User talk:Jbmurray

FACs needing feedback view •
I'm God	Review it now
2023 World Snooker Championship	Review it now
George Floyd (American football)	Review it now
KNXV-TV	Review it now

Template:FixBunching

Featured article removal candidates
7 World Trade Center	Review now
Mariah Carey	Review now
Pokémon Channel	Review now
William Wilberforce	Review now
Polio	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now
Geography of Ireland	Review now
Doolittle (album)	Review now

Dispatch openings

Looking ahead, I see a shortage of Dispatch items left to cover; any ideas or interest in writing up anything related to any area of content review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Cirt RFA

Jb, I hope you won't be offended if I say that I think it's a little uncalled-for to round on Justallofthem in Cirt's RFA. Justa's not the one requesting adminship, right? And as far as I know, he hasn't done anything that makes him unworthy of commenting on an RFA, either.
It honestly doesn't look to me like he's "insinuating" stuff; I believe he means what he says. Bishonen | talk 15:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC).

Hi. I'm certainly not trying to "round on" Justallofthem. I myself pointed out that it wasn't his RfA. I tried to focus on his account of Cirt as Cirt. But I do think that his account of Cirt's history was disingenuous at best. --jbmurray (talk • contribs)

Re:Gabon

Hi Jbmurray. Thanks for your copediting of the article; it is very much appreciated. I should have made clear who I was talking to in my edit summary; you weren't "insulting my efforts", it was Ling.nut. I have indeed checked the original newspaper sources, and the were not retranslations. If you want to prove it, ask Nishkid64 for the PDFs: he was the one who originally sent them to me. I think he obtained them through his college/university (I guess not every one gives it out free-aren't you a professor at a university in British Columbia?) The problem with the sourcing of the article was the fact that it was originally a direct translaton from fr:Léon Mba# La tentative de coup d’État du 18 février 1964. Of course, I have added onto it, but I may have may a spelling error in transcription--sorry about that. Your friend Eddy of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 03:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. No problem. Yup, when I looked at the NYT article (I have to establish a virtual connection to the university server to do so when I'm at home, and then go through the library website, which is why I didn't check it immediately), I saw that it wasn't a re-translation, though there was an error in the transcription. It's always worth double-checking quotations. My question/comment was simply picking up on an inference from Ling.Nut. And as I say, as I'm short of time, I simply scanned the preceding discussion very quickly. I hope to do a bit more copy-editing later. All the best with the FAC. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving Central American departments

I reported you for supporting, like me, a common naming scheme for country subdivision articles. [1] TopoCode (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tobias Conradi doesn't look like anything you need to spend much time on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Jbmurray, thank you very much for your support of me and for your comments throughout the RfA - coming from you that truly means a lot. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

hello, I've got a question

This is Ben. I don't understand how this works. All very complicated! --Hoekie (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I'm getting it. --Hoekie (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

gabon: comprehensiveness in itself is quite easily enough to Fail the FAC.

The POV issues are real, but play into the hands of manipulation via "stop French bashing." So please see "Much of article weak on comprehensiveness" which in itself is quite easily enough to Fail the FAC. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

We're trying to get them sources. Gee, ling, is it possible for you to be specific in what sources you used to extract that information? There are not really any POV issues that haven't been worked out (but if there is please explain.) Jbmurray, you were half right--if all FACs received this kind of source check, Wikipedia would me much better. But, if all FACs did receive this kind of source check, I probably wouldn't have submitted Gabon in the first place! :) Your friend Eddy of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 21:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

unreliable resouces

Hey Jon, we found a great article on the web about the REAL Woman Hollering Creek in Texas, at: http://www.texasescapes.com/MaggieVanOstrand/La-Llorona-Does-She-Seek-Your-Children.htm The article is called 'La Llorana - Does She Seek Your Children?' by Maggie Van Ostrand, a syndicated humor columnist. The information in this article would be excellent for our background section, but is there any way that we can use it from this source?? Please advise. :)--Katie322 (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, that looks at first sight like an OK source. To learn more about what Wikipidia thinks are "reliable sources," see WP:RS. Note, however, that your focus should be on the book itself. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that the same website was used for the wikipedia article Woman Hollering Creek (use the link 'La Llorona' on this site to see Maggie's article) ...does that mean it's okay to use? They've sourced it as "a website devoted to the Legend of Woman Hollering Creek". I've checked for library books, but the one containing the legend is on a pending order :( --Katie322 (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You can always go ask the librarian if they can hurry the order up! Librarians are always eager to hear from students. I recommend you go talk to them about the project in any case. Note that very many articles on Wikipedia in fact use unreliable sources: the fact that another article uses a particular source doesn't necessarily make it OK. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia for Dummies

I tried to write a comment on the discussion page of your Chicano Literature Article. And managed to get some weird cut-out thingy on the top. Then i wrote it UNDER your plan. What's the protocol on commenting on stuff? (Like how do I make it appear UNDER the thing I'm commenting on?) Also, how do I cut my stupid, 10 feet long weird comment on the top there? --Valerieraynard (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Valerie, I just had a look. Thanks for the suggestion. I can't really see that you've done anything wrong. Everything looks just fine!

NB, however, that the protocol is usually to add comments to the bottom, not the top, of talk pages. If you hit "edit this page," just scroll down until you hit the bottom. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi; I did some cleanup on that page (that's why it looks OK now) and I left what I hope is a helpful message for Valerie at her talk page. Mike Christie (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha, yes, I figured that out after a minute or two. Many thanks! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A few pointers?

I've just cleaned the prose of Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories somwhat, and it's obvious your students (or some of them at least) needs a few quick pointers on writing for WP (e.g. "You do not need a thesis" and "drop the lyrical statement"), I'm just not clear where to do this best. Should I make it an essay in my userpage, direct comment to the concerned editors, or a post on WP:NRG's talk page? Circeus (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. I (and they, I'm sure) are very grateful for all your help. Don't feel you need to go to the lengths of writing an essay in your userpage. I'd say drop a note on the talk page for Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories and/or WP:NRG. Again, thank you so much! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey Jon, thanks for the help with the article, hopefully I can pick up a bit of formatting knowledge pretty soon (if I can find the time between these Marti readings...) cheers --Mstmaurice (talk) 06:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Favour

If you have a moment, would you mind looking at the deleted local version of Image:Gene therapy.jpg to see whether it contained source information? It would be nice to be able to include it in an article at FAC, but the (perhaps incomplete) transfer to the Commons left us without a means of checking provenance. Эlcobbola _talk 18:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

All it says is "Gene therapy using an Adenovirus vector {{PD-USGov-HHS-NIH}}." Ah, and how did I do here? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you.

