![]() | 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. |
I've left some comments at your GA review of Gaara. If I've misconstrued any of your concerns, please point it out, and I will happily address them. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ( Converse) 00:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Several changes have been made about the clarify. Could you check it now? Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 01:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You might look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/To Kill a Mockingbird for one of the stranger things that can happen at FAC. Awadewit ( talk) 01:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Copy remains a pain for me. No matter how much I work on an article, a lack of mastery over English keeps me failing. Good copyeditors are rare and they already have other business or massive backlogs on their plates. It would be very nice if you told me where the copy needs to be changed and how. I promise to work on every single suggestion you make. Aditya( talk • contribs) 07:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction - I do seem to get caught out by Latin surnames; assuming they work the same way as Anglo-saxon ones is clearly a mistake! Cheers, EyeSerene talk 09:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Gerald Martin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 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.
Xiaphias (
talk)
04:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Wikipedia Motivation Award | |
Thanks for developing Murder, Madness and Mayhem and arguing for the respectability (with caveats, of course!) of Wikipedia in the public sphere. Even more, thanks for helping to make Wikipedia's literature articles better and for encouraging an enthusiastic group of editors to do the same. We are excited that you have joined our community and look forward to your other "experiments". Awadewit ( talk) 17:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
The spelling is Jorge J. Barrueto. I will send you a copy of the article, if you have the time to help me out and explain this stuff that would be great. If not I will try to figure it out!-- Mfreud ( talk) 23:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Ps. I just got an email notification that the Ariel Dorfman book is back in the library and waiting for me so that will be added shortly! :)-- Mfreud ( talk) 23:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it's likely that the FA-team will do some kind of "lessons learned" review from this mission; no idea what that will look like but it should be interesting. One thing that occurs to me is that the value of our involvement is focused very heavily on the back end -- until the students get content into the article there's not much useful we can do. We knew that already but it may have implications for your course plan, if you do this again (and I gather you're considering it).
I do hope we can get some "lessons learned" from you, and from the students as well. I'd like to know, among other things, if this process worked well as a way to teach them the material: my own essay on what I enjoy on Wikipedia, written a few months ago, actually uses the analogy of Wikipedia as a classroom and FAC as a professor handing out grades, so I am curious to know whether real students and a real professor can work with Wikipedia in that way. You make an excellent point in your essay to the effect that this approach forces students to revisit their work and improve it. I would think this has value not only for making them re-evaluate their research and organizational skills, but it has direct pedagogical value too -- that process of reworking their own first drafts is surely a strong reinforcement of the material under review. I hope to hear that the students find the teaching method very effective for retaining and integrating what they learn. I'd also be interested to know what you think needs to change to make this more effective, both in your course plan, and in Wikipedia's internal processes. What would have happened if the FA team hadn't become involved? How much difference would it have made?
One other point: what are the implications of the fact that this kind of class can only be done once for a given topic? I assume you couldn't do the Dictator novel again. You might be able to do Latin American literature half a dozen more times, or more, but eventually the topic will be covered. A good thing for Wikipedia, but a pity if it's a great teaching method! Mike Christie (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It had to eventually happen. The articles are beginning to attract a certain type of Wikipedia editor. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 18:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
An original barnstar, in addition to Awadewit's Motivation Award, because the Murder Madness and Mayhem project deserves more than one rusty symbol of its worth-- ragesoss ( talk) 02:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
Looks like you're racking these awards up, so I put together a one-of-a-kind, EyeSerene original; you never know, it might be worth something someday... Seriously, you've been a massive asset not only to your class but to the project as well, so I reckon this token of appreciation is overdue. All the best, EyeSerene talk 23:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Balls in the Air Award | |
Gratefully presented to jbmurray for maintaining one of the most dextrous acts of juggling multiple articles I've yet seen... and still finding the time to review Good Article nominations and contribute elsewhere. Truly impressive, and much appreciated! EyeSerene talk 23:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
I think the reason they are considered so separate is because many academics don't bother trying to communicate what they think to people outside their field. I hate to say it, but it seems like humanities fields are especially guilty of this. Wrad ( talk) 00:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
Image:El senor presidente.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 12:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to tread on your toes! Which ever format works for you, I just find the templates easier to maintain. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 03:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I think this article is one of the MMMs that got a shot at FA, but I don't like the overall structure of the article, it mentions his early life but the years following that are not covered very well and the information that is present is spread out all over the place. I thought about how to better organize it, and I came up with two models: model 1 and two on the first one the idea is to have a biographical section separate from the works section, and on the second one I kept the major works section in between the two biographical sections though in this case I’m not sure where to place the text from personal life. Anyway can you take a look at them and tell me what you think? 1, 2 , something else or leave it be? Acer ( talk) 22:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I've left a note overthere Acer ( talk) 22:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there's much more I can usefully do at Latin American Boom or Domingo Faustino Sarmiento. What's the most useful next thing I could look at? Options seem to be:
Or anything else that you think would be helpful. Mike Christie (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
PS: I forgot to tell you: EyeSerenes up for adminship thought you'd like to know Acer ( talk) 00:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems you are having trouble. I've put in a check user request. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 00:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry that my sense of humor did not go over well: see [1]. I was trying to point out that several groups of people descended on the MMM project. The very first that came to your aid was WP:NOVELS through Kevinalewis ( talk · contribs · count) at first (and me and several other editors from the project). MMM was also aided by Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles where a number of editors expedited MMM articles. And don't forget SandyGeorgia ( talk · contribs) who is the FA director's - Raul654 ( talk · contribs) - delegate. While the FA team has been fantastic, there have been quite a few Wikipedia groups and independent editors involved. On Wikipedia, where the charge of clique and cabal runs rampant, it is probably best - like an Academy awards acceptance speech - to thank one's mom and leave it at that :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 01:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice to see you stop by the CG article. Will you be staying or are you passing through? Nice to meet you, and it looks like you have done some great things as an editor. Redthoreau ( talk TR 01:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jbmurray. I hope I didn't come across wrong on the Mission 1 talk page. I didn't really intend to start a debate and certainly didn't intend to question your teaching approach, which really isn't my business—I only wanted to speak up with an "other side" perspective on article grading on wikipedia that I thought worth mentioning because I view it as a minority opinion. No worries... – Outriggr § 02:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Jbmurray, can you confirm that the discussion of Sarmiento's political career is now sufficiently thorough? It looks so to me, but you did the research. Let me know if you think it's incomplete. Mike Christie (talk) 10:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
As if you don't have enough to do... We seem to have hit a wall on the final paragraph of "'Not quite' dictator novels", where the article makes a connection between non-Latin American novels like Kafka and the dictator novel genre. Abarratt thinks that you added this paragraph - if she's correct, would you be able to suggest a source that makes this link, so we can use it in the article? Thanks! EyeSerene talk 13:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I made a Template for MAAs works and altough the list of novels to include in it was pretty obvious, I wasnt sure which of his other works would be notable enough to add to the template. Would you have any suggestions of short stories, essays or any other categories to include in it? (the bibliography list in his article is to large and I dont know what are the most important works) thanks Acer ( talk) 22:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Stumbled across this project & your essay on it; very impressive use of Wikipedia in the classroom, and I admire your taking on such a big project (I've taught Wikipedia writing myself, and I know how tough it can be to get people to understand what they need to do!) When this is done, I think the wiki research & academic community would be interested in hearing about this; can I post something about it on the wiki-research-l mailing list? cheers, Phoebe ( talk) 06:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jbmurray, I didn’t want to leave your question about Estrada Cabrera hanging, so I’ll try to answer it here so the FAC doesn’t go further off track. To bore you:
The problem with the image is/was that we don’t conclusively know the image’s author or when the image was first published, the factors which determine copyright. I’ve no knowledge of Guatemalan copyright law, but U.S. images fall into the public domain if they were published before January 1, 1923. Given that Cabrera died in 1923, the image very likely existed prior to that date. The issue, however, is that merely existing and being published are different legal concepts. This image could have been taken from a private collection then distributed in, say, the 1950s – which would mean the copyright is still in effect. Alternatively, copyright duration can be determined by the life of the author. The Berne Convention establishes a minimum of 50 years after death, but countries vary (U.S. is 70 years, Mexico is 100 years, etc) We can’t use this criterion in this case, obviously, as the author is unknown. Long story short, we don’t know enough about the image’s origins to claim public domain, which means use on Wiki would have to be under “fair use” (i.e. we’d be back to square one). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your invaluable assistance on Dictator novel. I have now passed this article as a Good article, and updated the various talk page templates to reflect this.
