User talk:Jbmurray/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Are you in Vancouver?

Hi Jbmurray. I've been reading your posts at the Education noticeboard, as well as looking at your class editing project from way back. I was part of the Working Group, and am still involved with planning for the new org. If you ever want to meet up for coffee and discuss things, I'm up for it. I'm out at Main + Broadway, but I go out to UBC once and a while. Best, The Interior (Talk) 21:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy to do so. I'm at UBC during the week, or can meet up at other times. I live near Commercial, so not far from you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Great. I could catch you on your way back from campus, do you know Kafka's Coffee (Main, halfway between Bway and 10th Ave., west side of street)? It's convenient for B-liners, if you suffer that ride. Let me know what day works for you, Tuesday and Wednesdays are my bad days schoolwise. The Interior (Talk) 22:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, to/from campus doesn't work: I am transporting small and medium-sized children around. In the evenings I'm not usually free until 7pm. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Understood about the chilluns. I can come out to the drive after seven one night, you name a place/time, again just no Tues. or Weds. Look forward to talking, The Interior (Talk) 23:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You have mail. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Kanon6996

Hello, I was reading the talk page on National University of San Marcos and I found that you also had problems with this user. I I have no idea what to do about it. Yesterday, we had a disagreement in two articles: National University of San Marcos and Pontifical Catholic University of Peru (that it is why I haven't posted this comment on a single article talk page and rather tried to explain him directly why his edits are not appropiate). I am not planning to continue any edit warring, but I don't think it is right that his editions remain only because I got tired. He won't speak to me in English and has taken the discussion to my talk page on eswiki, even when I am barely active on that project. Some guidance will be nice, Andreasm ^{just talk to me} 16:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN/I protocol

Hey- It looks like we're being baited by that combative editor. He just vandalized the project page with a screed about the project. I got advice from another admin to think about WP:AN/I as a solution. Can you give me some advice/help in curbing this abusive editor? Oline73 (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Myself, I wouldn't call that vandalism. It is combative and not particularly friendly--indeed, it is essentially hostile. And it is a pain in the arse, no doubt, when you are trying to get something done in a relatively short-term project. But his tone has indeed improved. It is now only marginally uncivil (many might call it merely "robust"), and I don't think that taking it to ANI would be productive. It seldom is, as it happens, but especially not in cases like this.

Rather, I'd suggest engaging with his arguments, which are not all bad ones. I think the point is that he believes that what he has to say--Englishness is a contested and uncertain category, shock horror!-- is devastating to what you are doing. I suspect that this shows that he has rather missed the point. --03:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've spent some time looking at many--if not all--of the edits and interactions under discussion. I'd say, in short, that choosing to edit History of cricket to 1725 was perhaps a mistake. This is a "Good Article," and while that doesn't mean that it is finished, complete, or necessarily anywhere near perfect, it does mean that a perhaps more considered approach is required, and that edits should be carefully considered. Moreover, any "Good" (or "Featured") article will normally have one or more editors who watch it quite carefully to ensure that it doesn't degrade. You've bumped into one of these, and while his tone has been hostile at times, he is not without his reasons. Indeed, rather than simply reverting, you'll see that he has rather substantially expanded the paragraph that is mostly under discussion. He has done so in such a way that acknowledges that there have been theories of the game's Celtic roots, albeit he goes on roundly to condemn them. So though this may appear disappointing, in some ways this is how Wikipedia should work: an article or some part of an article is challenged, and that challenge is acknowledged in some way, leading to the article's revision, if not exactly in the way that the challenger might want. One could still work on that paragraph--I would certainly write it differently, and have some thoughts about that--and gradually come to some kind of consensus. But at times this is a slow process. There are some aspects of JFrye61's and JHCRosero's contributions that I like, but on the other hand I do understand why they were reverted. Another couple of rounds of to and fro, and their input would no doubt also be registered--if again, indirectly. Frankly, with "Good Articles" this is mostly the way that things will go. So this may all seem frustrating--no doubt, I'd add, to both sides. But it's how Wikipedia works, and indeed an instance on the whole of Wikipedia working--proving both relatively robust or stable and ultimately open to change. On the other hand, I can see that the atmosphere has not been particularly welcoming on the whole. Alarms were raised and your project mentioned on ANI for no very good reason. And newcomers were bitten. Which is not so good. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thanks for being a hero and defending student rights on Wikipedia! Oline73 (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject naming

