User talk:Jbmurray/Archive 6

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		The Barnstar of Recovery is hereby awarded to Jbmurray for much appreciated work at Wikipedia:Featured article review. A “save” on a review is always rewarding, and with so few helpers every comment or article edit is an asset. Thank you and keep it up! Marskell (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

When you are back....

Would you mind copyediting Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men? It needs a good once over from an expert! Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that this has been featured in the meantime... but am open to any other copy-editing you think needs doing. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team Proposals

Please comment on the current FA-Team proposals. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team successes!

Indigenous people of the Everglades region, Draining and development of the Everglades and Restoration of the Everglades have all recently become FAs! King Arthur is now at FAC! Thanks to our hard-working team members! Awadewit (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Thanks for helping to make King Arthur one of the best articles on Wikipedia! We need more editors like yourself, who can "turn a phrase". Your efforts are much appreciated. Awadewit (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

MMM again?

At least from this article [1], it appears that you will be doing another MMM project this coming semester. I'm sure the FA-Team will help out again, but if you need help from any other wikipedians to make this project another success, just let us know what you want us to do. Remember (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Will do! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

re: "that" article

Hello Jbmurray,

The Red Pen of Doom (? I think his name was) only changed the subheading. I reverted the OR. Amerique^dialectics 20:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

grrr ...

Just for you: [2]. I hope you'll stop by Samuel Johnson when you return. (Oh, great, I see above there's another one of those Projects I have to keep track of, to see if editors declare the collaboration when they support.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

All right, I learned how to use Harvnbs; if you get a chance, see Johnson. Still like my way better, but if that's the way lit articles are written, that's ok, too! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm on this now. Well done with the Harvnbs! Heh. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"a man of letters" :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a few things - opinion became "pinion". "- sourced from introduction. Who wrote the introduction? Needs a separate entry in the References list.--" It is there under "Boswell". Thats the edition of Boswell quoted from. That section will be moved/removed anyway. "two paragraphs on, the mystery seems to be solved" I don't believe I ever explained what happened with Michael Boswell's business to show that they started losing financially, why they had to get into debt in the first place, or why neither's family could bail them out of the increasing debt. Debt was a common phenomena, but explaining why it resulted is something far more complex. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just on the "Introduction." What I mean is that you need an entry in the References along the lines of: "Hibbert, Christopher (1986), 'Introduction.' The Life of Samuel Johnson, by James Boswell, ed. Christopher Hibbert, New York: Penguin, pp. i-xxv [don't know the page numbers, of course], ISBN 0140431160." Then when you are citing the introduction, rather than Boswell himself, you would put Hibbert 1986, p. ii, or whatever. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, it was temporary and will go through a change, so don't worry about it. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

JB, the problem with this is that it incorrectly italicizes The National Archives, completely against WP:ITALICS. I overlook that on other articles because I know it's a shortcoming in the citation templating system, but I sure hate to have inconsistent citations on an article I'm working on, which is why I had opted to do it manually. I can't think of any argument that would make The National Archives be italicized; is there a citation style thingie I'm missing somewhere? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that you've had problems with this before, and haven't really understood why. In fact, italicizing the website is completely in line with MLA style, at least--which is the one I know best. I don't see anything wrong with it.

Also, I had eliminated ISO dates throughout the article to deal with Tony's latest date formatting fixation and to yield consistent delinked date formatting throughout the article; can we take it back to the manual formatting, which fixed both issues? Now we have incorrect italics and inconsistent date formatting. While I'm forced to let that sort of thing slide at FAC all the time, I have a harder time seeing inconsistencies in citations on an article that bears my name as an editor (fixing and making citations consistent was "my thing" when I was mostly a FAC reviewer :-). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I can never catch up on what's going on with dates: ISO or not; linked or not. I'll go back and make it consistent. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine (didn't realize that italicizing the website was consistent, but yes, we need consistent date formatting). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful; I think we're good now. (And thanks for all the other help at Johnson, too :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hegemony in fiction