That also means you get another one of these:
![]() | This user helped promote Dictator novel to good article status. |
which you may like to place on your user page (or somewhere suitable) by copy/pasting {{User Good Article|Dictator novel}} into the page code.
It's been a real pleasure working with you ;) Well done! EyeSerene talk 21:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
FYI - I've promoted El Señor Presidente to FA status. Raul654 ( talk) 01:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
If you or any of the article's authors have a preference for a main page date, I'd be happy to oblige. Raul654 ( talk) 01:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For your patience and assistance with the El Señor Presidente article and FAC. Mike Christie (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks so much! :) -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 02:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I just left some copyedit notes at the Facundo talk page. One thing I noticed and I just wanted to make you aware of; I found quite a few cases where there was a quote mark just before a reference tag, as if the ref was for a quote. E.g.
I found this in several places where there was no opening quote. I don't think there was a missing open quote, since the language sounded like paraphrases (I recall you mentioning that at least one editor in this article is not a native English speaker). However, given the history, I wanted to be extra careful. I've noted it in the copyedit notes, but you might want to take a look too, and see if you can figure out what those quotes were intended to do. Here's the version before I copyedited; you can see these quotes in the Synopsis section. Mike Christie (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I was actually at work and then in class all afternoon and evening but was extatic when i recieved a txt from katekonyk that El Senor Presidente had reached FA Status! How exciting!! I actually have not been able to stop smiling (and I have done a bit of bragging to some family and friends, shamelessly!). I have suggested May 5th because it seemed somewhat fitting for a Latin American genre article. If that is much too far away and there is a landmark date in April perhaps that is somehow connected that works too! No date in april comes to mind off the top of my head but please let me know when the date is set, I will be sure to spread the word to people I know to check out Wikipedia that day! So exciting!! Thanks for all your help along the way with this project. I have actually learned a lot from it, despite frustrations as times (as when I was writing my last blog!!) Thanks again.-- Mfreud ( talk) 06:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar; I appreciate it. It's been so much fun working with your students that it hasn't felt like work at all. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
On Wikinews, I am n:User:Jbmurray. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 11:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes!!!! You are hereby knighted an official wikipedian and slayer of vandals. I was getting disheartened that none of the MMM people were active in the boring stuff. Then I came across this. Yup, this is good. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 12:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
... side note, Did you happen to notice the author with the feature article today?? I think her books have come up in class a couple times :)-- Mfreud ( talk) 02:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
For what it is worth I feel bad that I couldn't pass this as a WP:GA by April 10 as per the WP:MMM goals - but there are still some sticky issues with WP:NOR concerns for me. For the most part your students have certainly improved the article quite a bit, and it is very close to GA Status and probably will inevitably get there very soon, so when grading please take that into account. :) I tend to be picky when it comes to WP:NOR on articles, and utilizing WP:RS/ WP:V sources and ample citing. Cirt ( talk) 06:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Please do not delete references from articles, unless you are certain they are not being used in the article. It is common in book articles to mention how many editions of the book were published, this cite is being used to show that. Cirt ( talk) 21:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
We can not grab info from another Wikipedia article, without providing a citation to a WP:RS/ WP:V source. And the article Werner Erhard is not one of the best articles on Wikipedia, to say the least. Cirt ( talk) 22:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Over at The Drapier's Letters you made the following mistake - uses of England refer to England as an entity within Great Britain, and your changes are historically inaccurate. The Drapier's Letters is a collective term, and the individual letters are not titled such. This is a title of a book. Each letter has its own title and are called Drapier's Letter when dealt with individually. Notice the italics. Swift made a choice of adopting an identity, he did not make a purpose. Ottava Rima ( talk) 23:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Ahhhh. Wikipedia. Ya gotta luv it. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 00:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Please reread WP:AGF, especially in regards to copyedits made to an article up for featured article. No, you are not the only editor out there. No, its not charming or part of Wikipedia to use other people's talk pages in such a manner. No, its not proper for you to say things like "basta" and make incendiary comments as you have. If you have a problem with an edit, you talk to the person about it. This does not mean that you throw in such comments along with it, talk in condescending manners, or make inaccurate claims. This is Wikipedia. This is not a message board. Ottava Rima ( talk) 01:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleted pages per your request. Somewhere there is an actual request tag. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 04:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that sometimes perhaps what I type in text comes across as different than I had intended it to (though perhaps you interpreted it the right way in the first place and therefore me commenting here is not necessary) but regardless of all that I do value your comments and your contributions have helped to improve the article Getting It: The psychology of est. I admit it is frustrating to me sometimes when I take something which (I thought) was of a FA quality to WP:FAC and then the article receives criticism, it is difficult not to feel that this is criticism of me as an article-writer/contributor, as opposed to specific points of the article itself. I have been working on this and specifically on applying WP:AGF in this regard even more so, and perhaps I have been doing a little bit better in some of the more recent FACs I have nominated, but I am still a work in progress and I continue to work on that. Cirt ( talk) 06:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Curious what resource you used to get access to this? Was it some sort of online database, or a university library? If it is the former that would be quite useful. Cirt ( talk) 07:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I was going to update WP:MMM, but I guess you beat me to it. Congrats to the contributors for churning out great content - I learned a lot by doing the WP:GA review. Cirt ( talk) 11:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I love the Gregory Kohs quote on the MMM page. You've been rumbled :D EyeSerene talk 11:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Are there courses in other subjects at University of British Columbia that will be undertaking similar projects on Wikipedia (GA/FA drives) ? Or perhaps other courses at different universities? Cirt ( talk) 12:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a note to say that your update to the MVL status at the mission page says it may soon be ready for GAC. You mean FAC, I know, but it's such bad form to change another editor's words that I wanted to let you know so you can make the fix.
