User talk:Jpbowen/Archive 5

Redirect of List of Museums in San Francisco
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on List of Museums in San Francisco, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because List of Museums in San Francisco is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting List of Museums in San Francisco, please affix the template 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. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Organizations by type
Hi Jpbowen -- I am proposing a rename of Category:Types of organization, which you created, to Category:Organizations by type. It's more in keeping with the other categories in Category:Organizations, and is a bit clearer, IMO -- the category collects articles about organizations, divided by type, rather than articles about types of organizations. I posted a mergeto & discussion about this a while ago and got no objections, so moved it up to CFD. Your thoughts at the CFD would be welcome. 2007/12/31 CFD. Cheers, Lquilter (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I have added some discussion on the CFD page. I think this raises some higher-level issues. Your thoughts and response are welcome. Happy New Year! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Your general point about "by type" and "types of" is well-taken, and I'll say so on the CFD page. One question, though: Why use "by type" as an aggregator for all the "by location", "by subject", etc.? Why not just have those at the top of Category:Organizations with the pipe-sort putting them at the front? That seems to me to be the most direct. I'm not sure that people will know to go looking through "by type" to find "by subject", "by location", and so on. --Lquilter (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, this needs a bit of thought. I'm doing a bit of reorganization. Where helpful navigationally, I think having some entries under Category:Organizations and Category:Organizations by type could be appropriate. Let's see how the organization (no pun intended!) and the discussion goes. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Relatedly, where you one of the folks previously involved in WikiProject Organizations? I've been trying to get it going again; we desperately need a project to help with that. For me the order of priority is (1) categorization schemes -- right now it's a mess; (2) draft article guidelines -- what's a good article for an organization; and (3) fleshing out notability criteria with more examples and help, and keeping up with AFDs on organizations. If you haven't participated before, it would be great to have someone else thinking through the broad high-level issues with (before we start implementing changes). --Lquilter (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No I was not involved before, but I have added myself now. I start a new job in January and will have less time for Wikipedia, but you have my moral support at least and time when I can devote it. I'm happy to respond to ideas if I can. Good luck! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI - on alphabetical sorting, my understanding is that you can do the pipe trick with a space instead of an asterisk; it sorts the same, but doesn't create a confusing "*" subheading. e.g., instead of  . --Lquilter (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. Is there any guidance anywhere on " " vs. "*", etc.? I tend to use " " for important single main entries and "*..." for multiple entries a la regular expressions, but that is just from habit and observing use by others. Official guidance welcome if there is any. (Thanks for your "civil conversation" — to quote from your user page — it is refreshing!) — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay. Yes, Categorization talks about "many readers feel..." So it's not a firm rule, but over time I believe I've seen them migrating towards the space not the asterisk. (The asterisk adds an asterisk in the table of contents, which is a little jarring, while the space doesn't.) --Lquilter (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I came here to say that the 12/31 CFD is closed. There were as many solutions proposed as people, I think! Feel free to join in continuing discussions at Category talk:Organizations. --Lquilter (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info and pointer. Go luck with any reorganization. I guess it needs some debate! Best wishes, Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Footbridge at Folly Bridge, Oxford
Hi.

Nearly two years ago, you added the following to the article Folly Bridge:


 * A public footbridge was completed next to the road bridge in 2002, designed by Nicholas Grimshaw & Partners.

and I've found several sources that appear to confirm this. But the trouble is the images we have of Folly Bridge on the article date from 2005 and 2007, and show absolutely no sign of such a bridge. I've discussed this further at Talk:Folly Bridge. Can you help?. -- Chris j wood (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Chris: I believe this was a design that was not implemented and have updated the page accordingly, with a reference. Apologies for any misinformation previously. I'll check the situation next time I pass over the bridge, but the photographs look rather convincing! Thank you for bringing this to my attention. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The Aldrich Contemporary Art Museum
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Aldrich Contemporary Art Museum, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  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. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of The Aldrich Contemporary Art Museum. Yng varr  00:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reverted to an old version which I believe does not have copyright issues. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the nuisance, Jonathan, I was doing other related work when I stumbled up that article. Not having enough familiarity with the article in question, I figured that prod would be a better way to get someones attention. Thanks for taking care of it. Yng  varr  00:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No Problem! I guess for the future it is always worth checking the history of an article in case there is a previous version that is OK. Regards, Jonathan Bowen (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Marlow Regattas
Hi JPB

