the area. If I write for Wikipedia about something, which I am expert in, i.e. the Geology of the Louisiana coastal plain, it would be essential that I would reference some of the papers that I have published about Louisiana geology.

Finally, Louisiana references that you reverted all meet the criteria for verifiability and reliability. For example, references to hard copies of the geologic maps that I provided links to all can be found in either Geologic Quadrangle Maps (1:100,000) or Open-File Geologic Quadrangle Maps (1:100,000). Hard copies of the information circulars, to which I posted links are listed at Public Information Series. The links to the PDf files of the posted publication are officially online at Maps and Public Information Series.Paul H. (talk) 05:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't question the reliability or accuracy of linked pages. Linking to pages containing your own work, dozens in this case, does raise conflict of interest concerns, particularly when the links are not the main topic of the article to which they are added. I see less of a problem writing a paragraph with references as you mentioned above, perhaps in the Acadiana article, and then linking the parish articles to that. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 13:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Em dashes

Hi. You changed several en-dashes to em-dashes in Stinging nettle, and I reverted you – sorry! You quoted MOS:EMDASH as justification – but I don't think it supports what you did. The guidance talks at length about how to use em-dashes, but it goes on to say that spaced en-dashes can be used in the same way, and it does not give a preference as to which to use, except to say that articles should be internally consistent. This makes it acceptable to change one to the other (either way) to match earlier versions of the article, but I can't see that it supports doing what you did, which was to change all the en-dashes to em-dashes throughout the article.

As to whether it's better to use the symbol or the markup text version for either dash, I'm a bit hazy. I've not seen any guidance which favours one or the other. Richard New Forest (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Somehow I had it in my head that the em-dashes were prefered; I never read into that next section about the equally acceptable alternative. (As an aside, I prefer that editors would agree on a consistent style and not just try to make us all happy!) Usually I am changing double hyphens or markup dashes to unicode and rarely encounter en-dashes this way. Thanks for pointing this out to me. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 17:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scone (bread)

You once reverted a commercial post to Scone (bread) the poster is at it again. I've reverted it a time or two, but they keep posting it. They don't have a user page or a user talk page, so there's not really a way to reach them. I'm going to revert it again, but it would be useful if you'd keep your eye on the article and help if they keep posting it. Lou Sander (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have continued problems. All of the articles with WoodlandFairyAcres.com need to be scrutinized. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Müller

Hi, I have no problem with ELs requiring registration being removed but dead links should be tagged with {{dead link}} as per [[3]] allowing other editors to find an archived version if possible. I found an archived version of the dead link at the Internet Archive and have reinstated it. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dead links guideline is primarily for links used as references. The external links section is the least valuable section of an article and so often contains such useless links that it typically isn't worth the time required to track down replacement links. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 02:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outreach Judaism and Jews for Judaism

I have noticed your apparent attempt to delete all links to these websites, in some cases by "promoting" them (cute) to see also links. I have reverted all these deletions. I am also notifying WP:ANI about what appears to be a hit list here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section is here--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by cute. You seem to be upset. Except for one instance, I believe the reversions on your part are incorrect. My full response is at ANI.[4] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 20:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Viejo de Talamanca article

I spent a lot of time updating articles on Puerto Viejo and Bocas del Toro to correct information that was both incorrect and incomplete in the article which you reverted with a stroke of a button because I added a reference to a website I work on (www.PuertoViejoSatellite.com). This website is the main source of current information for the area; none of the guidebooks for example reference the closing of the routes from Changuinola. So I referenced the one site where this information was listed; which happens to be mine as I spend a lot of time informing people about the area. I've read the guidelines you post above and this does not seem to conflict. I don't understand why an article containing erroneous and incomplete information is preferable to once containing an accurate reference? Dougdo (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)dougdo[reply]

The best way to proceed with improving these articles is for you to directly reference the reliable sources that you used to create your own website(s). If your websites are a result of your own investigation and knowledge, that is considered original research and not acceptable for WIkipedia. The majority of your edits over the past several years involve adding links to websites that you are associated with. That is the kind of conflict of interest that WIkipedia strongly discourages. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 13:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Providence Athenaeum date

Hello JonHarder -- saw your edit to the footnote on the Providence Athneaeum -- the information is still on their site; it has simply been moved here: http://www.providenceathenaeum.org/history/history.html]. I don't seem to be able to edit the new style of references very well, but would be grateful if you could update the embedded link. Thanks, Clevelander96 (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I updated it according to your suggestion. I'm sure you can get the hang of updated the refs once you do a few. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of Anabaptist things

Hello JonHarder. I've got a couple of fairly esoteric things I could use some help on that are related to Anabaptists.

First, on the Plain people article, there is a section related to Health. It mentions a 1972 study done by the State of Indiana regarding Amish health, but it is uncited. I did some research in the texts I have available for Amish studies, but didn't turn anything up. Would you know of a source?

