User talk:Jbmurray

I prefer to keep both sides of my discussions together, so if you leave me a message here, I will reply here, probably with a copy to your page. But if I left a question on your talk page, feel free to reply there or here, depending on your preference. Thanks!

I, the Supreme

Hey JB, amazing work you did over at I, the Supreme, the synopsis is much better. As I promised I'm expanding the lead User:Acer/Sandbox, but I'm somewhat concerned that I might have misinterpreted something, especially in the first paragraph (I still haven’t expanded the third). So could you take a quick look? I know you're busy now so there’s no hurry. Thanks :) Acer (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Acer, good stuff. Many thanks! Yup, I shouldn't be here (have to prepare a talk in the next hour and a half), but just briefly... You summarize "this assertion is constantly challenged by the very fact that while he achieves power by means of writing he is ultimately not in control of it for he is not a writer himself." If that's the impression we give in the rest of the article, it's a little misleading. In part because in fact the Supreme is also a writer (there's a "private notebook" that runs through the course of the novel, too) as well as a dictator (as well as dictating words that his secretary will write down). But in part the notion is that any ruler is necessarily betrayed by the very language upon which he himself depends upon to rule. And the fact of writing (in which the voice and the letter are detached) simply emphasizes that betrayal.

So the Supreme's power is in part dependent upon the fact that he dictates (the double meaning of "dictator" is important throughout the book) orders, such as the "perpetual circular," which go out to his subofficials and citizens throughout the country. It's through these written orders that he maintains his authority, punishes those who resist, and (literally) lays down the law. But the pasquinade shows how writing, which is always also a re-citing or quotation, can be usurped: the forgery (if indeed it is a forgery) mocks the authority of the Supreme's pronouncements by imitating them, by repeating them and their style almost letter for letter.

To put it another way: the title invokes the first person pronoun, "I." But this is a linguistic shifter: anyone can say "I." It's not unique to the Supreme, and it can't be unique to him. So even the phrase "I the Supreme" doesn't hold together. In the book title, the "I" seems to be attached to Francia, the dictator, the Supreme. But when it's repeated in the book's first line (the book's first word) that "I" now belongs to the anonymous forger, and has been detached from the Supreme himself. So in a sense anyone can play at being the Supreme simply by saying that they are the Supreme. Because that's all that Francia himself has done: made a series of declarations.

Ufff, I bet that this is all becoming horribly confusing. It is a tricky book (just ask my students!) Why don't you go ahead, and I can try re-editing next week, when I have more time? Again, thanks for all this. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow! This is very helpful; I'll definitely try to adapt the lead accordingly. I must confess that the importance of the double meaning of dictator had completely eluded me and now that I think about it I do see that it's quite relevant. I had also failed to pick up on the I, I suppose the article could make this more explicit? Let me try to summarize your post to see if I indeed understood it: The supreme derivates his power from writing/dictating, unfortunately for him, language can just as easily be used by others to oppose him, this is exemplified by the pasquinade (hence its importance) in which his writing and indeed his self (character perhaps?) and ultimately his own authority is usurped by the anonymous writer by making use of Francias own game (ie: writing/language). So far so good? And what about the compiler and Roa Bastos? Can the pasquinade be understood as a metaphor for what they are, themselves, doing to Francias writings (usurping it, questioning the nature of his absolute power and relativizing it) ? Or is their relationship more complicated? Again please don’t feel any urgency to get back to me, I still have to expand the third paragraph and some assignments due at the end of the month that I should probably work on during the weekend so next week sounds great :) Acer (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm in a lunchbreak during my conference, so this will be super-quick, but... yes! Exactly! (Heh, you're a quick learner... wanna take my class?  :) ) NB we ideally would put in more on the compiler. (He really is a character, although at the margins.) I fear however that we run into the dreaded "OR" issues. And I personally don't have much time to go seek out the sources, at least not now... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It could just as easily be that you're a good teacher :) I'd love to take your class but unfortunately there's an entire...canal between me and UBC... I agree that adding interpretations and possible readings of the novel would be threading close to OR but I think we might be able to manage (ever heard of the infamous brazilian jeitinho? :P ). Anyway something came up and I'm gona have to go out and so I might not be able to edit tonight, but I'll be back tomorrow. PS: Thanks for that little ego boost, it left a silly smile on my face :) Acer (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Theres a new version of the lead up (in my sandbox). I search extensively on the net (my universitys library doestn have the novel itself let alone criticism about it) and havent been able to find much.. I did however find this old, long forgotten post in a blog [1] by this British fella who now seems to be living in Canada... murray something, perhaps you're familiar? Anyway if we could convince him to move that blog post to say... his page on UBC to give it more credibility as a source then all our problems would be solved :) PS: I also found this. [2] The fourth paragraph is a quote that could prove to be very useful Acer (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Hey jb, did you get a chance to take a look at the lead? is it what you were aiming at? I'm still running (got 25 pages of translation to hand in) but I'll be back in a weeks time or so. PS: I'm ordering some of the books (I, the Supreme, The president, a hundred years of solitude and others) since unfortunately its a pain to find them here in brazil (or at least in the so called land of happines...) So thanks for introducing them to me :) Acer (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Banglapedia