Hi there, in relation to the use of WikiProject in a page title, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Should the "Wikipedia:WikiProject" prefix be reserved for "full projects/sub projects/task groups" or any gathering?. I don't want to get into any of the other issues associated with this Englishness course or Jack or anything like that, only the appropriateness of the page name. As a holder of a dissenting view to mine, I would appreciate your input to the discussion. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Phone rollbacks

Jon, I saw your recent accidental rollback comment in my watchlist, and thought you might be interested in this. If your phone is not an iPhone there's probably some analogous fix that the VPT folks can whip up for you, if you're interested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Gravity's Rainbow genre

Forgive me if this is a trivial inquiry in the wrong place. I'm just finding my legs in the Wikipedia environment.

The description of Gravity's Rainbow as "postmodern" has become nearly universal among postmodern critics, which is to say they embrace it, but that fact does not make it intrinsically "postmodern" as it is intrinsically picaresque. The term "postmodern" may come to mind soonest, but reflexes are not always accurate.

Its being embraced as postmodern deserves prominent mention, perhaps, but not in an opening line.

In the discussion regarding this article, considerable deliberation has already occurred, and it demonstrates at least that there no authoritative consensus at large designating Gravity Rainbow as postmodern. Indeed, there is no consensus on what the descriptor "postmodern" implies about any literary work that is not literary criticism.

Calling the volume "postmodern" is more than debatable. Doing so subsumes the rich contents to a subset of approaches to reading that engage some but not all the devices and themes, thereby representing the work as less than what it is. Macdust (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

This. Thanks. We need more calm-headed folk explaining why the community is angry about his and offering experience-based advice. Colin°^Talk 12:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sun/G&m archives

Re this, you should have access to this: [1] The Interior (Talk) 03:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I did think of that. Though it's a bit more of a pain. Anyhow, I'm off on a trip tomorrow morning and doubt I'll get anything done before Monday at least. It would be nice to improve the article, though! Hope all's well! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

UBC pays good money for that service, you should use it. (wags finger) Enjoy your trip. All's well here, as the term ends the real world looms... The Interior (Talk) 04:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, just used Proquest for something else (see here), as the Vancouver Sun seems to have deleted the relevant article from its archive (ugh!). Any idea if there's a way of getting a url to the Proquest page that doesn't have the UBC identifier in it? I.e. some kind of generic Proquest url, though of course you'd have to sign in to see the article itself (just not necessarily from UBC). JSTOR does this; it's not obvious that Proquest does. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

ProfDavis, etc

I left a reply for ProfDavis on their talk, and one for you on mine.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Ping.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

justification??

So pretty funny me (and Resolute) being accused of censorship when I can't even defend myself. Trying to get me banned to get me out of the way of their ongoing attempts to vandalize a host of articles is the agenda; the dispute resolution process is a time-waster, none of these people complaining about me do any other kind of editing; it's an energy-eater...and taking up my time/energy by cornering me is the game....seen it before in forumspace and on the blogs where these types know me all too well.Skookum1 (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

See my user contributions for today....then look at theirs.Skookum1 (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so sorry. Thanks for pointing it out. I need to pay more attention to Mike Christie's advice. It was a total accident (which I thought I'd caught at the time, but obviously I didn't). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about your recent reversion

Hi, I just noticed your reversion here [2] where I had read an article in a reliable source newspaper, and added it with several other references I dug up, and you reverted it with an edit note of, "this is nonsense." Could you clarify what you mean by that? Why is adding reliably sourced content nonsense exactly? I'm not too familiar with all the ins and outs of whatever is going on with that article - which seems to be subject to an edit war (as reported in the articles cited), but it seemed like a well researched reliable source article. Could you clarify what your interpretation was that led to your reversion and rather abrupt edit summary dismissing the reliably sourced content as nonsense? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry if my edit (and edit summary) was abrupt. I think those articles were nonsense above all in that they were written by someone who fundamentally didn't understand how Wikipedia works, and got it wrong. And it is quite clearly untrue (nonsense) to say that "Dix's Wikipedia entry has been carefully managed by an anonymous group that engage in cleaning the entry of any negative comments." Indeed, even the Sun reporter retreated from this inference in his subsequent article. If you really think it's important to reference this particular storm in a teacup, then it need suitable qualification. E.g.: "The Vancouver Sun alleged that..."

