The Barnstar of Diligence For your endless work in improving Wikipedia. I can't think of a better way of thanking you, so, thanks! And keep up the great work. ♠ SG →Talk 18:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
	The Editor's Barnstar Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping article clear of spam and other nonsense. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you! — Satori Son 01:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar To JonHarder for his tireless battle against the scourge of linkspam and excessive external links. Jon, Here's a little something (it's not much, I know) for all your hard and thankless work. I wanted to make sure that you know you're not alone in the battle. Keep up the good work. Regards -- Moondyne 05:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
	The Spamstar of Glory Presented to JonHarder for perserverance in fighting spam on Wikipedia --A. B. 18:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
	The Rusty Plow award I hereby award you the Rusty Plow for your endless- and I mean endless- struggle to defend the Amish article. Wachholder0 04:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]
	The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar For going back to 2006 and checking copyright violations in Wikiproject Hinduism articles and others. I would have never thought of doing it. :) Kudos. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
	The Editor's Barnstar For applying commonsense when editing this Project, including excision of unnecessary words and for avoiding senseless visual impairment, I award you this Editor's Barnstar. Tally ho! 98.82.34.167 (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I posted a question about how to proceed re a dead link you found in the Weldon Angelos Case article. I happened to keep an .mp3 of the radio program that the link refers to but I do not know what are my responsibilities in this regard -- if it should be put somewhere. Createangelos (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you have a look at the talk pg of the Weldon Angelos article? I uploaded a short ogg file excerpt from the radio program that seems to have disappeared from the internet after some years. Should there be a link to the ogg file in the article itself? I haven't dealt with a dead link before and am not sure what to do next. I do not have a recording of the entire radio program. Createangelos (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS A bot has given me a copyright warning on the excerpt too, now I am really confused what to do next. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Createangelos (talk • contribs) 19:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case you most likely do not own the copyright to the material that you presumably record while the program aired, so it cannot be used. The best solution is to find other sources that document that section. Alternatively the article is not greatly harmed by removing the section. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 11:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have written some interesting articles about Force-based algorithms, Aho-Corasick at my site and put a link to proper wikipedia articles, so people could see an animation in flash, instead of simple images here on wikipedia. But you always delete my links and add "COI" note. I don't have any ads at my site and there are many links to people's blogs on wikipedia, so what is the problem?(talk) 23:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally one does not add links to their own website. See the conflict of interest article. The avenue for including links to your own work is to mention it on the article's discussion page and let other, more neutral editors include the links if they choose. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understad, but it seems like nobody is reading discussions. Please, if you understand what the topic is about, can you add these links to the right wikipedia page, or at least not delete them? I just want to have some good comments, what do people think about my work.(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Try reposting your request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Hopefully you will get a response from the broader audience there. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 22:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jon. I bounce in and out of here (editing) occasionally, due to lack of time. I was looking again at the Anabaptist article and it still strikes me as needing some sort of major revision. Maybe that is because for the last 1.5 years I have been reading a lot of Anabaptist history and theology. Since you do a lot more editing than I, shouldnt the article Theology of Anabaptism be integrated into, or at least be linked from, the Anabaptist article? A couple years ago it seems the Anabaptist article had a section on theology ... nothing now. Do you have a suggestion? I have in mind reworking the Theology article, basing it on Robert Friedmann's book "Theology of Anabaptism" and Riedemann's "Confession of Faith" and Klassens "Anabaptism in Outline" etc. Any suggestions for me? Dare I make some major revisions by boldly reworking the articles? I am willing to put a couple hours into this, citing these works. Someone unfamiliar with Anabaptism will go away from these articles without a clear basic understanding of what the movement (as it crystallized into enduring groups) was about and how it began. Then, there is the history section of the Anabaptist article. Zwickau and the Munsterites, but very little concerning the beginnings of those groups that stabilized and spread over the whole world--Swiss Brethren, Dutch Anabaptists, Moravian Bruderhofs, Marbeck, etc. Obviously quite a bit could be done in that section also. Mikeatnip (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Anabaptist article and the theology article would both benefit from some major revamping and encourage you to do what you can. It sounds like you have a good background to do so. I haven't seen the Friedman or Klassen books, but expect that would offer good material. My hunch is that pursuing the secondary sources will be more fruitful than trying to extract useful generalizations from a primary source like Riedemann. C. Arnold Snyder's "Anabaptist History and Theology" is another good sources that includes some of the more recent research. I don't have an opinion of whether two articles should be merged. Probably not if the theology articles is expanded significantly. I am starting to look at articles at the other end: stubs that have relatively high importance. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 22:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Jon! Thanks for tidying up the article on Computer-assisted language learning. You have made a lot of improvements to my edits. I have also begun editing an article on Virtual world language learning that was initiated around two years ago. It had not been touched for some time and had begun to get seriously out of date, but as soon as I began adding new links another editor jumped in and added many more new links - most of which language teachers who work in this field would not regard as relevant. I was particularly concerned when links that I added relating to the AVALON project and EduNation Islands were removed by the same editor. This was the text that I added:

