![]() | 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. |
Hi Jb,
You had Support from Tony (Good Granny! I don't recall ever seeing him Support), Awadewit, qp10p, Ceoil—Good Granny, the only endorsements missing are Abraham Lincoln, Mother Teresa and User:Jimbo. I didn't !vote, but my implicit Oppose based on WP:StubArticlesShouldNotBeFeatured was gonna get exactly zero traction. Carcharoth should not have attempted major restructuring of an ongoing FAC, but this could have been easily corrected with a little discussion, a revert, and C working in userspace (as mainspace workpages are expressly disallowed). I did exactly this in the RCC FAC, with no problems at all.
Withdrawing at that point is like coitus interruptus. You leave everyone hanging; in the worst case scenario, you open the door to hard feelings and finger-pointing! I think it was a bad decision. You were sailing to a virtually assured FA. Ling.Nut ( talk) 03:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Ping [1]: jbmurray, since I have no idea if anyone will see a talk-page comment on an archived FAC, I am letting one party know of its existence! – Outriggr § 07:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to the both of you. Outriggr, as it happened I already saw your comments. But I appreciate the ping. And I also appreciate the time you took to write them. Ling, thanks to you, too, for your thoughts.
As I've said on Ling's talk page, I do think a bit of a pause might be a good idea.
For the moment, let me just say the following:
Anyhow, that's how I see it. It turns out that I said more than I thought I would. Other comments would be welcome. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 08:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems only right and fair that we should wait for Carcharoth's response at this point. He or she may want to go for option two or option one; he or she may not like any of the options, or even the fact of presenting options at all. If, however, the possibility of further revision of Peter Wall looks likely, then I have a number of ideas of how to go ahead. If not, I think we should try to work on another article. I have a few ideas there, too. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 07:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
(outdent:) As I've indicated, it may be painstaking but I'll happily go through the individual edits if you want. This will be slow, but I'm prepared to do it if you feel it's important. But I would be grateful if at some point you were able to respond to the points I make above about the general way forward. That would be most useful to me. Thanks. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs)
Actually, I re-read the newspaper article, and would like your opinion on whether the following points are adequately made in the article:
From re-reading the article, it seems that things are more complicated than the way it has been presented in the Peter Wall article. In particular, it is unclear how much is due to the panic after 1989 and how much is due to the 1997 handover date. Would you have any ideas how to address this? In my view, we need to stick to the clearly sourced and indisputable facts (immigration and property price rises), and make clear that the source you have quoted is not, in fact, clear on what the underlying causes are. And the Hui and Li Ka-shing bit is particularly interesting. Is he a bigger player in the real estate market than Peter Wall? Concord Pacific Developments and Terry Hui are redlinks, predictably. If there is less information about Hui and Concord Pacific, is it right that we have an article on Wall and Wall Financial because Wall more "colourful" and gets more coverage in the local Vancouver media? Li Ka-shing and Yaletown are interesting articles. Anyway, I just got your message on my talk page, so I'll stop waffling! :-) By sandbox, I meant a user subpage. And I've just realised I forgot to save this, so it might be all out of sequence. Consider this an early taking you up on your "Please feel free to give me a shout" offer, or an example of the perils of quoting from, or using, newspaper sources. Carcharoth ( talk) 12:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I want you to know that your FAC comments on this page were very poorly made and not well thought out. When I read them, without knowing you were on the FAC team, I thought you were maybe some 18 year old who was just surfing the net looking for something to do - not a serious FAC reviewer. That's how bad I think your comments were and I'm not telling you this to be mean - you need to know especially if you are a FAC reviewer. If you are going to review this page again please make a bullet point list of comments that specifically point out what you think is wrong in the text, what FAC criteria has been violated and why - not blanket statements like the one on Catholics creating Catholic pages - that was unnecessary and ridiculous. I have never written something like this to any reviewer of our work and we have worked with many. Please take my comments to heart for the sake of improving Wikipedia. Thanks. NancyHeise ( talk) 12:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry if I contributed in any way to your unpleasant experience on Peter Wall by opposing it. I did not, and still do not, understand the point you were making, other than that you were nominating a business person for a FA. I have no problem with that.
My problem was with the article itself. But then I realized that it probably did fulfill FA requirements because the requirements themselves are so cut and dried, without any life to them. So I evolved the hypothesis that your nomination was really a method to point this out to the FA people. I am seeing now that I was wrong about this, that my interpretation was idiosyncratic. So, I apologize to you if, in my delusional world, I contributed in any way to your unsavory experience at FA. Sincerely, – Mattisse ( Talk) 15:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You might have missed it in some ongoing discussion, but I replied to you there. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 07:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome, if you like, to expand on your views on the acceptable range of political views among professional historians who are to be taken seriously, or the degree of commitment expected of a academic before he can be considered "full-time". Johnbod ( talk) 09:32, 2 June 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)
Hi Jbmurray,
I was reading your comments on the FAC page, where you write concerning the "origins" separated from the "history":
The first paragraph has some interesting comparisons and observations, no obvious complaints. Then: "this is certainly still an open issue... I'm not sure I would insist on the revision... Something needs to be done." I may lack imagination, but what is "something" that is not a revision, and do you really think the origins-doctrine-history order is unacceptable?
