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!

Forgot to mention

I forgot to mention, Epbr123 (talk · contribs) has a very helpful checklist on his userpage that you might go over in class, and Gimmetrow (talk · contribs) started a page called Moslite somewhere, which might not be completely finished yet, but if you ask him, it's probably also something you can go over in class just to get the editors started on the most frequent, basic and simple MoS stuff that every Wiki editor should know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Email

I was going to email you some questions about your class project, as we discussed, but you have not enabled your email preferences, so when I click on "email this user" at left, I get an error message. You need to add an email address (if you want, an anonymous one) to your preferences. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Other people have managed to email me. I'll look into it and/or email you... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it got disenabled at some point. Anyhow, it's been (re)enabled now. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

GA noms

Sorry to have pushed too much. I double checked and discovered I've nominated all your project's GAs. I realize now that that is a bit much. I was thinking more of the GA process which can drag on forever. You have to get them in the queue ready or not! But my GA noms have been sincere. Everything I've nominated is better than most that appears at GA and really does have a chance at passing the criteria. GA isn't much of a hurdle. Nothing like FA. The editors who are leading you to FA are the best on Wikipedia. However - my opinion only - FA can spiral into one of the nastiest places on Wikipedia. I'm crossing my finders and toes. Good luck. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Cheers for the message, your sentiments are much appreciated! What made it worse was that I took the Easter week off work, intending to put my feet up, do a bit of DIY etc... and spent the entire week suffering and sulking (being ill on your own time is no fun). Fully recovered in time for my return to work today though - there's no justice ;) EyeSerene^talk 17:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarmiento

I've posted a list of issues at the Sarmiento talk page; it's a fairly intimidating list, and it only addresses the first two sections of the article. It might be good if you had a look to see if there are any sections your students won't be expected to address -- I need to treat it like any other Wikipedia article, of course, but I also want to make sure I'm not being unfair to your students, and asking them to do something that's out of their scope. Let me know what you think -- Mike Christie (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Gaara GA nom

I've left some comments at your GA review of Gaara. If I've misconstrued any of your concerns, please point it out, and I will happily address them. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Several changes have been made about the clarify. Could you check it now? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Will try to do so shortly, but it may not be until tomorrow, I'm afraid. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No prob.^_^Tintor2 (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A user rewrote some part of the lead that you had already rewritten. Im still not sure if it looks better now (not yours, I mean the one of the other user and also looks a bit longer).Tintor2 (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

To Kill a Mockingbird

You might look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/To Kill a Mockingbird for one of the stranger things that can happen at FAC. Awadewit (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Banglapedia

Copy remains a pain for me. No matter how much I work on an article, a lack of mastery over English keeps me failing. Good copyeditors are rare and they already have other business or massive backlogs on their plates. It would be very nice if you told me where the copy needs to be changed and how. I promise to work on every single suggestion you make. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah! So, it failed. I was kind of expecting that you'd do a review to address problems before you failed it. I could have had a chance to solve the problems as much I can. But, well, you decided to fail it first and do a review then. Thanks for lending a hand. It is getting increasingly difficult to get someone to help you on the Wikipedia. A very refreshing experience this was. I guess, I'll have t address these issues and resubmit the article. The original article got through easily, then it was delisted making a couple of issues, now it can't get through even while all that was addressed. It seems the quality bar is getting higher by the minute. Unfortunately there is little help forthcoming in understanding the ever-higher standards. There seems to be little difference in the quality requirements of an FA and a GA now, only that FAs are more participatory. Thanks anyways for identifying the problems. Now I can work on them.