Recent examples of creating sims in virtual worlds specifically for language education include the EC-funded NIFLAR^[1] and AVALON^[2] projects. NIFLAR is implemented both in Second Life and in Opensim. The EduNation Islands have also been set up as a community of educators aiming to provide information about and facilities for language learning and teaching.^[3]

The reference to NIFLAR was left in, however. I have added the above text once again today, 8 March 2011. Let's see how long it lasts. It is clear who is removing the text. The individual is well-known to the EFL and CALL communities, and so are his personal gripes and attacks. See the the article's discussion page, which says it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GroovyGuzi (talk • contribs) 12:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for forgetting to sign the above! GroovyGuzi (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph above can be improved by using secondary source(s) that talk about language education in this context, in place of noting the links to various official websites. A list of "recent examples" that is based only on official websites is open both to random deletions and additions of any type of fringe group someone thinks needs to be promoted. What you really want to strive for is a secondary source that is more independent and has more punch than "these are examples"; this will help prevent random insertions and deletions. My suggestion is to concentrate on finding that better source, discuss and note your concerns as appropriate on the talk page, and in the mean time don't be too anxious if your material is edited away. Sometimes it helps to take a long view and come back later with a new approach. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 11:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Jon, I'll hunt around for secondary sources, but these projects are very new and have not been discussed in any academic publications that I am aware of. I am unlikely to put much effort into editing this article, however. The individual who has been removing the edits is not open to any kind of negotiation, as you can see from his rambling and agressive contributions to the article's discussion page - and elsewhere in Wikipedia, e.g. in the discussion of the article on Translation. He is conducting a personal vendetta against individuals who are involved in the projects I have referred to and trying to eradicate any mention of them. He is well-known to me and I try to avoid discussion with him as I usually end up on the receiving end of a tirade of abuse. 91.125.57.106 (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to log in and sign my last comment. Must be incipient senility! GroovyGuzi (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Spelling in last para corrected. GroovyGuzi (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Situations like this are tough to deal with. This will work itself out in the long run as better sources emerge. The most difficult editors tend to tire (or are banned) eventually. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 11:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that were the case, Jon. This guy is a pit bull terrier. He was barred by Wikipedia in 2007 but keeps bouncing back in different guises and no longer uses a handle - in order to avoid recognition. See here. But the style of writing is unmistakeable. In the meantime the article has been vandalised and is now beyond redemption. I have stopped editing the article as it's gone completely off track. GroovyGuzi (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this difficult editor did not tire. He got more and more aggressive, eventually handing our personal abuse and veiled legal threats. He has now been banned, but the article is left in a dreadful state and requires radical editing. Volunteers? GroovyGuzi (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's too bad that some are not able collaborate and leave a mess in their wake. I'm not having much time to help out at the moment, but maybe later. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 11:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In January 2011, you placed an NPOV on my article about the California Fire Safe Council. I posted a question to you about this in February, but can't find any response, so am trying again. Please provide me with an example of what needs to be changed. I ask because everything in my article is backed up with references and is not opinion. If it can be better expressed, I am willing to do that, but need some guidance.

Thank you.

Oneroomschool (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another user placed that tag and I don't believe I have been asked my opinion on this previously. I agree that article is not neutral. There seems to be a consistent negative bias against the CFSC throughout. Sentences like this:

However, as will be shown in the next section, in many cases local fire safe councils weren't even informed, at least in a timely manner, about actions taken by the Board even when those actions directly impacted the local councils, let alone have a say in decisions ahead of time.

don't exhibit the dispassionate style expected of an encyclopedia. It inserts an opinion and appears to draw conclusions not stated in the sources. One approach to improving the article would be to eliminate anything based on primary sources and add material from neutral secondary sources. I respectfully suggest this would be better handled by another editor not so closely associated with the topic. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 11:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

As an editor who was involved with the recent ELNO discussion, "Official link clarification," I am inviting you to comment on the proposal to rework the definition of "Official Link".[1]