Your strong oppose appears to be based on the abuse you've received from some of the other editors. You don't deserve the abuse, and the article deserves to be evaluated on its merits. Going back to the old nom, you summarize: "The problem is that the article portrays the Church the way in which the Church itself does." I think the article contains enough information so a reader will see how the Church understands itself, but also has been introduced to the debated points. That a person could gain some insight into a subject's self-understanding from reading an encyclopedia article doesn't seem to be problematic to me. Am I wrong?
Respectfully, The.helping.people.tick ( talk) 13:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jbmurray, could you please put your edit citations in proper format if you are going to contribute to the aritcle, the refs are all messed up now, thanks. NancyHeise ( talk) 15:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Your contributions to the Muntz article are good, thank you. I think I'm a little burnt out to tell the truth. Nobody of Consequence ( talk) 18:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi - You made some comments at the FAR page for Monty Hall problem (now archived at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Monty Hall problem/archive2) but didn't really follow up. The FAR is now closed (with a keep), but I'm still interested in improvements to the article. If you have the time (and interest), please bring up any issues you might still have at talk:Monty Hall problem. Thanks. -- Rick Block ( talk) 02:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for informing me about the citation stuff over at Sandy's talk page. Now I can resume working on my article, hurray. — Wackymacs ( talk ~ edits) 18:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, the top archive tag and your closing comments should be inside the section header. Enigma message 00:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Madman Muntz was just promoted to FA tonight, so I wanted to thank you for your help. I think for the moment I need to step away and try to work on something else, but I will get the page numbers in for the book citations sometime this week. And, of course, feel free to improve as you see fit. As for the stuff about Muntz's family, I'm pretty sure I'll be able to expand on it in the future once the documentary about him comes out. There ARE newspaper articles out there about his two famous wives, but the New York Times wants money to read them online and I'm a cheapskate. :-) Anyway, cheers. Nobody of Consequence ( talk) 02:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 07:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Good sir, I was willing to grant you "long weekend" through Monday, but as of yesterday, I see you are still editing. I insist you change your template to read: "I will now only be editing at weekends, except when I don't." -- Laser brain (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Got a job for you to practice admin buttons. See user talk:Gimmietrow. (Note spelling).
Gimmetrow
20:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
What's the best way to format "Three other coaches, Art Shell, Jon Gruden and Bill Callahan, have also taken the Raiders to the playoffs."? It doesn't look right to me. I was thinking something like "Three other coaches—Art Shell, Jon Gruden and Bill Callahan—have also taken the Raiders to the playoffs." because it's really a break in the sentence. Thoughts? Gary King ( talk) 07:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jb and thanks for the copyedit. When you were referring to choppiness, did you mean grammar/raw prose or did you mean that the logical development of the narrative seemed a bit disjointed? Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 08:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
j.b., I just wanted to thank you for participating in my recent RFA. I've prepared an in-depth RFA analysis based on the comments that were made, including your comment about the social networking/blog-like activity. i've explained what my "hello world" is (now) being used for, admittedly the february and march entries weren't encyclopedic. i'd appreciate your further comment on if you think it's a worthwhile endeavour. also, some templated thank spam is available below. cheers, xenocidic ( talk) 23:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to thank the community for placing their trust in me during
my recent request for adminship, which passed 72
13
2
. Rest assured, I have read each comment thoroughly and will be
addressing the various concerns raised as I step cautiously into my new role as janitor. In particular, I would like to thank
Balloonman for putting so much time into reviewing my contributions and writing such a thoughtful nomination statement after knowing me for only a brief period of time (and for convincing me that I was ready to take up the mop now, rather than go through
admin coaching).
To my fellow admins - please let me know right away if I ever take any mis-steps with my new tools. Should I make a mistake, and you reverse the action, I will not consider it to be wheel-warring (but please tell me so I can understand what I did wrong).
To everyone - please feel free to slap me around a bit if I ever lose sight of the core philosophy of Wikipedia as I understand it - the advancement of knowledge through the processes of mutual understanding and respect. As always, feel free to drop by my talk page if I can be of any assistance. =)
Sincerely,
~xenocidic, 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent comments on Benjamin Franklin Tilley's FAC. I'm working to address your concerns. Do you have a better one-line summary that I can use for the Spanish-American war? The ones that I came up with generally weren't NPOV or were too short. I'm just thinking that I may drop the "introduction to the war" entirely since it may not need context as it's a generally understood historical event, but that doesn't feel right either.