As you created these articles you may be amazed at the inability of another editor to be able to differentiate between them. Regards Motmit (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for letting me know. I have removed the suggested merger and added notes to the talk pages. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Bump (rowing)
Another editor has added the  template to the article Bump (rowing), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of PR0
I have nominated PR0, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/PR0. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. RogueNinja talk  01:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A new Oxbridge user box
Jpbowen...I am currently in the process of writing a user box for all of the colleges that are part of Oxbridge. This template is meant to replace your current college template. Please take a look at the work in progress and comment on it. My main concerns are college abbreviations and color choice. I am using scarf colors for the colleges. Thank you. - LA @ 16:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Theatrical occupations
Category:Theatrical occupations, 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. – Cgingold (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Bronx Museum of the Arts
Hi! I'm still learning categories so can you explain to me these category changes? I'm not disagreeing at all, I just don't quite understand which are/not appropriate and want to learn this right rather than have to unlearn. Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 02:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In adding categories you should not normally include categories that are above other categories in the hierarchy. For example, Category:Museums is high in the hierarchy — all the other categories with "museums" in their name are below this. In general, try to "narrow" categories as far as possible. For another check, look in categories you use. The article should be roughly comparable with others in the category. I hope this helps and have fun editing Wikipedia! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Gotcha, so basically all I would need to add (not for this one but for another group I work on) is Category:Children's museums in New York City and it would automagically populate to Category: Museums, Category: Children's Museums in the United States, Museums in New York City, etc? TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 15:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not automagically unfortunately, a new category like this would have to be added and located in other categories manually — and only if there were enough museums in the category to warrant it (which would all have to be recategorized manually too). Creating new categories is something you should leave till you have good experience. Before that, just try to added the narrowest categories that apply to any articles you produce. If you choose a category, that has a more appropriate subcategory (or set of subcategories), use that/those instead. On the other hand, if you (or anyone else) is not sure, and use Category:Museums for example, it is likely that someone like me will spot it and recategorize — one of the wonders of Wikipedia and why it works! Hope this helps. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wasn't clear.. oops! The category of Children's museums in New York City exists. I created it because there was Museums in NYC and Children's in the US but the children's museums were 'lost' in both and there are a number of museums that fit in it. It's not yet well populated as museums are one of my personal projects: User:Travellingcari/Museums that I've adopted. I think I started copy pasting categories from MoMA or elsewhere so that explains some of the redundancy. But I also think there's a ton of list/category overlap. I've been known with stubs to just put it as and let someone else find a home for it when I can't. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 21:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There are probably just enough NYC children's museums to make the category viable, but notice the speedy rename proposal because the capitalization is not standard. The general rule is be bold with articles but think carefully about categories — and if you are not very sure, don't create. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There are at least ten off the top of my head. Don't go by the ones listed in the List of... lists, as neither the NYC or NYS one is complete. If that's not enough someone can delete it but I checked to make sure that seemed to be an acceptable size before creating it. (I'm well aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I don't think that applies to category size.) Didn't think there was anything wrong with adding the museums as I work on the articles. I'm not a fan of creating sub-stubs just for the sake of getting the article there and would prefer to gather materials and write the article/stub. Just a note on this. The external link that you changed it to does not work if the user doesn't have certain scripts (flash?) Is it better to link to the main one just because it's main even if it won't work for some users? TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 03:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems reasonable to me! It is just a bit of a jump from the United States down to New York City — but OK! Re link, I prefer the main link because it is much more stable (e.g., if the internal structure of the website is updated — very likely sometime. Flash is a flash in the pan! :) In any case, if the main website link does not work for some users it is an extremely badly designed website! Anyway, it is always possible to update and add to Wikipedia links if needed. Just my opinions! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you think Category:Children's museums in New York would be better? I wouldn't oppose as I see your point about the big jump. And no argument on the extremely poorly designed site, I had to rely on a google hit into an exhibit to get in and then be sure I didn't hit something like 'home' and have it lock up again. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 20:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly one would expect a Category:Children's museums in New York category for the state of New York to fill in the gap. And similar categories for other US states with significant numbers of children's museums, if there are enough to warrant this. I guess NYC is probably a special case with a high proportion of children's museums. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, however I think I'm going to hold off on that for a bit simply because the only non-NYC children's museum that has an article as of now appears to be Children's Museum of Utica, New York. I know there must be other children's museums in the state (likely in Albany) but I don't see making a category for one article. I'll add it to my User:Travellingcari/Museums to do list. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 17:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes of course, all very sensible. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Archives & Museum Informatics
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Archives & Museum Informatics, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  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. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Archives & Museum Informatics. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 02:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