Regards, ELNO Checking (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out the message I sent to Mobile Snail concerning user:24.12.133.62 and his continuing unexplained deletions. Can we permanently ban this guy please? Thanks. ( I also sent this message to In ictu oculi ) --Canstusdis (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jon, It's taken me a long time to respond to your comment to me, regarding International Partnership for Microbicides, my editing interests, etc. so I thought I'd reply here. I hope that's alright with you. I wanted to thank you for your comments, tell you I just attended a half-day intro workshop on editing Wikipedia and understand much more, and do intend to work more on Wikipedia as time goes on. I created my first page during the workshop on Regina Holliday (needs some help, but it's a start), and see that my earliest edits were under user:mlangfeld2 for some unknown reason. My question: is there any way to re-associate them with me as user:mlangfeld since they were important to me. 96.231.11.91 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm notifying you as the creator of the template that a discussion about it, which I started, is occurring at Template_talk:Cleanup-laundry. I felt discussion was the best approach. --Lexein (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im an atheist but please can you go into more detail in the article "Bible Prophecy" where it says "many bible scholars claim the bible contains no accurate predictions..." you need to state who these scholars are and you need to source it. It is important because people need to know that skeptics have addressed and refuted the claims of religious apologists. After all, atheists cannot just ignore the claims of prophecy for they suggest the truth of the Christian religion, i.e.: the need for salvation from damnation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MamaMario13 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-laundry has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Fleet Command (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Would you mind taking a look at the Jakob Ammann page's recent edits and see what you think. Someone made a number of changes, some of them ok, but some of them not. I am not sure how to sort it all out other than revert them all. There are a number of very questionable additions. 1. The picture is most likely not of Ammann. (Trimmed beard for one thing) 2. The date of his death is taken from FindaGrave, which lists him as being buried in Lancaster County. Etc. The edits may have been in good faith, but I would feel they generally take the article backwards, not forwards. Thanks. Mikeatnip (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made some minor edits to correct things off the top of my head. I don't have my usual sources handy at the moment. The sources listed look solid. Probably any remaining problems can be ironed out by expanding the article using these and other reliable sources. I have reservations about the picture and would like more information about its source. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 18:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The editor that originally added the picture and some bad info seems willing to allow corrections when confronted with the correct information, so most of the problems have been worked through. When the picture was first added, I went to its page and I thought it showed as having just been added a couple days before, with links being put to other Ammann articles in various wiki projects. But when I checked later it shows the picture was first added about a year ago to wikimedia so I must have read it wrong (Maybe read the 2011 date as 2012). Or else someone tinkered with the dates, if that is even possible which I dont see how that could really be done. But when I first saw the dates and it appeared that they had been added to all the Ammann pages within the last couple of days, and that it seemed as if whoever added the image got it from the findagrave.com page that purports Ammann as buried here in Lancaster County (I live in Lancaster County), my reaction was "What a minute here ..."

The editor that added it to the Jakob Ammann page keeps saying it circulates on Dutch academic sites. Google and Bing dont bring it up anywhere but on wikis. But I have about the same amount of verifiable proof that it doesnt represent Ammann as the next person has that it does. :-) So I guess I'll let it go for now. I just wish something more historically accurate was available so people don't start using that one as some sort of official Jakob Ammann image. Thanks for your input. Mikeatnip (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm back with a fresh request for you to have some input on the page. I did a serious rewrite, citing academic sources, and the other editor erases it all. Seems to be a personal vendetta of some sort, the history of the other editor's talk page seems to indicate similar behavior in the past. At the present it is reverted to before the rewrite. I think you know enough about Anabaptist history to recognize the sources, even if you dont have them at hand. Thanks! Mikeatnip (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the page is still churning somewhat. Unfortunately, it is difficult to make progress once an editor slips into the mode where every change is taken personally. Things generally come out in the long run, with the stable version tending toward the best sourced work of the most emotionally mature editors. Sometimes it is hard to work it out though! By the way, I am impressed that you took the time to draw a likeness of Ammann, it is good work and solves the copyright question on the other image. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 13:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really think the other editor means well, just took an offense that I probably could have helped to avoid in the very beginning by doing my homework a little better, and being patient. If you have time, I would like your opinion on the Anabaptist page where I propose to do a thorough refabrication of the Spirituality section. I mention it on the talk page. I remember groaning a couple of years ago when that section was added, but never took the initiative to do anything major. It simply doesnt represent the core of early Anabaptism; maybe the fringe. But I could be biased in my outlook. :-) Mikeatnip (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-laundry has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in a discussion I started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Sentence style for headings that start with_dates, where I mentioned and edit (which I believe was made by you) to History of the European Union. I raised the issue there because I am asking about the general rule, rather than this article specifically. --Boson (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Hans Denck says the following: "Luther's teaching that Christ's death on the cross was for salvation from sins, is in opposition to Denck's world view which saw this as essentially not necessary, because God's perfect love allows all to become blessed." This actually is in stark contrast to what Hans Denck actually said in his recantation: "Through HIs suffering Christ has made satisfaction for the sin of all men. Otherwise no man could be saved, for none can perceive this save he who has the Spirit of Christ who equips and prepares the elect with the same mind which was in Christ Jesus." The above can be found in The Selected Writings of Hans Denck edited and translated by Walter Fellmann. It should be apparent that Hans Denck did believe that Christ's atonement was necessary for salvation according to his own words. The article should be editedPanoramicromantic (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at metacompiler. I have a basic disagreement with the defining feature as stated. I posted so on the talk page, proposing a change, and got a nasty name calling response that has turned into a flame war. In the argument it seams that it is someone trying to legitimize Forth as a metacompiler.

