User talk:Jbmurray/Archive 12

Merci bien!
Thanks for letting me know! Fame at last! EyeSerene talk 18:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism dispatch
I was wondering if you would like to help me write a dispatch on plagiarism for the Signpost. After working at DYK for a few days, I've realized that we need to make the discussion about plagiarism much more visible. Awadewit (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea! How do you want to go about it?  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you all draft it at WP:FCDW/Plagiarism? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikivoices/Wikipedia assignments
I wanted to invite you to this podcast about using Wikipedia as an educational tool. I know you know something about that! Awadewit (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The note
jbmurray: On the mediation talk page, you say "... it beggars belief (to me) that a footnote should in turn have footnotes." I can well understand why you would say this. However, the guideline states very clearly that we must use objective criteria and reliable sources in a naming conflict. The note is, thus, a way of documenting what criteria and sources we have used. How best to do this is yet to be determined. We have to state our sources or criteria. If we don't want to use footnotes, we could use one of the other styles for presenting citations. Let me know your further thoughts on this. Sunray (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sunray, my point is that this footnote should be explanatory, and so should be clear and simple. Obviously, I have nothing against either objective criteria or reliable sources, but by debating sources we're putting the cart before the horse, and encouraging the continuance of this argument in which everyone's either trawling for new sources they hope will support their particular point of view, or continuing to shout past each other about the same few not very good sources that have long been on the table. Once more, the point is to decide on what this note is going to say, and how it should say it. The sources can be added, as unobtrusively as possible, thereafter where necessary. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. It seems that all too often participants veer off into "my source is better than yours" type arguments. However, the advantage of insisting on sources is that they are a reference point other than a participant's subjective opinion. Some participants will, no doubt, continue to grind axes. Still, in all, the group has made great progress. In fact, I would say we are really just agreeing on finishing touches. The key is that we are building consensus. Whenever someone brings up a concern and someone else takes it seriously and adapts the product, the consensus gets stronger. Sunray (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Recall clerking
I'm an admin who is open to recall and my recall system uses uninvolved clerks to remove the personal bias from the process. Recently one of my clerks, retired from editing. I've seen you around and you seem like a nice guy, and we don't interact that much, so I was wondering if you would be willing to serve as a clerk?  MBisanz  talk 00:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to do that, with the note that at present I'm basically only semi-active. But my email is enabled if you need it.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
For writing a decent note for the RCC name issue, hopefully this issue can be put to rest soon. Sorry I got upset with you earlier but you really are annoying sometimes, especially when you trash my sources.  Nancy Heise    talk  22:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, Nancy. Much appreciated.  We are all on the same "side" here, I hope: we both want this to be the best article that it can be.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Figured this might pique yer interest.....
green looks like it is within striking distance of FAC, and before hacking massaging the prose, I was musing on comprehensiveness - are there any glaring ommissions you can see to be added? If so add a note here at Talk:Green Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism
A request for comment has opened about promoting the proposal to guideline. As an author of the Signpost article cited in the discussion, you may wish to comment. Wikipedia_talk:Plagiarism Durova Charge! 18:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Gabriel García Márquez
Hello. I'm sorry if my previous edit was mistakenly considered to be vandalism, but I believe it should be clear that M-19 stands for 19th of April Movement. There has been no such thing as a 19th of May Movement in Colombia. Thank you. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, and apologies... That article gets so much silly but minor vandalism, but I should have been more alert.  Thanks for the correction.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Help with cite
Hi Jbmurray, hope you are doing well. I am having trouble with getting Harvnb working properly on a cite with multiple authors, it is the "Latkin" cite at the article Rajneesh movement, perhaps you could take a look? Cirt (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, was fixed by . Cheers, Cirt (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The name is Jon, Jon Murray; shaken, but not stirred
Finish what you started, Mr. Bond, or SPECTRE may have the last laugh :-) Geometry guy 22:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC) (Those were individual reassessments: if you intended to start community reassessments, please let me know.)
 * Heh. So, neither has had much response, eh?  What's the procedure...  I simply delist them myself?  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, although it might be helpful for future editors if as well as delisting, you added some further comments to your reassessment reviews. A comprehensive review is not needed: just indications of a few things that should be fixed before renomination. Geometry guy 20:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I stress, this is asking very little: the Golden gun review already has several suggestions, so could be closed as it is, though one or two more sentences would be welcome; the Live and Let Die review doesn't need much because the article is so far from meeting the criteria, but a three sentence review is a bit sad and a paragraph would be more encouraging. Geometry guy 21:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

OTRS invitation
 The OTRS system is looking for trusted volunteers to help staff our Spanish info and permissions queues. I would like to invite you to look over what OTRS involves and consider signing up at the volunteering page. Thank you.