Also, during the Second World War, the peace churches issued Civilian Bonds in lieu of War bonds. The aforementioned article references these bonds, but I am looking for a picture of said to add. Would you know of a source? I realize that's probably a tall order, but thought I'd ask.

Thanks for your time and any help you can provide. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GR1

The source verifies the area figure as well as the coords, so we need to have it in the section. Moreover, as far as I can see, there was never any discussion at the WP:USCITY talk about removing the coords from the Geography section. Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inspiration of Ellen White

Hi JonHarder, I wanted to say thanks for your constructive work on the "inspiration of Ellen White" article, in occasional edits over the past few months. Cheers, Colin MacLaurin (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspam in Biblical Studies?

This is in regard to the edit "Remove bible-dictionary linkspam" that deleted " *[http://www.bible-dictionary.org/ Bible Dictionary] Bible commentaries, interpretations and characters" from Biblical studies. Please explain the rationale for deleting this external link and retaining the other external links. In my mind, an external link to a dictionary is the most encyclopedic of the external links, most in keeping with the purposes of Wikipedia as a reference work, and the least promotional in nature. Obankston (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for your edit at Glossary of musical terminology and this one at List of Latin phrases. I have reverted both. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link was inserted as part of a massive spam campaign involving many dozens of accounts and domains. See the dictionary spamming documentation for the details. Those links were inserted some time ago; if it happened today, they would be added to the spam list to prevent their insertion by any editor. You will also notice they are repackaging public domain dictionaries, so there is no need to rely someone attempting to get commercial advantage out of linking to WIkipedia. We can find a non-commercial site with the same material. I did not take time to check whether other links in that article are appropriate. I will do it sometime later. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 03:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That link to your own report does not show how links to these three dictionaries in question contradict Wikipedia:External links. Following that guideline, being commercial does not preclude linking to a site, otherwise there would be no links to many regularly cited organisations, like IMDb or The New York Times. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now that the link to www.bible-dictionary.org was put on a blacklist along with other dictionaries, so the link is qualified for summary deletion. Where is the discussion page that led up to this dictionary spamming blacklist? If a non-commercial site is available with the same material, then that link should also be in the blacklist, so there can be a replacing of the link instead of a summary deletion and, as has already happened, a summary revert. I added an external link that searches even more Bible dictionaries and describes itself as a "a zero revenue project". Obankston (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know the link is not on the automatic black list, but fits the pattern of the type links that do get on that list. It was placed in the Bible studies article by User:Orenwhite whose only activity was to spam articles with a variety of related dictionaries, and then to move on to other accounts and IPs that are used only to insert links to a set of related websites. This is ranks up there with some of the most egregious cases of abusing Wikipedia with spam. Links inserted in this manner clearly are external link spamming and fall under ELNO#4, "links mainly intended to promote a website." ✤ JonHarder ^talk 02:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a classic example of the beauty (or ugliness) of spam being in the eye of the beholder. One person's junk is another person's valuable information. Using a statistical sample of one, I saw a useful link. Using the pattern you describe above, it became an egregious case of spam. I found a better link to replace the problem link, and I would delete it, except I have a policy of not trampling on the work of others, and Michael Bednarek reverted the deletion, so I am going to let it stand. Obankston (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HANEGRAAFF Page

Jon,

Regarding the Hank Hanegraaff page, with all due respect, I do not understand your edits. I used quotes from the original sources, which as an academic, I know to be the correct way to support statements. You removed these primary source quotes and "scrubbed clean" my edits to diminish my points. What Wikipedia rule did you follow that allows primary source quotes to be deleted? Is there a list of editing rules you could refer me to? Just wondering if there is a conflict of interest here? :) Are you a Hank Hanegraaff supporter? Also, I did not quote from a self-published work; I simply mentioned it. Since when is mentioning a work and stating that it is privately published unacceptable? Shouldn't the reader be able to decide if they believe it is a valid source? Is there a rule that supports this edit? This seems to be censorship, which leads me to wonder again about a conflict of interest. Thanks for your time.209.169.193.8 (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Wikipedia can be daunting to a new user and you have jumped right into an area (an article about a living person) and in a manner (editing on one side of a dispute) that can be particularly bewildering. You are doing a good job at digging out what are considered reliable sources for the purposes of verifying an article. If you are interested in learning more about policies and guidelines, consider reading the ones that are most applicable for this article:

Biographies of living persons
Reliable sources (and voiding synthesis of ideas the sources do not support)
Neutral point of view

Aside from eliminating insufficiently sourced material, my edits to the article are focused on tone and style. With too much quoting, an article becomes more like a news report or essay and loses the dispassionate tone of an encyclopedia. I prefer a concise style that eliminates double attribution ("According to …" followed by a formal ref) and avoids naming individual reporters in the text of an article who otherwise have no significance to the topic. As for the link to the self-published site, the guidelines on citations and external links rule it out.

An ideal scenario would have us work together, using our particular strengths to improve the article. You have a sense of what is lacking and where to find additional sources. I enjoy work on style and moving prose toward the impartial tone expected of an encyclopedia. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 00:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]