By the way, Bangladesh has less than 1% internet use penetration, and just over 3% newspaper readership penetration, and will never have as good online coverage as any country in the developed North. That means the current tendencies will make it inherently more difficult of countries like Bangladesh to pass quality standards, which is heavily built on the availability of information in the developed countries. I have no clue how I can work around that. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I am sympathetic to your plight. And I did put in some time to try to work on the article myself, as you can see here. So it's not as though I didn't try to help! By comparison, the other changes that have been made recently have been much less substantive. But going back to look at it, I felt that there was still rather a lot to be done. Of course, do feel free to take it to Good Article reassessment if you feel I was wrong. Good luck! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. As I see, most of the issues are easily solvable. And, if you just told me what was the problem, as I requested, I could have addressed most of them fine. Take a look at the article talk page, there already is a couple of clarifications there. Could you tell me how the misunderstanding could be removed? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Aditya, I'm not sure it's a simple question of misunderstanding. And I doubt that arguing pro and con on the talk page will help things much. I think I was clear as to the multiple issues as I saw them. I do hope they help you further revise the article. If you really do think that my review was poor, then again I suggest that you take it to Good Article reassessment. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's alright. And, thanks again for lending a hand (I really am thankful there, as my atrocious writing skills has become a real deterrent to quality improvement of the articles I work on). One big problem that you identified is real, and not mistaken. There is no indication in the article that the publication had an appropriate review. I am trying to look up one. Until that, I guess, I would rather stay put. But, I might come back with a request to take a look before I submit it again. More work is not problem, as long I know what has to be worked on (more often than not it's about copywriting, and adding clarifications). Thanks for the kindness. I have already started working on all the issues you raised. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Surnames

Thanks for the correction - I do seem to get caught out by Latin surnames; assuming they work the same way as Anglo-saxon ones is clearly a mistake! Cheers, EyeSerene^talk 09:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, no problem. It would be like calling you Mr. Serene, rather than Mr. EyeSerene. Or something like that... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd gathered it was something of that nature. Oddly enough, Mr Serene would be correct - my username as I originally wrote it was Eye Serene (from the Wordsworth poem Perfect Woman; the third verse seemed particularly apposite for the information age!). It lost the space somewhere along the way though... and now I'm stuck with it ;) EyeSerene^talk 09:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Gerald Martin

A tag has been placed on Gerald Martin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Xiaphias (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Award

		Wikipedia Motivation Award
		Thanks for developing Murder, Madness and Mayhem and arguing for the respectability (with caveats, of course!) of Wikipedia in the public sphere. Even more, thanks for helping to make Wikipedia's literature articles better and for encouraging an enthusiastic group of editors to do the same. We are excited that you have joined our community and look forward to your other "experiments". Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Richly deserved! Speaking of the joys of Wikipedia, that is most certainly the spirit! And I had to laugh out loud at "I have a slight problem that my colossal library fines prevent me from borrowing any books". Ah the joys of academia! Geometry guy 18:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Spelling :)

The spelling is Jorge J. Barrueto. I will send you a copy of the article, if you have the time to help me out and explain this stuff that would be great. If not I will try to figure it out!--Mfreud (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ps. I just got an email notification that the Ariel Dorfman book is back in the library and waiting for me so that will be added shortly! :)--Mfreud (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A few thoughts

I think it's likely that the FA-team will do some kind of "lessons learned" review from this mission; no idea what that will look like but it should be interesting. One thing that occurs to me is that the value of our involvement is focused very heavily on the back end -- until the students get content into the article there's not much useful we can do. We knew that already but it may have implications for your course plan, if you do this again (and I gather you're considering it).

And on this, yes, but you guys were encouraging from the get-go, which was grand. A lot of your role has been motivation and encouragement, which in some ways you do much better than I do! The students were a little slow off the mark at the initial stages: I think that's because they're not used to semester-long projects, but perhaps I could have helped here, too. Anyhow, we'll see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I do hope we can get some "lessons learned" from you, and from the students as well. I'd like to know, among other things, if this process worked well as a way to teach them the material: my own essay on what I enjoy on Wikipedia, written a few months ago, actually uses the analogy of Wikipedia as a classroom and FAC as a professor handing out grades, so I am curious to know whether real students and a real professor can work with Wikipedia in that way. You make an excellent point in your essay to the effect that this approach forces students to revisit their work and improve it. I would think this has value not only for making them re-evaluate their research and organizational skills, but it has direct pedagogical value too -- that process of reworking their own first drafts is surely a strong reinforcement of the material under review. I hope to hear that the students find the teaching method very effective for retaining and integrating what they learn. I'd also be interested to know what you think needs to change to make this more effective, both in your course plan, and in Wikipedia's internal processes. What would have happened if the FA team hadn't become involved? How much difference would it have made?