EVA Conferences
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article EVA Conferences, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  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. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of EVA Conferences. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 04:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Cogapp
A tag has been placed on Cogapp 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 company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 04:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Museum Store Company
A tag has been placed on Museum Store Company 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 company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 05:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD notice
FYI, since you contributed at one point: Articles for deletion/The Organ Review of Arts -Pete (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue IV - May 2008
A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. 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 (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Museophile
A tag has been placed on Museophile requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Kubanczyk (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Abingdon coa.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Abingdon coa.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Edmund Lenihan
Good work! I edited that one until I got frustrated and quit. Good to see others cleaning it up and adding to it.Trilobitealive (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Museum Mile, London
An article that you have been involved in editing, Museum Mile, London, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Museum Mile, London. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?
 * No problem, but the term only seems to exist within the marketing dept. of the London Borough of Camden; I'm not sure that it merits an article - and seems to have some confusion with South Kensington. Be glad to hear your thoughts. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 09:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:Museums Discussion
Hi! I think your personal knowledge might help answer this as I'm not sure which title(s) are the best to use. I'm not sure whether you watch the project page so I wanted to give you the heads up. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 20:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added a comment to the discussion. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw, thank you! TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 15:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Rowiki
Hi, saw your post on rowiki and I see you are a regular rowing-related poster on wikipedia. I would love it if you would help make the snowball bigger, as it hasn't quite caught on as quickly as I had hoped. If you'd like to discuss, please contact me there (rowiki talk page for rrcjab). Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrcjab (talk • contribs) 16:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I have added an article. You need to act as a "champion" to get the wiki off the ground. For some suggestions in the context of museums, but also more generally applicable too, see Wiki Software and Facilities for Museums. Good luck! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Park West Gallery
Please do some more editing. It needs it.  Ty  00:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Tyrenius, I have done a little editing; more could certainly be done. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ty. I agree!  Ty  23:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

International Journal of Software and Informatics
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of International Journal of Software and Informatics, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.ijsi.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.

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) 19:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have done some further paraphrasing. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tony Chapman
An article that you have been involved in editing, Tony Chapman, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Tony Chapman (2nd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Cheers, CP 14:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Organ systems
 has been nominated for merging into Category:Biological systems, which you created. 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. Cgingold (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Luxury Hotels
Category:Luxury Hotels, 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Acland Hospital
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Acland Hospital, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. benjicharlton (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Rename Category:Getty Museum? Is Category:Museum books Needed?
I think "Category:Getty Museum" should be renamed "Category:J. Paul Getty Trust." Some of the entries there, like Art & Architecture Thesaurus, Getty Foundation, and Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names are not part of the J. Paul Getty Museum; however, they ARE part of the broader J. Paul Getty Trust.


 * Certainly there could be a broader "J. Paul Getty Trust" category above "Category:Getty Museum" (if you with to create one), but the latter is designed to fit in with other similar museum-related categories and the former would not do so. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm not understanding "Category:Museum books" with three entries. Is it supposed to be books about museums, books by museums, or both? Two of the entries there -- Art & Architecture Thesaurus, and Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names -- are accessed electronically, not in books. That would leave one entry. Is there a need for this category? ArtPhotoLover (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added a brief introduction. I was thinking of this category in terms of professional/education books by/for museum professionals. Thank you for your input. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the information and useful pointers. I hope to get to a Wikipedia meeting sometime! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Acland Hospital
I have nominated Acland Hospital, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Acland Hospital. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. benjicharlton (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Museum of World Religions
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Museum of World Religions, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There are multiple reliable references easily found online. I have added a selection and deleted the notice. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Neighbourhoods of London
Hi Jonathan When you created the Category:Neighbourhoods of London did you really mean to  place it in  England's  'London'  as opposed to Canada's London or some place else?  Either way, the sad news is its sub cats are now seemingly displacing all the London  Borough categories off articles concerning places in the London region.

