Wikipedia

User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 52

< User talk:Wadewitz
Latest comment: 10 years ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic The Signpost: 02 April 2014


The Signpost: 31 July 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Joseph Priestley House

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi A, presume you've seen Katbun's edits to the Joseph Priestley and Joseph Priestley House articles - anyway a question as to which of the sons were involved in the 300,000 acre land purchase on the Loyalsock Creek has come up, which I hope you are able to comment on. Please see here. Thanks, and hope all is well with you, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Responded quickly. I'm afraid I don't have time to enter into a discussion at that level of detail right at the moment. Journal article due in a week! Wadewitz (talk) 05:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks A, good luck with the article! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Anna Laetitia Barbauld

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I don't understand your objection. S. Burney is a secondary source, one writer referring to another. Please point to the section of the Wikipedia guideline that you feel is being infringed here. Thanks, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Instead of summarizing scholarship about how Barbauld's writing was received at the time, you are citing actual 19th-century writers - that is the problem (see WP:NOR). If you would like to add material about this topic to the Barbauld article, I suggest you read and use the following articles, which address this issue in much more depth:
  • Clarke, Norma. "The Cursed Barbauld Crew": Women Writers and Writing for Children in the Late Eighteenth Century." Hilton, Mary, Morag Styles and Victor Watson. Opening the Nursery Door: Reading, writing and childhood 1600-1900. London: Routledge, 1997.
  • Myers, Mitzi. “Of Mice and Mothers: Mrs. Barbauld’s ‘New Walk’ and Gendered Codes in Children’s Literature.” Feminine Principles and Women’s Experience in American Composition and Rhetoric. Eds. Louise Weatherbee Phelps and Janet Ennig. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press, 1995.
  • McCarthy, William. “Mother of All Discourses: Anna Barbauld’s Lessons for Children.” Culturing the Child, 1690-1914: Essays in Memory of Mitzi Myers. Ed. Donelle Ruwe. Lanham, MD: The Children’s Literature Association and the Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2005.
These are just a start, but do an excellent job of situating the debate you are hinting at within a historical context and follow Wikipedia's rule of summarizing peer-reviewed scholarship. Thanks! Wadewitz (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Your implication is that Burney's comment is not typical. If that is the case, of course you could cut it, or better still augment it with a couple of others to hint at the range of reactions to the new didacticism. I'm afraid I live too far from an English-speaking country to obtain the books you mention at reasonable cost. I would still like a reference in the Wikipedia guidelines to the "rule of summarizing peer-reviewed scholarship" if you have time to give me one. I don't think the Burney quotation is debating with anyone, simply an observation: fairy tales were being jostled by more didactic materials, through works by Barbauld, Trimmer, Edgeworth etc. I daresay Clarke, Norma manages to say that somewhere in her article, but to have Burney saying it is more immediate and cogent. Perhaps you have access to a copy of the article. In general I would say that few Wikipedia articles benefit if editors beginning setting each other homework. I say that Barbauld's influence on her contemporaries is important, more important, even, to an encyclopedic account of her life and writings than is her influence on scholars in the late 20th century. If you have good reason to say it is unimportant, well give them, and excise it. If not, please let the quotation stand, and augment it when you have the time or opportunity.Bmcln1 (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
You need to read the no original research policy, particularly the sections on "Reliable sources" and "Primary, secondary, and tertiary" sources, which explain that Wikipedia privileges peer-reviewed scholarship and does not allow original research (which is what you are doing here). If you would like copies of these articles, I would be happy to provide you with them. Wadewitz (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I would still maintain that Sarah Burney is a reliable original source within the meaning of the no original research policy, but I am losing interest in our disagreement, to be honest. I daresay you have worked hard on the Wiki page in question and it certainly contains a lot of interesting information. I would be most grateful if you could find a way sending me, initially, the Clarke, Norma article, as I expect it also has a bearing on several other pages I have worked on. Would it be possibly to send it as an attachment to an email? Once again, many thanks for your kind offer.Bmcln1 (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Sent! Wadewitz (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Bmcln1 that Burney is a reliable original source and using a direct quote , attributed, does not violate no original research. Her statements do not seem controversial. I am always weary of using modern sources to state how one was viewed by his/her contemporaries. Dimadick (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
But it is controversial since there was a controversy on that very topic at the time - that is why we don't use primary sources like Burney. We use secondary sources for precisely this reason - they summarize the controversies at the time. We don't decide what is and is not important to include. Wadewitz (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

your thoughts welcome...