Banglapedia should be ready for another go as a GAN. Would you care to take a look at it again? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, I'm afraid I don't have much time right now. In any case, I suggest that a fresh pair of eyes might be best. Good luck! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Class project

Excellent idea on the FA project! I hope lots more professors follow your example, and I loved reading your essay about the entire process.

I have blogged about it here.[3] --Elonka 04:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I've added a link from our project page. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for all your help and inspiration on The General in His Labyrinth Jon! You put just as much work, if not more, then we ever did! Thank you thank you thank you!!! Carlaty (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, no problem. You guys did all the important work of research and finding sources. Well done! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No really, THANK YOU. I can imagine how labour-intensive it really was for you having to check so articles each day. Thanks again for a great term! It was fun! Eshiu (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary...

...for this:

I hope you realise that it will all end in tears. There's people for it, you know. EyeSerene^talk 21:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Indeed. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara

Hi jbmurray,

Thanks for your interest in Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara! I hope you'll take the time to do the (perhaps unpleasant) chore of reading through that entire FAR page, plus Talk:Che Guevara. Remember that some of the earlier comments may no longer be relevant(complaints about the article's length, forex). I am taking the minority position that Guevara was a failed guerrilla, a failed economist... although perhaps an inspiring leader (?). Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Will do, though as I suggested it may not be for a day or so I'm afraid. FWIW, I'd say that I don't have much of a POV on Che, either for or against. Nor do I think that the article need have one. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow Thanks! and as for "...Nor do I think that the article need have one" that is of course Wikipedia policy as per WP:NPOV. The prob is, Guevara is a cultural icon. this casts a positive tinge on the underlying thought processes of many editors, in my opinion. All is want is to be sure that his smelly socks rec'v as much attention as his handsome face (so to speak). In other words, I want NPOV. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Yeah, I know it's WP policy. My point rather was that in fact I don't think it's that difficult to write an NPOV article about Che. OK, I haven't yet really waded in to the editing, so I may be sadly disappointed... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, 'ya think? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Well, I've spent all night on this. In fact (as I've now said repeatedly) I don't see too many POV issues here. Zillions of other issues, but they're not overwhelmed by POV problems. Anyhow, let's see if my edits stick. (They do deserve to, goddammit.) If they do, I may even try to get Yomangani to change his mind.  ;) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) A chivato is a spy..? Also, I believe it was his handgun that was "useless" Ling.Nut (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

