User talk:JohnsonL623

Welcome!

Hello, JohnsonL623, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Jane Bennett, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other 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 have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Swimnteach (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of Jane Bennett


A tag has been placed on Jane Bennett requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Swimnteach (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Ipse dixit
An article that you have been involved in editing, Ipse dixit, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. SteveBaker (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Glebe Island Bridge
Hi there, I've just gone through and removed the links you made from within the text on a couple of pages to images on Commons (specifically, of the old Glebe Island Bridge). No hard feelings, it's just not considered best practices to hide a link to another website (even if it is our own website!) within a text-link. Links to other places should be clearly indicated as such e.g. through footnotes. Much better would be to either embed the image or to create a prose description of what you are trying to illustrate.

On another note, I think you've got the same frustration that I do with regards to the three things that have been known as the "Glebe Island Bridge" - the initial causeway, the swing bridge, and the ANZAC bridge. Currently the article "Glebe Island Bridge" redirects people to the "ANZAC bridge" article, which includes a "history" section. If you'd be willing to differentiate out these three things - probably by creating a standalone article for the older two bridges - that would be great! Sincerely, Wittylama 06:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Knot for evaluation, 'Kay88' or other.
Hello JohnsonL623, I am replying here to your query on the reef knot talk page since it is not directly related to that knot... For reference, I have included the knot diagram you uploaded yesterday below.

First I should mention that there is actually an Internet forum dedicated to discussions such as the one you are interested in. While it is run by the International Guild of Knot Tyers, Guild membership is not required for participation on the forum. There are sub-forums dedicated to so-called "new knot" investigations, the behavior of knots, practical and decorative knotting, etc. That would probably be a better place to post future queries about things like this. It can be found at the following URL:


 * http://igkt.net/sm/

But in answer to your query, the illustrated knot is shown in The Ashley Book of Knots as entry #805 (p. 146) and called a "Flat Lozenge-Shaped Knot". It appears in a chapter dedicated to two-strand lanyard knots, which are generally intended as decorative. (Though they might fulfill some structural purpose in an actual lanyard.)  The knot in question does seem to behave as a reasonable bend if the lower left and upper right strands are loaded. While it is a bit on the bulky side, it might be said to be a figure-eight variation of the Zeppelin bend. As an aside, it is a common convention in diagrams of bend knots to have the standing parts exit the frame -- or otherwise make clear which are to be loaded.

I appreciate your enthusiasm and encourage you to continue your knotting activities. Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions regarding how you might help contribute to WP articles on more well-known knots. Have a good new year! --Dfred (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * To extend my previous comments... I just wanted to add that the bend you illustrated it does not appear to be entirely stable and can collapse into different configurations. My comparison of the knot to the Zeppelin bend has more to do with its general structure than its behavior... --Dfred (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Additions to self-reference
You added Metatron's cube and Post hoc ergo propter hoc to self-reference. I don't see the connection, could you explain it? Paradoctor (talk) 05:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Likewise I can't see what the real McCoy has to do with MacGuffin. WP:SEEALSO suggests that you "should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent". --McGeddon (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)