User talk:Jpbowen/Archive 4

Jonathan Bowen

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Jonathan Bowen, 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 explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Leftblank 16:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Museophile

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Museophile, 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 explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Leftblank 16:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes to disambiguation pages

Hi. I see you're narrowing the categories on dab pages and also add links to words. Please be aware that MoS:DAB says "Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link. Including more than one link can confuse the reader; including no links at all makes the entry useless for further navigation." Don't add links to lines on dab pages where there already is one blue link. (Further exception: on surname pages where MoS:DAB does not apply, although its spirit should.) :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 21:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the information, I will bear it in mind in future. — Jonathan Bowen 21:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The boundaries of the WikiProject Systems

Hi, Jonathan. I hope you enjoyed your stay in Dubai. I just had a nice time with friend in the States in Detroit and Atlanta. When I came back I found that the WikiProject Systems was deleted form the articles Polar coordinate system and Solar System. A view weeks ago I had put some messages on the talk pages there, see [1] and [2]. Because nobody responded there, I have put WikiProject template back. I keep wondering however, if this was a wise thing to do... Or if these articles should be beyond the boundaries of the WikiProject Systems. I wonder if you could give me your opinion about this? And maybe some feed back on my message? Thanks - Mdd 18:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Marcel, I am back (although busy editing a now). The comment given with the change was "not an engineered system" for both of these. WikiProject Systems covers all sorts of system, whether engineered or not (in my view). Certainly the Solar system is a physical system in our context. I believe that Polar coordinate system can be considered as a conceptual (mathematical) system, although perhaps this is more arguable. I think we can define the boundaries within reason. We are not just concerned with engineered systems in any case. I hope this helps. Best wishes, Jonathan Bowen 20:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this feedback, I also noticed the "not an engineered system"-argument on both articles brought forward by user:Potatoswatter, who is at the Wikipedia on 16 November 2006. Since there is no further response, I guess he's on his own with his argument. I agree with you, that... (I place this statement apart):

• ... the WikiProject Systems covers all sorts of systems, whether engineered or not.

I'll get back on this. You also wondered about the categorisation of both articles. At this moment (sorry that this takes some time to explain):

• Solar systems is in Category:Solar System
  • Category:Solar System is in Category:Planetary systems
    • Category:Planetary systems is in Category:Astronomical dynamical systems
      • Category:Astronomical dynamical systems is in Category:Dynamical systems
        • Category:Dynamical systems is in category:Systems theory and category:Physical systems
          • Category:Systems theory in Category:Systems
          • Category:Physical systems in Category:Systems

And the Polar coordinate system article is in the Category:Coordinate systems with you on 23 april put in Category:Conceptual systems.

Now a thing is that I brought the article Solar systems and Polar coordinate system under the scope of the Wikiproject Systems, meanly because of there featured status.

In between the Category:Solar System, Category:Planetary systems and Category:Astronomical dynamical systems are not in the WikiProject Systems. Even so is the other article in between, the article Coordinate system, not in the WikiProject Systems. The reason their not is, because I started tagging Systems articles from the Category:Systems down.

Now I can come to the point. I guess I started tagging systems articles about three categories down from the Category:Systems... and with this action I selected about some 400 articles. If we want to cover all the systems articles in Wikipedia, we probably have a lot more things to do.... The question remains where to put the boundaries. Maybe you can give me some sort feedback on your ideas about this. - Mdd 21:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC) (Ps. With your premission I copy part of this discussion to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Systems so other can see this too).

I think articles choose should fit in with the Wikipedia definition and description of a system. If necessary, update this page in line with the scope of the Wikipedia Systems project scope (and/or vice versa!). I hope this helps. Best wishes, Jonathan Bowen 13:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I will start the discussion on the boundaries of the WikiProject System some other time on the WikiProject Systems talkpage. It's a complicated matter, and not that urgent at the moment. I just wanted to stimpulate it here. I do agree however with you, that the description of a systems should be a mean factor. Although it's not much to go on. I'll bring it up later.