As a side note, since you had very good comments for Tilley, would you possibly have time to take a look over another article I recently finished editing, Uriel Sebree. I have a peer review of it open and afterwards I will probably submit it to GA? or FAC. Your commentary would be appreciated before I submit it, so that I can have it be as good as possible for the review process. JRP ( talk) 18:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
(crossposted to assorted user's talk pages, if you're thinking this looks a bit familiar)
While looking at
WP:GAN for other articles to review (I don't like nominating things without reviewing one if possible), I've come across
Anglesey Central Railway. Looking at
the creator's history, all they've worked on is this article and articles related to it (aside, bizarrely, from
Characters in Asterix). While I can't in all honesty pass this at the moment – it has serious structural failures, as well as bending the
MOS to breaking point – this is so much better than a new editor's usual "my favourite band" starting effort that I'd really like to get this one through the GA hoop. (IMO there's enough sourced content there to get it to FA.) I'll have a go at cleaning it up, but you're generally much better at the "nuts and bolts" side of things than me; would you mind having a look at it too, as I really think this looks like an author who should be encouraged. (What I know about Welsh railways can be summarised as 1) they're railways and 2) they're Welsh, so I don't think I'll be much use in content-adding.) —
iride
scent
21:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This message is being sent to all opposers of the Roman Catholic Church FAC. Thank you for taking the time to come see the page and give us your comments. I apologize for any drama caused by my imperfect human nature. As specified in WP:FAC, I am required to encourage you to come see the page and decide if your oppose still stands. Ceoil and others have made changes to prose and many edits have been made to address FAC reviewers comments like yours. Thank you. NancyHeise ( talk) 23:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Reviewers Award | |
To
Jbmurray, For your excellent work at Featured article candidates during May, thank you for the solid reviews of articles this month and for your thorough work towards helping promote Wiki's finest work. And a special thanks for lending a hand at WP:FAR as well! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC) |
copied from user talk:Rick Block
Hmmm. I'd like to think that we have similar interpretations of WP:LEAD (and other things) and that discussion would generally be productive. I hope this doesn't come across as pestering, and I do appreciate your willingness to let it drop, but I would like to understand. Would it be possible for you to sketch a new lead without spending too much time on it (rough sketch, without any polish)? No big hurry, and if this is too much of an imposition I guess I'll just have to be left wondering. Thanks. -- Rick Block ( talk) 03:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey. I was just wondering if you get time could you take a quick look at this page and maybe correct some things if you see anything wrong and tell me what they were also so I can try to improve a bit more on my article writing. Thanks. ·Add§hore· Talk/ Cont 23:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The edit comment line has a character limit, and therefore my response is unnecessarily curt. I apologize for that. I would like to explain my M.O. The RCC FA nomination page has become exceedingly long, and the support/oppose comments difficult to account for. Several individuals marked oppose twice without qualification. In the case of this article, this double vote would be difficult to notice by the FA director. I struck your second oppose (though I left your first) and made an inline comment regarding its risk of double counting. I made no further edit to your comments. I am amenable to a phrasing similar to Still oppose to immediately and clearly note that this is an additional set of comments. Without the strikethrough, this set of comments is a second ‘nay’ vote for the FA, which is clearly unfair. I encourage your additional comments regarding this FA. However, if you insist on being counted twice, I will not hesitate to involve administrators. I doubt it will come to that since you seem to be a reasonable individual. I have a habit of putting that statement upfront early on in discussion of such matters as I typically deal with persistent vandals to certain articles. I apologize for the brusqueness it causes. Best regards. Lwnf360 ( talk) 08:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
(outdent:) The issue is at an end as far as I'm concerned. But I've dropped you a note about your habits on other people's talk pages and elsewhere. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 09:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
Awarded to Jbmurray for kindly unsolicited and thorough copyedit on VNQDD. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC) |
Thank you for the nice surprise! -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 10:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Might you have time this weekend to peer review Mary Shelley? Qp and I have worked and worked and we want to see what little wiki-world of literary experts thinks of our efforts! :) Awadewit ( talk) 11:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: your wondering. Its because a transcluded page with 30-50 subpages each bringing a multitude of subheadings would create TOC hell, though in the case of RCC subsections would have been very handy indeed; that was some diffucult FAC to follow. Anyway, Peter Wall hasn't cropped up on my watchlist in a while; wondering what are your intentions, thoughts on it these days. Ceoil ( talk) 19:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. As someone who was active in the discussion about this Wikiproject, I'd thought you might be interested in my comments here. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Things supernatural are regarded by many folk in post-industrial societies with cynicism (ghosts, flying saucers, tarrow cards, witch doctors). I use what is strictly speaking a redundant epithet to remind them that sky-god religion is little better and should be treated with the same cynicism. It's no coincidence that there was tension between the text of the RCC FAC and WP's scholastic/scientific rules concerning the admissibility of claims without evidence; but I think Nancy and co. gradually realised how to satisfy that requirement.
Oops, I forgot that 17% of Americans believe they've been abducted by aliens and anally probed (true, by one survey late last century). But then another survey of American protestant clergymen revealed that 42% don't believe in a deity. I'm confused. TONY (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you ! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi jbmurray. I am back from my much-needed vacation :) You asked me to let you know when I planned to list my RfA because you had time-sensitive information to add. I'm ready to list it whenever you tell me you are ready for me to do so. I'll check back tonight; if you want to wait until tomorrow or later that is fine with me too. Enjoy the rest of your weekend! Karanacs ( talk) 19:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. I suspect that signing again would be appropriate, but am unfamiliar with the relevant protocols. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 04:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
{{subst:#time: H:i, [[j F]] [[Y]] "(UTC)"|+7 days}}
(which gives 15:04,
27 July
2024 (UTC) - the time in exactly seven days) - copy that code exactly and you should be fine.
giggy (
:O)
06:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Thanks for trying to keep this on track. I appreciate your efforts...but aren't you supposed to be hiding during the week? ;) Karanacs ( talk) 02:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Jbmurray, I got roped into improving History of computing hardware, mainly about keeping it a featured article. Now I have discovered that the {{cite}} template is very bulky, and am trying to keep the article byte count below 81K to avoid an internal message. I hope that the {{tl|Harvnb}} can help the citation size. Wackymacs gave me your name as a contact for using it correctly in a citation. If you could point me to a couple of examples of its use in a citation, I would appreciate any knowledge you can give about this approach.
