User talk:Jbmurray

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
American Writers	review it now
Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted	Review it now
Roswell incident	Review it now

jbmurray is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Template:FixBunching Template:UserTalkArchiveBox Template:FixBunching

Template:FixBunching

Karanacs's wisdom

I think everyone [here] is determined not to sacrifice his/her integrity for the sake of a project like this. I personally will never nominate an article for a review process if I did not think that it was accurate and that it adhered to WP policies and the review process criteria, and I would never deliberately introduce errors. However, my thinking the article is just right does not necessarily make that thought true, and being incorrect does not mean I have less integrity, just that I have room to learn and improve. There are articles on this project that I think do not meet WP policies, and I have spoken up (often quite loudly) to make sure this is known. This doesn't mean that my changes always stick (WP:BRD), and I sometimes leave conversations out of frustration or cannot make others see my point of view. As long as I have done my best to ensure that my point is known, my integrity is intact. And for me, integrity is also in how I treat people. If I treat others poorly in pursuit of being "right", I've failed. And when I fail, it is my responsiblity to make amends, through apologies when necessary and by learning from those mistakes. This is all we are trying to say. One doesn't have to be proven "right" to keep one's integrity, and being proven wrong doesn't mean you've lost it. Karanacs (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver

Hi JB. Congratulations on your RfA. I was wondering exactly how busy you are these days? I'm sure quite as you are nearing the end of the semester, but perhaps your students (your participation included) would like to take their new found Wikipedia experience and take a look at the article Vancouver. It was once a featured article and displayed on the main page, but in recent years has lapsed and was demoted from featured status. It would seem a shame that with the 2010 Winter Olympics fast approaching that the Vancouver article will soon become one of the most viewed Wikipedia articles, and it will not be in the shape it deserves. Possibly even something the FA Team might be interested in? I wanted to get your thoughts on this. Mkdw ^talk 09:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P2

		WikiProject Vancouver
		You have been invited to participate in Operation Schadenfreude to restore the article Vancouver back to featured article status.

AfD nomination of Google Watch

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Google Watch. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Watch (4th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Jbmurray! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created are Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 691 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

John Lynch (historian) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Arturo Arias - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yo si soy antipatica

Aqui: [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving article discussion pages

I have looked until my eyes droop and cannot find the policy on archiving an article's discussion site. Last year there was a heated doscussion on the article entitled Earl of Clare. I was a part of it and a newby at the time. I am still a newby but alot wiser. Is it possible to archive that discussion page? Thanks in advance for any response. Mugginsx (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though this was all resolved by the beginning of November. I see no reason why the discussion shouldn't the archived. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I, as an editor archive this discussion site or must it be done by an administrator. If I can, would you please direct me to the page that tells me how to do this? Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can do it. Details here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent:) I've gone ahead and done this for you, as I don't see anything particularly controversial about it. Again, any editor can archive, though clearly ongoing discussions should be kept on the talk page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I sort of chickened-out because, feelings ran high at the time and I really believe that if I had initiated the archiving there would have been protests. Thanks to you, that has not happened, the discussion page is fresh and should any new editors with future information need to have discussion, the page is clear, while in the meanwhile the old is still preserved for possible future reference. Mugginsx (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no problem!

Glad you liked it! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

here it is!

This is your new message. =)

--Svetlana 365 (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hola!

Here's another new message :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thussen (talk • contribs) 18:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tniamath and Alejo Carpentier

Jon, I just fixed Tniamath's attempt to sign up for Alejo Carpentier, but you might want to explain the problem to the student. They evidently clicked on the "edit" link that takes them to the article on Carpentier, and added their signature there, rather than clicking on the edit link on the right hand side of the paragraph and adding their signature to the list of signatures in the project page. I will leave a message on their talk page but I wanted you to be aware of it. Mike Christie (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a couple of them did this. (You can see why they might.) Thanks for catching it, and thanks more generally for your help here and elsewhere. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leyendas de Guatemala

Jon, I'd be happy to add my name as one of the liaisons for Leyendas de Guatemala, if you'd like. I see that's the last one without a liaison at the moment. My time on wiki may be a bit more limited than some other editors so I'll understand if you'd rather wait for another editor to volunteer. Mike Christie (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, many thanks! And in fact (I think I messed up before) Ceranthor also volunteered for Leyendas, so I suspect that between the two of you all will be just grand! :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish admin needed

Jbmurray, do you have time to look in here? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Epa, Jb, donde has estado? One more favor, if/when you have time. I haven't yet started reading this, but can you comment on the quality of the journal (Stockholm Review of Latin American Studies)? And, if you have time, the quality of the References used for that article? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The briefest of looks suggests it's fine as a source. I hadn't heard of this particular publication (and I don't think it's particularly prestigious), but it's clearly a respectable, peer-reviewed journal. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much: do you have an opinion on Latin American Politics and Society? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a pretty well-known journal. Well-respected and scholarly. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, J! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the article now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for your help

The article on Jacques de Molay was probably 75% unsourced or improperly sourced (i.e., using a set of historical novels as a source) It was as it looked on 2 February when I added sourced material to the site and cleaned up Section Headings, without removing any text. Apparently my reference went in disarray and I fixed it quite properly as was asked by a minimal contributor to the site who is also an administrator. Now she has combined my material with someone elses, added a few word os her own to rephrase, thus making it her "original research". She then took the last sentence of my sourced material and placed it in a new paragraph telling me to give a "new" source to it as she calls my research "too old" and primary material. I am cutting and pasting the conversation here for your convenience to evaluate because I do not want any confrontation. Please advise. Here, for your convenience, follows what has transpired so far:

Beginning Discussion: I see that there are some sources to the article which appear to be a bit mangled. For example: "Raynald. ann. 1313, No. 39.—Raynouard, pp. 20.J-10.—Cbntin. Guill. Nangiac. ann. 1313.—Joann. de S.Victor. (Bouquet, XXI. 658).—Chrou. Anon. (Bouquet, XXI. 143).—Godefroy de Paris v. G033-6129.—Villani Cbron. viii. 92.— hron. CorneL Zantfliet ann. 1310 (Martene Ampl, Coll. V. 160).— Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug. ann. 1307.—Pauli ^mylii de Reb. Gcst. Franc. Ed. 1509, p. 431" Can anyone expand these to something intelligible, so that the information can be verified? I'm also concerned that these may be Primary Sources, rather than the Secondary Sources that are best for Wikipedia. See also WP:PSTS and WP:CITE. --Elonka 20:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The material was mine but the reference was not. I cannot explain it, however, I have re-inserted the proper reference. It is not a primary source though they are perfectly permittable here at Wiki and used, not only in Wiki, but throughout many scholarly works as well. What troubles me is the vast amount of unsourced material here. A large portion of the introductory paragraph is unsourced. The entire sections entitled "Youth" and "Arrest" are unsourced. In fact, various other information throughout the entire article is unsourced. I would not summarily delete it at this point however, but rather give the editors a chance to properly source their information. Though the material is not mine, I will be happy to try to find sources for these portions as my time permits. If anything should come out it may be the second paragraph on the "Curse" which mentions a series of "Novels" as its source. It is the reason I put in my paragraph in the "Curse". I do not like summary deletions without some kind of consensus, but this particular paragraph certainly has problems and to use a Novel as a source should really not be acceptable. Mugginsx (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

One more thing, I changed the Section Heading "References and Further Reading". They should never be together as they represent two different categories.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mugginsx (talk • contribs)

Thanks, I expanded on your work, changed the section headers some more, and condensed the "Curse" section. I still have questions about the sources though. A couple of the cites just list titles, but without any other information about them... Are they from journals? Books? Who are the authors? What pages did the information come from? Also, one of the cites does have a fair bit of information, but it appears to be from a book which was published in 1888. For Wikipedia's purposes, we tend to look at very old sources such as that as primary sources, not secondary sources... Are there more modern sources available, to source the information? Thanks, --Elonka 22:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, the sections you referred to are NOT mine, therefore I cannot answer your questions. My source, used twice, was clearly referenced as to title, author and page. Also, when you combined the "Curse" section, you mixed my sourced section with an unsourced section and left the Novel material in. The "long" section you refer to is from a book, again, it is properly referenced and is NOT a primary source. A primary source would need to be some account by someone who was there at the time of the incident. The mixed section needs to be either put back in the way it was originally edited, then separated as to source, or in the alternative, taken out entirely. I think you will find that sources regularly used in Wiki articles, particularly medieval articles are full of sources that are much older than the source I gave. Mugginsx (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, if I've upset you, I apologize, that was not my intention. I actually like that we're both working on the same article, and look forward to finding the consensus version. For best results though, any sources used really need to be modern reliable sources. If the only source for a particular fact is something from pre-1900, it's probably not appropriate for Wikipedia. If you think I'm wrong though, we can definitely seek a third opinion. In the meantime though, if you're seeking newer sources for something, I highly recommend http://scholar.google.com and http://books.google.com :) --Elonka 23:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You have certainly not upset me. I do find it strange however, that you are completely unmoved by the vast amount of totally unsourced material that I brought to your attention as well as a referenced portion which clearly uses a novel as its source and, instead you seem fixated on a scholarly book which does not disagree with anything said in more recent sources. In fact, the more "modern" sources probably use this as one of their source! It is not logical. Also your original research needs to come out. It is clearly against Wiki policy. As an adminstrator you surely remember hearing this. Mugginsx (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for any help or advise you would give me. I realize and I and am clearly new to editing in Wiki. I do however know my research and the difference between primary sources and "old sources" and "original research". I will defer to your judgment as I respect your work. Mugginsx (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At a quick look, the discussion seems to be going as it should be there. It's a civil conversation between editors as to how to improve the article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion Mugginsx (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledgement of an Excellent Administrator

I think, too often, we tend to critize the administrators more than acknowledge them for praise. That is too bad, but I would like to retify that here in my praise for User:Jbmurray. He is as a fair and just Administrator, not because of any particular service he has done for me, although he has done such services, but rather to praise his style, his innate sense of fairness and his gentle criticism too ALL editors who have had the good fortunate to seek his services. One has only to seek out his work to know that he is extremely knowledgeable, yet humble in his style. In my opinion, he is surely an exemplification of how Wiki defines a good administrator. I hope he is acknowledged for his work. He is surely the Administrator's Administrator. Mugginsx (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi

So I was going to just ask my group mates, but mr. Mike Christie advised me to post on your talk page - how do we hand in the annotated biblio? i know you probably said this in class, so sorry, but do we just post it on our article's talk page all together, or do you want it in another form also? Cheers, --Rekarrr (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annotated Bibliography

Hi Jon, just wanted to let you know my assignment is posted on my Spanish page, not the English one. Hope you've had a good weekend. --Mstmaurice (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]