You may have noticed that Kenneth M Burke left the WikiProject Systems. I guess he got demotivated from the reactions after his big efforts at the systems theory article. He also told me, he has other priorities now... probably with a new job. It's a pity he left so sone. I also tru to get some more clearness in the demotivating reactions on the talkpage... with all seem to come from one person using multiple anonymous IP adresses. This is a rather messy business, were I have to improvice. I'll keep you informed. Good luck with your proceedings. - Mdd 19:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The systems theory article

I've seen you tagged the systems theory article some more. To be true, I have not been reading in details all changes made by Kenneth M Burke. I've only had second thoughts about the importance of the Macy conferences, but didn't look much further. Now that he back off I suddenly see taggs appearing and see for example some strange use of the word GST. Can you tell me your opinion on the current Systems theory article? - Mdd 21:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is over-long and rambling. I'm not enough of an expert to give it a major edit, but I would suggest just cutting significant chunks that don't seem relevant in an encyclopedic article. If you are knowledgeable enough, feel free to do so! People can always add them back if there is disagreement. — Jonathan Bowen 22:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I guess I could say that I'm an expert on General Systems Theory and even an expert on Systems theory but their is more then one mayor problem on the English Wikipedia holding me back. One thing is that I'm not an expert in English language, and I so far avoid writing articles here. But more important is, that the systems theory article and the English Wikipedia doesn't separate systems theory for general systems theory. I even would like to separate general systems theory from general system theory in two articles, or the last one in Ludwig von Bertalanffy's article. A last point is the serie of facts the systems theory article is based on. For example was it the Macy conferences or the meetings at the Stanford Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in 1954 that triggered systems theory... or was it a combination. I'm still trying to find other experts to share my idea's about these things. In the mean time I just wait and see. I'm sorry. - Mdd 22:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I can always give an article a copy-edit after you have had a go if you let me know. — Jonathan Bowen 19:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I made a start on the talk:systems theory page with explaining what is wrong with the current article. Maybe you check (and maybe fill in the blanks of) my contribution, and maybe add some of your own comments? - Mdd 19:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A Debora Hammond article

I made a start with a Debora Hammond article. Maybe you could take a look a it, see if it needs some more copy-editing. I got a tip (on my talk-page) to nominate this article to appear metioned on the Main Page. Maybe the nomination is even more important (I changed it a little, see [3]), and needs the finising though from an expert. You help will be more then welcome here. Thanks - Mdd 22:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability changes

Hi Jonathan, thanks for tidying up the Joep Gommers article. Saw you added a notability notice. I've added some articles and links, hopes this satisfies the criteria. Much more links to be found on google et cetera, but none worth while mentioning. Hope this information finds you well. Sincerely, Marc (193.172.235.130)

Thanks for your feedback. I guess the Wikipedia notability experts will rule on this in due course. — Jonathan Bowen 19:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Museum 'Documentation' etc

Hi Jonathan, I noticed your edit to Louise Kirkby Lunn categs, and then your Reading connection and your Museum interest. I was in Reading as a teenager (next door to Whiteknights Pk) and was Keeper of archaeology collections at Ipswich for a decade. Ipswich Museum has a very interesting history and I wrote an article about that, too. By 'documentation' do you mean describing the institutions as they are, or the collections? or both? or (as I did) their curatorial dynasties? best wishes Dr Steven Plunkett 01:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Steven, thank you for your note. By "documenting museums", I mean contibuting to the "collection" of museums on Wikipedia and cataloging them (using Wikipedia categories). I hope this converse explanation helps! Probably only large (e.g., national) museums need more that cursory information on their collections within Wikipedia, but I have created a Wikia wiki under http://museums.wikia.com/ for museums (and people associated with museums) that wish to include wiki-based information online that is not suitable for Wikipedia. Best wishes, Jonathan Bowen 20:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice work - I have bookmarked it and will come back to it shortly when a little spare time permits. Greetings, Dr Steven Plunkett 21:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Posh and Becks

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Posh and Becks, 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 Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia: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 {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. NickelShoe (Talk) 22:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added more to the article and restructured it with sections. This is important as a (popular) cultural term as well as being a nickname for a couple. — Jonathan Bowen 23:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, the article is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Posh and Becks. I voted delete because I don't think this term is notable enough for a separate article (though it certainly should be mentioned in V and D's articles). NickelShoe (Talk) 02:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions of virtual art galleries

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the articles Web Gallery of Art and The Artchive, suggesting that these articles be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. Since you appear to have created these articles, you may wish to take action. Note that I removed a similar PROD template from ArtCyclopedia.--orlady 19:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In my view, these are notable examples of virtual art galleries. I have added more to the articles to indicate this. — Jonathan Bowen 23:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Bran Point