Congrats on the latest GA, by the way; I was very glad to see Qp10qp helping out there; I've worked with him before and I knew ARB would make it to GA when I saw him get involved. The remaining two I'm working on are Feast and Facundo. The former is very close; we'll have to wait and see what the GA reviewer, Skomorokh, says. I still need to finish a copyedit of Facundo. Can you tell me if you feel the content in the article is sufficiently broad and deep for GA? Content is the one thing I can't really assess. If that's OK, and with another copyedit pass, I think it is starting to come together and has a good chance of being ready for GAN tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
No worries jb, it happens, and I'm not one of those editors whose toys go out of the pram when it does! I'll go back and restore my edits when you've finished with your copyediting. On a slightly different note, I wonder if you've seen the note I posted on the talk page? EyeSerene talk 14:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
That was an accident, I was going put Latin American Boom in there, magic realism was supposed to be on the genre field bellow.. :} Acer ( talk) 15:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
It's my bane again. Should Juan Facundo Quiroga be called Facundo, or Facundo Quiroga, in Facundo? (I think that deserves some sort of recognition for the most mentions of "Facundo" I've yet seen in a single sentence). EyeSerene talk 17:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Acer's detecting was correct: see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/P.wormer. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 01:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Jbmurray, I just realized that you could turn this into an 'Enough' template. Could be useful! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 02:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Image:Mad Alcazar.jpg
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For your impressive work in being able to bring an article to FA status, help various other articles achieve GA status, show teachers and students everywhere how to utilize wikipedia to inform the world on notable subjects, and teach a class all at the same time! Great job! Remember ( talk) 14:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC) |
Just FYI, I've finished up my essay (sort of) and moved it to its own page here. EyeSerene talk 15:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I've had a glance, and will try to take a more details look later. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 23:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
I present this barnstar to Jbmurray for using "Murder, Madness, and Mayhem: Latin American Literature in Translation" class to improve Wikipedia. OhanaUnited Talk page 17:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC) |
How'd you miss the so-called book he wrote called "The pussy fronter"? I've taken care of it now, but it's been there nearly 2 years. How'd everyone who's looked at the page miss it?
Do you have any information on how MVLL influenced other writers? Currently the "Legacy" section is the only one really bothering me at all. Awadewit ( talk) 22:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
WP:MMM is doing awesome work. I only hope my university does something this cool next year! dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 09:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC) |
Hey. Even though I requested reassessment, I wanted to thank you. -- James26 ( talk) 18:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
... for that note to Elcobbola; I've been worrying for days about the impact on his morale, because he is our only image reviewer at FAC. And he's good. Perhaps youth doesn't always understand the impact of their words on the internet; it certainly had a huge impact on me, after pulling for the article for so long, watching the numbers, and hoping it would work out, so I can only imagine how it felt for Elcobbola, as he was the one more directly criticized. By the way, I may have found an image anyway, see the talk page, so you may not need Elcobbola's talents. Saludos, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Got it, fixed ... the little stuff is a killer :-) When Rick Block's script goes through at the end, it looks for links to usernames first, so they should come first. Fixed :-) Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Belated thank you for the apology (Sandy, of course, beat me to it). For what it's worth, my word had been disheartening - more benign than attacked, but still troubling. Certain comments on and off Wiki implied summary dismissal of concerns and failure to realize underlying desires were, in actuality, to assist and achieve promotion of an article meeting Wiki's highest standards. That notwithstanding, the jarring impact of sudden criticism (based in esoteric and under-known policies, nonetheless) and consequent frustrations is certainly understandable. Congratulations and thank you for the invaluable MMM contributions to "foreign" literature. If I were still teaching undergrads, the “ Russian” literature articles might not be as disappointing as they are. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with this article. I have worked to address points you raised at the FAC - perhaps you could revisit? Cirt ( talk) 05:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Please revert this. The section is shown by clicking on "show" to the right. Such boxes are common place on FA review when an issue is resolved or moved elsewhere so that people can see that its no longer an immediate issue. I hope this makes sense. Ottava Rima ( talk)
Check out Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The General in His Labyrinth. No more "opposes" and one step closer to the inevitable. Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I was just coming to explain the issue on this FAC, with the cap; you're both right :-) Jbmurray, reviewers frequently cap off resolved comments at FAC; it's common, and they should be left, as long as the reviewer capped and signed his own comment section and didn't take out someone else's support or oppose. The text is in the hide/show button. Except. Your sig has a "|" which was interfering with the cap code, causing all of the text after your first signature to go completely missing within the cap. (Awadewit and Ealdgyth had the same issue a while back, which is how I discovered the problem, with Gimmetrow's help.) If you plan to spend a lot of time at FAC, you might want to remove the "|" between the talk page and contribs in your sig file, because every time someone caps comments, your sig file will bomb out the cap. I temporarily removed it in the FAC so I could restore Ottava Rima's cap, [2] which was done correctly. You will be able to see the text now by clicking on the hide/show button. I hope that explains everything all 'round ! Saludos, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how you can say that my actions upon those two FAs that were put forth by your group were anything but fair, especially when I worked with the editors and helped them complete FA status. The facts do not back up your assessment, especially your characterizing my actions as "obstructionism". Your comments do a disservice to everyone who reviews articles, because anything that you do not agree with is characterized as "obstructionist".
Ottava Rima (
talk)
01:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, sorry to only be getting back to you now, Chomsky and Saussure kept be busy.. Anyway about the maps on The General in His Labyrinth, the second has been fixed already as you know. Now the first one I wasn't able to tell if the internal divisions are correct(at least the finner details) , every map I checked seemed to give slightly different border lines but the general outline is pretty close to what we have.What I can tell for sure is that it is clearly not based on maps of modern day Colombia/Venezuela. The author states on the image description page that it was based on Varios mapas de la época, en especial el "Atlas geográfico e histórico de la República de Colombia" de Agustín Codazzi, 1889. I have no reason to doubt him given the general disagreement between all the other maps I checked. Acer ( talk) 22:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I've responded to you there. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice interview in the Signpost. Since you said that you intend to offer the course again in the Fall, please note that I'm offering to send a free copy of my how-to book on editing Wikipedia to each such class project. Just let me know where to send it, if you're interested. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
This one, however, is for a slightly different slant than the handful you've already received for your great project, and excellent results. This one is for sharing that our process, though survivable, could use work.
![]() |
The Socratic Barnstar | |
For User:Jbmurray/Madness, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-14/2000th FA, and their comments on the process. Thanks for being able to take the rough with the smooth, overcome, exceed, and then talk about it. Let's hope we can improve in response. GRuban ( talk) 13:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC) |
Yo, great work expanding the adaptations section of the article, I've passed it as GA. I'm sure your students as well as regular Wikipedians appreciate such hard work (given its effect on their grades). As a long-standing reader of Posthegemony, however, I can't help but impudently wonder if you will return to dissections of auctoritas and Paraguayan Germans in the Chaco once SPAN 312 is complete? Regards, Skomorokh 17:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Jbmurray, I noticed you revert vandalism occasionally. Would you like me to grant your account rollback rights to help you revert vandalism more easily? Just remember that it's only for reverting vandalism. Acalamari 21:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you off for the weekend or still around? I'm not that certain on the maps; see User talk:Yomangani. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey JB, amazing work you did over at I, the Supreme, the synopsis is much better. As I promised I'm expanding the lead User:Acer/Sandbox, but I'm somewhat concerned that I might have misinterpreted something, especially in the first paragraph (I still haven’t expanded the third). So could you take a quick look? I know you're busy now so there’s no hurry. Thanks :) Acer ( talk) 13:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
(indent) Hey jb, did you get a chance to take a look at the lead? is it what you were aiming at? I'm still running (got 25 pages of translation to hand in) but I'll be back in a weeks time or so. PS: I'm ordering some of the books (I, the Supreme, The president, a hundred years of solitude and others) since unfortunately its a pain to find them here in brazil ( or at least in the so called land of happines...) So thanks for introducing them to me :) Acer ( talk) 20:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Banglapedia should be ready for another go as a GAN. Would you care to take a look at it again? Aditya( talk • contribs) 07:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Excellent idea on the FA project! I hope lots more professors follow your example, and I loved reading your essay about the entire process.