?? I don't follow. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

search for the words chivato and "useless". The first is unexplained; the second is missing a word... I think you accidentally deleted "handgun" Ling.Nut (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Actually I accidentally deleted "gun." Have re-inserted. I haven't edited the part concerning "chivato." It's not a word I'm familiar with, in fact. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 10:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Hey do you feel up to tackling the references in this highly derogatory (and according to RedThoreau, highly unreliable) article: [4]? Whether or not you feel it's doable, you have my thanks for all the work you've already put in. I had even meekly considered doing the same thing is a few cases. I simply was not WP:BOLD enough to make so many changes to an article so far outside my area of (relative) expertise. But good on you!!! Ling.Nut (talk) 10:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Yup, that's clearly a horrible source. I'd happily delete all references to it. Meanwhile, I'm a little amused that on the talk page (and its various archives, which I have spent far too long reading) the only point of significant consensus seems to be that Anderson's biography is the gold standard. I have my doubts. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 10:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, now I understand that you're thinking to incorporate some of the references from that Frontpage article into the WP one. Hmmm. I don't recognize the names (though I wouldn't necessarily: I'm neither a historian nor a specialist on Cuba), except for Castañeda's, who is the most right-wing of the three mainstream biographers. But the tone and the venue don't encourage me to follow up the others. I've left my thoughts on sources on the Che talk page --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

JbMurray ... I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude and compliments on your excellent recent and numerous edits to the article. You have greatly improved the quality and I believe brought the article much closer to retaining FA status. Thank you and nicely done.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 14:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you for the gong! I'm glad you appreciate the effort and do hope that Che's article continues to improve. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 14:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Verrieres Ridge, Battle of

Thanks for the tweaks and sourcing notes there! I'm starting to suspect you either don't need sleep or you've cloned yourself - the breadth and depth of your contributions is incredible! EyeSerene^talk 20:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

PS Welcome aboard the good ship FAT!

mmm

Mmm! M&M munificence marking WP:MMM and multitudes of manos "motivating, mentoring, and moulding".

Thank you! In return, given your healthy obsession with the letter M, here is a treat for you! –Outriggr § 01:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I love it! Thanks so much.  :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for the nice surprise on my talk page! That Facundo painting always struck me as looking like it had come from a Wanted poster - quite appropriate really, I suppose ;) Excellent, thanks! EyeSerene^talk 20:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thank you, thank you. And I'm becoming quite fond of old Facundo, I have to say. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

the NPOV-ness of Che Guevara

...saw your comments on A-Team page... Not POV? There are sources (see forex here) that say Guevara bungled things; there are sources that say he was a brilliant, brain of the revolution hero. Which are quoted, and featured prominently? Which are ignored? Ling.Nut (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict:) I see a bit of both on the page. There's a whole section as to why the Bolivian campaign went wrong, for instance. More generally, there's not much praising him as "brilliant, brain of the revolution hero." Again, while one could quibble in a number of different ways about the article's portrayal here and there, really POV isn't the problem. (If you want to see an article with POV issues, look here. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the "Castro's brain" quotation (which seemed to get many worked up; perhaps you too given your reference to "brain of the revolution"?) has now gone. Not in fact that it concerned me all that much. Anyhow, for more you might look at the edits I did on the article, and my comments on the talk page, too. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

