User talk:Jbmurray/Archive 3

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

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


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


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


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

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

Banglapedia
Copy remains a pain for me. No matter how much I work on an article, a lack of mastery over English keeps me failing. Good copyeditors are rare and they already have other business or massive backlogs on their plates. It would be very nice if you told me where the copy needs to be changed and how. I promise to work on every single suggestion you make. Aditya (talk • contribs) 07:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah! So, it failed. I was kind of expecting that you'd do a review to address problems before you failed it. I could have had a chance to solve the problems as much I can. But, well, you decided to fail it first and do a review then. Thanks for lending a hand. It is getting increasingly difficult to get someone to help you on the Wikipedia. A very refreshing experience this was. I guess, I'll have t address these issues and resubmit the article. The original article got through easily, then it was delisted making a couple of issues, now it can't get through even while all that was addressed. It seems the quality bar is getting higher by the minute. Unfortunately there is little help forthcoming in understanding the ever-higher standards. There seems to be little difference in the quality requirements of an FA and a GA now, only that FAs are more participatory. Thanks anyways for identifying the problems. Now I can work on them.
 * By the way, Bangladesh has less than 1% internet use penetration, and just over 3% newspaper readership penetration, and will never have as good online coverage as any country in the developed North. That means the current tendencies will make it inherently more difficult of countries like Bangladesh to pass quality standards, which is heavily built on the availability of information in the developed countries. I have no clue how I can work around that. Aditya (talk • contribs) 11:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. I am sympathetic to your plight.  And I did put in some time to try to work on the article myself, as you can see here.  So it's not as though I didn't try to help!  By comparison, the other changes that have been made recently have been much less substantive.  But going back to look at it, I felt that there was still rather a lot to be done.  Of course, do feel free to take it to Good Article reassessment if you feel I was wrong.  Good luck!  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. As I see, most of the issues are easily solvable. And, if you just told me what was the problem, as I requested, I could have addressed most of them fine. Take a look at the article talk page, there already is a couple of clarifications there. Could you tell me how the misunderstanding could be removed? Aditya (talk • contribs) 11:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Aditya, I'm not sure it's a simple question of misunderstanding. And I doubt that arguing pro and con on the talk page will help things much.  I think I was clear as to the multiple issues as I saw them.  I do hope they help you further revise the article.  If you really do think that my review was poor, then again I suggest that you take it to Good Article reassessment.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's alright. And, thanks again for lending a hand (I really am thankful there, as my atrocious writing skills has become a real deterrent to quality improvement of the articles I work on). One big problem that you identified is real, and not mistaken. There is no indication in the article that the publication had an appropriate review. I am trying to look up one. Until that, I guess, I would rather stay put. But, I might come back with a request to take a look before I submit it again. More work is not problem, as long I know what has to be worked on (more often than not it's about copywriting, and adding clarifications). Thanks for the kindness. I have already started working on all the issues you raised. Aditya (talk • contribs) 12:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

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


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


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

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

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

Award

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

No problem
Sorry to tread on your toes! Which ever format works for you, I just find the templates easier to maintain. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


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

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


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

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

What next?
I don't think there's much more I can usefully do at Latin American Boom or Domingo Faustino Sarmiento. What's the most useful next thing I could look at? Options seem to be:
 * provide feedback on article organization at Mario Vargas Llosa and an opinion on how close it is to an FA nomination
 * copyedit The Feast of the Goat for encyclopedic tone and general prose
 * copyedit Gabriel García Márquez per peer review notes
 * see if I can help with the remaining fixes needed at I, the Supreme
 * see if I can help address some of the issues raised at the peer review for The General in His Labyrinth.

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


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


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


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


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

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


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

Check user
Seems you are having trouble. I've put in a check user request. See Requests for checkuser/IP check. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. Wow. Good detective work, Acer!  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Wassup, it's not that your sense of humor didn't go down well. (In fact, I thought it was funny.)  And I do appreciate what you're saying.  In fact, I was recently going over some of the first people who helped and who got in touch with me about the project, who include (as you say) Kevinalewis and also Raul654 left a note on my talk page, for instance.
 * But I reverted because I think there's probably another place for all that: in a more general post-mortem (and thanks). Hmm, but I may make some changes in the light of what you're saying.
 * And I realize I should have dropped you a note after making the change. Apologies.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Nice to see you stop by the CG article. Will you be staying or are you passing through? Nice to meet you, and it looks like you have done some great things as an editor. Red thoreau (talk TR 01:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Had I the time, I'd probably linger, but probably shouldn't.  It looks as though plenty of work is going into that article as it is!  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Per wording: I understand your concern for "redundancy", but believe that "ubiquitous" encapsulates the fact that his image is not only "widespread", but also almost a "separate" (sometimes generic) entity of itself, often times detached from the individual or his ideology. Red thoreau (talk TR 01:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

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


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

Sarmiento
Jbmurray, can you confirm that the discussion of Sarmiento's political career is now sufficiently thorough? It looks so to me, but you did the research. Let me know if you think it's incomplete. Mike Christie (talk) 10:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so, but I'm going to revisit it on Tuesday (the next day I'll be near the library). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 10:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

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


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


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

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


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


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


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


 * Just saw this now.. I'll be sure to whatchlist them :) PS: Your favorite author's on the main page :P Acer (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Aargh! Still, it could be worse.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

That also means you get another one of these:

which you may like to place on your user page (or somewhere suitable) by copy/pasting   into the page code.

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

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


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


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


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

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


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


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


 * Congratulations! Cheers, &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 02:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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

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

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


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

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


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


 * I noticed these hanging quotes too when I ce'd the first time round and removed them. They were scattered through the article. I'd also deduced one of the editors is not a native English speaker, and based on where I found them before I don't think it's anything to worry about (just an idiosyncrasy), but it's definitely right to be cautious. EyeSerene talk 17:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Cinco de mayo?
Hi! I was actually at work and then in class all afternoon and evening but was extatic when i recieved a txt from katekonyk that El Senor Presidente had reached FA Status! How exciting!! I actually have not been able to stop smiling (and I have done a bit of bragging to some family and friends, shamelessly!). I have suggested May 5th because it seemed somewhat fitting for a Latin American genre article. If that is much too far away and there is a landmark date in April perhaps that is somehow connected that works too! No date in april comes to mind off the top of my head but please let me know when the date is set, I will be sure to spread the word to people I know to check out Wikipedia that day! So exciting!! Thanks for all your help along the way with this project. I have actually learned a lot from it, despite frustrations as times (as when I was writing my last blog!!) Thanks again.--Mfreud (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Cinco de Mayo sounds grand. Actually, doing a little research...  another possibility would be April 22 or 24.  The first is the 10th anniversary of the publication of Guatemala's Truth Commission.  Two days later is the 10th anniversary of the assassination of the assassination of the Bishop who oversaw the project.  Let me check the exact dates, as there seem to be some contradictions.