If however, you where trying to heroically sort out the mess of London categories, then solution for this -I think- is to correct the names of the borough categories. Example: Category:Ealing (which is really  the name of a town) should be changed to its proper name of Category:London Borough of Ealing (and not Ealing borough of London or Ealing borough in London or any other variation but exactly as they appear in Category:London_Borough.

At present, calling the borough cats by the names of the principle towns is not only wrong but just confuses people; neighbourhoods  more so, because  in England (and especially in crowed London) the use of the word changes with context. We need need in an encyclopaedia to have inflexible term for something that possess defined boundaries for the area covered in the article, -borough meets this requirement.

These latter two problems also badly affects Wikicommons. Nine out of ten photographs of London that get uploaded, don't get a category place name any more - it is just too mystifying for contributors. I wasted several hours last week trying to explain to a group of three people who were visiting (and who's mother tongue is not English), how to choose the right category for images which would place them geographically and came to realize, that as things are, it is a complete nonsense when it comes to the London region. Obviously too, without these cats it is impossible in practice to review image for any given locality in a WC gallery.

It would also make more sense if the exonym form of  Category:Neighbourhoods in the United Kingdom on WP gets a 'redirect'  to Category:Subdivisions of the United Kingdom (perhaps with a comment on that cat page  that the word 'neighbourhood' is used differently in Britain and so  ceases from here on in to be  applicable). Then correct the names on its sub cats that included the exonym 'Neighbourhoods'. Finally and just for completeness the Category:Neighbourhoods of Walsall (that was created by someone else) needs correcting. It would be futile for me to start correcting these issues on Wikicommons if WP itself does not  make sense (as you may know, Wikicommons uses the English Wikipedia as its guide regarding the naming of categories). --Aspro (talk) 09:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good luck with sorting things out. I guess there is no perfect or easy answer! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Year of birth unknown
Hi. Please keep in mind than for Living individuals we use Category:Year of birth missing (living people) and not Category:Year of birth unknown nor Category:Date of birth unknown. Please keep instructions in those categories. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 09:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information and I do know it, although knowing if someone is alive can be difficult sometimes! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Theories
Category:Theories 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. Cgingold (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Worthy of keeping as a high-level container category, IMHO. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Speech (album)
I have nominated Speech (album), an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Speech (album). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Beano (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Beano (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Worthy of keeping for completeness as the last album from an important blues-rock band, IMHO. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Boat Race image categories
I see you have been removing the boat race/sporting categories from some of these images. What's your thinking on this - have I miscategorised them? - Pointillist (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe so, yes. The categories are far to wide. It is also best to choose "Images" categories for images. Perhaps it would be best to have a Category:Images of the Boat Race category for all these images. This could be put under Category:Images of the River Thames, etc, as appropriate. Just an idea if you wish to do this.


