User talk:Jbmurray/Archive 4

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Oh, I agree. See my comments on the ANI thread. I'm going for a positive reinforcement method on the class page right now. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Come on... I'm no tinfoil hatter. It just seems like one of those sorts of experiments where it appears to the subjects that you're testing for A, but in reality, you're simply measuring B, where B is the reaction to the premises presented in A. Like... filling out a questionaire about animal rights while they observe how you react to interviewers of differing skin color, wardrobe, scent, accent, or some other quality. ThuranX (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Almost, I said... almost. More likely cock-up. But there are some odd aspects, and I do think that the professor's non-response (I also emailed him today) is particularly strange. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think your rare exceptions are not so rare when it comes to editing on week-days! I think it is time to take the test: see Wikipedia:Wikipediholism test. Note, I'm supposed to be spending more outdoor time...and yet here I am wiki-stalking you for no useful purpose at all! Have a good summer doing something else, I'm heading out for a run :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha, indeed! I've been sucked back in. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Since I keep seeing your work over the trainwreck. Is it just me, or does no one seem to be even glancing at the sign? I'm willing to be believe that students tend not to read the directions, but you think they'd notice once have of the links turn red. (Which makes me wonder how, or even if, this class is being graded). It's not that we haven't gotten any good work out of the class, but just that it's such a low proportion.

It's almost tempted to wait until this whole thing is over, then keep the class page around as a warning on the importance of properly preparing one's students. (Or at the very least writing a comparison essay between this and WP:MMM). --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's taking the slightest notice of the sign. It truly is very strange, if you ask me.

It could be a case study in how not to do things.

I blanked the page, to try to make those who came by wake up. Sadly (I think), someone reverted. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's at least some that are decent. (I seem to recall that at least one of the students did some editing after the initial upload). But I still think that the prof needs to trouted. --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As a proportion, for all the effort that people are going to (that magnificent table!), it's hardly encouraging. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Concur. And as far as deleting the ones in userspace - I agree, although I don't see any huge rush. --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

i am sorry. i was confused. i am currently working with seven tabs open. sorry for reverting your edits. Sushant gupta (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Close a few tabs!  ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

actually i love editing while listening music. so two tabs are reserved for youtube and rest for fighting vandalism. anyway, thanks for your suggestion. Happy editing. Sushant gupta (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the pointers on print sources. --Kakofonous (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Good luck. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you can help me with a problem I'm having with using {{Harvard citation no brackets}}, as I believe you've used it quite a lot with WP:MMM articles: Is there a way to make it link to a book in the references section without using {{citation}}? The reason I ask this is that I need more parameters for a complete citation than that template will provide, but have not managed to get {{cite book}} to behave properly in this situation. As implied by the question, I have found some useful literature for expansion, the biggest asset being Caetano Veloso's autobiography. Thanks for the help again. --Kakofonous (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, you have to use the "citation" template if you want use "Harvnb" and have the citation link to the book itself. On the other hand, I normally find that I can twist "citation" to do more or less what I want. Can you give an example? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I spoke too soon. I got citation to do what I wanted, just had to use the old brain cells. --Kakofonous (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything more you might be able to say at the FAC with regards to comprehensiveness, as I've now added information from books? (Acer is also working on the Portuguese sources, see here.) I recognize that there still may be areas in which more information is needed, and if gaping holes are still there, in my mind the best thing to do is withdraw for now, rather than prolong something for no good reason. --Kakofonous (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Just had a quick look in, and you guys are going great guns. I realize you're still working on this, so will wait to comment shortly. But well done! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the citation now has a problem; it's mixing citation with citet, resulting in inconsistent citation style and contravening WP:CITE#Citation styles. Again, I would argue against this completely unneeded use of the Harvnb's as the quickest way to solve this. If you all want, I'll go in and fix it; it's very simple. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noted that they would have to choose. I'm a big fan of "citation" plus "Harvnb," as I guess you know. But it's not my call. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If he goes that way, he has to switch them all; if he wants me to fix it, it's a 5-minute fix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I know. I'm not going to put any pressure on him either way. But I've just turned ¡Qué viva México! into a Harvnb zone; admittedly there are (at present) far fewer references there. Anyhow, I'm enough of a believer that I'd help out if he wants to go the "citation" route. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll convert you soon enough :-) After two years of cleaning up citations at FAR, you'll see the need for using the easiest possible methods :-) It helps to realize that half of our beautiful FAs today will be at FAR tomorrow, and saving them is boatloads of work ... easy-peasy citations is the way to go, and harvnb is not. All he has to do is add Author (date), p. x. in ref tags on those repeat book sources, done. Spend some time saving articles at FAR and You Will See the Light :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. For now I'm holding to the Harvnb faith! Blame Gguy.  ;) Meanwhile, the RfA is going shockingly well. I'm relying on Wassup to oppose, however; I have half thought about dropping a note on his talk page telling him to.  ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sin comentario. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Guess you wont be needing wassup after all... (talk about holding a grudge) Acer (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Well, Wassup must be out exercising in the Vancouver sunshine still; in the end I did give him a nudge in case he wanted to oppose! Ach, it takes alls sorts, eh? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I read your upcoming article "Featured content from schools and universities" in the upcoming Wikipedia Signpost. I am concerned about the balance of the DYK hooks if a class were to propose a large number of DYK hooks at the same time on a single topic. You don't need to state that in your article, but it's something for you to think about if you are involved with planning any classes. Royalbroil 03:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for this. In my case, at least, in that I ask student to work in groups, it probably wouldn't mean much of an increase in DYK articles. But thanks for the heads up. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Royalbroil 14:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, I was wondering if you could help with an article I'm working on? I've taken Dirty Dancing through two peer reviews, GA status, a rejected FA nom, and literally scores of hours of work, but no matter how much time I put into it or who I've asked to look at it, the FA reviewers keep saying "not good enough". I'd still really like to get it to FA, especially before Patrick Swayze dies.  :/ If you have time, could you take a look at it and see what magic you could do, to make it more "wiki"? Thanks, Elonka 14:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy to. I'm trying not to edit during the week (today's a bit of an exception as an FA I was involved with is on the main page), so will get to this at the weekend. I can see plenty of room for improvement, and would be pleased to do my bit. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just spent some time with the article, and started some preliminary copy-editing. The prose is indeed awkward too often. But I'd say the main problem is with the sources. There are some reliable sources mentioned in "Further reading," but they aren't used in the article itself. This fact prompted me to do some very initial research into what else might be written about the film, and I found that there's plenty. I've left some notes on the talk page. At present, the sources are not very good (The E! True Hollywood Story figures rather highly!), and overall the article reads like a fansite. Before undertaking much more in the way of copy-editing, the content itself needs to be significantly upgraded. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, I look forward to seeing what improvements that you come up with. --Elonka 20:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, as I say above I feel I've done what I can for now. Yes, the article could be copy-editing further, but of more concern is the sourcing. Once you have seen to that, and I've given you a whole number of suggestions on the talk page for where to start, then do get back in touch. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's right, you're the prof who organized the class project. Okay, I understand where you're coming from now. Sorry, I thought you were going to do something different than what I was expecting. Sorry to bother you. --Elonka 21:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I'm not sure what being a prof has to do with it! Anyhow, I'm not sure what you were expecting. You asked about doing "magic" on the article, to make it "more 'wiki'," and as I've said I don't think it's a question of magic, but of a bit of legwork: going to a library, checking out books, improving the sources. That's all. Again, once you've done that, feel free to get back in touch. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) In fact, I don't think there was any miscommunication, then. I had thought you wanted copy-editing, and made a start before I saw the problems with the sources. I then spent some time starting on tracking some sources down for you, and have made a number of comments on the article talk page. For me, those problems easily trump problems with prose (as I've said). I realize you want this to go to FA, so I figure I would help copy-editing at a later, more appropriate, stage. If you don't want that help, then no problem, either! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And now I've responded at more length on the article talk page, which is where this discussion really belongs, in case someone wants to follow up my suggestions and improve the article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• (undent) This seems like a good slot for me to insert yet another slavishly grateful expression of thanks for your help with Che. Good work. Cheers! Ling.Nut (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In case you needed another article to attend to ;) ¡Qué viva México!‎ would benefit from your knowledge of Latin America, excellent writing, and editing talent. I'll be at the library researching for it tomorrow, and sourcing an anon's contributions- so expect it to be changing over the next few days, to meet DYK standards by May 10th. I had intended to focus on the Eisenstein article but got sidetracked trying to get this article on the main page as a DYK on Cinco de Mayo which failed. Any advice from you or contributions by you would be greatly appreciated, time and interest permitting. Regards, dvdrw 04:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to help with that, because it's an area of interest on many levels: Latin American, film, and in fact directly related to a research interest of mine. On the other hand, I'm trying to stick to my resolution to edit on weekends only (today being an exception because El Señor Presidente was on the main page). So if you can wait until Friday, and are happy with my being a bit off and on, then dandy. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good. Stick to your resolution, sorry to bother you with this but I just had to ask. Hopefully by Friday I'll have what is there with plenty of inline cites, and have uploaded some screenshots. You can then comment, copyedit, write more, or none of the above depending on your wishes. Thanks, dvdrw 05:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good. Stick to your resolution, sorry to bother you with this but I just had to ask. Hopefully by Friday I'll have what is there with plenty of inline cites, and have uploaded some screenshots. You can then comment, copyedit, write more, or none of the above depending on your wishes. Thanks, dvdrw 05:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Grand. FWIW, if you want to know some of what I think of the film (not a reliable source, natch), see here. Will check back on Friday. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking a look and editing a bit. Please reply on Talk:Sergei Eisenstein‎ or Talk:¡Qué viva México! when you get a chance. Thanks, dvdrw 21:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

So, how did you and your students (well, ex-students) fancy their day on the main page? Raul654 (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't got to speak to my students (who have mostly dispersed for the summer), though I found it fabulous, once I realized that the day started at 5pm not 4pm my day, heh. In fact, around midnight I was with some friends, after some beverages had been consumed, and one of them got out a guitar, and started making up a song about Wikipedia to celebrate; we all joined in with various bits of percussion. Heh. Anyhow, many thanks for all your encouragement. Oh, and I was on the phone with a report for AFP earlier on today, so something may come out of that, I don't know... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your latest points at the FAC. I must admit, I am getting a bit frustrated. I do not think that it is the appropriate venue for this particular article to delve into New Age, Erhard Seminars Training, and the 1970s, beyond the brief background that is already present in the article - the appropriate venue for that is those other articles. To be asked/expected to bring in other sources which have nothing to do with discussion of this book itself, in order to provide context which is getting way too general and does not deal with this book - is really too much.

I appreciate and thank you for acknowledging that I have scoured many many archival databases in searches for more sources that deal with this book. I also appreciate and thank you for acknowledging that I have worked quite hard to address many of your points from before the FAC discussion was restarted. But I personally feel that adding historical disscussion and analysis of the time period in which this book existed is a bit much. I respectfully ask you to reconsider your position. Cirt (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Cirt, as you see, I did not oppose. And the article passed. Congratulations! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The answer may be here, although I don't see where that page specifically mentions the language template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Following on that accessibility issue, I just did a lot of cleanup at J. R. R. Tolkien, but I don't speak literature; is this article good enough to avoid WP:FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out at GAR. It is a really important part of the GA process, and really works if enough reviewers contribute. Geometry guy 21:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No probs. I figured I'd lend a hand, at least editing the pages if not necessarily commenting. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey JB, did you ever hear back from MVLL's administrator? PS: take a look at The Presidents view count if you havent yet, quite something eh? Acer (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, didn't write back yet. Will do. Will also check out the view count. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

We need an image license, not just 'self-made'. Please take a look here and choose an appropriate license. :) asenine ^{say what?} 05:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I see you have chosen a license. That license should be absolutely fine. asenine ^{say what?} 05:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey there JB, if nobody else does so first, I'll be happy to take a look at your edits... but it won't be until next week.Balloonman (talk) 06:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jb, I just created a nom for you. Assuming you are interested, you might want to let Sandy know as she indicated that she wouldn't mind being your co-nom. I think you would make a great admin. A couple of things to think about before running. First, you might want to read my essay, How to pass an RfA. Second, don't transclude your nom unless you are ready to watch the page for the next 2-4 hours---Eg transclude at the start of your editing session, not shortly before going to bed. Third, I saw that you said that you are only editing on weekends right now. That might make it more challenging as you won't be able to answer questions/concerns. If that is the case, I would suggest holding off your nom until the start of the weekend. 80% of the !votes occur during the first 48 hours of a nom and you really need to be available to address questions/concerns during that time period. Ideally, you would be able to check the RfA at least once a day.Balloonman (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Jb, please let me know if you'd like a co-nom. I'd be happy to ! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

D'oh, my talk page is a busy place, I missed your message :-) OK, shall I add on my blurb to the RfA Balloonman started? Say the word, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, but what the heck:) 'Twould be marvellous! Many thanks1 I can't say I know the technical details required, but figure I'm in good hands here. Not that that guarantees success, I'm quite aware... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK :-) I'll work on my blurb. You're not nominated yet though; you have to finish the paperwork, then sign and date, then transclude it. It's very important to get that part right, or it can set things off on the wrong foot. You can't have anyone sign it before it's transcluded, and you have to be very careful about even the appearance of canvassing. I'd advise letting Balloonman know when it's ready to transclude, as he'll know the ins and outs. I will work up my blurb in sandbox for you to look at before I add to the RfA. Watch User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, no rush. And again, many thanks! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, how's my sandbox? If there's nothing "off" I'll add it in, and the you can ask someone how to sign and transclude. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It's very generous. What more can I say?! Many thanks! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The only thing would be perhaps to tone down your most recent tweak. How about "for an editor who did not fully appreciate the help and advice he offered." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, good ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Magnificent. Again, many thanks! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Great. Have fun ! Now for my beauty sleep ... I need it :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You know you have to transclude it to RfA, right?  :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Now, fingers crossed. And sleep tight! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Might be wise to take the busy sign off your talk page :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, now that you're becoming an Admin, it will be me who will be turning to you for help, not the other way around! :D Acer (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello there. I addressed some of your comments during its FAC and can you please re-visit the article review it again? thank you. --Efe (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry I took a while getting back to you, but I did just do some copy-editing. I think the article is a little uneven: some sections are absolutely fine; in others, I found a number of awkward phrases and even grammatical mistakes. Good luck as you continue to work on it! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi I really like the idea of your advice page, and I'd like to personally thank and congratulate you for the success you have had in helping your students contribute to Wikipedia. I've spent a number of years here at Wikipedia working with the WP:FAC process and it's great to see you are still helping. One thing I did want to note that I think I've seen you say but that your advice page doesn't currently highlight is the content that students add should match up with what Wikipedia's goals are. I know you link to the 5 pillars and so forth, but behavior and the other issues are rarely a problem. The problem with other projects comes in because most professors when you boil it down either don't get that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia or don't get what an encyclopedia is. As bad as that sounds it's true and as a result they don't understand the core content policies like No original research and Verifiability and instead encourage their students to add essays and other non encyclopedic material. At the core the biggest reason your project worked in improving Wikipedia is that you knew what type of content was appropriate and communicated that to your students and most other projects don't seem to. Of course that took planning on your part as does any good educational project, but I think it was that one facet of the planning that made the big difference. And you do include that in your advice, but as I mentioned I think it should be highlighted. (also perhaps more clearly than I have written it here!). Finally I also like to keep conversations intact, so no need to copy your response to my talk page, I'll follow this here. Thanks for your contributions and your teaching efforts. - Taxman ^Talk 13:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Taxman, thanks for this. Yup, that essay still needs significant work, and I hope to get back to it again before long. I'd certainly be pleased to receive more feedback once it's more developed. I certainly agree with your points here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess the real problem is those things do need to occur in the planning stage of an assignment, so if they haven't it's mostly too late. Though the advice can still be valuable especially if people see it as they are considering a Wikipedia assignment which I think will only be more and more common. If you want, let me know after you've worked on it and I can see if I can add any suggestions. - Taxman ^Talk 20:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can't tell I'm very intrigued by your project and how to make sure more of them go well. College and University participation is an untapped resource to make a severe understatement. Not only is it a good example of a challenging and relevant student task, but everyone benefits through the end product. So I've got another idea on the planning stage, to build off of this. Perhaps this had already occurred to you, but you noted the late stage that much of the students' work started so I thought of ideas to address that. Identifying what items were the sticking points and moving those into earlier required checkpoints should help. For example research is one of the most important factors in success in writing a good Wikipedia article. Perhaps if you make a research target to have 5-10 sources on their proposed subject very early in the process (and something showing they have dug into them) and another batch later on, that would move things along more smoothly. That way they have more to go on with their planning and some of the hardest work is front loaded. Students always hate that all the big projects are at the end of the semester. But that research very early will also make it easier to plan their article (knowing what are the most important subheadings of an article is basically impossible without having done good research for example). Then of course the things like early required rough drafts (even in the form of a diff perhaps) would help. A further idea is that this whole project and it's planning could be generalized into a Wikiversity module as a lesson planning resource. That part certainly doesn't have to be something you bite off. Anyway just some thoughts. Make sure to tell me when you don't want any more random unsolicited advice! - Taxman ^Talk 17:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't replied to this earlier. But your advice is very sound. I do hope to write up my little "Advice" essay soon, though it's sadly been thrown on the back burner right now. Still, I just got a note from a professor from my former university (one of the most distinguished people in her field) saying she'd seen my stuff and was planning to do something similar. So I feel some kind of responsibility! I'll definitely be back in touch with you on this stuff, and am very gratified by your interest. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I should have asked this a while ago. How did your students react to getting their articles featured? I jumped up and whooped at my first, and at TKaM. Did they take it all in stride, or were they all excited? Inquiring minds want to know. --Moni3 (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

They were definitely excited. What I don't know if how team El Señor Presidente reacted to their 24 hours on the main page, as by then they'd dispersed for the summer. But I know that I was thrilled! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Best of luck on your RFA -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 09:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you!  :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to congratulate (I don't think you need luck at this stage!) you on what appears is going to be a whitewash nomination in your ongoing RfA. It's not often that this happens and when it does, you know you've discovered someone who will make an excellent administrator. This is further proven by your excellent capabilities as an editor. Congratulations once again! Good luck and happy editing. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 11:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I still have my fingers crossed, rather than tempting fate. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you (sort of) know me and I've heard of you.

Anyway, I see you've been talking to press now? Interesting (especially that sly reference to that horribly failed Global Econoics project from Marshall). Despite a few inaccuracies in the article (the FAs across all Wikis are much higher than the 2000 they list in the article;you created the WP:MMM this year, not last year), I'm glad you're educating the public.

However, besides that, I wanted to ask: As you have indicated that you will be doing this project again next year, do you know yet what articles or topics you will choose to work on? Noble Story (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, that reporter did a fine job of mangling the facts :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is a consistent trend of inaccuracies in articles about Wikipedia. It is extremely ironic that Wikipedia is lambasted (mostly rightly so) for being inaccurate, while the reporters can't even get their facts right. Noble Story (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. A fine irony. Heh. Meanwhile, the (same) story's spreading; I'm going to try and keep track here --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha! I hadn't seen that. Thanks for pointing me to it. Yup, the reporter phoned me the other day. I should say I found it odd having to spell out the name of (for instance) Mario Vargas Llosa, when if she'd looked at the site she could have figured it out pretty fast... It made me wonder how much research she was doing... Oh well.

Anyhow, the next project will be on Chicano and Latino writers in the US and Canada. Look for instance for María Amparo Ruiz de Burton to stop being a redlink. It may also involve some editing in Spanish, on the Spanish Wikipedia: this article, for instance. Perhaps that's a step too far? (And I notice that their FA standards are nowhere near those of the English WP, at least if this is any indication.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, apparently they haven't got past the "at least one reference per paragraph" yet. That's rather interesting, as their FA criteria seems to be the same as as ours. But for sure, their "featured articles" wouldn't make it past the hard-line reviewers here at FAC. Maybe you should take your next class as an opportunity to clean it up. :) Noble Story (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk to Raystorm (talk · contribs), Spanish wiki editor, has an English wiki featured article (Same-sex marriage in Spain). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Innerestin'. Will do, nearer the time. Thanks, SandyG. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		I, Qst (talk) award you, Jbmurray, this barnstar for keeping calm over the dispute at Talk:The Accidental and not being rude to me, although I was rude to you. Great skills. :-) Qst (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. It is really much appreciated. I look forward to further collaboration with you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

¿Qué país/cultura estudiás en la educacion? ¿Es profencía en la historia o cultura de hispana/conquistadores de España? Me falta por darle muchos preguntas. No tengas contestarlos. :-) miranda 02:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hola, he estudiado un poco de casi todo lo que tenga que ver con América Latina, pero sobre todo Argentina, Perú, Chile, y Centroamérica. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, he leído sobre de la historia de Mexico, especificamente la revolución de Mexico - con Porifero Díaz y Pancho Villa. Pensaré leer sobre la historia moderna de Argentina (Juan Perón, etc.), en la futura. ¿Estudiaste la economícas de Argentina? Son intresantes durante WII, porque los E.E.U.U. y Gran Bretaña quierían petroleum en América Latina. Creo que estes ocupado porque tu estudiantes tienen finals y los darás. Adios, hablaré a ti un otro día. miranda 14:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

De México sé relativamente poco, pero estaré allí el año que viene, enseñando un curso sobre el cine mexicano, así que espero contribuir aquí sobre el tema mientras tanto. Bueno, mucha suerte a tí, también. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

...for the note! I got landed with delivering an electronics course for an external client, during which my laptop died, so I've been pretty much out of things for a bit. The enforced wikibreak was probably good for me though, as things were getting a little hectic with the MMM wind-up, that simultaneous RfA and GA stuff too :P Not much seems to be happening at WP:FAT at the moment, so back to GA for a while I guess... All the best! EyeSerene^talk 10:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A laptop dying is a bad thing, I can report from my own bitter experience. But again, good to see you back; let's hope WP:FAT gets up and running again before long. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny bumping into you at WD after just running into you in that Films Themes discussion. Small (WP)world. Your collaboration on developing WD further will be welcome.
Jim Dunning | talk 10:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'd love to help out, but feel a little overstretched right now. Perhaps later, if there's anything I can do, give me a shout. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:100. Congratulations :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Marvellous! Thank you! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Byzantine-Arab Wars (780–1180). You may save it yet. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, yes, I saw your note about this article, which is why I took a look. Anyhow, there's a rather serious confusion about the sources, which I can't answer; I've left a note on the talk page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll just say that I didn't much appreciate the "NB". ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I see you disagree. I do think it's better, though. It helps teach the reviewer more if they see how more experienced reviewers react. The only problem is that there's a horrible backlog at WP:GAR. We should encourage the good GA reviewers to hang out there. I do think that's the best way of teaching new reviewers when they go wrong. Heck, I use it that way, when I'm not sure! See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Skin & Bone/1. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess you meant WP:GAR? The best thing is to do what you're doing, dig in and help the article keep its GA status, and believe it or not I've done that many times. This particular one though is so far short that I believe it's better if it's take away, worked on, and then brought back to WP:GAN. Your mileage may vary of course. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, GAR. Thanks for the correction--I'm endlessly getting these acronyms mixed up! Of course, digging in is good, too. There are many ways to make an omelette.  ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

... but they all involve breaking eggs. Anyway, fair play to you for digging on this article, and I wish you luck with it. I won't delist it as you've taken a hand in it, so I'll leave it to you to decide what you think is the best course to take now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) I've both delisted and taken the article to GAR. Do feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Byzantine-Arab Wars (780–1180)/1. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello professor:

I have talked to my computer course professor and she agrees to let me do a 5-min quick walkthrough of Wikipedia in my CSCA01 class [1] course. So far, I know I will talk about how to identify the best work of Wikipedia (FA) and when to raise red flags (when they see "citation needed" or unreferenced articles) What else would you suggest me to talk about? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hiya. It might be good to have a bit more context. As it's a computer studies course, I don't know if they'll want to know about the technicalities!

But in general, and if you have only five minutes, I think it's worth remembering how little even fairly tech-savvy people know about how Wikipedia works. In five minutes I'd probably run through:

• Every article (just about every page) has a "talk page" where there is discussion and, often, more information.
• Every article has an article history, by means of which you can look at edit summaries, edit differences, and previous versions of the article
• What distinguishes good articles are sources (WP:V) and idetally, good sources
• If you find a bad article, you are welcome to improve it, either directly or via a comment on the talk page, and encouraged (if not obliged) to register
• Wiki mark-up is different from html, but obeys some of the same basic principles

I'd have thought you can't do much more in five minutes. And I think this presentation does a pretty good job, and in less than five minutes, though I don't agree with it completely.

Feel free to email if you want more ideas. But I suspect you have a pretty good notion already! Just remember not to over-estimate people's existing knowledge, however much they have interacted with the site as readers. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Great ideas. These points are more than enough to cover 5 mins of peep talk. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Since my audience is peers and a professor, I'll be focusing on academic aspect of Wikipedia. I'll send this rough draft to my professor soon so that she'll know ahead of time on what I'm going to talk about. This is the draft:

• Intro about Wikipedia (its history, who can edit, where is the edit button, project statistics)
• How to identify if the article is trustworthy or not (so WP:V, "citation needed", "this article does not have reference or citations", etc.)
• How to tell if that article is one of the best work (FA)
• How to go to page history. (Some students said they went to a page and read something useful but didn't write or copy it down. Few days later, they came back to that page and it's gone! They feel like they're doomed. So I'll teach them how to retrieve the "lost" information so no one need to panic.

Professor allowed me to spill over a few more minutes, but cannot exceed 10 mins in total (and this presentation isn't for marks, so no pressure there =D ) If I do have some spare time, I'll show the students how easy to vandalize (and just wait... there's more to it) and how easy to undo the changes so there's no point to be disruptive. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me! The Golden Rule of any presentation is not to go over time. Practice before hand, aiming for eight minutes, rather than ten. Good luck! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Got the go-ahead approval from the prof. Now should I videotape my mini presentation of myself? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. For practice, or the actual thing? If you're talking about practice, why not give the presentation to a friend first? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to videotape the actual thing. But I definitely needs some practice beforehand because the class is like over 70 people. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest that it would be more seemly to respond to the reasons after the RfA? You seem destined to succeed in your candidature, but pressing the issues regarding one of only two opposes (against 120 supports and no neutrals at time of writing) may look a little... anxious? If you address the issues raised, but after the RfA concludes it then looks like someone who cares sufficiently to review any instances where improvement may be made even with such a vote of confidence.

Of course, this is what you may have intended anyway. In which case, I apologise. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for this. I know it's good advice. I simply thought it might be useful to reflect on the more general concerns that Elonka raises, that I think other people share: I don't think she's the only person who believes that FAC is an intimidating process. Yes, there are probably better times and places to go over these issues, but I didn't want to ignore them completely, because they concern me also. This is not to win her (or anyone else's) support at RfA. I hope that this is not "pressing the issues" or a sign of any anxiety; rather, an acknowledgement of what I see as real and understandable frustration on her part. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You're doing fine. My mentor when I was a newbie was Encephalon (talk · contribs); he set the course for me, was the only person to help me early on write an FA that no one on Wiki knew anything about (I was literally on my own), and I have tried to pattern my approach to Wiki after the model he set. You've passed him at WP:100.

Sorry, I'm just catching up this morning, or I would have done this for you (to the extent possible, best to let others deal with moves). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

SandyG, thanks for this. Yes, I waited a while to see if anyone else would move that text; but then I decided to do it myself. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Your FA on The general and his labyrinth prompted me to start my first ever Marquez novel – Love in the time of cholera. It happened to have sat on the bookshelf for a couple of decades, and now I don't even remember how it got there. I must say that, 40 pages in, it's already a rewarding experience: gems such as "wisdom comes to us when it can no longer do any good" are just too important not to write down; and I feel like a pervert, which is a good sign that the characterisation is rich. It's giddyingly different from my staple, Patrick White, whose prose tastes like the darkest olives, and who – as the master bitch – sets up many of his characters only to dump shit all over them from a great height (love that).

The translation is by one Edith Grossman, who seems to be doing a superlative job, although it's hard to pass ultimate judgement without knowing the original. Tony (talk) 11:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you're enjoying the GGM. I should admit that it's a long time since I read Love in the Time of Cholera. Meanwhile, I've long intended to read Patrick White (and had noted your praise of him on your user page); ever since I first saw his books on the shelves of one of the strangest but perhaps brilliant men I've ever met. Where should I start: Voss?

Pretty much the only Antipodeans I've read have been New Zealanders, one of my favourites being Ronald Hugh Morrieson: a Southern Hemisphere Flannery O'Connor.

Meanwhile, I've been thinking of dropping you an email about something else I'm working on. Maybe I will... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do. As far as White goes, my recommendations as points of entry are A fringe of leaves and The Twyborn affair. Both were written post-Nobel-prize, when he was feeling good about himself, which shows in what I see as their cinematic qualities. (The BBC commissioned a screenplay of TTA—a copy of which found its way into my house for a few days—from a notable poet and novelist back in the 80s; but they didn't proceed with it.) I'll follow up the link to Prynne in a few days' time. Tony (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you will become an admin within a matter of days i thought i would ask you a question. Just tell me your thoughts, do you think this newly created article Northstar financial coaching should have been speedily deleted or it deserves a spot in wikipedia? I tagged it but another user said leave it even though they agree its not notable. There are millions of companies like this in the world and certainly not everyone of them deserves a spot in wikipedia. Thanks and good luck with the mop and bucket. Roadrunnerz45 ^{(talk 2 me)} 12:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I'm not an admin yet! And anything may still happen. Anyhow, the relevant policy is WP:COMPANY. It's a question as to whether or not "it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." And right now the article certainly doesn't show that notability. NB also that the user who created the article, User:Brpope95, has a name suspiciously similar to the company's founder, Brian Pope, so there are most likely WP:AUTO issues, too. But if another editor disagrees with your assessment, probably better to leave a prod. And if that's taken away, you can still always take it to AfD. At first sight, I'd certainly vote for its deletion at AfD, but at least then you're giving the article a chance. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And you know what, I've just gone and added a prod. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Jbmurray. I am just going to say that with the issue regarding the copyright. I understand about the issue and I am sending it over to OTRS for permissions. I hope to have this resolved soon. If you have anything else you would like to say regarding this issue please talk to me. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Addshore. There's really not too much reason to take it over to OTRS now, because in any case the content you added wasn't really relevant to the article, which is why I deleted it in the first place; it was only subsequently that I realized that there was a problem with plagiarism / copyvio.

I should say that I feel somewhat bad if something I pointed out were to mean that your RfA failed. But it is a serious issue, and I thought it important that I mention it. And then your initial response rather compounded the problem. You obviously have lots of supporters, and do good work in other ways on the encyclopedia (though here's a bit of vandalism that you missed!). I feel sure that, if you attempt fails this time, you will have more success in the future.

In the meantime, if you want help working on an article--and I think it's useful that you gain some experience there, simply so you know how Wikipedia articles are written, and the issues involved--I'd be happy to help out. We would work on improving TBGS, for instance.

All the best. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I really think there should be a section oon the Armenian Genocide and what the U.S. did to help at the behest of Wilson. Also, some sort of info on Assyrian and Pontic Greek genocides should be included.--Briaboru (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with the topics being included; but there should be some kind of link made to the article's main topic: i.e. Wilson's reaction (or non-reaction, I guess) to the genocide. Previously, there wasn't. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for trying to lend a hand, but the guidelines all seem to tend towards inline citations, and as the article is currently wandering through the GA evaluation process, I think it is more appropriate to convert these references to use the {{cite book}} template for the references. Just a heads up, as it will probably mean me undoing the work you did. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you did - it make the references section a bit more readable. The diffs didn't make your actions clear - my apologies. I have changed the headings - I hope you don't object? Fritzpoll (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still a bit confused as to why you removed {{cite book}} templates from the text and changed the structure in this way? Fritzpoll (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a criticism - but I meant, I don't see why you have extracted the citation templates (like that for Noguchi) from the text and placed them in an additional list. I am curious as to why this is preferable. As I say, not a criticism, just interested Fritzpoll (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it certainly looks better, with the reflist being much less cluttered. Thanks very much for both doing the job and taking the time to answer my nagging questions! It's just that layout issues are one element of the guidelines that I'm not very familiar with, so I always try to take the time to learn! Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Your copy-edit

Many thanks for doing this - it was exactly what the article needed, and I was far too close to the text to see the flaws. I notice the inline queries, and I'll address those shortly. I'll also chuck an extra summary sentence in the lead. Your helpfulness and willingness to communicate further strengthens the reasons I supported your RfA :) Fritzpoll (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Your ability to stay polite, and dare I say it even kind, during discussions about article content, and keep those discussions focused on article content, is quite admirable and something that every single Administrator on this project and on every Wikimedia Foundation project should strive for. It is quite rate, unfortunately. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You're very kind. And I should say, in turn, that you show admirable patience and responsiveness to criticism. I'm half-aware that that's been something you've been working on, so all the more reason for congratulations! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I daresay you've gotten plenty of accolades, but this seems appropriate:

		The Real Life Barnstar
		For finding a new use for Wikipedia in your university curriculum, I award you the Real Life Barnstar. Fishal (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You're really too kind! Thanks so much. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You're most welcome-- and it seems that other honors have come your way in the meantime. Best of luck! Fishal (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I did greatly enjoy our day on the main page! It was really exciting. I worked all day so I told everyone I worked with about it and showed it to as many people as I could before it changed at 4pm. Thanks for all that help getting us there. I am looking forward to more Wikipedia-ing in the fall! :)--Mfreud (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, does that mean you're signing up for my class in the fall? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You are obviously quite an experienced WP editor, but the changes you just made to the Women in the California Gold Rush footnotes strike me as non-standard. As I look around WP, the footnote format I see is that the first time a reference work is noted in a footnote, the full information about the citation source is included in the footnote - title, author, publisher, ISBN number, etc. Subsequent footnote references to this work then use only the author's name (or other short form), plus the page. Take a look at the notes section of today's main page FA, for example, and you'll see what I recognize as the WP standard (full info contained in the first mention in the footnotes). This same full information is then repeated in the References section. Your changes to the Women in the California Gold Rush article deleted the full information from the footnotes, and moved it only to a References section. Perhaps you could point me to some WP policy that supports your style of citing references in footnotes? NorCalHistory (talk) 04:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

uh oh :-) Hey, NorCal, how are you ?!? And why are either of you in my space (Gold Rush Women) anyway ?!?! Or shall I say, how dare you write that article without me, NorCal? Jbmurray had the, ahem, misfortune of running into a crowd that prefers Harvnb footnote style in FAs, so he acquired certain footnote habits on his three FAs. On the other hand, NorCal was well trained by, um, a Gold Rush Woman and has a different style :-) There's actually nothing wrong with the way Jbmurray has done the citations, NorCal, and they can be easier to work with if the article gets long. My advice is to accept Jbmurray's style, but make him pay by adding his excellent copyediting skills to the article; that's a win-win deal :-) Good to run into you again while I'm butting in to someone else's page :-) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, NorCalHistory. Yup, basically what SandyG said. But blame Gguy: he turned me on to {{Harvnb}}. And I never looked back, even though SandyG is trying to organize people to do some kind of intervention. Heh. Anyhow, I'll have another look over there. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Delighted to run in such exalted circles! Sandy - the article was actually written by (if I'm not mistaken) a student who thoughtfully contributed her paper on the topic. I helped her out a bit. As you can both see, it's a great topic, but needs a lot of ce to get it up to encyclopedic standards. I haven't really turned my attention to it yet, because I wanted to give our new contributor some space to work on it herself. Jbmurray - Congrats on the admin status! I admire people who have the energy and time to continue making this such a great place. How about this as a option, where the footnotes are already in an acceptable format, perhaps your valuable time could be better spent not changing formats? NorCalHistory (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I'm not such a zealot that I change the footnote format for the sake of it! To explain what happened here... I found myself at the article after reading [[User:Martha_Saxton/Amherst_College_Gender_Equality_Project|this "declaration"] (which you should also read, by the way; and they should really have alerted you to it). Anyhow, I saw that there was a problem with the citations themselves, which were incomplete and malformed: titles not italicized, isbns missing, titles incomplete, names of editors missing, and so on. See the article's original state. In order to fix such problems, I find it much easier to separate out the citations in a "References" section, first. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm responsible for Jbm's preferred citation style. There are many variations on citation style in Wikipedia and actually the style that you suggest ["...full info contained in the first mention in the footnotes... This same full information is then repeated in the References section..."] is not particularly common: if full information is given in the Notes section, then this full information is usually not repeated in the References section.

The style of the article you cite (Elagabalus) is that (for secondary sources) full info is given in every footnote, and not repeated in the References section. (For the primary sources, brief information is given in the footnote, with a bit more information in the References section.) The main problem with this "standard" is that there is no one place where all the sources are listed, so the reader cannot see at a glance what the sources for the article are. Consequently there is an increasing tendancy to cite every single sentence, no matter how trivial, leading to Notes sections which fill several screens.

The other convention, of brief footnotes with full bibliographic information of all sources in the References section, overcomes this problem. It's only disadvantage is that it takes two steps for the reader to find the full bibliographic information for an inline citation. However, this is already a problem with the "full info contained in the first mention in the footnotes" and the problem here is worse in my view: for later mentions the reader has to scan back through the (usually tiny multicolumn) list to find the first one.

In the brief footnotes style, the Harvnb template magic is just a trick to let the reader move from footnote to source more easily, and is entirely optional. However, it does more or less eliminate the only disadvantage of this style making the case for using it fairly compelling.

The so-called "standard" style is prominent because it caught on early, not because it is particularly good. For articles with only one footnote per source, it is fine, but in general it is confusing to the reader and unhelpful regarding verifiability. It is good to see growing numbers of editors realising this: time spent fixing this problem is time well spent. Geometry guy 16:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be two threads about footnotes; this and the "Congrats and..." thread,currently at the bottom of the page... Ling.Nut (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I spotted that (and hinted at it in the last paragraph), and have commented further there. However, that thread is concerned with fairly technical matters and fine detail, whereas this raises, in my view, a fundamental issue about how best to present the sources for an article to the reader. Perhaps Jbm's page is not the best place to raise this, but I'm sure he's in a good enough mood right now not to mind too much. :-) Geometry guy 19:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've opened up a separate thread below, which may or may not help. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's alright with you, I'd like to remove the "Legacy" section you recently added and move the paragraph about him having to "walk a fine line" back into the "Musical style" section. "Legacy" is rather stubby now, and it doesn't really seem necessary to me, at least. I welcome your commentary. Also, I wondered if you could help me with sources and other issues on poesia concreta, an article within your expertise that is in an extremely sorry state at the moment. I happened upon it yesterday while looking over Tropicalismo, another article in a desperate state that I have the resources to improve. --Kakofonous (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

K, thanks for this. No need to ask my permission to move stuff around! But I do think that a "Legacy" section is a good idea. (Not that I like the term itself, but it's what WP generally uses.) It's stubby, but it could and (I'd say) should be expanded, as a place to present an overview of Gil's impact as a whole.

As for concrete poetry... uff, not really my area of expertise, though I recognize it is important, and deserves a much better article. But I'm still feeling rather over-stretched... I have a number of articles I'm trying to help out with at a time, one of them being the Gil one, and am loath to add more. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've made a request for withdrawal, probably should be done fairly soon. Thanks for the constructive commentary. --Kakofonous (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The grammar error is mine: I wrote a very bad draft of this on a user subpage, and was so disappointed by it that I didn't even copyedit my first draft. Although "less vs. fewer" is personal favourite of mine among grammar issues, I might not have spotted this one, because it is slightly borderline (a percentage is a quantity, whereas a number is a number), so thanks for fixing it! Your help with this dispatch would be very much appreciated, I think, so I'm glad you are watchlisting it. Geometry guy 22:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I was going to dive in and do some more, but then I hesitated. To be honest, I'm a little unsure about this one: I very much liked your original opinion piece; but the current text is more like a regular report on GA activities (which would be grand, too). In the meantime, it's a bit of a pig in a poke: neither one thing nor the other. I suspect that you and Karanacs need to figure out what the article's goal is to be. Once that's done, I'm happy to help out with copy-editing and so on. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I think we have to centralize this discussion somewhere. I'll comment on my talk page fairly soon. If you have been watchlisting my user talk you will know that my own opinion is that GA should move away from being FA-lite (cringe) and emphasise its role as a mechanism for making the rest of the encyclopedia half-way decent. There's a lot of radical change involved in that: some reviewers (including yourself) hold GA to really quite high standards, while other reviewers completely fail to notice when an article is not reliably sourced or contains copyright violations. There needs to be a middle ground and a (I must admit, probably mediocre) standard where an efficient process can help the encyclopedia achieve this standard. It is the other end of the spectrum from the FA-Team, which helps to make the best articles shine; the goal is instead to lift some of Wikipedia's poorer articles out of their initial state, and ensures that they don't embarrass the project. Much as I love the FA-Team, I actually think this other goal is more important, but it is also much harder to achieve. Do you see what I mean, or do you think I'm out of my mind? :) Geometry guy 22:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Not out of your mind, no. And yes, I've seen you suggest such a thing in various places now, though I don't think I've seen you develop your ideas enough for me to understand what such a revised GA system would look like.

Yes, it would probably be a good idea to centralize--perhaps better, to localize--the discussion, so it could be hammered out among a few GA stalwarts before being fully unleashed on an unsuspecting public. Heh.

I should say, however, that my gut instincts are (as you imply) to keep the standards at GA pretty high. That may well be because of my own experience, in which GA Review was a step towards FAC, and indeed the fact that we got tough GA Reviews was particularly helpful.

On the other hand, I can see that there can and should be space for articles that are not about to go beyond GA standard. And for those articles (to reach out to the 99%, as it were), perhaps therefore the standard can and should be changed.

But... isn't that what B-class is about? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If only it were, but I am firmly convinced that mixing GA in with the whole Stub-Start-B-A stuff was a big mistake. They are chalk and cheese. I agree with the idea to localize and had the same thought myself: we'd call it a working party, right?

Anyway, I've now tried to edit the dispatch so it has a clear purpose and balances the need to report with the need to address goals: comments and copyediting welcome. Geometry guy 21:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been spraying chalk and cheese all over Wikipedia today :-) Anyway, thanks for your help with the dispatch. I think you probably should add yourself to the byline, but I leave it entirely to you. As first author, I promise to take the brunt of all criticism, and pass on all praise to my coauthors. It's just the opposite of academia here on wikipedia heh? Geometry guy 20:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I found this on Amazon. Not sure if it will help you out or not. http://www.amazon.com/Remarkable-Hands-Affectionate-Portrait/dp/B000FCGPAM/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210992661&sr=1-7 Abby 02:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I've now been able to locate it on WorldCat. I have no idea it didn't come up when I searched by title or author, but there we go. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Just don't swing it too vigorously straight away... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Thank you very much! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 10:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. I am very grateful. I will certainly be reading the manual and moving cautiously.  :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

And as a note: You're RFA finished 17th on the list of RFAs by support. You probably could have gone even higher, but oh well. Congratulations anyway. Noble Story (talk)

Well, thank you! I think that was probably quite high enough.  :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Great to hear that one of our best editors now has the tools to do more for the project. --Kakofonous (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! And belated congratulations to you, too! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

God help you, but well done. qp10qp (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats to you...Mr.Admin :D -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 12:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! And thanks again for your earlier encouragement! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Congratulations! We will learn together, it will be interesting! Risker (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Thank you, and congratulations, likewise! Yup, plenty of learning ahead.  :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey JB, just saw this! Congrats!! Lots of floor cleaning now eh ;) Acer (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Yup, they gave me this mop; I guess I have to learn how to use it! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well done. Congratulations! Majoreditor (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. seresin ( ¡? ) 16:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

WOW! I never expected this! Kick butt! Congrats! Remember, it's the candidate that matters.Balloonman (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Try to use the tools as little as possible: we need your contributions to content! Geometry guy 18:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wisest advice so far; don't let the admin stuff and the tools drag you away from content. I've seen it happen over and over, and we've lost FA writers when they gained the tools. And, I must frame my congrats in terms of numbers (can't help it, math/stat/engineering person :-) ... when removing the bots and subtracting opposes at WP:100, I believe you ranked in the top 11 net !votes at WP:100, so a hearty congratulations (don't let it go to your head :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

... don't let the admin stuff and the tools drag you away from content. I've seen it happen over and over, and we've lost FA writers when they gained the tools. 'Ya see what I mean ? And the paint hasn't even dried yet :-)) Anyone wonder why I have no desire for the tools? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Uff, I hear ya. Today has been a write-off.  :( --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought you would make it to WP:200. Oh well, at least you made into the 100 level. And here's the infamous admin T-shirt. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to thank you for the t-shirt.  :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(Just got in from a day in the sunshine.) Many thanks to all! Gguy, as I said at the RfA, I plan to continue much as previously on the whole. And SandyG, nah, I don't think it'll go to my head.  :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In your RfA thanks, what does the caption inside the image means? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. It means "God alone knows if I will return." I saw it on the back of a truck in El Salvador, and liked it. I chose it because I felt it signalled the start of a journey whose end was uncertain! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I enjoyed the image on your thankspamming. I know just enough Spanish to understand it (with help on the tenses/conjugates of the verb volver). I took it as "Only God knows if I will return", which has the same meaning. Royalbroil 01:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! I'm glad you liked the image. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you joining in at King Arthur and Learned Hand (I am hoping to help at the latter when the books I've sent for arrive from the States—cheap there, expensive here).

Just for discussion's sake, I wanted to raise a point you made in both cases about restricting the bibliography to cited books. There's no right approach here, but I've come to the conclusion that this might be a redundant distinction in the long term. After all, it is perfectly clear from the notes which books have been cited in the article. In the short term, or where one or two editors maintain an article, the two lists may remain purposed; but it seems to me inevitable that over a period of time, with people adding books to one list or the other, or removing cited information, the distinction will become blurred. More practically, I believe that the distinction will not be guessed by most general readers, since they have no way of knowing, other than reading the cites, that one list is of cited books and the other not. So my preference tends to be for a full bibliography of the best books, with poor sources removed from the list altogether. When performing a FAR on an uncited but referenced article, for example, one may only have certain sources available; even though one may totally rewrite the article with those sources, it is good, I think, to keep good books from the original list in the bibliography, as they contributed to an earlier version and their vestigial influence may remain.

I have strong views about bibliographies on Wikipedia. I would like each article to have one, under that title. This is because when I look for bibliographies online, I am often guided back to Wikipedia (but not always, if that section title was not used, or if that topic has poor articles). We always talk of Wikipedia being a first stop for information and a gateway to sources, so what better way of meeting that demand than by providing a good bibliography? Do you remember one of your students saying that her librarian looked up Wikipedia to find a bibliography? For this reason, I think we should try to compile a short select bibliography for each article, even including books we may not be able to get hold of (but which we saw noted in other books).

I also believe strongly that university teachers could do us all a favour, at little cost of effort to themselves, if they published their topic booklists freely online, under searchable titles. Some do, which is wonderful (you strike me as someone who probably does that). For those of us without libraries near at hand, getting an early grip on the best books on a subject has to be done online, and it can be difficult. Of course, as soon as we start getting hold of books, we then have the bibliographical information to go further. But the "first stop" is crucial. Since Wikipedia is about providing starter information to the general public, in the case of bibliographies we can meet this demand (of course, there's potential bias in the selection of books) without incurring most of the usual doubts over reliability that dog us. qp10qp (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hiya. And thanks for the congrats above! Meanwhile, I understand what you're saying, but here's my take on Bibliographies, Lists of works (!), References, and Further readings...

• It's not always obvious which books have been cited in any one article. In fact, I'd say that in any one reasonably long WP article, it's almost always quite difficult to figure this out. Take League of Nations, for instance, for which I just spent some time clearing out the references: before and after. First, in fact it relies heavily on only two or three sources. (Learned Hand is quite similar here, of course.) 75% of its sources are cited only once. And in a thicket of footnotes, each of which normally has all the information that the person who's added it sees fit to chuck in, I very soon get lost. To figure out in fact which sources were cited and which were not (or which were in the footnotes but not in the References list), I had very slowly to use my browser's "find" tool, and seek them out. Now, however, it's more or less obvious.
• But here's my more radical point. If a source is worth reading, it's worth citing. With WP:MMM, I'd routinely take the "Further reading" sections and chuck 'em on the talk page, and tell the students to read them or delete them. I have to be more gentle with other editors, of course, but the principle stands. The exception to this rule is with "Lists of works" (which in other contexts might also, confusingly, be called bibliographies). These get out of hand sometimes, too, but I'm more patient in such cases.
• Moreover, my observation is that in the vast majority of cases, books on the "Further reading" list are simply titles that an editor has googled up, and never read. In other words, they're not "select" at all. Another principle then: if a book's worth recommending to the encyclopedia's readers, surely it's worth reading by the encyclopedia's editors. Surely WP has to be more than a (not very) distilled version of a google search on a topic. I know, too often that's what it is. Hence, in part, my increasing insistence on offline sources. After all, long term WP only has a future if it can do what google can't (though google's endlessly trying to do this): research, evaluate, synthesize, explain, structure, format, and so on. (I realize that to some editors this may look like violation of a whole range of TLAs, not least WP:OR and WP:SYN, but I don't think it has to be at all.)
• I recognize that this is setting the bar high. And I'm mainly talking here of articles that are at or close to, say, GA standard. It's fine for an article to start off as something like "notes towards a research project," for which the first task would be assembling a few ideas, a few sources, and perhaps some choice quotations. Examples that I've had a hand in, and recently revisited, include for instance Subaltern Studies or Tato Laviera; but I'm getting stricter with myself in my old age, too... I'd thought if possible to give myself the rule that, unless I'm reviewing other people's articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, I'm not allowed to edit an article unless I add at least one citation, ideally a new source. Heck, right now I'm surrounded by floor-to-ceiling shelves overstuffed with books; it shouldn't be that hard, really.

OK, these are some immediate responses, though I've been half-mulling over them for a little while; perhaps I should write them up as a Wikipedia essay. I'm certainly moving in that direction, albeit maybe at first for individual genres (I plan to do a fair amount on film articles over the summer, if I can).

Meanwhile, I don't have topic booklists. I probably should... but that's not the way I teach, for better or for worse. (In general, I think that's a very British approach, BTW; it's how I was taught as an undergrad, being thrown a booklist, but it's not how things work over here.)

Anyhow, I think this is an important discussion, and it would be grand to open it up at some point. I certainly have more to say, but I'd love to hear from others. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is important, and I suppose I was running past you something I intend to raise on one or two guideline pages. But I will go away and take on board what you say and maybe refine my views.

I agree that notes are often a mess; but as you show, it should be possible to indicate clearly what books etc. are actually cited. I have a good book collection on topics that interest me, but sometimes I cannot get hold of books (particularly when just helping out), and this is not mere laziness. For example, when Buddingjournalist and I were doing the FAR of John Day (printer), it became clear that neither of us could get hold of the Oastler book, which may well be the most important one on the topic. We have it listed in "Further reading", but I am uneasy about that. It's not there because we were too lazy to read it, and I'm afraid it loses apparent value by being listed there instead of in the bibliography.

King Arthur is an intriguing case. The bibliography does seem too long, and I haven't checked yet which books on it are actually cited. But I can tell a googled list when I see one, and that isn't one. The main editor, who I think is a research student at Oxford, has had an academic book published on the subject, and I am confident that he is familiar with all the books on the list. It would be a shame to lose some of them. Perhaps the answer is a separate page for the full list, which is a resource in itself. qp10qp (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of cleaning out the notes and references as a first step in working on any article. Especially on WP (where verifiability is all), it's often the best way you can really tell what you have to work with, and what needs to be done. At least, that's my evolving modus operandi.

And qp10qp, I'm not accusing you of laziness, for goodness sake. But it's clear that even in the case you mention, not having been able to read the book (and so cite it, and so show its use) devalues the effort to recommend it.

I haven't even begun with King Arthur. Yes, this may be a case where you could make a separate page for a list. In fact, that might be a decent idea. Someone should propose something like an annotated bibliography for featured list status, and perhaps get a trend going. Heck, you talk about professors... how about if a few grad students uploaded their prelim lists? (That's a US thing, btw, but still.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Aside: congrats! Nice work on League of Nations; are you done there? Can I work on some additional cleanup? It needs Brighterorange (talk · contribs) dash fixing script applied on page ranges, named refs, and some missing publishers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Better thanks are to be issued before long... Meanwhile, on League of Nations. I'm done for today (off to the island). In more general terms, there is plenty that needs to be done. Kaly99 seems to be doing good work adding content and sources. Once there's more stuff there, I'd be happy to come back in and play around with structure and prose. But I fear this one's a goner, even if the rescue effort does add shine and lustre: it's a horribly complex topic, and we'd need an expert or two. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've opened up a semi-related thread below, which may or may not help. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

.. is we is or is we ain't ready for Miguel Ángel Asturias to have its time to shine? Ling.Nut (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Tomorrow. I promise. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. G'night. Ling.Nut (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You're the specialist: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Massive sockfarm or just a university class.27 project.3F SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

161 supporters. It must be so humbling to have the community not only trust you with the tools, but want you specifically to have them. You will certainly be a net-positive to the project with them. Congratulations, Jbmurray. Valtoras (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! I certainly aim to contribute positively to the encyclopedia! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That's wonderful. The community trusts you very much. :) I know for sure I do. Valtoras (talk) 06:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talk page. Wish you all the success with the mop -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 07:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to re-edit Knowles's to Knowles' as it is not required in the MOS. The only thing to achieve is consistency in the entire article. Thanks for the copy edit; maybe I'll ask someone to conduct a ce and if you have time, please re-visit the article. (I know your busy frolicking with the mop. hehe. Grats!). --Efe (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I just checked the MOS and indeed you're right that the "s" here is optional. I'm more used to style guides (such as the MLA's) that insist on it. If you submit the article to FAC again, I'd be happy to take a look at it. As I said most recently, some parts are pretty good; other parts, less so. Good luck! --jbmurray (talk • contribs)

Not for now, I think. I have two articles on GAN and be waiting for someone to check "Baby Boy" thoroughly. --Efe (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was pissed by the decision because there was no consensus. You're the only one who opposed after Ive waited for progress in a week or two and they just closed it without my response or whatsoever. Anyway, I think your oppose was so strong. =) --Efe (talk) 08:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The FA process can be frustrating, I know. I'm sorry about that. The main reason is that people are just over-stretched: the more who can help out to take the time for good-quality reviews, the better. But don't let it get to you. And good luck with your articles on GA Review! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, the article was not promoted and Im on my way to getting the star. Haha. Thanks for the help, sir? I believe you're a prof. --Efe (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll look out for it in the future. And please don't call me "sir"! Nobody else does.  :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs)

Congratulations! We need more people like you on Wikipedia. I am interested in Latin American Studies. I created the biography of Manuel Antonio Sanclemente, former President of Colombia. In future, I want to create more articles related to Latin America. I think you can help me. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Congratulations on the Sanclemente article. I'll be happy to help if I have time. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You have the trust. You are an admin. Nice one! SilkTork *^YES! 08:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

On your RfA passing. Enjoy your new tools, I'm sure you'll use them well. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations from me too. Acalamari 17:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I was so impressed by that clever Harvard reference linking thing on Learned Hand that I have been trying to make it work on William Wilberforce. But I don't seem to have the magic touch and I cannot figure out what on earth I have done wrong. Any chance you could take a look? --Slp1 (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Try changing "date" to "year". I fixed Hague 2007. Works. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, gosh, now he's corrupting the masses with Harvnbs :-) I must order an intervention soon! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Went and looked, since I have to watch out for Slp1 :-) The problem with using Harvnb's is that they must use the {{citation}} template, which (for some reason I've never understood) returns a really stupid format that doesn't agree with any other cite templates on Wiki. So, when you use Harvnbs, per WP:CITE#Citation styles, in order to avoid conflicting bibliographic styles, you're forced to eliminate all other cite family templates (cite book, cite web, cite journal, cite news, etc) in order to provide consistency in citation formatting. Since the {{citation}} template doesn't handle all citations well, you then end up stuck in some cases, and you also end up with an article that 1) not everyone knows how to maintain, and 2) an article with more size chunked up to citation, which can become a load time factor on larger articles. The tradeoff is for a clickable link that few people will use; not worth it, particularly in terms of how these complicated and messy citations can chase off future editors, and result in inconsistent formatting when future editors add in what they know best, which is the cite family of templates. That's my rant for the day against Harvnbs :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Back in the day, I spent an awful lot of time creating {{Harvcol}}, {{Harvcolnb}}, {{Harvcoltxt}}, & {{Harvrefcol}} as mods of the Harv templates. Some day I'll have to spend some time thinking about this issue. Today isn't the day. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I must be missing a piece, because it simply escapes me ... why doesn't someone just start a campaign to force the darn templates to be consistent, so we don't have an issue of inconsistent citation formatting, and the templates can be used interchangeably? What is behind one template (citation) using a different style than all the others? (Noting that template consistency would only eliminate one part of the problem. The second problem—that Harvnbs are hard to maintain and unnecessarily chunk up article size, which is already a big problem on some articles and FAs—is another issue.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) What do you mean by "consistent"? If by "consistent" you mean consistency in the formatting of the reference information that's presented to the viewer, well, there have been such campaigns, and they died very very very rapidly. I would've thought you knew... You see... different fields format their refs differently, and Wikipedia wants linguistics articles (ahem!) to look like linguistics articles, Med articles to... you get the picture. Am I misunderstanding your comment? Ling.Nut (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually the use of Harvnb's and Citation isn't essential for this style: it is just a trick to provide the reader with an easy way to connect the footnote the the reference, and I believe in putting the reader first, not the editor or reviewer. I have made the case for brief footnotes and separate references earlier on this talk page. Now I will address Sandy's objections to {{citation}}. Yes, citation does format some things slightly differently than {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite encyclopedia}} and another 20 or 30 unnecessary templates in this scheme, but I fail to see why citation produces a "really stupid format". In fact, it is an internationally accepted one (Harvard), and I think references formatted using citation typically look better: for instance the standard {{cite book}} format lists the first author last name first, followed by a semicolon, and then the rest of the authors together in some other format (e.g. "Cordell, Bruce R.; Jeff Grubb, David Yu (September 2001)." is recommended by the template, which seems to be an approximation to MLA). Citation instead lists all authors in the same style. Further it provides easily accessible metadata for all authors, which the cite family doesn't. Finally it is only one template to figure out how to use, not 20.

Those using citation to produce Harvnb links will want to eliminate the cite family anyway, so this case against holds no water. I've not seen any example in which it produced a bad format: it handles chapters of books, parts of edited works, websites, journals and the like extremely well. I would like to see objective evidence that citation is slower than the cite family, or that they take up significantly more space in articles. The easy way to standardize citation format, is to use citation for everything, and improve the template, which has an active support team. The hard way is get all the editors at all the different templates to agree on the format.

However, I am more interested in making the case for separating the footnotes from the references than whether there is a clickable link between the two. This is a matter of taste and judgement on a case-by-case basis. Geometry guy 17:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. When refering to WP:CITE#Citation styles, we probably need to be a bit more careful to distinguish between citation style and bibliographic format. The citation style here is "shortened notes" (and separate references). That in itself says nothing about which templates should be used. The general principle of consistency dictates that each type of source needs to be formatted in a similar way, but that does not prevent one from using e.g. citation for books and journals, but cite web and cite news for some other types of source. Geometry guy 17:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see objective evidence that citation is slower than the cite family, or that they take up significantly more space in articles. I did not say citation was slower than citet; a citation template only is no different than a citet template (it's a template for a ref that has to be resolved by Wiki). I'm taking about the additional Harvnb linking (and I've never been convinced it makes a big difference to our readers to be able to click on it, versus simply scrolling to the next section to find it). Consider the load time and simplicity (in editing and in code) of:

• <ref>Gunther 1994, pp. 32–33</ref>

vs a template that has to be resolved, like

• <ref>{{Harvnb|Gunther|1994|pp=32–33}}</ref>

and then multiply that by, say 200, for articles that already have load time issues because of the high number of citations. We already have a number of FAs that have load time issues because of the high number of references: my concern is that adding more templates to such articles may not be the best course of action. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this could be a problem, but I don't believe it has happened yet, has it? (If it has, please let me know.) I don't know how efficient Harvnb is, but I expect its load time is much faster than Citation, as it has much less to resolve (bear in mind that resolving a template involves resolving every template and parser function it uses: citation templates use many, harvs much fewer). Unfortunately a real irony of the situation is that the cases where the link helps readers the most, are the cases where load time is more likely to be an issue. For instance, one of the articles which has caused the most serious load time problems recently is Hillary Clinton, as you know. This uses a separate notes and references format for the main printed sources. Yet, this is also an article where wading through the footnotes is an exercise in pure misery for the reader. (Aside: maybe not causing misery for the reader should be added to the criteria?) I was tempted to suggest adding Harvnb's, but didn't, precisely because they would add further to the load time. We shouldn't worry about performance when it isn't an issue, but we have to when it obviously is. That's the kind of judgement and compromise I favour. Geometry guy 19:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ketuanan Melayu is one of our longest (over my objections) FAs, and it uses largely book sources. It's a killer already; if it used Harvnbs as well, it could really go over the top. It's current 86KB prose (grrrrr ... I'm pained every time I look at that article, but my views didn't prevail) and 14KB refs would have additional chunk in ref size if it used the bluelinks. I try to alert editors that if you're working on an article that is going to end up with a gazillion sources, keep it simple, list the main book sources in ref section, and use simple ref tags to refer to author and page number. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I agree. If I had a whole load of time on my hands I would try adding Harvnbs to this one as an experiment. It would increase the article size by very little (10-15 bytes per cite), but it would be interesting to know the effect on the load time, which could be significant. I hope there will be an opportunity to try something like this at some point: my a priori belief is that the Harvnb effect on load time is relatively minor compared to citation templates, but the only way to find out is to test. Geometry guy 21:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one (over my very strong objections) to keep on the back burner if anyone ever decides to experiment: Campaign history of the Roman military, with 390 book citations. (I helped dismantle the misguided Extra-Long Article Committee, but some of these articles really push the limits). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Sandy. I repeatedly got myself into a mess when trying to help with the MMM articles: dual authors, in particular, often foxed me. I couldn't always make the refs "jump", and headachy periods of fiddling ensued. It seems a neat trick to make the ref jump to the bibliography, but there it sticks and then you have to trawl all the way back up to your place on the page; whereas normal refs click back up to the text most conveniently. So I say, never neglect the obvious: the easiest style for both editor and reader is a shortened note, done freehand. It's easy enough to find the relevant book in the bibliography, and the average reader will only want to do that once per book—in my opinion, it's overkill to have every note linked to the book. Maintenance will, as Sandy says, be a nightmare: the one-edit, passing editors will not understand the system and will leave inconsistency, or worse, havoc in their wake. qp10qp (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Qp, you say it so well ... that pretty much sums it up, and it's a lesson learned the hard way (from working at WP:FAR and realizing what happens to articles over time :-) And I never knew that's why they didn't jump back; that personally to me is an enormous headache, and I thought it was my popup controls or some such thing. (Now fix my MIA foxgloves and hollyhocks!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've opened up a separate thread below, which may or may not help. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if it wasn't much of a surprise, I'm very glad to see you join the ranks of Wikipedia admins. Be well, do good work and keep in touch, VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 18:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you will continue to improve the encyclopedia. If you or your students ever need assistance in any way, by all means let me know. bibliomaniac15 20:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much (or rather muchísimas gracias) to the both of you! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well done professor. It's good to see you and your students enlivening Wikipedia with the things that count, especially in this age of increasing politicisation, bureaucracy and powerplays. All the best and looking forward to more great work! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Email headed your way. Risker (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Replied. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. My page seems to have become footnote central! Anyhow, I thought I'd open up a new section to point out that there are a number of different issues, which are in danger of becoming confused. Let me sketch out the issues, with brief comments:

• The use of a (more or less modified) Harvard-type system, in which most, if not all, the full references are found in a "References" section, and the notes point to those references.

  Comment. It's a little misleading to call this a Harvard system, as in fact many reference systems work this way: for MLA style, for instance, all full referencing takes place in a "works cited" section. Personally, I would go for a radical version of this, in which all full citations are in the "References" section. But it is common practice on WP that web and news citations remain in the notes, and only books and articles go in the "References." I'm happy enough with this compromise, which we followed for most of the MMM articles. (For instance, El Señor Presidente, which uses a Harvard-style system, but with "cite X" templates.) In either case, the result is that the notes are far less crowded, page size goes down, if a reference has to be fixed it only has to be fixed in one place, and (in my view) overall clarity is improved.

• The use of "citation" rather than "cite X" templates.

  Comment. This issue is independent of the previous one unless you decide to use "Harvnb" templates as well. I'd just say that I've never had any real problem with the "citation" templates. The formatting they produce is a little non-standard (and it would be nice if they produced a full stop at the end), but then so is what's produced by "cite X." It wasn't obvious at first how to cite a web page with this template, but following some advice on the template talk page, I now cite the page name as "chapter" and the site name as "title." This works for me. I also find the proliferation of "cite X" templates a little confusing. Overall, I marginally prefer "citation", but am fairly easy. I use them mainly so that I can use the "Harvnb" templates. I suspect that it would probably be fairly easy, however, for the makers of the "Harvnb" templates to make them work with "Cite X." (Though I say this as someone who knows little to nothing of the intricacies of template syntax.)

• The use of "Harvnb" templates.

  I like these a lot. They're an instance in which WP can be better than a regular article, as you can spring from a footnote to a reference. They require the use of "citation" templates, but as I say I'm not bothered about that, and suspect it could be changed in any case. In combination with the use of a Harvard-type system, I suspect that overall they reduce rather than increase page size in the vast majority of cases. But as for page size, I also strongly suspect that in most cases it's not the footnoting that's the real problem.

Anyhow, it might be useful to tackle these three issues separately. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with almost all your comments here, and welcome further discussion. Re the second issue, a technical point: making Harvnb (and other Harvard templates) work with Cite X requires almost no change to Harvnb: the main change required is to the Cite X templates, which have to provide a suitable anchor in the html for the Harbnb (etc.) template to link to. Geometry guy 23:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you know how to do this? Am I right that it would be relatively simple? --jbmurray (talk • contribs)

I think efforts may be better spent in redesigning our entire messed up referencing system to fix it all at once. Gimmetrow often talks about something that goes completely over my head; I sense it's stalled until enough people get interested and it picks up steam, and I don't know enough about what he's talking about to even try to explain it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As a long term, project, definitely. I'd say that whoever works on "citation" could probably take a leaf from the book of a program such as EndNote. Ideally, users (who were so concerned; most wouldn't be) could set in their preferences how they wanted references to be displayed: MLA, Harvard, whatever. The technicalities would very soon go over my head, too. But my sense is that the above section, that the "cite X" templates be made compatible with "Harvnb", is a relatively minor tweak. But Gguy may put me right about that. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• (undent)
• qp10qp wrote: "...but there it sticks and then you have to trawl all the way back up to your place on the page" Nope. Try your browser's "Back" button.
• As for load time etc.: {{wikicite}} would cut that, I believe. The virtue of {{Harvnb}} & {{harvcolnb}} etc. is that they format the information properly whereas wikicite is freehand. So why not invent a tool with textboxes that let users enter the info.. then the script spits out a wikicite for the user to copy/paste? Ling.Nut (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) I agree that the whole referencing system needs a big rethink: I have already discussed how Wikipedia has accidentally settled on poor choice for its most common citation style. I am sure that any views Gimmetrow has are well worth listening to, and should be brought forward. Meanwhile, post an edit conflict, here is a technical answer to Jbm's question. Geometry guy 00:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I know how to do it in outline and it is simple in principle, but in practice it relies upon a convention: the chosen convention is the one for Harvard citations, which is one reason why Citation organizes the authors differently (and better!) than Cite X.

Go to Miguel Angel Asturias (as you should be doing, in the glow of your recent success and the responsibilities which weigh upon you :), and check out footnote 27 (which is the only multi-author ref here). The link to the source, on mouseover should read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Angel_Asturias#CITEREFZimmermanRojas1998. This is the link produced by Harvnb. Now check the page source for the page and you should find (with my line breaks)

<cite id="CITEREFZimmermanRojas1998">Zimmerman, Marc & Rojas, Raul (1998),
<i>Voices From the Silence: Guatemalan Literature of Resistance</i>,
Athens: Ohio University Center for International Studies,
<a href="/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780896801981" class="internal">ISBN 978-0896801981</a></cite>

in the html. The Cite X template has to provide this extra id="CITEREFZimmermanRojas1998" in order for the link to work. For this it needs to know the surnames of the authors used in the link and the year. The year is no problem. The problem is the number of authors. Harvard provides a standard for this: up to the first three authors, I think it is, and then give up. Cite X only really supports one named author, so using Harvnb with Cite X would have to rely upon only the first author and the year. In many examples this is enough, but for multi-author articles it may not be, and the Harvnb templates would have to support "et al." links after the first author, which could certainly be done, if a case were made. Sorry this is techical, but I hope it gives a flavour of the issues involved. Geometry guy 00:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The formatting of the info within any given template is, by necessity, standardized. I suggest writing a javascript—a mammoth one, perhaps, but in the long run it's worth it—along the lines of User talk:Dr pda/persondata.js to extract the data and convert it into {{wikicite}}. This would also require freezing the various templates now so that the writer of the javascript would not be trying to hit a moving target, but that's a minor issue... And if we're gonna go farther abroad, I hate the <curse word> idea of refusing to put periodicals in the References section. What sort of a fine upstanding editor thought that one up? APA has formatting for periodicals. Use it. Ling.Nut (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

For me, technopeasant as I am, this is a step too far, at least at present. I'm just getting my head around these minor tweaks at present. But I do agree that journal articles can and should be in the References section. I always (or nearly always) put them there, in fact. See Learned Hand, for instance. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict; and sidenote: Yes, yes, yes, I know I should be over at MAA...) OK, and now I see another problem, albeit one that could be fixed. Cite X, which is laxer in many ways than Citation, allows two ways of entering author information: either author=lastname, firstname (though in fact, it doesn't force you to put the lastname first) or last= first=. Most editors seem to use the author= field. In fact I only belatedly became aware that you could use last= and first=. I can see how that would make it much more difficult for Harvnb, if there were no defined lastname even for the lead author.

But then, for subsidiary authors, Cite X forces you to use coauthors=, which is where, I suspect, the problems to which Gguy points us arise.

But in that Cite X already allows last= and first=, then surely it could also be tweaked to allow (as does Citation) last2= and first2=. Presumably, these are the fields upon which Harvnb relies. OK, so this is a second tweak. But it can't be that hard! (Again, the technopeasant speaks.)

The result would probably be that you could use Harvnb with Cite X so long as you used the following fields in the latter: last= first= (and last2= plus first2= as necessary) plus, as is at present the case, year=. But this seems to me good practice (and would improve Cite X en route). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, these are the problems that I'm pointing out, and you have provided another: linking requires a list of last names and a full author name is no good for this. Yes, with some work (and some negotiation) we could change all of the Cite X templates to provide a first2, a last2 and an authorlink2, but what about the third author? Where do we want to stop? I believe Citation currently supports up to nine authors, with editorial freedom as to how many authors to give before adding "et al." It is a hard standard to match, especially given the number of Cite X templates which need to be changed to match it. Geometry guy 01:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Whew! Who knew our little chat would turn into such an fascinating discussion on footnotes! Well, I certainly defer to the wiser heads around on this topic! Again, congrats on adminship! NorCalHistory (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi jbmurray. As a brand-new administator (congratulation by the way, very well-deserved!) I thought you might want to practice ;) I've been doing a lot of vandalism reversion lately, and I think rollback would particularly useful. Would you be able to grant me those privileges? Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Jbm is busy working on content right now :-). Done :-) Geometry guy 02:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL !! Ok, I'll call off Gimmetrow. I feel badly that no one realized, and Karanacs had to ask :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries. It was a pleasure to be the granting admin! Geometry guy 02:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You guys are making me blush. Sorry, jbmurray, I'll have to come up with a more ingenious way to make you practice using your tools ;) Karanacs (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha !! Anyone looking for practice can follow me as I try to correct the old fac files ... look at these messes for sorting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on your admin tools! Let me plunge you into the deep end, straightaway!

On MATADOR (weapon), there is a picture [2] which looks very much like one published elsewhere [3]. It is not exactly the same - the WP version has an extra line of text at the top.

I see it as an improper license or copyvio, but I don't want to use my admin tools to avoid any hint of a COI. Perhaps you would like to take a look? Thanks :) --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm literally just going out the door, and in any case have relatively little experience with images. But I agree with your assessment. As I don't have the time to read up on what I should do to delete the image right now, and to ensure that my first deletion is in line with policy, I've added a template and listed it for deletion here. Ufff, I see that that may in fact be the wrong page... But I do have to go out just now. I can look again on my return. Sorry if this is an unsatisfactory response! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! I'll wait for the issue to be resolved there. Have you checked out WP:NAS? When you have time, you can practice the nuts and bolts of deleting, protecting, and blocking. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks as though the image removal is proving controversial, so I'm glad I didn't speedy delete. NB can you explain your (potential) COI here? And thanks for the pointer to WP:NAS; I've looked at it, and aim to spend some quality time there shortly. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Nuff said! It is most certainly a case of COI here, go read through his talk page and you will get your answers. Whichever's the case, I DGAF although I must say that I am completely and utterly disgusted by his sneaky way of doing things. --Dave1185 (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) The person who uploaded that image argues that it is the other site who has plagiarized him, and not vice versa. As I say, I have relatively little experience with images, but of course this problem arises with text, too: I recently had a fairly tough time figuring out whether or not an article was plagiarized. Have you any reason to believe that things are not as the image uploader suggests? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If Dave1185 created the image as entirely his own work, having licensed the image as CC By Attribution 3.0 he is indeed entitled to claim that the website has violated his right to be attributed.

If Dave1185 created the image from a newspaper clipping, it could possibly be a derivative work, unlicenseable as CC By Attribution 3.0 as he did. It would also probably be not useable in Wikipedia, except under a fair use license.

So, these are the two ways I see it. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's more or less how I see the issue about the image itself. And as I say below, now there's a place for that discussion. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I've spent quite some time looking into this now. Here's what I think:

• I am not sure whether or not there is a problem with MATADOR_cutaway_diagram.JPG. I am prepared to believe Dave1185's account that he made it first, and that www.israeli-weapons.com adapted it slightly and uploaded it. I do wonder whether, strictly speaking, the original source (which Dave1185 says was a "Chinese Language newspaper clipping") should be acknowledged. But there's now a place for that discussion. And I am hoping that other editors, who are more experienced with images, can weigh in on the topic in the next fourteen days while that discussion is open.
• I have a problem with the way in which Rifleman 82 dealt with this issue. He came to me, a brand new admin, and asked me to use my admin tools, i.e. by implication to delete the image. On the one hand, that's fair enough in so far as, as he said, he wanted "to avoid any hint of a COI." By this he means the fact that he and Dave1185 have clashed several times in the recent past. But on the other hand, there was no need for him, or indeed anyone else, to use their admin tools--especially as Rifleman 82 presumably knew that a speedy deletion would be controversial. Far better than coming to me, would have been for Rifleman 82 to act as an editor (not as an admin) and take the image either to WP:PUI (as I did) or to WP:IFD (frankly, I'm not sure of the difference).
• I can therefore understand why Dave1185 should take affront at Rifleman 82's actions in this case: in his words, it seems a "sneaky way of doing things." On the other hand, however understandable it may be, Dave1185 should probably react a little less defensively, and should assume that I (as an uninvolved admin) am acting in good faith.

I hope that there needs to be no further discussion of the matter, except in the right place, which is at WP:PUI. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

are we there yet? Ling.Nut (talk) 08:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Uff, no.  :( I thought I was going to be able to get to the library today, but I didn't. And it ain't gonna happen tomorrow, either. Hopefully, Tuesday. In the meantime, should you want to fail it, then go ahead. It'll be back... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"Never get into a fight with pigs, you get all dirty and they love it~!" - Unknown source. Anyway, I forgot my purpose for being here again... OH! This is really draining me and I was wanting to do a re-write on another military hardware when this whole thing got us stuck together for god-knows-why. But whatever it is, let this be an episode where we can learn things, especially that of inter-personal interaction, specifically speaking it is even more so on wikipedia when editors and administrators don't really see each other in person. Hence, my motto in life... trust no one! Regards. --Dave1185 (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hiya. Yup, these things can be draining. But I'm glad that things are cooling down. It does look as though there may still be a problem with the image. I hope that editors more experienced than I in these matters will intervene. But I have certainly learned a lot from this exchange. Thank you for helping out. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

jbmurray, now that you're an administrator you have to respond to all queries, as you know, and I have one for you. It seems lately that everyone around here speaks Spanish, but I'd like to ask you, as the specialist. I am looking for a book to help me learn Spanish. I'd like something that explains the grammar fully (that goes beyond the usual tourist stuff). I don't want audio stuff, I start out analytically, and am largely doing this to read the language. (Most confusing to me so far is "se" and related words that are, I think, reflexive, and their position in sentences!) I suppose the simple question here is, "what's a good Spanish textbook"? If you can help, thank you. –Outriggr § 09:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Well, every textbook has its problems. I've never seen any that I think are great. One of the ones we use here is Más allá de las palabras. A Complete Program in Intermediate Spanish. ISBN: 978-0471-46578-2. I don't think you should be put off by the fact that it says it's "intermediate." It goes through everything from the start, in any case.

The use of "se" and the reflexive can certainly be tricky. Not least in constructions such as "se me cayó." But it can be a marvellous way (as here) of diverting the blame to the impersonal (essentially, "it fell from me" rather than "I dropped it"), and as such very useful.  ;) Good luck! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks jb. I obtained the book last night via Amazon's I-Want-It-NOW-Goddam-It shipping option, and I'm now fluent. (Google Translate tells me that "It's a miracle" would be "es un milagro", but I don't believe it. In French they'd say something like "Quel miracle!", I think, and I bet Spanish does too.) –Outriggr § 02:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Bueno, ahora nos podremos conversar en castellano, ¿entonces? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi congrats on the mop and bucket. Sorry I missed your candidacy but from what I've sene I woul dhave supported you also. It maybe too late but remember I also support you. Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!  :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Brianmc from over on Wikinews here. Serious congratulations! Wikipedia, Wikinews, hell! the whole Wikimedia family needs more people like you! --Brian McNeil /^talk 13:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Hope all's well.  :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Going great - apart from upsetting Jimbo by de-adminning him. :-P

My latest project is an interview with Alex Salmond, First Minister of Scotland. --Brian McNeil /^talk 08:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

See here, they seem to have adopted a quite different approach that appears to be producing GAs too. Acer (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Those Germans are more organized in everything!  :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, no wonder they implemented flagged revs before us. I'm much more of a disorganised individual myself :P Acer (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Though yours is the only country with "order" inscribed on its national flag! I guess that's more of an aspiration than anything else.  ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I do believe that's a not very aspired to aspiration :P I think Mr.Mendes had a sense of humour though... Mais ces't la vie, bonne chance avec ton livre :) Acer (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I was just reading yesterday that there is a common German proverb: "Organization is half of life" or "order is half of life." So we can see this in action... Ling.Nut (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wer Ordnung hält, ist zu faul zu suchen. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

...hope my freshman German doesn't fail me: "Ordnung ist das halbe Leben" Ling.Nut (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My goodness, this user page is becoming polyglot central, as well as footnote paradise! Thanks particularly to the товарищ for his contributions.  ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, well since we're all showing off our erudition, I can only quote that well-known Welsh philosopher, Mwnty Pyddwn: "Mae fy hofrenfad yn llawn o lyswennod". EyeSerene^talk 11:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, I'm half-Welsh, in fact? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

My sink is blocked, and I was wondering Congratulations, well-deserved ;) EyeSerene^talk 11:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

lol! Acer (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No kiddin', my toilet went kaput yesterday. If you need any help with the various plumbing jobs people will ask of you, don't be afraid to ask for help. Congrats. :) · AndonicO ^Engage. 19:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Anyhow, EyeSerene knows who can help out with his sink. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the UK. Standing room only. EyeSerene^talk 11:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your RfA! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Your thanks are much appreciated, Coppertwig. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You might want to be aware of this and this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Conversations now joined on my talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. Mind you, I think those projects are pretty much comatose in any case. -jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep forgetting to get back to you on this. Yes, the Venezuela Project has died (for now), for reasons well known among Venezuelans but not yet dealt with by published reliable sources and which can't be detected by Checkuser. Should the situation change, I hope the Project will still be there when Venezuelan editors return. I've got to start getting ready for travel and finish up some Wiki and around the house work; we may want to revisit this issue in many months ... or years ... depending on factors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Gasp! Could it be that the Venezuelans didn't entirely see eye to eye? ;) Anyhow, I'm happy to help out should the project be revived, but I'm increasingly wary of projects in general these days. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's quite a bit more complicated than how regular (i.e.; private sector) Venezuelans see things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Although you opposed me in my recent RFA I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me I have made a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I just stumbled against you guys and to be honest I'm impressed with the work you have done with the articles about Latin American literature, would it be possible to squeeze Puerto Rican literature and René Marqués in the list of future projects? - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I would love to "squeeze in" both articles; last year I found myself doing a fair amount on Puerto Rican literature, for one reason or another, including making stubs for Edgardo Rodríguez Juliá and Tato Laviera. But just at the moment, I have a fair amount to do already, so can't really commit, I'm afraid. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, can you please tell what may be the copyright status of this image. The are several images present in this page which can be used in the article 2003 Algeria earthquake. But I am confused over the copyright status. Can this images be uploaded under fair use as unique historical image? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I'm an expert on images, by a long shot. But it would look to me as though none of the images on that page are free (not even the map). But you might be able to argue that they were fair use because you would not be able to find a free substitute. I find WP image policy horribly complicated. You may want to look at the image copyright help desk. Good luck! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hope jb doesn't mind me chipping in! The website's copyright policy is here. Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't accept 'educational or research use' as a valid license, so under the terms on the site we can't use their material. However, you could try contacting the site owners (they have an email address here) and ask if they would be willing to release the images you would like to use under the GFDL or a similar free license. There are some suggestions on this page for letters you can copy/paste to send them; if they are willing, they will also need to complete a 'Declaration of consent' (an example is on the same page near the top), which you could post on the image page to prove it had been released by its copyright owner. Hope this helps! EyeSerene^talk 17:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Jb, if you get a moment, would you mind checking this deleted image page for any source information? The image was transfered to Commons and is now being used in New York State Route 175 (up at FAC). The transfer, as usual, only put the old en.wiki page as the source; I suspect the image is self-made (it has higher resolution, camera metadata, etc), but the addition of "borders" is atypical and has given me pause. The FAC opened today, so I can wait until the weekend if you're not around. Thanks. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. The original source information was "Paul Malo photograph z{{cc-by-2.0}}," uploaded by User:Phmalo. This was edited (by Phmalo) to "Paul Malo photograph. The photographer contributed this image. {{cc-by-2.0}}." Does that help? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It does indeed. Much obliged. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 23:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Di niente. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

My, I don't envy you. It nearly killed me just trying to abbreviate the buggers. Those refs, good though they are, are relentlessly bloody awkward. qp10qp (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. It's a pain. But at least you don't have to think too much... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

NB I think there are still a few in the References that aren't in fact cited; these are almost always when another work by the same author is cited, so I figure you must have been searching by author. I've left inline notes in the References section. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I did it from memory, I admit. Just looked at your intricate work: you've put in tremendous labour there: amazing how much time and concentration such editing takes. The refs look pretty coherent now. All kudos to your elbow. qp10qp (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

My elbow thanks you.  :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Guess who's running for the WMF Board election.. [4] Acer (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I just saw that too... I'm speechless (well, sort of. Some words did come to mind) EyeSerene^talk 18:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Well, it takes all sorts. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouragement, it has been a lot more work than I was expecting when I started adding references but I think I should be finished soon. It was very refreshing to see another editor contributing and the work you've put in is greatly appreciated. --Kaly99 (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Nah, you're doing the really hard graft. Drop me a line when you think that some more copy-editing or work on structure on my part might be appreciated. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am happy with your edits. Even if I wanted to start an edit war my case would be lost :-) Thanks for fixing this. Geometry guy 22:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have sent you an email. Please check the email that you used while registering for your account (sometimes it goes into junk mail and you can retrieve it there). Please email me back. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Sorry, I have an email backlog... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Listed Here. Also I hope that you will find time to again offer up your considerable talents to the article in the near future. if you decide to do so, I will obviously cede to your advice and suggestions, as I trust your judgment.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 04:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Feeling pressed for time, but will do what I can. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Jb, I'm going to be traveling end of month, so am trying to get all my ducks in a row about Dispatches. May 26 may be the new Assessment 1.0 poll (see WT:FCDW), June 2 will be Tony's monthly updates of style guides, and June 9 may be a Mike Searson (talk · contribs) and Laser brain (talk · contribs) piece on this notability, TF/R issue. See User talk:SandyGeorgia#name dropping, User talk:Mike Searson#Name dropper and User talk:Raul654#Elderly Instruments protection. Also User talk:SandyGeorgia#Schedule. Just wanted you to be aware in case you can follow progress in my absence. The instructions for getting them submitted are at WP:FCDW. Some real unpleasantness being lodged on Laser brain's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, will do. Hmm, perhaps the thing is to watchlist the redlinks, eh? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, JB; but it's only the monthly update (pretty uninspiring and mechanical). Pleased for any tweaks, though. Can't start the survey until the end of the month, by definition, which will make it a rush. I can get a few things out of the way before then, such as FLC, which has mostly happened already. TONY (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

for the vote of confidence and the congratulations. I do appreciate it. And I will get back to Learned Hand and had those citations. That bloomin' RFA took it out of me a bit, and I haven't had much energy for JSTOR etc. But I will! --Slp1 (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jbmurray, in response to your comments at WT:DYK I started a thread at Talk:In Cold Blood#Publication year. The editor here stands by the 1966 year, and thus I wondered if you had a further perspective to provide to help resolve the discrepancy. Cheers! --JayHenry (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've replied over there. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I had anything to do with that discussion at MOS, but I think I entirely agree, even—as an exception—for single-digit centuries. The number is embedded in a standardised item "..th century", and thus is highly recognisable and easier to read, to me; not at the start of a sentence, though (I hope that's clear in MOS).

I'll ask Noetica, who's riding down the valley, fast approaching. He was more connected with this guideline. TONY (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain what is the meaning of this edit summary? I did not understand. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I often use "oops" as a summary when I've made a mistake, especially a technical mistake (here with formatting footnote references) and am trying to fix it. There, I'd made (at least) two mistakes: hence "double oops." Sorry if that's not clear. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/hsc-to-run-wikipedia-course/2008/05/26/1211653895427.html SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you take another look? I've added material, tried to address Tony's prose concerns from the FAC, and asked some other editors for copy editing help, but they haven't responded yet. Whenever you have the time, prose or content assistance would be welcome. --Kakofonous (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandy asked me to let you know what was happening with the WP1.0 assessment scheme discussions. The vote showed quite a lot of support for the idea of a new C-Class, which would come between Start and B. None of the other proposals seemed to gather enough support IMHO to take further at this time. I have proposed that we clarify exactly what the new scheme would entail (with a set of good examples, etc.), then we ask the WikiProjects for their views on C-Class. You can see my conclusion here. I'm on vacation myself right now, but I will try to check in each night if possible. Walkerma (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

hmmm ... I guess we have no Dispatch this week. First time ever. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Eep, sorry, I was away this weekend with no computer access. I still can write it, if it is still possible. (I literally just came back home...) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you would have everything to write the news item here. I see that the temporary page now has a lengthy piece about Featured Sounds - will be adding something on assessment to that page, or just leaving it as it is?

Just to update you with today's news on the topic: We now have some working examples, and hopefully we can go out to the wider community this coming weekend to get their views. I am on vacation, but if you need a long feature (like the Featured Sounds piece) written by non-Signpost people, I may be able to work with Titoxd to write a few hundred words next week for the Signpost, though I may not have much internet access until June 14th. If you want this, please send me an email (my username AT potsdam DOT edu), because till the 14th I may not be able to access WP much at all. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is now at FAC. Please take a look. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Sorry I've been slow. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The entire article was blatant advertising. I just put the tag on though, I'm not the one who deleted it. User:Gwen Gale is the sysop who deleted it, so she must have agreed with me, or it wouldn't have been deleted. GreenJoe 19:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm taking it through deletion review. It was clearly not a case for a speedy. If you had concerns about the tone, that's what the talk page is for. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Right near the bottom of every page when you edit, it says... If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. GreenJoe 19:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. The problem is you chose not to do any editing. I welcome your editing contributions should you feel that the article is problematic. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Peter Wall, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Bstone (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Peter Wall. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I added {{inuse}}, because actually that was more appropriate: I even was in an edit conflict with you when you added the speedy. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Peter Wall. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Bstone (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I did this because {{hangon}} was not appropriate. I will do it again. And please stop adding the speedy tag while I am actively writing the article: please respect the {{inuse}} tag. Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The {{tone}} tag should not be removed until you have fixed the problem. The {{inuse}} does not mean that any problems with the article should be ignored, it just informs other users that it is being worked on. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 22:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm working on it, but it's taking twice as long because people aren't respecting the "inuse" tag. Once I take it off, I'm more than happy for you (or anyone else) to add whatever tags seem to you appropriate. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching this go back and forth (sorry to butt in), but the {{inuse}} tag clearly states that it is to reduce edit conflicts. Naturally there will be problems when it is only half done - let Jb write the article, then check it for tone, etc. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I had only added the {{tone}} tag once, when I was removing the {{db-spam}}. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 22:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was mostly directing my comments at Bstone Fritzpoll (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, guys, guyesses, I'm pretty much done for now, though I'll be adding more in the next few days. Add whatever tags you like! (Except not speedy, darn it... This is clearly not a candidate for a speedy deletion.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs)

Lol. I guess speedy tag likes you (especially during class demonstration :P) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy tag seems to love me! Though strangely enough, I'm not in class right now. NB I haven't forgotten about your email... Sorry about delay! But in brief, good to see you still around. :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that removing CSD tags can lead to being blocked? You twice removed legit CSD tags and have twice been warned. Do not remove CSD tags in the future or you may be blocked from editing. Bstone (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your tags were what was illegitimate. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, drama on AfD wheel-war! OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Now now, no wheel-warring took place! No admin tools were wielded in anger! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to practice with your new tools, there is continued disruption by a confirmed sockpuppet at Elderly Instruments, and I don't expect the situation to let up. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jokeshow. Since I don't know blocking policy or when protection will be needed, I'll leave that to the admins who get paid the big bucks :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, was about to, but already blocked... I'm too slow on the tools!  ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Good gosh, who nommed that Gimmetrow dude for RfA anyway? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shepherd—Sandy's away now and I'm unsure about what to do at Template:FCDW/T. I've completed the ?draft at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-05-26/Dispatches and notified the newsroom. TONY (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sheep!  ;) I think that's the biz. I've been keeping an eye on what you've been doing, and it looks grand. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated Peter Wall, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Wall. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Bstone (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Jbmurray. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yours, Bstone (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving here away from the FAC. The Rome-Berlin Axis is a good example of linking to help explain chapter titles. Ideally, of course, there would be a precis of each chapter where linking could take place, but this is a good example of an article that will likely never grow, but will just sit there quietly for years. My edit here has survived, and I'm in two minds about that now. Accurately identifying what is meant in a quotation can be tricky. I recently did work on Frieze of Parnassus, and for the obscure people, it was a problem sometimes working out who they were commemorating. There probably is a source somewhere that confirms stuff, but for now, things are the way they are there: the carved name, the name from the official source (including some initials that help in identifying) and a third column with articles. The identification step being taken there is usually done silently every day all over Wikipedia, ideally through piped links so people still see what the original source said. For another example, look at Royal Medal and Talk:Royal Medal. It is important to quote what the source says, and only link if we are sure of the identification. Many, many links all over Wikipedia actually take people to the wrong articles! Another thing is that sources can get spellings wrong. I discovered that the Royal Society web pages contradict themselves and use different spellings, either because of poor transcription, or conflicting sources. OK, that's enough on that! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ach, I have to run but... in general I do think there are both far too many wikilinks, and above all far too many misleading wikilinks on far too many articles. I'll be back on this (have to run, now), though I have just thought of a wikilink I should add to Peter Wall... if it exists, that is; but here's a hint, that it isn't Hong Kong. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooh. It is possible that boat sailed long ago. Unless you want to: (a) clear up the whole of Wikipedia yourself; or (b) educate several generations of Wikipedians to do less linking. Linking is one of the first things people learn to do, and old habits die hard. See The Anacreontic Song (scroll down and click show to see the text of the poem) for another example of linking to explain, as opposed to using, say, footnotes. Also, the linking in the citation column at Nobel Prize in Physics. Do you think either of those examples are helpful? Carcharoth (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. A standalone year has been wikilinked! I think some bot should run around and purge every such example of standalone wikilinked years.

Meanwhile, as for clearing up Wikipedia or educating generations... My current thought is to write a few articles that satisfy my own conception of what such an article should look like. Peter Wall is a step in that direction (though I really didn't think I'd write such an article until a couple of days ago). It's an interesting test case in lots of ways: BLP, businessman, what's worse, real-estate man! Colourful and controversial, not a lot known about him, but clearly significant in a way that can I think be explained in the article format. In some ways, of course, the fact that we don't know the useless trivia that otherwise clogs WP actually helps. The problem is that people are calling for it to be added in....

Longer term, I want to write a couple of decent film articles. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Good luck on the film articles. BTW, I linked The Georgia Straight, but not BusinessWeek (note that this is one word, not two as you have in the refs). Whether articles on the publishers of the sources should be linked or not (and how much) is another question I'm ambivalent on. More often than not, by now, we have articles on the newspapers and journals used as sources, and the context provided there can help when assessing sources, though people shouldn't really do that, as assessing sources should be done independently of Wikipedia content. BTW, don't take the hubris comment too hard. It was certainly too soon to take the article to FAC, and I don't think I'll be able to support (am wavering towards oppose if anything). I am silently agreeing with lots of the comments there, but coming here to let you know that, as the FAC itself seems pretty clear. Carcharoth (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm more than happy about linking The Georgia Straight. In fact, I think I was in the middle of doing that when I got distracted... I'd done The Province and The Vancouver Sun.

I'm sure I can see why the nomination might be seen as hubristic. Though I did figure it would pass GA with no problems. (Perhaps I was wrong, but so it goes.) What's at issue, it seems to me, at FAC is whether or not any article on this person (or, presumably, one like him) could become Featured. If not, then that's good to know. (Though frankly I think it bears good comparison with the EST book, for instance.) I've done my best, and about as well as anyone can do (barring the sudden discovery of more sourced information, which I doubt) to make the case that one could write an FA about someone like Peter Wall. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Was it BusinessWeek by the way? Carcharoth (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I figured that they'd scrunched the name on the website; maybe not. Meanwhile, I have the sense that various people are watching and waiting on the FAC. Which is fine. I really do hope to be able to respond to issues that come up, while also trying to suggest certain principles about this kind of article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Scrunched up? I bet they used a thin space, or one of the other horrible things at Thin space#Table of spaces. More prosaically, they proabably paid a designer loads of money to tell them that "one word titles are the 'in' thing at the moment". Carcharoth (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I see you've added some. I just trawled through the refs, and came up with the following: Financial Post, National Post, University of British Columbia Press (horrible stub), The Blood-Horse magazine (is that the same publication/website?), Douglas & McIntyre, The Vancouver Sun, The Globe and Mail, The New York Times, Toronto Stock Exchange, University of British Columbia. The Canadian newspapers were interesting to read about. I was surprised we don't have an article on The Journal of Commerce. I searched, and there are a lot out there. See here. Is the one you've used as a source the weekly magazine founded in 1827? Carcharoth (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of these are wikilinked already; I've added another couple, for which much thanks. I am more skeptical, however, about wikilinking publishers. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I (only sometimes) try to mentally add wikilinks to the newspapers and books I read, so I think I'm incurable! At least I don't sign letters or e-mails with the four tildes "~~~~", well, not yet anyway. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. I asked about the Journal of Commerce because it is behind a ProQuest link which I can't get past (or can't be bothered to register). Let's see... ProQuest. A little reading for me. So would you be able to confirm which "Journal of Commerce" it is - a respectable one or one of the ones that use the same name? Carcharoth (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) And FWIW, the Journal of Commerce I'm using was first published in 1982. It seems to be a Canadian publication, with the following details: CMD Group, 380 Yorkland Blvd., North York, Ontario M2J 4Z6, CANADA. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

First published after 1950? Obviously completely unreliable! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I know there may be a slight issue about using ProQuest and LexisNexis (if that's what it's called). In at least one case I used the regularly available online version of the article. But I think that the Vancouver Sun, for instance, doesn't have archives longer than a month (perhaps six?), which means that such links soon become useless. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't bother me. Ideally, we would link to both. Actually, JSTOR links annoy me a lot. But even archives disappear one day. I saw a programme on TV about what the world would be like if humans disappeared. Turns out all our exoculture (should be a word!) extelligence disappears after about 20-30 years. Even the digital media. The rumours that Wikipedia should be carved in stone to preserve it are not that silly after all. The Pyramids may outlast our civilisation, and only things like Mount Rushmore will truly survive without damage from lack of maintenance. Even the digital media in space (like the DVD they landed on Mars) will degrade. The stuff carved in durable materials will do best. Pioneer plaque, Voyager Golden Record, LAGEOS ("The satellite (which will re-enter the atmosphere in 8.4 million years) also contains a plaque showing the arrangement of the Earth's continents in the past, present, and future.") and KEO - that last one was new to me - I then went to Category:Time capsules and ended up at Westinghouse Time Capsules. See what happens when people overlink! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hiya J. Genero-cruft is generic-cruft. Something which manages to be crufty without it being for a specific reason. The subject of the article in question certainly meets the WP:N guidelines, but the article itself is far too bloated for its own good. It would, however, be a sterling candidate in a Who's Who sort of affair. --Badger Drink (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Some people tell me there's not enough in it, and others such as yourself that it's bloated. I'm half-tempted to cut even more from the biographical stuff. But out of interest: which bits would you cut? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think it's a matter of "which bits". What I said before may have come off as a bit snide, so let me restate - the piece really is well-written. It's not exactly encyclopedically written - there's an over-reliance on quotes, and parts like "Wall himself remains upbeat, offering the following 'rah-rah observation'" are a bit too humanistic for a detached encyclopedia - but as a short biography, it's entertaining, and manages to let the human element of Mr. Wall shine through while possibly teaching us a little something. And that's, ironically or not, the central flaw. There's only so much an encyclopedia can say about Mr. Wall while remaining, well, encyclopedic. It's a bit of a Catch-22 - either it's "too short" for FA, or it becomes, as I and others have (sometimes snidely) noted, vaguely "spammy", in a "puff piece" sort of way. Anyway, sorry for being vague. If you have any further or more specific questions, lemme know! --Badger Drink (talk) 10:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I understand what you're saying better now. I do rely on quotations a lot. In part, that's my style (sorry!); though I feel it's fairly justified when the subject is a BLP. On the other hand, I do believe that we should try to make our articles interesting and engaging. That's probably just a different philosophy as to "encyclopedic" tone. I may not get it completely right, but I'd like to be able to write entertainingly, while sticking to NPOV. Peter Wall is clearly an interesting and colourful character; I wanted to get some sense of that across. NB I don't think that that means it's a puff piece. I've very much tried to ensure that it steers a careful line between BLP concerns on the one hand, and promotion on the other. FWIW, there is one rather negative newspaper piece out there; I've linked to it (it's the Adele Weder one), but not used it very much. In any case, if one were to be negative about Wall, I don't think his personality is the deal, but rather the effect on people who can no longer afford to buy a house in Vancouver, while a few profit from this extraordinary boom. Again, I added a brief comment and footnote about that, but didn't feel it worth going into at length.

Anyhow, thanks for your comments. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Different philosophies - nail, head, hammer. A couple years ago, I'd agree with you 100% (WP:NOTPAPER). Now, though, the prevailing stylistic trend on WP is to try to ape Britannica, except with more footnotes, and as such, overly-engaging articles such as this stick out like a sore thumb. Sounds awful, but, hey, them's the times. --Badger Drink (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have decided to support the article. I've got a few points that I'd enjoy a discussion on, if only to enlighten myself.

First of all, I thought that references should always end in a period? I believe at least MLA suggests this; I think I've seen APA ignore this, though. Secondly, the reason I suggested to wikilink the accessdates is because if you don't, then they show up in DD-MM-YYYY format. However, as an example, I have set my own preferences to show dates in MM-DD-YYYY format since I'm used to that, and so it would make more sense if the accessdates conformed to my own preferences. Wikilinking them does this; typically, though, wikilinking accessdates is not necessary. It is only required in the {{citation}} template because it is so old that if it was updated, it might break a few hundred pages already using the template; {{cite web}} is "smarter" now, meaning that is automatically checks if you entered a date into accessdate, and then formats it accordingly. It does this for a few other fields, too.

I work as a web developer by day so this stuff is pretty much second nature :) If I could, I would help to edit the citation templates myself to add some checks so that they would all automatically format the accessdates if they recognize a date has been entered; otherwise, don't format them (I've done this to a few other templates that require dates and such, including {{high-traffic}}), but alas, those templates all have full protection. Gary King (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to add a period to the footnotes (which is what I presume you mean; not the references). But I have one there at present whenever there's a full sentence. This is inline with WP style on image captions, for instance, which is probably equivalent. Meanwhile, MLA style is rather different, btw, as footnotes are generally eschewed; and Wikipedia style, especially when it comes to footnoting and references, is very much a hybrid and all over the place.

On accessdates, again this is not a big deal for me. Strangely, however, the change has an opposite effect with my set-up. When there are unlinked, then 2008-05-27 becomes translated to 27 May 2008; when they are linked, it becomes the much less user friendly 2008-05-27. In other words, this is the opposite to what you say. (Why not uncheck your preferences and compare Peter Wall to, say, King Arthur?) I have "no preference" set for dates, so I suspect that my experience is closest to that of the average WP user.

Meanwhile, I pointed before to the various footnote discussions that have gone through this page: look at this month's archive for more. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Holy smokes, how do you manage to get so much criticism for the FAC? Compare to the FACs that were submitted before this one! Gary King (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I know! Well, this is obviously fairly controversial for various reasons. That's fine by me. I've been thinking it of something of a test case, so the more comments, the better. It is, however, perhaps getting a little confusing for the more casual reader. I hope to do some clarifying. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You certainly have a knack for creating articles from scratch and then building them up to FA status. Gary King (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In this case, it was entirely unintentional. I didn't set out to write a featured article. I just set out to write an article; then at some stage I thought it was good enough for GA. With a bit more reflection, I thought it in fact stood a chance at FA. We'll see! NB do have a look at my query above, in that my computer (or my settings) seem to have the opposite effect from yours when it comes to formatting accessdates. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

accessdate in Template:citation uses {{date}} for formatting. It doesn't format according to user preferences, though, which is unfortunate. Gary King (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I think I understand. I should say (in case it's not obvious) that I'm a bit of a techno-peasant, and that templates especially bewilder me. I'm just happy that people such as yourself understand them. Seriously, if you feel that you can improve a protected template, and the fact that it is protected is an obstacle, then I'm happy to help out as an admin. If you would do no more than add a period at the end of the "citation" template, I would be more than happy... though I suspect you would then have to comb through Wikipedia with a bot deleting every instance where at present someone has manually added a period, no? Changing these things is complex. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going stick with it for a while, but—please—feel to revert what you want after I'm done. Its just I cant keeps my mits off when reading; I realise most of these changes are preferences only. No worries either way Ceoil (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No, fantastic, I very much appreciate it. I probably will in turn change a few things around once you're done. But do please, go ahead. I'm like you: I find it hard to read without wanting to change something. :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats the problem with drive-by FAC 'improvements'. Uuug. rEPAIR what you feel what you need need to re-fix. Ceoil (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm fine. I'm quitting because I was realized that, after WP:MMM (Which I would like to congratulate you on), We have not moved. We still list MMM as a mission. It's over. In addition, I left a message on the talk page for the FA-Team saying how we needed to start a new mission. That was two months ago. If er ever get moving, please alert me. Thank you and have a good day :)  Mm40 (talk | guestbook | contribs)  00:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have also found that FACs are quit winding and seem to never end. In addition (lot's of reasons) Iv'e found that I'm really not that useful. I'm aware that that isn't really a good reason, but it's a reason.  Mm40 (talk | guestbook | contribs)  00:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No problems. I was just a touch concerned. Perhaps you could put a less brusque edit summary than "I quit."

Meanwhile, these projects wax and wane, I think. I appreciated your encouragement that we needed to get things together again. There's been further discussion of this in the past few days; you might want to take a look. Anyhow, above all I'm glad all's well. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? GreenJoe 04:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(This got archived, so...)

Ah, there will be no "squeezing" then ;) I have also been quite busy, but if you are interested when the schelude clears I know where to find a few professional references, our project also has a great historian that may be interested in cooperating with the task. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Do feel free to come back to me sometime in the future. I'd love to help out if and when I can. Again, I really don't know much about Puerto Rico, and it was just a bit of an oddity that I found myself working on so many PR articles last year, but I would love to learn more. Moreover, I've only been to San Juan once, but liked it a lot. --jbmurray (talk • contribs)

"The Elderly Instruments affair" - love it. I may seek film rights. --Laser brain (talk) 05:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think WP lends itself more to soap opera than to film; or perhaps, sometimes, splatter movie? Heh. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

JB, If you liked what I was doing with H2O, there will be another candidate coming up VERY soon whom I consider to be the poster boy for admin coaching... keep an eye out on the RfA's. His coaching page, IMHO, is even more impressive---especially when you see the changes made in him over the past 3 months. He won't be my strongest candidate (holds up mirror), but I do take a lot of pride in how far he's come.Balloonman (talk) 07:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I continue to be impressed with what you do on RfA. It's not an area of WP with which I'm particularly involved, or where I feel the need to be particularly involved, either. But feel free to keep me up to date from time to time with your doings. Let me state here, if I can, that I'm happy for you to drop me a line if you think you can do so without violating canvassing rules. This doesn't mean, of course, as in this case, that I'll always agree with you. ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Fritz bot has been approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot for filling in a possible 1.8 million articles on settlements across the world. Now dabbing needs to be done for links which aren't sorted as the bot will bypass any blue links. and I need as many people as possible to help me with Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places to prepare for the bot. If you could tackle a page or two everything counts as it will be hard to do it alone. Thankyou ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, can you please tell if this letter] to the editor of the British Medical Journal published in BMJ can be used as RS or not? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My view, for what it's worth, is that a letter published in a journal such as the BMJ is a reliable source, so long as it is made clear when it is cited that it is indeed a letter. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Some topics are limited in the potential quality. Since you have seen my talk page, you can tell I like to try to get my work promoted to at least WP:GA. Many of my articles could be GAs if their personal information was PD. Thomas Wilcher, Keith Bostic (American football), Gene Derricotte come to mind quickly and there are probably another half dozen. That are similarly notable. It is still a great contribution to push an article to its highest possible level even if it is B-class. The day Vernon Gholston was drafted last month, I know about 50 New York Jets fans were able to read a good B-class article about his high school coach. That felt good.

I noticed others encouraged some changes that made some of my enumerated complaints moot. I was glad to see such improvements. Keep working hard. Don't get hung up on any one article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Not getting hung up on any one article is certainly good advice. Oh, and I wanted to say that I laughed at this comment: "You use the word as more than any writer I recall and use it in many of its half dozen or so forms (adj., con, etc.)." You're quite right! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm very let down by the tone the FAC is taking. Although some of the criticism is valid, many are shooting from the hip, and I think are reactively objecting. Hmm. Wikipedia is particularly weak on finance and economics, and if you look at its coverage of the CEOs of the Forbes 500, you'll be disappointed. Anyway, just lending moral support. Ceoil (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the moral support. And also for helping out with the copy-editing: much appreciated. Unfortunately, and it really pains me, I've decided to withdraw the FAC, as I don't think the article is stable any more, and in its current state I would have to vote against it, too. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No no no no no. Don't withdraw. Its important that articles like this, that covers this area, are accepted as suitable FA material. There is plenty support, I'd suggest you stick it out, as the debate surrounding it is important. The article will stabilise again Ceoil (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please don't withdraw. The FAC should continue to attract critical editors; what I think wikipedia is all about. Stability is only a matter of time (maybe just a few days). Randomblue (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your support. I'll sleep on it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It was closed before you came back. I'm disappointed I have to say, but more importantly I hope you are not put off by this. You fought the good fight, but them had bigger guns. Oh well; onwards...Ceoil (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to let it ride a bit longer, but neglected to say so on my talk page, and since I have asked Elcobbola, Karanacs and Roger Davies to handle nominator withdraw requests, Karanacs rightfully went ahead and withdrew. Bring it back whenever you feel ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Karanacs made the right call. I hope JB will re-non. Ceoil (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) These things happen. I'm disappointed at the way things went, but so it goes. I slept on it, and then today went out with a Catalan friend who just arrived in town; we went shopping, spent lots of money, including plenty on further books on Vancouver, and chatted at length about Wikipedia and Peter Wall, among other things. Tonight we're going out to see Destroyer (band), a local group that I highly recommend, and which indeed has its own rather amusing wiki. Life goes on. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I know I've done so elsewhere, but I'd like to unreservedly and personally apologise here for making those major structural changes to Peter Wall while it was at WP:FAC. I will try and remember to use something like a sandbox first and discuss in future. I have made some rather long comments explaining my edits at Talk:Peter Wall#Some recent edits for review (31/05/2008). I do hope, after having slept on it, that you will have time to comment there on which of my proposed changes have merit. Carcharoth (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

These things happen. Thanks for the note. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at the Edupunk article before it gets eaten because of being a neologism --Enric Naval (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm sorry, and Jgroom is a buddy of mine and someone I respect, but the article should indeed be deleted. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the same about deleting the article. I just wanted to make sure that you saw how the page was before it was deleted, since I wasn't sure if you knew about the term, and since I thought that you would most probably would be interested on reading it --Enric Naval (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.