 * I've also been very pleased about the featured article status. And have told plenty of people, too!  You really, really deserve it.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the barnstar; I appreciate it. It's been so much fun working with your students that it hasn't felt like work at all. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, you've done magnificently. I'm so grateful, especially (again) over these past few days when I've been finding it rather difficult to keep up with everything that's going on over so many articles.  Many thanks!  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews
On Wikinews, I am n:User:Jbmurray. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Official wikipedidian
Yes!!!! You are hereby knighted an official wikipedian and slayer of vandals. I was getting disheartened that none of the MMM people were active in the boring stuff. Then I came across this. Yup, this is good. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh. Oh, I do that a fair bit when I see it needs doing.  Thanks for the knighthood!  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

... side note, Did you happen to notice the author with the feature article today?? I think her books have come up in class a couple times :)--Mfreud (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Until that dastardly MMM Project came along, it was the mighty Harry Potter Project that pwrned Wikipedia. Drat and double drat. But J.K. made it to the main page first...w00t...take that MMM :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I know... first Celine Dion, now JK Rowling! But we're changing things around here.  ;)  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Augusto Roa Bastos
For what it is worth I feel bad that I couldn't pass this as a WP:GA by April 10 as per the WP:MMM goals - but there are still some sticky issues with WP:NOR concerns for me. For the most part your students have certainly improved the article quite a bit, and it is very close to GA Status and probably will inevitably get there very soon, so when grading please take that into account. :) I tend to be picky when it comes to WP:NOR on articles, and utilizing WP:RS/WP:V sources and ample citing. Cirt (talk) 06:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Cirt, no apologies. In any case, the course rules are that the article should be nominated by April 10, not that it should pass the review by that date.  You have every right to be picky if that is how you would usually approach such an article.


 * The special circumstances in this case, as should be apparent, are that this is a small (2-person) group for which one of the two has basically been AWOL. You don't need to take that into account, of course, but I will.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh, I didn't realize it only had to be nominated by April 10. Just for information, what is the deadline on the articles' progress?  Cirt (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no deadline for progress. This is mainly because I knew that such things were not in the students' hands.  As it happens, recently, everything's been going very fast, and the articles have not had to wait long in the backlog for reviews: they've been prioritized, which has been fantastic.  But we couldn't necessarily expect that.  Does that make sense?  And even now, you shouldn't feel you have to work to their deadlines.  I'm very sorry if you've felt you have had to.  Although I'm also very appreciative that you have done so.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well when is the class over? Cirt (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We've had the last session (this week). But we're now entering exam period, so the grades aren't due for a couple of weeks.  If there are any reviews still outstanding then (GA or, more likely, FA), then of course I'll make my own judgements.  (Which to some extent I will anyway, of course, as your message indicates and suggests.)  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds good, thanks for the edification. Cirt (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please
Please do not delete references from articles, unless you are certain they are not being used in the article. It is common in book articles to mention how many editions of the book were published, this cite is being used to show that. Cirt (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The only mention was a sentence in the lead; there's no mention in body. Hence, once I cut the sentence in the lead, I also cut the reference.  In fact, the article doesn't discuss the book's publication history.  A section on that (and on sales etc.) would be excellent, and would justify replacing that reference.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove it without further discussion on the article's talk page. Like I said, it is common to briefly include publication history in the lead. I have not come across any more info in secondary sources on sales, and that's basically all there is as far as publication info.  No need to remove it.  Cirt (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

We can not grab info from another Wikipedia article, without providing a citation to a WP:RS/WP:V source. And the article Werner Erhard is not one of the best articles on Wikipedia, to say the least. Cirt (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, but there should be something on his background, I think. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I will find a cite for that in a secondary source. Cirt (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Mistakes in Correcting
Over at The Drapier's Letters you made the following mistake - uses of England refer to England as an entity within Great Britain, and your changes are historically inaccurate. The Drapier's Letters is a collective term, and the individual letters are not titled such. This is a title of a book. Each letter has its own title and are called Drapier's Letter when dealt with individually. Notice the italics. Swift made a choice of adopting an identity, he did not make a purpose. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked about some of these issues on the FAC. There's much inconsistency and poor grammar plus generally unclear writing here.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict:) And why say that this is the title of a book when the first line (and indeed the whole article) states that it's a series of pamphlets. This is rather confusing. As for the use of italics, this too was inconsistent. Is it The Drapier's Letters (as earlier) or The Drapier's Letters (as elsewhere in the lead). So indeed, I noted the use of italics, and the fact that they were inconsistent didn't help. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you refrain from mentioning "poor grammar" when you, yourself, has put in many instances of such. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk)
 * Meanwhile, no need to get rude! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see the dictionary definition for the word "collection". If you bothered to read the article, you would realize how the title works in and how the works were titled. Your comments are highly rude, especially in light of your edits that are not proper grammatically nor historically accurate. Instead, you assume, you do not read, and you make inflammatory comments that are highly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I humbly disagree. But I will indeed stop trying to improve the article, given the fact that you take my edits so poorly.  Good luck with it!  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You can disagree all you want. Here are a few of your edits - "and its printing was subsequently stopped" which would rewrite history to make it seem as if the 7th letter was being printed when news reached Swift of the withdrawal. Or "Although the letters were condemned by the Irish Government in line with orders from the British," So, the Irish were inline with themselves. Thats not correct at all. Or "inspire popular sentiment" Except that you need to address "popular sentiment" with "the" if you want to follow standard English grammar. Or "writers to defy Britain's control over the Irish nation" which would mean that the Irish were seeking independence from the crown, which they were not doing. You effectively rewrote history in one line. Or "hardware manufacturer William Wood (mintmaster)|William Wood" which would not follow MoS which states that you shouldn't wikilink multiple times. Or your rewriting of a grammatically correct sentence to say: "appeared to be defending of the patent and sought", which is completely grammatically inaccurate. Or "Swift's purpose in adopting this pseudonym", Swift didn't "purpose" to adopt a name, he chose to. There is a distinct difference. Furthermore, most of your changes are not changes to items that are improper, but mostly substituting things that are proper for other items that are proper. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We obviously have rather different conceptions of English grammar. I suspect it would take too much time to iron out these differences.  So, again, it's probably better to bring this conversation to an end.  Again, good luck with your work on this article!  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should take up your complaints against MLA. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhh. Wikipedia. Ya gotta luv it. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Do you laugh or cry?  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Please reread WP:AGF, especially in regards to copyedits made to an article up for featured article. No, you are not the only editor out there. No, its not charming or part of Wikipedia to use other people's talk pages in such a manner. No, its not proper for you to say things like "basta" and make incendiary comments as you have. If you have a problem with an edit, you talk to the person about it. This does not mean that you throw in such comments along with it, talk in condescending manners, or make inaccurate claims. This is Wikipedia. This is not a message board. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * , please stop. has told you clearly that he wants nothing more to do with you. I see nothing untoward in Jbmurray behaviour. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * JB, I think your use of the word Basta might have set him off. If you don't know what it means, then it can seem pretty insulting. I provided him with a link to a translation, but maybe using the word isn't the best thing... At least on the English Wikipedia. Wrad (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Housekeeping
Deleted pages per your request. Somewhere there is an actual request tag. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, many thanks! So speedy...  I didn't expect such a thing.  :)  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Even better...I found the tag Db-author. Ahhh. The life of a Wiki admin. reviled. hated. despised. :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

