User talk:Johnmarkh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

John M Haskey Location: Stepney, London, UK Only recently realised the potential of Wikki. Am working / studying in the field of Knowledge Management and am looking at using an Enterprise Wikki to improve Knowledge Sharing and possibly cultural change.

Contents

[edit] Knowledge Management: Ethics

You wrote: Noteiced you removed the category. Ethics is an important consideration in the field of Knowledge Management. Many 'in power' use Knowledge as a tool to control either subordinates or customers. There is considerable literature, often from Management Consultyants, who advocate using Knowledge to gain a commercial advantage often under the guise of efficiency. rgds J Johnmarkh 16:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

While I do not doubt that ethics is an important consideration in knowladge management, thew reverse is certainly not true, namely knowledge management is not a central concept in ethics generally speaking. Since categories should contain only pages that are central to the fields they represent, I removed the category. See WP:CG for guidlines. Karol 17:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Johnmarkh, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- KHM03 (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

PS - I see you've been here for a while but were never properly welcomed. We're sorry for that...happy editing! KHM03 (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ed redirects

I noticed that some of your disambiguations for "Ed" are a bit odd- you are aware that the link Ed (UNIX) redirects to the Ed (Unix), right? --maru (talk) contribs 02:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I have realised that I have been a little inconsistent, possibly becuase subconciously I started to think 'Ed (UNIX)' is the correct version - 'ed' after all was an editor for the original UNIX trademarked system.

This all started becuase I moved the original 'ed' page to 'ed (disambiguation), without first checking the 'what links here' page and then thoght I was obliged to change all the links (eventually I was hoping to ask for 'ed' to be deleted so there wouldn't be a need for a redirect but that 'ed (disambig' would be found the search. Since then I have found that 'redirects are cheap' on resources etc and that I could be better employed doing something else. I do get slightly anoyed though when I search for a term and it comes up with a page that isn't (POV) the most common useage and I then have to click on the link to go to a 'see xyz for other uses of the phrase'.

[edit] Portal:Christianity

Hi John, and thanks for signing up to the portal! As a member, you have no obligations, but are free to suggest any articles or pictures to showcase, as well as suggest improvements to the portal itself. Hopefully I'll see you round the wiki! Brisvegas 10:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your question

See Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Incorrect user reference in revision history.

Prodego talk 17:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, you just happened to edit in between, it happens all the time. Prodego talk 18:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Copy of enquiry:-

[edit] Incorrect user reference in revision history

When comparing versions of a particular document it shows my user name as the editor of some vandalism.

It does not show up in my list of contributions and the 'Article History' shows that the contribution was made by an anonymous IP (131.137.245.200). It was quickly removed by someone else and a little investigation will show that I didn't add the comments.

But it still concerns me that if someone simply looks at the 'compare selected versions' window that it appears that I am the vandal.

Is this a known problem that someone is looking at? And can the current record be changed ?

forgot to sign previously Johnmarkh 17:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It is probably nothing to worry about, but just to make sure this isn't a bug could you provide a link to the diff please? Prodego talk 17:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

final entry on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pentecostalism&oldid=52903809 Johnmarkh

[edit] Mel Gibson Edit

I am assuming that this edit was a mistake. --Asbl 16:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I know it sounds lame but 'it was not me'. In this instance all I did was to remove the words 'alchoholic and anti-semite' and then saved.(The incident about alcohol and antisemitic comments were already included further down the page and I considered the addition to be unneccessary, possibly a personal attack and POV - however my edit must have occurred at the same time as another user and now in fact it looks like I was doing a more serious unsatisfactory comment.

I have complained once before about the fact that an edit that I didn't do was attributed in the history file to me to be told by an Admin that 'it happens' and not to worry about it! It is of some concern when the language used is not what I would ever consider saying let alone putting into print. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnmarkh (talk • contribs) .

I guess this happened because there was an edit conflict, where another user saved the page while you were editing. Typically, if you work on one section, and another user works on another section, then there are no problems. I think the problem occurs when you work on a section, and another user works on the entire article (or vise versa, you work on the entire article, and another user works on a section). --Asbl 16:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia information team" <info-en@wikimedia.org>

Dear John,

Thank you for your mail. Unfortunately, the problems associated with deleting the revision outweigh any misunderstanding that may result from the misattribution. Deleting a single revision normally requires that the entire article be temporarily deleted. Due to the large number of edits to the page (1736 as of this message), this has a noticeable effect on server performance.

The bug that causes it is quite rare; it requires that two edits to the same section of the text be submitted simultaneously. Since the rest of your contributions are in good faith, nobody will hold the misattributed edit against you.

I'm sorry I couldn't help. :)

Yours sincerely,

  • I wrote to Wikipedia information team" <info-en@wikimedia.org>

My user name is Johnmarkh

The edit history on 'my contributions' page shows the following edit 16:56, July 31, 2006 (hist)(diff) m Mel Gibson (rv POV comment) Clicking on (diff) indicates that my user account added the comment ' Total scumsucking racist, homophobic hack'

I would neither attack a person in this way nor use this language. In fact the I was reverting to a previous edit to simply remove the comment "alcoholic and anti-semite " and I am very upset that my attempt to make the article less POV has be turned around to look like I was comitting a greater vandalism. I was at my PC all the time and no-one else could have made it using my PC. There was a lot of activity at that time on this page and my reversion has somehow become mixed with another editors additions.

Please correct this error in the history as soon as possible. This kind of incorrect attribution of edits has only ocurred to me once before but I feel that it is essential that they should be avoided and the bug that allows it to happen be fixed. (Note that on both occasions the error seems to have happened when two users reverted the page at the same time). I appreciate that the history file should wherever possible not be altered however in this instance the information recorded is incorrect and should be modified.

rgds Johnmark

Still not happy but can't see how to move forward? Johnmarkh 21:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knowledge

Whilst searching for the origin of:

Representation of a problem-solution in a human-mind is knowledge.

in the WP:Knowledge article, i found most if not all the references to be copies of the WP definition-usually without referencing WP as the origin.

Whilst this shows the effect of WP on the web it also raises the difficulty of knowing which is the original source (especially as WP wants not to be original though/research).

As Google especially weights searches to those items that are linked to each other we have a virtuous circle whereby WP gains importance simply from others who link to it (through either reasons off efficiency or as they value WP).

If this continues then won't we end up with WP dominating the web and thus effectiveley becoming the 'web index'?

In any case I could not immediateley find the source of the statement which appears to be out of synch with the rest of the paragraph and theis note is to remind you to improve the article

[edit] Hindu temples

In view of your recent edit, I'm curious where in Europe there is a larger Hindu temple than Neasden. -- Arwel (talk) 10:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


see also bbc news

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/5272882.stm

Johnmarkh 10:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I hadn't heard of this new one! -- Arwel (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Scotland infobox

Template:Scotland infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Durin 18:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marking changes minor

Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! —Celithemis 05:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Val K Seamus vandalism

Looks like you made it pretty plain that non constructive edits are not appreciated. He was too clever for me to catch the vandalism. His contributions are all blank now. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] test

rgds, +|:) johnmark 16:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knowledge is what is now known.

Thanks for your question. I've replied at talk:knowledge. Banno 22:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stepney

removed material regarding Stepney Red House gang as unsupported /original research. Left following on users home page 'Thank you for the observations regarding Stepney. Wikipedia however is an encyclopedia that seeks to support all of its material by references to existing works. If the material you have added has support by references in local newspapers / coucil reports etc than please supply the references and the material can be returned. rgds, ||:) johnmark† 19:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)'

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/h/User_talk%7EJohnmarkh_6d1f.html"