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Hegemony in fiction, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jb! I have no problem whatsoever with the deletion of the article I created, but thanks for letting me know. I just took the whole heap out of the hegemony article, I thought it didn't add anything to that article. Go right ahead! Kind regards, --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 22:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I thought that might have been the case... Well done for taking it out of the hegemony article in the first place! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That plagiarism discussion

Good to see you back - hope you had a nice break. I know you were very enthusiastic about Wikipedia:Plagiarism before you left, so I'm dropping this note off to remind you. There is a lot of discussion on the talk page, and things have got a bit side-tracked. The proposed guideline/policy itself has stalled a bit as well, and is very disjointed. It would help if someone could approach the whole thing with fresh eyes. Would you have time to have a look at some point? Carcharoth (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

PS. Saving this one up or no time? Carcharoth (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Bit of both on this one. I had a quick look; hope to be back at the weekend. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Saw this and thought of you!

Well, only in the sense that it reminded me of Peter Wall. See Gerald Guterman and the mess that has ensued. I think I see now why you were wary of contacting the subject about the article. Are all property developers so... interesting? I guess it comes with the territory. Carcharoth (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, it does make me smile that Peter Wall drew such criticism, when it was a far better article, and much more balanced. Meanwhile, I see that you haven't done much on that article. I thought you were planning to, which is why, per our agreement, I left it alone. Have you changed your mind? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is currently in the version of the article it was reverted back to after my changes. I think I said I wasn't going to revert my changes back in, but if you feel up to looking again at what I said on the talk page, maybe some of the proposed changes could be discussed anew now that some time has passed? But then again, I'm going to be away for a couple of weeks, so if you carry on editing I won't be around to wring my hands over it! :-) But seriously, it should never be necessary to politely say "you first" - "no, you first" - "no, I insist"... The ideal is all active editors working together. In short, as I'm not active on that article at the moment, go head, but thanks for asking. Carcharoth (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, we'll see. We did discuss at some length the changes you considered uncontroversial. As you know, however, what's at issue is two rather different visions of how such an article should look. The Guterman episode you point to rather convinces me that other approaches should be taken rather than the standard Wikipedia model that you were following. But I'll leave it if you still feel invested in that. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You should definitely review the edits that have been made since then. See here, where Ceoil is asking (in the edit summary) for a date in the text of the article. Also, you didn't address all the edits I left for discussion on the talk page. You never commented on this edit for example. Even a cursory read-through of what I had written should have made you realise that I was saying that the article was misleading. It is still misleading. The article (by using the past tense) currently implies that Capitol Residences has been built. My edit clarified that part of the article by making it clear that the tower is not scheduled to be finished until 2009-2010. I could go on, but my point is that I wrote a hell of a lot on that talk page, painstakingly explaining my changes, including the Capitol Residences bit above, and you wrote a short reply focusing on the "article philosophy", ignoring most of what I wrote, and then we both dropped the article. So yes, I suppose I am still invested in that article. But I want to be able to work with others on that article. not just have them wait until I go away. Can't you see that? Seriously, take the time to look at what I wrote on that talk page and see how many sections there have no replies. For some reason, people ignored what I wrote there, or couldn't be bothered to reply, and, deep down, that hurts. I made a good-faith effort to explain my changes. I only partially reverted what I thought was uncontroversial. I waited to see what people thought of my proposed changes. Then... nothing. Anyway, I'll see what it looks like in August. I'll go and calm down now and go on wikibreak soon (I tend to get a bit irate just before going on holiday - I should learn my lesson and break off a few days earlier). Carcharoth (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I took it off my watchlist, per our earlier discussion. I did indeed spend quite some time explaining the problems that I had with some of your edits--the ones you considered "uncontroversial." However, it was clear that our notions of how to write the article were very different indeed. Going through all the other edits you made would be a waste of both of our time. As per our discussion, I then let you get on with it. I dropped you the note yesterday to see if you still wanted to do so. I wasn't "waiting until you go away": please retract that accusation; I had no idea that you were going on wikibreak when I dropped the note on your talk page. Anyhow, do enjoy your break. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(Briefly breaking my wikibreak). Retracted. Sorry about that, especially as it was me that raised this again really, by dropping by your talk page. What I was trying to say was that instead of me or you, or you or me, we should both feel free to work on that article. I don't think the differences are irreconcilable. Even if you think they are, if you could find the time to look at the other stuff on the talk page it would be good. It doesn't all boil down to different ways to write the article - some changes are completely unrelated to that. Even if you could mark the bits on the talk page you think are due to the different "article philosophies" we hold, that would be better than nothing. I would like to be able to make changes (such as simple fact-checking like the Capitol Residences bit) separately from this "article philosophy" business, and the way you left it, saying that you had objections to what I thought was "uncontroversial", I was stuck. I was unwilling to make changes that you might object to, but I was equally unable to make what I thought were "non-article-philosophy" changes because you had backed right off and didn't want to engage on the talk page to explain which were which. One more thing - there was an assumption on the talk page that it was a lot of edits (24). It is much less than that, only about 8, because a lot of changes were done over several edits. I explained this clearly on the talk page. Anyway, if I get back and there is nothing more on the talk page, then I will go ahead and start working on it again. If I get back and find it is a featured article, or has been substantially changed, then that will of course change things. Anyway, thanks for the good wishes. If there is any more on this (eg. any further retractions or apologies you might feel are needed), it is probably best to e-mail me. I know I said before I preferred to keep things on-wiki, but until I can edit the wiki properly, e-mail may have to do. And now I really must go! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 08:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Request

