User talk:Jbmurray/Archive 9

The Stalker's Words
Here's a real-world sample adapted: I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of this work.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

hi
hi john i'm having a hard time understanding this quote "the strategies described in post-colonial theory as 'counter-discourse' to engage and deconstruct the oppressive cultural narratives that are a legacy of Mexican America's colonial past".[20] i want to put it in my own words for now i just took it out of the text. oh and thanks for the link on how to paraphrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaoaks (talk • contribs) 04:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Where does that come from? I can't see it in the text.  And you'd have to go back to the source, of course, to understand fully what the author is trying to say: we don't even have a full sentence here.  What is that source? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

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


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


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

Double TFA Dispatch
Are you interested in writing it? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I can help, at least, perhaps by starting and providing structure. I didn't follow all the ins and outs of the debate... not that that's necessary, in any case.  What's the deadline?  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Deadlines are ... difficult ... to understand with the Signpost. They haven't published Oct 20 or Oct 27 yet ... ????  So at least a week out, probably more.  Let's put it at WP:FCDW/ElectionTFA.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


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


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

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

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


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


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

Mario Vargas Llosa pictures
Re: this - if you want, you can forward me the email with the pics. I can probably fix the problem. Raul654 (talk) 07:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You have mail. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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


 * Hi. You can always recreate the page if you wish to nominate in accordance with the FAR instructions.  As for the reasons for the three-day rule, see the talk page of the article you were nominating, specifically SandyGeorgia's comment: "Yes, you can send it to FAR: the WP:FAR instructions require a three-day wait after mainpage date for good reason. Editors tend to jump the gun and nominate the TFA at FAR the minute it appears, when deficiencies are often cleaned up by three days after the maindate, so a FAR isn't needed. And driveby editors, who don't know FA standards, nominate articles at FAR because "they don't like them". If the issues aren't addressed in three days, then you can bring it to FAR. A stint on the mainpage often results in dramatic improvement (like Jbmurray's copyedit)."  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I usually tend to navigate away from "the world of FA", but this article was something that really stroke me as a "bad publicity" for the project and that was not worthy to represent the best for on Wikipedia. Best luck! — Do U(knome)?  yes...or no 10:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


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

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


 * Nancy, I would love to help out. And I should say that all that is past is past.  As I have said before, I have been in awe of your perseverance and sheer hard work on this article.  I do think that there are still some problems with it, but they are far from insuperable.  I am, however, too horribly busy to feel I can commit much time.  But I will do what I can.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I look forward to your help. Ealdgyth and Awadewit both said they were busy right now too but would attend to the article in a couple of weeks. I was going to submit it for peer review maybe by the end of the month and it would be really nice to have all three of you comment on the peer review for us - but don't feel as if you have to wait around for that to happen. Jump in whenever it suits you. Thanks.  Nancy Heise    talk  03:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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


 * Mike, either would be magnificent! There's no rush reviewing at GA right now...  the articles still have some way to go, though they are on the cusp.  Today is the deadline I set them, but I've told them they'll have to continue working before, during, and after any review.  Meanwhile, if you want to adopt an article: this is quite a simple one; this is more complex.
 * On other fronts, I know you had your own irons in the fire. I'd love to help out, though my knowledge is zilch.  However, it's a place I mean to visit before long!  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I just finished with Julia Alvarez, which was more exhausting than I expected. I will try to get to another GA but it won't be as soon as I hoped.  On Guyana, I did manage to get an editor at Talk:History of Guyana to give me some pointers to history references that are worth looking at, so I may be in luck there.  It seems the place is not well covered because it's not Latin America; it seems to be treated as part of the Caribbean instead. Mike Christie (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the Alvarez review. Much appreciated!  Yes, indeed, Guyana is not usually considered part of Latin America.  Indeed, I've only ever read one book on the place, for a course, which was also the only time that I have ever had to encounter it in an academic context.  (These things are changing, however.)  FWIW, the book was this one.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Oops
Sorry Jon, just edit-conflicted with you on Sandra Cisneros. It was only the Early life and education section, and I don't think I've mucked up any of your fixes, but you might need to check... EyeSerene talk 09:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. No harm done, I think.  You're doing much more important work.  I'm just fiddling with references.  I think I'll leave you to it, though I'm gonna stick it in for GAN on behalf of the studes.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