Thank you, Ancheta Wis ( talk) 08:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Mission 4, a series of articles on the Everglades, could do with help from the FA-Team! Thanks! Awadewit ( talk) 13:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Xandar:
I honestly fear that you, we, and everyone is simply heading for a repeat of the problems already seen repeatedly with this article at FAC. This would be in nobody's best interest, least of all those of the article itself. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 23:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I know it's not the weekend and I know you are about to go on vacation (yea!) and I know you are busy doing other nice things for me. Still, if you should by any chance have a few minutes of extra time at some point in the next week or so, I'd appreciate your eyes on
a new proposal for the RCC history section. This time, I'm operating on a potentially stupid incorrect assumption that part of the problems in the history section of that article might be that it just goes into way too much detail. If we can strip that section down to the basics, it might be tight enough to help us get to NPOV more easily. I'm working solely within what is already in the article (no new sources), and I've managed to cut about 30% of what I consider fluff (for this article) already. I didn't cut much from the Latin America paragraphs that you worked on because that is much beyond my knowledge. If you are interested
here's my working proposal; feel free to make further cuts, restore data that might be necessary, or make other suggestions for improvements. I'm asking a few other editors with interest in pieces of Catholic history to do the same, and after a while of mulling I'll present it as a proposal at the RCC talk page.
Karanacs (
talk)
15:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Very kind. Thanks so much. I do think it's unfortunate when RfAs get off track, and particularly when people who oppose become the subject of critical discussion, rather than the candidate him- or herself.
More generally, I think people should be allowed to make mistakes. The wiki is funny in that way: on the one hand, it really doesn't matter what kind of mess you make, because the glory of the set-up is that someone can come by and fix it; on the other hand, it keeps this record of just about every keystroke you've ever made.
And when you (we, anyone) make a mistake, I think it's fine and proper for someone to call you on it. But, so long as you learn, and we're all learning, and show good faith, those mistakes shouldn't have to come back and haunt you. And yet at RfA, in particular, they often do. And what's worse is when !voters have their activities scrutinized, as well as candidates!
Sometimes I think that as a result there are some editors who are scared to make mistakes, especially if they are considering running for adminship at some point. That's a pity. I like editors who aren't afraid to speak their mind, so long of course as they are also prepared to listen to others.
This is, incidentally, one of the reasons I like Karanacs: she doesn't shy away from the difficult situations, and generally she handles them very well indeed. I don't run into you so often, but I can believe that you act similarly in the parts of the encyclopedia in which you're active. I hope so, at least.
Anyhow, sorry for all this rambling on. Thanks again for the award. I hope that the discussion dies down about your ANI thread (which as I said, I think was just fine, even though I disagreed with you). All the best. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 22:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
One more vote at WP:RFA/K shouldn't make a difference – and, repeat "not a vote" often enough and people might start believing it – but you haven't actually voted yet! – iride scent 19:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I hope this is under control, but want to peek in here? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. You participated in this ANI thread. I picked out the names of some editors I recognised, or who had extensive comments there, and I was wondering if you would have time to review the articles mentioned in the thread I've started here, and in particular the concerns I've raised there about how I used the sources. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
It looks like I just missed you, but I've proposed we create a separate plagiarism guideline (or rather, how to detect, deal with and avoid it). Please contribute at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 20:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a final count of 42 supporting, 2 opposing and 2 neutral. I would like to thank Keeper76 especially for the great nomination. I look forward to assist the project and its community as an administrator. I hope you enjoy your break :) Thanks again, Cenarium Talk 01:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Thats fine, although is that the only reason? — Maggot Syn 08:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I was just wondering if you could give me a quick list of all the stuff that needs to be done to bring this article to GA status. Much obliged. Qst ( talk) 16:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jbmurray, I hate to be the one to mess up your nice clean talk page, but I wanted to say thank you for co-nominating me for adminship. I had to read your nomination statement twice to convince myself that you were actually talking about me! It is always interesting to find out what others think of one's work, and I was very pleasantly surprised to find that so many people had noticed my contributions and were happy with them. I really do appreciate the kind words in your statement, your defense of my actions in the great RCC debate, and your efforts to keep the discussion focused. I'll do my best to be live up to the picture you painted. I hope you enjoyed your vacation, and I'm looking forward to more oppportunities for collaboration when you get back. Karanacs ( talk) 13:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Let me say, first of all, I have a lot of regard for professors. But, on this matter your erudition seems faltering: simply put Miguel Angel Asturias was mestizo and that should be made clear in the article, undue emphasis on distant Iberian origins can result in reader confusion. Cheers! 72.221.92.43 ( talk) 14:58, 30 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. |
![]() | 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. |
Hi Jb,
You had Support from Tony (Good Granny! I don't recall ever seeing him Support), Awadewit, qp10p, Ceoil—Good Granny, the only endorsements missing are Abraham Lincoln, Mother Teresa and User:Jimbo. I didn't !vote, but my implicit Oppose based on WP:StubArticlesShouldNotBeFeatured was gonna get exactly zero traction. Carcharoth should not have attempted major restructuring of an ongoing FAC, but this could have been easily corrected with a little discussion, a revert, and C working in userspace (as mainspace workpages are expressly disallowed). I did exactly this in the RCC FAC, with no problems at all.