I have blogged about it here. [5] -- El on ka 04:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for all your help and inspiration on The General in His Labyrinth Jon! You put just as much work, if not more, then we ever did! Thank you thank you thank you!!! Carlaty ( talk) 19:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
...for this:
I hope you realise that it will all end in tears. There's people for it, you know. EyeSerene talk 21:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi jbmurray,
Thanks for your interest in Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara! I hope you'll take the time to do the (perhaps unpleasant) chore of reading through that entire FAR page, plus Talk:Che Guevara. Remember that some of the earlier comments may no longer be relevant(complaints about the article's length, forex). I am taking the minority position that Guevara was a failed guerrilla, a failed economist... although perhaps an inspiring leader (?). Thanks! Ling.Nut ( talk) 03:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent) A chivato is a spy..? Also, I believe it was his handgun that was "useless" Ling.Nut ( talk) 09:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Hey do you feel up to tackling the references in this highly derogatory (and according to RedThoreau, highly unreliable) article: [6]? Whether or not you feel it's doable, you have my thanks for all the work you've already put in. I had even meekly considered doing the same thing is a few cases. I simply was not WP:BOLD enough to make so many changes to an article so far outside my area of (relative) expertise. But good on you!!! Ling.Nut ( talk) 10:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the tweaks and sourcing notes there! I'm starting to suspect you either don't need sleep or you've cloned yourself - the breadth and depth of your contributions is incredible! EyeSerene talk 20:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
PS Welcome aboard the good ship FAT!
Thank you! In return, given your healthy obsession with the letter M, here is a treat for you! – Outriggr § 01:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
...for the nice surprise on my talk page! That Facundo painting always struck me as looking like it had come from a Wanted poster - quite appropriate really, I suppose ;) Excellent, thanks! EyeSerene talk 20:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
...saw your comments on A-Team page... Not POV? There are sources (see forex here) that say Guevara bungled things; there are sources that say he was a brilliant, brain of the revolution hero. Which are quoted, and featured prominently? Which are ignored? Ling.Nut ( talk) 01:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
PS do you have access to this source, to verify these numbers: "Guevara himself estimated 1,500 executions, as per Daniel James, ed., The Complete Bolivian Diaries of Che Guevara and Other Captured Documents (Stein and Day, 1968, New York), p. 226." Ling.Nut ( talk) 01:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent) we're getting our nomenclature confused, which is quite natural because i always do that w. respect to POV v. NPOV. I often say "this article is "NPOV" when I mena to say it violates WP:NPOV... so what i mean is.. Anderson does not violate WP:NPOV. His book is neutral; at least from what I've read. He sincerely praises Guevara as a diplomat.. I wish i could read the book... but he seems to be far more neutral about Guevara as a "military genius" (get real!) and as a "saint" (double "get real!"). Anderson seems NPOV in that Anderson seems truly to try to establish facts rather than lamely dribbling the Guevara myth/propaganda (Rhetorical question: Who promotes Guevara? And who is expert at propaganda? Answers are the same.). But I can't swear the whole book is NPOV of course; I can't read the book. [By the way, the fact that a scholar on JSTOR knocks Anderson as being POV-laden is not meaningful unless you know that particular scholar's body of work and can determine whether he or she is also POV-burdened). I'm saying this based on a limited number of looking at Google snippets that have both praise and condemnation.... and other tidbits.. forex, Anderson seems to hint that the Bolivian capture/execution was the communists repaying Che dirt for dirt; he seems to think Guevara's death was far more engineered by the Communists than by the CIA etc. I mean, the Bolivians killed him, but who put him where he could be killed? And who didn't help him enough? That kind of thing... And of course the executions are crucial!!! You assume Guevara killed only.. you know.. a few score thugs from an earlier regime. That would be highly atypical, from a historical viewpoint... What if he were the tool of yet another PolPot/Stalin? That is, "Kill everyone who doesn't like you", that kind of thing. Is that scenario even possible, in your world view? If you do not admit it as a possibility then you are very, very far from being as neutral as you have claimed. :-) Ling.Nut ( talk) 02:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Yup, Wikipedia at its cutthroat best. FA doesn't like GA; GA doesn't like FA; the hordes hate both;why can't we have more fancruft! In answer to your question about earlier incarnation of this debate...well, it is scattered about in the talk archives of GAN, GA, GAR, FA, and numerous village pump proposals. No need to examine them. The same points have been regurgitated! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 19:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks for your input. I copy edited parts of the article which you find unclear. -- Efe ( talk) 05:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. [7] Tony (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Very nice little article now. I fretted and scrambled all morning when the planned Dispatch authors for the 28th had to back out, but now I'll sleep well tonight, with the Dispatch almost put to bed. Tony is big on adding screenshots to illustrate the Dispatches, so maybe he'll do that. Thanks again (and even more, thanks for freeing up Tony's time, too), 'night! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:34, 26 April 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, Awadewit ( talk) 00:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Jbmurray, now that it seems we might be able to get back to copy editing Boydell Shakespeare Gallery, perhaps you could give me a list of the abstract problems with the article? Things like "wordiness", "dangling modifiers", etc.? That would help me know what to improve. Thanks. Awadewit ( talk) 06:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I would very much like to thank you for helping cleanup the Duck Soup article. Your contributions are much appreciated! :-) Cinemaniac ( talk • contribs • critique) 21:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Jb, that bar ("|") in your sig is still bombing out caps at FAC. Can I please entice you to edit your preferences and remove the bar? I capped Ottava Rima's comments on Awadewit's FAC, but I had to remove the bar from your sig. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Jb, don't sweat the dispatch, it's going to change; Durova left me a message that she's processing his award. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 06:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Jbmurray,
I wanted to thank you for the post you made on: Making Wikis Work for Scholars http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/04/28/wiki which alerted me to your work on The WP. I've only skimmed through your projects at the moment but I look forward to reading through them over time. Glad to see you (and your students) here. Regards, - Classicfilms ( talk) 19:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Great idea. I salute you, Jon, in helping to improve Wikipedia's content. I wish my professors would do these things, seeing as I spend many hours a week editing Wikipedia as it is. Note: I actually tried to post this here, but it's not allowing comments. Enigma message 23:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Very impressive. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Monday will have to be a Wikipedia day for you when El Señor Presidente goes to the main page. It can be a 24 hour free-for-all :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 15:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Now, this is more representative of the norm, of what I experienced, and of what most often happens (without the guidance of the FA-Team); when I ran into this months ago, It Was Awful trying to deal with the damage to articles, so I eventually just unwatched them all and don't even remember what they were. Again, just as I suspect that your FA and GA experiences are not "typical" or representative of those processes (because you were well "accessorized" by Wiki's most experienced FA writers), I suspect that the classroom experiment doesn't go as well in most cases. Wikipedia:ANI#Use of Wikipedia for class project. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Jb, an idea. I'm not quite sure yet if that piece dovetails with the Dispatches of WP:FCDW, but ... Wikipedia talk:Featured content dispatch workshop#May 5. Can you make it a fit to the stated goals at FCDW? Do you want to weigh in over there, so we can determine who gets the 5th ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
I award you this Barnstar to recognize your contributions in Learning Object. People like you help enhancing Wikipedia's quality. Happy editing and let WikiLove spread over the internet! Rjgodoy ( talk) 16:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC) |
Well, thank you! A nice surprise! -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 22:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Content Review Medal of Merit | |
To
Jbmurray, For your exceptionally thorough reviews of Featured article candidates during the month of April, the FAC community and I thank you for being one of the top reviewers this month and for your dedication to helping assure that only Wiki's finest work is recognized on the Main Page. [8] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC) |
Congratulations and THANK YOU for becoming such a valuable FAC reviewer in such a short time. Of the top 10 reviewers by quality in April, you are the newest to the job! As an FA-Team member, I'm thrilled that you've maintained an interested in FAC and as an FAC reviewer, I'm thrilled to have quality help! :) Karanacs ( talk) 02:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that's very sweet. I know you guys had a debate about this a short while ago: my 2c. is that I like a bit of recognition! So thanks to you guys, though you are the ones who really put in the hard graft. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 04:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
![]() | 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. |
I've left some comments at your GA review of Gaara. If I've misconstrued any of your concerns, please point it out, and I will happily address them. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ( Converse) 00:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Several changes have been made about the clarify. Could you check it now? Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 01:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You might look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/To Kill a Mockingbird for one of the stranger things that can happen at FAC. Awadewit ( talk) 01:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Copy remains a pain for me. No matter how much I work on an article, a lack of mastery over English keeps me failing. Good copyeditors are rare and they already have other business or massive backlogs on their plates. It would be very nice if you told me where the copy needs to be changed and how. I promise to work on every single suggestion you make. Aditya( talk • contribs) 07:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction - I do seem to get caught out by Latin surnames; assuming they work the same way as Anglo-saxon ones is clearly a mistake! Cheers, EyeSerene talk 09:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Gerald Martin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 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.