I have an article request for you -- would you be willing to write a short article on Betrayed by Rita Hayworth (La traición de Rita Hayworth) by Manuel Puig? I'm trying to polish off Wikipedia:ACF Regionals answers and it's one of the ones left. Thanks :) Raul654 (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Never read it, but I should have. Will take a look. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

For the time being, have created a stub. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Raul654 (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Nationalism studies

I've just responded to a number of your edits and comments concerning the work I've been doing, and I thought that I would address you here. As a relatively new editor, I may have made a few mistakes and misunderstood how parts of Wikipedia work, but I feel that as an administrator, your tone with me has been inappropriate. I am making good-faith edits with the intention of improving Wikipedia's coverage and organisation of subjects related to my field of expertise, nationalism studies (which, despite your dismissive remark, is a well-established specialisation in social sciences such as political science and sociology). I am simply trying to make Wikipedia more useful to people who study or have an interest in nationalism and, as a fellow academic, I would have expected a more understanding response. – SJL 18:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I recognize what you've been doing. But you did go on a bit of a spree there with the categorization! Sorry if I've been a little curt in responding. It is best, especially as a relatively new editor, to go a little more slowly. Moreover, and in my view this is a Wikipedia problem more generally, sometimes the easiest changes to make are in fact the most unhelpful: categorization is one instance, when in fact (as I comment) it would be better if more time-consuming either, in the case of your "concepts (Nationalism studies)" to make a list or, better still, to improve the Nationalism studies article itself. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And I should say, I recognize that we wouldn't have a Nationalism studies article at all if it weren't for you. So yes, praise where it's due! Again, I would work further on that. Perhaps try to work it up to a good article? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your recognition. I do plan to improve the Nationalism studies article when I have the time, and my long-term goal (which I don't imagine I will be able to put into practice until after I have finished my dissertation early next year) is to organize a Nationalism studies WikiProject and Portal to improve the quality and accessability of articles across the field. – SJL 21:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured article on Wikinews

Hello and Greeting from Wikimania in Alexandria.