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

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

Edits
Hey Jon, I made some edits right after we received some suggestions for our Good Article, and I'm pretty sure they either got undone or deleted. Again, not totally familiar with Wikipedia, but is there anywhere I can see a record of undone edits? I just don't see why they would've gotten deleted. Thanks! Kyalkin (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC) kyalkin

Sandra Cisneros
Apologies, more edit conflicts :P I was wondering what you thought of my advice to remove the book summaries from the list of works, and discuss them where relevant in the Themes etc section. I'm sure you're aware that literary articles are not really my forte, so I'd be very grateful if you could pull me up if you think I'm heading in the wrong direction... EyeSerene talk 09:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. But that's what we have right now, no?  Or am I missing something.
 * In general, I quite like a short paragraph or two on each of the major works an author. I know that Awadewit is less convinced.  And at least this time around, it seems that the studes have been persuaded against that approach.  Our one current exception is María Ruiz de Burton.
 * On Sandra Cisneros, one of the team members (Valerie voikin) was keen to put in such paragraphs; I joined in on warning her off both because it was a little late and because she wasn't really drawing on good sources.
 * But again, in theory at least, personally I think it's a good idea. It's a fight I may take up with Awadewit one of these days ;).  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As you say, we did have summaries at one point but don't now... partly I suspect due to my comments. I just wasn't sure I'd given the best advice - and if Valerie is keen to have them, I'd hate to think I've put a dampener on things. I'm not going to argue with Awadewit's advice on literary articles though, so I suppose the best thing to do is try to get through GA under the current format and see where we go from there.
 * Regarding GA, as I've been copyediting I seem to have been inserting a awful lot of fact tags. I hope this isn't too demoralising for your students, and if you think I'm being too picky I have no problem with you taking some back out ;) EyeSerene talk 11:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Virtual cage match. :) Awadewit (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories
Hi Jon! We had a question for the citation needed in our style section. The sentence is: "Additionally, the technique of interior monologue dominates the story Never marry a Mexican." Esmeralda had wrote this using common sense. Would you suggest that we find a source, keep it without citation, or remove it if we are unable to do either? --Katie322 (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Different people take different approaches to this. Some articles on Wikipedia are, in my view, over-cited.  In this case, it might help if you used a less loaded word than "dominates."  You might say something like "Additionally, "Never Marry a Mexican" is characterized by the consistent use of interior monologue."  This is then phrased more neutrally, and is more obviously a simple description.  Do you see?  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Rivera article
Hi Jon, I worked hard on the article today but still have a ways to go. I am off to work but will hopefully finish it after my shift so it can be submitted tomorrow. Thanks so much for your help and patience. (Trowan (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC))

Consensus@Gadsby
Hello,

There is an awful lot of discussion about consensus at talk:Gadsby: Champion of Youth, I was wondering if you would comment on it. Cheers