Danny Deever
I am conducting a reassessment of this article as part of the GA sweeps process. There is one minor issue - some citations have been tagged with page needed. My review is at Talk:Danny_Deever/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Live and Let Die (novel)
I am conducting a review of this article as part of the GA Sweeps process. There are several concerns which have been left at Talk:Live_and_Let_Die_(novel)/GA1, which need to be addressed if the article is to retain GA status. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy 's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Underground (stories)
I have conducted a reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process and found some concerns, which you may see at Talk:Underground (stories)/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

ACPD pages created
I've created two initial pages for the ACPD: Please add them to your watchlist, stop by, and so forth. The latter page has a couple of logistical issues that we should discuss sooner rather than later, so I'd appreciate if you could find some time to comment on them.
 * Advisory Council on Project Development
 * Advisory Council on Project Development/Forum

Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You're back
Yay, we've missed you. FAC is getting a higher workload of articles, and Sandy was, for a while, looking for good reviewers. You're one of the best, so that's good. :)  ceran  thor 21:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Why did you do that?
Hi. I would be genuinely interested to hear the rationale for that deletion. Cheers. --MoreThings (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

100 Years of Solitude
Mr. Brown wasn't a dictator, he was a businessman, and therefore dictatorial. And the book said 'sex organ', not penis, and since it's a quotation, I think it should stay as is. Feel free to revert this, I've said my piece. Czolgolz (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed sex organ to penis and banana massacre to lowercase. Thanks for listening. Czolgolz (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki
Discussions are being held about starting a new (or greatly expanding existing) program for bringing articles to enwiki from other language Wikipedias. The discussion is at WikiProject Council/Proposals/TRANSWIKI, and because of the topic in the section WikiProject Council/Proposals/TRANSWIKI, I am requesting that you comment. I mentioned WP:MMM as having been the best project of its kind; your expertise would be greatly appreciated. Lady of  Shalott  22:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

UNMSM
Hola Jbmurray, disculpa si realicé el traslado de la página sin mencionarlo en la página de discusión, ya lo mencioné y di referencias necesarias como base de justifición para volver a redireccionarlo. Estaré tratando de arreglar un poco el artículo y las categorías relacionadas a él. Gracias por tu aviso, saludos. --Kanon6917 (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Y... lo hiciste de nuevo. Pero ¿pór que?  La traducción es mala.  Y esas dos referencias son pésimas.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Advisory Council on Project Development
There is a thread on the talk page of the above named article regarding whether that council is still active at Wikipedia talk:Advisory Council on Project Development. As one of the listed members, your input would very likely be useful. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive4‎
You commented at the prior FAC and many issues have been resolved. Please comment at Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive4‎.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Red Links
i see you have been removing some links i added... why? i added "david rock" to the disambiguation page, but someone removed it because there were no links to it. so i added the links, but then you removed them. i could create the article, but there would be no links and no disambiguation page that linked to it... so someone could tell me that it's not notable. it's a never-ending cycle.--camr nag 19:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:MOSDAB, and notability is unrelated to how many articles link to a given article. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Pah. I just went ahead and created the article.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * umm... thanks. good luck.--camr nag 15:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to help out and expand! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Dave's Farm
See London Free Press article here http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/2009/09/22/11044671-sun.html

I see you've reverted some recent "vandalism" to the Dave's Farm article. It accused the owner of the farm, David Rock, of being a pedophile. Anyways, I thought I'd draw a little additional attention to this, as some of the vandal's links link to police reports that seem real.

This information has appeared about 3 times in as many days.

Anyways, David Rock, is a youtube celebrity and the most popular Canadian content. He runs a farm, that seems to attract a fair number of young people. So, I do think there is a public safety issue (maybe not the domain of wikipedia), but also maybe a libel issue as he is an 'entertainer' and the documents are the only source for this information.