PS do you have access to this source, to verify these numbers: "Guevara himself estimated 1,500 executions, as per Daniel James, ed., The Complete Bolivian Diaries of Che Guevara and Other Captured Documents (Stein and Day, 1968, New York), p. 226." Ling.Nut (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick search finds this review of the James book (you have said you have access to JSTOR), which rather complains about James's introduction and (to use the wikpedia term) POV. Moreover, it's a review for the HAHR, which is hardly some left-wing rag. But frankly I wouldn't trust much of anything written about Guevara in the 60s (or even 70s), except as documentation of historical views of the man. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't have that source. And at first sight, it doesn't look like a great one. NB this is an instance in which the earlier version of the article (before I edited it) was definitely POV, and inaccurate, mostly but not entirely against Guevara. It was certainly very misleading. I understand that it was this that was at the center of Jimbo Wales's beef against the article. But what does he know about Cuba? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... The figures for the executions are important (but not the only important thing); if we have a quote from Guevara it is correspondingly important... meanwhile, I have zero-point-zero access to English-language books, outside of Google Books. By the way, if you are really interested in this topic, interested enough to give it a nontrivial amount of time, the book that jumps out at me as appearing very NPOV is Butterfield's The Fall of Che Guevara: A Story of Soldiers, Spies, and Diplomats. Do you have it? Ling.Nut (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made my points about sources on the article talk page. As to that specific book... the title is a little sensationalistic, but the publisher is OUP. Looking at a snippet on Google books, it seems fine to me. What's your concern? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I'm finding it hard to understand why you might be worried about that particular book as "very NPOV" in that it is rather deflationary of Guevara, rather against the theories that blame the US for this, that, and everything... in other words, it comes out favouring the position that I understand you to hold. There's certainly nothing hagiographic about it. (Read the intro: it's on Google books, as I say.) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And FWIW, I don't think the executions are particularly important. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) we're getting our nomenclature confused, which is quite natural because i always do that w. respect to POV v. NPOV. I often say "this article is "NPOV" when I mena to say it violates WP:NPOV... so what i mean is.. Anderson does not violate WP:NPOV. His book is neutral; at least from what I've read. He sincerely praises Guevara as a diplomat.. I wish i could read the book... but he seems to be far more neutral about Guevara as a "military genius" (get real!) and as a "saint" (double "get real!"). Anderson seems NPOV in that Anderson seems truly to try to establish facts rather than lamely dribbling the Guevara myth/propaganda (Rhetorical question: Who promotes Guevara? And who is expert at propaganda? Answers are the same.). But I can't swear the whole book is NPOV of course; I can't read the book. [By the way, the fact that a scholar on JSTOR knocks Anderson as being POV-laden is not meaningful unless you know that particular scholar's body of work and can determine whether he or she is also POV-burdened). I'm saying this based on a limited number of looking at Google snippets that have both praise and condemnation.... and other tidbits.. forex, Anderson seems to hint that the Bolivian capture/execution was the communists repaying Che dirt for dirt; he seems to think Guevara's death was far more engineered by the Communists than by the CIA etc. I mean, the Bolivians killed him, but who put him where he could be killed? And who didn't help him enough? That kind of thing... And of course the executions are crucial!!! You assume Guevara killed only.. you know.. a few score thugs from an earlier regime. That would be highly atypical, from a historical viewpoint... What if he were the tool of yet another PolPot/Stalin? That is, "Kill everyone who doesn't like you", that kind of thing. Is that scenario even possible, in your world view? If you do not admit it as a possibility then you are very, very far from being as neutral as you have claimed. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Now I am confused... I didn't realize we were talking about Anderson. You mentioned Butterfield as a book "that jumps out at [you] as appearing very NPOV." I replied that it didn't seem so to me, or rather that if it was, it rather deflated the Guevara myth. (The whole intro is available via Google books, so you should be able to read it, as far as I understand.) Then you also mentioned James, which I said I had my problems with at first sight, and also mentioned the HAHR review.

I mean, we can talk about Anderson's book if you want (which has its problems, too), but it'd help to get things straight.

As for the post-Revolutionary executions... Well, almost fifty years have gone by and I think we can say for sure that Guevara wasn't "the tool of yet another PolPot/Stalin." There's no need for rhetorical questions. Things are fairly clear. One can still of course debate the way in which the trials were conducted, but there's no need to over-inflate their importance. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Crap! I meant Butterfield! Ling.Nut (talk) 08:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. Still, there is some confusion as the HAHR review (available via JSTOR) was of James's book, not of Butterfield's (or indeed Anderson's). But again, I feel that once such things are clarified, they become simple enough. I'd certainly have no problem (at first sight, at least) with Butterfield as a source. As far as I can see, we're agreed on that. Which isn't to say that I necessarily would buy everything Butterfield has to say, or that he couldn't be tempered by other sources. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh and FWIW, if you want a comparison, Castro's regime is probably best likened to the East German one, rather than to either Stalinist Russia or the Khmer Rouge's Cambodia. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