Synchronism (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting extra credit assignment?
I want to give my students an extra credit assignment revolving around copyediting. I wondered what you thought of me giving them the list of the NRG articles as fodder. :) Awadewit (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that's a marvellous idea! My only suggestion would be that they also drop a note on the talk page to explain what they're doing: that way, too, a bit of solidarity might emerge!  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent! I will write the assignment this weekend. Awadewit (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a fantastic idea! My only slight concern is that we must be careful not to overwhelm the NRG students - I'm currently copyediting Sandra Cisneros, and the students appear to have gone underground. I'm a little worried that I've contributed to this by leaving an ever-growing list of questions and comments on the talk page, and I'd hate that to be magnified. EyeSerene talk 21:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) I'm about to see the kids, and will make sure they resurface! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As it is extra credit, there won't be a sea of students doing it. I usually only have about three to five students who take me up on my offer of extra credit. Awadewit (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Lol, OK. Incidentally Awadewit, if you get more take-ups I've got a copyedit backlog on my user-page that isn't getting any shorter... ;) EyeSerene talk 21:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Those bloody Harvnbs
Jbmurray, there's something at Major depressive disorder where the Harvnbs are being put off by the spaces in American Psychiatric Association. If you don't mind lending a hand, see Talk:Major depressive disorder. When I tested by adding underscores (American_Psychiatric_Association) the error went away, but since we don't want underscores in the refs, I'm not sure what the workaround is. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Great essay
Despite our (fairly minor?) creative differences over Gadsby and lipograms in Wikipedia article space, I'm pleased that our interaction has led me to your brilliant essay at User:Jbmurray/Madness. Thanks for the extensive write-up of your foray into teaching with Wikipedia! Not only is your essay insightful, it has given me some ideas to mull over for future writing courses. -Phoenixrod (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this. I'm glad you found the essay interesting/useful.
 * Meanwhile, as it happens, I feel that you and I are perhaps more on the same wavelength than many on that talk page. Mind you, I'm trying to steer clear on the whole.  When I get some time to read a little more of the book, I hope to develop the article somewhat.
 * And so you teach writing? One frustration I have on the Gadsby talk page is that few people seem to realize the point of such constrained writing.  It's not to write badly (of course); as I understand it, at least, it's to make you think much more about your writing and word choice.  It's like practising swimming with one arm behind your back: if you can make your way through the water with such a constraint, imagine what you can do when the constraint is lifted!
 * Anyhow, this is one of the reasons I like the idea of writing a lipogrammatic article. It's an interesting exercise in self-reflexive, thoughtful writing.  When it's done well, of course.  (As I've said many times, at present it's not done particularly well.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Reception history of Jane Austen
Jb, whenever you have a free moment (!), would you mind casting your critical, copyediting eye over Reception history of Jane Austen? We are trying to put this article through the wringer before FAC, before the attack of the killer Janeites. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for NRG articles
I would not combine notes in an article until it is much more developed. I am "breaking" lots of notes as I edit the NRG articles because I am removing information (thank god for the new bot!). I'm not really a fan of combined notes anyway, since they can be so easily broken, but if we have to use them, I suggest we at least wait until we are much further along in the drafting process. :) Awadewit (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I really must ask...
How am I supposed to believe that you are not stalking my edits at Gadsby? Every edit I've made, including ones that support your point of view, have been reverted or corrected (with Bad Faith comments no less). You pressure me to improve the article and then revert, or at least "correct" any edits I make. What do you want from me? To leave the article altogether? Fine. You win. I'm gone. Padillah (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm rather confused. If you're referring to this, you'll note I wasn't reverting your edit.  I do marginally disagree with your edit (that section *is* in fact a Bibliography), but I've given up doing anything about your contributions precisely because, as here, all I get is grief and stalking.  Please stop!  Many thanks.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Longer term Dispatch
Awadewit suggested a Dispatch covering featured content on other language Wikis. I roughed in some pieces at FCDW/OtherWikis, and we'll try to round up other languages. There is no hurry, this isn't going anywhere soon (need other languages before we write it), but if you get a chance to glance at the Spanish part there ... I can't decipher how TFA is chosen. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Good Article!!
Hey Jon, our group was accepted for good article status! Hooray!! Anyways I added it to the good article section under "articles and groups" on the North of the Rio Grande page...hope that's ok..I was really excited! --Jacqui Nicole (talk) 07:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yay! Marvellous news!  No problem at all your updating our project page.  That's the spirit!  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well done!! EyeSerene talk 09:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Markup issue?
I've noticed that when clicking on the linked cite in the notes section on Sandra Cisneros, instead of jumping to the reference it collapses the refs section. I've no idea why this is happening, and was wondering if you'd seen it before... EyeSerene talk 09:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. The ones in the first column seem to work.  But then at some point they get wonky.  Not sure why... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, changing from three to two columns in the notes seems to have done the trick. Why?  How?  Haven't got the foggiest.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Damn templates. I'd blame Gguy, just on general principles (unless he's watching this page, in which case it's probably a browser issue) EyeSerene talk 08:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Three columns don't cause a problem on my browser (firefox on linux) either in the page history, or the preview window. Are you relying on software written by Mr. Gates? Geometry guy 20:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, Firefox 3 (although on Vista). I'm using an earlier version of Ff at work though, so maybe that was it. Strange. EyeSerene talk 21:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Nevado PR
Could you give me some more help? Possibly a lot more... ;) &mdash;Ceran  ♦ (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar thank-you!
Hi Jon! Thanks for the Literary Barnstar Award! I've been seeing these awards on other editors' user pages and it's great to have one for myself now :) As for the feature article, I think that I need to focus on exams and essays now (as Wikipedia has been forefront for a while!), but we still have until May for that little contest with the biology class right?  I think I may be hooked enough on wikipedia that I'll be adding a bit to the article even without the spanish 322 class! :)  There isn't any sort of timeline for feature article is there (as there was for DYK and some GA reviews)? Could I submit the article to peer review and then slowly pick it up from there? --Katie322 (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotection
Hey Jbm, now that the students are used to Wikipedia and very active on their articles, could you consider removing semiprotection? It isn't in the spirit of Wikipedia to protect a page for so long because it is part of an educational project, and a bit of vandalism might actually increase the community feeling of looking after the articles and making them better. Geometry guy 22:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, no problem. I did note originally that for some reason Cisneros and Alvarez (I think) seemed to attract more than their fair share of IP vandalism.  But yup, I think the students can deal with it now.
 * Meanwhile, I've been distracted by other things recently. Time to get back into it and move some of these articles along.  I note that you've been doing a lot, for which many thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - so far so good. If vandalism levels rise again, we can always semiprotect for short spells. Geometry guy 18:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