Xiaphias (
talk)
04:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Wikipedia Motivation Award | |
Thanks for developing Murder, Madness and Mayhem and arguing for the respectability (with caveats, of course!) of Wikipedia in the public sphere. Even more, thanks for helping to make Wikipedia's literature articles better and for encouraging an enthusiastic group of editors to do the same. We are excited that you have joined our community and look forward to your other "experiments". Awadewit ( talk) 17:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
The spelling is Jorge J. Barrueto. I will send you a copy of the article, if you have the time to help me out and explain this stuff that would be great. If not I will try to figure it out!-- Mfreud ( talk) 23:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Ps. I just got an email notification that the Ariel Dorfman book is back in the library and waiting for me so that will be added shortly! :)-- Mfreud ( talk) 23:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it's likely that the FA-team will do some kind of "lessons learned" review from this mission; no idea what that will look like but it should be interesting. One thing that occurs to me is that the value of our involvement is focused very heavily on the back end -- until the students get content into the article there's not much useful we can do. We knew that already but it may have implications for your course plan, if you do this again (and I gather you're considering it).
I do hope we can get some "lessons learned" from you, and from the students as well. I'd like to know, among other things, if this process worked well as a way to teach them the material: my own essay on what I enjoy on Wikipedia, written a few months ago, actually uses the analogy of Wikipedia as a classroom and FAC as a professor handing out grades, so I am curious to know whether real students and a real professor can work with Wikipedia in that way. You make an excellent point in your essay to the effect that this approach forces students to revisit their work and improve it. I would think this has value not only for making them re-evaluate their research and organizational skills, but it has direct pedagogical value too -- that process of reworking their own first drafts is surely a strong reinforcement of the material under review. I hope to hear that the students find the teaching method very effective for retaining and integrating what they learn. I'd also be interested to know what you think needs to change to make this more effective, both in your course plan, and in Wikipedia's internal processes. What would have happened if the FA team hadn't become involved? How much difference would it have made?
One other point: what are the implications of the fact that this kind of class can only be done once for a given topic? I assume you couldn't do the Dictator novel again. You might be able to do Latin American literature half a dozen more times, or more, but eventually the topic will be covered. A good thing for Wikipedia, but a pity if it's a great teaching method! Mike Christie (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It had to eventually happen. The articles are beginning to attract a certain type of Wikipedia editor. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 18:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
An original barnstar, in addition to Awadewit's Motivation Award, because the Murder Madness and Mayhem project deserves more than one rusty symbol of its worth-- ragesoss ( talk) 02:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
Looks like you're racking these awards up, so I put together a one-of-a-kind, EyeSerene original; you never know, it might be worth something someday... Seriously, you've been a massive asset not only to your class but to the project as well, so I reckon this token of appreciation is overdue. All the best, EyeSerene talk 23:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Balls in the Air Award | |
Gratefully presented to jbmurray for maintaining one of the most dextrous acts of juggling multiple articles I've yet seen... and still finding the time to review Good Article nominations and contribute elsewhere. Truly impressive, and much appreciated! EyeSerene talk 23:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
I think the reason they are considered so separate is because many academics don't bother trying to communicate what they think to people outside their field. I hate to say it, but it seems like humanities fields are especially guilty of this. Wrad ( talk) 00:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
Image:El senor presidente.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 12:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to tread on your toes! Which ever format works for you, I just find the templates easier to maintain. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 03:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I think this article is one of the MMMs that got a shot at FA, but I don't like the overall structure of the article, it mentions his early life but the years following that are not covered very well and the information that is present is spread out all over the place. I thought about how to better organize it, and I came up with two models: model 1 and two on the first one the idea is to have a biographical section separate from the works section, and on the second one I kept the major works section in between the two biographical sections though in this case I’m not sure where to place the text from personal life. Anyway can you take a look at them and tell me what you think? 1, 2 , something else or leave it be? Acer ( talk) 22:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I've left a note overthere Acer ( talk) 22:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there's much more I can usefully do at Latin American Boom or Domingo Faustino Sarmiento. What's the most useful next thing I could look at? Options seem to be:
Or anything else that you think would be helpful. Mike Christie (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
PS: I forgot to tell you: EyeSerenes up for adminship thought you'd like to know Acer ( talk) 00:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems you are having trouble. I've put in a check user request. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 00:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry that my sense of humor did not go over well: see [1]. I was trying to point out that several groups of people descended on the MMM project. The very first that came to your aid was WP:NOVELS through Kevinalewis ( talk · contribs · count) at first (and me and several other editors from the project). MMM was also aided by Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles where a number of editors expedited MMM articles. And don't forget SandyGeorgia ( talk · contribs) who is the FA director's - Raul654 ( talk · contribs) - delegate. While the FA team has been fantastic, there have been quite a few Wikipedia groups and independent editors involved. On Wikipedia, where the charge of clique and cabal runs rampant, it is probably best - like an Academy awards acceptance speech - to thank one's mom and leave it at that :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 01:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice to see you stop by the CG article. Will you be staying or are you passing through? Nice to meet you, and it looks like you have done some great things as an editor. Redthoreau ( talk TR 01:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jbmurray. I hope I didn't come across wrong on the Mission 1 talk page. I didn't really intend to start a debate and certainly didn't intend to question your teaching approach, which really isn't my business—I only wanted to speak up with an "other side" perspective on article grading on wikipedia that I thought worth mentioning because I view it as a minority opinion. No worries... – Outriggr § 02:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Jbmurray, can you confirm that the discussion of Sarmiento's political career is now sufficiently thorough? It looks so to me, but you did the research. Let me know if you think it's incomplete. Mike Christie (talk) 10:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
As if you don't have enough to do... We seem to have hit a wall on the final paragraph of "'Not quite' dictator novels", where the article makes a connection between non-Latin American novels like Kafka and the dictator novel genre. Abarratt thinks that you added this paragraph - if she's correct, would you be able to suggest a source that makes this link, so we can use it in the article? Thanks! EyeSerene talk 13:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I made a Template for MAAs works and altough the list of novels to include in it was pretty obvious, I wasnt sure which of his other works would be notable enough to add to the template. Would you have any suggestions of short stories, essays or any other categories to include in it? (the bibliography list in his article is to large and I dont know what are the most important works) thanks Acer ( talk) 22:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Stumbled across this project & your essay on it; very impressive use of Wikipedia in the classroom, and I admire your taking on such a big project (I've taught Wikipedia writing myself, and I know how tough it can be to get people to understand what they need to do!) When this is done, I think the wiki research & academic community would be interested in hearing about this; can I post something about it on the wiki-research-l mailing list? cheers, Phoebe ( talk) 06:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jbmurray, I didn’t want to leave your question about Estrada Cabrera hanging, so I’ll try to answer it here so the FAC doesn’t go further off track. To bore you:
The problem with the image is/was that we don’t conclusively know the image’s author or when the image was first published, the factors which determine copyright. I’ve no knowledge of Guatemalan copyright law, but U.S. images fall into the public domain if they were published before January 1, 1923. Given that Cabrera died in 1923, the image very likely existed prior to that date. The issue, however, is that merely existing and being published are different legal concepts. This image could have been taken from a private collection then distributed in, say, the 1950s – which would mean the copyright is still in effect. Alternatively, copyright duration can be determined by the life of the author. The Berne Convention establishes a minimum of 50 years after death, but countries vary (U.S. is 70 years, Mexico is 100 years, etc) We can’t use this criterion in this case, obviously, as the author is unknown. Long story short, we don’t know enough about the image’s origins to claim public domain, which means use on Wiki would have to be under “fair use” (i.e. we’d be back to square one). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your invaluable assistance on Dictator novel. I have now passed this article as a Good article, and updated the various talk page templates to reflect this.
