User talk:Jpbowen Information & User talk:Jpbowen Links at HealthHaven.com

Please note that I will reply to messages here unless you ask otherwise.

Please add comments to the end of this talk page, thank you.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5

[edit] Welcome!

Hello Jpbowen, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Lst27 (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archives of old messages

Archive 1 (November 2006)
Archive 2 (March 2007)
Archive 3 (June 2007)
Archive 4 (December 2007)
Archive 5 (May 2009)

[edit] Sandbox editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] NowCommons: File:St Matthews Church, Harwell.JPG

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

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

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

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

[edit] Changes at Radcliffe Science Library

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

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

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

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

[edit] Barnum

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

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

[edit] art museum category vs Art museums and galleries category

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

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

[edit] Speedy deletion nomination of Lewis Evans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] overcategorization

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

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

[edit] Bath cats

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

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

[edit] Image sizes

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

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

[edit] Autoreviewer

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

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

[edit] The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter (September 2009)

[edit] Headington stone

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

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

[edit] "Street culture"

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

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

[edit] Categories

Hi JP,

You recently removed two categories from DuMont Television Network, with an edit summary indicating they were too high. Category:Lost works has a note stating that "Articles in this category should be moved to subcategories when appropriate." However, you didn't add any subcategories to the article: in effect, you've removed any indication that DuMont has anything to do with lost works. Will you please restore the existing categories or find a "lost works" category which you feel fits this article? Firsfron of Ronchester 22:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This does not fit the "lost works" mold — DuMont Television Network is not a "work" (it was an organization); a television program is a work. Please add Category:Lost television programs or a subcategory to any television programs that DuMont Television Network produced but have now been lost. DuMont Television Network is "defunct", but it is already categorized as this. There is information on television preservation that I missed, so I have re-added this. My edit comment could have been better phrased, I agree. I am in the midst of improving the "lost works" category with subcategories. I hope this helps by way of explanation. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for re-adding the television preservation category, and your work on improving and refining the "lost works" category. Since nearly every DuMont program was destroyed, but most every article on individual programs are already in Category:Television series with missing episodes, I feel adding Category:Lost television programs might be redundant.. except possibly for the programs which have no known episodes whatsoever. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is covered in that case. I have added Category:Lost television programs to Category:Television preservation in any case. Thanks for your feedback and interest. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mik Kersten publications

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

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

[edit] Category deletion

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

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

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

[edit] The Rutherford Journal

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

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

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

[edit] Astor Court

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

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

[edit] Category:Museums established in 1840

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

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

[edit] Hamid Arabnia

Hi Jonathan:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] List of polymaths

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

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

Contents