FAC
I just wanted to say that sometimes perhaps what I type in text comes across as different than I had intended it to (though perhaps you interpreted it the right way in the first place and therefore me commenting here is not necessary) but regardless of all that I do value your comments and your contributions have helped to improve the article Getting It: The psychology of est. I admit it is frustrating to me sometimes when I take something which (I thought) was of a FA quality to WP:FAC and then the article receives criticism, it is difficult not to feel that this is criticism of me as an article-writer/contributor, as opposed to specific points of the article itself. I have been working on this and specifically on applying WP:AGF in this regard even more so, and perhaps I have been doing a little bit better in some of the more recent FACs I have nominated, but I am still a work in progress and I continue to work on that. Cirt (talk) 06:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Let me apologize in turn: I realize that my edits can perhaps come across as rather curt.  Or rather, no doubt the way I go about them: diving in and changing, rather than discussing them at length elsewhere first.  No doubt this is simply a sign of my own impatience.  I should say that I'm not particularly committed to the particular versions that I come up with; but I generally do think that when I make a change, this is the sign that there's a problem somewhere.  I'm happy for that problem to be resolved some other way.


 * I also quite understand that it can be a shock to the system to see prose that you have laboured on be subject to what may seem drastic and uncalled-for changes. Obviously, this is the wiki-way, but I suspect that anyone who says it doesn't bother them at some level is lying.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 06:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And thank you for your candor as well. I suppose it is the wiki-way, though like I said it is a work in progress for me to avoid transferring the feelings that that criticism generates, from the article to the article-writer/contributor (in this case, me).  I think I have been doing a little bit better on that lately. I can see that you obviously only wish to improve the article itself, and that is your motivation in contributing to the article, and again, I thank you for your efforts - I still have a small bit of researching to do but I plan to do my best to address all of your comments at the FAC page. Cirt (talk) 06:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Library Journal
Curious what resource you used to get access to this? Was it some sort of online database, or a university library? If it is the former that would be quite useful. Cirt (talk) 07:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Both. Online via my university library.  Here in fact are the range of locations it gives me:


 * Library journal (1976) (0363-0277)     Title details from ulrichsweb.com™


 * in UBC Print Holdings and UBC Print Holdings
 * from 05/01/1976 to present in Academic Search Complete
 * from 05/01/1976 to present in Business Source Complete
 * from 05/01/1976 to present in Canadian Reference Centre
 * from 05/01/1976 to present in MAS Ultra - School Edition
 * from 01/01/1996 to present in ABI/INFORM Global
 * from 01/01/1997 to present in CPI.Q
 * from 01/01/1997 to present in Factiva To access the journal, select 'Source'; in the /Find A Source box/ enter the journal name.
 * Note: Restricted to 6 simultaneous users. If you get an error message that the "user name and password is already in use", please try again later.


 * from 1997 to present in Freely Accessible Journals
 * from 01/01/1998 to present in Education Full Text
 * from 01/01/1998 to present in Library Literature & Information Science Full Text
 * from 2000 to 2004 in TableBase
 * from 04/01/2001 to present in LexisNexis Academic (Canadian)


 * Dunno if that helps? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it does help, I'll check this out, thanks. Cirt (talk) 07:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Augusto Roa Bastos
Heh, I was going to update WP:MMM, but I guess you beat me to it. Congrats to the contributors for churning out great content - I learned a lot by doing the WP:GA review. Cirt (talk) 11:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, thank you! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Quotation
I love the Gregory Kohs quote on the MMM page. You've been rumbled :D EyeSerene talk 11:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hehe. It's quite something, isn't it?  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah I see EyeSerenes beat me to it... putting it up there was quite ingenious, it’s my personal favorite :D Acer (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm so proud to be corrupting young minds! Heh.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Other subjects
Are there courses in other subjects at University of British Columbia that will be undertaking similar projects on Wikipedia (GA/FA drives) ? Or perhaps other courses at different universities? Cirt (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. I've only just seen this message (sorry).  Not to my knowledge, though there is interest among other people.  So we'll see...  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for the reply, and great work. Cirt (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick note
Just a note to say that your update to the MVL status at the mission page says it may soon be ready for GAC. You mean FAC, I know, but it's such bad form to change another editor's words that I wanted to let you know so you can make the fix.

Congrats on the latest GA, by the way; I was very glad to see Qp10qp helping out there; I've worked with him before and I knew ARB would make it to GA when I saw him get involved. The remaining two I'm working on are Feast and Facundo. The former is very close; we'll have to wait and see what the GA reviewer, Skomorokh, says. I still need to finish a copyedit of Facundo. Can you tell me if you feel the content in the article is sufficiently broad and deep for GA? Content is the one thing I can't really assess. If that's OK, and with another copyedit pass, I think it is starting to come together and has a good chance of being ready for GAN tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm endlessly mixing up "GAC" and "FAC." Ugh, all these acronyms!  And I'm having a brief look at Facundo right now.  This one's going to be a bit skin-of-its-teeth, I fear, with more to be desired, but it should make it.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Re edit conflicts
No worries jb, it happens, and I'm not one of those editors whose toys go out of the pram when it does! I'll go back and restore my edits when you've finished with your copyediting. On a slightly different note, I wonder if you've seen the note I posted on the talk page? EyeSerene talk 14:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, apologies. Go ahead and restore your edits...  I'll move on.  Yup, I did see your note, thanks.  Ugh, this article's a bit of a pain, but we'll get there.  The students are trying, I know that!  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 14:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, we will. They have indeed put in a lot of effort (I assume that's what you meant!), and the end result will be worth it. EyeSerene talk 14:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. I didn't intend the ambiguity, but couldn't possibly comment...  ;)  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No... BTW, I did see your note on that rather disorganised brain-dump in my sandbox. I've been mulling things over, and now we're winding things up I'll see if I can't finish that up too. Thanks for your interest :) EyeSerene talk 15:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

