User talk:Jbmurray/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Vancouver Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Meetup

The Interior cordially invites you to the Vancouver Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Meetup! It is being held at Benny's Bagels at 2505 W Broadway. Meetup will start at 6:30pm. Drop by for some Wikipedia-style conviviality and free gear! Feel free to forward this invitation to any Wikipedians who might be able to attend, and visit the discussion page to suggest activities. Hope to see you there and have a Happy 2011!

Request

I have a request that's up your alley. Can you or someone knowledgeable on the subject take a look at Abel Sánchez and see about expanding it? (I know it's not Latin American, but you're the first person who came to mind for whom to ask) Raul654 (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

100 Years source

I don't know how to use this "talk" feature -- But I've removed a comment on the 100 Years entry, under "critique," because I think it was placed there by the author of an insignificant essay about the book. There are many, many valuable and insightful critiques and writings about "100 Years," but the one I removed (from a minor essay, first published in a local journal nad later published in a children's book, by an Irvin Winsboro) is not important or helpful. And again, I strongly suspect that the author himself, who is not an expert on L. American literature, has inserted the comment in order to promote himself. - Salahaldin, 2/24 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salahaldin (talk • contribs) 11:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your problem with the source: it's an essay first published in the Midwest Quarterly, which is a respectable academic journal, and then republished in Bloom's anthology of essays on the novel, an anthology which is far from being a "children's book." There is no need to impugn Winsboro himself. The source is fine. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to be delicate; there are concerns that this journal article -- which later appeared in a book that is aimed at a teenage readership -- was indebted to a student, a debt that was not acknowledged. Again: There are many, many valuable and insightful critiques and writings about "100 Years," and this is not one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salahaldin (talk • contribs) 14:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Remember the Global Economics class project?

It's up for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Global Economics. I'm notifying people who particpated on the talk pages there. Voceditenore (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and a request for advice

Thanks for writing the guide on using Wikipedia in colleges and universities. At WikiProject Women's History, we're working on improving coverage of historical entries about women (partially as a way to encourage more women to participate as editors.) Since several members of the project are academics, I've started a subproject for educators so that we can share experiences and assignments. We'd be grateful for any suggestions you'd be willing to add at the talk page. ---Shane Landrum (cliotropic | talk | contribs) 01:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

PliegOS

Hola Jon; he maquetado tu texto Was Introducing Wikipedia to the Classroom an Act of Madness Leading Only to Mayhem if not Murder? en un formato para librito de 16 páginas que la gente se puede imprimir (a doble cara en dos hojas) y luego doblar y grapar. Lo vamos a repartir el próximo viernes 18 de marzo en la Jornada sobre Wikis, Wikipedia y educación que vamos a celebrar en Barcelona. Si quieres descargar el librito en PDF o Scribus lo encontrarás aquí: PliegOS Si ves algún inconveniente, por favor, dímelo. Saludos. --Dvdgmz (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Latin American subaltern studies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Latin American subaltern studies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latin American subaltern studies until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Gigs (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject EduTech

Wikipedia:WikiProject EduTech, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject EduTech and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject EduTech during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JJ98 (Talk) 03:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This Title is incorrect

Under Wikipedia guidelines and everywhere else this title is incorrect. The article is presently entitled In limine. The correct legal term is: Motion In Limine a request to suppress evidence at trial. "In Limine" (the present title for the above article) - is just a Latin word that means threshold - which, of course, by itself, is just one latin word prefaced by an English word "In". No one would ever use "In Limine" without putting the word "Motion" before it. In Limine has no other meaning than a "legal meaning" i.e., A Motion In Limine". I have tried to read the guidelines on how to change the title, but am afraid I will do something I should not do in process and make a mess of it. I also understood it should be accomplished by an Administrator or with the permission of an administrator - not sure which. One reference for this is: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Motion+in+limine. If you wish, I will look for more but I assure you as a retired paralegal there is no other meaning (as the article itself states). Thank you for any help. Mugginsx (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated League of Nations for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

YouTube videos - This Morning (TV series)

Hello, just to let you know that Wikipedia doesn't accept links to copyright violations, such as YouTube videos. It's OK if the video was uploaded by the broadcaster (such as this), but not if it were uploaded by the public. Thanks. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver

As part of "Wikipedia Loves Libraries program of events at libraries and archives across North America around October 2011," please check out the new Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver page for people interested in a meetup this October 2011 at the central branch of the Vancouver Public Library. Your feedback is much appreciated. Thanks. -- A. Kupicki (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

IEP

Yes, 'OMG' is putting it mildly. As an academic specialised in other countries, you will be aware of the kind of cultural dichotomy that the WMF completely failed to take into consideration. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, a horrible mess. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Opinion?