GA icon

Yup, Wikipedia at its cutthroat best. FA doesn't like GA; GA doesn't like FA; the hordes hate both;why can't we have more fancruft! In answer to your question about earlier incarnation of this debate...well, it is scattered about in the talk archives of GAN, GA, GAR, FA, and numerous village pump proposals. No need to examine them. The same points have been regurgitated! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm ... disagree that "FA doesn't like GA; GA doesn't like FA" et al, although I'm certainly aware of a couple of people who like to spread that bit of conventional wisdom. In fact, some of them even accuse me of same, with no foundation :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My two cents is that the hostility, though formerly both genuine and occasionally intense, has died down somewhat, for a number of reasons—including the fact that we are all working for the same goal, albeit in different ways. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's because friendships have been forged across processes, and some top-notch edtors are involved in both processes :-) But there are a couple of rabble-rousers who like to stir it up every time these perennial proposals come around from new editors. I stalked Jbmurray's edits and weighed in over there; now the usual folk will claim I hate GA :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see things as FA vs. GA. But perhaps (not for the first time) I'm being naive.  :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're being naive, Jbmurray, but we could have a very long talk about how neither your FA nor your GA experiences have been typical of what most articles go through on the path to FA or GA, because you were so well "accessorized" by some of Wiki's most experienced editors. I hope you understand how unusual your extremely smooth sailing FACs were (in spite of one blogger who didn't realize that :-) and your generally good GA reviews were, and don't extend your experiences to the broader population. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Baby Boy (song)

Hello. Thanks for your input. I copy edited parts of the article which you find unclear. --Efe (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

goof special

Thanks. [5] TONY (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Double thanks; that will help take the load off of Tony :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, no problem. I did after all try to add to his load elsewhere.  ;) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Very nice little article now. I fretted and scrambled all morning when the planned Dispatch authors for the 28th had to back out, but now I'll sleep well tonight, with the Dispatch almost put to bed. Tony is big on adding screenshots to illustrate the Dispatches, so maybe he'll do that. Thanks again (and even more, thanks for freeing up Tony's time, too), 'night! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, you're too kind. I'll try to do a little more on it, then off to bed myself... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Jbmurray. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yours, Awadewit (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

copy editing

Jbmurray, now that it seems we might be able to get back to copy editing Boydell Shakespeare Gallery, perhaps you could give me a list of the abstract problems with the article? Things like "wordiness", "dangling modifiers", etc.? That would help me know what to improve. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Jb, can I also make a small suggestion? If you want editors to follow through on your suggestions, I would put them on a talk page or somewhere more visible than an edit summary. I'm looking at over 50 changes in the last few days on Boydell. It's hard to sort through all of that to find your summaries with the suggestions. I just want people to see your helpful comments! Awadewit (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  OK, gotcha, and apologies. I just hope to be a little less intrusive that way. NB I'm still not sure about the "Easter egg" link to Richard III the play rather (as one would imagine) either the character or the historical figure. But so it goes. I hope to get back to this later tonight, though I see that the unpronounceable has done a grand job on it. Though do we still have "productions of them" in there? Not that I could come up with an alternative... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  He was Richard III in that play. There isn't a link to the character and I think a link to the historical personage would be very misleading. He played Shakespeare's Richard III - very different. :) (I couldn't come up with an alternative yet, either. Still thinking.) Awadewit (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Duck Soup

I would very much like to thank you for helping cleanup the Duck Soup article. Your contributions are much appreciated! :-) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 21:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No probs. I was going to do a GA review, but don't have that much time. Good luck with the article! --jbmurray (talk•contribs) 21:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Caps at FAC

Hey, Jb, that bar ("|") in your sig is still bombing out caps at FAC. Can I please entice you to edit your preferences and remove the bar? I capped Ottava Rima's comments on Awadewit's FAC, but I had to remove the bar from your sig. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

How's this? I can experiment a little more... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful; thanks, Jb ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, I just ran through FAC and see that you've engaged some of the FACs that really need attention; can't tell you how much that is appreciated :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Jb, don't sweat the dispatch, it's going to change; Durova left me a message that she's processing his award. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikis in the classroom