I thought I should let you know that the interview you and your students gave us about the 2,000th FA has now been promoted to featured status on Wikinews. --Brian McNeil /^talk 04:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Marvellous! Thanks for telling me. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for vandalising my user page, admin

Yeah, its a great song, thanks, havn't heard it in so long ;). I don't think too much of his recent stuff; saw him about 3 yrs ago at a festival, and hmmmmm.....If you like that, you'll probabaly like this recording. Pete is The Man. My father was, is, a big Who fan, so I remember then from the mid and late 1970s, although to be fair when the Sex Pistols came he switched sides, and I remember, as a 6 yr old when they came about. (mY first words were that the rammones were just great, to the dissapointmkent of my father, who never took to NYC punkl) So long ago, now! ( Ceoil ^sláinte 12:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Miguel Angel Asturias

I would really like to help with this article without getting in the way of your students. Is there any way I can help? --Meldshal (§peak to me) 17:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, go ahead. The students are done with it. I'll also certainly chip in. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done a couple of contributions, I'm really worried about the stability of the article, there are so many marked things inside the article - like little comments. It will be tough to fix this article. So, I was wondering if you wanted to help me get it back to GAN and pass? Of course, your students are welcome to as well. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 01:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Assumption of good faith

I see what you're saying, but please consider my perspective on our interactions to this point:

After deciding to make a sincere effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage and accessibility in my field of expertise, I drafted a basic article on it and started organizing other related articles into categories. I felt like this would be a good foundation to work from, and hopefully attract others who would be interested in helping (which is particularly important at this stage, because I don’t have much free time myself).

I logged in last week to find that you had moved the categories around, described them as "misleading", and suggested that no such field as "nationalism studies" exists, implying that I had made it up. This surprised me, especially from a fellow academic, and I responded by explaining what I am trying to do. Your own responses on the category talk pages were dismissive, and on one (which has since been deleted, following our agreement that a category was not the right way to go in that instance) you said rather derisively that I 'seem to see ethnicity as a vital component of nationality'. You repeated this claim on the talk page of the Nationalism studies article, and suggested that it should pay special attention to the 'problem' of the relationship between ethnicity and nationalism.

I wasn’t sure what to make of all this because, on the one hand, your message on my own talk page had been relatively conciliatory but, on the other, you seemed to be implying that I am pushing an ethnic nationalist agenda.

I reviewed your research interests and the edit pattern leading up to your intervention, and the basis of your comments came to look something like this: you had been watching the ‘Hegemony’ article, saw that I had categorized it under 'Concepts (nationalism studies)', disliked that because you are ideologically opposed to nationalism and misunderstood my intention, and started investigating me and the categories I had created. You saw that I had created and contributed to a number of articles related to both ethnicity and nationalism, as well as included concepts related to ethnicity in one of the 'nationalism studies' categories, and from this you inferred that I was trying to promote nationalism and the view that it is an inherently ethnic phenomenon, all under the guise of an 'imaginary' academic field.

Maybe I’m wrong, and I hope that I am, but that’s how it looks from where I stand. I originally thought that your nomination of Ethnicity and Democratic Governance for deletion was separate from this, because it's true that it didn't have third-party sources to back it up, but your contributions to the AfD discussion today honestly seem unreasonable to me. I don’t know any other Canadian academic who would describe the publications coming out of an MCRI as “inflated collations of research that would have been done anyway” – it’s an unusual statement, and it read more like an attempt to undermine my credibility than a sincere assessment. As for the issue of conflict of interest, yes, I am a member of the project, but I did not create the article for the purposes of promotion. I started with what I know best, and I have always intended to create articles for the other research projects that I have listed in the Nationalism studies article as well.

Finally, perhaps you will feel better about my contributions to Wikipedia if you know that I don't consider myself a nationalist. I want to promote the study of nationalism, not nationalism itself, and one of my goals is to help reduce some of the nationalistic bias on Wikipedia, as you can see from this proposal.

I don’t want to continue arguing with you, but the assumption of good faith has to be mutual. – SJL 22:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hiya. Thanks for explaining your suspicions. Just quickly... I had never thought you were a nationalist (and frankly wouldn't care particularly if you were), and certainly have never thought you were "pushing an ethnic nationalist agenda." I merely noted what seemed to be your particular interest in the conjunction between ethnicity and nationalism, and in fact suggested you say more about this on the "Nationalism studies" article itself. (Obviously, the relation between ethnicity and nationalism is disputed and contentious, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth studying... au contraire.)