Withdrawing at that point is like coitus interruptus. You leave everyone hanging; in the worst case scenario, you open the door to hard feelings and finger-pointing! I think it was a bad decision. You were sailing to a virtually assured FA. Ling.Nut ( talk) 03:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Ping [1]: jbmurray, since I have no idea if anyone will see a talk-page comment on an archived FAC, I am letting one party know of its existence! – Outriggr § 07:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to the both of you. Outriggr, as it happened I already saw your comments. But I appreciate the ping. And I also appreciate the time you took to write them. Ling, thanks to you, too, for your thoughts.
As I've said on Ling's talk page, I do think a bit of a pause might be a good idea.
For the moment, let me just say the following:
Anyhow, that's how I see it. It turns out that I said more than I thought I would. Other comments would be welcome. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 08:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems only right and fair that we should wait for Carcharoth's response at this point. He or she may want to go for option two or option one; he or she may not like any of the options, or even the fact of presenting options at all. If, however, the possibility of further revision of Peter Wall looks likely, then I have a number of ideas of how to go ahead. If not, I think we should try to work on another article. I have a few ideas there, too. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 07:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
(outdent:) As I've indicated, it may be painstaking but I'll happily go through the individual edits if you want. This will be slow, but I'm prepared to do it if you feel it's important. But I would be grateful if at some point you were able to respond to the points I make above about the general way forward. That would be most useful to me. Thanks. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs)
Actually, I re-read the newspaper article, and would like your opinion on whether the following points are adequately made in the article:
From re-reading the article, it seems that things are more complicated than the way it has been presented in the Peter Wall article. In particular, it is unclear how much is due to the panic after 1989 and how much is due to the 1997 handover date. Would you have any ideas how to address this? In my view, we need to stick to the clearly sourced and indisputable facts (immigration and property price rises), and make clear that the source you have quoted is not, in fact, clear on what the underlying causes are. And the Hui and Li Ka-shing bit is particularly interesting. Is he a bigger player in the real estate market than Peter Wall? Concord Pacific Developments and Terry Hui are redlinks, predictably. If there is less information about Hui and Concord Pacific, is it right that we have an article on Wall and Wall Financial because Wall more "colourful" and gets more coverage in the local Vancouver media? Li Ka-shing and Yaletown are interesting articles. Anyway, I just got your message on my talk page, so I'll stop waffling! :-) By sandbox, I meant a user subpage. And I've just realised I forgot to save this, so it might be all out of sequence. Consider this an early taking you up on your "Please feel free to give me a shout" offer, or an example of the perils of quoting from, or using, newspaper sources. Carcharoth ( talk) 12:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I want you to know that your FAC comments on this page were very poorly made and not well thought out. When I read them, without knowing you were on the FAC team, I thought you were maybe some 18 year old who was just surfing the net looking for something to do - not a serious FAC reviewer. That's how bad I think your comments were and I'm not telling you this to be mean - you need to know especially if you are a FAC reviewer. If you are going to review this page again please make a bullet point list of comments that specifically point out what you think is wrong in the text, what FAC criteria has been violated and why - not blanket statements like the one on Catholics creating Catholic pages - that was unnecessary and ridiculous. I have never written something like this to any reviewer of our work and we have worked with many. Please take my comments to heart for the sake of improving Wikipedia. Thanks. NancyHeise ( talk) 12:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry if I contributed in any way to your unpleasant experience on Peter Wall by opposing it. I did not, and still do not, understand the point you were making, other than that you were nominating a business person for a FA. I have no problem with that.
My problem was with the article itself. But then I realized that it probably did fulfill FA requirements because the requirements themselves are so cut and dried, without any life to them. So I evolved the hypothesis that your nomination was really a method to point this out to the FA people. I am seeing now that I was wrong about this, that my interpretation was idiosyncratic. So, I apologize to you if, in my delusional world, I contributed in any way to your unsavory experience at FA. Sincerely, – Mattisse ( Talk) 15:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You might have missed it in some ongoing discussion, but I replied to you there. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 07:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome, if you like, to expand on your views on the acceptable range of political views among professional historians who are to be taken seriously, or the degree of commitment expected of a academic before he can be considered "full-time". Johnbod ( talk) 09:32, 2 June 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)
Hi Jbmurray,
I was reading your comments on the FAC page, where you write concerning the "origins" separated from the "history":
The first paragraph has some interesting comparisons and observations, no obvious complaints. Then: "this is certainly still an open issue... I'm not sure I would insist on the revision... Something needs to be done." I may lack imagination, but what is "something" that is not a revision, and do you really think the origins-doctrine-history order is unacceptable?