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

...on what Wikipedians mean by the distinction between "essay-like" and "encyclopedic." See here and here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WP:FOUR RFC

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I won't have time. Sorry. Wadewitz (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Help build the Wikipedia community in Southern California at "Come Edit Wikipedia!" presented by the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, August 31st, 2013 from 1-5pm. Drop in for some lively editing and conversation! Plus, it's a library, so there are plenty of sources. --Olegkagan (talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 03:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

About the "wikistorming" project

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I'd like to show you a fairly detailed comment I posted at a website concerning an edit-a-thon that happened earlier this year - http://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/toofew-feminist-people-of-color-wikipedia-edit-a-thon-on-friday-11am-3pm-est/47265 Unfortunately it seem my comment has gone unnoticed at that site. Hope this is useful for you and the project. I'm sorry I can't really participate as I have a rather hectic academic calendar for the next few months, I would have liked to do some online mentoring. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts! I have some similar reservations about edit-a-thons, so let me give you my thoughts. In the case of the one you responded about, its primary focus was editing articles about women and women of color, so that it didn't do much with WikiProject Disability is not that surprising, but it also didn't do much with WikiProject Feminism. This is because most of the people working on the edit-a-thon didn't even know about WikiProjects. Honestly, when I do edit-a-thons, I find that it is so much work to introduce new editors to Wikipedia, that showing them around WikiProjects would not be beneficial. In fact, in four hours I can usually only show them how the site works, how to edit, and then have them add a few sentences to a paragraph. Whether or not they continue on from there depends on whether they are hooked. I've started to think in terms of a series of edit-a-thons that will get the same people back multiple times so that they will contribute more continuously - this is something that the WeHo Public Library has started trying and I'm going to try online this fall. In this case, generating relationships with WikiProjects would be really helpful. Wadewitz (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Repeated/serial edit-a-thons, now that looks like a great idea! Although it is indeed too much to expect from newbies to interact with Projects, the organisers of the event should be heavily engaged with affected WikiProjects before the event happens, as is currently the case with the event you're involved in. On a few occasions when I have followed various leads about edit-a-thons (usually when they were done and dusted) I have found blogs and other pages containing some very bad "advice or guidance" to participants - even a few that basically characterised "Wikipedians" as "the enemy" and advised the edit-a-thon participants to "avoid interacting with them because they will destroy your work with their stupid rules". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll let you know how they go! Wadewitz (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Feminist storming helping hand.

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Hello, just stopping by to offer my help with your efforts of guidance on the storming project. As a male-feminist who is also a collage college professor, I would hope that I might be able to offer some help. I'm also part of the biography project/list project/and cities project. Feel free to consult me on in-class activities and lessons for teaching students on how to edit Wikipedia; stuff I teach in my own class. My mother is a feminist professor and academic author, however, I grew up with four feminist brothers and feminist father, so I am used to places where feminist males far outnumber feminist females.

Also, I rescued this list of notable women when the List of writers in Who's Who in Contemporary Women's Writing was deleted. Me and a few other editors have been slowly creating these biographies. I thought it might be of interest to the students looking for materiel material to edit. Cheers for stepping up and guiding this group. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 00:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I find it strange that a college professor would mis-spell collage and materiel. Eric Corbett 02:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Looks to me like he spelled collage and materiel just fine. He simply has rather more problems with college and material. ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
lol, let's just say it's Friday night, I'm not an English professor, and I mostly teach engineering students. But mostly it's Friday night. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks so much! As the project gets going, I will definitely ask for your help! Wadewitz (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Joseph Priestley's election to the French National Convention

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've put a "verification needed" tag on a minor point in Priestley's article (see the talk page here). As you were the editor who originally added the information, would you still have access to the cited sources to check the statement? It was back in 2007, but I thought I'd ask. Thanks. Opera hat (talk) 11:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not at home with my books right now but will check in a couple of days when I am. Wadewitz (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

FOX News on Wikistorming

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, in case you hadn't noticed your project has attracted some attention. I made a post on the Education noticeboard trying to ensure this program was provided support from experienced wikipedians, but I see you've been here long enough that you should know what you are doing. If you haven't already, you might want to drop in at WEP to explain how the people there can help. Best of luck! -- LWG talk 01:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there has been quite a bit of press and we've been working hard to structuring classes that work well - thanks! Wadewitz (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Sense and Sensibility FAC

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there! I'm not sure if we've interacted before, but I've come across a lot of your excellent work over the years, particularly on Austen. I have one of her film adaptations, Sense and Sensibility, at FAC right now and was wondering if you had a moment to leave some comments at its nomination page? I think it would really benefit from your professional opinion. Thanks so much! Ruby 2010/2013 19:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I will look at it tomorrow! Wadewitz (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Great, thanks! :) Ruby 2010/2013 02:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I have added to the Analysis section per your helpful recommendations, and hopefully it looks a lot better. Would you mind taking another peek at the article to let me know your thoughts? Thanks! Ruby 2010/2013 05:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

ThatCampPhilly Edit-a-thon Invitation

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
 Please join the Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at THATCamp Philly, September 27, 2013, held at the Chemical Heritage Foundation. Bring your own content to work on, or get an early start on Ada Lovelace Day with our resources about women in science, chemistry and the history of science. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Joseph Priestley, Materialist philosopher

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

My additions to the Priestley page were not my interpretations but are almost word for word what he states in his book only rephrased. His book is freely available online on OpenLibrary so you can verify for yourself. If we are going to have a page about what Priestley said, it makes more sense that this would be a case where a primary source is acceptable. If you look at the verifiability policy in Wikipedia, it doesn't say that primary sources are prohibited. It says they are acceptable in certain cases. The information that was quoted on the page prior to my edit shows a clear lack of understanding of what Priestley did write and was probably written by somebody who never read any of his works. Also, Priestley never "contended that discussing the soul is impossible". That is a most outrageous statement considering that he goes in great length in his book and DOES INDEED discuss it and the history of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwigwam (talk • contribs) 22:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It is very rare to use primary sources - we do so only in the cases that interpretation can't be disputed. In the case of what Priestley meant in any religious context, it is clearly impossible to have a definitive opinion, which is why we cite experts in the field. Wikipedia is based on peer-reviewed scholarship, not on our own personal readings of the primary sources. Wadewitz (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks I see. Well if I do ever find an acceptable source or at least a source that makes more sense I'll be sure to update the page. I question whether or not the paragraph that makes an interpretation of the various sources listed is even correct in what the sources said, but I don't have access to those books, so I can't verify. Sirwigwam (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men#Cabinet Cyclopedia

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Time to revisit this article. I have done bibliographical work on the Cabinet Cyclopædia, sufficient to make a standalone article. There is plenty more to say there about the genesis of the Cyclopædia, but evidently that all ties in with applying summary style to Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men in a way that has consensus behind it.

What would be really interesting would be to have the article at the more general level: "Family library", to cover this phase in the evolution of popular reading matter. I actually got to Lardner's work through doing other libraries of the time: Constable's Miscellany, Murray's Family Library, the Edinburgh Cabinet Library (and also The Englishman's Library, which is an outlier). Charles Matthews (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

See my response on the article talk page. Queeralice (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Edit-a-thons at UC Riverside

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The UCR Libraries are hosting three edit-a-thons focusing on their great special collections (science fiction, water resources, the Inland Empire and more) on Oct. 12, 2013, Oct. 26, 2013, and Nov. 23, 2013. Please participate if you can! Details and signup here. All are welcome, new and experienced editors alike! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 04:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Phoebe! I'm here now! Queeralice (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Queeralice: awesome! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 01:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Burroughs-Ali'sSmile.ogg listed for deletion

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Burroughs-Ali'sSmile.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Help with your discussion for Campus Ambassador application: Aashaa

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear!
Recently I apply for Campus Ambassador Program. Please suggest and discuss here on my proposal. For being support and promote wikipedia and wiki culture at my country and my university, you're comments will be helpful.
Thank You--Aashaa (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Fanny Bullock Workman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Victorian, Third-person, First-person and The Standard