Meanwhile, regarding my assessment of inflated research outputs from large grant projects such as MCRIs... Well, call me a cynic, but I see this with very similar projects such as AHRC and ESRC-funded proposals in the UK. Whatever. There's nothing personal at issue there. It's merely that such things need time to bed in, I think, before they become sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

direct quotes

I attempted to explain the whole "direct quotes" issue to Meldshal42 on his talk. If you see anything there you wanna correct etc., have at it. Cheers! Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 03:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Just followed up.  :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

hmmm

Given you're a plagiarized cricket pundit, I hesitate to demur, but... since when were averages calculated per dismissal? Incidentally, I was also surprised to see so much made in that same article about "inflated" averages that include not outs... But batsmen should not only make runs; they should also endeavour not to get out. Nothing "inflated" about that. What say you? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Batting_average#Cricket - this should explain nicely. If a guy makes 10 in his first innings and then 10 not out in the next innings and then he retires, then he has an average of 20. If it was simply "per innings" then it would be 10. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I was confused... and in fact was saying the same thing. Apologies for the brainfart. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re grammar and Alleyway FAC

Hi, I apologise for my misconception. Thank you for correcting me on that. As you appear to be monitoring the Alleyway article, is it in any shape at the moment to change your FAC opinions about it? Jappalang (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Just had another look. As I say at FAC, I still can't really bring myself to support, I'm afraid. Ideally it could get another polish. But it's not a bad article, and I'm not opposing, either. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Johnson

This edit lost my PMID (a standard on all medical topics). And, the Diberri template always lowercases the titles, which I believe is per MoS. Can we get back to the standard medical citation, which includes the PMID abstract as well as the free full text PubMed Central link? This is all explained at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, losing the pmid was a temporary mistake, soon fixed. I made the references more accurate so it was easier to get hold of the originals; Sacks was also misquoted as was. As to the case of article titles: I know Tony has his opinions, but MLA as well as other styles with which I'm familiar always use upper case (for works in English, at least). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we have the PMID back on Kammer? I guess the problem now is that I can't transport any of these citations to medical articles now, but no medical articles use {{citation}} anyway, so I should't worry about that. That silly OCD ref that you flagged can go, too; we have much better citations, and there's no reason for it to be there (I'll go delete that now). You replaced the Sacks citation with another; the original was cited correctly (although I suspect it got distorted in trying to accomodate the citation template, because it was a secondary source citing him as a primary source, no longer matters), but your new one is fine, too. I can say that ... now that I've learned {{citation}}, I hate it even more, and am thinking of running screaming back to medical articles, where citation is clear and standardized to the Diberri template's cite journals. Please, though, the PMID back on Kammer, because that's what medical folk look for? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hiya. I put the PMID back in for Kammer. Heh, I have to say I find the PubMed database hopelessly unhelpful compared to the ones I'm used to, but then one man's meat etc. etc. (I had to fire up Safari simply to get hold of the Sacks url.) Yeah, I saw that earlier there were secondary sources citing Sacks, which is why no doubt the original got mangled; putting the original in alone sorted that. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

On Sacks, I had intentionally cited secondary sources referring to Sacks and interpreting his words and had avoided citing him directly because he is so controversial and his views aren't shared by all or many TS experts. By citing a secondary source, I was more sure that we weren't misleading our readers. I wouldn't have added that source, and I always try to avoid directly citing Sacks without the benefit of a secondary source, but it doesn't matter I guess. Because Sacks is attracted to the bizarre and unusual, to TS-knowledgeable folk, citing the TSA as a secondary source quoting Sacks as a primary source actually gave our article more credibility, while citing Sacks directly gives it less credibility. But I guess most people reading Johnson won't realize that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. My rule of thumb: always cite the original. Especially if we're talking about something published in a scholarly journal rather than one of Sack's popular books--though that is vitiated somewhat by the fact that this particular publication is a letter to the editor; either way, it's better than a comment on a comment, however. (And it really didn't help that the TSA misquoted Sacks!) Now here's a question: why do we have "Tourette syndrome" rather than "Tourette's syndrome" here? I note that both Sacks and Kammer, for instance, use the latter formulation. I presume that this has been done to death over on the article itself, but it does look a little odd to me. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you think they misquoted him or they paraphrased and rolled in many sources? Gotta go now; I literally lost the entire day trying to reconstruct a perfectly fine article (Ima Hogg), so I'm not in a jolly mood this evening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