• McCain was more or less a control. The "covering their asses" knowledge is something that only comes with a lot of time spent at LoC; there's no reasonable expectation that an image reviewer would know that. You're right in that such a statement alone would probably not be sufficient ("No known restrictions", after all, is not "No restrictions"). Doing a bit of exploring in the links, however, gets one here, which is far more explicit.
• As for Beyonce, snapping a photo without permission isn't really a copyright consideration (the issue can get complicated when notions of trespassing, etc. come into play, but that's more punctilious than we need to be here). The problem is that the stated authors (Sarah Marklund and Hanna Söderlund) ≠ uploader (Mark Anthony Efe). We don't have a verifiable source (which, in this case, would be the author's contact information, per IUP). We don't have the information or details necessary to confirm the "Given with permission" assertion. Эlcobbola _talk 19:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Jb, if you have a spare moment or need a change of pace, the "non-free" Dispatch would no doubt benefit from your input (e.g. copyedit, comments, questions, etc.) Эlcobbola _talk 15:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Elcobbola, you linked above to the "Free" Dispatch: Non-free is at WP:FCDW/September 22, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You must own stock in Starbucks. I'll go pay them a visit to curtail such mistakes for the remainder of the day. At least I got Awadewit's right. Эlcobbola _talk 15:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Me? I hate everything about Starbucks; my coffee beans come home with me in a suitcase each time I travel :-) But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, and I did unload buckets of AIG stock over a year ago! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the security screeners love you. ;) Decades of failure to enforce antitrust does make the markets oh so much fun. Эlcobbola _talk 15:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Opinion on synonymy of werewolf and lycanthrope

G'day Jb, I figured you may have an opinion on this question as I note you had some involvement with a (sort of) similar topic of Murder, Madness, and Mayhem. Namely are the terms werewolf and lycanthrope synonymous? I can't think of any information which would be on one page and not the other, apart from one item of the term lycanthrope being generalised to other shapechanges than werewolves but only in D&D. see Talk:Werewolf#Merger_proposal Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. As far as I'm aware, they are pretty much perfect synonyms. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought. If you feel comfortable doing so, a note at the page would be much appreciated to get a clear-cut show of consensus. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we can say we started?

I've been working on Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories in the past few minutes. I think we should take this live. Anyway, you might want to teach your students referencing. ;) —Sunday [speak+] 11:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Why'd you revert all those edits? ;) —Sunday | Speak 23:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry about the brusque way in which I undid the edits (I accidentally used rollback, in fact, for which I'm especially sorry). I wanted to get the referencing straight, and so to re-do your referencing. Especially in that this is an article we hope to expand significantly, it's best not, I think, to move all citations to the inline notes. I did appreciate some of your edits, and you'll see I incorporated them: e.g. moving the infobox up, and catching the typo in the section heading. Many thanks for your help! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I hate using {{citation}} tags! Why do you like them so? :0 —Sunday | Speak 20:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Chicano literature DYK

On 21 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chicano literature, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Jamie^☆S93 22:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Anything else for DYK?

Hey Jon! Our article hook now has a green check mark by it which means it's ready, but do we have to do anything else to get it on the DYK page? I'm a little nervous because it's on the expiring nominations list. Please let me know. Thanks! --Katie322 (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I saw that they finally got around to checking it. Nope, I think that that's that... It'll go on the main page probably in the next twenty-four hours. Keep an eye on it, just in case. (I am, too.) Well done! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Guyana

I'm not sure how much this is your area, but I thought I'd ask. I've gotten somewhat interested in working on the Guyana article, but I'm having trouble finding a good source for either the current state of the country or the history. I suspect what I need to do first is read a good summary history of South America, and then more specialized works. Is this an area where you know of a couple of good sources I should look at? The list of references in the article seems very weak to me; the one I could find that actually looked like a non-fiction reference work, Vere Daly's The Making of Guyana, turned out to be textbook aimed at about 8th or 9th grade students. Usable, but scarcely comprehensive. If this isn't your area, no problem; just thought you might know. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin attn needed

Jon, Joelr31 is off Wiki for several weeks, Raul is traveling, and Marskell is in a weird time zone, logs on sporadically. Can you keep an eye on this? The FAR is already closed, but GimmeBot hasn't been through yet, and this editor threatens to re-nom immediately if closed (see FAR instructions, three to six months between noms). I can't enter into this if he makes a pointy re-nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Bothering you again

Apologies for again imposing on you, but would you mind giving me the scoop on this deleted imaged? I'd also like to see this one, if possible; would you be willing to email it to me if I sent you my address? If these requests are at all a hassle, let me know and I'll bug someone else. ;) Эlcobbola _talk 01:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I can email. My email is enabled. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Good deal. Sent. Эlcobbola _talk 12:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Jon, tell him you won't do it unless he stands for RfA :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. It's not a hassle. But as SandyG suggests, you do seem to have rather a good reason for the administrative tools... (Mind you, she can talk, eh?) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't deny there's a need. There was a proposal (at Meta, I believe) to allow Commons admins to see deleted image revisions on other projects for just these instances. Down in flames it went and, with it, my ability to put up {{User wikipedia/Anti-Administrator}}. So, yes, I just may stand. Эlcobbola _talk 12:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Email: thou shalt have in 2 minutes

Sandy and EC have important queries (above). I'm just yabbling. ;-) Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here [2]. Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA. NancyHeise ^talk 23:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"Is defined as..."

Well, when you're dealing with a technical term, "is defined as" may be appropriate. The fact is, "major depressive episode" is a technical term defined by DSM-IV to have the meaning given in the article. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it's clumsy and redundant in all cases, without exception. If you want to indicate that you are offering a particular definition (in this case, the DSM's), then you should say so. As in: "The DSM defines 'major depressive episode' as..." HTH. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia - The Missing Manual

I'm offering two free copies of my book (on how to edit Wikipedia) to anyone giving a college/university course that involves improving Wikipedia articles. If you're interested, please let me know (via email or posting on my user talk page) where you'd like the copies to be sent. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Citation formatting help?