I put a link to the document in the talk page of the Dave's Farm article. Which raises another issue, the documents are not well redacted and I have concerns about protecting the identities of victims of sexual abuse. --Lightenoughtotravel (talk) 03:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. I've just left a note at the relevant noticeboard.  As I say there, I suspect that the solution is simply to delete the article: for my money, Dave's Farm is very marginally notable in any case.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Something you may want to see
,,  Enigma msg  18:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. Dufus.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Liberation theology
I have some concerns about the text on liberation theology in the article Catholic Church. According to NancyHeise, you wrote this text. Could you look at the discussion on the Talk Page and give us your thoughts on the issues that I raised? Thanx. --Richard (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments on the discussion of "Liberation theology" in the Catholic Church article. Please see my reply and also give us your thoughts on my expansion of the text.  Thanx. --Richard (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

invitation
Can you please come here and discuss. Thanks.  Nancy Heise    talk  05:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church
Can you please point out the sources in the Catholic Church article that you think are not good sources? You have accused me of arguing with people over sources. I do that sometimes. I remember doing it with you when you wanted us to use a book by Richard McBrien, (Catholicism) that has been condemned by the USCCB as containing inaccuracies and has numerous bad reviews from fellow scholars. I hope you are not referring to this argument you and I had - that was posted on the now deleted Catholic Church mediation regarding the name.  Nancy Heise    talk  18:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nancy, really this is simply another instance of a) the way in which your apologies are half-hearted at best and b) the way in which you consistently miss the point. Sometimes you miss the point so badly that it leaves me scratching my head in amazement.
 * As it happens, I do disagree with you about the McBrien book (your attitude to it was a good example of the way in which you do not understand how scholarship works, and the way in which you misread book reviews, for instance). But I wasn't thinking about that at all; that particular dispute is long water under the bridge.  The issue here is not the specific sources: as I said at your RfC, this is not a content dispute.  This is about how you react to content disputes.  You need to understand that.
 * Let me simply repeat the point I made to you before, and also pointed out at the RfC, but which for some reason you consistently ignore. Wikipedia is a place for collaborative editing.  There are a number of knowledgeable and well-intentioned editors--Hamarkheru is merely the most recent--with whom you have chosen to have a scrap rather than work constructively.  This does not help you, and certainly does not help the chances of Catholic Church becoming a Featured Article.
 * I have once again taken Catholic Church (and indeed your RfC) off my watchlist. It becomes draining and counterproductive to continue on in the battleground atmosphere for which, I believe, you are very much (if not solely) responsible.  I admire the patience of someone like Karanacs--I know you believe for some reason that she is your enemy; she is absolutely not.  And, as I have consistently said for months if not years now, I wish you and the article all the best. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * JB, you accused me of arguing with people over sources. I stated that I remember arguing with you over the use of Richard McBrien's Catholicism. You wanted us to use that book in the article. You insisted that it is a good source. I showed you that the book has been condemned not only by the USCCB but other scholarly peers of Richard McBrien. They all condemned the book as containing inaccuracies. Yet somehow I am wrong to argue with you or anyone else about sources when you are suggesting these? I posted a note on your talk page a short while ago because you have made a very unkind accusation about me on my Rfc instituted by Karanacs. If I am so difficult to work with as you describe, then how do we have such a great article at Catholic Church? What sources listed in its bibliography do you think are not good enough to be there? I think you are not addressing my question because there is no way to support your accusation.  Nancy Heise    talk  21:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(copied from your talk page:) Nancy, let me put this as simply as I can. The issue is not your arguing over sources. Of course, there are going to be differences of opinion and point of view. I continue to differ with you about McBrien. But I am not going to argue that now. That is a content dispute, and it is not what concerns us at your RfC. The problem is the way in which you react to content disputes. And yes, you are doing it again right now by presenting yourself as the victim of so-called "unkind accusation[s]." Again, look at the comment to which I repeatedly try to draw your attention. That comment is not about sources so much as it is about the way in which you deal with editors with whom you disagree. Specifically, that comment is a response to your statement to Hamarkheru that "you have to try to convince us you are correct by giving us decent quotes and sources to oppose ours." You immediately set things up as "you" against "us," "your sources" against "our sources." And your sources have to "oppose" our sources. This is confrontational, unhelpful, uncollaborative, and is what helps contribute (as per the RfC) to this "battlefield mentality." Please stop it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)