That also means you get another one of these:
![]() | This user helped promote Dictator novel to good article status. |
which you may like to place on your user page (or somewhere suitable) by copy/pasting {{User Good Article|Dictator novel}} into the page code.
It's been a real pleasure working with you ;) Well done! EyeSerene talk 21:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
FYI - I've promoted El Señor Presidente to FA status. Raul654 ( talk) 01:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
If you or any of the article's authors have a preference for a main page date, I'd be happy to oblige. Raul654 ( talk) 01:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For your patience and assistance with the El Señor Presidente article and FAC. Mike Christie (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks so much! :) -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 02:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I just left some copyedit notes at the Facundo talk page. One thing I noticed and I just wanted to make you aware of; I found quite a few cases where there was a quote mark just before a reference tag, as if the ref was for a quote. E.g.
I found this in several places where there was no opening quote. I don't think there was a missing open quote, since the language sounded like paraphrases (I recall you mentioning that at least one editor in this article is not a native English speaker). However, given the history, I wanted to be extra careful. I've noted it in the copyedit notes, but you might want to take a look too, and see if you can figure out what those quotes were intended to do. Here's the version before I copyedited; you can see these quotes in the Synopsis section. Mike Christie (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I was actually at work and then in class all afternoon and evening but was extatic when i recieved a txt from katekonyk that El Senor Presidente had reached FA Status! How exciting!! I actually have not been able to stop smiling (and I have done a bit of bragging to some family and friends, shamelessly!). I have suggested May 5th because it seemed somewhat fitting for a Latin American genre article. If that is much too far away and there is a landmark date in April perhaps that is somehow connected that works too! No date in april comes to mind off the top of my head but please let me know when the date is set, I will be sure to spread the word to people I know to check out Wikipedia that day! So exciting!! Thanks for all your help along the way with this project. I have actually learned a lot from it, despite frustrations as times (as when I was writing my last blog!!) Thanks again.-- Mfreud ( talk) 06:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar; I appreciate it. It's been so much fun working with your students that it hasn't felt like work at all. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
On Wikinews, I am n:User:Jbmurray. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 11:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes!!!! You are hereby knighted an official wikipedian and slayer of vandals. I was getting disheartened that none of the MMM people were active in the boring stuff. Then I came across this. Yup, this is good. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 12:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
... side note, Did you happen to notice the author with the feature article today?? I think her books have come up in class a couple times :)-- Mfreud ( talk) 02:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
For what it is worth I feel bad that I couldn't pass this as a WP:GA by April 10 as per the WP:MMM goals - but there are still some sticky issues with WP:NOR concerns for me. For the most part your students have certainly improved the article quite a bit, and it is very close to GA Status and probably will inevitably get there very soon, so when grading please take that into account. :) I tend to be picky when it comes to WP:NOR on articles, and utilizing WP:RS/ WP:V sources and ample citing. Cirt ( talk) 06:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Please do not delete references from articles, unless you are certain they are not being used in the article. It is common in book articles to mention how many editions of the book were published, this cite is being used to show that. Cirt ( talk) 21:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
We can not grab info from another Wikipedia article, without providing a citation to a WP:RS/ WP:V source. And the article Werner Erhard is not one of the best articles on Wikipedia, to say the least. Cirt ( talk) 22:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Over at The Drapier's Letters you made the following mistake - uses of England refer to England as an entity within Great Britain, and your changes are historically inaccurate. The Drapier's Letters is a collective term, and the individual letters are not titled such. This is a title of a book. Each letter has its own title and are called Drapier's Letter when dealt with individually. Notice the italics. Swift made a choice of adopting an identity, he did not make a purpose. Ottava Rima ( talk) 23:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Ahhhh. Wikipedia. Ya gotta luv it. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 00:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Please reread WP:AGF, especially in regards to copyedits made to an article up for featured article. No, you are not the only editor out there. No, its not charming or part of Wikipedia to use other people's talk pages in such a manner. No, its not proper for you to say things like "basta" and make incendiary comments as you have. If you have a problem with an edit, you talk to the person about it. This does not mean that you throw in such comments along with it, talk in condescending manners, or make inaccurate claims. This is Wikipedia. This is not a message board. Ottava Rima ( talk) 01:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleted pages per your request. Somewhere there is an actual request tag. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 04:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that sometimes perhaps what I type in text comes across as different than I had intended it to (though perhaps you interpreted it the right way in the first place and therefore me commenting here is not necessary) but regardless of all that I do value your comments and your contributions have helped to improve the article Getting It: The psychology of est. I admit it is frustrating to me sometimes when I take something which (I thought) was of a FA quality to WP:FAC and then the article receives criticism, it is difficult not to feel that this is criticism of me as an article-writer/contributor, as opposed to specific points of the article itself. I have been working on this and specifically on applying WP:AGF in this regard even more so, and perhaps I have been doing a little bit better in some of the more recent FACs I have nominated, but I am still a work in progress and I continue to work on that. Cirt ( talk) 06:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Curious what resource you used to get access to this? Was it some sort of online database, or a university library? If it is the former that would be quite useful. Cirt ( talk) 07:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I was going to update WP:MMM, but I guess you beat me to it. Congrats to the contributors for churning out great content - I learned a lot by doing the WP:GA review. Cirt ( talk) 11:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I love the Gregory Kohs quote on the MMM page. You've been rumbled :D EyeSerene talk 11:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Are there courses in other subjects at University of British Columbia that will be undertaking similar projects on Wikipedia (GA/FA drives) ? Or perhaps other courses at different universities? Cirt ( talk) 12:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a note to say that your update to the MVL status at the mission page says it may soon be ready for GAC. You mean FAC, I know, but it's such bad form to change another editor's words that I wanted to let you know so you can make the fix.