 * For guidance, when adding to a category, it is best to check if there are other similar images/articles there already. If not, it is very likely that they would be mis-categorized or too high in the category hierarchy if added. I hope this helps. Happy editing! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have made a start at this. You are welcome to continue! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for creating the 'Images of the Boat Race' category and your effort re-categorising images - much appreciated. BTW if you are "Bowen, J. P., University" on page 12 of my old list of resident members of Oxford, we are contemporaries. Let me know if you plan to watch next year's boat race in person? - Pointillist (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have finished all the images. And, yes, that must be me! I haven't watched the Boat Race live for a while (since moving from London), but will probably watch on television at least, although it would be nice to see it live again sometime. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me know if you do (I'd like to pick your brains re: Z vs Microsoft Olso/M and model-driven systems). - Pointillist (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I know Z but not Microsoft Oslo/M, although I know parts of Microsoft are using [formal methods]]. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your corrections in texts to Hungary Tamas Szabo (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. I am working my way through categorizing European capitals better and have just finished Budapest. Further work is welcome of course. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of supercategories
I'd argue that this edit, though technically correct, should be reversed. For some unknown reason, category:Cemeteries in Moscow indeed inherits from category:Religion in Moscow. However, absolutely most cemeteries in and around the city are non-denominational, and only a few selected ones do have notable religious history behind them, as in this case. I'd rather unlink cemeteries category from religion at all rather than remove religion tag from these few appropriate cases (Rogozhskoye Cemetery, Armenian Cemetery (Moscow), Preobrazhenskoye Cemetery, Vvedenskoye Cemetery). NVO (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your points are well made. I guess there is no perfect answer. Certainly the single Rogozhskoye Cemetery under Category:Religion in Moscow looked odd. Religious cemeteries might be better categorized under the religion - e.g., see Category:Jewish cemeteries and Category:Roman Catholic cemeteries if you wanted to use or create appropriate categories for specific religious connections. In many/most countries, cemeteries have religious connections as a rule, but Russia/Moscow is obviously different here. I hope this helps. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue V - January 2009
It's here at long last! The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is ready, with exciting news about Darwin Day 2009. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. 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 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Honorary Fellows of Colleges of the University of Cambridge
Category:Honorary Fellows of Colleges of the University of Cambridge, 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. Cgingold (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Geometry Engine
Hello! I have noticed that you have made Geometry Engine a redirect to Geometry pipelines. I am wondering, would it be appropriate to re-purpose Geometry Engine as an article for the device developed by Jim Clark as described in his 1982 paper, "The Geometry Engine: A VLSI Geometry System for Graphics"? Regards. Rilak (talk) 07:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, this would be very appropriate if you have the time and inclination to do this, thank you. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

UOxford-stub
Hi - I see you have recently created one or more new stub types. As it states at Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha?  00:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I created this in line with the University of Cambridge stub UCambridge-stub. I can add stub entries if it is deemed acceptable. Sorry not to go through "official" channels. I have added this message to the section suggested above as well. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Former students of Magdalen Hall, Oxford
I have nominated former students of magdalen hall, oxford for renaming to alumni of magdalen hall, oxford. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. BencherliteTalk 15:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also former students of hart hall, oxford on the same basis. Regards, BencherliteTalk 15:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It sounds fine to me! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good. You'll see that the categories are rather fuller than they were yesterday... BencherliteTalk 02:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Univ
That's well done to fill those gaps! Heads of Houses offers plenty of scope still, I think. It would be nice to bear down on all those listed in the Dictionary of National Biography, as a sub-task of the rather large business of matching its coverage. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the positive feedback. Yes, Cambridge are beating Oxford on this at the moment, so I am making a start for Oxford. I will try using the 1885 DNB more. Of course the ONDB is also a great resource. Unfortunately I do not have full access online, although I do have an older paper version as well as the recent Univ history, that I may use to improve entries in the list of Masters of University College, Oxford and also the list of Vice-Chancellors of the University of Oxford (and especially the intersection of the two!). — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (Stalking your talk page...) I have access to a library copy of Alumni Oxonienses which may help with some of the ones that didn't make it into the DNB. Let me know if I can help. BencherliteTalk 13:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information, I will contact you if I get stuck! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Union Street, London
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Union Street, London, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Appears to be a non notable London Street.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, 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. Jenuk1985 |  Talk  21:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Southwark Street
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Southwark Street, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Appears to be a non notable London Street.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, 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. Jenuk1985 |  Talk  21:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Marshalsea Road
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Marshalsea Road, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Appears to be a non notable London Street.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, 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. Jenuk1985 |  Talk  21:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added references and further information to these major streets to demonstrate notability. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have nominated these articles for afd as I still don't feel they are notable. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  02:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Union Street, London
I have nominated Union Street, London, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Union Street, London. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jenuk1985 |  Talk  02:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Southwark Street
I have nominated Southwark Street, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Southwark Street. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jenuk1985 |  Talk  02:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Marshalsea Road
I have nominated Marshalsea Road, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Marshalsea Road. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jenuk1985 |  Talk  02:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I can only disagree. These are major Southwark streets in central London with documented historical information. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

you are well come Jets (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron!
Lord, look at all of those deletions, by one editor. I am sorry, you need us a lot right now. Ikip (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

An article you created maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you
The article you created: Union Street, London may be deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:
 * Articles for deletion/Union Street, London.