• In the article - Help at Any Cost:

Hey, I am trying to reformat a few articles using Template:Harvard citation no brackets, but it's not quite working out correctly. [3] - Any idea why a few of these bluelinks in the "notes" subsection are not linking up with the lastnames in the References subsection? Any help/pointers/advice would be most appreciated. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec but what the heck:) Fixed. You need a "year" field in the citation template for Harvnb to work. That then matches up with the second parameter in the harvnb template. (NB that if you have multiple publications for the same author in the same year, you can use for instance 2006a, 2006b etc.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Cirt (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No probs! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see discussion towards the bottom of Wikipedia:Peer review/Millennium '73/archive1 - is it possible to have the "last" field empty when the specific author is not known, or do you have to instead say "The New York Times staff" ? Cirt (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

With the "real world" reference system with which I'm most familiar (MLA style), you wouldn't fill in any author, and would alphabetize the reference according to the first word of the article title. On the other hand, that breaks Harvnb. As far as I know, the only work-around is the one you suggest. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay then that's what I'll continue to do, thanks. Cirt (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

One more thing on this - how do you get the Harvnb links to work when the References subsection contains 2 or more citations with an author by the same last name? Cirt (talk) 06:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as they are different years, then all is fine. (If you have different authors with the same last name who publish in the same years, then you start to have problems, though one could imagine work-arounds.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

So, if you have the exact same author, 2 different books/articles/works, same year, then what? Cirt (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Here, you can use "2000a" and "2000b" etc. See the Lacy references, for instance, on King Arthur. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, many thanks that will be very useful. Cirt (talk) 07:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried making some fixes like you said, adding the "year" parameter in this article, but some of the notes still aren't working appropriately. Any ideas? Thank you so much, 00:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks as though you've fixed it... the problem with your "Charney" citations, at least, was that the "last" field didn't match, as you'd had "Charney, MD." Once you worked around that (by the way, I'd just omit the "MD" altogether... adding "MD" and "PhD" is a disease that afflicts self-help books in particular, and is merely a way to offer the patina of legitimacy), then the harvnbs worked fine, no? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears so, yea, Ling.Nut (talk · contribs) has been helping as well. Cirt (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) harvnb has a formatting prob when handling 5 authors; workaround is to list 4 on harvnb and 5 on ref template. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I just noticed your note on the harvnb talk page. A little odd, eh? Glad you found a workaround --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Outrageous Betrayal

I've been doing some work expanding this article and making it a bit more comprehensive, wanted to get your take on something. I was thinking of adding a "Background" section which would be ordered just before "Contents", but then I thought that the contents of the Background section would basically be pretty similar to that subsection already in Getting It: The psychology of est. Do you think that would be okay to use the text of the Background subsection of that WP:FA in this article, with some minor adjustments? Cheers, Cirt (talk) 05:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that's fine. It's a kind of reverse summary style, if you like. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Great thank you, just wanted another take on that. Cirt (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Outrageous Betrayal

hey, I never know who uses what format, But Outrageous Betrayal has books in the Notes section and journals in the refs, see Fisher... Is that right? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I do that depending on how heavily a source is used in the article itself. If it is a one-off source then (generally) I leave it in the Notes section, but if it is a heavily used source, or an extremely valuable/pertinent source, I include it in the References section. Cirt (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, the Fisher work was published in book format. Cirt (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Two projects ?

I take it from Malleus's comment that there's another group from another school? When are all these FACs going to hit? Early December? Simultaneously? What is the other one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand that AP Biology 2008 is a year-long project. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, whew, so they won't hit at the same time then, yours is semester? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Mark Speight

If you're going to copyedit and add fact tags, please don't add obscure hidden comments to the page - and citation needed tags...! I've removed that by the way, it's cited already. This is a FAC candidate, please bring up issues on the FAC page instead of with hidden comments. Thanks. -- how do you turn this on 13:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, will do. Was merely trying to help. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for your help. I'd rather you continued to copy edit, rather than add hidden comments to the article, and fact tags for things that are cited already. There's a talk page and FAC page for a reason. Please bring up issues you have there. And I haven't asked you to stop. -- how do you turn this on 13:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That's part of a copy-edit, as far as I'm concerned: pointing out things that can easily be fixed, rather than making a fuss on the FAC. NB the direct quotation to which I put the "fact" tag is not cited, unless you mean the citation that comes two or three sentences later. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather you made a fuss on the FAC, because that's where I'll see it. I can't see hidden comments. The quotation is cited by the next reference that comes (the Guardian one). It wouldn't make sense to have it twice in a row. -- how do you turn this on 13:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, have done, as I said. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources - Carmen Rodriguez

Thanks for posting a question on the board. From reading the thread it seems that the best option is to get the interview published, either in the Ubyssey or, given that she's collaborated with them before, the Vancouver Sun. This might be a bit of a higher target to achieve but it'd be fun to try nonetheless. It wasn't directly mentioned on the board, but I got the impression that her CV and some of the other documents aren't a 3rd party, therefore can't be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstmaurice (talk • contribs) 15:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Johnson

There's no winning. We had the linking done correctly coming in to FAC, and one reviewer insisted on overlinking Boswell and went through and did that (and more, wanting new links in every section).[4] At this point, we have to just watch as everyone dips their fingers in, introduces passive voice, overlinks, and so on. I suppose such things can be fixed later. I woke up this morning to find the introduction of passive voice and removal of attribution <sigh>. Anyway, glad you fixed it, but the same editor may come back in and overlink it again. I have seen improvement of this article at FAC, but the damage I've seen has been rather surprising for what is supposed to be a process to vet our finest work. An entire group of editors develop consensus at FAC for X and subsequent editor goes through and changes to Y. Anyway. I left a note for Ottava about the inline queries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to Sandy here. If you would like to know what was said to me, or other information, you can contact me directly. I have moved any hidden comments on Samuel Johnson to the talk page here. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, tangled webs... Anyhow, I was just trying to help some on the article. I have no desire, however, to enter the maelstrom that is, or has been, the FAC. I like using inline comments because it is usually non-confrontational and time-efficient. I have even less desire to start an off-wiki conversation about this... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

TAM (tank)

Hey, thank you for your comments in TAM (tank)'s FAC. As I responded, I've been trying to change certain things to make the prose read better. If there are major issues which are barring the possibility of you removing your oppose I'd like to ask for some help from you in pinpointing the issues and resolving them. The article went through a copyedit during the FAC, as you can see by some of the comments on that page, and it seems that you don't agree with some of the "improvements" conducted by others. Please, any and all information is welcomed. I'd like to get the article to featured article status. Thank you! JonCatalán^(Talk) 01:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Will try to get to this, but it won't be today, I'm afraid. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting at the TAM article may not be finished, but I want to kindly remind of the oppose in the FAC that I would like to attempt to remove (once you feel that the prose is up to standards). This oppose is the only one holding the article back, so I'd like to fix the issues as soon as possible. Also, I hope you aren't discouraged by me changing some things as you edit them, because I feel that they didn't make the text any clearer. I'd like to invite you to discuss this with me. Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wearing out my welcome :-) Directing you to my comments at the bottom of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/TAM (tank). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

To jbmurray and HDYTTO

Hi guys.

Just a little patronising note (sorry, I can't help it) to remind you both that you're on the same side.

I have seen enough of both of you around the wiki to know you're both committed to improving the encyclopedia and developing high quality content.

Somewhere, something's gone a little awry in your communications with each other. Please see if you can attempt not to appear to be riling the other one or scoring points.

The kind of dispute you two are beginning to cook up never ends well and is particularly silly when you realise that you're actually on the same side.

Please excuse this well-intentioned personal comment.

