This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jbmurray. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, Jbmurray, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Elonka16:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
If you want to nominate for deletion the articles you mentioned (coolitude, coral imaginary, etc.) I would certainly support their deletion. User:Maurici seems to have either a language barrier or a conceptual block (probably both) that prevents him/her from contributing useful encyclopedic material. I've tried to clean up some of the user's past contributions, but he/she just comes back and dumps more text over my work. -- Rbellin|Talk14:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I endorsed your prod-ing of coolitude and coral imaginary. Coolie trade should probably be kept and cleaned up (cut down into a stub, if necessary) into a real article on the coolie trade (which is a real encyclopedia article topic) by removing Maurici's gobbledygook. -- Rbellin|Talk14:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, I won't readd the category. However, I have reverted your page move; this is an English-language Wikipedia and so articles should have an English-language title. Thanks, GiantSnowman19:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure thing, collaboration is always good...as you can see, Category:Latin American writers is going to be the biggest category BY FAR, because it will encompass ALL Latin American countries (South America, Central America, Caribbean, Mexico...others?). It will just be broken down in to smaller categories within this main category. Also note that Panama is both a Central AND South American country, so there should be 3 categories on the Category:Panamanian writers category...Latin (main), Central (regional), and South (often considered as part of South America too, historically). Same with a few of the Caribbean nations too. Just remember though that they ALL need the Category:Latin American writers. --Wassermann09:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
User:AlexCovarrubias deleted the following comments from his talk page.[1][2]I'm preserving them here for the record, and interleaving them with the messages he left here (so that the conversation can be followed more easily).
Authors list in "Latin America"
Hi: You revert attempts to reduce the list of authors on the Latin America page without comment or explanation. And this is despite the discussion at Talk:List_of_Latin_American_writers. It's not at all clear what the principle of selection for these authors is. They are not the most obviously important ones, for instance. There is also some repetition. Given all this, I propose to revert back. --Jbmurray21:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I left a message in the talk page of Latin America. The repeated names can be deleted, that's obvious. About the other authors, nothing has been agreed, so anything must be talked about before deletion. AlexCovarrubias( Talk? )21:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
And I've responded at the same place. It might help if you explained the principle of inclusion at present as you see it. Also your thoughts on the relation between this list and the three others I mention, not least List of Latin American writers. --Jbmurray01:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Meanwhile, as you see, I've effectively left this list alone now, waiting for your response to my lengthy comments at Talk:Latin America. But you do seem to be taking a rather proprietorial attitude towards the list. It'd be nice if you made some attempt to explain the principles of inclusion, and the list's relation to the various other articles elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
(Oh, and apologies for not signing the previous comment. That was, obviously enough, unintentional.) --Jbmurray07:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I note that you haven't responded to my suggestion that you engage in the discussion at Talk:List of Latin American writers. Also that you were encouraged to do so, in response to very similar reverts of yours, back in December, but you likewise didn't respond.[3] Wassup, Alex? It would be good to have better coverage of Latin American literature on Wikipedia, and this seems a sensible step forwards. I'd be delighted if you could collaborate. --Jbmurray14:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, first your changes don't need to be the correct ones as you imply by saying "in the talk page", as if it was a consensus or something. Also this is not personal, as you imply by saying "Why do you keep reverting my chages?".
The information regarding Mexico's movies industry is important and relevant. It was practicly reduced to nothing. Should I imply a bias against Mexico? Becasue you first delete Mexican writers and now this. Sorry, I'll just go with the WP:BOLD.
Alex, my point about referring to the Talk:Latin America is that I'm trying to initiate a discussion as to how to proceed. There's plenty to be done, and I'm far from suggesting that my edits are perfect. However, your tendency is to restore information without discussion. As I've indicated, all that information has been kept, and put into Latin American cinema. This seems to make sense. But I'd be interested in hearing your rationale if you disagree. Again, I'm just suggesting that you return the favor of providing some discussion.
I'm not suggesting your reverts are personal. However, I've run into the same problem with you various times. Which is why I pointed out that you "keep reverting my changes."
As to anti-Mexicanism... that's not at all true. However, as I pointed out, the four most important film industries in Latin America are the Mexican, Brazilian, Argentine, and Cuban ones. I'd suggest that they be treated more or less similarly. (What needs most expansion is clearly what the article currently has to say about Cuba, btw.)
And all these need to be expanded at Latin American cinema, where nothing Mexican has been eliminated.
For Mexican writers, and my edits of the section on Latin American literature, see my lengthy comments at Talk:Latin America. Again, rather than implying anti-Mexican bias, better to engage with what I'm saying, I suggest. --Jbmurray07:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Well I honestly don't see any willingness to discuss, since you're acting first and discussing later. That's not how things should be done. Any major change in the article should be first consulted and discuted, not the other way. If you really want to discuss, I suggest that you undo your changes and wait until a consensus can be reached. That's if you are willing to discuss. AlexCovarrubias( Talk? )07:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Alex, your claim that I'm "acting first and discussing later" doesn't really hold water. I first edited the literature section of Latin America in a way that seemed to me uncontroversial. You reverted without explanation. I then provided my explanations for my edits, at increasing length, and also left messages with you. When I changed the film section, I provided an explanation at the same time. Again, you simply effectively reverted. I've explained how I see things multiple times, both on the talk page and on your user page. And I've been asking for your rationale, which you haven't seemed keen on providing. NB I don't see these as "major changes," but perhaps you might explain why you think otherwise. In short, I think I've proved myself more than willing to discuss. I'm merely asking the same of you before you undertake these multiple reverts. --Jbmurray07:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
And one more thing... I'd also note that (as you can see from the page history) I've also responded to the closest you've provided to a rationale for any of reverts. You suggested that I'd cut too much from the paragraph on Mexican film. So I've now expanded it. But the point is that I think I've expanded it in such a way that has improved the section, rather than by simply reverting to the previous, problematic version. Again, it's not as though I think that this version is final. I welcome your contributions. And I'd especially welcome them (as I've said) at Latin American cinema. But rather than reverts and (for instance) implying that I'm showing anti-Mexican bias, more constructive criticism and positive proposals would seem to be the way forward. --Jbmurray08:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I just read the message. I have already commented in the correspondent talk page. I'm sorry but I can't collaborate with you, since you overreacted to my reverts and hastyly signed that RfC page against me. I invite you to read the whole thing, it is a deep problem with more implications that a pure and simple "revert warrring". However, I'm willing to discuss. AlexCovarrubias( Talk? )18:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
And you say you don't have anything against Mexico? What is this then? [4]. There's no such a formal term as "New Latin American cinema". This term (spanish: Nuevo Cine Mexicano) was created in Mexico to tag the effective new style in directing and creating universal themes that reach the audiences of of the world, not only Latin Americans. AlexCovarrubias( Talk? )20:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
There is indeed such a term as "New Latin American cinema," to describe not only the nuevo cine mexicano, but also the nuevo cine argentino that emerged at about the same time (Bielinsky, Martel, etc.), plus films such as City of God and Carandiru. To point this out is not anti-Mexican. It's merely putting things in a broader, Latin American context, as is appropriate for this article. Meanwhile, I await some substantive proposal from you as to how to improve this article. Accusations of "anti-Mexicanism" don't really cut it. --Jbmurray22:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and just a small point: I'm a little surprised you replaced Cantinflas's name at Latin America. I'd have thought he should be mentioned even in the briefest of summary of Mexican (and indeed, Latin American) cinema. Moreover, the article Cinema of Mexico agrees about his prominence during the Golden Age: "The Golden Age of Mexican cinema took place during the 1940s and beyond. The most prominent during this period was Mario Moreno, better known as Cantinflas." Admittedly, it's true that this article is not very well written and far from complete. It'd be great if you could help out by improving it, rather than indulging in your protective reverts! Why not work on producing a really decent article on Mexican cinema? You could start by expanding the stub section "1960s through 1980s." --Jbmurray23:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 18 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule on Latin America. In the future, please solve editing disputes through discussion rather than edit warring. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.
I've gone ahead and unblocked you on the assumption that you won't do it again (since apparently you didn't quite understand the details of the rule, and since this was a first time). A couple things: It's a bad idea to repeatedly revert, period. It's still edit warring, even if you don't technically break 3RR. Secondly: the purpose of getting a warning is to be sure you are aware of the 3RR, not to warn you you're getting close. I checked your contributions and it looked to me like you understood the concept of edit warring, so I went ahead and blocked. OK, I hope this makes sense. Have a good day. Heimstern Läufer(talk)17:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Heimstern, thanks for this. I didn't really understand the 3RR rule, though I think I thought I did. (Frankly, I didn't even know that what Alex was doing was breaking the 3RR.) However, I have a much better sense of it now. I also certainly tried to resolve the dispute(s) via discussion, as I hope you can recognize. Anyhow, apologies again. I'll be more careful in future. --Jbmurray17:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Sublists do not belong on this list. The listy only covers individuals. Please refer the link to another page. All sublists links in the past have been removed. There is nothing else to explain.--XLR8TION22:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Latin American subaltern studies, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 214:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your note about the article in question. You may note that the article has been deleted twice for failing to meet WP:CSD#A7, by me and User:Rettetast. While I'm no expert in the subject, it seems that a number of editors have concerns over the article. However, I'm more than willing to give the article a chance, particularly as it has a set of decent references. I'd like to apologise if you thought the article was overly-speedily deleted but perhaps you are not aware that many speedy deletes take place within seconds. On this (and the previous occasion your article was deleted) obviously you didn't have time to deal with the concerns of the editor adding the speedy tag. All that nothwithstanding, your article now exists once more as a result of your determination (which is good thing!), good luck with it, apologies for perhaps overreacting to the speedy tag. All the best... The Rambling Man19:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
One final note, in line with what User:Rettetast has to say, a {{hangon}} has no time criteria, so unless you add hangon and then actually say why on the talk page, you'll find there's nothing stopping any administrator deleting your article. Anyway, that's just an aside for any time in the future where you may encounter the same problem - in this case your article is back so good luck with future edits! The Rambling Man19:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I see what you're saying, though it was only by posing a question at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Questions_on_Speedy_Delete_Process that I could even have half a clue as to what was going on. I'm surprised at both speedy deletes, frankly. The second because I'd have thought the purpose of the "hangon" tag was to signal precisely that someone was working on the article. The first because, though the article obviously needed expansion and some work on establishing notability, in context it clearly didn't qualify for speedy delete. (A Prod, perhaps.) Moreover, again a quick look at the creator (me) and my contributions might have prompted you (or the other editor) to drop me a line. And on the {{hangon}} tag, give me a second or two!! --Jbmurray20:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry and I understand that you feel bitten and I agree that the article should not have bin deleted in the first place, but I just deleted an article that only contained the hangon template and had no prior history. I am sorry that I didn't check the deletion log. Rettetast 20:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC) And I am also sorry that i somehow managed to answer you on your user page instead of your talk page. I don't know how that happend. Rettetast20:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
edit conflictI agree (with Jbmurray). Adminstrators are often given a hard time over massive backlogs, WP:CSD included, and when someone (e.g. I) see a page that has already been deleted under CSD notability terms then it's all too easy to delete the article speedily once more. I completely agree (as I said before) that I acted too swiftly for which I apologise. Good luck with your article and please don't take any of this personally (although that's always difficult in wikiworld!). All the best... The Rambling Man20:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
JohnManuel, I wasn't assuming ownership. With the Machado de Assis article, I started to clean it up, then saw that the title was mis-spelled, so applied a redirect. On the page with the correct title, you had made numerous edits, most of which had introduced grammatical and other language errors, and I reverted especially because that's a pretty good page. (NB I don't claim any responsibility for have written it.) But I did suggest you put the picture back up, obviously so long as it satisfies Wikipedia guidelines. I don't regard pointing out that your not a native speaker of English as a "personal attack." Clearly you have much to contribute, and I personally welcome your contributions. I'm just making a friendly suggestion that you be careful before you make changes to the language. If you wanted, you could run changes by me for linguistic advice. I'd be help out that way. Likewise, can I suggest you "stay cool" and avoid personal attacks, as well as being prepared for your contributions to be editing. --Jbmurray02:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't take part in the discussion which I closed so I didn't give any reason in my part. About your query, I think the reason for keep those cats are clear (everyone gave the same reason): they are parts of the parent cats: Category:Writers by language and Category:Spanish-language media respectively and delete these will be pointless because there're a lot of other ones in the parent cats. I don't know why you only chose Spanish-language cats for your CfDs. I suggest you should bring the whole categorization schemes for discussion. Best wishes. AW08:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. Yes, I guess my problem is that it would have been good had someone addressed my points 1) that Category:Spanish language novels does not fit into Category:Media by language, or at least into the dominant definition of what's meant by "media." And 2) that for the purpose of Category:Writers by language, some languages are different from others. Hence I have no problem with the parent cats, as I made clear various times in the discussion.
I'm not going to contest the decision (I have better things to do with my time), but I would point out that in practice, with all the "per nom" or "per X" comments, CfD has become a vote, in which herd mentality (rather than an attempt to look at the issues) tends to prevail. It's another little Wikidisappointment. --Jbmurray20:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear Jbmurray, it's my pleasure to receive your reply today. In fact, when I closed your CfD discussions, I also thought your comments are reasonable at some points. Category:Spanish-language_writers or Category:English-language writers is just something of overcategorization and makes no sense to the readers. However, it's very difficult to reconsider the issue when consensus is reached. Moreover, this issue needs a wider discussion, and as I said above, it'll be somewhat pointless to delete only Spanish-language related cats. But don't be worried because consensus can change and WT:CAT will be a better place for you to propose your opinion.
About the second problem, it's sad but I have to agree with you. Not only CfD but other XfDs in general are in the same mainstreaming. People often vote following the majority, and their reasons often "per X" or "per above" or "per nom". It's really suck and disappointed. I frequently see user Carlossuarez46 in every CfD discussion and his vote rarely differs the stale formula "per...". Just ignore those voters! I hope that next time I will have the chance to backup your opinion (of course not "per Jbmurray" thingy). Have a good day! AW04:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying me about the revert. I am fully aware that Belize's culture is related more to Caribbean countries such as Jamaica. I personally think Belize should be put under Central America as the page says that it is organized by region, not by culture. "Some of the most important writers from Latin America and the Caribbean, organized by region and nationality." LaNicoya •TALK•09:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hiya. When I wrote that, I was thinking about cultural rather than geographical region. (After all, "region" is not necessarily a geographical term.) I could clarify that if you felt it easier. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Cultural region, alright, but maybe that should be clarified a bit on the page or at the least "region" should be wikilinked to prevent any further confusion, what do you think? LaNicoya •TALK•10:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance in improving this page which I created and in insisting that both don Luis' appear in the List of Notable Puerto Ricans. I just opened an account and am in the process of learning how to do things here.Pr4ever11:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I'm still figuring stuff out myself, and have already realized that it's easy to run into frustration for one reason or another, not least when people act as though they own a page. On the other hand, there's something understandable about that when they've put a lot of effort into it. Still, it hardly seems to me to be the wikiway. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi there; thanks for your note. Yes: 'here above all' is not phraseology I would expect to find in an encyclopedia entry. I mean, I'm not even sure what that means in this context. Perhaps something more clear and/or agreeable? Of course, my mistyping of 'encycloped(i)c' doesn't help matters. :) Corticopia02:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Previous Prod
Jb - Although List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy was deleted, after your nomination, via the WP:PROD system, that deletion has now been contested. As a result, I have restored the article. In case you wish to pursue its deletion, you should nominate the article for WP:AfD. If you need any assistance with the process, I would be happy to help. --best, kevin[kzollman][talk]02:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
How you doing? I have a question because I find myself wondering. Exactly, what are "Latin Americanists". I never heard of the term before. Tony the Marine23:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you reported User: Corticopia for a 3RR violation on the Latin America article. I noticed it failed, but was wondering what you would feel about me starting a thread about the user on WP:ANI. The user in question has been blocked before for disruptive editing, he also appears to be uncivil. And he's about to break the 3RR rule again, this time on the United States page. BH(T|C)05:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The 3RR report -- and subsequent sh*it-kicking -- was dismissed by admins. If any sort of thread is initiated, which is arguably disruptive behaviour, rest assured that I will respond in kind. Corticopia12:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, he's massively uncivil, bad-tempered, and (what's worse) obtuse, seldom realizing how shaky his ground is. I don't know about starting a thread on WP:ANI (I usually have faith that people will see themselves the errors of their ways), but if you were to do so I could comment on my experiences with him. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Corticopia was blocked for making 3 reverts in 17 minutes on the Canada article. The thread about him on WP:ANI was mentioned in the blocking admins comments. See Here for more information.
Thank you for your kind words and warm advice on dealing with the named editor. I have repeatedly tried in vain to ask him to cooperate, even pointing out that others will assist him if he asks ( I don't think anyone will say no) however he keeps on adding names of individuals who only have ONE reference or two online, and never set a blip on nationwide or worldwide media screens. The list can get wild and unruly if we add every Tom, Dick and Harry who only had a one hot wonder or whom are virtually unknown outside San Juan's television/film studios. It can also look some what superficial if the list had so many names and simply because some dumb reason as a one hit wonder or a role in a B-movie. Also by plagiarizing, he is not setting an example for others (regardless of nationality) in pursuing honest academic pursuits and writing. I honestly believe that we should have a communal vote on the discussion page regarding his edits. I want to share some of the articles I wrote this weekend and tell me what you think:
I wish he could use some of these as sample work to follow, but he cares to remain a rogue editor. Give me your feedback on these articles and what I just discussed and thank you once again for the thoughtful and stimulating conversation--XLR8TION01:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your articles with me. You're right that they're good models. I especially like the one on the Normandie Hotel just because I've had a drink in the bar there, and agree that it's a great building. :)
As for the problem with Entre-Nos's entries. Again, I think that he (I'll assume it's a he for the time being) really thinks these people are notable, and to demonstrate this has written articles on them, though they are unfortunately plagiarized as you yourself have pointed out.
Yet it is certain that the most recent three figures, Awilda Carbia, Marta Romero, and Sonia Noemi, though hardly superstars, are sufficiently notable to have fairly lengthy biographies on the Fundación Nacional para la Cultural Nacional website. Of course, it might be open to dispute as to whether everyone on that list deserves a place on the List of Puerto Ricans. But if you're into that kind of thing (and I'll admit that I'm not), you might think that they deserve to be there as much as a DJ such as Manny Lehman, a councilperson such as Rosie Méndez, or even the many Puerto Rican baseball players who are also on Wikipedia.
Personally, I'm pretty neutral. As long as the articles are good, unplagiarized of course, and not merely vanity pieces, then I feel why not?
One way of seeking wider consensus might be to remove the plagiarized material from his articles (i.e. basically reduce them to a stub) and then take them to AfD.
Some of these articles such as Rosie Mendez I did not write. They were just included in the stubs of NYC Council members another editor wrote. I just modified her entry with references and a photo. :)
Manny Lehman I know personally and he is responsible for discovering Cece Peniston one of the 1990s most memorable dance divas. He is a big name record producer and has worked with Cher, Madonna, Janet Jackson, etc.. all names that I doubt will ever work with Awilda Carbia and Marta Romero. I speak to Tony often and he is absolutely one of the best editors out there. I look up to him when I write because he helped inspired my goal on writing eloquently in order to represent the PR experience. What do you feel about a communal vote on Entre Nos 's entries on the discussion page? Good idea or not?--XLR8TION02:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Heh. You see, this is a good example of different people's interests: I have no idea who Cece Peniston is, and so that means nothing to me! And this is why we have an Encyclopedia: so we can learn about things we don't know already. But I agree to the idea of a communal discussion on Talk:List of Puerto Ricans. I hope that Entre-Nos will join that discussion, and that we can all abide by the consensus that results. I'll copy this suggestion to Tony's talk page, and also to Pr4ever, as he or she has also shown quite a bit of interest in the list recently. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Good Faith
When at first I found Wikipedia at the internet, I got very interested in it, and when I found the List of Puerto Ricans, I acknowledged that there were various Puerto Rican personalities missing in the list. So, as I read, and I quote: "...Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit...", I started including names of famous and notorious Puerto Ricans.
At the beggining of that page it says, and I quote again: "...This is a list of famous Puerto Ricans, including people who were born in Puerto Rico or people who are of Puerto Rican ancestry, and many long-term residents and/or immigrants who made Puerto Rico their home. They are listed in alphabetical order by last names, where applicable. By "famous" is meant that the people listed are (or were at some point in time) well-known, whether for their popularity or their notoriety, and either within or beyond Puerto Rico itself...", so I inmediately started posting notorious Puerto Ricans, according with what it said. Later I was very surprised that those names were deleted, accusing me of vandalizing the page. I knew from my heart I wasn't doing that, so I kept including them over and over. But at the same time, over and over, XLR8TION, kept deleting them. Later, I started posting biographies, using refferences from the "Fundación Nacional de la Cultura Popular". They are written in spanish and I started translating them, that takes a lot of time and effort, and then putting them in my own words. After I did all that, XLR8TION, in a very bad manner, started threatening me that I was being reported of plagiarism, assuring that I was doing so. After I saved my pages, the next day I tried to access my entries and I find this warning that what I had written, was plagierism. I was so surprised, that I started to read again what I had written, and I couldn't beleive that someone would think it was a plagierized entry. In order to plagierize, you would have to write exactly, the same words of what was written before in any external link. But that's not the case. If it was a poem, or a song, on an idea, it would be plagiarism, because it comes from personal inspiration, but although you have to use your inspiration to translate and then interpret a biography, it's a matter of facts, it's an account of the series of events making up these performers lives. It's their true life story, and that can't be changed. As a matter of fact, in the copyright's page there's an explanation about this and I quote: "...Facts Cannot be Copyrighted, only their expression. That is, you cannot claim a Wikipedia article infringes your copyright just because it happens to cite the same facts as a text or page that you wrote; you may only claim if the text in the article was copied from your work without permission... ...This is a contact page for the Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts sites such as wikipedia.org, wikisource.org, and wikimedia.org. The Wikimedia Foundation does not host answers.com, nor does it host the millions of sites to which Wikipedia may have links. If you have issues with these sites, we suggest you contact those who host or edit them..." Although this is not my case, it explains one way or the other, what I'm saying. Nevertheless, I've been very complacent, and re-wrote and edited again my entries, and sent them to XLR8TION, but he didn't care and sent me another letter saying he "caught me right handed". I'm not a thief. I'm just proud to be a Puerto Rican and at the same time proud of giving my compatriots, the recognition they deserve. As of Awilda Carbia, Marta Romero & Sonia Noemí, they're big stars from Puerto Rico and very far away from being hardly supertars. Maybe you're to young to acknowledge that, but you can ask anyone in Puerto Rico, anyone, and they will tell you how notorious they are. I hope you read again my entries, check them, the originals and the edited ones, and you'll see there's no reason at all to consider them plagierisms. They're facts.
Best regards: --Entre-Nos 04:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Entre-Nos, thanks for your message. There are a number of things at issue here, I think.
Plagiarism. The three articles to which XLR8TION points, that is Awilda Carbia, Marta Romero, and Sonia Noemi, are plagiaries. XLR8TION is absolutely right about that. I admit that the issue of what is defined as plagiarism can sometimes seem confusing, which is why I left a link to one resource on your talk page. But here the issue is clear. There are many sentences or phrases which are simply word for word translations of the originals. Others that are unacceptable paraphrases. And overall the entire articles follow the structure of the originals, without adding anything from anywhere else. Once more, XLR8TION: these are plagiarism and should either be radically revised and rewritten, or reduced to stubs.
Notability. Here (as per my conversation with XLR8TION, above), I'm much more neutral. These figures are fairly marginal, but there are plenty of other fairly marginal figures on Wikipedia, and I can certainly see the argument that these particular people are sufficiently notable to be included on a list of notable Puerto Ricans. Indeed, if anything I tend to agree with you here, but (again) I don't feel particularly strongly about this either way. We all have areas that interest us, and areas that don't. My speciality is more literature, so I'd be more inclined to argue that case for (say) a poet that you might see as minor. And it looks as though XLR8TION is more interested in contemporary music, for instance.
The tenor of the discussion. Things can quickly get heated on Wikipedia. I'm suggesting to both you and XLR8TION that you tone things down a little. My own belief is that you are both good-faith editors. XLR8TION is frustrated because he feels you aren't heeding his advice. Indeed, it's true that for instance you haven't responded very much if at all on the talk page to List of Puerto Ricans, and you've merely defended yourself in private without conceding any possible mistakes on your part. This has annoyed XLR8TION even more, especially given the amount of time he's dedicated to that list, but it's true that he too can sometimes get a little worked up. My principle is that except with genuine wreckers (and I don't believe you are one of those), a civil dialogue is usually possible in the end.
But in short: Entre-Nos, you should recognize that there are serious problems with the three pages you've just written. Once you've done that, we can also have a discussion about notability, and perhaps bring in some other editors to see what they think. XLR8TION has suggested that, and I agree that it's a good idea. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Jbmurray:
Thank you very much for your message. At least you're a very kind person and you're very clear. Still, I'm not convinced I've commited plaigerism, due to the "fact" that I've written facts about these personalities. Remember that a biography is an account of the life of someone. Nevertheless, I'm glad you took part of your time to write and I'm looking forward for that civil dialogue you mentioned. Just let me correct you when you said, and I'm quoting you: "...you've merely defended yourself in private without conceding any possible mistakes on your part...". That's not true, because I've contacted XLR8TION through e-mail, and I've admitted some errors, but he doesn't care. At least, you're a caring person. I've already made changes to my entries, (yesterday, I sent XLR8TION, copy of them), and I've re-written them in my subpages: (Awilda Carbia, Marta Romero and Sonia Noemí). Thank you very much, and keep the good work of trying to calm down XLR8TION, please.
Best regards,
--Entre-Nos 05:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Entre-Nos, you don't need to copy over discussion from Talk:List of Puerto Ricans. I'm watching that page already, so I deleted what you added here, so as to keep things relatively uncluttered. Best rather to engage in the discussion there. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
You tagged Image:File 2006919201130.jpg for speedy deletion. This might have been a mistake. It is identified as a photo of five airplanes from the Chilean air force taken by the uploader and placed in the public domain. I obviously can't tell if the photographer is the same person as the uploader, but it sounds plausible. --Eastmain08:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. No mistake, I don't think. Look at this editor's other uploads (and history of uploading). I've left the very few images that I feel he might just possibly have taken himself. But on the whole he's simply claimed that they are all his own creation, which is clearly not so, in context. I may not be using the right tags, but if not I hope you can help me out. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt reply. You're probably correct. My only suggestion at this point is that you include a phrase such as "Source of photograph uncertain" in your edit summary when you're tagging problem photographs such as this one. --Eastmain08:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
It is pretty obvious that he's uploaded many, many images under false claims of GFDL. I have told him to stop uploading images whil his uploads are sorted out. Neil╦08:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I tagged a few of his images some days ago, and raised the issue on this talk page, but he didn't respond. So I figured I'd go through the images and tag most of the rest of those that are obviously not his, giving him a fair amount of benefit of the doubt where necessary. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I am probably going to go through his log and delete the lot. I would be tremendously surprised if a 16 year old boy was allowed to take photos midflight of an attack helicopter, or within 100 yards of a fleet of F15s taking off. All his uploads are very dubious. Neil╦08:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I have no way of knowing whether or not she is actually notable, but I can tell that notability was certainly asserted, so it isnt speedy as nn. (I also see that the article has a substantial edit histor from many people and a good deal of quarreling about it.) DGG20:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
JB, thanks for your update. I have tried in vain to help and guide him to no ado. Even Tony kindly offered him a hand as you see on the discussion page, yet he removes the cleanup template I placed (the articles he writes are an eyesore to look at with wikilinks for almost every word on the page). I will have to dialogue with him one more time before I submit a communal ban proposal. Thannk you for your help! Will update you on any feedback.--XLR8TION21:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I think a community ban is going a little far right now. I suggest a more gradual approach. Hence I've reported his reverts. If necessary, and if he continues not to respond, we can take it to RfC or ANI. A community ban is, as I understand it, the very last stage in such a process. Anyhow, I continue to think that he's acting in good faith, but he's certainly going the wrong way about things. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I've always responded
Hi Jbmurray: I've always responded, but many times my responses have been deleted. That's why I decided to write directly to XLR8TION's e-mail. I'm surprised of the nice way he writes to you. In my case, he's been hostile, and very far from helping or guiding me as you've done to me. I've just posted a letter in the Sonia Noemi's discussion page. I hope you can read it before it's deleted. As you say, every contribution & donation I've made is truly in good faith, and I'm grateful for your support. Furthermore, even if this may sound silly, I'm so proud I've been so notable in my short life as a contributor and donor of Wikipedia,
even though for the wrong reasons and being the spot of a quarrel. Anyway, it never was my intention to start a trivial war. I hope someday everything quiets down. When Tony the Marine wrote to me, he recognized Awilda Carbia & Dagmar(to whom I haven't written anything yet), and told me to go ahead and write articles about them. He was very nice to me. Maybe XLR8TION doesn't know that. Now he knows, and you too. Jbmurray, thanks again for your kindness.
Best regards: --Entre-Nos 20:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Entre-Nos, I think the problem is you don't always respond in the right place. For instance, I opened up a discussion on Talk:List of Puerto Ricans about the names you'd added recently. You should respond to that discussion, rather than merely adding the names again without responding to XLR8TION's points on the talk page. That's what the talk page is there for. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I already did, Jbmurray. Best regards.--Entre-Nos 07:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Good! Merge is the way to go. Now we can get started in transferring the names of those who are truly notable to the other list. XLR8TION and Jbmurray first add your names here Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Notability Criteria where you agree as overseers of the list to make sure that any additions to the same meet the criteria established. Then start transferring the names. Notice that the names in the List of notable Puerto Ricans are in alphabetical order by first name because it is much easier to manage (you know how it is with the surnames in our culture).
Jbmurray, since your main specialty is, and not limited to, literature (my main thing is the military, educators and scientist), transfer the names in the section "Authors, playwrights and poets" which meet the criteria.
XLR8TION, You do the same and especially add the Diplomat section which you have worked so hard on.
Notice: Most of the names are already posted in the new list.
The good thing about the new list is that if a person adds a name of a non-notable, once you make your revert, you just add "person fails to meet criteria" to the edit summary, no fuzz no discussion. Of course anyone one can go to the talk page and try to make a case, but the committee (which you will be a member of) will decide if the criteria is met.
After the transfers are made, let me know and I will then proceed to delete the "List of Puerto Ricans" and make a redirect of "List of famous Puerto Ricans" to the new list. Tony the Marine20:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Sound and Respectful Suggetions for the user jbmurray
RE: as you have requested suggestions in your userpage then here they are, Please do not skip the questions since Now We want to determine the Universal use of the Word: Mulatto for the entry Joaquim Maria Machado de Assis. We need to work together in this and in the following editions. Otherwise we will end out losing time and energy. Also we need to face our differences since we are going to be working most likely in the same pages. Therefore, lets start communicating.
Second issue: read this and respond. Also is not "Life" is Biography: Are you following the standards?
I can't talk in pages, I write them, if you don't know what I am writing about it, read it again and/or make specific and pertaining questions. Remember to follow what is in the discussion page of Joaquim Maria Machado de Assis in this case, and if you don't agree with it, then by all means write it so and let me know. Please, answer my questions; thanks for your attention to this matter.
Collaboration brings excellence but needs to be mutually shared and understanding is gained through communication; as you might know this well, do you? Just in case I will give you enough time to reflect.
I didn't and won't change nothing or add nothing of your debatable editions, only those that I will consider not following the NPOV and other policies.
In addition, I keep it forgetting to mention it to you: Why are you using the word silly so much? In every instance for qualifying our contributors' editions, do you have this itch to embarrass people? some of them are so new that they feel mishandled or offended by those comments of yours, stop doing this, it is not a good behavior, even if you would have been accepted by the Mensa organization, it is disgusting that you do it so frequently. It is a matter of fact, we do not do that to anybody because the respect we profess for this project and for the human dignity of every user and person on earth. Be careful please in using those libels, or insulting intelligences.
I tend to know why you are doing it, perhaps is because your way to talk to yourself like: "I found a terrible or naive mistake and I have to fix it." or "I so smart and expert that I have to work so... so hard to fix it." However, in your good will you are harming other people's good intentions as well. While projecting your unconcern for others you are indicating your lack of empathy towards your fellows co-Wikipedians. is that good or positive? are you following the policies in this important regard?
The truth is that if you don't do it, [fixing typos or other basic stuff] there are many people that are willing to fix those errors the only difference is that they do it without having to make infantile remarks, for example, visit the Biographical page of Shimon Peres and you will understand this much better. Are you following consensus or seeking for it?
The best of Wikipedia is the learning environment that all of us are creating, that brings the very best of every one of us that has decided to edit it in the first place. Please help us to conserve this spirit or "climate" by lessening the amount of grief, does we have enough with vandalisms? Is a need for more trolling?
Why I am writing this to you? you don't know what I am talking about? eh? Look conflict will show up, how we deal with change and with conflict is the whole issue. Your ways seem to be very arrogant and disrespectful, well it is your way but nobody have to deal with or suffer it, let alone support it. It won't stand the test of time, jbmurray, nope! especially, when facing the consensus of many individuals with a solid NPOV or objectivity. Yes! You might have a lot of friends; however, Let us wait and see, because in here it is the mere repository of knowledge and contains all of those who not only believe is attainable but that can be achieve in the most neutral way, without the need to put down anybody in order to do it so.
Now, perhaps you are not interested in nothing but fighting, arguments, and you are here to push and impose your views and interpretations or your culture along the way on others that you consider, "eugenically speaking", inferiors or primitives. You appear to be not neutral at all, it may be sound unreal to you but if you write your answers to my questions, perhaps you will understand it better than you do. Now, If were this your aims, i.e., to be fastidious and provocateur, that I kind of doubt it, it is so, but if it were, then I will give you all the rights for sustain your position but by the same token, I will oppose them with all my might because it is simple horrible, grotesquely and completely wrong to come here to this noble place and covertly start doing it so.
Remember, this and read it very well, while there always will be abusive individuals, there have been, are and will be others ready to defend those who cannot face those same individuals. I am not writing that you are an abusive, but I am stating that I am one of those who has made his business to identify them and confront bigotry and other manifestations of supremacist views or behaviors and attitudes.
Now, and again, I will give enough time for you to answer me, if you need it, I have patience, but I will return again and again, point by point, to fix our difference with respect to our editions as they should be, probably I will learn from you, since in this few weeks in Wikipedia you have eagerly arguing and fisting about with so many people about so little things that I really think you need to put more attention to what you are doing.
I Will understand you first, perhaps them you will understand me, and in the end we could work together more effectively, since we both are sharing a least one common domain or category, the one that it is being called "Latin American Studies". Therefore, Let us don't be afraid of learning, I don't, do you?. Now, if you don't know what I am writing about it. I repeat it, I think [strongly] that you need to change your behavior, by your behavior I mean the way you are conducting yourself when documenting your editions or summaries, making inflammatory or pejorative so often humiliating remarks, those are against the policies WP:Civility, incidentally they also don't help to anybody. Moreover, your anxiety in creating those stubs owe to be changed, nobody can do this in one week, and your seemingly need of putting all those tagged banners as if you were using cosmetics for just a ridicule amount of meaningless content in those stubs, it doesn't improve the Wikipedia at all. Is this productive? Anybody can do what you are doing, Please, build true content, there are a lot of good admins and sysops with many years doing so letting them do it these managerial affairs.
I am sure everybody is welcoming your enthusiasm, but I am also sure that not all people are happy about your interactions or the way you are conducting your business in here.
Now, no matter how long will pass, your issues will remain the same, until you become more aware of what your are doing with others and with the content. I am inviting you to be more inclusive and less dictatorial in your editions, more gentle in your manners. This is a very democratic process, and you don't have this very clear, the process also is one of the ends, being at the same time the principal mean to obtain the bigger vision, i.e., the project's mission: "To contain and organize all the human knowledge", it is the "Cognome" or our rational historical collective existence. We need calm for dealing with the eternal pressure of change and conflict. For combating this entropic state. Can you help? Also we need more and more people. Nobody can break the Wikipedia; and biting new users or any user whatsoever, you could agree on this, it is not the way to resolve issues or understand neutrality. You always can change what you want but it makes it better if were done with the approval and by consensus of the rest of editors, whomever you would have had imaged what were their worth or expertise. ♫♪ R-E-S-P-E-C-T ♪♫ do you remember this song? "First things First". lets us sing it together, evenly much better, let us practice it. Shalom. John Manuel -"-Todos Llegan de Noche, todos se van de día"00:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
JohnManuel, I'm not entirely sure what this is all about, but if the question is whether or not Machado was a mulatto, I'm more than happy for that word to be employed. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, exactly, from that link I was taking the view that "There is consensus among editors that month and day names should not be linked unless there is a specific reason that the link will help the reader to understand the article." Not a biggie, but there is far too much over-linking of dates, ignoring this consensus. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The dates need to be linked to allow for formatting, unfortunately. Full dates such as these are always linked - it's generally not a case-to-case matter. --- RockMFR01:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I think it's clear that your proposed edit (like, incidentally, your previous one) only makes the article worse. But I have neither time nor inclination to argue the point. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
►► Can you clarify it why is it that makes it worst? Do you think that Machado was black or Was he a mulatto or it doesn't matter? You have to have a position, and you have already document yours. Lets us move to the third issue. I do not want to argue either but I have observed that you go for all over the place and reverting or changing sounded and documented information that has taken time to gather and input then, we are not collaborating well, and the whole purpose is that you learn how to do this.
►► What I am looking in here is to resolve issues and the only thing I noticed works for you it is in this way since, now we can concentrate issue by issue, and in one way or other, we have resolve two of the many points already only in one article. Now, if you don't want to finish this article, write it so, if you want to continue working on its editions that by nature could and for such are debatable, we don't have choice but to learn to communicate effectively. It is nothing wrong to have differences, what is wrong is to imposed them and working as one hold the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
►► I think as editors we ought to exchange ideas and face our differences, this brings quality to the contents, and this done within every democratic process as this one. Don't you think?
►► Now, I don't have time and you don't too. This Machado's article is a way to handshake our styles. For example, if you prefer to be blatant and rude with your expression, you are entitled, I am not taking that privilege. I assuming that the likelihood of us being in the same page is very high. So we will save time and grief for our next contributions if we learn to work together, and that is my whole point.
Wishing you the very best in your endeavors, please continue enjoying your experience in Wikipedia. Remember, always explain your points specifically so we can learn from your views and so we can reach positive change quicker or bring an unrelated third party to see any important detail, these are all suggestions that I believe will improve everybody's interactions, including, of course, yours and mine. -03:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, but quickly...
As I said, I have no problem at all saying that Machado was mulatto. Indeed, that's obvious from the first paragraph of the "Life" section of the article. But I don't know why this needs to be stated in the first sentence of the article itself. For instance, the article on Jorge Amado doesn't open "Jorge Amado de Faria (August 10, 1912 – August 6, 2001) was a white Brazilian writer of the Modernist school."
I don't see much problem with the current wording of the sentences on Machado's reception in North America. Admittedly, it'd be nice to have a source for Bloom's comment, and who really cares what Woody Allen thinks. But Bloom's statement is actually interesting, and your suggested replacement is both vague and ungrammatical.
But I find it difficult to deal with the barrage of text that you produce, often dumped directly on my talk page, for changes that seem to me relatively minor and really don't have much to do with me. I don't see myself as "owner" of the Machado page. But if you wanted to improve it, I'd suggest a much longer discussion of Machado's life and work, probably after reading Schwarz's important book on him. I read a few articles by Schwarz a long while ago, but don't have time to return to them now, so don't see myself doing much to improve the article at present.
Alright, sensible good points. I think, that the book of Schwarz is really an interesting proposition, but I have read Machado and others back in my country, long time ago and also I have not interest on the subject anymore but I am using its page as an example for future interactions.
I have many authors from Latin America that you perhaps know or would like to know about it.
Now, if there are no sources, why is that sentence in there in the first place, do we need to talk about bloom. As we can take mulatto from the beginning, we also should take out altogether that sentence of Bloom and Woody. I think it will be better that way.
Also it is Biography and not life. We should use it for every biography in the future.
Arguedas, and Ciro Alegría, and much more important, José María Eguren, José Santos Chocano, Sologuren, and the king of them all César Vallejo. But I like North-American literature too and scientists (Capote, poe, Hemingway, Reeds, Henry David Thoreau, Emerson, Skinner, Ellis, Dewey, et. al.) and the European Literature (Just to mention Michael Foucault, who born in France but lived in the USA for a long time, I think he died of AIDS in it. I will check this out.), as well, so I am not focusing only in one culture or subject. I appreciate many subjects and many manifestations of knowledge and the use of our reason.
Therefore, I will erase that the last sentence in the introduction. I will put mulatto in other place but in that introduction. I have a lot of information about Machado de Assis, but I cannot input it again by now. I think that we have reached closure and we can move on in peace: Your editions will [actually] improve my contributions and my content will improve yours, both will improve the quality of entries in Wikipedia at large. I am looking forward to collaborate with you now to produce the best pages on this version of the Wikipedia. Therefore, lets be partners in this and other domains. I will communicate with you now if necessary on the talk pages of the entries in which we shall find ourselves editing. Shalom -05:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
JohnManuel, I'd be delighted to see expanded and improved articles on Arguedas, Ciro Alegría, José María Eguren, José Santos Chocano, Sologuren, and César Vallejo. AGain, at the moment I don't have time for much more than stubs (as with Javier Heraud). One thing I can help you with is tidying up your English. If you put in real content, I'm happy to help out with copy-editing. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I going to the write about the fascinating life and works of José Santos Chocano. "El Cantor de las Américas" but let me rest for a couple of days I need this weekend for myself. Anyway, I am glad that we are side by side on this subject. It is great! See you. John Manuelcollaborating-05:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i'm working on the peruvian literature article in Wikipedia en español, i'm planning to translate it in small parts to english, but my english is far from perfect. I'd like help, would you be interested in doing it? (please leave a message in my talk).--Mariocossio03:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I've translated (roughtly) the first part of the spanish article (about prehispanic tradition). it needs a bit of rework due to my non so perfect english. if you can do that, i'll take care, when it's done, of making links to the terms, persons, books, etc. Thanks. probably in more days i'll put the Colonial part.--Mariocossio03:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
i've added colonial chronists, need serious corrections.
I thought you did an admirable job of dealing with concerns of POV in the article Red Terror (Spain). It has been proposed for merger and I thought, in light of your not insubstantial contributions, you might want to make your opinion known (whatever it is). Mamalujo23:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jbmurray. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