Jon, can I get your opinion on something? I've been talking to a very experienced new page patroller (NPP) -- actually Kudpung, who I see has commented just above here -- about starting to help with NPP. The NPP group did an enormous amount to help resolve the IEP mess, and I would like to reciprocate by helping out, and also learn what they face, since I spend almost all my time at the other end of the encyclopedia, so to speak.

I gather from Kudpung that it's standard practice to apply various tags once the article is reviewed by the patroller. I think it's because I spend my time here trying to perfect articles rather than looking at their early stages that I don't like some of these tags. You've worked on FAs, but you've also met (and taught) personally quite a few brand new editors, so I thought you'd be a good person to ask. The four tags that concern me mark articles as (1) relying on primary sources; (2) having no references; (3) having weak references; and (4) relying on a single source. All four tags include the article in a backlog that can then be worked on, so there's a definite benefit to the encyclopedia in marking them in this way. In addition, they serve as a warning to the reader, though three of the four are self-evident -- only "weak references" is really a warning of something that may not be apparent. On the other hand, they seem to me likely to discourage new editors, particularly if they're applied in the first day or so, as they must surely feel like very impersonal and bureaucratic criticism. On a third hand, I plan to work on the new page backlog from the back, which means I'll usually be looking at articles that are ten or twenty days since creation, so perhaps it's less harsh on the new editors by that time ....

Any thoughts? As I say above, I suspect my experience on the encyclopedia puts me in the wrong place to understand the impact and value of these tags, and I'd really like to get your take.

Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

These tags are off-putting to new editors, there's no doubt about that. But the process can be managed relatively well, so long as you're prepared to put in a little time. And I don't mean much time: I mean perhaps five or ten minutes per article rather than the 60 seconds that most NPPs given.

• The very fact that you're prepared to use these tags, rather than the "mark for deletion" tag is already an improvement.
• And if you can add a (semi)personal message, rather than something that obviously a template, to the person's user page, it will soften the blow considerably.
• Finally, if you came *back* a week later (not a day later; a week... new editors need time) to see what progress had gone on, that would be very heartening to the editor.
• Looking at the backlog probably helps, though if you are still going to be first contact, then that might not help.
• You may find it more worthwhile to go through pages that have been marked for speedy deletion, to see if NPPs have (as is more than likely) missed some promising candidates.

The problem is... in my time, I've looked at some new pages, and lots of them really *are* crap that need to be deleted practically on sight. After a while, it's easy to get so blasé about the chaff that you hardly even expect to see any wheat.

My 2c. With that an a dollar 23 you might get yourself a ride on the subway.  :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's my 23 cents ... I created a new article a few days ago, a NPP slapped a "wikify" tag on it with some automated tool, and I had to inform him of WP:OVERLINK. NPP is a hard job, but it would help if some of those using tools read Jon's list of tips (and read some of our policy and guideline pages :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That's helpful; thank you both. I think the conclusion I can draw is that if I apply these tags when they're truly needed, and leave a personal note as well if it's a new or fairly new editor, then the tags do more good than harm. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

USEP discussion

I thought you might be interested in the WMF post and my response at WT:USEP. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks for this, as I don't have time to chase down conversations that are (as you point out) quite spread out. And thanks for the nod, though heck, it would be lovely if we had some kind of engagement with other editors on the Spanish Wikipedia... it's pretty lonely over there. But as a result there's a lot that can be done. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Huh?

Nothing personal, really but I'd suggest reading the whole discussion on the Images talk page - I suspect you missed tons of it. Not stating a valid counter opinion? Here are 6 diffs[1][2][3][4][5][6] of me pointing out reasoning (expounded upon below and above them). I can provide in total about three dozen diffs (with no effort) of myself and others repeatedly explaining rationale. Now, on to his behavior, at what point is changing WP:CENSOR without community discussion,[7] so as to support his ongoing crusade valid behavior? Regarding his making attacks such as "(we who object have) deep-seated anti-Islamic prejudice"[8], implies we are being racist.[9], states our rationale is "entrenched in racism",[10] implies other editors are acting unethically by not applying ethical reasoning[11] and so on. At what point is that permitted? And how many times? Would you like four dozen more instances?

And finally, as you will notice here,[12] he's confessed his true motives again - just in case the bunch of diffs provided at AN/I weren't enough. I have in total 142 diffs of his behavior, attacks and so on. I was very nice to him at AN/I in that respect.

Ironically, all the rest of us are getting along fine addressing various of the issues you seem to think he is really trying to push. But those aren't his issues. He wishes to practice religious censorship - at the wrong venue. We've directed him to Village Pump numerous times on that too. You of all people know we can't change policy or ignore "will not"'s on an article's talk page - that requires discussion from the community at large at the proper venue.

I'm open for suggestions - am I missing something? Or did you just not have time to read through the massive pages of text on the images talk page? Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I've looked through your diffs, and see little if anything to make me change my mind. He has a good point, and you seldom if ever address it. You prefer to cry foul about other issues that are not particularly relevant. He's asking you to justify the use of those images on that article. The closest you come to a response is to say either a) that "our eyes are the primary sensory method we use" (a debatable point that would require a fundamental rethinking of the encyclopedia's presentation method if so) or b) because of the "value in learning about how people of Islam as well as those not of the Islamic faith perceived one of their most important figures" (which begs the question as to whether visual representations are important to understand perceptions of Mohammed; the answer seems to be pretty obviously no).

Again, you think he's trying to impose censorship. It seems quite clear to me that he's not doing anything of the sort. He's rather looking for better positive justification of these images. I'd suggest you think about that issue a little more, rather than jumping up and down making all this noise.

Moreover, if link-dumps on their talk pages are what editors have to expect if they have the temerity to disagree with you, then I'm not particularly impressed. If I were ludwig2, I'm not sure I'd have remained so civil for quite so long. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

And while we're at it, some of your arguments are really very weak indeed. The first comment left here, for instance, is extraordinary for the way in which it misses the point.

So, no, I haven't read all the reams of argumentation and debate. But the more that I do read, the less impressive (and the more hysterical) do I find the arguments made against ludwigs, and the more respect I have for him and the way in which he is conducting himself. That includes the various diffs you include in your comment here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well, you are entitled to your opinion. Though, on this link, it is in response to getting rid of images on the sole basis that they aren't photographs or sitting portraits. Not sure of the confusion of my statements there. Or would you suggest that we should make special case exceptions when religious offense enters the scenario? And yes, his entire basis IS "not offending Muslims" - he's tried RfCs, Village Pump and Arbcom to try to enact such a special case exception (with that as the basis) - and started a thread on Jimbo's talk page in regards to it as well (he didnt start such). As a matter of fact, even those who wish to see the images removed for whatever rationale but were involved in the whole talk page discussion aren't even disputing that anymore (some even left him nasty comments that he needs to stop and go to the right venue).

But, that's irrelevant I guess - as I said, you are entitled to your opinion. So, I guess, let's move on if you are willing.

If you don't mind, I'd like to proceed to the things that really matter, and would like your input:

1. First, on the link above, with the bit of info I provided to put it into context, what are your thoughts on that rationale? (a) Should only photographs and sitting portraits be used in articles? (b) Should such only be used in this one (ie: special case exception), (c) are depictions of how someone was perceived permitted (as it actually says in policy and guideline - though you probably already know that). You already know I am against special case exceptions - and am big on following policy, thus I have been leaning towards (c). I'd honestly like your opinion and rationale.
2. (This is a point of contention among some of us) Should we treat this article as (a) a biography (albeit about a religious figure) or (b) as an article on religion or (c) something else? Please, thoughts explaining your choice would be appreciated.
3. How much weight should we give the last paragraph in WP:CENSOR (the secular portion)? If anything less than 100%, would you suggest we first address that via a community-wide RfC or Village Pump proposal - or just enact special case exceptions? On that note, if you think an RfC or Village Pump proposal is the way to go, which would you suggest is the best route? I ask this because I fully intend to help Ludwigs2 create the proposal for what he wants - and I will not do so unless I can do it as informed as possible and with entirely good faith efforts on my part. So, this one is really important to me - I don't have to agree with his opinions on allowing religiously based exceptions to help craft such with him in good faith and without bias.

Your input on those would be greatly appreciated. They are sincere questions I hope for answers for (if you are willing), which I hope, if you peruse my Watchlist, you can tell is true (when in doing so, you notice I actually follow or work on articles on every major religion and irreligious topic, and various related sub-topics - well over a hundred total - and treat them ALL the same). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

In answer to your questions, these would be my immediate thoughts:

1. No, I see no reason why only photographs or "sitting portraits" should be used in articles. And I don't see ludwigs arguing otherwise, though I may have missed something.
2. I guess it's a biography.

   Now, perhaps here's one of the questions that lugwigs is asking: just because an article is a biography, does that mean it *has* to have a picture of its subject? I think the answer is that we would usually expect it to. But that's no reason why it has to have one. That's just a custom; in many cases, images don't really contribute much to the understanding of the subject. And here's the important point: it is incumbent on those who want to include them to prove otherwise.

   And I think the point is that in most cases, this customary expectation is neither here nor there: it neither harms or helps the project. But there may be certain cases (or certain images) for which those wanting to include them really do have to come up with a decent argument in their favour. Here, given that there is the real possibility of causing offence to a signficant number of people, is one of those cases. ludwigs doesn't think you've come up with a decent argument. And neither do I.

3. I honestly don't think that WP:CENSOR is germane to the case here. So far as I can see, ludwigs fully accepts that images of Mohammed belong on Wikipedia, in the appropriate place: for instance in the article on the Danish cartoon controversy. As such, so far as I understand it, he's not proposing to censor Wikipedia in the slightest. Talk of censorship is a canard.

HTH. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Much thanks for the answers. On number 3, it's actually what the Village Pump proposal I promised to help him with is about - so alas it is germane.[13] (Me: "Here's something funny, I woulda worked with you to create a Village Pump proposal to allow religious objections to be used as criteria for judging image worth" Him: "[...]and I'll happily work with you if we can figure out how to do it without all the bullshit[...]"). We've actually touched on that discussion multiple times before, partially due to an earlier failed attempt at just that. Hence the conversation on my talk page (and why, when all is combined, I'm not simply throwing accusations of censorship around with no basis). I'd rather see it get done the correct way - whatever the results, than policy whack-a-mole. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know that you think that WP:CENSOR is somehow germane. But I don't. And nor, I think, does ludwigs. Which is probably why he isn't all that interested in your Village Pump proposal idea. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I'm sorry. I didnt know you were so far behind on what went on. He made such proposals, went nowhere. He wants to try again. I offered to help. It is this that would need modifying: "Wikipedia will not remove content because of the internal bylaws of some organizations that forbid information about the organization to be displayed online. Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations." (emphasis mine). This wasn't my idea. I'm just offering to help his most recent attempt. Back to the question. The question is where and suggestions on the best way of approaching this that may have some chance of success? Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I may indeed have missed it, but I don't see how ludwigs is in disagreement with that wording. Again, I think that that's a canard, a distraction.

As for positive ways forward: once again, I think you need to come up with better arguments as to why these images *should* be part of the article, rather than merely protesting that they shouldn't be removed. And if you can't come up with better arguments, then you might want to concede that ludwigs does indeed has a point.

And I would note that here, on my talkpage, you have made no effort to come up with such an argument. And yet everything else is mere bluster.

So let me ask you very simply: Why do you think that these images should be on that page? (Note that you should be able to answer this question without making any reference to ludwigs at all.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please, I am not back on the topic of the images. I am asking how best to help ensure his efforts with a VP proposal have the most success.

But, to answer your question, as noted in the image talk page conversations (I've mentioned all of these - though it was across multiple posts):

1. Many readers find depictions of how people perceived the subject matter to be informative and educational (I can point to multiple RfCs, consensus, etc where this has been pointed out).
2. Many of us find the changes in perceptions to be very educational as it shows (a) differences in how different societies perceived the subject, or (b) how a particular society's perceptions changed over time. (Jesus and Thor also fit this - and this is something I find overwhelmingly interesting. How much of a story is myth, how much is legend and how much is reality? And how do the depictions through those ages compare/change?)
3. Numerous entities deem the images are of educational value to Islamic topics and have included them in galleries on Islam and art related to Islam, such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Topkapi Palace Museum, The British Library in London, and the building for SCOTUS - along with numerous works on art and Islamic history. My opinion is of far less weight than those who are deemed far better sources than I.
4. I (and others) find it educational to have (in order of preference) (a) a photograph of the subject of an article, (b) a sitting portrait (or portrait based off a photo), (c) a depiction of how the subject was thought to have looked or (d) a depiction of how the subject was perceived to have looked. In my case, even with (a) and (b), I'd still be interested in seeing (d) if there was some sort of divergence that would gain me a better understanding of cultural and societal influences (such as Euro-Jesus and Blond-Scandi-Thor)
5. And counter to the "part 2" (no, not necessarily his or his alone) of the argument, policy and guideline specifically permits depictions intended to be of the subject even if they are not accurately representative (which again, if there were photos, I'd say they should be assigned prominence - but I know I am not the only person who is also interested in perceptions).

There is no reality. There is only perception. To fully understand anything, understanding others' perceptions is often more important than just understanding reality. Perceptions are reflections into what people believe, how they think on certain subjects and more. Since so many of us are vastly different, knowing how others perceive things (to me) is vitally important if I am going to learn to understand their thoughts, opinions and feelings.

Anyway, I'll stop there, unless you want more reasons. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Side note, I'd expect you would wish to see reasoning from both sides. You've got a small portion of mine (and others') reasonings above. I have yet to see anything more than opinion from the other side. "I don't think they are educational" isn't a valid reason how about "...because..." - but the only "because" I have seen flies in the face of policy and guideline ("they are only depictions - they probably aren't what he actually looked like"). Besides being against policy and guideline, (or rather if it weren't against such), I'd be all for that - if such was applied uniformly across Wikipedia - no single purpose argument gets much weight from me.

That aside "I don't think they are educational" does not represent the community - regardless of the reasons. So, to that matter, we have methods of dealing with such, such as establishing a consensus, creating an RfC, creating a Village Pump proposal. All of those have been done countless times on this issue - and the end result was "keep" because it was overwhelmingly deemed they provide value to the article. One or two people's opinion is the community not. I even proposed an image by image review for the RfC we tried starting, instead of the "all or none" or "none or none" proposals that were on the table because it had the best chance of removing some of the images. In 7 or so months, this has been brought up and weighed in on somewhere around 6 or 7 times - the end result is what you see. Images in the article. How many more times? Or better question: when does one or two or four people's perceptions of relevance and educational value trump multiple times that many editors' opposing view? And back to the religious aspect. In one day, a single editor brought up the "(shouldn't) offend (their religious beliefs)" argument nine times. Including such rationale as "for no particularly good reason" - which brings me back to my points on multiple consensus via various forums indicating the images are deemed sufficiently relevant and educational - and such being considered "good reason" Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC) PS: a large part of the commentary you may have missed seems to have been archived here[14] ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You know, I continue to disagree with you. For instance, I think that it's completely bizarre that you can say you "have yet to see anything more than opinion from the other side." By contrast, I find your arguments weak and frequently unclear. For example, to say that "many readers find depictions of how people perceived the subject matter to be informative and educational" is hardly much of an argument. The question is why these particular visual representations are needed in this particular article.

At root, I think that the problem you're running into (but refuse to face up to) is that it is often very hard to justify the existence of images in biographical articles. We have them by convention or custom, but they do indeed tend to be decorative rather than essential. Especially here, when it's acknowledged that none of the images actually depict their subject with any accuracy. But for the most part, we let them be: if we were really strict on images in the encyclopedia, then we wouldn't have very many at all. There are of course plenty of encyclopedias that have few or no images; beyond a few diagrams, maps, and charts, for the most part images aren't strictly required. But they do look nice, and they break up the text, so we are happy to have them.

When, then, you are asked to argue for their necessity, it's a tough call. This is what you're discovering. The best you can do is resort to some kind of user preference: users like images. Of course they do! We all do! It's just that in this case, those images could also be offensive to some.

Meanwhile, in lieu of a proper argument, you content yourself with cries of censorship and with repeated demonstrations of bad faith--most recently here, for example, in saying that "you have yet to see anything more than opinion from the other side." This is simply untrue; or at best it indicates how little you understand of the case that is put to you. If anything it is your "side" that has managed to come up with little more than opinion and expressions of taste ("Many of us find the changes in perceptions to be very educational"; "I (and others) find it educational" etc.).

Anyhow, I didn't really want to get into all this. I merely intervened briefly on ANI and at the RfC. Your repeated lengthy comments here on my talk page feel rather like badgering to me. So let's end this conversation here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

As you wish. I'm sorry you think I am badgering you - and I'm saddened that you refused to answer my most important question - how to help Ludwigs goal in good faith. I'll seek help on that elsewhere from someone who's willing to help. Sorry for having wasted your time. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 13:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I answered your question. I will answer it again if you like: I think you need to come up with better arguments as to why these images *should* be part of the article, rather than merely protesting that they shouldn't be removed. And if you can't come up with better arguments, then you might want to concede that ludwigs does indeed has a point.

But I fear that your question is in bad faith, in that you refuse to concede that ludwigs even has a point. Indeed, you even claim that you "have yet to see anything more than opinion from the other side." So enough of your faux concern for ludwigs. Get yourself some good faith first! Ciao. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I was asking the proper venue for his proposal - Village Pump or start with an RfC then Village Pump. And though you may think so poorly of my motives, I actually (for years) had a job (that I did very well at) where I had to be able to support, word and expound upon others' opinions (whether I agreed with them or not). No bad faith - this is something I've done IRL - and done very well. Take care. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Look, we've established that you stubbornly refuse to see his argument, and don't even have the good faith to believe that he has an argument (rather than "opinion" or some such). Why on earth would he want your so-called help?! Again, the best thing you could do, rather than going about hither and thither to this page and that crying foul and talking about censorship, would be to think through what's being said with some care and attention. Again, ciao! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

RAN close

Thanks for that, it's roughly how I was thinking of closing it when I commented, but didn't think enough comments regarding a time limited topic ban had been put up. Good job, fully endorse. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it's best if you leave a note about the close at Richard Arthur Norton's talk page as well, I believe it is customary to notify editors of any restrictions, topic bans, and so on that have been placed on them, even though they probably are aware of it from the discussion. Fram (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've done so (before seeing Fram's note to you here, as it happens - I was just popping over to say that I'd notified RAN as you'd obviously been interrupted by real life before doing so). I think you also need to log it at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Bencherlite^Talk 14:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! Yes. Thanks, and will do. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Jbmurray for reading the lengthy discussion and responding to my request. Cunard (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You wrote:

My proposal is that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has a topic ban for a period of one month. During that time, he is banned specifically from creating new articles and from page moves. (I think that the prospect of banning "content additions" is too vague and in any case counter-productive; improving articles that have copyvio issues inevitably entails adding content in one form or another.) At the end of this month-long period, I propose that the ban is revisited: if Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has shown that he understands the issues and has put effort into dealing with them, then I see no reason why the ban should continue; if not, it can be made indefinite.

Your close is slightly unclear. At the end of one month, is the topic ban still in place? Is the burden on RAN to show the community the topic ban should be lifted, or is the burden on the community to reinstate the ban if the issues have not been addressed? Cunard (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

My thought is that there should be another discussion. But in saying that this is a one-month ban, the presumption is that it expires at the end of the month. So the burden, if you like, is on the community. (It would be the other way around were it an indefinite ban which is to be revisited after a month.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. That seems the fairest approach. Cunard (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Largely good close in a tricky spot. I think you took the middle road and may get some flack for coming up with a solution that wasn't discussed. That said, I think it addresses all the relevant points and throws it back on the community in a month. Hobit (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Re the above ban: I note that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has created an article at Glidden (paints). Mind you, there was an article of the same name that existed there until recently, but it was deleted due to copyright issues. I think RAN probably saw that it was deleted and then re-created it, attempting to do so without the same copyright problems. So I'm unclear how this sort of thing is dealt with under the ban, so I'll leave it in your capable hands. Thx, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I've dropped a note on his talkpage accordingly. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Sorry to bother you again, but Richard has moved an article. I think he'll be quick to say that since he created the page (a year ago) he should be able to decide what it's called. It seems to me that he's repeatedly pressing on the boundaries of the imposed ban and at least demonstrating that he's not willing to be restricted in any absolute way. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I've dropped another note on his talkpage. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
    • And he's uploaded a file after your note to him. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
      • OK. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• And—one last time—I see that he's creating a bunch of new content since your latest note to him: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. I'm not sure what he's not getting about this? ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • sigh. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Your thoughts?

Hi. I'm trying to get a feel for what the problem is with the way we presently curate controversial images. If you believe there's a problem, would you please summarise for me what you understand it to be here? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent Stalking

You're free to take your disappointment with recent deletion discussions and stalk me, fixing the problems I have pointed out in random articles, but your personal message on the edit summary was uncalled for. Behave. --damiens.rf 19:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Delighted to help out in fixing problems. When it comes to edit summaries, I think that it's ou who needs to behave. --jbmurray (talk • contribs)

You show an incompetence in understanding the problem of unnecessarily referring to editors. Strong words are not a problem. Nobody gives a fuck as long it's about the content and not about the editors. --damiens.rf 13:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'm only glad I can help. I'm just sorry that you seem to get a little hot under the collar, and so let your emotions get the better of you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to interject, I got here after I got curious about recent discussions on deletions of non-free content. While I don't want to take sides on specifics -- I'm largely sympathetic to jbmurray's arguments, but not always to his style -- there's one thing I'd like to react to. damiens.rf wrote, "Strong words are not a problem. Nobody gives a fuck as long it's about the content and not about the editors." Nonsense. A comment on a person's edit gets taken personally; this may be an example of the fundamental attribution error but it's very real. Why care? Finding people who will work on Wikipedia apparently isn't easy, and I've witnessed incidents, and heard a share of second-hand reports, about people who are discouraged from editing the English Wikipedia by editors, whose contribution I very much value, but who for one reason or another choose to communicate disrespectfully. I'm no prude, I've got no problem at all with cussing among friends or in show business, but dissing (even feeble attempts at) contributions of people you don't know, in my humblest opinion, hurts the project. – Miranche ^T C 11:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

RAN at AN

Thanks for alerting me relating to the AN discussion of RAN. My Wikipedia time will be limited over the next few days, and might not have checked AN without your prompting. FTR, I think you are handling it exactly right – observing a problem, but rather than leaping to a decision, asking for some feedback. RAN is hardly a model of responsiveness, but I see evidence he is working with us, and I want to encourage that. I don't know him well enough to know whether he is deliberately testing boundaries; for the moment I'll AGF and assume that uploading a new image isn't creating a new article, so I think he is largely following the spirit, that said, I haven't fully investigated.--SPhilbrickT 18:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

great northern way campus

Hi JBMurray I updated the wiki page for Great Northern Way Campus on wednesday, I have just noticed the edits you have made after I edited the statement. information to anyone reading the article might be misunderstood for example regarding when Matthew carter started. He started in 2009 not 2011, which can be verified by linkedin website. Also it seems to me that stating who the previous president is not relevt. I have not noticed this type of information on wikipedia company pages. The final paragraph in the history section appeared to be more relevent and accurate before the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vancity2012 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

I hope this doesn't prompt a deluge of sighs from you, but User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has created a bunch of new content on 16-Dec, including a some new articles [21] [22], some new files [23], [24], a disambiguation page [25], and a bunch of redirects. I realize that the month-long topic ban started on 14 Nov, but has it been revisted and lifted/adjusted? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, time to revisit it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

See here. Your contribution is invited. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Working on a note to the WMF regarding the Global Education Program

And wondering if you could comment / add further ideas here. Thanks --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

noting someone's topic indefinite ban

I'm not sure why this was created Avtobaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LibStar (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It was a day before the decision to make the topic ban indefinite. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

pushing the boundary at the least. LibStar (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20