User talk:Jbmurray

FACs needing feedback view •
La Isla Bonita	Review it now

FAC delegate resignation

Que te parece?! [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

University of BC

See Talk:Postpartum posttraumatic stress disorder and Kalinachristoff (talk · contribs) and Dunnhelenm (talk · contribs) (Kalina Christoff and Helen M Dunn). Perhaps you can help "orient" these new editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Hmm. I like the approach that Tom Cloyd is taking. Are these UBC profs, then? Ah, I guess. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Tom's approach seems healthy, but these women won't engage on talk, hence it falls to me do all the cleanup. The real problem is them not engaging either on article or user talk, in case you're able to have any effect there. Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I've sent Christoff an email. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You're a gem-- see my post on article talk, we should be good to move forward now! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I just got another email, in which she says "I think I may have just figured out how to write on the talk pages too." She's working on it. All will be well. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Might be faster to meet her for a cafecito. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I have my own Childbirth-related posttraumatic stress disorder‎ to deal with. (Evidence here.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Whatever that's about, he is a very handsome little fellow!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll second that; nice pic! Thanks for the heads up on my talk page, Jon. Sandy, I'd be glad to chip in and help -- my immediate reaction is to post a greeting at their talk page and watch the article, but since I saw a note that they were feeling a little overwhelmed I thought I'd check in here first. Should I just watch the article for now? I don't know medical issues well, but I can try to be generally helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not too worried now. The editor who first created the article (surprisingly an established editor, but according to Cristoff, one of her students ??) had synthesis, POV, COPYVIO, primary sources, grammatical errors, the works ... but as soon as Kalina Cristoff got on board, she seemed to catch on quickly, and started citing secondary reviews right away. My hunch is that it's going to be fine, and isn't going to be the time consuming mess that I had with klazomania. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC on FA leadership

Please ignore my query if everything is as you wanted, but I noticed you added "support" in a section which asserts that Raul's tenure should be subject to periodic reconfirmation (diff). Most other comments in that section propose a suggested term (like "annually"), so I'm wondering if you intended your comment as written, and in that section. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I realized afterwards that I should have put a term. But then I also noticed that not everyone had, and reallY I have no particularly fixed view on the matter. So I'm happy to leave things as they are. Thanks for your query. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Jbmurray,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to Vancouver meetup

Hello,

You are invited to an edit-a-thon at the Prophouse Café on Sunday March 25, as part of Women's History Month events all over the world. If you wish to attend, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon and add your signature to the list.

Thank you! InverseHypercube (talk) 09:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Chicha.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Chicha.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the image description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Thanks again for your cooperation. Kelly ^hi! 23:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Education problem and potential RfC

Hi. I'm trying to draft an RfC related to reforming the WMF on English Wikipedia run education programme. It can be found at User:LauraHale/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Education Program. At the moment, it has a variety of issues and could use a set of eyes helping to edit and improve the draft before it gets taken live. Any help in improving the focus, making it more coherent, making the purpose more clear, having acceptable and a variety of solutions offered, and fixing the general formatting, spelling and grammar would be appreciated. --LauraHale (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

New education noticeboard

WP:ENB. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. Thanks for the pointer. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ping

Hi, I've emailed you on a matter of some importance. Tony (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	It's great to see an academic I admire making knowledge more accessible online. I really enjoyed your book Posthegemony when writing a social movements/political sociology paper last term. undergroundman 06:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Goodness. Well, thank you!  :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

New essay

Since you're an expert in this, any help you can give to develop/refine the new essay Wikipedia:Assignments for student editors (even if it is just dropping comments on the talk page) would be much appreciated! Thank you, and thank you for all of your contributions. Best! Biosthmors (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Have been observing; it looks as though there is good progress. If I have time, I'll add something at some point. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Biosthmors (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you in Vancouver?

Hi Jbmurray. I've been reading your posts at the Education noticeboard, as well as looking at your class editing project from way back. I was part of the Working Group, and am still involved with planning for the new org. If you ever want to meet up for coffee and discuss things, I'm up for it. I'm out at Main + Broadway, but I go out to UBC once and a while. Best, The Interior (Talk) 21:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy to do so. I'm at UBC during the week, or can meet up at other times. I live near Commercial, so not far from you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Great. I could catch you on your way back from campus, do you know Kafka's Coffee (Main, halfway between Bway and 10th Ave., west side of street)? It's convenient for B-liners, if you suffer that ride. Let me know what day works for you, Tuesday and Wednesdays are my bad days schoolwise. The Interior (Talk) 22:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, to/from campus doesn't work: I am transporting small and medium-sized children around. In the evenings I'm not usually free until 7pm. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Understood about the chilluns. I can come out to the drive after seven one night, you name a place/time, again just no Tues. or Weds. Look forward to talking, The Interior (Talk) 23:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You have mail. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Kanon6996