But the more important thing is this: that sentence didn't contribute to an understanding of Adrian Dix, his career and political positions etc.; i.e. all the things that one would expect from an encyclopedia article. Unfortunately, the recent kerfluffle about that page hasn't on the whole led to the wholesale improvement of the article that's really necessary. If you want to know my priorities, I'd say it'd be good to know more about his career, and what he did for instance as Glen Clark's chief of staff beyond writing a back-dated memo. It would also be germane (and a real public service) to put flesh on the account of what he's been doing as an MLA for the past few years. Unfortunately the article and its talk page have been preoccupied with stuff that's basically only a distraction from what we should be doing. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I can certainly agree the article needs expansion - on all fronts. That is clearly true as there is undercoverage of a lot of his background and activities. But just to clarify - wouldn't determining that an article in a reliable source is nonsense and untrue be original research and/or synthesis if there isn't another reliable source saying so? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that in this case it's a matter of some common sense. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

While I can understand that you think it is WP:COMMONSENSE, it sets a dangerous precedent when an admin removes reliable sourced content that may paint wikipedia negatively calling it nonsense and then just cites common sense. Replying that is is common sense could be perceived as insulting. If you feel that following the rules of reliable sourcing harms the encyclopedia it would be more helpful to make your case for why ignoring the rules will improve Wikipedia. Generally explaining your viewpoint utilizing policies or guidelines, or why you think they are wrong in this case is more helpful. If I understand what you are saying you are suggesting that information presented in multiple reliable sources damages Wikipedia and should be removed because you feel that based upon your own original research and knowledge it is common sense that the information is incorrect and that having the information from reliable sources in an article damages the encyclopedia. Is that a correct interpretation of your conclusion that it is common sense? Or could you clarify what you mean, as it is a bit unclear from both your edit note and your discussion here to me. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. I have no stake in whether Wikipedia is painted negatively or otherwise. My point was simply a) that the text I removed didn't improve the article, which is not on Wikipedia but on Adrian Dix and b) in any case it was manifestly wrong (as, incidentally, the reporter himself acknowledges implicitly in his follow-up article). If you really felt that this was important, then you would have to say something like "The Vancouver Sun originally alleged that an anonymous group, probably associated with Dix's campaign, was whitewashing his article... In a subsequent article, they pinned the blame instead on a named individual unconnected with the NDP." This is closer to what actually happened, as can be traced also through the published record. But again, it's a distraction from the concerns of the article itself. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your view of it. That does sound like a better worded way to summarize the reliable source coverage, and it does seem to be an important part of writing about what is transpiring in the campaign. So what would be the appropriate article space for such coverage? In the article on the 2013 campaign instead? Or someplace else? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, if there's an article on the campaign (I haven't looked, and I don't have time to), then that might indeed be a place to put this. Good point. Though I'm not really following the campaign itself (I can't vote in any case!), so couldn't say how significant this is for that article as a whole. It may still not be enough of a big deal, though I suspect that any controversy about advertising and/or the use of media more generally probably is. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There is an article here British_Columbia_general_election,_2013. What would be an appropriate subheading to put it under there? A new one for "Controversies" or something such as that? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Just had a quick look at that page. There's really no prose there at all, is there! I'd have thought (though I'm not particularly used to the conventions here wrt political or election articles) that there should be a section on the campaign and campaign highlights, and that this might include something on the ads and then perhaps something on the Wikipedia article. But as things are, just putting something on the Wikipedia incident would be quickly deleted as WP:UNDUE. Again, however, I'm surprised that there's no account at all of the campaign. There's much more prose (although still, I'd say, surprisingly little) here, for instance. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Trying to Recover a Deleted page

Hi User:Jbmurray

You recently deleted an assignment from my I/O Psychology class.I thought I was making a priviate sandbox edit, however you corrected me saying that I made an actual live research page. You in return deleted my article and I wanted to know since you are the administration who deleted my article can you WP:Userfy the pages to my sandbox. The articles where entitled "Wikipedia Edit: Text based" and "Wikipedia Edit: Article based" --Christina geo (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Christina geo. Regarding this, you'll see that two weeks ago I already put the material from your deleted page in your sandbox. --18:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you missed a step?