I am, as ever, Dweller (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

NB You can score the first brownie point by reverting the last comment you made at the FAC... :-) --Dweller (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As he/she has removed the discourtesy, I'm more than happy in turn to remove the now redundant courtesy note. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Careful, too many brownie points can seriously damage your health. --Dweller (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

History of a Six Weeks' Tour

If you have a chance, could you copyedit and review this article? It is up for peer review. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Where in the world are sources for Carmen Rodriguez

Jon, sorry I haven't responded sooner, but I think the consensus that apparently emerged was correct -- the students' work can't be cited unless it's published. Of course the best answer is to publish the interview ASAP and then use it, but that may not be possible in the time frame your students have. Maybe an exception to your grading scheme would be appropriate if, when a Wikipedia article can't be written without the prerequisite secondary sources, the students create those sources instead of the article they were told to write? Mike Christie (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Mark Speight

Hi, you commented on the (failed) FAC; please can you help me out by leaving some feedback at peer review? Thanks, and best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 12:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:Bragsheet

I agree, I'll fix that up later. As I noted at Seraphim's talk, I will change it. Sorry for the uh, misplacement. — Ceranthor [Formerly LordSunday] 21:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Could you look over Nevado del Ruiz for me? Cheers. — Ceranthor [Formerly LordSunday] 22:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Any help is appreciated, Mav should be coming to look at it within the next week. — ceranthor ^(strike) 23:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't manage to do more. I'll try to get back to it, though I'm a little rushed off my feet these days. (Incidentally, shouldn't the "Geology" section be moved up?) Meanwhile, however, I note a new copyeditor on the block who just did a terrific and very thorough job at Khalid al-Mihdhar. You might want to give him a ping. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm?

FWIW, Collins's is right; Collins' is wrong. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC) ([5]) - I always thought the s isn't repeated after the apostrophe. Am I incorrect? Giggy (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

See here. Some style guides allow exceptions, but the norm is to insist on 's in almost all cases. As always, I'm most familiar with the MLA style, which is among the strictest. Strunck and White make exceptions for ancient proper names (Moses, Isis). Some other guides make other exceptions. But I don't know any that would favour Collins' as opposed to Collins's. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Giggy (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Khalid al-Mihdhar

If you have some spare time, I would appreciate if you would take another look at the Khalid al-Mihdhar article. Substantial amount of copyediting has been done, with help of User:Momoricks. Please let me know if there is anything else needed with the article. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting request

Hi Jbmurray, I've come to ask if you could help me copyedit Tropical Storm Hanna (2002) to save its inevitably failing FAC. If you don't have time, no worries. Thanks in advance, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC request

Jbmurray, since you have access to scholarly sources, would you have time to investigate the queries I've lodged at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rosetta@home? No one seems to have noticed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I did a bunch; it now looks as though User:Orangemarlin is doing the others, which is grand. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I was wondering if you saw any indication (considering the resounding endorsement of the Company) that criticism was lacking or excluded ? To return the favor, I tried to do some cleanup on your Rio Grande articles; didn't find much to do yet, but I'll Be Back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for the barnstar. It's my very first! :) Best regards, momoricks ^talk 01:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

FACR

Jon, the discussion at FACR has had another choice added -- I wanted to let you know in case you wanted to change your comment. Mike Christie (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Not Enough Hours In A Day Department

Check it out: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Non-english_warning. I particularly enjoy the mixture of usted and "tus" in the same sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC

Would you kindly comment at this FAC? Ty, —Ceran (Strike!) 00:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to put hidden comments into the text, please tell me next time so I can attend to them. Also, the "pile-on" referencing is due to the fact that the paragraphs have bits from multiple sources in them, and that's just my style. I've never gotten criticized before for that, I don't plan on changing it up now. Best, —Ceran [speak] 01:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

User:Hadrianos1990 has resumed editing under 86.122.224.23 (talk · contribs). I guess it's possible he hasn't seen his block yet, since he has a long habit of editing interchangeably via account and IP, but I thought I'd let you know. Sure wish the guy would communicate with somebody :/ Maralia (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from me, too. (When doing my routine post-check of Gimmebotification, I realized that Real Madrid has had seven FACs.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the ip address traces to Romania and not Spain. I believe that Romanian is similar to Spanish but not sure he/she speaks Spanish. --Aude (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem of Apollonius...

... is now featured! Thanks for your help with the FAC. I know you don't need to be told twice about a party, but just in case... Geometry guy 20:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: October

VPN issues. You'll see a whole mess of edits this weekend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoekie (talk • contribs) 21:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team on the move

See WP:NHB. Geometry guy 20:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Marvellous! Many thanks! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out with the biology! That's the spirit of friendly competition that should make this productive and fun! Geometry guy 21:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I see you are watching "my" article of the Banker horse (or perhaps spying behind enemy lines???). Anyways, thanks for the offerings of guidance...I am sure that I will need it. --Yohmom (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

1964 Gabon

What I was trying to say was that since there are no English sources referring to this, no one can have the exact meaning put into French. My translation was no far off. Do you have a specific point (other than the occasional (small) mistranslation that occure even with hardened French spekers) to make this "firm oppose" actionable? ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"What I was trying to say was that since there are no English sources referring to this, no one can have the exact meaning put into French." I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you are trying to say here.

And the translation was sufficiently far off. It was very far off in its first incarnation. But it was studded with numerous and significant errors even at the second attempt. For instance, you don't seem to recognize the reflexive form of the verb: "Wanting and believing himself to be a democrat..."

I hesitate to bring up credentials, but... I have translated a published book. (This one, as it happens.) What we have here is not a translation at a professional level, which is what we should be looking for at FAC. I also teach languages, and have in my time taught translation. It seems to me that you would struggle in an intermediate (200-level) college course of the kind I am teaching right now (and taught this morning.)

Look, EotW, I know you're trying hard here, and really want to get this suite of articles through FAC. But I think you need to realize that in this case you're not in a position to do so. You would simply need far better French to undertake such a translation or work with French material to sufficient standard. That is my very specific point. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Page Numbers

Hey Jon, I don't understand why we need page numbers for only those two sources on the woman hollering creek page...we can do it, but can you explain why it's needed just in case it happens in the future? Thanks!--Katie322 (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh. It's not just those two. You need to provide page numbers for articles in journals or newspapers (which you have done) or in books (which is the case for the two in question). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Kannada literature in the Western Chalukya Empire

Hi. Do you have time to copy edit this article. It has been through an extensive copy edit by several reviewers.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Carmen

I left some notes at Talk:Carmen Rodriguez; was that the right article? I ask because it had a section that was completely empty, which seemed odd if they thought it was close to GA. But there was a lot more there than the last time I looked, and I hope what I said was useful, so that's fine.

Having you nudge me to go look at articles is probably a good idea -- I'm a bit busier this fall than I was last spring, so I may not be able to stay in as close touch with the articles as I tried to last time. Let me know when you'd like me to check in on one of them, but I will try to keep tabs myself too. Mike Christie (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Mike, that's magnificent. Many thanks. No, I agree that they're not ready now for GA, but they're at the stage of thinking more concretely now about what they need to do to get there. And I'm happy to nudge from time to time. Of course, don't worry if you're too busy! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Brenda Song

Thanks for the info :) I thought that was for the best as well but since I failed the article it was hardly appropriate I relist it. GA can be a difficult process I've seen articles failed for things I would have put on hold for and other people have told me I've failed when they would have put on hold! Million_Moments (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Brenda Song

Yesterday the admin/editor immediately re-listed the article for a review on the GAN review page, so I see no need for a GAR except to provide an opportunity to blame and criticize well-meaning GAN editors. Please keep me out of this ugly situation.

I have no differences with the article review. I was asked for a second opinion and gave it because I felt sorry for the editor in his plea for a second opinion. That is the totality of my involvement. My only concern was that the editor of the article (an admin) was repeatedly reverting the article history to remove any information from the article history that the article had failed. That editor was then enormously rude to uninvolved third parties who were trying to do the right thing and maintain the integrity of the article history. They were polite and helpful. That admin was given several chances to do the right thing and refused. I have no wish for any further involvement with an editor/admin who engages in this type of behavior.

If a GAR is set up, it will be an opportunity for this admin's "support group" (which this admin clearly has as I can see all the signs) to weigh in and criticize and affix blame on other well meaning editors of GAN in support of this admin. I see the writing on the wall. Through experience I have learned to keep away from these wikipedians as I, unlike special editors/admins, have no protection and this admin and "supporters" could easily decide to take things out on me, even though I had nothing to do with the outcome. I could see it happening in this case, as I recognize who is behind this; I have experienced this before these people as they are powerful, cliquish and protect their own, at the expense of other editors who are only trying to do their best.

I wish no further contact with the admin/editor in question nor the article. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 12:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I regard a GAR as a more open and less fraught opportunity to re-examine an article and its previous GA review, and a means by which the community as a whole can once more re-articulate its standards. Simply relisting at GAN can seem like cherry-picking--waiting for a more lenient reviewer to come along--and doesn't help establish consensus. It seems to me that opening a GAR is less, rather than more, cliqueish. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are wrong or opinions differ. I just received a post from an editor who posted the 3RR complaint against the admin you are defending, saying that GAR's are a minefield, best to stay well clear. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be me. I somewhat share your view, at least on this particular article, which I had no interest in other than one editor's attempts – an editor who ought to have known better – repeatedly to destroy its history. GAR has developed an unfortunate tendency to degenerate into acrimonious witch hunts of late in any case, which is why I won't be taking part in the review either. "What shall we do with this crappy reviewer? Shall we burn him or just hang him?" --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Besides, the article has been totally altered since it was failed. So the only thing left to do is persecute the editor who failed it for not being able to see into the future. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The outcome was extremely disillusioning. It was incorrect for SandyGeorgia to say: "someone ended up blocked for trying to bring a perfectly good article to good status." (Although I and the other GA review end up being criticized for trying to do the same thing.) The article in GAR because the article editor of Brenda Song, rather than using appropriate channels, choose to repeatedly vandalize the article history so the article history would be incorrect, thus getting blocked for four reverts in a few hours time, after several well intentioned editors tried to intervene. The editor, an admin I believe, engaged in a revert war, the same editor who maintains article history for FAC; further that editor received an extremely short block for the four reverts. By SandyGeorgia's defense of this behavior, I can only image any editor reverting an FA article history four times in as many hours would be tolerated also and defended by SandyGeorgia.

As predicted, SandyGeorgia made an issue of criticizing me. Overlinking should not be mentioned? Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles specifies in the criteria "appropriate use of wikilinks".

To go through GAR, where the editor's supporters will come in from the outside and weight in (throwing their weight and heft around), expressing inadequate knowledge of the facts behind the case, putting GA reviewers in a bad light and casting a partisan vote is not helpful. SandyGeorgia is know for her disdain of the whole GA process She has made that clear on multiple occasions. She is also known for her support of her FAC clique, regardless of their behavior. I do not appreciate her self serving evaluation of my judgment at GA. My review helped this particular article enormously when the editor implemented many of my suggestions after the article failed. The article now is immensely improved over its state when it was failed. However, that is much to my regret. I feel like I have been used. A very ugly experience. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) Rather than personalizing things, by focussing either on Gimmetrow or on SandyGeorgia... I'll just say that I have found the GAR process to be very useful to get a more objective view on things. I've often welcomed (and sometimes actively encouraged) GARs for articles that I've failed at GA Review, precisely so I can find out whether I was right to have failed it, or whether my standards were out of line with those of the GA reviewing community.

Precisely because GA Reviews are usually conducted by a sole editor (the regular complaint against the process), I feel that GAR can be used so that reviewers can compare their standards and interpretations (about wikilinking or anything else) with those of others.

In this case, for instance, Mattisse, you'll see I basically agreed with your characterization of the article: that there are a lot of short, choppy sentences, and that in places it doesn't flow as well as it might. We differ, however, as to how bad we see that problem as being. With input from other editors, I hope we can both learn as to whether we are being too strict or too lenient in our understanding of what's required.

That's how GAR should work; and in my experience, it's how it can work. Which is why I thought a GAR in this case was a good idea.

Heck, otherwise I could have simply reviewed the article myself (I'm an editor who's had nothing to do with it) and pass it immediately. But that would seem a worse outcome, and more liable to charges of cronyism or whatever. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Brenda image

JB, the issue isn't necessarily where the image came from; numerous possibilities exist. The path could have been, for example, the following:

magazine -> Commons -> Teen Idols

magazine -> Teen Idols -> Commons

In either such case, neither Teen Idols nor the Commons would be the point of origin (i.e. copyright holder). It could also be the case that Teen Idols is indeed the point of origin or even, although immensely unlikely, that Commons was. The test we use is whether information provided substantiates the license. In some cases, that is a "direct" link to an external source; for others, like "self-made" images, it is the "indirect" presence of details. This image was low resolution, had no metadata, was from a drive-by uploader, was an unlikely vantage point of a celebrity, had a contradictory external site (authors Ren vs. KTGirl), etc. It's a matter of preponderance of the evidence and very, very loud quacking. Эlcobbola _talk 13:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, gotcha. Thanks for the reply and explanation. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Jbmurray, thank you so much for taking this on and doing so much work to get that ball rolling; it's really appreciated (even if I don't understand GA processes :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

From Mattisse

Since my comments were reverted off the GAR page, and I worked on them hard, I am going to post them here. This will be the last time I post here. I certainly will never post again at GAR. This has been a horrible experience. The only good thing was a note from Gimmetrow saying he had no trouble with my comments and thanked me for my help. Not so anybody else. I hope this is the last contact I have with you. I will not be working on GA or GAR again.