They actually misquoted him; it's clear enough. Not that there was a change of sense, really, but it was sloppy on their part. Anyhow. I should go, too. It so happens I was working through my own (book's) bibliography, so in the mood for doing something similar on someone else's. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Always citing the original sometimes leads to primary source problems; in medical articles, we try to always source secondary reviews. Yes, the fact that the TSA and recognized experts on TS happen to agree with Sacks letter to the editor this time meant that citing the TSA citing him actually gave us more credibility. Apostrophes on eponyms? Long and old discussion in the medical community and on Wiki. Believe me, not worth revisiting, that one is solid. If I hadn't had such a rotten crappy Wiki-Day, I'd fill 'ya in thoroughly :-) It's more than TS and it's more than Wiki; it's eponyms in general in medicine. You'll find the same on Asperger, Down, and many others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And, as if I needed another reminder of why I cited Tourette syndrome manually and hate the citation template, it now takes forever for me to check diffs and make edits at Johnson; damn, those things slow down the load time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Another question; my last cited version of the article had a full-text, free link to the Kammer article, which is now gone, replaced by an abstract. Why lose full text? Can we put the PDF back, and retain the DOI and PMID which I had, as medical folk look for those? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Unclear why we lost the full text, correctly cited Kammer journal article, and we now have a book with no benefit of the full journal text? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) We can put it back in, but... The problem is it's a pre-print. It's not even a proof; effectively, it's a draft. Which means that it may have gone through any number of changes before actual publication. I wouldn't trust it, myself. I mean, I could send you the pdf of my book now, which would look very similar to such a pre-print; indeed, I've made it available freely on the web. But there will be changes before it sees proper publication. I wouldn't want anyone quoting it in the meantime. As above, however, I put the pmid back in. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, makes sense. Hey, have a nice evening, and if you drink, have one for me, too :-)). What a yucky Wiki-day; reminds me of that day I lost all that citation cleanup work to a Wrad or Wassup conflict. Must be time for a nice herbal bath. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Herbal bath sounds good! In fact, I was thinking of having one, myself. Drinks will have to wait for a while, but I brought some nice stuff back from my recent trip away.  :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Refreshed :-) Did you see my note? This is the way to bring accessdates inside the template; personally, I think they've made it so complicated, I'd rather do them manually. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the note. Wha?!?! What was broke that needed to be fixed there, eh? Oh well. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I dunno; all of this date formatting mess sums up why I long ago decided to forego any messing with Wiki citation templates, and wrote the citations at Tourette syndrome manually. It also means I don't have all that load time overhead, the article loads quickly, and I'm not at the whims of the Wiki developers :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

hi

Yes, been through a hugely busy work period, with only bibs and bobs now until I go south and up up up to the white stuff end of next week (till 8 August). The chief child-sex-abuse apologiser has finally returned to Rome, leaving us in peace after a week of singing, dancing and guitar-strumming jollity in the streets that would make you vomit—Woodstock meets 13th-century evil. You might enjoy watching the ABC's weekly 15-minute program Mediawatch (available for another few days), an entertaining exposé of the appalllingly bad media in this country, including matters Catholic this time. Click on the program title here! How was your trip? Tony (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're curious...