no no no no!!
That was an accident, I was going put Latin American Boom in there, magic realism was supposed to be on the genre field bellow.. :} Acer (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Or was your point that he, in fact, shouldnt not be associated with Magic realism in the first place? Hes included in the MR category (which is what led me to include it in the infobox), should I remove it? Acer (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh. Indeed, that was my point...  Really, MVLL isn't an instance of magical realism by anyone's standards.  The expostulation, however, is related more to the fact that I banned that phrase: we could only talk about "m***cal r**lism."  It's a long story.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I figured there was some kind of backstory there ;). Anyhow to get this straight: Magic realism category is out, Lat american boom as a literary movement is in(in the infobox)? Any syggestions for literary genre(or leave it blank)? Acer (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say leave it blank. As the article says, one of the things about MVLL is that he spans all sorts of genres.  If anything he's a realist, albeit a fairly unorthodox (but not at all m****cal) one.  ;)  If I were fussy I'd say that the Latin American Boom isn't a movement either, but we've described it as such on its article page, so we can let that be.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok the cats gone. I'll go and check the other author articles.. The roa bastos one for instance lists Lat american boom as genre Acer (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Grand. Thanks so much!  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Your advice re names
It's my bane again. Should Juan Facundo Quiroga be called Facundo, or Facundo Quiroga, in Facundo? (I think that deserves some sort of recognition for the most mentions of "Facundo" I've yet seen in a single sentence). EyeSerene talk 17:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * He could be either. Most usually, he's "Facundo."  What he can't be is "Quiroga."  Hope that helps!  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Using "Facundo" would be consistent with the article title, so that might be the best way to go. EyeSerene talk 19:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/P.wormer
Acer's detecting was correct: see Requests for checkuser/Case/P.wormer. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Enough!
Jbmurray, I just realized that you could turn this into an 'Enough' template. Could be useful! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Image:Mad Alcazar.jpg

Essay
Just FYI, I've finished up my essay (sort of) and moved it to its own page here. EyeSerene talk 15:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've had a glance, and will try to take a more details look later. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ramón Amaya Amador
How'd you miss the so-called book he wrote called "The pussy fronter"? I've taken care of it now, but it's been there nearly 2 years. How'd everyone who's looked at the page miss it?
 * Oops! Good catch!  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mario Vargas Llosa
Do you have any information on how MVLL influenced other writers? Currently the "Legacy" section is the only one really bothering me at all. Awadewit (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look. Though you know, I suspect it's rather difficult to trace his influences, partly because he doesn't have a particularly definable style.  Very different from García Márquez, for instance, or even Asturias.  I kind of suspect that there's not much out there.  Which is not to say that he's not important; just that his influence is diffuse.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's just that the article goes on and on about how important he is - it is hard to believe he hasn't influenced anyone. :) Not impossible, just unlikely. Awadewit (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure he has. But I suspect it's more along the lines of "Well, I can be a writer, too!"  It might be better to look into the influence of individual books.  Hmm...  I think that's the way.  Let's see if I can find anything out.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yo!