Reply to SandyGeorgia

• Well, promoting this article will not help your complaint that "many GAs appearing at FAC daily aren't GAs either, and something needs to be done." It will just reinforce the standard of the bad GA's of your complaint. Gimmetrow was not blocked for trying to relist the article. He did relist it and that was not included in the 3RR complaint. He was blocked for reverting the article history on the talk page four times in a few hours, even though other editors tried to intervened helpfully, to which Gimmetrow made an uncivil comment. The article still has problems when it was failed:

1. The image concerns had not been addressed
2. Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles states: "with appropriate use of wikilinks" - overlinking is not generally accepted.
3. "At a bare minimum, reviewers should check that the sources used are reliable...". Hard to tell when a link is dead.
4. the article does not meet WP:LEAD, per comments by Geometry guy below.
5. jbmurray says: the section on "Endorsements and public image" is rather listy, and as a whole the article tends towards

proseline. Some general assessments of Song, her career, and her significance would be useful."

If your goal is to decrease the quality of GA article (and increase your complaints about them), then your interference here, will move you toward your goal. It might help if you became familiar with Reviewing good article before you make more pronouncements about what fulfills the GA criteria. We know your poor opinion of GA. You have made that abundantly clear over time. So why is Gimmetrow repeatedly vandalizing article histories over this pathetic GA status, anyway? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Relist. I knew I would be attacked, as I told jbmurray on his talk page when he set up this review. SandyGeorgia, who has made her disdain for Ga review clear on multiple occasions, declares that the reviews refer "to issues which I can't detect. WP:OVERLINKing is not part of WP:WIAGA as far as I can tell, nor does GA have the same requirements for fully formatted and consistent citations as FA does, so several of the issues raised don't seem to apply to GA." Well, does "with appropriate use of wikilinks" count? What about: "At a bare minimum, reviewers should check that the sources used are reliable...". Hard to tell when a link is dead. So making suggestions about a dead link and three references is enough to cause an admin to vandalize?

Perhaps SandyGeorgia could bother actually looking at Reviewing good article before making such pronouncements.

And it is horrible to make suggestions for improvement? (All suggestions do not have to be covered in order to pass - GA reviews are, if anything, too kind. That is probably why jbmurray can justify promoting a bad article on the grounds that GA articles are bad anyway.) The FAC editors making pronouncements above appear to be pulling for GA to lower its standard. Then they can complain even more about how low the GA standards are.

Further, there were images issues that had not been fixed. Does that count? Or no, it does not because this is just GA?

Geometry guy has brought up valid concerns in his comment above.

We all know that GA can't hold a candle to FAC, as SandyGeorgia makes clear, And when all references are correctly formatted except three, it is justification enough to sent an admin over the hill to vandalism by pointing out the three. I see my review was taken as the enemy in this situation and it was blamed. I thank jbmurray for mildly standing up for me, and he also describes the article's problems:

I have some sympathy for the comment (by Mattisse, the editor brought in for a second opinion) "The prose is choppy with too many short sentences." It's true that the section on "Endorsements and public image" is rather listy, and as a whole the article tends towards proseline. Some general assessments of Song, her career, and her significance would be useful. On the other hand, the article doesn't suffer from such defects much more than similar articles that have been adjudged of GA standard.

Isn't jbmurray referring to a general standard Wikipedia condemns that says we will pass it because I can find other articles just as bad? Or, others do bad things, therefore I can as well. Well, perhaps GA cannot stand up to FAC bullies who determine what goes on here, when one of their own is involved. They don't know the standards and they don't know the practices, but, hey, a GA article is bad anyway. So what if this one is also? Well, I don't feel like being bullied by FAC editors in this GAR, especially since jbmurray assured me this would be a constructive process. I do not see that as the case. The outcome was predetermined by SandyGeorgia and jbmurray. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, please believe me that I had no intention of pre-determining the outcome of the GAR. As I said, I hadn't even read the article with any great attention when I put it up for GAR. I then read it, and said that in my view it passed. I could well be wrong: I'm willing to be put right.

In saying that the prose was OK but not great, I was thinking precisely of WP:WIAGA which requires of a Good Article that "the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct." This is a lesser hurdle than the "professional" quality required of an FA. To say this is not a criticism of GA.

Now, again, I could well be wrong with my understanding of the current standards at GA. I have done plenty of GA reviews in my time, but not recently. This is why I pinged Geometryguy, an uninvolved editor who has great experience with GA, whose views I respect enormously. More generally, the point of GAR is to seek comments from the broader community.

Again, if I (or anyone else) wanted to ride roughshod over the GA process, we'd simply have reviewed the article and passed it forthwith. But no: my purpose in putting the article up for GAR was to defuse the conflict, and get a broader spectrum of views.

The purpose was also to separate out the question of the article review from the issue of the block. At GAR, we're judging the article, not the editor (or even the reviewer).

I'm sorry if for you this experience has been "horrible." I certainly have had no intention to "attack" or "bully" you, and indeed have not attacked or bullied you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page)

Ah, so you involved Geometryguy. It was a set up No wonder he deleted my comments from the GAR. He is part of this protective ingroup. SandyGeorgia contacts you because, one of her favs gets blocked for vandalizing the article history. You take over and summon another of the family for an "objective" view. SandyGeorgia's comments were completely dismissive of GA. Then she goes on to give reasons that are not true, and that show a misunderstanding of the GA criteria. I explain the criteria. and Geometryguy deletes them. So the unpleasant, demeaning comments of SandyGeorgia are allowed to misrepresent GA with no correction. Makes sense now. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse... How about assuming good faith!? My ping of Geometryguy was not a "set up." I can hardly think of anyone else who is better versed in GA processes. And he is certainly not someone who is dismissive of GA. (Nor, incidentally, am I.) This is not some kind of conspiracy. Everything here is above board, and everything I've done is to clear the air, not to bully or to demean or whatever else. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page)

I am not basing this on one instance. This is a pattern I have been observing for quite a while, at least more than a year. This is the second example of this sort of thing in the last few days. In fact, it is the third example, if I count the FAC editor interjecting into a GA review that the article was almost on FAC, causing the article which multiple editors had agonized over for months because it was such a mess, to be promoted right away. It is an article that never should have been promoted. It is misleading and confused, and the editor that promoted it now agrees. But what to do now. It needs a massive amount of work. It has been edited basically by one person with over 900 edits. Obviously the GAR would be a nightmare because of the same interference and conflict of interest that plagued this one. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, again, I'm sorry that you're unwilling to assume good faith. I have nothing at all to do with whatever other article you're alluding to here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page)