Here's some of the "long story" stuff:

Copyright laws vary greatly from country to country - not exactly a profound statement. As such, there is great discrepancy between the treatment of derivative works (e.g. a photo of a painting). For example:

• U.S.: Exact photographic copies of public domain images can not be protected by copyright because the copies lack originality (Bridgeman v Corel)
• U.K.: "[R]eproductions requiring great talent and technical skills may qualify as protectable works of authorship, even if they are copies of pre-existing works. This would be the case for photographic and other high-quality replicas of works of art." (Hyperion Records v Sawkin)

Canada is similar to the U.K., in that it is at least willing to entertain notions of "degree of skill, labour and judgement employed to create the work". The trump card for us, however, is that images on Wikipedia need only be public domain in the United States (as the servers are in Florida). Although that makes the issue moot for us, don't necessarily lose your faith in archivists, disclaimers, etc. Claiming copyright for copies of PD works is not necessarily a display of ignorance, as, if a such a dispute were to go as far as litigation, it's not entirely outside the realm of possibility that the court could find sufficient originality (e.g. through use of lighting, filters, etc.) as to indeed generate a new copyright. "Bogus" is, in that sense, perhaps extreme and certainly imprecise (bogus for our purposes is better). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. The assistant archivist has just replied already, though mostly to say that the library's special media archivist is on holiday. Anyhow, it's all an adventure in learning! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

An adventure indeed. Legislators and Foundation folks must own stock in Johnson & Johnson and/or Wyeth. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Random response

In response to this, its refering to the time period between the discovery of Puerto Rico and the 1700s, the notable decline began in the 1800s. Thanks for the copyedit, we were really in need of it after that substantial expansion and merger. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the previous paragraph states "After 1650, human habitation increased exponentially, and the Puerto Rican Amazon population started to decline." That's 150 years before the nineteenth century. There must be some way of reconciling this. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There was some decline in San Juan and relevant zones, but it wasn't "signifficant" which is the key word here, the Amazon wasn't the only bird species affected by development. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be finessed. I've just had a go, but do fix any mistakes I may have introduced. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The latest at citation

Now, only one day after I fixed all of the {{citation}} templates at Samuel Johnson, they've made the accessdates disappear. Check your articles; no accessdates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Actually, I don't even want to look. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

FAC

Hey JB, I was wondering if you could please take another look at this FAC? Thanks —Giggy 06:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've revisited, and also done a fair amount of copy-editing. It's not bad, I think, but still needs some work. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team Mission 5: Solar solicitude/solidarity

Hi Jbm,

As an FA-Team member, I'm soliciting your assistance with FA-Team Mission 5 on Scattered disc and Solar energy (and possibly others). Your all round FA expertise would be much appreciated, especially if you've paid off those library fines and fancy something a little different. Please sign up on the mission page and watchlist the mission page and articles if you are interested in helping out. Geometry guy 15:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little wary of sciency articles, I'm afraid. But I am busy learning a lot about Planets beyond Neptune, so you never know... (Let's not talk about fines, on the other hand.) Hope all's well with you, by the way. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Planets beyond Neptune

I've addressed all of your commented out issues. Have the prose issues been resolved to your satisfaction? Serendi^podous 16:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been doing a fair bit on this article, but think that ideally more would be done. I am, however, withdrawing my "oppose." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for giving us a hand

Thanks for your work with the refs, some smart work there! Two refs are bugging me, if you know how to fix them. I can't make the Chirelstein Harvnb "jump". With the Polenberg one, it should say June 1995, but I took the month out because it was interfering with the jumping, I think—could you find a way to put the date back in and have the Harvnb still work? Cheers. qp10qp (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Easy peasy. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Central America

Hi I've begun working on the municipalities of Central America and creating some template. Howver could you do me a favor and move the articles out of brackets in Category:Departments of Guatemala, Category:Departments of Honduras and Category:Departments of Nicaragua to ..... Department. Its a standard naming convention. I moved some of the Guatemalan ones earlier but many can't be moved because of double redirects. Could you help me? E.g Totonicapán (department) should be Totonicapán Department. Everyone except Santa Rosa (Guatemalan department). ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I did Nicaragua. I don't have much time for more right now. NB I didn't check any double redirects. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. There was only one or two left for Guatemala which I'm working on at present ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I did the last couple. Again, I haven't looked at the (double or any other) redirects. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

little birdies and all that...