Your strong oppose appears to be based on the abuse you've received from some of the other editors. You don't deserve the abuse, and the article deserves to be evaluated on its merits. Going back to the old nom, you summarize: "The problem is that the article portrays the Church the way in which the Church itself does." I think the article contains enough information so a reader will see how the Church understands itself, but also has been introduced to the debated points. That a person could gain some insight into a subject's self-understanding from reading an encyclopedia article doesn't seem to be problematic to me. Am I wrong?
Respectfully, The.helping.people.tick ( talk) 13:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jbmurray, could you please put your edit citations in proper format if you are going to contribute to the aritcle, the refs are all messed up now, thanks. NancyHeise ( talk) 15:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Your contributions to the Muntz article are good, thank you. I think I'm a little burnt out to tell the truth. Nobody of Consequence ( talk) 18:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi - You made some comments at the FAR page for Monty Hall problem (now archived at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Monty Hall problem/archive2) but didn't really follow up. The FAR is now closed (with a keep), but I'm still interested in improvements to the article. If you have the time (and interest), please bring up any issues you might still have at talk:Monty Hall problem. Thanks. -- Rick Block ( talk) 02:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for informing me about the citation stuff over at Sandy's talk page. Now I can resume working on my article, hurray. — Wackymacs ( talk ~ edits) 18:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, the top archive tag and your closing comments should be inside the section header. Enigma message 00:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Madman Muntz was just promoted to FA tonight, so I wanted to thank you for your help. I think for the moment I need to step away and try to work on something else, but I will get the page numbers in for the book citations sometime this week. And, of course, feel free to improve as you see fit. As for the stuff about Muntz's family, I'm pretty sure I'll be able to expand on it in the future once the documentary about him comes out. There ARE newspaper articles out there about his two famous wives, but the New York Times wants money to read them online and I'm a cheapskate. :-) Anyway, cheers. Nobody of Consequence ( talk) 02:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 07:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Good sir, I was willing to grant you "long weekend" through Monday, but as of yesterday, I see you are still editing. I insist you change your template to read: "I will now only be editing at weekends, except when I don't." -- Laser brain (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Got a job for you to practice admin buttons. See user talk:Gimmietrow. (Note spelling).
Gimmetrow
20:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
What's the best way to format "Three other coaches, Art Shell, Jon Gruden and Bill Callahan, have also taken the Raiders to the playoffs."? It doesn't look right to me. I was thinking something like "Three other coaches—Art Shell, Jon Gruden and Bill Callahan—have also taken the Raiders to the playoffs." because it's really a break in the sentence. Thoughts? Gary King ( talk) 07:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jb and thanks for the copyedit. When you were referring to choppiness, did you mean grammar/raw prose or did you mean that the logical development of the narrative seemed a bit disjointed? Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 08:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
j.b., I just wanted to thank you for participating in my recent RFA. I've prepared an in-depth RFA analysis based on the comments that were made, including your comment about the social networking/blog-like activity. i've explained what my "hello world" is (now) being used for, admittedly the february and march entries weren't encyclopedic. i'd appreciate your further comment on if you think it's a worthwhile endeavour. also, some templated thank spam is available below. cheers, xenocidic ( talk) 23:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to thank the community for placing their trust in me during
my recent request for adminship, which passed 72
13
2
. Rest assured, I have read each comment thoroughly and will be
addressing the various concerns raised as I step cautiously into my new role as janitor. In particular, I would like to thank
Balloonman for putting so much time into reviewing my contributions and writing such a thoughtful nomination statement after knowing me for only a brief period of time (and for convincing me that I was ready to take up the mop now, rather than go through
admin coaching).
To my fellow admins - please let me know right away if I ever take any mis-steps with my new tools. Should I make a mistake, and you reverse the action, I will not consider it to be wheel-warring (but please tell me so I can understand what I did wrong).
To everyone - please feel free to slap me around a bit if I ever lose sight of the core philosophy of Wikipedia as I understand it - the advancement of knowledge through the processes of mutual understanding and respect. As always, feel free to drop by my talk page if I can be of any assistance. =)
Sincerely,
~xenocidic, 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent comments on Benjamin Franklin Tilley's FAC. I'm working to address your concerns. Do you have a better one-line summary that I can use for the Spanish-American war? The ones that I came up with generally weren't NPOV or were too short. I'm just thinking that I may drop the "introduction to the war" entirely since it may not need context as it's a generally understood historical event, but that doesn't feel right either.