 * Many thanks! I'm going to take this for the team as a whole!  :)  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I showed my mum, a uni librarian, User:Jbmurray/Madness, and she was very impressed and interested. Hopefully there will be such things again. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Marvellous! Pass the word!  :)  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My RfA...
 Thank you... ...for your participation in my RFA, which closed with 85 supports, 2 neutrals and 1 oppose. I'm extremely grateful for all the the kind comments from so many brilliant Wikipedians I've come to respect and admire, as well as many others I've not yet had the pleasure of working with, and I'll do my best to put my shiny new mop and bucket to good use! Once again, thank you - it's been a real pleasure working with you and the MMM ;) EyeSerene talk 16:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your review of 'Private'
Hey. Even though I requested reassessment, I wanted to thank you. --James26 (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, and thanks for the message. I wish you well, even though I do think that the renomination was a little too soon.  Good luck!  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't mean to be too whiny :). It's just that if you compare it to other articles of its genre like Gossip Girl and The Clique series, I think it's definitely a notch above. On its own merits, I also think it's a well-put-together work that's deserving of a tad more recognition. But that's my opinion. Thanks again. --James26 (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I understand, nobody likes their nomination to be failed when they've put the work in. But you'll also understand that I compared the article to the GA criteria (as I understand them), not to other similar articles.  Perhaps we should do a reassessment of Gossip Girl and The Clique series?  Anyhow, I've responded at the reassessment page for this article, and I hope that my more specific remarks are of some use.  Again, it's not that I'm trying to defend my review, but rather to explain it.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I just looked at those two examples... I'd thought you'd meant to say that they were already Good Articles.  Obviously, they're not, and in fact both have prominent clean-up templates.  It's probably better to compare with articles that have passed this hurdle.  A Series of Unfortunate Events, for instance.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ...
... for that note to Elcobbola; I've been worrying for days about the impact on his morale, because he is our only image reviewer at FAC. And he's good. Perhaps youth doesn't always understand the impact of their words on the internet; it certainly had a huge impact on me, after pulling for the article for so long, watching the numbers, and hoping it would work out, so I can only imagine how it felt for Elcobbola, as he was the one more directly criticized. By the way, I may have found an image anyway, see the talk page, so you may not need Elcobbola's talents. Saludos, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. As I said, I really hadn't realized that he felt attacked.  And I bear him no ill-will at all.  I see him more as a formidable voice articulating a strongly-held position, and there's nowt wrong with that.  I certainly see the time he puts in.  And I personally would have been happy for the debate to continue, as it would have clarified some things for me, at the very least to understand where he was coming from.  I only realized that this was not the way in which everyone saw things when I read said blog.  And I didn't want my hardest-working and most dedicated student to feel suddenly demoralized with the whole process.  Hence I pulled the images and got in touch with you.  Anyhow, yes, all credit to our Russian friend.  :)  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Great :-) I'm not sure the word attacked was ever his word (it was probably a word I used, not him) ... until I got over the impact the blog words had on the 2,000 moment for me ... eventually :-)  Anyway, looks like the image issue is more than solved, even though I had to take a sad tour that made me homesick while looking for one :-) We should talk in detail after all the FACs are done, and after the Mexican holdiay :-) Best,  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Got it, fixed ... the little stuff is a killer :-) When Rick Block's script goes through at the end, it looks for links to usernames first, so they should come first.  Fixed :-)  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, it's so Rick can build Featured articles nominated in 2008 which is used to build WP:WBFAN. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Belated thank you for the apology (Sandy, of course, beat me to it). For what it's worth, my word had been disheartening - more benign than attacked, but still troubling. Certain comments on and off Wiki implied summary dismissal of concerns and failure to realize underlying desires were, in actuality, to assist and achieve promotion of an article meeting Wiki's highest standards. That notwithstanding, the jarring impact of sudden criticism (based in esoteric and under-known policies, nonetheless) and consequent frustrations is certainly understandable. Congratulations and thank you for the invaluable MMM contributions to "foreign" literature. If I were still teaching undergrads, the “Russian” literature articles might not be as disappointing as they are. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Getting It: The psychology of est
Thanks for your help with this article. I have worked to address points you raised at the FAC - perhaps you could revisit? Cirt (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please Revert
Please revert this. The section is shown by clicking on "show" to the right. Such boxes are common place on FA review when an issue is resolved or moved elsewhere so that people can see that its no longer an immediate issue. I hope this makes sense. Ottava Rima (talk)
 * It makes sense, and I understand what you were trying to do, but there was a whole bunch of stuff that simply disappeared, even when I clicked on the box. I don't know why: you seem to have done the code right as far as I could tell.  I didn't know how to fix it (if I did, I would have), so I just undid the box.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Check out Featured article candidates/The General in His Labyrinth. No more "opposes" and one step closer to the inevitable. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm tussling with the MVLL sources right now.  Grrr.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like there is very little standing between your project's gaining two more FAs. A's all around? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just coming to explain the issue on this FAC, with the cap; you're both right :-)  Jbmurray, reviewers frequently cap off resolved comments at FAC; it's common, and they should be left, as long as the reviewer capped and signed his own comment section and didn't take out someone else's support or oppose.  The text is in the hide/show button.  Except. Your sig has a "|" which was interfering with the cap code, causing all of the text after your first signature to go completely missing within the cap.  (Awadewit and Ealdgyth had the same issue a while back, which is how I discovered the problem, with Gimmetrow's help.)  If you plan to spend a lot of time at FAC, you might want to remove the "|" between the talk page and contribs in your sig file, because every time someone caps comments, your sig file will bomb out the cap.  I temporarily removed it in the FAC so I could restore Ottava Rima's cap, which was done correctly. You will be able to see the text now by clicking on the hide/show button. I hope that explains everything all 'round ! Saludos, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Aaaah. Thanks for the explanation!  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how you can say that my actions upon those two FAs that were put forth by your group were anything but fair, especially when I worked with the editors and helped them complete FA status. The facts do not back up your assessment, especially your characterizing my actions as "obstructionism". Your comments do a disservice to everyone who reviews articles, because anything that you do not agree with is characterized as "obstructionist". Ottava Rima (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ottava, I stand by what I said at ANI (which is where, no doubt, this conversation should be taking place). And that includes the statement that "at various points I had thought that Ottava Rima was starting to adapt better to the culture of collaborative consensus-seeking that characterizes Wikipedia."  I would not say (far from it) that your contributions are only disruptive or obstructionist.  But there is indeed a pronounced pattern.  Various people, myself included, have attempted to offer you advice about this.  It does seem, however, that you are not taking that advice.  I would hope that the ANI discussion might be an occasion to reflect upon the ways in which you sometimes engage with other editors.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You have been wrong on quite a few issues now. Isn't then safe to say that AGF would remove your constant use of such pejoratives and instead deal with the actual issues here. If you think my concerns aren't legitimate, thats your opinion. Wikipedia is not a vote, and if Sandy does not agree with my concerns, then the article will be passed through. That is how the process works. IF she feels that I am being obstructionist and that my concerns are invalid, then she will decide that. However, it is definitely not your place to assume such and definitely not your place to constantly voice such things in ANI. I have put effort into the two articles I reviewed from your students, and I have worked with them to make them great articles. You do a disservice to your own students by insulting the contribution made. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

General
Hey, sorry to only be getting back to you now, Chomsky and Saussure kept be busy.. Anyway about the maps on The General in His Labyrinth, the second has been fixed already as you know. Now the first one I wasn't able to tell if the internal divisions are correct(at least the finner details), every map I checked seemed to give slightly different border lines but the general outline is pretty close to what we have.What I can tell for sure is that it is clearly not based on maps of modern day Colombia/Venezuela. The author states on the image description page that it was based on Varios mapas de la época, en especial el "Atlas geográfico e histórico de la República de Colombia" de Agustín Codazzi, 1889. I have no reason to doubt him given the general disagreement between all the other maps I checked. Acer (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine! Thanks so much.  :)  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-04-14/2000th_FA
Thanks. I've responded to you there. --Dweller (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Your course
Nice interview in the Signpost. Since you said that you intend to offer the course again in the Fall, please note that I'm offering to send a free copy of my how-to book on editing Wikipedia to each such class project. Just let me know where to send it, if you're interested. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you! You can send it to me at this address.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * On the way - you should have it in a week or so. If not, just drop me a note so I can follow up.


 * Also, any feedback from students, regarding the book, is something that always is appreciated - particularly discussions that weren't clear or things that seemed important that were missing. I'm hoping to do a second edition late in 2008, and anything I can do to improve the book is always valuable to know.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 23:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet another barnstar
This one, however, is for a slightly different slant than the handful you've already received for your great project, and excellent results. This one is for sharing that our process, though survivable, could use work.


 * Heh - whatever happened to "I prefer to keep conversations together, will reply here..."? :-) Anyway, glad I made you happy. --GRuban (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

