User talk:Jpbowen/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue I - March 2007

The inaugural March 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 04:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Jonathan Bowen 15:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject University of Oxford

WikiProject University of Oklahoma

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the University of Oxford. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! Casper Gutman 15:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the information, I have added myself as a participant. Jonathan Bowen 15:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Great! A belated welcome on board. I think an early objective of the project should be the improvement of the main University page to at least Good Article standard, as I'd be willing to bet it gets read as often as several dozen of the other project pages put together! However, I've not had any experience of the Good Article nomination process so I thought nominating a few of the college pages might be an easier way to start and useful experience. I have a personal interest in the Jesus article (and recently put it up for peer review), but I think it's only one of several college articles that could easily be WP:GA candidates.
I think it would be useful to identify a shortlist of a few articles that are close to meeting the criteria. I suppose ideally they should be high on the project's importance rating scale too. Any personal favourites? Casper Gutman 21:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baylis Road

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Baylis Road, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Regan123 12:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have improved the article and removed the {{dated prod}} notice. In particular, the Old Vic Theatre is at the northern end. I hope it is OK now. Jonathan Bowen 20:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Projects

Hello. I have nominated Category:Projects for deletion here. --Ezeu 01:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have added some comments under the discussion entry. This is work in progress, but I guess I won't bother progressing till I know it is worthwhile to do so! — Jonathan Bowen 03:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military operations

In a military context, "operations" refers to a broader category of activity than "projects" does—properly speaking, "projects" are a particular type of large non-combat operation spanning multiple long-term components—so making Category:Military operations a sub-category of Category:Military projects is incorrect. The better nesting, in my opinion (which I recall I added a few days ago) is placing Category:Military projects as a sub-category of Category:Non-combat military operations, which properly shows the hierarchical nesting of the two sets of activities. Kirill Lokshin 18:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, thanks for correcting it! — Jonathan Bowen 18:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Babcock Nature Preserve citation request

Hi Jpbowen. Thanks for your edits and refining the external links on the Babcock Nature Preserve article. I am curious you chose to add a citation request when the link you pointed the external link to exactly cites what you query. Do you believe it not to be factual? Or, if you accept that having read the link, could you instead please reference the article to your link? CApitol3 14:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't see any mention of the connection between Vermont State Colleges (in general) and Babcock Nature Preserve online, only Johnson State College (in particular). If you know of one, please add a link and remove the {{fact}} markup. Thank you for your interest. — Jonathan Bowen 14:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I wondering why if you had redirected the link to text that almost verbatim states what you are requesting a citation you did not simply link the external link as a reference? Clearly you read the Johnson State College link. CApitol3 14:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The System-s under attack

Thank you for bringing the deletion wave to my attention, and all your effort to defent it. Like I have tried to bring forward in the discussion, I think that not only the systems but als the open wikipedia system is under attack. However, it seems that:

I think we should discussed more options to fight back? And I have some ideas I would like to share with you, if your interested? Greetings - Mdd 17:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to discuss this further. I believe Dr. Submillimeter is being very disruptive to certain categories in a manner that is not constructive, helpful or more importantly (unfortunately as an academic) even informed. If you prefer to contact me via email, see my email address under http://www.jpbowen.com/ — please put "Wikipedia" in the subject line to attract my attention. Thank you for your support. Best wishes, Jonathan Bowen 00:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, we can start the discussion right here. I'm not so sure Dr. Submillimeter did such a bad thing. He is merely a spokesman of a larger group of people, who dislike general reflection like philosophy, metaphysics, systems theory, complexe systems, AI etc. The disturbing thing is that these people is starting to attack. Like I already said, [2] I think that this is agains the foundation of Wikipedia itselve. But these arguments won't stop these people.
On the other end I've been following the development of the articles around systems theory for three years and made some small contributions. (In the Dutch Wikipedia I have recreated the whole section). The thing a realized yesterday was, that all this time people in the systems section in het English Wikipedia have been going there own way: creating there own different articles and categories, and ... disagree about all sorts of things in the TALK pages... for example about the merge of systems theory and cybernetics and complex systems. In the mean time all sorts of constructive articles are rising, like the Category systems grew (as a pearl of symplicity). There is lots to do, to clearify and also to clean. But if the Sunmillimeters get there way, in a while there will be little left to do.