Hello Jbmurray,

I wanted to thank you for the post you made on: Making Wikis Work for Scholars http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/04/28/wiki which alerted me to your work on The WP. I've only skimmed through your projects at the moment but I look forward to reading through them over time. Glad to see you (and your students) here. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Madness, Murder, and Mayhem

Great idea. I salute you, Jon, in helping to improve Wikipedia's content. I wish my professors would do these things, seeing as I spend many hours a week editing Wikipedia as it is. Note: I actually tried to post this here, but it's not allowing comments. Enigma ^message 23:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

And thanks to you! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Very impressive. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

05 May 2008

Monday will have to be a Wikipedia day for you when El Señor Presidente goes to the main page. It can be a 24 hour free-for-all :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, will do. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

AN/I thread

Now, this is more representative of the norm, of what I experienced, and of what most often happens (without the guidance of the FA-Team); when I ran into this months ago, It Was Awful trying to deal with the damage to articles, so I eventually just unwatched them all and don't even remember what they were. Again, just as I suspect that your FA and GA experiences are not "typical" or representative of those processes (because you were well "accessorized" by Wiki's most experienced FA writers), I suspect that the classroom experiment doesn't go as well in most cases. Wikipedia:ANI#Use of Wikipedia for class project. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that is soooo like Wikipedia: the vortex of doom. New user who doesn't get the Wiki-ethos meets other editors who don't get the ethos: result is just more nonsense. (I'm taking a Wiki-break 'cause I should be outside and will be absent from Wikipedia for the summer.) Good luck with the main page. This place really is Lord of the Flies: adolescents governing adolescents. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, though in this case the problem isn't the absence of the FA-Team. It's much more fundamental than that. I'm trying to write up something that will address such issues, at User:Jbmurray/Advice. In fact, I'm just getting to that part where I will strongly recommend not doing what this guy has done. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you're on it, because I lost a lot of time (and grew some grey hairs) over a prof just like that last year ... and I could never even track down the elusive prof or school :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, of course, like anyone will listen to me. But one can but try. I'm also trying to train up the EduTech folks. We'll see. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, an abbreviated version of my take on the matter is here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Jb, an idea. I'm not quite sure yet if that piece dovetails with the Dispatches of WP:FCDW, but ... Wikipedia talk:Featured content dispatch workshop#May 5. Can you make it a fit to the stated goals at FCDW? Do you want to weigh in over there, so we can determine who gets the 5th ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Learning Object

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you this Barnstar to recognize your contributions in Learning Object. People like you help enhancing Wikipedia's quality. Happy editing and let WikiLove spread over the internet! Rjgodoy (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you! A nice surprise! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your work at FAC during April

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		To Jbmurray, For your exceptionally thorough reviews of Featured article candidates during the month of April, the FAC community and I thank you for being one of the top reviewers this month and for your dedication to helping assure that only Wiki's finest work is recognized on the Main Page.[6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations and THANK YOU for becoming such a valuable FAC reviewer in such a short time. Of the top 10 reviewers by quality in April, you are the newest to the job! As an FA-Team member, I'm thrilled that you've maintained an interested in FAC and as an FAC reviewer, I'm thrilled to have quality help! :) Karanacs (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What Karanacs said. :-) I've been lurking a few of your edits, and am thrilled to see the quality of your contributions. Sorry if we don't see eye to eye (or eye to elbow) on Che; hope to work with you on other issues in the future! Ling.Nut (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's very sweet. I know you guys had a debate about this a short while ago: my 2c. is that I like a bit of recognition! So thanks to you guys, though you are the ones who really put in the hard graft. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Global econ

Oh, I agree. See my comments on the ANI thread. I'm going for a positive reinforcement method on the class page right now. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

conspiracy theory?

Come on... I'm no tinfoil hatter. It just seems like one of those sorts of experiments where it appears to the subjects that you're testing for A, but in reality, you're simply measuring B, where B is the reaction to the premises presented in A. Like... filling out a questionaire about animal rights while they observe how you react to interviewers of differing skin color, wardrobe, scent, accent, or some other quality. ThuranX (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Almost, I said... almost. More likely cock-up. But there are some odd aspects, and I do think that the professor's non-response (I also emailed him today) is particularly strange. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is time for the test!