I know you did not. I am merely remarking on a systematic pattern that I have observed. I did not mean to imply it was you. I never thought that although I knew you were on the radar. I am talking about a systematic pattern of behavior utilizing many other editors, as needed, for the occasion. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

1964 Gabon series

Hi Jbmurray. I'm taking a break from the 1964 Gabon series to work on 2003 Bam earthquake, but could you contribute to the discussion toaward featured status on its talk page? Specifically, could you check out the books to back up the sources (I assume you're fluent in French, but please correct me if I'm wrong). I really dislike the mentality of "translated article--oppose" if nothing can be done to fix that. I'll be hopefully submitting FAC in, say, December. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not fluent in French, I'm afraid, though I can read it fairly well. I would want someone more proficient than me to check out these sources and the translation. (With Spanish, I could help; and with Italian, probably, too.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

ILL

you mentioned that one of the books in our bibliography wasn't at koerner and that we should order it by ILL. what is this and how do i do it? -thanks (Trowan (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC))

Interlibrary Loan. (And look, Wikipedia even has an article about it!) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

ordered! thank you (Trowan (talk) 07:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC))

citations

Hey Jon, thanks for fixing the citations on Carmen Rodriguez. Not 100% sure on how to consolidate them, sorry to make you do tedious work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstmaurice (talk • contribs) 05:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's OK, I don't mind doing the tedious work. But do look at this question. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Oi, something kinda scary is going on over here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm generally sympathetic to the idea of a standard template, but there seems to be a bewildering range of efforts to merge templates right now, and I'm not entirely sure what's going on. Sadly, I don't really have time to figure it out, either.

For what it's worth, in my view there should probably be at least two types of template: one for "References" sections (equivalent to "Works Cited" or "Bibliography" style in the real world) and one for footnotes. And Wikipedia should probably decide whether it wants a uniform style or not. It's a little odd that so much minutiae is decreed at the MoS, while citation styles are left almost completely up to individual editors. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's because individual editors, or groups of editors, keep having the discussion in the wrong places, and also because editors who don't have a lot of experience actually adding content keep doing this stuff, and messing up citation and other MoS items. In the meantime ... I sit happily on the sidelines, having had the foresight to use a manual citation method and avoid any templates so they couldn't mess with me :-) Even the bots leave me alone, (Ling, na-ni-na-ni-boo-boo !!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I have to say I wasn't most impressed when a change to citation earlier today screwed up a bunch of articles I'd been working on. Yet still they press ahead, and this seems to have nothing to do with this unicite business. I'm tempted to move away from templates myself, though as you know I do so love {{harvnb}}... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to ignore them all and hope it comes out all right :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

First, thanks for starting up the GAR I had asked someone else to do. Your and Mattisse's comments on the prose were mostly correct, it needed work; a lot was written by fairly young persons. I think that's handled, although I think the reading level is still somewhat higher than my target (and so I would disagree with Mattisse about sentence length). Even with various prose issues, I think this article is a lot better than the two Disney actor GAs, both from 2006. I would like this GAR resolved rather than pushed off to another GAN - and another two months to wait. I might get faster turnaround at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review. Second, before I realized the difficulties, I wanted to move to a generic cite system, where the article would just have something like {{cite|refid}} and that would refer to a reference "refid" somewhere else in the article which defined all the pieces of the citation. The style, however, would be a user-pref (much like date prefs), and the cites would be rendered in any way desired. If the reader wants APA or MLA - or numbered refs alphabetized by last name - it wouldn't be a problem. Not likely to happen, though. Gimmetrow 06:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds...

...interesting - tell me more (and good to hear from you, btw!) EyeSerene^talk 23:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Well, the mission is... if you could drop by on Julia Alvarez. I have a fear that young User:Sauceyboy in particular is a little frustrated. I've told him the obvious things that need doing to get near GA status, and they're still some ways off but have made great strides recently. Any words of advice you could offer would be most welcome! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The Stalker's Words

Here's a real-world sample adapted:

---

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of this work.

I agree to publish that work under the free license [blah license here].

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Basically they can't not know what they're saying with that :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Characters

Hi Jon, I'm having some trouble with my "Summarization of Main Characters" description section, as the bulk of the information I'm finding is about Yolanda, and there is very little about the other sisters. Would you recommend me changing this section to one just about the character of Yolanda? The problem is, I can say heaps about the characters, I just can't find sources of what others have said about the characters. I remember you saying it should not be my interpretations. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks! Kyalkin (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)kyalkin

Hi. First, you might want to doublecheck once more with similar articles as to the section titles they use; normally it's "Main Characters" rather than "Summariziation of Main Characters." You might also want to look at how they handle this. Again, I've given you a number of examples of Featured Articles on novels: El Señor Presidente and The General in His Labyrinth, for instance, but also look here.

As to the sources, how many have you checked? As Awadewit notes on your article's talk page, at present the article remains rather thin in terms of sources. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jon, I'll change the title. I noticed in "El Senor Presidente not all the character information has been cited. It seems to be general knowledge about the characters written by the students who did the article. I'm going to go ahead and keep writing them like that, and try my best to find some better sources. Thanks for your help. Kyalkin (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)kyalkin

Heh. Not exactly "general knowledge"! But a) citations from the book itself are encouraged, too; and b) interpretation should indeed be cited from a reliable secondary source. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

hi

hi john i'm having a hard time understanding this quote "the strategies described in post-colonial theory as 'counter-discourse' to engage and deconstruct the oppressive cultural narratives that are a legacy of Mexican America's colonial past".[20] i want to put it in my own words for now i just took it out of the text. oh and thanks for the link on how to paraphrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaoaks (talk • contribs) 04:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Where does that come from? I can't see it in the text. And you'd have to go back to the source, of course, to understand fully what the author is trying to say: we don't even have a full sentence here. What is that source? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Re Julia Alvarez

Apologies for the late reply (I've just had a week off work, which I've mostly spent in Byzantium and the Crusader Kingdoms, although without leaving my armchair. It's been wonderful!) Anyhoo, back on the horse now, so I'll drop by on Julia Alvarez and try to find something to do ;) EyeSerene^talk 12:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Crusader Kingdoms are important, too. Meanwhile, I see you note that Awadewit, that Wikipedia Saladin, got to your mission first. Care to try another one? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think of her more as John II Komnenos, bringing order, truth, justice and beauty from the primal chaos that is C-Class. As you've noticed I've left a couple of notes on JA, and I'll keep an eye on things there if you don't mind - to be honest I don't feel I can just jump ship now I've grabbed an oar, and my time is limited enough at the moment that I'm wary about committing to more than one article. However, I've watchlisted Sandra Cisneros and I'll leave a note on that talk page too. If I start sinking I'll know who to blame ;) EyeSerene^talk 19:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Double TFA Dispatch