Thanks for creating the article on Bran Point last July. You wrote: "The geology of the area is particularly interesting." Can you find some description of the geology there? All the article says now is what you wrote in the original stub, "The coastline in the area is formed from rocks and shingle with exposed cliffs behind." --Bejnar 16:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I added some further geological information. Thank you for your interest. — Jonathan Bowen 07:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

New systems categories

Thanks for creating the systems science category. Maybe you can give a short response on the question I have asked about this on the WikiProject Systems talkpage - Mdd 10:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have responded under Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Systems#A new Category:Systems science. I think the Category:Systems science literature category still serves a useful purpose allowing expansion for the future, so I would leave it. Thanks for the further updates. — Jonathan Bowen 11:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This further update leaves the Category:Systems rather useless. I wonder want you are thinking of that? - Mdd 12:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would leave Category:Systems engineering and Category:Systems theory at the top level. As an engineer, there is more to engineering that just science. I certainly don't think the top level is useless, it is a good high-level container for all aspects of systems. — Jonathan Bowen 13:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Category:Systems engineering and Category:Systems theory also in the Category:systems is acceptable. By creating a Category:Systems I personally think you have created a new top level category beside the category:systems. A loop between the two categories is necessary. - Mdd 14:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Category loops are not allowed on Wikipedia. (It will get deleted by someone eventually if created.) Of course the ordering of categories is open to debate. But I think the Category:Systems category is the best high-level contain for all things to do with systems because of the simplicity of the name. Adding "science" (for instance) limits the area to scientific aspects (which is fine as a particular category under systems). I hope this is helpful (and convincing!). Best wishes, Jonathan Bowen 14:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree more and less that categories with "science" added should limits the area to scientific aspects and to the subjects the sciences are about. After creating an Category:Systems science the most logical place for the Category:Systems engineering and Category:Systems theory is in that category. This categories shouldn't also be in the parent and child category because of Wikipedia rules. And easy solution here seems to me to put the category:systems under the category:systems science or even easier to delete it. - Mdd 14:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this since I think the Category:Systems should include non-(hard) scientific aspects (e.g., economics, law, philosophy, politics, sociology, etc., as under Category:Conceptual systems) and also fits well under the Category:Structure category. Would you include also these under (just) systems science - I don't think it would be appropriate. If we had to delete one I would delete Category:Systems science but I don't see a good reason to delete either. (Indeed I can see good reasons to have it with the additional categories that you have created.) Systems in general are interdisciplinary, not just scientific. I hope this convinces you that there is more to systems than systems science. Best wishes, Jonathan Bowen 14:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

In the past three months I made about 3000 edits just in this field, so I think I know something about this. - Mdd 15:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There is not doubt of that. I personally see this a bit like "museums" vs. "science museums", "literature" vs. "scientific literature", etc. You can have a category in one category and a parent category if the circumstances warrant it. For example, engineering is largely scientific, but includes other aspects, so I think warrants being under "systems" and "systems science" (for example). Do shoot down the argument above if you disagree! I am assuming you see it differently, but do say more explicitly why if this is the case and where you think the non-scientific aspects should live without an overall systems category. — Jonathan Bowen 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Marcel, I just checked and cycles are discouraged but allowed in certain circumstances — see Wikipedia:Categorization#Cycles should usually be avoided. It could be argued that this is one of those circumstances — so do re-add "systems" under "systems science" if you feel strongly about this! — Jonathan Bowen 15:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have copied this dialogue to the WikiProject Systems talk page and will further respond there, because there are things I want to discust that concern the whole WikiProject. - Mdd 12:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ht-//dig

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Ht-//dig, 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 explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. mms 18:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to see someone has removed this notice. Ht-//dig remains notable. Even if it is now used less, it should remain as a historical record for those interested in the history of computing (like me!). — Jonathan Bowen 09:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

ARSA Redirect

Could you take a look at the discussion I started on the ARSA redirect page? (Unsigned entry added by: TheodoreB, 18:26, 5 August 2007)

I have answered on Talk:ARSA. Please note that it is normal to sign discussion entries using ~~~~. Good luck editing! — Jonathan Bowen 18:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Components

You created this category with a popcat template. The category now has a number of subcategories, and I am not convinced that it still makes sense to populate the main category, so I have taken the liberty of removing the popcat template. --RichardVeryard 00:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Richard, this seems very reasonable to me. Thanks for letting me know. — Jonathan Bowen 12:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Books associated with Oxford

Books associated with Oxford, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Books associated with Oxford satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Books associated with Oxford and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Books associated with Oxford during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Lynnette peck

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Lynnette peck, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Lynnette peck is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Lynnette peck, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. 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. CSDWarnBot 03:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. — Jonathan Bowen 10:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Lending library -> Public library

Hi, this is just a courtesy note to inform you that I have tagged this redirect which you created with an {{rfd}}, since I feel it is misleading to redirect users to a specific library sector related article when, in fact, any library (whether public, academic, law, business, health and so on) which loans material is considered a 'lending library'. Best wishes. Coldmachine^Talk 17:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your updated page with a list of links (as you seem to have added subsequently) is a much better idea than deletion. Regards, Jonathan Bowen 10:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cork Street

Cork Street, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Cork Street satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cork Street and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Cork Street during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Welbeck Street

Welbeck Street, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Welbeck Street satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welbeck Street and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Welbeck Street during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curzon Street

Can you please revisit this discussion. I have done some digging and have found that the street has a very prestigious history, which I have added to the article, including several references. I believe the page is now of a quality whereby it should be kept. -- Roleplayer 22:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well done on improving Curzon Street immeasurably. Do you have time to work similar magic on Cork Street and Welbeck Street (in a similar predicament) too?! Best regards, Jonathan Bowen 22:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at Welbeck Street and was basically only able to add info about the Greek chapel that was there in 1862. I will look at Cork Street tomorrow as I have to go to bed soon! -- Roleplayer 22:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Cork Street deletion review

Hi, just wanted to give you the heads up that I have listed Cork Street for deletion review, based on the fact that no consensus was reached in the deletion discussion. I am writing this message to all contributors of the discussion, whether they voted keep or delete. -- Roleplayer 23:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and good luck. Thank you especially for your efforts on Curzon Street and Welbeck Street. I would say that Cork Street is actually the most well-known of these three streets in contemporary London, but that is life. I am rather busy at the moment, but when the furor has died down, I will work on a better well-referenced version. Could you give the link for the deletion review page? Best wishes, Jonathan Bowen 20:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 7#Cork Street -- Roleplayer 00:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue III - September 2007

The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 00:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Daphne Guinness

A tag has been placed on Daphne Guinness, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Toddstreat1 14:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Toddstreat1 has now removed the tags, if you are able to provide new cites, great. I would also suggest that, where relevant, changing the external links into cites would be a good step also.--Alf ^melmac 14:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added references (some using the existing external links as suggested). Thank you for your feedback. — Jonathan Bowen 16:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Posh and Becks CSD notice

A tag has been placed on Posh and Becks, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Article is original research based on a neologism (see WP:NOR, WP:NEO and WP:CSD#Articles (no. 7))

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the 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. Bumm13 12:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is up for its second deletion debate actually, which I do not feel was warranted. Flyer22 19:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for letting me know. Hopefully this is notable and well referenced enough to survive. I suspect it was put up for deletion by a non-UK person. — Jonathan Bowen 19:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem in letting you know. As for why this article was nominated for deletion again, you can check the nominator's talk page and get a pretty good idea as to why. Also, more of what resulted on a related issue to this one is found here in this link. I mean, I'm a non-UK person (and, of course, by non-UK, I mean I don't live there), and I know how notable this term is. I'll see you around. Flyer22 04:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I was going to add that they don't understand or have knowledge of British culture in its broadest sense, but glad to see you do! Best wishes, Jonathan Bowen 17:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Posh and becks not notable!!! Ha, They are culturally as big as football itself over here -bitsad though isn;t it -she does nothing but pout and pose!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"?

Yangon National Museum and National Museum of Myanmar

Hi Jpbowen Yangon National Museum and National Museum of Myanmar are same page. So you can merge. Under Ministry of culture of Myanmar, there were National Museum of Myanmar, National Library. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekyaw (talk • contribs) 16:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the merge. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Dining clubs

There is a one man campaign being waged against dining clubs one the grounds that they don't deserve articles. I see you've previously edited one such article, and was wondering if you'd care to lend your support at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dining_club ? Many thanks Grunners 18:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I contributed and it looks like sense has prevailed — not always the case on Wikipedia! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tony Chapman

I have nominated Tony Chapman, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Chapman. 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. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have replied with my thoughts. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)