La fiesta del chivo
Yo, great work expanding the adaptations section of the article, I've passed it as GA. I'm sure your students as well as regular Wikipedians appreciate such hard work (given its effect on their grades). As a long-standing reader of Posthegemony, however, I can't help but impudently wonder if you will return to dissections of auctoritas and Paraguayan Germans in the Chaco once SPAN 312 is complete? Regards, Skomorokh  17:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A Posthegemony reader, eh? I'll try to get back to auctoritas etc.  Once this Wikipedia episode is over.  Again, thanks for your help!  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hello Jbmurray, I noticed you revert vandalism occasionally. Would you like me to grant your account rollback rights to help you revert vandalism more easily? Just remember that it's only for reverting vandalism. Acalamari 21:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. Why not?  It could be useful from time to time.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rollback granted. :) For additional information on rollback, you may wish to review New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 21:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Acalamari 22:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Maps
Are you off for the weekend or still around? I'm not that certain on the maps; see User talk:Yomangani. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not really here. I thought Yomangani had sorted the maps (though admit that the last time I looked the aberrant one was still there).  Will go look.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I, the Supreme
Hey JB, amazing work you did over at I, the Supreme, the synopsis is much better. As I promised I'm expanding the lead User:Acer/Sandbox, but I'm somewhat concerned that I might have misinterpreted something, especially in the first paragraph (I still haven’t expanded the third). So could you take a quick look? I know you're busy now so there’s no hurry. Thanks :) Acer (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Acer, good stuff. Many thanks!  Yup, I shouldn't be here (have to prepare a talk in the next hour and a half), but just briefly...  You summarize "this assertion is constantly challenged by the very fact that while he achieves power by means of writing he is ultimately not in control of it for he is not a writer himself."  If that's the impression we give in the rest of the article, it's a little misleading.  In part because in fact the Supreme is also a writer (there's a "private notebook" that runs through the course of the novel, too) as well as a dictator (as well as dictating words that his secretary will write down).  But in part the notion is that any ruler is necessarily betrayed by the very language upon which he himself depends upon to rule.  And the fact of writing (in which the voice and the letter are detached) simply emphasizes that betrayal.
 * So the Supreme's power is in part dependent upon the fact that he dictates (the double meaning of "dictator" is important throughout the book) orders, such as the "perpetual circular," which go out to his subofficials and citizens throughout the country. It's through these written orders that he maintains his authority, punishes those who resist, and (literally) lays down the law.  But the pasquinade shows how writing, which is always also a re-citing or quotation, can be usurped: the forgery (if indeed it is a forgery) mocks the authority of the Supreme's pronouncements by imitating them, by repeating them and their style almost letter for letter.
 * To put it another way: the title invokes the first person pronoun, "I." But this is a linguistic shifter: anyone can say "I."  It's not unique to the Supreme, and it can't be unique to him.  So even the phrase "I the Supreme" doesn't hold together.  In the book title, the "I" seems to be attached to Francia, the dictator, the Supreme.  But when it's repeated in the book's first line (the book's first word) that "I" now belongs to the anonymous forger, and has been detached from the Supreme himself.  So in a sense anyone can play at being the Supreme simply by saying that they are the Supreme.  Because that's all that Francia himself has done: made a series of declarations.
 * Ufff, I bet that this is all becoming horribly confusing. It is a tricky book (just ask my students!)  Why don't you go ahead, and I can try re-editing next week, when I have more time?  Again, thanks for all this.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow! This is very helpful; I'll definitely try to adapt the lead accordingly. I must confess that the importance of the double meaning of dictator had completely eluded me and now that I think about it I do see that it's quite relevant. I had also failed to pick up on the I, I suppose the article could make this more explicit? Let me try to summarize your post to see if I indeed understood it: The supreme derivates his power from writing/dictating, unfortunately for him, language can just as easily be used by others to oppose him, this is exemplified by the pasquinade (hence its importance) in which his writing and indeed his self (character perhaps?) and ultimately his own authority is usurped by the anonymous writer by making use of Francias own game (ie: writing/language). So far so good? And what about the compiler and Roa Bastos? Can the pasquinade be understood as a metaphor for what they are, themselves, doing to Francias writings (usurping it, questioning the nature of his absolute power and relativizing it) ?   Or is their relationship more complicated? Again please don’t feel any urgency to get back to me, I still have to expand the third paragraph and some assignments due at the end of the month that I should probably work on during the weekend so next week sounds great :) Acer (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm in a lunchbreak during my conference, so this will be super-quick, but... yes!  Exactly!  (Heh, you're a quick learner...  wanna take my class?  :)  )  NB we ideally would put in more on the compiler.  (He really is a character, although at the margins.)  I fear however that we run into the dreaded "OR" issues.  And I personally don't have much time to go seek out the sources, at least not now...  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It could just as easily be that you're a good teacher :) I'd love to take your class but unfortunately there's an entire...canal between me and UBC... I agree that adding interpretations and possible readings of the novel would be threading close to OR but I think we might be able to manage (ever heard of the infamous brazilian jeitinho? :P ). Anyway something came up and I'm gona have to go out and so I might not be able to edit tonight, but I'll be back tomorrow. PS: Thanks for that little ego boost, it left a silly smile on my face :) Acer (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


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

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

Banglapedia
Banglapedia should be ready for another go as a GAN. Would you care to take a look at it again? Aditya (talk • contribs) 07:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hiya, I'm afraid I don't have much time right now. In any case, I suggest that a fresh pair of eyes might be best.  Good luck!  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

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

I have blogged about it here. --Elonka 04:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. I've added a link from our project page.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for all your help and inspiration on The General in His Labyrinth Jon! You put just as much work, if not more, then we ever did! Thank you thank you thank you!!! Carlaty (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, no problem. You guys did all the important work of research and finding sources.  Well done!  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No really, THANK YOU. I can imagine how labour-intensive it really was for you having to check so articles each day. Thanks again for a great term! It was fun! Eshiu (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary...
...for this:

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


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

Featured article review/Che Guevara
Hi jbmurray,

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


 * Will do, though as I suggested it may not be for a day or so I'm afraid. FWIW, I'd say that I don't have much of a POV on Che, either for or against.  Nor do I think that the article need have one.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow Thanks! and as for "...Nor do I think that the article need have one" that is of course Wikipedia policy as per WP:NPOV. The prob is, Guevara is a cultural icon. this casts a positive tinge on the underlying thought processes of many editors, in my opinion. All is want is to be sure that his smelly socks rec'v as much attention as his handsome face (so to speak). In other words, I want NPOV. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


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


 * Nah, 'ya think? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. Well, I've spent all night on this.  In fact (as I've now said repeatedly) I don't see too many POV issues here.  Zillions of other issues, but they're not overwhelmed by POV problems.  Anyhow, let's see if my edits stick.  (They do deserve to, goddammit.)  If they do, I may even try to get Yomangani to change his mind.  ;)  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