I reviewed the !votes on The Interiors RfA and noticed that you hadn't actually !voted yourself? I thought I'd mention this in case you thought that you had; if so it did not save. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 06:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm seeing how the discussion goes about that Interior chap. I don't just give my vote away, you know! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I told you I'm good for the final payment. It'll be in the Zellers bag by the "Yard Trimmings" bin like the last ones. The Interior (Talk) 07:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I knew it was a style thing. You guys are living good. That's it, I'm moving to Canada.—John Cline (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way

You do have an email and you may be interested in my last post at WP:ENB. Best regards. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Source help

Hey jb—I saw your post at EDN and found your user page. I recently wrote a little article on Víctor Jara's "Estadio Chile", but I'm having trouble finding any analysis on the poem itself, especially as my Spanish is weak. Do you have any recommendations for specific sources, places to start, good search terms?  czar ♔ 04:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I imagine you're very busy, but if you do have a moment to give suggestions, please ping me. Have a good one  czar ♔ 04:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible nomination of a GA article for FA review.

Hi Jbmurray. Your user page seems to indicate a strong literary background which may provide good editing experience for related articles. I am thinking of recommending a page upgrade for a GA article to FA article status which may involve the reading of one or two book reviews if this might be possible for you. The book is the popularly received "Evil and the God of Love". Any possible interest? AutoJellinek (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 11 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Progressive Writers' Movement page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

User: AllisonMaloney

Hi Jbmurray. You edited/moved my Postmenopausal Confusion page. As a new wikipedia user who is using the page for a class assignment, I was wondering what exactly was wrong and how to move my page out onto wikipedia once it is ready? Thanks for your help. AllisonMaloney (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, AllisonMaloney. The problem was that that page was a "redirect" to a page that you had created in your own sandbox. I.e. if someone clicked on the link, they were taken to your personal space. And that's a Wikipedia no-no: it breaches the border between what we call mainspace and the various backstage spaces (such as talk pages and user pages etc.), which are collectively project space.

In technical terms, what you did was to create a cross-namespace redirect.

The point of the sandbox is that it's a place where you can draft or work on a page before making it "live." Some people use sandboxes, others don't; to an extent it's a matter of personal preference, though your professor may have asked you to use sandboxes, I don't know.

But once you feel that your text is ready, then you should either a) copy and paste the text from the sandbox to Postmenopausal Confusion or b) (in some ways better), move--that is, effectively rename--your sandbox page as Postmenopausal Confusion.

The one thing you can't do (well, there may be others but I can't think of them) is make a redirect to your sandbox.

Does that make sense? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yup, and this was the right thing to do. (I make no judgement on the content of the page, merely on the process of making the sandbox live.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much Jbmurray. AllisonMaloney (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:MaReRe

Template:MaReRe has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magioladitis (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I see now what you mean about the relisting. I do apologise: I should have updated the template myself but foolishly forgot. Many thanks for cleaning up, DrKiernan (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:MuMaMa

Template:MuMaMa has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magioladitis (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Magic realism

Can you explain to me why a mention of Crytonomicom was off topic for this article?

I discussed the addition on the article talk page more than a week before I added a few words about this book. There were no complaints.

Is the plot element involved not "magical realism"? If you have read Cryptonomicon and don't think it is, I will certainly listen to your argument.

If you decide it is a recent example, could you put it back? Feel free to edit if you think I was not clear enough.Keith Henson (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You reverted the addition of Cryptonomicon again with the comment of it being off topic.

Given the second paragraph of the article, can you explain a why my addition/example was off topic?Keith Henson (talk) 05:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20