Thanks for swinging by with the references etc. I promise to write out as many full names as possible rather than just initials. Given that you only made a couple of minor prose changes...that could be a good thing or not-so-good thing I guess. I actually thought this one hung together ok, though Tony wasn't happy with the lead. How did you feel about the rest of the prose - I ask as a few of the bird editors have already looked through it and it is always good to spread the net widely (and you may have seen a bit on going through it). This one has been very quiet at FAC for some reason...maybe too many bird articles up at once? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh. It seems OK on the whole, but I don't feel particularly sure about sciency articles. (I did just dive into the Amazon Parrot one, but that was rather an exception.) I'll try to find some time to write up some comments at the FAC. In the meantime, I felt I could at least indulge my obsession with references... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this anon should be blocked

based on Special:Contributions/131.191.80.124 - could you please take a look into it? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I looked into it. I think blocking would be rather too hasty. I dropped him/her a "cool down" template. I hope that Rainbow also cools down and that we can resume normal service... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Was getting the impression it might be a sock, as a disruption-only account, but I don't have any basis for that I suppose. Cheers for that. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It does seem to be a regular user. But let's give it some time. Better not to fan any flames. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. An update: it seems the anon has sent an email that Rainbow considers threatening. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That is out of line. Still, I wouldn't do anything further today. I'll return to this tomorrow. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Central America

Thanks. I've just finished creating the templates for Guatemala and adding them/categories to the articles. See Wikipedia:WikiProject El Salvador/Department templates Wikipedia:WikiProject Guatemala/Department templates. I'm making a start on Honduras. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I don't really agree with your reinstatement of the old ref format, but you've done a great deal to help the article along and I'm grateful for that. Just as a pointer, what else do you think could be done? Serendi^podous 12:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you have the FA. Congratulations! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help with the {{citation}} templates for Pendle witch trials. I'm still feeling my way with that template, so at first I though you'd run a script that had mistakenly added the pages= parameter, but I got there in the end. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No probs. Congrats on the FA! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

An FAC request

Hi, thank you for responding to my query over Alleyway. If you have the time, can you take a look at the FAC for Conan (2007 video game)? I would appreciate your comments on the article, thank you. Jappalang (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I never did get back to you on this. But congrats on the FA! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Will try to get to this at the weekend. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Crown FAC

I know I added a lot to the article. So take your time reviewing it. However, there are two quick issues that could use an opinion. Please chime in on the discussion of Kamin's description and the WP:RS issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. If it's still at FAC, I'll try to comment more at the weekend. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Further comments welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, please cap or strike issues so I can understand your resolved and remaining concerns if you get a chance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

How is the organization. You should be able to strike several issues not related to organization if you want to help me figure out what you want.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you have based your primary concerns on structure, I may have gotten closer to what you want now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, a third party (Ruhrfisch) has copyedited the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Does your object from two weeks ago still stand given all the editorial progress? I know you only participate weekends now, so I hope to hear from your today.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't manage to do more on this. August proved to be very busy indeed. But good luck with other FACs. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Boyer

Earlier in Boyer's book you'll see that the full name is used first before he understandably switches to the shorter version [3].--Slp1 (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, gotcha. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again

		The Original Barnstar
		It's rare for an FAC commentator to criticise an article and then take the time to do something about it. I wanted you to know I appreciate that. :-) Serendipodous 06:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The Accidental

Sorry to be a pain, but could you please make a list of the stuff that needs to be done to the The Accidental to GA status? The page is a bit cluttered from other comments and our disagreement, so if you get a spare minute, could you do this for me please, and I'll get right on it. When I last messaged you, you were preparing to go on holiday, so if you're not too busy now, it would be a major help. Best regards, Qst (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You're not being a pain at all. Apologies for my inattention. I've been repeatedly away, and busy while I've been back. Let's get back on to this, eh? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for Image:Rhinebeck screengrab2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rhinebeck screengrab2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 14:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)