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


 * ?? I don't follow.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * search for the words chivato and "useless". The first is unexplained; the second is missing a word... I think you accidentally deleted "handgun" Ling.Nut (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. Actually I accidentally deleted "gun."  Have re-inserted.  I haven't edited the part concerning "chivato."  It's not a word I'm familiar with, in fact.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 10:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Hey do you feel up to tackling the references in this highly derogatory (and according to RedThoreau, highly unreliable) article: ? Whether or not you feel it's doable, you have my thanks for all the work you've already put in. I had even meekly considered doing the same thing is a few cases. I simply was not WP:BOLD enough to make so many changes to an article so far outside my area of (relative) expertise. But good on you!!! Ling.Nut (talk) 10:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Yup, that's clearly a horrible source.  I'd happily delete all references to it.  Meanwhile, I'm a little amused that on the talk page (and its various archives, which I have spent far too long reading) the only point of significant consensus seems to be that Anderson's biography is the gold standard.  I have my doubts.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 10:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, now I understand that you're thinking to incorporate some of the references from that Frontpage article into the WP one. Hmmm.  I don't recognize the names (though I wouldn't necessarily: I'm neither a historian nor a specialist on Cuba), except for Castañeda's, who is the most right-wing of the three mainstream biographers.  But the tone and the venue don't encourage me to follow up the others.  I've left my thoughts on sources on the Che talk page  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Goldenwiki 2.png|70px]] JbMurray ... I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude and compliments on your excellent recent and numerous edits to the article. You have greatly improved the quality and I believe brought the article much closer to retaining FA status. Thank you and nicely done.  [[Image:Smile icon.png|16px]] Red thoreau  (talk Redthoreau 14:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you for the gong! I'm glad you appreciate the effort and do hope that Che's article continues to improve.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 14:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

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

PS Welcome aboard the good ship FAT!

mmm
Thank you! In return, given your healthy obsession with the letter M, here is a treat for you! –Outriggr § 01:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow! I love it!  Thanks so much.  :)  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...
...for the nice surprise on my talk page! That Facundo painting always struck me as looking like it had come from a Wanted poster - quite appropriate really, I suppose ;) Excellent, thanks! EyeSerene talk 20:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you, thank you. And I'm becoming quite fond of old Facundo, I have to say.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

the NPOV-ness of Che Guevara
...saw your comments on A-Team page... Not POV? There are sources (see forex here) that say Guevara bungled things; there are sources that say he was a brilliant, brain of the revolution hero. Which are quoted, and featured prominently? Which are ignored? Ling.Nut (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict:) I see a bit of both on the page. There's a whole section as to why the Bolivian campaign went wrong, for instance.  More generally, there's not much praising him as "brilliant, brain of the revolution hero."  Again, while one could quibble in a number of different ways about the article's portrayal here and there, really POV isn't the problem.  (If you want to see an article with POV issues, look here.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the "Castro's brain" quotation (which seemed to get many worked up; perhaps you too given your reference to "brain of the revolution"?) has now gone. Not in fact that it concerned me all that much.  Anyhow, for more you might look at the edits I did on the article, and my comments on the talk page, too.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

PS do you have access to this source, to verify these numbers: "Guevara himself estimated 1,500 executions, as per Daniel James, ed., The Complete Bolivian Diaries of Che Guevara and Other Captured Documents (Stein and Day, 1968, New York), p. 226." Ling.Nut (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A quick search finds this review of the James book (you have said you have access to JSTOR), which rather complains about James's introduction and (to use the wikpedia term) POV. Moreover, it's a review for the HAHR, which is hardly some left-wing rag.  But frankly I wouldn't trust much of anything written about Guevara in the 60s (or even 70s), except as documentation of historical views of the man.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I don't have that source. And at first sight, it doesn't look like a great one.  NB this is an instance in which the earlier version of the article (before I edited it) was definitely POV, and inaccurate, mostly but not entirely against Guevara.  It was certainly very misleading.  I understand that it was this that was at the center of Jimbo Wales's beef against the article.  But what does he know about Cuba?  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks... The figures for the executions are important (but not the only important thing); if we have a quote from Guevara it is correspondingly important... meanwhile, I have zero-point-zero access to English-language books, outside of Google Books. By the way, if you are really interested in this topic, interested enough to give it a nontrivial amount of time, the book that jumps out at me as appearing very NPOV is Butterfield's The Fall of Che Guevara: A Story of Soldiers, Spies, and Diplomats. Do you have it? Ling.Nut (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made my points about sources on the article talk page. As to that specific book...  the title is a little sensationalistic, but the publisher is OUP.  Looking at a snippet on Google books, it seems fine to me.  What's your concern?  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, I'm finding it hard to understand why you might be worried about that particular book as "very NPOV" in that it is rather deflationary of Guevara, rather against the theories that blame the US for this, that, and everything... in other words, it comes out favouring the position that I understand you to hold.  There's certainly nothing hagiographic about it.  (Read the intro: it's on Google books, as I say.)  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And FWIW, I don't think the executions are particularly important. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) we're getting our nomenclature confused, which is quite natural because i always do that w. respect to POV v. NPOV. I often say "this article is "NPOV" when I mena to say it violates WP:NPOV... so what i mean is.. Anderson does not violate WP:NPOV. His book is neutral; at least from what I've read. He sincerely praises Guevara as a diplomat.. I wish i could read the book... but he seems to be far more neutral about Guevara as a "military genius" (get real!) and as a "saint" (double "get real!"). Anderson seems NPOV in that Anderson seems truly to try to establish facts rather than lamely dribbling the Guevara myth/propaganda (Rhetorical question: Who promotes Guevara? And who is expert at propaganda? Answers are the same.). But I can't swear the whole book is NPOV of course; I can't read the book. [By the way, the fact that a scholar on JSTOR knocks Anderson as being POV-laden is not meaningful unless you know that particular scholar's body of work and can determine whether he or she is also POV-burdened). I'm saying this based on a limited number of looking at Google snippets that have both praise and condemnation.... and other tidbits.. forex, Anderson seems to hint that the Bolivian capture/execution was the communists repaying Che dirt for dirt; he seems to think Guevara's death was far more engineered by the Communists than by the CIA etc. I mean, the Bolivians killed him, but who put him where he could be killed? And who didn't help him enough? That kind of thing... And of course the executions are crucial!!! You assume Guevara killed only.. you know.. a few score thugs from an earlier regime. That would be highly atypical, from a historical viewpoint... What if he were the tool of yet another PolPot/Stalin? That is, "Kill everyone who doesn't like you", that kind of thing. Is that scenario even possible, in your world view? If you do not admit it as a possibility then you are very, very far from being as neutral as you have claimed. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Now I am confused... I didn't realize we were talking about Anderson.  You mentioned Butterfield as a book "that jumps out at [you] as appearing very NPOV."  I replied that it didn't seem so to me, or rather that if it was, it rather deflated the Guevara myth.  (The whole intro is available via Google books, so you should be able to read it, as far as I understand.)  Then you also mentioned James, which I said I had my problems with at first sight, and also mentioned the HAHR review.
 * I mean, we can talk about Anderson's book if you want (which has its problems, too), but it'd help to get things straight.
 * As for the post-Revolutionary executions... Well, almost fifty years have gone by and I think we can say for sure that Guevara wasn't "the tool of yet another PolPot/Stalin."  There's no need for rhetorical questions.  Things are fairly clear.  One can still of course debate the way in which the trials were conducted, but there's no need to over-inflate their importance.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Crap! I meant Butterfield! Ling.Nut (talk) 08:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Still, there is some confusion as the HAHR review (available via JSTOR) was of James's book, not of Butterfield's (or indeed Anderson's).  But again, I feel that once such things are clarified, they become simple enough.  I'd certainly have no problem (at first sight, at least) with Butterfield as a source.  As far as I can see, we're agreed on that.  Which isn't to say that I necessarily would buy everything Butterfield has to say, or that he couldn't be tempered by other sources.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh and FWIW, if you want a comparison, Castro's regime is probably best likened to the East German one, rather than to either Stalinist Russia or the Khmer Rouge's Cambodia. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