Are you interested in writing it? [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I can help, at least, perhaps by starting and providing structure. I didn't follow all the ins and outs of the debate... not that that's necessary, in any case. What's the deadline? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Deadlines are ... difficult ... to understand with the Signpost. They haven't published Oct 20 or Oct 27 yet ... ???? So at least a week out, probably more. Let's put it at WP:FCDW/ElectionTFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. That's time enough. (And egads with that Signpost!) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

We're all volunteers, right? :-) Let's coordinate it through WT:FCDW, in case others pitch in. If you get a chance, WP:FCDW/October 27, 2008 is really rough: Awadewit may have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding pieces at Wikipedia talk:FCDW/ElectionTFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI discussion re disruptive university project

I was wondering (since I've taken your name and work so egregiously in vain there, and given your first-hand expertise) if you have the time to take a look at this ANI thread? ...and I don't mean to worry you by the heading; it's not yours! EyeSerene^talk 17:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha! You did indeed worry me at first! I'll go take a look. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated! EyeSerene^talk 19:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Mario Vargas Llosa pictures

Re: this - if you want, you can forward me the email with the pics. I can probably fix the problem. Raul654 (talk) 07:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You have mail. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW....

Gawd, the last thing I feel like conceptualising at 1am after a busy aday at work is psychodynamic theory....might have to do it later. FWIW, much of the neuroses have become anxiety disorders and adjustment disorder, neurosis got controversially ditched in DSM III in 1980. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

FAR of Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me)

Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. — Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 09:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I deleted this nomination, as it is too early. The featured article review instructions, to which you yourself point, make clear that you should wait three days until you can nominate an article which has been on the main page. You are welcome to nominate the article once that time has gone by. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I withdrew the nomination as you suggested, but I intend to re-inserted on FAR in the future unless the article goes under drastic changes. Anyway, are you aware of the reason for this "3-day rule"? Thanks. — Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 09:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete the page for? Was there really a need to do so? I had already withdrawn the nomination, which could've been simply archived in my opinion. Could you please restore the page for future purposes? Thanks — Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 09:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You can always recreate the page if you wish to nominate in accordance with the FAR instructions. As for the reasons for the three-day rule, see the talk page of the article you were nominating, specifically SandyGeorgia's comment: "Yes, you can send it to FAR: the WP:FAR instructions require a three-day wait after mainpage date for good reason. Editors tend to jump the gun and nominate the TFA at FAR the minute it appears, when deficiencies are often cleaned up by three days after the maindate, so a FAR isn't needed. And driveby editors, who don't know FA standards, nominate articles at FAR because "they don't like them". If the issues aren't addressed in three days, then you can bring it to FAR. A stint on the mainpage often results in dramatic improvement (like Jbmurray's copyedit)." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; I usually tend to navigate away from "the world of FA", but this article was something that really stroke me as a "bad publicity" for the project and that was not worthy to represent the best for on Wikipedia. Best luck! — Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 10:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I should say, I have nothing against you nominating the article. It could certainly be improved. At the same time, I personally don't think it's so bad. As it happens, I was just looking at another article, which is horribly over-referenced. I prefer the former to the latter. But do feel free to nominate Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me) when the time is right. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi JB

As you know RCC failed FAC again and Sandy asked us to address some issues that she listed on my talk page. One of her recommendations was to ask you and Awadewit to participate. I would be very happy to have your help in the next peer review which we will initiate in a few weeks after we sort out some FAC etiquette problems. If you are not interested I understand, I'm sorry for past harsh words and I hope that in the future we could work together on this or other interesting projects. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 03:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, I would love to help out. And I should say that all that is past is past. As I have said before, I have been in awe of your perseverance and sheer hard work on this article. I do think that there are still some problems with it, but they are far from insuperable. I am, however, too horribly busy to feel I can commit much time. But I will do what I can. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I look forward to your help. Ealdgyth and Awadewit both said they were busy right now too but would attend to the article in a couple of weeks. I was going to submit it for peer review maybe by the end of the month and it would be really nice to have all three of you comment on the peer review for us - but don't feel as if you have to wait around for that to happen. Jump in whenever it suits you. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 03:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

office hours

i wasn't planning on it although i am on campus. i am working on the article right now. Alanna is very sick and something unexpected came up over the weekend that kept me from my studies. i hope to finish today though, or at least at good enough status to submit it to FA status. let me know what you think. i am sorry i couldnt come to class today. (Trowan (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC))

Heh. GA, not FA. OK, you've got a ways to go. But you can do it! (I asked about office hours because you asked me the other day what time they were.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

oops umm yes thats what i meant. i am stationed in the library till i get it done. i think it might have been someone else that asked about your hours. by the way, when the time comes, how do i submit my article for GA status? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trowan (talk • contribs) 23:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

GA reviewing

Jon, I have been quite busy with a science article I'm helping to get to FAC, so I haven't had as much time as I would like for your students' articles. I see they're starting to get to GAN. I would be happy to pick up a couple (or more) and review them; I can't do any till tomorrow at the earliest, though. I'll just pick them off the literature list, starting at the top, one at a time. I should be able to get two or three done by the weekend.

Alternatively (or as well, if I have spare time) I could work with the students on a given article to help them along, if you think that would be useful. My recollection of last semester is that the most useful thing an outside editor can do is act as a reviewer; a forgiving reviewer with regard to deadlines, but firm with regard to standards. So I would think picking up the GANs and working with the articles that way is the most productive thing to do, but let me know if there's anywhere else you think I could be helpful.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Mike, either would be magnificent! There's no rush reviewing at GA right now... the articles still have some way to go, though they are on the cusp. Today is the deadline I set them, but I've told them they'll have to continue working before, during, and after any review. Meanwhile, if you want to adopt an article: this is quite a simple one; this is more complex.

On other fronts, I know you had your own irons in the fire. I'd love to help out, though my knowledge is zilch. However, it's a place I mean to visit before long! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting request for Frederick III, German Emperor

Hi Murray, Frederick III is currently at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frederick III, German Emperor. Banime has worked very hard to bring up the article to A-class and has been very open to suggestions to improve the article. I have tried to copyedit his work to bring it up to standards but failed. If you are not too busy, could you take a look and help to whack the prose into shape? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry Jon, just edit-conflicted with you on Sandra Cisneros. It was only the Early life and education section, and I don't think I've mucked up any of your fixes, but you might need to check... EyeSerene^talk 09:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh. No harm done, I think. You're doing much more important work. I'm just fiddling with references. I think I'll leave you to it, though I'm gonna stick it in for GAN on behalf of the studes. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Great, I don't think we're too far off, and the article looks better every time I check it. Your students are, as usual, doing a fine job! I'll see what I can do about getting us a speedy review ;) EyeSerene^talk 09:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Nomination

Hi Jon, just wondering if you could nominate our article for GA. I tried doing it last night and as easy as you made it seem online, couldn't figure it out! Thanks a lot. Kyalkin (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)kyalkin