One other point: what are the implications of the fact that this kind of class can only be done once for a given topic? I assume you couldn't do the Dictator novel again. You might be able to do Latin American literature half a dozen more times, or more, but eventually the topic will be covered. A good thing for Wikipedia, but a pity if it's a great teaching method! Mike Christie (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In the de-briefing, I'm curious about the demographics of your students. It seems to me that none had any experience or interest in editing Wikipedia before your class. There is poor understanding of the actual demographics of Wikipedia itself. The anecdotal - apocryphal - understanding is that adolescent male Americans make up two thirds of admins. I have no idea where that understanding comes from or how it was determined. As for regular editors, the received wisdom is that male computer geeks between 15 and 25 predominate. I haven't found any reliable stats that confirm the myth - or debunk it. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for these thoughts. Yup, I think a de-briefing is going to be important. On a couple of the issues you raise: 1) I think the FA team made a huge difference; I really hadn't realized at the outset just how amibitious this project was; 2) heh, I always teach different books, so the need to switch topic doesn't worry me; 3) the class demographics are the pretty mixed bunch that we get at UBC, with various nationalities and ethnicities. Anyhow, yes, more on this later. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Warning

It had to eventually happen. The articles are beginning to attract a certain type of Wikipedia editor. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What Awadewit said

		The Original Barnstar
		An original barnstar, in addition to Awadewit's Motivation Award, because the Murder Madness and Mayhem project deserves more than one rusty symbol of its worth--ragesoss (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Another one...

Looks like you're racking these awards up, so I put together a one-of-a-kind, EyeSerene original; you never know, it might be worth something someday... Seriously, you've been a massive asset not only to your class but to the project as well, so I reckon this token of appreciation is overdue. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 23:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

		Balls in the Air Award
		Gratefully presented to jbmurray for maintaining one of the most dextrous acts of juggling multiple articles I've yet seen... and still finding the time to review Good Article nominations and contribute elsewhere. Truly impressive, and much appreciated! EyeSerenetalk 23:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You are too kind. An EyeSerene original! I will hang it up carefully on my user page, and be sure to treasure it.  :) Seriously, it's been fantastic working with you on this. Many thanks for everything! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Real world

I think the reason they are considered so separate is because many academics don't bother trying to communicate what they think to people outside their field. I hate to say it, but it seems like humanities fields are especially guilty of this. Wrad (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:El senor presidente.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to try and fix this but I just realised that this is not the one thats being used in the article, that one is the .gif version while this is the .jpg one, so I supposed we can let it be deleted? Acer (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it can be deleted. I replaced it with a lower-resolution version that happened to be a gif rather than jpeg. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem

Sorry to tread on your toes! Which ever format works for you, I just find the templates easier to maintain. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Mario Vargas Llosa

Hey, I think this article is one of the MMMs that got a shot at FA, but I don't like the overall structure of the article, it mentions his early life but the years following that are not covered very well and the information that is present is spread out all over the place. I thought about how to better organize it, and I came up with two models: model 1 and two on the first one the idea is to have a biographical section separate from the works section, and on the second one I kept the major works section in between the two biographical sections though in this case I’m not sure where to place the text from personal life. Anyway can you take a look at them and tell me what you think? 1, 2 , something else or leave it be? Acer (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This looks helpful. Many thanks! I like the first version at first glance. But you may want to run this past the editors on the talk page? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I've left a note overthere Acer (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What next?

I don't think there's much more I can usefully do at Latin American Boom or Domingo Faustino Sarmiento. What's the most useful next thing I could look at? Options seem to be:

• provide feedback on article organization at Mario Vargas Llosa and an opinion on how close it is to an FA nomination
• copyedit The Feast of the Goat for encyclopedic tone and general prose
• copyedit Gabriel García Márquez per peer review notes
• see if I can help with the remaining fixes needed at I, the Supreme
• see if I can help address some of the issues raised at the peer review for The General in His Labyrinth.