GA icon
Yup, Wikipedia at its cutthroat best. FA doesn't like GA; GA doesn't like FA; the hordes hate both;why can't we have more fancruft! In answer to your question about earlier incarnation of this debate...well, it is scattered about in the talk archives of GAN, GA, GAR, FA, and numerous village pump proposals. No need to examine them. The same points have been regurgitated! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm ... disagree that "FA doesn't like GA; GA doesn't like FA" et al, although I'm certainly aware of a couple of people who like to spread that bit of conventional wisdom. In fact, some of them even accuse me of same, with no foundation :-)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My two cents is that the hostility, though formerly both genuine and occasionally intense, has died down somewhat, for a number of reasons&mdash;including the fact that we are all working for the same goal, albeit in different ways. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's because friendships have been forged across processes, and some top-notch edtors are involved in both processes :-) But there are a couple of rabble-rousers who like to stir it up every time these perennial proposals come around from new editors. I stalked Jbmurray's edits and weighed in over there; now the usual folk will claim I hate GA :-)) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't see things as FA vs. GA. But perhaps (not for the first time) I'm being naive.  :)  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're being naive, Jbmurray, but we could have a very long talk about how neither your FA nor your GA experiences have been typical of what most articles go through on the path to FA or GA, because you were so well "accessorized" by some of Wiki's most experienced editors. I hope you understand how unusual your extremely smooth sailing FACs were (in spite of one blogger who didn't realize that :-) and your generally good GA reviews were, and don't extend your experiences to the broader population.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

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

goof special
Thanks. Tony  (talk)  09:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Double thanks; that will help take the load off of Tony :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, no problem. I did after all try to add to his load elsewhere.  ;)  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Very nice little article now. I fretted and scrambled all morning when the planned Dispatch authors for the 28th had to back out, but now I'll sleep well tonight, with the Dispatch almost put to bed. Tony is big on adding screenshots to illustrate the Dispatches, so maybe he'll do that. Thanks again (and even more, thanks for freeing up Tony's time, too), 'night! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 07:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, you're too kind. I'll try to do a little more on it, then off to bed myself...  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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


 * Jb, can I also make a small suggestion? If you want editors to follow through on your suggestions, I would put them on a talk page or somewhere more visible than an edit summary. I'm looking at over 50 changes in the last few days on Boydell. It's hard to sort through all of that to find your summaries with the suggestions. I just want people to see your helpful comments! Awadewit (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, gotcha, and apologies. I just hope to be a little less intrusive that way.  NB I'm still not sure about the "Easter egg" link to Richard III the play rather (as one would imagine) either the character or the historical figure.  But so it goes.  I hope to get back to this later tonight, though I see that the unpronounceable has done a grand job on it.  Though do we still have "productions of them" in there?  Not that I could come up with an alternative...  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * He was Richard III in that play. There isn't a link to the character and I think a link to the historical personage would be very misleading. He played Shakespeare's Richard III - very different. :) (I couldn't come up with an alternative yet, either. Still thinking.) Awadewit (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Duck Soup
I would very much like to thank you for helping cleanup the Duck Soup article. Your contributions are much appreciated! :-) Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs  •  critique) 21:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No probs. I was going to do a GA review, but don't have that much time.  Good luck with the article!  --jbmurray (talk•contribs) 21:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Caps at FAC
Hey, Jb, that bar ("|") in your sig is still bombing out caps at FAC. Can I please entice you to edit your preferences and remove the bar? I capped Ottava Rima's comments on Awadewit's FAC, but I had to remove the bar from your sig. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How's this? I can experiment a little more...  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Beautiful; thanks, Jb ! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And by the way, I just ran through FAC and see that you've engaged some of the FACs that really need attention; can't tell you how much that is appreciated :-)) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Wikis in the classroom
Hello Jbmurray,

I wanted to thank you for the post you made on: Making Wikis Work for Scholars http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/04/28/wiki which alerted me to your work on The WP. I've only skimmed through your projects at the moment but I look forward to reading through them over time. Glad to see you (and your students) here. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Madness, Murder, and Mayhem
Great idea. I salute you, Jon, in helping to improve Wikipedia's content. I wish my professors would do these things, seeing as I spend many hours a week editing Wikipedia as it is. Note: I actually tried to post this here, but it's not allowing comments.  Enigma  message 23:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And thanks to you! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Very impressive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

05 May 2008
Monday will have to be a Wikipedia day for you when El Señor Presidente goes to the main page. It can be a 24 hour free-for-all :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, will do. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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


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


 * Indeed, though in this case the problem isn't the absence of the FA-Team. It's much more fundamental than that.  I'm trying to write up something that will address such issues, at User:Jbmurray/Advice.  In fact, I'm just getting to that part where I will strongly recommend not doing what this guy has done.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you're on it, because I lost a lot of time (and grew some grey hairs) over a prof just like that last year ... and I could never even track down the elusive prof or school :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, of course, like anyone will listen to me. But one can but try.  I'm also trying to train up the EduTech folks.  We'll see.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, an abbreviated version of my take on the matter is here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Thank you for your work at FAC during April
Congratulations and THANK YOU for becoming such a valuable FAC reviewer in such a short time. Of the top 10 reviewers by quality in April, you are the newest to the job! As an FA-Team member, I'm thrilled that you've maintained an interested in FAC and as an FAC reviewer, I'm thrilled to have quality help! :) Karanacs (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What Karanacs said. :-) I've been lurking a few of your edits, and am thrilled to see the quality of your contributions. Sorry if we don't see eye to eye (or eye to elbow) on Che; hope to work with you on other issues in the future! Ling.Nut (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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