I found a definition in the McGraw Hill technical dictionary:

A Metacompller is a compiler that is used chiefly to construct compilers for other programming languages.

In the 1960's, before yacc, metacompller was synonymous with compiler-compiler and syntax directed compilers. I am old school and learned compiler writing in the late 60's. I learned CWIC. And implemented it on a DEC-System-10 at Cerritos Collage in Norwalk Calif. I extended into a 5 phase compiler with additional languages creating SLIC (System of Languages for Writing and Implementing Compilers) The major added features is a metalanguage for defining a target processor's instruction set as bit fields in a bit addressable memory space and assembly formet used in generating code. I use an HP48 calculator and have used HP RPN calculators sense the first ones came on the market. I still have my HP28.

CWIC was classified top Secret as sensitive technology in the early 70s. Which doesn't make a lot of sense. Manuals were given to some people (me included) at an ACM SegPlan meeting I attended in 1969. There is a published paper from 1970 in the ACM archives explaining CWIC.

For years some forth users have been claiming forth to be a metacompiler. I do not know when this started. Historically Forth predates metacompilers (1958) and was not called a meta compiler by it's originator. Lisp compiles it's self exactly the same way that forth does. I do not hear anybody calling Lisp a meta compiler.

The aim of all real metacompilers is to develop compilers for other languages other then them selves. The fact that most are Self-hosting should not be a defining feature. it is a misguided contention of Forth freaks. They have somehow misconstrued the meaning of meta. I think that in computer science meta usually means about. As in metadata being, about data, and metalanguage is a language about another language.

I am explaining it here again as in the flame war on the metacompiler talk page it's not all that clear.

A metacompiler is an interesting animal when it comes to conflict of interest. I would say that anyone that really knows about them has also worked on them or written one.

I used an example of an interrupter written CWIC that I copied from the ACM paper, and explained as such on the talk page, to counter my adversaries clams that "there is no information available on CWIC sense it was classified Top Secret". There actually is an error in it that I did not change. CWIC uses a '/' for the alternate operator but in the example a '|' is used in one rule. Probably a scanning error, I do not know. Can you check it for fair use qualification? I only copied the code and gave an example of extending it to include additional operators.

I just hope you are not a proponent of forth being a metacompiler.

Andy Patterson --Steamerandy (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was a good idea and prescient too. The distinction between "the" and "an" American Left is a recent topic of scholarly discussion with a youtube video at [2] . Also, I hope you check out my userpage for some amusing corrections I attempted at that article in February. Flying Jazz (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jon, I don't know how active you around here any more, but I realized today that as far as I can tell there is no Wikipedia article for the "Old" Mennonite Church in North America. In contrast an extensive one for General Conference Mennonite Church. I remembered from years ago that there was an equivalent one for the pre-merger MC, but I can't find it anywhere. Do you know if it got merged somewhere along the line? mennonot (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jon. Every once in a while I run across your work here on Wikipedia - I'm a relative newcomer here. I guess it is to be expected that we would have similar interests, since we have such convergent upbringings. Mom said she ran into you a few weeks back and enjoyed talking. Take care... (and feel free to read and delete this message as it is not 'Wiki-related'.) Jsniessen (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JonHarder. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JonHarder. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JonHarder. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Christ Church (Alexandria)) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 7#Christ Church (Alexandria)) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bethelks logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Corky 23:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian Public Service has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]