I think your rare exceptions are not so rare when it comes to editing on week-days! I think it is time to take the test: see Wikipedia:Wikipediholism test. Note, I'm supposed to be spending more outdoor time...and yet here I am wiki-stalking you for no useful purpose at all! Have a good summer doing something else, I'm heading out for a run :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha, indeed! I've been sucked back in. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say hi

Since I keep seeing your work over the trainwreck. Is it just me, or does no one seem to be even glancing at the sign? I'm willing to be believe that students tend not to read the directions, but you think they'd notice once have of the links turn red. (Which makes me wonder how, or even if, this class is being graded). It's not that we haven't gotten any good work out of the class, but just that it's such a low proportion.

It's almost tempted to wait until this whole thing is over, then keep the class page around as a warning on the importance of properly preparing one's students. (Or at the very least writing a comparison essay between this and WP:MMM). --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's taking the slightest notice of the sign. It truly is very strange, if you ask me.

It could be a case study in how not to do things.

I blanked the page, to try to make those who came by wake up. Sadly (I think), someone reverted. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's at least some that are decent. (I seem to recall that at least one of the students did some editing after the initial upload). But I still think that the prof needs to trouted. --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As a proportion, for all the effort that people are going to (that magnificent table!), it's hardly encouraging. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Concur. And as far as deleting the ones in userspace - I agree, although I don't see any huge rush. --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Cost Incurred by the No Child Left Behind Act

i am sorry. i was confused. i am currently working with seven tabs open. sorry for reverting your edits. Sushant gupta (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Close a few tabs!  ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

actually i love editing while listening music. so two tabs are reserved for youtube and rest for fighting vandalism. anyway, thanks for your suggestion. Happy editing. Sushant gupta (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Gil

Thanks for all the pointers on print sources. --Kakofonous (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Good luck. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost

I read your upcoming article "Featured content from schools and universities" in the upcoming Wikipedia Signpost. I am concerned about the balance of the DYK hooks if a class were to propose a large number of DYK hooks at the same time on a single topic. You don't need to state that in your article, but it's something for you to think about if you are involved with planning any classes. Royalbroil 03:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for this. In my case, at least, in that I ask student to work in groups, it probably wouldn't mean much of an increase in DYK articles. But thanks for the heads up. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Royalbroil 14:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Dirty Dancing

Hiya, I was wondering if you could help with an article I'm working on? I've taken Dirty Dancing through two peer reviews, GA status, a rejected FA nom, and literally scores of hours of work, but no matter how much time I put into it or who I've asked to look at it, the FA reviewers keep saying "not good enough". I'd still really like to get it to FA, especially before Patrick Swayze dies.  :/ If you have time, could you take a look at it and see what magic you could do, to make it more "wiki"? Thanks, Elonka 14:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy to. I'm trying not to edit during the week (today's a bit of an exception as an FA I was involved with is on the main page), so will get to this at the weekend. I can see plenty of room for improvement, and would be pleased to do my bit. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just spent some time with the article, and started some preliminary copy-editing. The prose is indeed awkward too often. But I'd say the main problem is with the sources. There are some reliable sources mentioned in "Further reading," but they aren't used in the article itself. This fact prompted me to do some very initial research into what else might be written about the film, and I found that there's plenty. I've left some notes on the talk page. At present, the sources are not very good (The E! True Hollywood Story figures rather highly!), and overall the article reads like a fansite. Before undertaking much more in the way of copy-editing, the content itself needs to be significantly upgraded. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, I look forward to seeing what improvements that you come up with. --Elonka 20:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, as I say above I feel I've done what I can for now. Yes, the article could be copy-editing further, but of more concern is the sourcing. Once you have seen to that, and I've given you a whole number of suggestions on the talk page for where to start, then do get back in touch. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's right, you're the prof who organized the class project. Okay, I understand where you're coming from now. Sorry, I thought you were going to do something different than what I was expecting. Sorry to bother you. --Elonka 21:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I'm not sure what being a prof has to do with it! Anyhow, I'm not sure what you were expecting. You asked about doing "magic" on the article, to make it "more 'wiki'," and as I've said I don't think it's a question of magic, but of a bit of legwork: going to a library, checking out books, improving the sources. That's all. Again, once you've done that, feel free to get back in touch. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I think we have some fundamental misunderstandings here. Just FYI, I'd asked for a different kind of help, and was directed to you, but I don't think that the person who sent me your way really knew what they were talking about, so I asked for "A", and you gave me "B".  :) Just to clarify: I've already created FAs, and yes I read books, and yes I go to libraries, and no I'm not creating an article because I'm wanting a fansite. I understand that you've got some FAs now and you've learned quite a bit about the process, which I think is great, really. I think that what you did with your class is awesome. And I hope more teachers do what you did, encouraging students to write high-quality articles on Wikipedia. :)