The faster you respond on this page, the better chance the article you created can be saved.

Finding sources which mention the topic of your article is the very best way to avoid an article being deleted Findsources3:
 * Find sources for Union Street, London: google news recent, google news old, google books, google scholar, NYT recent, NYT old, a9, msbooks, msacademic ...You can then cite these results in the Article for deletion discussion.

Also, there are several tools and helpful editors on Wikipedia who can help you:
 * 1. List the page on Article Rescue Squadron. You can get help listing your page on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
 * 2. At any time, you can ask any administrator to move your article to a special page. (Called userfication)


 * 3. You can request a mentor to help you: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond to you before responding on the article for deletion page.
 * 4. When trying to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. These acronyms don't need to intimidate you. Here is a list of acronyms you can use yourself: Deletion debate acronyms, which will help you argue that the article should be kept.

If your page is deleted, you also have many options available. Good luck!

Also


 * Southwark Street:
 * Marshalsea Road:

Ikip (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Architectural History
A tag has been placed on Architectural History 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 about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, 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), 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 18:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Architectural History
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Architectural History, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Seems to be pretty much a non-notable student magazine.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, 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. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 18:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to ARS!
{| style="border: 4px solid #CC0000; padding: 6px; width: 80%; min-width: 700px; background: #FFFAF0; line-height: 20px; cellpading=30" align=center Hi,, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!
 * colspan="2" |

Proposed deletion of Park Place (Ardwick)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Park Place (Ardwick), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Appears to be an othewise unremarkable street - does not have sufficient notability. The location of the C19 school can be indicated in the article about the C19 school. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, 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. Tagishsimon (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The Cossacks are coming!
Dear Jpbowen, I noticed your help on a couple of pages I am working on and wanted to thank you. Furthermore, given your experience here I was wondering if you had any ideas regarding the picture on Pugachev's Rebellion. Clearly Zaporozhian Cossacks are represented in the painting and not Yaik Cossacks. Is this misleading or a minor detail given the article implies a sub-category re: Cossacks?Ernstblumberg (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not really my area I am afraid. Good luck anyway! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Peer review of Oxbridge article
I've done a series of edits to extend and clean up the Oxbridge article. I was aiming to include all the essential points that others would otherwise add later, but in the smallest practicable stand-alone form: more crisp and focused than Oxbridge rivalry, for example. I'm now too closely involved to judge the result. As you were active on the Oxbridge rivalry article last year, would you care to review Oxbridge? Thanks in advance - Pointillist (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like a good separation to me. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Malta
Thanks for you help with the National Museum of Archaeology (Malta) article! All help on Wikiproject Malta articles is much appreciated. we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are welcome, thanks for the feedback. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Museology
Happened upon this category. You 1st set it up, a subcategory of Museums, which seems exactly right. Later though you changed it so that Museums was a subcat of Museology. Very odd to have a topic be a subcategory of the study of that topic. I'd like to understand what's going on. Thanks, 69.106.242.20 (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess it depends on how you view the term "Museums" — is it just museums or all museum-related articles? If the former, I agree, if the latter, as is the case at the moment, it is less obvious. Is there any guidance on this somewhere? — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Hello Sir
I deeply admire your work in becoming a renown computer scientist and I merely want to felicitate you for your achievements. This is a personal letter, and I plan on becoming a computer scientist such as yourself. I thought a little chat would bring me some "good luck".--DarkKunai (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good luck to you! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion (JACM)
I was about to submit an AFD but then I thought deletion is potentially not a nice thing to do to someone. Look over this article and tell me what you think. It is 4 years old and nothing is really mentioned except a definition.

Journal of the ACM

User F203 (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would strongly advise against deletion, the JACM is the main scientific journal of the ACM, the world's leading computer science professional organization, and is such is highly notable with over 50 years of publications spanning most of the history of computing. Please do improve the article with further information if you wish. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not a troublemaker. Since you say that it's so important, I will go on a mission to make the article more than a definition.  You have motivated me!  It may take a while but I'll do it.  Wish me luck! User F203 (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)