See also User talk:JHK/Archive 1.

removal of info in preparation for page deletion/user removal JHK 20:54 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

JHK, it's a pity that you apparently want to go. If you would like to stay in contact, you can find my E-mail on I'd appreciate it. :-) -- djmutex 22:58 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you go again. Wikipedia won't be the same without you. --mav

I hope I'm not the one who drove you away this time, though I fear that I am. Warm regards and best wishes. Koyaanis Qatsi 23:06 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Note: I moved this page here on JHK's request because she does not want to be listed on Wikipedia under her real name. --Eloquence 15:46 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)


JHK -- It wasn't [User:Triton|Triton]] who complained anonymously about your comment about Canadians. It was me. So your hypothesis that Triton was concealing his mastery of English was wrong. I appreciate the difficulties you were having, but I didn't create them for you, and I and all the other Canadians you have never dealt with here don't need to be stereotyped by you. If you think I'm wrong, let me know, but pleeeease keep it brief and post on my user talk page. It was the prospect of long posts on my user page that led me to post anonymously. Trontonian

Thanks for the reply, but I cannot seriously believe that a person of your obvious intelligence would think that "you Canadians" doesn't refer to all Canadians. Anyway, even if you were referring only to the Canadians who were giving you prtoblems, what does their nationality have to do wiith it? Oh, well -- I don't think you should be hanged for saying it, and Canada is still thriving even though you haven't apologized. All the best. Trontonian
I should add that my problem is not with you but with the people who tolerate a double standard here. Canadians are accustomed to being condescended to, and often they exploit that condescension -- an advantage I'm in no hrry to lose. Trontonian

I also forgot to answer your questions about Canadians and the Merovingians. As far as I can make out, your average Canadian, English or French, doesn't give a cul de rat about this issue. I know I don't. What I read of the debate suggested to me you were right, too. I suspect that an unfortunate dispute like that is a sign of a fundamental flaw in the concept of Wikipedia. Trontonian

See User_talk:Trontonian. What I don't understand is why no one leapt to the conclusion I was Jacques Delson. A little research should arouse that suspicion. I'm not him either, though. Hope you stay around. Trontonian
Thanks for the note. I'll be checking out the Jacques Delson/DW hypothesis.
I have now posted an hypothesis of my own about Jacques Delso/DW at User_talk:Jtdirl. Trontonian

Wow, I do just a little to get started yesterday; then when I come back, it's all done! Good job everybody! -- Toby Bartels 19:20 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Julie, I would like to add that you mentionned in the list, I was insulting RK on the theory talk page. I don't think it is true, and it saddens me that you said I did. You also write on the talk page that I did not ask the protection of the page. This is also untrue. I did. I also did ask several (I really mean several, look at the comment history) times protection of one of these pages (but which one was it ??? Gaia Theory I think) a month ago (I think you were not around); And nobody did the protection. I knew this time that enough people knew about the pb, I asked protection this time, so I knew someone would do it ultimately. I just wanted to stuff all what had been left over in the articles transformed in redirect to be sure all the relevant information was there, before it was frozen. I had just the time to it, since I finished a couple of mn before you froze it. I didnot remove anything RK wrote; I just add the controversial stuff. And even if I one day said from someone that he is a vandal, I *never* once used that word for RK. Never. I have however the feeling that my history of using it once on a user is a bit condemning me here. I really feel sorry I did. I also think that a one-time offense might be forgiven. Well, I thought and hoped anyway. I was wrong. Clearly. I feel so unhappy, I don't even feel the desire to participate in any other discussion today.

Really . Well, I did call someone a vandal. Fat little buddha. Who (or anyone else willing me to go away) reappeared today. Look at the mailing list. Here it is. I think my time over here is over. I think the Gaia articles will be messy, and that now RK will attack on other matters as well, just as did Fat Buddha. This is not I wish to do here. And if everyone accept these behaviors, it makes me unhappy. I am not here to be unhappy. But thanks a lot

I noticed that you criticized the article on the "history of Africa" on the same grounds that I had about a month ago. Although pre-colonial Sub-Saharan Africa is far beyond my areas of expertise as a historian, I've been meaning to contribute content detailing the histories of black African states like Ghana, Mali, Songhai, Kanem-Bornu, Kano, Ashanti, Oyo, Benin, Ife, Monomontapa, or the Swahili-speaking city-states in East Africa. I agree completely that the content (or lack of content) on the histories of pre-colonial Sub-Saharan African peoples, both literate and non-literate, can be perceived as an example of ethnocentrism and disrespect for non-Western peoples.

I agree that this page should be linked to regional histories. I would be very happy to work with you on creating the links to such regional histories. If you're interested perhaps we should divide up the workload, choosing certain eras or regions that we'd like to detail.

Thanks for your comments! 172

FearÉIREANN has been filling me in some more about the history of DW. I think I have a much better idea of the exasperation you all must have been feeling. I'm glad I was obnoxious and got you guys to explain it to me. I'm also glad it got me to say who Trontonian is. That should prevent another misunderstanding like this occurring. Trontonian

Hi JHK, sorry to hear (read?) that you have left Wikipedia :-(. Anyway, just wanted to let you know that your list of french monarchs demo page was listed on Wikipedia:Subpages to be moved, so I moved it to User:JHK /List of French monarchs demo page. Cheers, Cyan 02:48, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

LOL -- Just popped in and can't believe the Prusso-Polish wars are still going on! JHK

Those of us who've been here the whole time are pretty incredulous about it also. :) We miss your fine editing style and hope you come back sometime -- keep looking in on us now and then, at least? Jwrosenzweig 20:39, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't check in here much, but there's going to be a meeting of local (Seattle area) Wikipedians on November 6th, probably at the downtown library. I figured you might be interested in coming -- depends, I guess, on whether or not you lurk here much. Figured I'd leave you a note and let you decide. :-) See my talk page and Michael Snow's for more. Jwrosenzweig 22:07, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Article LicensingEdit

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:


Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)


Discussion moved from User talk:Ram-Man

I'm jsut confused by the whole thing. Since few of my contributions are really mine -- some have been changed in ways I thoroughly disagree with, others, like WaltPohl's changes to Feudalism, are great. Anyway, I thought the whole wiki thing was that nothing belongs to any of us. That being the case, isn't this all academic and up to Jimbo? JHK

I am surprised at the way even Jimbo seems to be looking at the content of Wikipedia from a perspective of pieces of work. We should be looking at each user's edits as individual works, and Wikipedia's articles as derivative works incorporating all of them together. Thereby, I can still release my contributions under CC-BY, which (I think) makes them legitimate for inclusion into the whole article, which is then released under GFDL. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 23:38, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia works under the premise that you own the copyright to your original contributions and that Wikipedia is merely licensing them from you under the terms of the GFDL. As the copyright holder, you can relicense them in any way that you choose, including the CC-by-sa license. Since the Wikipedia disclaimer does not state that Jimbo can relicense your contributions, then no, he does not have the ability to change anyone's copyright, although you can give the Wikimedia Foundation permission to that that in addition to multi-licensing. (see: Template:WikimediaTextLicensing). I hope this explains everything enough to help you make your choice. If not, let me know on my talk page and I'll try to help you out some more. Ram-Man (comment) (talk)[[]] 13:26, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

January 15 Seattle meetupEdit

I know you are mostly gone, but just wanted to let you know we are planning another Seattle meetup on January 15, 2005. Last time it was a pretty darn first-rate group of contibutors, I think you would have enjoyed it. Feel free to drop by Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle & leave a note. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:04, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Do come by againEdit

Hi, I ran across your stuff in doing some janitor work in Wikipedia's dusty hallways. Alas, your time and mine here didn't overlap (I arrived just after you bailed), but Wikipedia needs good editors. If you don't want to put up with the jerks (can't say I blame you :-), focus on some of the quieter corners, and add content. One day in the not-too-distant future we'll have a mechanism (see Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards) for keeping good articles good (i.e. preventing less-competent editors from "breaking" good text), and until then it's not worth fighting battles with them. The good version is there in the history, to be retrieved when we have a mechanism for protecting them. Noel (talk) 14:43, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, it has changed (I took off for the best part of a year myself at one point, and it took me a while to catch up). However, where you put your kind reply worked fine. I understand just what you mean about emotional commitment to things you do (I suffer the same problem :-), and I can easily understand that for most people, doing stuff for publication is more important. Anyway, do keep in touch, and if we get the article refereeing system up (which is going to happen one way or the other, as Larry Sanger points out in his recent column on Kuroshin), then maybe it will be more congenial for you. In the meantime, good luck with your other endeavours! Noel (talk) 02:12, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to say I share Noel's comments - I think you had mostly left by the time I arrived, but I'm amazed at the number of times I come across an old JHK/Michael Tinkler/HJ discussion on a talk page. It would be nice to have a professional medievalist around more regularly, as the current debate (or the renewed debate!) on the Feudalism article shows. Hopefully we amateurs working on medieval articles are not making a complete mess of them. Well, it's nice to finally talk to you, if you're still around! Adam Bishop 07:26, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Hi JHK, I'll keep an eye on it, but I don't know much about the real Franks - for me, "Franks" are anyone from Catholic western Europe :) Stbalbach set up a Middle Ages WikiProject though, maybe we could have an "articles to watch" section there. Adam Bishop 19:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

JHK's page preservationEdit

As a good friend of JHK, I will take the liberty of watching over her page and cleaning it up as needed. I've removed a bit of vandalism today. JHK has elected to leave the project but her contributions to the pedia are not to EVER be discounted.

JHK - drop me a line if you're ever around as I lost your email a while back. Hope you're really well. After all the fiasco of the LMS Memoir about the early days, I'm thinking of writing one of my own... Thinking of you kindly - {hugz} Manning 05:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral Wikipedia?Edit

removed I. Skopje's long missive on Macedonia. Hope someone else has dealt with this ... JHK

User categorizationEdit

Greetings, JHK! Please accept this message as an invitation to categorize your user page in the category Category:Wikipedians in Washington and removing your name from the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Washington page. The page will be deleted when all users have been removed. Even if you do not wish to be placed in a category, could you take a moment to remove your name from the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Washington page? Thanks!!

To add your name to the category, please use the tag [[Category:Wikipedians in Washington|JHK]] to ensure proper sorting.

For more information, please see Wikipedia:User categorisation and Category:Wikipedians by location. -- Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 04:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no time to do this, but you have my permission to make the changes JHK 04:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Votes requested on cfr Tudor and PlantagenetEdit

Hi! I note your input on the Anjou page, I would greatly appreciate your voting on the proposed renaming of Category:Tudor to Category:House of Tudor, and Category:Plantagenet to Category:House of Plantagenet it seems the vote was suggested by obsessed with uniformity, however renaming the categories would be a mistake in my opinion, due to the fact that Tudor people is a sub category of Tudor, and having it as a sub category of House of Tudor would make no sense. Also, in my opinion House of Anjou is the more normally used phrase for the descendants of Geoffrey of Anjou rather than House of Plantagenet. please vote here Thanks, Arnie587 21:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