Congrats on the latest GA, by the way; I was very glad to see Qp10qp helping out there; I've worked with him before and I knew ARB would make it to GA when I saw him get involved. The remaining two I'm working on are Feast and Facundo. The former is very close; we'll have to wait and see what the GA reviewer, Skomorokh, says. I still need to finish a copyedit of Facundo. Can you tell me if you feel the content in the article is sufficiently broad and deep for GA? Content is the one thing I can't really assess. If that's OK, and with another copyedit pass, I think it is starting to come together and has a good chance of being ready for GAN tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
No worries jb, it happens, and I'm not one of those editors whose toys go out of the pram when it does! I'll go back and restore my edits when you've finished with your copyediting. On a slightly different note, I wonder if you've seen the note I posted on the talk page? EyeSerene talk 14:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
That was an accident, I was going put Latin American Boom in there, magic realism was supposed to be on the genre field bellow.. :} Acer ( talk) 15:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
It's my bane again. Should Juan Facundo Quiroga be called Facundo, or Facundo Quiroga, in Facundo? (I think that deserves some sort of recognition for the most mentions of "Facundo" I've yet seen in a single sentence). EyeSerene talk 17:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Acer's detecting was correct: see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/P.wormer. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 01:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Jbmurray, I just realized that you could turn this into an 'Enough' template. Could be useful! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 02:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Image:Mad Alcazar.jpg
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For your impressive work in being able to bring an article to FA status, help various other articles achieve GA status, show teachers and students everywhere how to utilize wikipedia to inform the world on notable subjects, and teach a class all at the same time! Great job! Remember ( talk) 14:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC) |
Just FYI, I've finished up my essay (sort of) and moved it to its own page here. EyeSerene talk 15:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I've had a glance, and will try to take a more details look later. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 23:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
I present this barnstar to Jbmurray for using "Murder, Madness, and Mayhem: Latin American Literature in Translation" class to improve Wikipedia. OhanaUnited Talk page 17:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC) |
How'd you miss the so-called book he wrote called "The pussy fronter"? I've taken care of it now, but it's been there nearly 2 years. How'd everyone who's looked at the page miss it?
Do you have any information on how MVLL influenced other writers? Currently the "Legacy" section is the only one really bothering me at all. Awadewit ( talk) 22:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
WP:MMM is doing awesome work. I only hope my university does something this cool next year! dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 09:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC) |
Hey. Even though I requested reassessment, I wanted to thank you. -- James26 ( talk) 18:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
... for that note to Elcobbola; I've been worrying for days about the impact on his morale, because he is our only image reviewer at FAC. And he's good. Perhaps youth doesn't always understand the impact of their words on the internet; it certainly had a huge impact on me, after pulling for the article for so long, watching the numbers, and hoping it would work out, so I can only imagine how it felt for Elcobbola, as he was the one more directly criticized. By the way, I may have found an image anyway, see the talk page, so you may not need Elcobbola's talents. Saludos, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Got it, fixed ... the little stuff is a killer :-) When Rick Block's script goes through at the end, it looks for links to usernames first, so they should come first. Fixed :-) Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Belated thank you for the apology (Sandy, of course, beat me to it). For what it's worth, my word had been disheartening - more benign than attacked, but still troubling. Certain comments on and off Wiki implied summary dismissal of concerns and failure to realize underlying desires were, in actuality, to assist and achieve promotion of an article meeting Wiki's highest standards. That notwithstanding, the jarring impact of sudden criticism (based in esoteric and under-known policies, nonetheless) and consequent frustrations is certainly understandable. Congratulations and thank you for the invaluable MMM contributions to "foreign" literature. If I were still teaching undergrads, the “ Russian” literature articles might not be as disappointing as they are. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with this article. I have worked to address points you raised at the FAC - perhaps you could revisit? Cirt ( talk) 05:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Please revert this. The section is shown by clicking on "show" to the right. Such boxes are common place on FA review when an issue is resolved or moved elsewhere so that people can see that its no longer an immediate issue. I hope this makes sense. Ottava Rima ( talk)
Check out Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The General in His Labyrinth. No more "opposes" and one step closer to the inevitable. Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I was just coming to explain the issue on this FAC, with the cap; you're both right :-) Jbmurray, reviewers frequently cap off resolved comments at FAC; it's common, and they should be left, as long as the reviewer capped and signed his own comment section and didn't take out someone else's support or oppose. The text is in the hide/show button. Except. Your sig has a "|" which was interfering with the cap code, causing all of the text after your first signature to go completely missing within the cap. (Awadewit and Ealdgyth had the same issue a while back, which is how I discovered the problem, with Gimmetrow's help.) If you plan to spend a lot of time at FAC, you might want to remove the "|" between the talk page and contribs in your sig file, because every time someone caps comments, your sig file will bomb out the cap. I temporarily removed it in the FAC so I could restore Ottava Rima's cap, [2] which was done correctly. You will be able to see the text now by clicking on the hide/show button. I hope that explains everything all 'round ! Saludos, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how you can say that my actions upon those two FAs that were put forth by your group were anything but fair, especially when I worked with the editors and helped them complete FA status. The facts do not back up your assessment, especially your characterizing my actions as "obstructionism". Your comments do a disservice to everyone who reviews articles, because anything that you do not agree with is characterized as "obstructionist".
Ottava Rima (
talk)
01:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, sorry to only be getting back to you now, Chomsky and Saussure kept be busy.. Anyway about the maps on The General in His Labyrinth, the second has been fixed already as you know. Now the first one I wasn't able to tell if the internal divisions are correct(at least the finner details) , every map I checked seemed to give slightly different border lines but the general outline is pretty close to what we have.What I can tell for sure is that it is clearly not based on maps of modern day Colombia/Venezuela. The author states on the image description page that it was based on Varios mapas de la época, en especial el "Atlas geográfico e histórico de la República de Colombia" de Agustín Codazzi, 1889. I have no reason to doubt him given the general disagreement between all the other maps I checked. Acer ( talk) 22:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I've responded to you there. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice interview in the Signpost. Since you said that you intend to offer the course again in the Fall, please note that I'm offering to send a free copy of my how-to book on editing Wikipedia to each such class project. Just let me know where to send it, if you're interested. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
This one, however, is for a slightly different slant than the handful you've already received for your great project, and excellent results. This one is for sharing that our process, though survivable, could use work.
![]() |
The Socratic Barnstar | |
For User:Jbmurray/Madness, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-14/2000th FA, and their comments on the process. Thanks for being able to take the rough with the smooth, overcome, exceed, and then talk about it. Let's hope we can improve in response. GRuban ( talk) 13:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC) |
Yo, great work expanding the adaptations section of the article, I've passed it as GA. I'm sure your students as well as regular Wikipedians appreciate such hard work (given its effect on their grades). As a long-standing reader of Posthegemony, however, I can't help but impudently wonder if you will return to dissections of auctoritas and Paraguayan Germans in the Chaco once SPAN 312 is complete? Regards, Skomorokh 17:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Jbmurray, I noticed you revert vandalism occasionally. Would you like me to grant your account rollback rights to help you revert vandalism more easily? Just remember that it's only for reverting vandalism. Acalamari 21:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you off for the weekend or still around? I'm not that certain on the maps; see User talk:Yomangani. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey JB, amazing work you did over at I, the Supreme, the synopsis is much better. As I promised I'm expanding the lead User:Acer/Sandbox, but I'm somewhat concerned that I might have misinterpreted something, especially in the first paragraph (I still haven’t expanded the third). So could you take a quick look? I know you're busy now so there’s no hurry. Thanks :) Acer ( talk) 13:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
(indent) Hey jb, did you get a chance to take a look at the lead? is it what you were aiming at? I'm still running (got 25 pages of translation to hand in) but I'll be back in a weeks time or so. PS: I'm ordering some of the books (I, the Supreme, The president, a hundred years of solitude and others) since unfortunately its a pain to find them here in brazil ( or at least in the so called land of happines...) So thanks for introducing them to me :) Acer ( talk) 20:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Banglapedia should be ready for another go as a GAN. Would you care to take a look at it again? Aditya( talk • contribs) 07:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Excellent idea on the FA project! I hope lots more professors follow your example, and I loved reading your essay about the entire process.