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fanny Bullock Workman may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[File:Kun and Pinnacle.jpg|right|thumb|[[Mount Kun]] (center} and [[Pinnacle Peak (Jammu and Kashmir)|Pinnacle Peak]] (left) from the Suru Valley]]
  • Fanny climbed up to [[Pinnacle Peak (Jammu and Kashmir)|Pinnacle Peak]] ({{convert|22,735|ft|m}}) (but what she believed to be {{convert|23,263|ft|m}}, what Isserman and Stewart call her "greatest

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Emile

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I saw your note at Talk:Emile, or On Education#Assistance from a while back. Not sure if you'd still have the time or interest, but I'm planning on working on the article soon, perhaps in January, if you're interested in collaborating. czar ♔ 22:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time to do full-scale research, but I'd be happy to help organize, copyedit, and review. Wadewitz (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Requesting your opinion

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this consensus discussion? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time at the moment. Apologies! Wadewitz (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia LGBT

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Wadewitz, User:Sadads suggested I contact you regarding Wikimedia LGBT, which I am thankful for since I did not remember to ping you on my own...

I just wanted to bring Wikimedia LGBT, a proposed user group and thematic organization that promotes the development of content on Wikimedia projects which is of interest to LGBT communities, to your attention. I am sure you are so busy with your current projects, but I hope you might be able to direct people to this group if they are interested in LGBT content in any way. Of course, you are also more than welcome to indicate your interest/support, if you wish. Hopefully we can get some LGBT-related GLAM/Education/etc. projects up and running in the near future. Best, --Another Believer (Talk) 21:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:MichaelJacksonMoonwalk.ogg listed for deletion

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MichaelJacksonMoonwalk.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Contributing to Commons brochure: draft PDF

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
draft PDF

Hi Adrianne! Please have a look at the latest draft of the Contributing to Wikipedia brochure. In particular, have another look at your quotes. A more authentic and concise quote for the cover would be especially good. And any other suggestions for improving it before we finalize the design will be welcome as well. You can email me, or post to the draft talk page. Thanks again for being a superstar!--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Done! Wadewitz (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Final comments on Editing Wikipedia brochure?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for your comments on a previous version of the new draft of the (formerly known as Welcome to Wikipedia, now known as) Editing Wikipedia brochure. We need all final comments on the draft by Monday, 23 December 2013. Add any final comments here! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays...

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Happy Holidays
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Holiday greetings!

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
 Happy Holidays!

Victoria

 


Merry Christmas and best wishes for a happy, healthy and productive 2014!
Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holiday season....

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Cheers, pina coladas all round!
Damn need a few of these after a frenetic year and Xmas. Hope yours is a good one....Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Mary Wollstonecraft maintenance template

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've taken the liberty of updating the {{maintained}} template at Talk:Mary Wollstonecraft in accordance with your name change; I was casually reading the talk page and found it confusing, and I think an editor commenting there (to suggest a change for example) would too. I hope you don't mind.

Sincerely, הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Main Page appearance: Rambles in Germany and Italy

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is a note to let the main editors of Rambles in Germany and Italy know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 3, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 3, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Rambles in Germany and Italy is a travel narrative by the British Romantic author Mary Shelley (pictured). Issued in 1844, it describes two European trips that she took with her son and some of his friends. She had lived in Italy with her husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley, between 1818 and 1823 and it was associated with joy and grief: she had written much there but had also lost her husband and two children. Shelley presented her material from what she describes as "a political point of view", challenging the convention that it was improper for women to write about politics. Her aim was to arouse English sympathy for Italian revolutionaries, having associated herself with the "Young Italy" movement when in Paris on her second trip. Although Shelley herself thought the work "poor", it found favour with reviewers who praised its independence of thought, wit, and feeling, and her political commentary on Italy. However, for most of the 19th and 20th centuries, Shelley was usually known only for Frankenstein and her husband. Rambles was not reprinted until the rise of feminist literary criticism in the 1970s provoked a wider interest in her entire corpus. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

New features for course pages

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Several noticeable improvements to the EducationProgram extension (in addition to some small bug fixes) will go live on or around 2014-01-23:

Notifications

All participants in a course (students, instructors, volunteers) will receive Notifications whenever their course talk page is edited. Thus, editors can use course talk pages to send messages they want the whole class to be aware of, and the class participants are likely to see them.

Special:Contributions student notice

For users enrolled as students in courses that are active, a notice will appear at the top of Special:Contributions noting which course(s) they are enrolled in. This will make it easy for users who come across the work of student editors to find out that they are part of a course and identify other class participants.