AP Biology Project
Greetings


 * Several students are dropping my class and thus I've given them an out on the Wikipedia Project. Unfortunately - they have already submitted their articles for peer review - even the ones that did the bare minimum. I intend to delete them from the Wiki-Project page; however, I did not want their articles hanging out there for anyone to invest the time reviewing. My question being--- how do you cancel a peer review request? Also is it ok to delete the project banner at the top of the articles discussion page. Of course, I will contact their mentors. However - if they should suddenly disappear - this would be why.


 * This was the first time I had a class of predominantly 10th graders. Many were in way over their heads. On the upside - it will be much more rewarding for all with a smaller and more dedicated group. There are a few more in the wings that will light it up. --JimmyButler (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is super OK to delete the project banner on talk pages if no longer appropriate. Deleting peer review requests is fairly straight forward. I'll do it. Condolences on the scholastic attrition. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I closed the peer review on the 'knee' article. The other peer review was closed by another admin. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing to this Wassup! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church
Dear JB, Sandy left a message for me on my talk page suggesting perhaps directly involving just those editors who offered to help instead of doing another peer review. At your convenience, please feel free to post any suggestions on the RCC talk page or just be bold and make some edits. I will go through and make sure any rewordings still match the sources. Ealdgyth, Awadewit and Marskell also offered to help so this message is going on their page too. There is really no hurry here so please - stop by at your convenience. FYI, Oppose summaries are at and User:Marskell/RCC. Thanks.  Nancy Heise    talk  19:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Come back to the PR...
Could you revisit Nevado del Ruiz's PR? I think we've improved greatly, and we're moving on to copy editing, so more feedback would be appreciated. Thanks, &mdash; Ceran  ♦ ♦ ( speak) 19:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

When are your grades due?
Jb, how long can we keep the GAs on hold - when do our final decisions need to be made? I don't mind keeping GAs on hold when editors are working on the article, but I know you need to calculate grades at some point. Awadewit (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Grades are not due for a while: December 18th. I've been more out of the loop than I hoped over the past week or so: a perfect storm of travel and upcoming deadline for final delivery of manuscript.  I will work on some chivvying.  Some of these articles are close, and I'm hoping they can be sewn up very shortly.  Then we can concentrate on the ones that still have a ways to go. Thanks so much for your help and your patience.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)