As a side note, since you had very good comments for Tilley, would you possibly have time to take a look over another article I recently finished editing, Uriel Sebree. I have a peer review of it open and afterwards I will probably submit it to GA? or FAC. Your commentary would be appreciated before I submit it, so that I can have it be as good as possible for the review process. JRP ( talk) 18:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
(crossposted to assorted user's talk pages, if you're thinking this looks a bit familiar)
While looking at
WP:GAN for other articles to review (I don't like nominating things without reviewing one if possible), I've come across
Anglesey Central Railway. Looking at
the creator's history, all they've worked on is this article and articles related to it (aside, bizarrely, from
Characters in Asterix). While I can't in all honesty pass this at the moment – it has serious structural failures, as well as bending the
MOS to breaking point – this is so much better than a new editor's usual "my favourite band" starting effort that I'd really like to get this one through the GA hoop. (IMO there's enough sourced content there to get it to FA.) I'll have a go at cleaning it up, but you're generally much better at the "nuts and bolts" side of things than me; would you mind having a look at it too, as I really think this looks like an author who should be encouraged. (What I know about Welsh railways can be summarised as 1) they're railways and 2) they're Welsh, so I don't think I'll be much use in content-adding.) —
iride
scent
21:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This message is being sent to all opposers of the Roman Catholic Church FAC. Thank you for taking the time to come see the page and give us your comments. I apologize for any drama caused by my imperfect human nature. As specified in WP:FAC, I am required to encourage you to come see the page and decide if your oppose still stands. Ceoil and others have made changes to prose and many edits have been made to address FAC reviewers comments like yours. Thank you. NancyHeise ( talk) 23:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Reviewers Award | |
To
Jbmurray, For your excellent work at Featured article candidates during May, thank you for the solid reviews of articles this month and for your thorough work towards helping promote Wiki's finest work. And a special thanks for lending a hand at WP:FAR as well! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC) |
copied from user talk:Rick Block
Hmmm. I'd like to think that we have similar interpretations of WP:LEAD (and other things) and that discussion would generally be productive. I hope this doesn't come across as pestering, and I do appreciate your willingness to let it drop, but I would like to understand. Would it be possible for you to sketch a new lead without spending too much time on it (rough sketch, without any polish)? No big hurry, and if this is too much of an imposition I guess I'll just have to be left wondering. Thanks. -- Rick Block ( talk) 03:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey. I was just wondering if you get time could you take a quick look at this page and maybe correct some things if you see anything wrong and tell me what they were also so I can try to improve a bit more on my article writing. Thanks. ·Add§hore· Talk/ Cont 23:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The edit comment line has a character limit, and therefore my response is unnecessarily curt. I apologize for that. I would like to explain my M.O. The RCC FA nomination page has become exceedingly long, and the support/oppose comments difficult to account for. Several individuals marked oppose twice without qualification. In the case of this article, this double vote would be difficult to notice by the FA director. I struck your second oppose (though I left your first) and made an inline comment regarding its risk of double counting. I made no further edit to your comments. I am amenable to a phrasing similar to Still oppose to immediately and clearly note that this is an additional set of comments. Without the strikethrough, this set of comments is a second ‘nay’ vote for the FA, which is clearly unfair. I encourage your additional comments regarding this FA. However, if you insist on being counted twice, I will not hesitate to involve administrators. I doubt it will come to that since you seem to be a reasonable individual. I have a habit of putting that statement upfront early on in discussion of such matters as I typically deal with persistent vandals to certain articles. I apologize for the brusqueness it causes. Best regards. Lwnf360 ( talk) 08:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
(outdent:) The issue is at an end as far as I'm concerned. But I've dropped you a note about your habits on other people's talk pages and elsewhere. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 09:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
Awarded to Jbmurray for kindly unsolicited and thorough copyedit on VNQDD. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC) |
Thank you for the nice surprise! -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 10:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Might you have time this weekend to peer review Mary Shelley? Qp and I have worked and worked and we want to see what little wiki-world of literary experts thinks of our efforts! :) Awadewit ( talk) 11:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: your wondering. Its because a transcluded page with 30-50 subpages each bringing a multitude of subheadings would create TOC hell, though in the case of RCC subsections would have been very handy indeed; that was some diffucult FAC to follow. Anyway, Peter Wall hasn't cropped up on my watchlist in a while; wondering what are your intentions, thoughts on it these days. Ceoil ( talk) 19:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. As someone who was active in the discussion about this Wikiproject, I'd thought you might be interested in my comments here. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Things supernatural are regarded by many folk in post-industrial societies with cynicism (ghosts, flying saucers, tarrow cards, witch doctors). I use what is strictly speaking a redundant epithet to remind them that sky-god religion is little better and should be treated with the same cynicism. It's no coincidence that there was tension between the text of the RCC FAC and WP's scholastic/scientific rules concerning the admissibility of claims without evidence; but I think Nancy and co. gradually realised how to satisfy that requirement.
Oops, I forgot that 17% of Americans believe they've been abducted by aliens and anally probed (true, by one survey late last century). But then another survey of American protestant clergymen revealed that 42% don't believe in a deity. I'm confused. TONY (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you ! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi jbmurray. I am back from my much-needed vacation :) You asked me to let you know when I planned to list my RfA because you had time-sensitive information to add. I'm ready to list it whenever you tell me you are ready for me to do so. I'll check back tonight; if you want to wait until tomorrow or later that is fine with me too. Enjoy the rest of your weekend! Karanacs ( talk) 19:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. I suspect that signing again would be appropriate, but am unfamiliar with the relevant protocols. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 04:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
{{subst:#time: H:i, [[j F]] [[Y]] "(UTC)"|+7 days}}
(which gives 15:04,
27 July
2024 (UTC) - the time in exactly seven days) - copy that code exactly and you should be fine.
giggy (
:O)
06:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Thanks for trying to keep this on track. I appreciate your efforts...but aren't you supposed to be hiding during the week? ;) Karanacs ( talk) 02:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Jbmurray, I got roped into improving History of computing hardware, mainly about keeping it a featured article. Now I have discovered that the {{cite}} template is very bulky, and am trying to keep the article byte count below 81K to avoid an internal message. I hope that the {{tl|Harvnb}} can help the citation size. Wackymacs gave me your name as a contact for using it correctly in a citation. If you could point me to a couple of examples of its use in a citation, I would appreciate any knowledge you can give about this approach.