The miscommunication appears to have been this: I asked another editor to recommend some good copyeditors, and she mentioned your name. So I came to your page and asked, not realizing that you were "the prof". I think that the way you took my question, is as though I was a young student asking for your help on writing a term paper, so you naturally took the academic route, "Do more research." Whereas I've already spent probably a hundred hours or more doing research on this topic, and I've chosen the most relevant sources I could find. I could also point you at many other Wikipedia articles which have already reached FA, which use similar sources (or worse!). Sure, I can add more sources (and will), but the sourcing isn't the main problem on the article, it's the style that keeps getting it rejected. So, I needed a copyeditor. It appears that copyediting isn't your forte though, which is okay!

Just as some constructive suggestions for you in terms of reviewing FA candidates, I think that it would help if you were more specific, and focused on the article. Your telling me to "read more books" isn't helpful to the article. It might be a good thing for me, but here it's best if we focus on the article. In other words, sure, I could upgrade some sources, remove a documentary here, add another book there, but I don't believe that the sourcing is the problem on the article, it's the style of writing that keeps getting it rejected. Also, saying the article "sounds like a fansite" isn't helpful either. Aside from being negative and a bit condescending, it's again very vague. How does it sound like a fansite? What section(s) need improvement? Which sentence(s) needs fixing? Or getting back to the sources, it would be helpful if you could say how sources could help the article? Is there a section that's weak and needs more information? Is the article too short? Too long? Is too much screen-space spent on a particular topic? Is there some concept that you were expecting to read about, that wasn't covered? That's the kind of feedback which would be most helpful on an FA review.

But again, that's not what I was asking you for, I just wanted copyediting help.  :) So, sorry for the long answer, I just wanted to try and clarify where we were miscommunicating. Again, sorry to bother! --Elonka 21:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) In fact, I don't think there was any miscommunication, then. I had thought you wanted copy-editing, and made a start before I saw the problems with the sources. I then spent some time starting on tracking some sources down for you, and have made a number of comments on the article talk page. For me, those problems easily trump problems with prose (as I've said). I realize you want this to go to FA, so I figure I would help copy-editing at a later, more appropriate, stage. If you don't want that help, then no problem, either! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And now I've responded at more length on the article talk page, which is where this discussion really belongs, in case someone wants to follow up my suggestions and improve the article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Per your suggestion of changing the section header, I went ahead and did so, and also removed some other comments which were probably not helpful towards improving the article. If you think I removed too much (or not enough), please feel free to adjust. --Elonka 01:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've undone those changes. Please don't change other editors' comments on talk pages unless you have their explicit permission. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read Wikipedia's policy on no personal attacks. --Elonka 01:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made not a single personal attack. I wish the same could be said of you. Anyhow, as asked, I have made an effort, and devoted not an insignificant amount of time, to helping with this article. I note that even my brief copy-edit made me the fourth major contributor to the text! I am sorry that you do not feel that I was of any help to you. I wish you luck with it as you continue to work on it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, you're taking the goodwill of one of our most highly skilled people for granted. The last thing expected when providing a service for nothing is these kinds of difficulty. Please change your attitude! TONY (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)