Or anything else that you think would be helpful. Mike Christie (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I, the Supreme goes, the remaining issues are content related so theres not much we can do (I did a spell-check and some wikifying). I'd appreciate any comment on the organization of Mario Vargas Llosa though :) Acer (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Mike, many thanks for all this. You really are doing sterling work! As for what next... The editors at both Gabriel García Márquez and The General in His Labyrinth have recently indicated enthusiasm for taking their articles to FAC. Some encouragement there might be good. That's what comes immediately to mind. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look at all three of these suggestions, probably this evening. I've just been informed by my family I have to go and socialize for a bit, so I'll probably disappear for a couple of hours. Mike Christie (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Go socialize!! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: I forgot to tell you: EyeSerenes up for adminship thought you'd like to know Acer (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip; I'll go offer support. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Check user

Seems you are having trouble. I've put in a check user request. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Wow. Good detective work, Acer! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Subtle hint

Sorry that my sense of humor did not go over well: see [1]. I was trying to point out that several groups of people descended on the MMM project. The very first that came to your aid was WP:NOVELS through Kevinalewis (talk · contribs · count) at first (and me and several other editors from the project). MMM was also aided by Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles where a number of editors expedited MMM articles. And don't forget SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) who is the FA director's - Raul654 (talk · contribs) - delegate. While the FA team has been fantastic, there have been quite a few Wikipedia groups and independent editors involved. On Wikipedia, where the charge of clique and cabal runs rampant, it is probably best - like an Academy awards acceptance speech - to thank one's mom and leave it at that :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wassup, it's not that your sense of humor didn't go down well. (In fact, I thought it was funny.) And I do appreciate what you're saying. In fact, I was recently going over some of the first people who helped and who got in touch with me about the project, who include (as you say) Kevinalewis and also Raul654 left a note on my talk page, for instance.

But I reverted because I think there's probably another place for all that: in a more general post-mortem (and thanks). Hmm, but I may make some changes in the light of what you're saying.

And I realize I should have dropped you a note after making the change. Apologies. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Nice to see you stop by the CG article. Will you be staying or are you passing through? Nice to meet you, and it looks like you have done some great things as an editor. Redthoreau (talk TR 01:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Had I the time, I'd probably linger, but probably shouldn't. It looks as though plenty of work is going into that article as it is! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Per wording: I understand your concern for "redundancy", but believe that "ubiquitous" encapsulates the fact that his image is not only "widespread", but also almost a "separate" (sometimes generic) entity of itself, often times detached from the individual or his ideology. Redthoreau (talk TR 01:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Mission 1 talk page

Hi Jbmurray. I hope I didn't come across wrong on the Mission 1 talk page. I didn't really intend to start a debate and certainly didn't intend to question your teaching approach, which really isn't my business—I only wanted to speak up with an "other side" perspective on article grading on wikipedia that I thought worth mentioning because I view it as a minority opinion. No worries... –Outriggr § 02:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries.  :) I actually think that such a discussion would be useful, though it does raise an awful lot of issues. Perhaps wait a bit. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sarmiento

Jbmurray, can you confirm that the discussion of Sarmiento's political career is now sufficiently thorough? It looks so to me, but you did the research. Let me know if you think it's incomplete. Mike Christie (talk) 10:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think so, but I'm going to revisit it on Tuesday (the next day I'll be near the library). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 10:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Dictator novel

As if you don't have enough to do... We seem to have hit a wall on the final paragraph of "'Not quite' dictator novels", where the article makes a connection between non-Latin American novels like Kafka and the dictator novel genre. Abarratt thinks that you added this paragraph - if she's correct, would you be able to suggest a source that makes this link, so we can use it in the article? Thanks! EyeSerene^talk 13:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, yes, I added those sentences. I'll try to find some kind of source in the next day or two. If not, it's hardly indispensible to the article as a whole. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. It does make an interesting addition, and I don't believe it detracts from the focus at all, but it wouldn't be a complete disaster if it had to go (I've just written it into the lead, but I'm not happy with my prose there anyway!) EyeSerene^talk 20:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Angel Asturias

Hey, I made a Template for MAAs works and altough the list of novels to include in it was pretty obvious, I wasnt sure which of his other works would be notable enough to add to the template. Would you have any suggestions of short stories, essays or any other categories to include in it? (the bibliography list in his article is to large and I dont know what are the most important works) thanks Acer (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Acer, thanks for this. Magnificent stuff! You know, I wouldn't add anything else for the moment. It'll be a while before anyone really fills in much on the other novels (though I hope Men of Maize gets a decent article one of these days). They're not much read. So no need to multiply the redlinks too much. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

One of these days as in.. hmmm... I don't know.. next semester? :P Acer (talk) 01:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no. Next semester watch for María Amparo Ruiz de Burton and How the García Girls Lost their Accents, among others.  :)