So what can we do:

  1. The systems community on the Wikipedia can start to realize that there is a mayor threat.
  2. They can start to organize in an Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems
  3. Articles of the different systems sciences can be merged, not in an article but in an Portal:Systems
  4. The Category:Systems is not lost. I made a back-up [3], which everybody can copy to there own users space.
  5. The article Systems can be modified with the general idea of a system, which was growing in the category. The German article de:System is an interesting example. Interesting is also that in this second largest wikipedia project the category systems is also missing.
  6. The Judgement of Solomon from Radiant indicates that there are higher forces within the Wikipedia community agains systems philosophy. There is the possibility of going elswhere to het ISSS site for example. Unfortunately their technique is rather poorly.

Maybe the most important thing is to start an open dialoque about these things. Greetings - Mdd 13:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent feedback and thoughts. If you are up to starting a Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems project, I would be happy to participate. I would be happy to contribute to a Portal:Systems too. Are you in a position to set these things up? If so, please do so and let me know how I can contribute. Is it worth creating a List of systems article in the meantime with the important links from the Systems category, or would this be doomed to attack by the community you mention above? Best regards, Jonathan Bowen 14:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. No. Yes: I made two lists in Holland last year [4] and [5] which where then deleted. For a project and a portal we need at least one person familair with the Englisch techniques. There are two ways to go. Find that one person and start these things up. Or first find more support in the Wikipedia community. I'm not familair with that either. Sorry - Mdd 14:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
They look like excellent lists. What was the reason for deletion? I will investigate re a project/portal for systems. — Jonathan Bowen 15:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Because I'm more active in the German Wikipedia, I'm not so familiar with the community activities here. But recently 2 articles from my watchlist were deleted (deletion log for Jonathan Hey, deletion log for DIKW), which I'd consider part of the deletion wave mentioned above. If I can be of any help, just tell me (I'm checking my English user page 2-4 times a month, my German user page at least once a week). --ThT 17:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Thomas, this talk is less about a deletion wave and more about the theory and practice of systems. Your welcome to add about this subject. - Mdd 19:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Well, just tried to say call me, if you need help, and to describe my limited knowledge in the field. But because the two articles I mentioned (DIKW is back now) belong to information sciences the tendency you described earlier might include this field, too. Anyway, I'd help if needed. --ThT 22:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

About the systems organization, there are some things we can do right now:

  1. We can start an Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Systems or a Talk:Portal:Systems.
  2. We could try to get some more people interested.
  3. ... And make a to do list.

My lists where deleted because one User opposed and got some support. I didn't. One should learn from one's mistakes, Greetings - Mdd 19:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Mdd and ThT, many thanks for your support. I have now read about projects and portals on Wikipedia. A project would require a group of people and subtained collaborative effort. A portal requires less effort, but still needs monitoring and updating to keep it dynamic. I'm not sure I can commit the time to lead this at the moment, but could certainly contribute. In the meantime, I think I will adopt a bottom up approach to repairing the systems information on Wikipedia (after the recent storm!).
ThT, how about a "Museums" project/portal? If we collaborated on this, it could form the basis of a joint submission for the MW2008 Museums and the Web conference. What do you think? — Jonathan Bowen 18:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Jonathan, that's one of the possible projects. I'm just preparing an E-Mail to all the people who gave me their businesscards. Hopefully some of them will join the MuseumsWiki or at least promote the idea. See also my comment for the closing panel (I repeated this during the closing session). As for now I'd concentrate on the MuseumsWiki. If there's response enough, we can start a portal in the Wikipedia (or if you know enough Wikipedians for that already). --ThT 20:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Bottom up effort is nice. I did some reading and writing myselve and this Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems is the first result. Your welcome to sight in. This will give us an opportunity to also start a top down approach. I propose to continue our talk on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Systems. Greeting, and thanks now we have a group - Mdd 01:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, many thanks. I have added myself to the list. I guess a message in the talk page for all those that supported the Systems category would be worthwhile. Can we put the systems category backup under this project? I will continue working bottom up and hopefully we can meet in the middle. :) If we get enough support, a portal would be worthwhile too. I might have a go at this if so! "See" you on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Systems. Best wishes, Jonathan Bowen 02:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stub type

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 10:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not following procedures, this is intended for artitles associated with an interdisciplinary Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems project. Can I make a proposal now or do I have to wait for the stub to be deleted? Your advice would be welcome. — Jonathan Bowen 15:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

`

Copied from: from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:WikiProject_Systems":
Greetings - Mdd 17:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! — Jonathan Bowen 17:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Typo corrections and more...