Hello, I was reading the talk page on National University of San Marcos and I found that you also had problems with this user. I I have no idea what to do about it. Yesterday, we had a disagreement in two articles: National University of San Marcos and Pontifical Catholic University of Peru (that it is why I haven't posted this comment on a single article talk page and rather tried to explain him directly why his edits are not appropiate). I am not planning to continue any edit warring, but I don't think it is right that his editions remain only because I got tired. He won't speak to me in English and has taken the discussion to my talk page on eswiki, even when I am barely active on that project. Some guidance will be nice, Andreasm ^{just talk to me} 16:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN/I protocol

Hey- It looks like we're being baited by that combative editor. He just vandalized the project page with a screed about the project. I got advice from another admin to think about WP:AN/I as a solution. Can you give me some advice/help in curbing this abusive editor? Oline73 (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Myself, I wouldn't call that vandalism. It is combative and not particularly friendly--indeed, it is essentially hostile. And it is a pain in the arse, no doubt, when you are trying to get something done in a relatively short-term project. But his tone has indeed improved. It is now only marginally uncivil (many might call it merely "robust"), and I don't think that taking it to ANI would be productive. It seldom is, as it happens, but especially not in cases like this.

Rather, I'd suggest engaging with his arguments, which are not all bad ones. I think the point is that he believes that what he has to say--Englishness is a contested and uncertain category, shock horror!-- is devastating to what you are doing. I suspect that this shows that he has rather missed the point. --03:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've spent some time looking at many--if not all--of the edits and interactions under discussion. I'd say, in short, that choosing to edit History of cricket to 1725 was perhaps a mistake. This is a "Good Article," and while that doesn't mean that it is finished, complete, or necessarily anywhere near perfect, it does mean that a perhaps more considered approach is required, and that edits should be carefully considered. Moreover, any "Good" (or "Featured") article will normally have one or more editors who watch it quite carefully to ensure that it doesn't degrade. You've bumped into one of these, and while his tone has been hostile at times, he is not without his reasons. Indeed, rather than simply reverting, you'll see that he has rather substantially expanded the paragraph that is mostly under discussion. He has done so in such a way that acknowledges that there have been theories of the game's Celtic roots, albeit he goes on roundly to condemn them. So though this may appear disappointing, in some ways this is how Wikipedia should work: an article or some part of an article is challenged, and that challenge is acknowledged in some way, leading to the article's revision, if not exactly in the way that the challenger might want. One could still work on that paragraph--I would certainly write it differently, and have some thoughts about that--and gradually come to some kind of consensus. But at times this is a slow process. There are some aspects of JFrye61's and JHCRosero's contributions that I like, but on the other hand I do understand why they were reverted. Another couple of rounds of to and fro, and their input would no doubt also be registered--if again, indirectly. Frankly, with "Good Articles" this is mostly the way that things will go. So this may all seem frustrating--no doubt, I'd add, to both sides. But it's how Wikipedia works, and indeed an instance on the whole of Wikipedia working--proving both relatively robust or stable and ultimately open to change. On the other hand, I can see that the atmosphere has not been particularly welcoming on the whole. Alarms were raised and your project mentioned on ANI for no very good reason. And newcomers were bitten. Which is not so good. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thanks for being a hero and defending student rights on Wikipedia! Oline73 (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject naming

Hi there, in relation to the use of WikiProject in a page title, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Should the "Wikipedia:WikiProject" prefix be reserved for "full projects/sub projects/task groups" or any gathering?. I don't want to get into any of the other issues associated with this Englishness course or Jack or anything like that, only the appropriateness of the page name. As a holder of a dissenting view to mine, I would appreciate your input to the discussion. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Phone rollbacks

Jon, I saw your recent accidental rollback comment in my watchlist, and thought you might be interested in this. If your phone is not an iPhone there's probably some analogous fix that the VPT folks can whip up for you, if you're interested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Gravity's Rainbow genre

Forgive me if this is a trivial inquiry in the wrong place. I'm just finding my legs in the Wikipedia environment.

The description of Gravity's Rainbow as "postmodern" has become nearly universal among postmodern critics, which is to say they embrace it, but that fact does not make it intrinsically "postmodern" as it is intrinsically picaresque. The term "postmodern" may come to mind soonest, but reflexes are not always accurate.

Its being embraced as postmodern deserves prominent mention, perhaps, but not in an opening line.

In the discussion regarding this article, considerable deliberation has already occurred, and it demonstrates at least that there no authoritative consensus at large designating Gravity Rainbow as postmodern. Indeed, there is no consensus on what the descriptor "postmodern" implies about any literary work that is not literary criticism.

Calling the volume "postmodern" is more than debatable. Doing so subsumes the rich contents to a subset of approaches to reading that engage some but not all the devices and themes, thereby representing the work as less than what it is. Macdust (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)