Thank you, Ancheta Wis ( talk) 08:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Mission 4, a series of articles on the Everglades, could do with help from the FA-Team! Thanks! Awadewit ( talk) 13:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Xandar:
I honestly fear that you, we, and everyone is simply heading for a repeat of the problems already seen repeatedly with this article at FAC. This would be in nobody's best interest, least of all those of the article itself. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 23:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I know it's not the weekend and I know you are about to go on vacation (yea!) and I know you are busy doing other nice things for me. Still, if you should by any chance have a few minutes of extra time at some point in the next week or so, I'd appreciate your eyes on
a new proposal for the RCC history section. This time, I'm operating on a potentially stupid incorrect assumption that part of the problems in the history section of that article might be that it just goes into way too much detail. If we can strip that section down to the basics, it might be tight enough to help us get to NPOV more easily. I'm working solely within what is already in the article (no new sources), and I've managed to cut about 30% of what I consider fluff (for this article) already. I didn't cut much from the Latin America paragraphs that you worked on because that is much beyond my knowledge. If you are interested
here's my working proposal; feel free to make further cuts, restore data that might be necessary, or make other suggestions for improvements. I'm asking a few other editors with interest in pieces of Catholic history to do the same, and after a while of mulling I'll present it as a proposal at the RCC talk page.
Karanacs (
talk)
15:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Very kind. Thanks so much. I do think it's unfortunate when RfAs get off track, and particularly when people who oppose become the subject of critical discussion, rather than the candidate him- or herself.
More generally, I think people should be allowed to make mistakes. The wiki is funny in that way: on the one hand, it really doesn't matter what kind of mess you make, because the glory of the set-up is that someone can come by and fix it; on the other hand, it keeps this record of just about every keystroke you've ever made.
And when you (we, anyone) make a mistake, I think it's fine and proper for someone to call you on it. But, so long as you learn, and we're all learning, and show good faith, those mistakes shouldn't have to come back and haunt you. And yet at RfA, in particular, they often do. And what's worse is when !voters have their activities scrutinized, as well as candidates!
Sometimes I think that as a result there are some editors who are scared to make mistakes, especially if they are considering running for adminship at some point. That's a pity. I like editors who aren't afraid to speak their mind, so long of course as they are also prepared to listen to others.
This is, incidentally, one of the reasons I like Karanacs: she doesn't shy away from the difficult situations, and generally she handles them very well indeed. I don't run into you so often, but I can believe that you act similarly in the parts of the encyclopedia in which you're active. I hope so, at least.
Anyhow, sorry for all this rambling on. Thanks again for the award. I hope that the discussion dies down about your ANI thread (which as I said, I think was just fine, even though I disagreed with you). All the best. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 22:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
One more vote at WP:RFA/K shouldn't make a difference – and, repeat "not a vote" often enough and people might start believing it – but you haven't actually voted yet! – iride scent 19:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I hope this is under control, but want to peek in here? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. You participated in this ANI thread. I picked out the names of some editors I recognised, or who had extensive comments there, and I was wondering if you would have time to review the articles mentioned in the thread I've started here, and in particular the concerns I've raised there about how I used the sources. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
It looks like I just missed you, but I've proposed we create a separate plagiarism guideline (or rather, how to detect, deal with and avoid it). Please contribute at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 20:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a final count of 42 supporting, 2 opposing and 2 neutral. I would like to thank Keeper76 especially for the great nomination. I look forward to assist the project and its community as an administrator. I hope you enjoy your break :) Thanks again, Cenarium Talk 01:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Thats fine, although is that the only reason? — Maggot Syn 08:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I was just wondering if you could give me a quick list of all the stuff that needs to be done to bring this article to GA status. Much obliged. Qst ( talk) 16:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jbmurray, I hate to be the one to mess up your nice clean talk page, but I wanted to say thank you for co-nominating me for adminship. I had to read your nomination statement twice to convince myself that you were actually talking about me! It is always interesting to find out what others think of one's work, and I was very pleasantly surprised to find that so many people had noticed my contributions and were happy with them. I really do appreciate the kind words in your statement, your defense of my actions in the great RCC debate, and your efforts to keep the discussion focused. I'll do my best to be live up to the picture you painted. I hope you enjoyed your vacation, and I'm looking forward to more oppportunities for collaboration when you get back. Karanacs ( talk) 13:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Let me say, first of all, I have a lot of regard for professors. But, on this matter your erudition seems faltering: simply put Miguel Angel Asturias was mestizo and that should be made clear in the article, undue emphasis on distant Iberian origins can result in reader confusion. Cheers! 72.221.92.43 ( talk) 14:58, 30 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. |