Thanks for making these typo correction (and other efforts). My Englisch is far from perfect, and I'm a bit dyslectic. So these corrections are much appreciated. As you can see I also started organizing and reorganizing. The short term target is the creation of place where people can work together... and talk about all the related questions. The more personal remarkes can left in the User talk pages.
Some of these things above have been left unsaid. Like the time and commitment for a WikiProject and a Portal. I think it is just the other way around as you said. A portal costs continuing time, because it's always present in the Wikipedia for the outside world . A WikiProject one's created, can be put on inactive.
What we achived this first day looks like a nice start. There 's still some lists I want to start (like you also mentioned above) to create room to gather some buttom up information... and the we can start showing it to other people. I had a teacher at the Academy of Art who teached about concept-development: You must alway try to get to the bottom of one medium, before you step to another medium. Maybe this is also what I do. I first want to put everything I know into the WikiProject before I move one. For the moment we both should do what one's does best. My favorite university professor told me, that it doesn't matter where you begin, as long as you do begin. Trivial thought the day after, I greet you. - Mdd 21:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feeback — it all sounds like good advice to me. I have started! I also sent messages to those supportive of the systems category concerning the systems project (Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems) and my appeal re the systems category (Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_20#Category:Systems). So we will see what happens. Best wishes, Jonathan Bowen 21:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silicon Compilers are not really Compilers

I saw the changes that you made to the Silicon compiler page and I don't wholly agree with them. Silicon Compilers translate from a computer language into integrated circuit layout. This process involves converting the language into a set of logic steps, placing equivalent logic gates on the IC, and finally wiring them together to form the desired logic. So here is what is incorrect about your changes:

  • They *ARE* software systems (a category that you removed).
  • They are *NOT* cross-compilers in the traditional sense (a category that you added) because they are not producing machine language...they are producing the machine.
  • They are *NOT* compilers in the strictest sense, but this can be left if you feel strongly about it.

Unless I hear from you soon, I will revert everything except for your PC Magazine definition. Strubin 01:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

All this is arguable. They are compilers in my view. They just compile to hardware (or rather a hardware description) rather than to software. The term hardware compilation is now used — indeed I have written papers on this. I see this have been merged into the compiler entry now. In any case, it would be good to add more information to the silicon compiler entry and set it in better context if you have the time. Regards, Jonathan Bowen 02:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I agree with you that they are compilers. But I don't agree with the notion of cross-compilers, nor the removal of the software systems category. How can they not be software systems...they are massive pieces of code (one proof of this is that Cadence, the largest EDA company, employs more programmers than any other company except Microsoft). If you have written papers on this, then perhaps you are more current on it than I, and you should be the one to flesh-out this stub page. My work in the area is back in 1987, so as you pointed out, I am out of date. Thanks, Strubin 02:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree they are software systems and would be happy for this to be re-added. It is just a question how far up the hierarchy you go with categories. I agree too that "cross-compiler" is stretching it. It depends how you define it. Silicon compilers certainly compile to a different system than the one on which they run, so in that sense they are cross-compilers. But silicon compilers did not exist at the time the term was first used. Happy editing whatever you decide! — Jonathan Bowen 02:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I made these changes as well as a few additional comments. I would appreciate any additional contributions that you can make, after which perhaps we can remove the "stub" tag. Thanks, Strubin 17:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks — I have made a few further changes and improvements. — Jonathan Bowen 18:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise / looking for an alternative

While I have read your talk page and I have seen that you and User:Mdd view me as one of the most horrible and disruptive people in Wikipedia, I am willing to discuss compromises with you on issues related to Category:Systems and Category:Complex systems. Are you interested in a discussion?