I have blogged about it here. [5] -- El on ka 04:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for all your help and inspiration on The General in His Labyrinth Jon! You put just as much work, if not more, then we ever did! Thank you thank you thank you!!! Carlaty ( talk) 19:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
...for this:
I hope you realise that it will all end in tears. There's people for it, you know. EyeSerene talk 21:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi jbmurray,
Thanks for your interest in Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara! I hope you'll take the time to do the (perhaps unpleasant) chore of reading through that entire FAR page, plus Talk:Che Guevara. Remember that some of the earlier comments may no longer be relevant(complaints about the article's length, forex). I am taking the minority position that Guevara was a failed guerrilla, a failed economist... although perhaps an inspiring leader (?). Thanks! Ling.Nut ( talk) 03:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent) A chivato is a spy..? Also, I believe it was his handgun that was "useless" Ling.Nut ( talk) 09:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Hey do you feel up to tackling the references in this highly derogatory (and according to RedThoreau, highly unreliable) article: [6]? Whether or not you feel it's doable, you have my thanks for all the work you've already put in. I had even meekly considered doing the same thing is a few cases. I simply was not WP:BOLD enough to make so many changes to an article so far outside my area of (relative) expertise. But good on you!!! Ling.Nut ( talk) 10:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the tweaks and sourcing notes there! I'm starting to suspect you either don't need sleep or you've cloned yourself - the breadth and depth of your contributions is incredible! EyeSerene talk 20:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
PS Welcome aboard the good ship FAT!
Thank you! In return, given your healthy obsession with the letter M, here is a treat for you! – Outriggr § 01:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
...for the nice surprise on my talk page! That Facundo painting always struck me as looking like it had come from a Wanted poster - quite appropriate really, I suppose ;) Excellent, thanks! EyeSerene talk 20:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
...saw your comments on A-Team page... Not POV? There are sources (see forex here) that say Guevara bungled things; there are sources that say he was a brilliant, brain of the revolution hero. Which are quoted, and featured prominently? Which are ignored? Ling.Nut ( talk) 01:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
PS do you have access to this source, to verify these numbers: "Guevara himself estimated 1,500 executions, as per Daniel James, ed., The Complete Bolivian Diaries of Che Guevara and Other Captured Documents (Stein and Day, 1968, New York), p. 226." Ling.Nut ( talk) 01:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent) we're getting our nomenclature confused, which is quite natural because i always do that w. respect to POV v. NPOV. I often say "this article is "NPOV" when I mena to say it violates WP:NPOV... so what i mean is.. Anderson does not violate WP:NPOV. His book is neutral; at least from what I've read. He sincerely praises Guevara as a diplomat.. I wish i could read the book... but he seems to be far more neutral about Guevara as a "military genius" (get real!) and as a "saint" (double "get real!"). Anderson seems NPOV in that Anderson seems truly to try to establish facts rather than lamely dribbling the Guevara myth/propaganda (Rhetorical question: Who promotes Guevara? And who is expert at propaganda? Answers are the same.). But I can't swear the whole book is NPOV of course; I can't read the book. [By the way, the fact that a scholar on JSTOR knocks Anderson as being POV-laden is not meaningful unless you know that particular scholar's body of work and can determine whether he or she is also POV-burdened). I'm saying this based on a limited number of looking at Google snippets that have both praise and condemnation.... and other tidbits.. forex, Anderson seems to hint that the Bolivian capture/execution was the communists repaying Che dirt for dirt; he seems to think Guevara's death was far more engineered by the Communists than by the CIA etc. I mean, the Bolivians killed him, but who put him where he could be killed? And who didn't help him enough? That kind of thing... And of course the executions are crucial!!! You assume Guevara killed only.. you know.. a few score thugs from an earlier regime. That would be highly atypical, from a historical viewpoint... What if he were the tool of yet another PolPot/Stalin? That is, "Kill everyone who doesn't like you", that kind of thing. Is that scenario even possible, in your world view? If you do not admit it as a possibility then you are very, very far from being as neutral as you have claimed. :-) Ling.Nut ( talk) 02:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Yup, Wikipedia at its cutthroat best. FA doesn't like GA; GA doesn't like FA; the hordes hate both;why can't we have more fancruft! In answer to your question about earlier incarnation of this debate...well, it is scattered about in the talk archives of GAN, GA, GAR, FA, and numerous village pump proposals. No need to examine them. The same points have been regurgitated! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 19:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks for your input. I copy edited parts of the article which you find unclear. -- Efe ( talk) 05:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. [7] Tony (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Very nice little article now. I fretted and scrambled all morning when the planned Dispatch authors for the 28th had to back out, but now I'll sleep well tonight, with the Dispatch almost put to bed. Tony is big on adding screenshots to illustrate the Dispatches, so maybe he'll do that. Thanks again (and even more, thanks for freeing up Tony's time, too), 'night! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:34, 26 April 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, Awadewit ( talk) 00:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Jbmurray, now that it seems we might be able to get back to copy editing Boydell Shakespeare Gallery, perhaps you could give me a list of the abstract problems with the article? Things like "wordiness", "dangling modifiers", etc.? That would help me know what to improve. Thanks. Awadewit ( talk) 06:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I would very much like to thank you for helping cleanup the Duck Soup article. Your contributions are much appreciated! :-) Cinemaniac ( talk • contribs • critique) 21:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Jb, that bar ("|") in your sig is still bombing out caps at FAC. Can I please entice you to edit your preferences and remove the bar? I capped Ottava Rima's comments on Awadewit's FAC, but I had to remove the bar from your sig. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Jb, don't sweat the dispatch, it's going to change; Durova left me a message that she's processing his award. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 06:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Jbmurray,
I wanted to thank you for the post you made on: Making Wikis Work for Scholars http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/04/28/wiki which alerted me to your work on The WP. I've only skimmed through your projects at the moment but I look forward to reading through them over time. Glad to see you (and your students) here. Regards, - Classicfilms ( talk) 19:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Great idea. I salute you, Jon, in helping to improve Wikipedia's content. I wish my professors would do these things, seeing as I spend many hours a week editing Wikipedia as it is. Note: I actually tried to post this here, but it's not allowing comments. Enigma message 23:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Very impressive. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Monday will have to be a Wikipedia day for you when El Señor Presidente goes to the main page. It can be a 24 hour free-for-all :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 15:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Now, this is more representative of the norm, of what I experienced, and of what most often happens (without the guidance of the FA-Team); when I ran into this months ago, It Was Awful trying to deal with the damage to articles, so I eventually just unwatched them all and don't even remember what they were. Again, just as I suspect that your FA and GA experiences are not "typical" or representative of those processes (because you were well "accessorized" by Wiki's most experienced FA writers), I suspect that the classroom experiment doesn't go as well in most cases. Wikipedia:ANI#Use of Wikipedia for class project. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Jb, an idea. I'm not quite sure yet if that piece dovetails with the Dispatches of WP:FCDW, but ... Wikipedia talk:Featured content dispatch workshop#May 5. Can you make it a fit to the stated goals at FCDW? Do you want to weigh in over there, so we can determine who gets the 5th ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
I award you this Barnstar to recognize your contributions in Learning Object. People like you help enhancing Wikipedia's quality. Happy editing and let WikiLove spread over the internet! Rjgodoy ( talk) 16:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC) |
Well, thank you! A nice surprise! -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 22:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Content Review Medal of Merit | |
To
Jbmurray, For your exceptionally thorough reviews of Featured article candidates during the month of April, the FAC community and I thank you for being one of the top reviewers this month and for your dedication to helping assure that only Wiki's finest work is recognized on the Main Page. [8] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC) |
Congratulations and THANK YOU for becoming such a valuable FAC reviewer in such a short time. Of the top 10 reviewers by quality in April, you are the newest to the job! As an FA-Team member, I'm thrilled that you've maintained an interested in FAC and as an FAC reviewer, I'm thrilled to have quality help! :) Karanacs ( talk) 02:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that's very sweet. I know you guys had a debate about this a short while ago: my 2c. is that I like a bit of recognition! So thanks to you guys, though you are the ones who really put in the hard graft. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 04:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |