User talk:JimmyButler

	; Archives (Index) ;
	23; 24; 25;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

_ :-)

Hi There, welcome aboard. Again :) David D. (Talk) 22:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And welcome (back) from me too. You did some RReally gRReat woRRk, and I'm looking forward to seeing you in action once again. I'd suggest a more random selection of articles, though, and not getting too stressed replicating all your efforts in just the one place. I find that attending to a batch of articles on English grammar is a great de-stressing strategy! Snalwibma (talk) 08:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wb :)--Filll (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to make contact again. One day I'll revisit IntrotoEvo properly, read the whole thing with fresh eyes, see what it looks like, think about how it might be improved - and probably do nothing! But it's pretty good as it is. Congratulations to you, above all people. I notice that our friend A******** has made zero edits since 31 Jan. I presume it was a one-purpose sock of some sort. Meanwhile, I'm pretty busy IRL and just glancing at WP once in a while. Snalwibma (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you punch in ... even if it’s only a glancing blow. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Introduction to evolution

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

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Mr. Butler, I am working on the bog turtle page and have been trying super hard to put in as much references as possible to ensure reliability, but in the macaroni penguin (FA) article there are absolutely no references in the lead...at all. What should this tell me?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines say that there should be no significant information in the lead that is not also in the main part of the article. This means that if all parts of the guideline are followed, any needed reference can be found in the main part of the article. If there is a complaint about a missing reference in the lead, the answer should be a pointer to the reference in the main article. If this is missing, it should be added in the main article. If the statement is missing in the main article, then it should be added there, together with the requested reference. --Ettrig (talk) 10:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So if we have something in the lead that is not "sighted," than we can put it in the main content of the article and cite it their? But isn't that a little redundant, something not acceptable and GA or FA status?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. The basic idea is that as the lead is a summary of the article, then anything said there would also be said (and cited) in the article itself, so to cite it again in the lead would be redundant. One of the few exceptions to that rule of thumb is direct quotations, which must always be cited when they appear. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

You said I have made an error on citations, What do I need to do?Reddevil1421 (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can go through the article and give/use refnames. Bloody formatting.--Yohmom (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what I can do. I went through and put in ref names so it cuts down on the edit page clutter. There appears to be stuff in the reference section that isn't even used in the article? Also, there seems to be some basic typos (Why does Karen Swain have a # before her name, etc...?).--Yohmom (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helping out

Hello there Mr. Butler. I've been watching the progress that your students have been making, and I have to say, I'm quite impressed. However, there is obviously still quite a bit of work that could be done. I don't want to do work that your students should be doing themselves, but I do wish to help out. Is there anything that you think your students need help with in particular at the moment? Cheers, NW (Talk) 23:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of last years project, I would have killed for help with general formatting (albeit, I couldn't have asked for better mentors :D ). Perhaps lend a hand with converstion templates in articles like Pudú?--Yohmom (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm not putting too much work into the articles. I don't want to do too much that the students ought to be doing themselves. NW (Talk) 01:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this issue and the two above should rather have been discussed on the project talk page. --Ettrig (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I - like my students- appreciate all the help we can get!!!Perhaps not the weekend to be away from the machine; however, things seemed to have taken a big leap forward. Nothing like a deadline to instill motivation. What I am now hoping for is a sincere and thorough critique of all four articles regarding their GA potential. I suspect (hope) that the experts will hold them to the highest expectations leaving suggestions that will guide them to a truly GA product and if time permits something to consider for FA. (Copied on Project Page).--JimmyButler (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scotch Bonnet

Hi Jimmy Butler, I wanted to say that the article on the Scotch Bonnet snail Semicassis granulata falls under WikiProject Gastropods, as is noted on the talk page. There are two or three of us editors who are very active contributors in the gastropod project, and when we look at the article in its current stage, we see a huge amount of things we can do to improve it, both major and minor. Normally when a gastropod article comes up for Good Article review, we would be all over it fixing it up intensively. However we are reluctant to interfere too much in this interesting educational process. Do you suggest that we confine ourselves to suggestions? Normally we cannot be reviewers for an article that is within our own project. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of information Invertzoo you certainly can be a reviewer for articles within your own project, so long as you have not contributed significantly to them. One way forward might be for you to undertake the GA review, and make your suggestions there. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks Malleus, two of us from Project Gastropods will go ahead and help review the article, but unless Jimmy Butler tells us anything to the contrary, we will try to confine ourselves to doing only minor edits. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also on (User talk:Invertzoo) page. Thank you for your willingness to provide attention to the Scotch Bonnet article. First, I recognize that no one holds ownership over any content within Wikipedia; therefore this is only a humble request. It is my hopes that the students will perform the lions share of work especially in the area of content research. They would likely need guidance on formatting issues and organization. It is a fine line between help and enabling; especially with this crew - who wait for the dead lines and respond to help request with phrases like "all of it". Perhaps pointing out the errors and forcing them to seek solutions where-ever possible - the fewer direct edits the better. Hopefully, the GA review process will be both brutal and thorough - holding them accountable for their short comings. I don't believe the current GA nomination represents their true potential - in fact - I sense they are throwing a hail Mary pass and hoping for divine intervention. Again, thanks for exercising patience; eventually they should catch on that this project requires an expenditure of time and effort! Feel free to prod them in that direction. Cheers! --JimmyButler (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your message. I do hope they can pull it together for their sake. I left a note telling them the text really needs a huge amount of work. We will try to keep an eye on the article and reviews right up to the final deadline. If they can't manage to get it up to GA status we will go ahead and do that after they are finished. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Bog Turtle

Mr. Butler, we got GA!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Pudu

We got GA as well!

Lisa Anne93 (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea!

I want to thank you for your attempts to involve your AP Biology class in contributing to Wiki. It's a great idea. For the past year I have been trying to get a former instructor in animal ethics to do the same with Animal Rights and Animal Welfare articles. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to convince him to try it despite my offer to act as a mentor for his students. I just wish more instructors would take this approach (as long as they understand what's involved and learn to do it well).

If you want, you can learn more about me on my Wiki page. I am primarily interested in re-writing all the lemur articles and getting as many of them to FA status. (Therefore if your students decide to target those articles, it would be worth coordinating with me beforehand.) Specifically, my current project involves a massive re-write of the Lemur article – something that has taken over 200 hours so far (offline) and will require at least another 100 hours to complete. Again, you can read a little more about it on my Wiki page.

Anyway, best wishes and keep in touch. –Visionholder (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Realism Reconsidered

Looks like someone else is back at it again. --Yohmom (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes .... with such a small group. I was wondering when they would return. Wow - very challenging options - I think we need to stay over here and just focus on sea shells for now! Two of them are repeat offenders; with impressive Wiki edit history already. --JimmyButler (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At a college no less. Montanabw^(talk) 05:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scotch bonnet, Semicassis granulata article, a shameful mess

Hi again Jimmy Butler, I just wanted to let you know that I left this message for the students who are tacking this gastropod article. I must say that the work on the bog turtle article came together beautifully. The work on the Scotch bonnet article is a whole different story though. Here is what I said:

"This article has been through several stages where virtually the whole thing was a really shameful mess, an embarrassment to Wikipedia, and currently it is still is unacceptably riddled with all kinds of different errors. The WikiProject Gastropods editors who have been keeping an eye on this article over these weeks that this AP Biology assignment has been in progress, well, we have only left it the way it was out of respect for the educational process that is supposedly going on here, otherwise we would have been implementing a slash and burn policy on a lot of the content (which of course we could not do without simultaneously fixing the article up using our own labor and information we had researched and found.)"

When an article is being worked on, during the time that its accuracy is seriously flawed, the article should not be up in article space! It should be kept in user space (a subpage of one of the users) and worked on there until the information is reliable enough to go into the encyclopedia, and only then should it be put up. "

In addition, Project Gastropods editors have left numerous notes to the AP biology students in the reviews of this article, but our notes and offers of help have not been replied to directly, no thanks have been offered, and many of our suggestions have been ignored, brushed aside or dealt with by simple deletion of material."

This has been a very disappointing and frustrating experience, and I for one would not want to repeat it next year or any year in the future."

Invertzoo (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

All I can say is congratulations on your brightest and hardest-working students Jimmy. You have my sympathy when it comes to the less motivated or less able ones!

Best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your nice note. Oh yes I am sure there was some wonderful work all things considered, and no question it was/is an intense learning experience for all of the students. I did not check the other topics, apart from bog turtle, which was excellent. Perhaps I should not have been quite so brusque in how I felt about the process for the Scotch bonnet article, but I wanted that particular group of students to know they had flubbed the process pretty badly as far as I was concerned, despite the fact that two of us from Project Gastropods did offer to help them with it and indeed tried to help them from the sidelines. We also did try to make sure we didn't just wade in and simply "take over" the article. It's not easy to be a good teacher, I know that first hand, and I think you probably are one. So anyway, I guess the whole process ends on Friday. Good luck and best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Yes, absolutely, you are right that failures can indeed be a learning experience, in fact I always say that we don't learn very much at all if we don't make mistakes. Mistakes are very valuable precisely because we can learn the most from them. I am sure that this group thought, "An article on a seashell, how hard could that be, right?" And indeed writing a simple stub article on a sea snail species is often not very difficult at all. But getting enough decent reliable info together to get a Wikipedia stub article on a snail species up to the quality needed for GA status, well that can be really quite hard, even for us. (As yet the Gastropod project has only four GA status articles out of 6000, and no FAs yet at all, although to be fair, we have been putting most of our efforts into getting better overall coverage, rather than upgrading individual articles.) I am not sure whether this particular article should actually be reverted back to a stub or not. There are a few OK things in it now, and it has improved over how it was last week, when I was really tempted to take it back to a stub because so much of it was so very misleading! However, even now a fair amount of it is still taken from rather poor quality sources, or from the Invertebrate Zoology textbook. Snek and I were going to wait until the AP project is completely over, and then "attack" the article with a massive clean up. I have made myself unpopular enough with the comments I have already made, so I would rather not be associated with any more steps in the negative direction. I am sure that the overall effect of your AP Bio Project this year has been a positive one, both for your students and for Wikipedia. All good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help with dermatology-related content

I am looking for more help at the dermatology task force, particularly with our Bolognia push!? Perhaps you would you be able to help us? I could send you the login information for the Bolognia push if you are interested? ---kilbad (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time up?

Hi Jimmy, I just wanted to check and see when the official time period for the AP Bio Project is up. Is it over at the end of today, or not till Monday? You said the class ends this coming Monday, so I was not sure. Best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bog Turtle

Hi Jimmy! Great AP Bio Project with your students - I'm happy to see someone doing this. I helped a couple of your students out with the Bog Turtle article and just threw in a few facts and references. Hope this helps. Your students are doing a great job. I've seen your comments posted on some of my earlier wiki posts - when I first started I was kinda defensive about stuff, but have cooled off as I learn the ropes. Lately I've been working on ecology and I'm looking for some feedback/editorial help in that section if you are interested. Take care!!!Thompsma (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you had listed it for a GA review. Hopefully you will find an editor that can give it a thorough review. I've been dorking with a review of the Intro to Evolution - ran out of students articles to grade. It has the potential to be good; however, I'm very disappointed that it appeared and was accepted without any scrutiny... its not that good. No doubt I'll step on some toes before its over. It is virtually impossible to not become emotional when you invest time and deep thought into a subject. Criticism to the content can't help but be taken personally. My students thought that was a bit nerdy - until their efforts came under the microscope. What can you do!? I guess just remember that everyone has the same goal and attacks on the article are just that and nothing more. Of course - I blocked my own account for a year so I could cool off - no role model here. The bog turtle and Pudu Deer are our best hope for FA... I'm not sure where to go with this second semester since the others fell a tad bit short of our goal. Of course we appreciate all the help we can get. I'd be delighted to read over the Ecology entry; however, my editorial skills are rather primitive and I'm the classic biology teacher (know a little about a lot of things but a lot about nothing. Cheers.--JimmyButler (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep me informed on the online wiki projects - I really enjoyed helping out and have great hope for the Bog Turtle article. It is a great article as it is. I'm planning to do my thesis research this upcoming spring. I will have three study groups - group one will learn about ecology through outdoor education, group two will learn through a combination of museum/live specimens in cages, and group three will be doing an online learning approach. I am thinking of wikipedia for the third study group. As an educator, you might be interested in: [www.richardlouv.com] - you will enjoy reading it if you haven't already. The intro to evolution article needs some professional help. I am really knowleagable about evolution, but would find it hard to write the introducatory fundamentals without getting overly technical. I think I managed to strike a good balance on the ecology page and I am hoping that it could be nominated for FA status. I like the seashell idea. You might be interested in reading Geerat Vermeij's book "Priveleged Hands: A Scientific Life" as an inspirational story. Vermeij was a blind palaeontologist who studied sea shells through his career. I also put Long-toed Salamander together - but it needs some work to get up to FA status as well.Thompsma (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signs and symptoms

Having gone through the GA review on Hypertrichosis I have come to realize that WP:MED does not have a formal recommendation on structure for pages pertaining to signs and symptoms. I am thus trying to put something together and would appreciate any input. [1] BTW looking at the page on hypertrichosis it is well done.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interest in your AP Biology Project

I noticed your AP Biology student project. What a great idea. I also teach AP Biology (in Bangor, Maine) and would be interested in doing something similar with with my students. Would you mind if I hoped on your band wagon and asked you for advice about it? Earthdirt (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Earthdirt! We should form a collaborative group. I just wrote JimmyButler about a similar idea. I'm not a teacher, but I'm doing my MEd degree in ecoliteracy education. Next spring I will be starting my research and would like to involve students in an ecology / natural history wiki project. When I get closer to the time I will be starting this - I will post here.Thompsma (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be delighted to share my insights; it has been a continuous learning process. The one essential element is involvement of editors outside of your classroom. Without that, it is just another boring research paper. We have been fortunate to have attracted the interest of some talented editors in the Wiki community. From Thompsma's comment above, you are on your way to doing the same. Wassupwestcoast was the key contributor in setting up the project page and establishing many of the guidelines; however, I'm uncertain of his time constraints. Feel free to post here or use the email option. Jbmurray set the standards and his written several commentaries on his experiences; you may wish to review his site as well.