Also, I recommend reviewing WP:POINT and WP:CANVASS. (I did so myself very recently.) Dr. Submillimeter 13:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I would rather get on with my life rather than argue with you. I just have more important things to do than argue, and I dislike conflict with other people. Dr. Submillimeter 13:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

A discussion earlier might have been helpful. What do you suggest? — Jonathan Bowen 18:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

After some of these discussions, I would acknowledge that categories that gather together articles specifically on the field of systems and complex systems would be incredibly useful. However, gathering together anything that could be called a "system" or a "complex system" would not. Hence, I would like to see categories that reflect that viewpoint. This is part of the reason why I suggested a rename for Category:Complex systems. (I would have discussed it with you beforehand, but the hostility that I read here indicated that you were probably not open to discussion.)
I saw from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 20 that you are interested in recreating Category:Systems. However, no one knows what you have planned for the category, and people generally do not like the way the category looked before. As far as I can tell, you plan to just add all of these pages back to the category. As part of your request to undo the deletion, it would be helpful just to see what the "cleaned-up" version of the category would look like. I may be willing to change my comments on the matter if the category looked more focused (although I make no guarantees).
Also, may I recommend some type of list of systems that focuses specifically on the types of systems that are routinely studied in systems theory? This could even be written to explain why specific systems are of strong interest to systems research rather than encompassing all things ever designated a "system". It could also include references and external links. (I would be mildly surprised if galaxies are studied in systems theory, but I would expect economic systems to be studied more heavily.)
Also note that I fullheartedly support the way Category:Systems theory is being used, although I wonder if some articles should be moved to Category:Systems engineering. I would rather see focused categories like those rather than categories that gather all things named "systems".
What are your thoughts on this? Dr. Submillimeter 09:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree only articles concerning the concept of systems should be included. But not unreasonably, many of these include the word "system" in the title. I would see a Category:Systems category with a much smaller number of top-level categories and articles concerning systems with much more hierarchical organization of the associated categories/articles. As previously stated, I would be happy to work on this diffusion, which would require re-categorization of many categories/articles into lower-level categories. Most deserve a place somewhere in the hierarchy, although there could be some weeding out. Personally, I think it would have been better to encourage this approach initially (e.g., to those that have contributed), rather than just to delete the category, which in my view should have been an action of last instead of first resort.

Hopefully the organization of system-related articles will be improved at least, but I still strongly feel that it needs a top-level holding category as a starting point. I don't think articles have been added at a hugh rate more recently, but of course it would require an eye kept on it to diffuse articles occasionally. The same applied to many higher-level categories (e.g., Category:Museums for example, where I often diffuse articles). I would be very happy to keep an eye on it anyway. Perhaps it would be best to have the category undeleted initially with no categories in it and for it to be repopulated again. — Jonathan Bowen 15:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I would rather see what you want to propose rather than agree to undeleting the category first. You have a copy of the category, so it should not be difficult to create a "clean" version of the category. Dr. Submillimeter 19:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Greeting. I made a first draft version of a cleaned up category, see [6]. There is a background to this first draft, based a discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia [7] [8] a year ago, with I can tell you about if your interested? - Mdd 20:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
This is not much of an improvement, as it still contains topics that have relatively little in common aside from being called a "system" and vaguely resembling a system. For example, Category:Star systems, Category:Double Cross System, and Category:Role-playing game systems are only vaguely related (at best), and the same can also be said for Eights System, Buddy system, and Westminster System.
I have seen Jonathan Bowen sorting some categories into a Category:Physical systems which looks like a much better form of categorization, as it gathers together things that are not only named systems but that are similar in nature. So, for example, instead of comparing star systems to astronomical coordinate systems, it compares star systems to machines. This type of organization is more practical, and it would probably appeal to the broader Wikipedia community. However, I would still like to see what the final Category:Systems will look like.
(Note that I am going to shift all of the astronomical objects into Category:Dynamical systems. Also, since most astronomical objects are dynamical systems, it might be appropriate just to make Category:Astronomical objects a subcategory of Category:Dynamical systems.) Dr. Submillimeter 07:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, that that doesn't look like much of an improvement. Now I made a (theoretical) proposal for an alternative solution [9]. Reaction there will be more than welcome. - Mdd 14:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I have added Category:Astronomical objects as suggested. I also think a high-level Category:Conceptual systems to contrast with Category:Physical systems and cover non-physical systems so I have added this. Here is a suggestion for subcategories in a resurrected Category:Systems category as a starting point:

I think there should be a very few general high-level systems concepts as articles. What do you think? — Jonathan Bowen 16:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In terms of the discussion in the WikiProject Systems Talk: This solution looks like a category B called Category:Conceptual systems, who is a parent of category A, here called Category:Physical systems. Instead of my alternative with three categories... This looks like an alternative solution with two categories B (father) and A (child). Greetings - Mdd 22:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I just saw, that the Category:Conceptual systems is different from Category Systems (in theory). I also read the current definition of Conceptual system. Under that definition systems theory can be called a conceptual system and should be put in the Category:Conceptual systems. What do you think? - Mdd 22:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it is really a metasystem, and this could cause confusion to the average WIkipedia user in my view. — Jonathan Bowen 16:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally like Jonathan Bowen's proposal as it currently stands, as it organizes the articles into subcategories about related systems, and it also includes clearly-named subcategories for fields of systems research (except for Category:Complex systems, which could be confusing to the average reader). Hence, it is now possible to look up articles on related systems and to see the different types of systems. Would the new Category:Systems contain any articles itself?

Re articles we could take the minimalist approach and just have system at this level. That way, any articles that appear can be diffused. I take this approach with the Category:Museums category, for example.

If we did have articles, I would keep these to be very high-level general systems concepts (e.g., meta-systems). But perhaps it is safest to stick to just system to avoid disagreement and it make it obvious that any articles in the category should be diffused. This could be stated explicitly in the introduction.

Suggested (draft) introduction:

This category is for high-level categories associated with the concept of systems. Articles should be placed in sub-categories.

Let's keep it simple at the top level to avoid disagreement! — Jonathan Bowen 16:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The one issue that I worry about is maintainability. Random users are going to dump random articles into Category:Systems, which then need to be diffused to avoid the previous problems. This may not be too much of a problem. The other issue is whether people like Mdd, who have different perspectives on organization, would accept this organizational scheme and would not attempt to modify it. Could Mdd comment?

Re maintainability, I don't think it will be any worse that any other successful category, but will require an eye to be kept on it. If you, I and Mdd diffuse articles that appear in a Category:Systems category every so often, all should be OK (cf. Category:Museums category again).

I will also get User:Radiant! to comment on this discussion. Dr. Submillimeter 08:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me know what you think. — Jonathan Bowen 16:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A new Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems look

Greetings. As you probably allready have seen, I have recreated the WikiProject Systems page. It comes with a template to invite more people.

WikiProject University of Oklahoma

As a contributor to a related article, I like to let you know about WikiProject Systems, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Systems. If you're interested, visit the project page, where you can support this project by joining, take up open tasks or work on articles. Thanks! Mdd 00:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

But of cause I don't have to invite you. It would be nice if you will give me some text and typo feedback or corrections. Of cause their are are few point missing (some categories) and incorrect (article statistics), but I believe this is a good start. The first draft of the project is moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems - First draft.

Much of the work is inspired and taken from the University of Oxford site, and you can send them my thanks... or maybe I will do this myselve. Now you have some more experience with using that projectsite. Maybe you think some parts are missing. Pleace let me know. (Some more talk about the work in progress would be nice, but maybe we first try to get some agreement on recreation of the Category:Systems)

This user is a member of the WikiProject Systems.






If you put this Member userbox (for members of this WikiProject only) on your user-page... you should automatically become listed in the Category:WikiProject Systems participants. I don't know how it works, after I leaf this here on your user:talk page. W'll see - Greeting - Mdd 01:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is an updated version (copy edited!):
WikiProject Systems

As a contributor to a related article, I would like to let you know about WikiProject Systems, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of systems. If you are interested, please visit the project page, where you can support this project by joining, taking up open tasks, and working on articles. Thank you if you can participate! Jonathan Bowen 15:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I hope this helps. I added the {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems/Member userbox}} to my user page and created a {{user systems}} template that links to this. Let's hope we can get an over-arching Category:Systems category re-established, now that Submillimeter seems to be more agreeable. — Jonathan Bowen 15:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
And well done with the new WikiProject Systems look and feel, which looks great. Yes, the WikiProject University of Oxford page is good too. Getting the Category:Systems category re-established would certainly motivate me to work on sub-categorising artcles in the category as it was. Best wishes, Jonathan Bowen 15:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexandra potter

I noticed you tagged Alexandra potter for speedy deletion as incorrect capitalisation. Rather than deleting it, I've redirected it to Alexandra Potter; for future reference, it helps to ease the backlog at CAT:CSD if you simply redirect wrong spellings/capitalisations yourself (which non-admins can do), rather than waiting for one of us to delete it. Thank you. Walton Need some help? 16:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information — it was redirected, but this entry seemed redundant and incorrect. — Jonathan Bowen 16:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edits to Romantic comedy

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Jpbowen! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bangelfire\.com\/, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 21:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the external links! — Jonathan Bowen 22:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Reynolds Morse and Eleanor R Morse

You have removed Mrs Morse, alas. I would invite you to restore her to the title of the article as the article is about a husband and wife team. If you consider that the article does not have enough about Eleanor as yet then I would invite you to research further Eleanor's contribution and add to the article rather than take away from it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marktunstill (talk • contribs) 04:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC). Marktunstill 04:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

She is still there as several "redirects" (including under her own name), but it seemed more useful to add categories for the husband since there is more information on him. I agree it is difficult in such situations and there is no perfect answer. — Jonathan Bowen 13:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I see you have moved the article back, but have not checked for double-redirects (e.g., for her name). For information, you should always check for such redirects when you move articles and change them appropriately. — Jonathan Bowen 13:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. The answer in such situations is, I believe, to aim to be inclusive. Marktunstill 15:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The original reason I did the change was that I wanted to add categories appropriate for a single person, but I have sorted this out now — and added categories appropriate for them as a couple too. Regards, Jonathan Bowen 03:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The WikiProject Systems in progress

Hello Jonathan, as you probably have seen, have I been trying to get all the features of website organized and running. I also archived last weeks discussion. On the project's talk page I've been gather new information for these weeks action. Today I made some editorial changes in yesterday's first new draft. These changes were partly about our working together & our work meeting.
Now we have a mutual understanding that, I organize things top down with the project's website as a tool, and that you procede working bottum up from the field. The website now offers us new tools, which we both need to learn to use. So far so good. We both have a be-bold attitude, and with our limited time we learn by doing step by step. I've seen that you started using the new tools in some first steps, which is also good too.
The thing I worried about was all the things that have to been done that run parallel. It's difficult to communicated about this together... and if we don't watch out, that's all we do. So I was thinking about a both effective and efficient way to communicate. My first idea yesterday was, to direct myself to you personally on the WikiProject Systems talk page. Today I rewrote this, because I think this is to complicated and time consuming. So I have some suggestions:

  1. If I really need feedback on items, I'll ask you directly on you talk page.
  2. You can come back to me on every WikiProject page, because I the are all still in my watch list.
  3. Maybe we can pick one item at the time and work on that together.
  4. I suggest we start with the Template Systems, see [10]. This second draft is far from ready and I would like to discussed the further structure, design en use with you.
  5. If you prefer an other item, I'm all ears.

I hope this is a good idea to proceed. Please let me know? Greeting - Mdd 23:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This all sounds great, thanks. Yes I will notice messages here first if urgent and directed particularly for me, or if really urgent, email me — address on home page. Please note that my personal circumstances have meant that I have had time to devote to Wikipedia in April, but May with be busier for me with other work matters. However, I have been working on categorising and improving systems-related articles, and will continue with this when I have the time. Best wishes, Jonathan Bowen 02:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, for letting me know. Before I continue I first want to take a moment to thank you for your support and motivation with the initiation of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems. I wouldn't have done it, knowing there was someone to back me up. It seems that your were right about the effort necessary to get a WikiProject started. It's far from working perfectly yet. Just like all the articles in the field of systems. It's going ot be a longer way to get these things working, but there lot's to gain also. I'm looking forward to working together again. It's a good thing we took the time the end of last month to get the show on the road. And to give an example of how thorough were prepared to work.

I guess we can call it a deal, that I'll procede writing about the work in progress at Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems talk page, and contact you directly in important matters. I'll try to avoid thinks becoming to urgent, but I'll keep te e-mail option in mind. For the moment I'm still working to get the project website working. When I get this starting, I'll contact you about the template. Greetings - Mdd 23:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Marcel: And thank you — I wouldn't have done it without your support either. Teamwork needs complementary skills! Thanks anyway for getting the project off the ground. It would be good to attract one or two others if we can to join the project, especially if you know any other real systems people. Only email if there is a threat of deletion again (for example!). I am using the {{systemstheory-stub}} stub for some articles and categorizing where I can. Best wishes, Jonathan Bowen 03:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] People to join the project

Hi, you ask me especially if I know real systems people to join the project. I think this is a delicate matter. The people I know in Holland use Wikipedia but very little people write... There is also still a gap between the Wikimedia community and the university. We are just started to promote our work at universities.
And myself. I've been stuck developing my own global science for the past decade and didn't do much networking. The people I do know work in a far wider area... In Holland I of course know the names of systems people but also only in one part, in the field of business and management science. With the writing of articles however, I've been focussing on wider range of scientists. Working at the WikiProject Systems is for me personaly a dive in the deep. An opportunity to get to the bottom of the theory and practice of Systems.
I think that working on the WikiProject Systems is a matter of keeping going for a while. I believe, that there are more people working at the Wikipedia in the field of systems, who could benefit from working in the WikiProject Systems. The art is to find them and challenged them. If we can make a difference with this project, people will be motivated to join us. So I'm not in a hurry. I'm also aware that you have little time this month, and I don't want make things more difficult for you. If you know people interested, let them step forward. - Mdd 22:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Marcel: I know what you mean re reading Wikipedia vs. writing. I often ask this in talks — normally everybody reads Wikipedia and only one or two write, even in computer science circles. There is no great hurry as you say re attracting others, but perhaps it is worth spreading the word. For example, is there a suitable electronic mailing list or other forum where you could seen out an announcement with details? Just a thought. Best wishes, Jonathan Bowen 00:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan, thanks for the suggestions. I'm still getting acquainted with my new role of coordinator in the Wikipedia field of Systems. I guess there are a few hundred articles directly related to this field with international maybe also a few hundred authors. In this field I guess there are some dozens key figures: writing, guarding and talking. A first step of mine is to get in contact with these people and try to find out what we can do for each other. Starting this dialogue seems like a good first step towards attracting others. Best wishes, Mdd 12:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Marcel: Sounds like a good plan — good luck in any case. Let me know if you think I can help, although this is probably best coming from you as a real systems person! Best wishes, Jonathan Bowen 17:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further development

Jonathan, you have probably seen that our initiative has inspired more persons to join the project. Now it should please you also to hear, that I implemented our category systems solution in WikiCommons. I created a simulair category structure as you build here, and I putt cross references in the Wikipedia articles. If you have a little time to spare, you can take a look. If you find things I can improve, please say so. Best regards - Mdd 14:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Marcel, thanks for letting me know. It is good to have a bit of momentum behind the systems project. Perhaps it is worth contacting them at some point to gauge how they would like to contribute. Well done re WikiCommons too. Greetings from Dubai! Best wishes, Jonathan Bowen 11:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue II - May 2007

The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 06:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the mention of the Elephant clock article, which I have improved further. — Jonathan Bowen 19:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

Hey! I noticed you have been fixing up some surname pages, which is great. One question about templates though - do you think that more than one template should be on each page? On Haskell, for example, you added ((surname)) and ((geodis)), which are accurate, but in my opinion clutter up the bottom of such pages and look kind of messy and confusing. Usually I will just choose the template which works best and if more than one apply I will just use ((disambig)). What do you think? shoeofdeath 18:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it is not perfect and perhaps your solution is better, with appropriate categories added manually. I will think about it before adding more. Do edit if you think best. Thank you for your feedback. — Jonathan Bowen 19:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Nursing Homes in the United Kingdom

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Nursing Homes in the United Kingdom, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Nursing Homes in the United Kingdom fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Empty category


To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Nursing Homes in the United Kingdom, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Category:Nursing Homes in the United Kingdom itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you — for information, I created this category with incorrect capitalization so requested its deletion almost immediately. — Jonathan Bowen 17:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gourmet Brittle Shoppe

A tag has been placed on Gourmet Brittle Shoppe, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Finngall talk 16:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Brittle (food). Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Thank you. --Finngall talk 16:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
This seemed like a good leading example of a brittle manufacturer. There don't seem to be any on Wikipedia at the moment. If you know of a better one, please let me know. But I bow to the Wikipedia process of course. — Jonathan Bowen 14:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)