Hi JHK, I have left a question on the discussion page of Austrasia. I get the feeling that the map is more confusing than helpful. In Merovingian times the Frankian realm(s) did not stretch that far east I think. Austrasia was more limited to Flanders, part of Holland, the Rhineland to Cologne, (essentially the Frankian realm as it was before the conquest of 486). but the definition may have changed over time. I dont know for sure. af:Gebruiker:Jcwf PS: I tried to retrace the person who uploaded the map and found it was DW. Apparently this user was later blocked, so I cannot really ask him... I might explain why I am interested in the topic. We had a considerable discussion on the af: wiki about the early history of the French and Dutch languages. There are linguists (Quak) now in Amsterdam who are composing (reconstructing is a better word) a dictionary of Old-Dutch stretching from 475 to 1200 or so. They are taking all scraps of Frankian in French and even in the Salian law as material to base their reconstruction on. I think there is growing recognition that Frankian equals Old-Dutch, but this idea has long been vehemently refuted by both French and German scholars. Voyageur uploaded a map of the current lowfrankian dialects on af:, which I think apart from the North-Holland peninsula coincides with the map of old Austrasia. North-Holland only changes from Frisian to Frankian in the 13th century (this is quite well established). I wanted to put the two maps side by side to demonstrate the similarity, but unfortunately the DW-map shows Austrasia stretching way into presenta day Germany. I think this probably goes back to the desire of German historians of the early 20st century to show how German the Franks were (And how how Frankish the Germans!) rather than that it has anything to do with the Merovingians.


Longest BalladEdit

I think Akilattirattu Ammanai with more than 15000 lines is the longest ballad form of literary works in the world. Does you have any objections? Please respond in my talk page - Vaikunda Raja 00:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Voices in the WindEdit

JHK - I'm writing that memoir of the early days... and would love to touch base with you. Manning at manningbartlett-dot-com. Manning 00:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I know you are gone but ...Edit

If you really are still "lurking" perhaps you can thro some citations into this discussion. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to Meetup/Seattle6, a focus groupEdit

I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. (Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration.) Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page . Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Suspension of admin privileges due to inactivityEdit

  Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. RL0919 (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Notice of changeEdit

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that you will not longer be able to request restoration of the tools because of your prior inactivity. You have until December 30, 2012 to request restoration or else the policy will prevent you from doing so in the future; you would need to seek a new WP:RFA. Until December 30, you can file a request at WP:BN for review by the crats. Thank you. MBisanz talk 04:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(delivered by mabdul 23:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC))

Just to let you knowEdit

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians Ottawahitech (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Your user pageEdit

Hello, I found your user page while doing some wikiarchaeology. . I have restored all of its earliest surviving revisions from old copies of the Wikipedia database, so they are available to everyone now. I've also retrieved some old edits from your first talk page archive. Hope you don't mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graham87 (talkcontribs) 09:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Graham87, thanks very much! JHK (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Talking about me?Edit

What on earth could there be about me to say that is remotely interesting? Alive and well, but damn we're getting old. mail -- at -- manningbartlett dot net. Manning (talk) 06:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


Sorry, J, I would never have deleted the article if I'd realised you'd created it. However, it doesn't, in its present form, have the requisite independent references to demonstrate notability and the wording is borderline promotional. Recreate it if you like, but preferably with the necessary refs. Deb (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Deb, I didn't create the first one, but did create this version after looking to see whether a page already existed and not finding it. I think it should be ok now? ex JHK (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, not really, as it hasn't got any independent references. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Deb (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 13 MayEdit

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Society for Medieval Feminist ScholarshipEdit


If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Society for Medieval Feminist Scholarship requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!Edit

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Koenigsberg vs KonigsbergEdit

Re your note at Talk:Koenigsberg, Wikipedia has two articles on people named Koenigsberg that I can only find through Google search, because a Wikipedia search redirects to Konigsberg. Is that proper? I'm not expert enough to fix this, can you?Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of CornwallEdit


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Cornwall, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mr. Guye (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, JHK. 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)

Victoria I of the United Kingdom listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Victoria I of the United Kingdom. Since you had some involvement with the Victoria I of the United Kingdom redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)



Thank you for beginning quality articles such as Reformation, Luise Gottsched, Christina, Queen of Sweden, John III Sobieski and Society for Medieval Feminist Scholarship, for adding to Saint Boniface in 2001 already, for "I am soooo tired of articles that have only one crank, inappropriate POV", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2300 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks! JHK (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)