MMM

Stumbled across this project & your essay on it; very impressive use of Wikipedia in the classroom, and I admire your taking on such a big project (I've taught Wikipedia writing myself, and I know how tough it can be to get people to understand what they need to do!) When this is done, I think the wiki research & academic community would be interested in hearing about this; can I post something about it on the wiki-research-l mailing list? cheers, Phoebe (talk) 06:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your interest. Yes, go ahead and post to the list. I'd be interested in more details about it, too. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Cabrera image

Hi Jbmurray, I didn’t want to leave your question about Estrada Cabrera hanging, so I’ll try to answer it here so the FAC doesn’t go further off track. To bore you:

The problem with the image is/was that we don’t conclusively know the image’s author or when the image was first published, the factors which determine copyright. I’ve no knowledge of Guatemalan copyright law, but U.S. images fall into the public domain if they were published before January 1, 1923. Given that Cabrera died in 1923, the image very likely existed prior to that date. The issue, however, is that merely existing and being published are different legal concepts. This image could have been taken from a private collection then distributed in, say, the 1950s – which would mean the copyright is still in effect. Alternatively, copyright duration can be determined by the life of the author. The Berne Convention establishes a minimum of 50 years after death, but countries vary (U.S. is 70 years, Mexico is 100 years, etc) We can’t use this criterion in this case, obviously, as the author is unknown. Long story short, we don’t know enough about the image’s origins to claim public domain, which means use on Wiki would have to be under “fair use” (i.e. we’d be back to square one). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

GA pass for Dictator novel

Thank you for your invaluable assistance on Dictator novel. I have now passed this article as a Good article, and updated the various talk page templates to reflect this.

That also means you get another one of these:

This user helped promote Dictator novel to good article status.

which you may like to place on your user page (or somewhere suitable) by copy/pasting {{User Good Article|Dictator novel}} into the page code.

It's been a real pleasure working with you ;) Well done! EyeSerene^talk 21:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

El Señor Presidente promoted

FYI - I've promoted El Señor Presidente to FA status. Raul654 (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks!  :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding news! Congratulations to you and Mfreud and her team; this is well-deserved. Mike Christie (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed Fantastic news!!! Congratulations!!! go hang that shiny star on your userpage :D Acer (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If you or any of the article's authors have a preference for a main page date, I'd be happy to oblige. Raul654 (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I will ask User:Mfreud.  :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. Very cool. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 02:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

How does cinco de Mayo sound? (May 5th)... or is that too far away? Should the date be sooner?--Mfreud (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Cinco de Mayo sounds perfect. Raul654 (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I like it!  :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 06:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

El Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your patience and assistance with the El Señor Presidente article and FAC. Mike Christie (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much!  :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Update on Facundo

I just left some copyedit notes at the Facundo talk page. One thing I noticed and I just wanted to make you aware of; I found quite a few cases where there was a quote mark just before a reference tag, as if the ref was for a quote. E.g.

blah blah blah."<ref etc. ...

I found this in several places where there was no opening quote. I don't think there was a missing open quote, since the language sounded like paraphrases (I recall you mentioning that at least one editor in this article is not a native English speaker). However, given the history, I wanted to be extra careful. I've noted it in the copyedit notes, but you might want to take a look too, and see if you can figure out what those quotes were intended to do. Here's the version before I copyedited; you can see these quotes in the Synopsis section. Mike Christie (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look at this later tonight; and I'm meeting with them tomorrow afternoon. Thanks for all your help. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Cinco de mayo?

Hi! I was actually at work and then in class all afternoon and evening but was extatic when i recieved a txt from katekonyk that El Senor Presidente had reached FA Status! How exciting!! I actually have not been able to stop smiling (and I have done a bit of bragging to some family and friends, shamelessly!). I have suggested May 5th because it seemed somewhat fitting for a Latin American genre article. If that is much too far away and there is a landmark date in April perhaps that is somehow connected that works too! No date in april comes to mind off the top of my head but please let me know when the date is set, I will be sure to spread the word to people I know to check out Wikipedia that day! So exciting!! Thanks for all your help along the way with this project. I have actually learned a lot from it, despite frustrations as times (as when I was writing my last blog!!) Thanks again.--Mfreud (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)