Adding articles

Course instructors and volunteers will be able to assign articles to student editors, instead of all articles needing to be added by the student editors themselves.

Adding students

Instructors and volunteers will be able to add users as students in courses, instead of all student editors needing to enroll for themselves. This makes it easier to maintain complete lists of students, and also makes the extension more suitable for tracking participation in edit-a-thons, workshops and other collaborative projects beyond the Wikipedia Education Program.


If you have feedback about these new features, or other questions or ideas related to course pages, please let me know! --Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Subscribe or unsubscribe from future Wikipedia Education Program technical updates.


The Signpost: 22 January 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Main Page appearance: Rambles in Germany and Italy

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is a note to let the main editors of Rambles in Germany and Italy know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 13, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 13, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Rambles in Germany and Italy is a travel narrative by the British Romantic author Mary Shelley (pictured). Issued in 1844, it describes two European trips that she took with her son and some of his friends. She had lived in Italy with her husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley, between 1818 and 1823 and it was associated with joy and grief: she had written much there but had also lost her husband and two children. Shelley presented her material from what she describes as "a political point of view", challenging the convention that it was improper for women to write about politics. Her aim was to arouse English sympathy for Italian revolutionaries, having associated herself with the "Young Italy" movement when in Paris on her second trip. Although Shelley herself thought the work "poor", it found favour with reviewers who praised its independence of thought, wit, and feeling, and her political commentary on Italy. However, for most of the 19th and 20th centuries, Shelley was usually known only for Frankenstein and her husband. Rambles was not reprinted until the rise of feminist literary criticism in the 1970s provoked a wider interest in her entire corpus. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Women and Wikipedia: Any interest in doing an interview?

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Wadewitz. I'm a PhD student at the University of Washington, and I'm currently doing an interview-based study about women and Wikipedia. I was, in fact, largely inspired by your comments on the HASTAC blog. (So, thanks!) I'd love to interview you if you've the time and willingness. You can find my email via my Wikimedia project page (and read more about the project), or you can reply here or on my user page.--Mssemantics (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to be interviewed and I'm so glad you are undertaking this project! You should know, however, that many, many, many of the these surveys have been done, so there is some fatigue among women editors at answering the same questions over and over. One key question that hasn't really been answered well (with data) is why women leave Wikipedia or why they don't join in the first place. I wonder if you could try to answer that as well! Much harder, I know, but potentially much more groundbreaking! Wadewitz (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Great ideas... this is my first study and what I'm trying to get at is why women are motivated to stay in the community and participate. I'd love to do a follow-up study re: why women leave. I'd actually love to do a longitudinal case study with new editors, too. So many plans... :) Please let me know when you're free to chat, and we can set up a Google Hangout, Skype, or old fashioned phone call.--Mssemantics (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Would you be available tomorrow? I'm pretty free. Perhaps 10am Pacific? Wadewitz (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Tomorrow at 10am Pacific works well for me. Just let me know how you'd like to connect. Thanks again!--Mssemantics (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Google hangout is good. You can send me your email address through the "email this user" function. Thanks! Wadewitz (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Education Program technical update, February 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We've started working on "editor campaigns", a system that we expect will eventually be able to replace our current Education Program extension (and be useful for many other purposes as well). The early work with that project will focus on a system for signup up new editors for editing campaigns (such as courses, but also edit-a-thons, Wiki Loves Monuments, etc.). Because of that, progress will be slow on the current course page system. However, we have several improvements that should be available within the next few weeks.

Anyone can edit the main text of course pages

As part of the effort to make course pages behave more like regular wiki pages, we've enabled editing of course pages by anyone. Users who currently have the right to edit courses will have access to all the fields (so that they can change the start/end dates, and change the enrollment token). Users who currently cannot edit courses will be able to edit only the "page text" portion. This change should take effect on 2014-02-27.

Simplified course editing interface

We've considerably simplified the interface for editing course pages, removing the options to rename courses. Changing the title of a course would also move the course page, creating confusion and leading to a number of bugs. Several other parts of the course editing interface were not very useful, so we've removed them to make it easier on newcomers. This change should take effect on 2014-02-27.

Additional Notifications

Two students participating in the Facebook Open Academy mentorship program are currently working on additional Notifications for course pages. For the first of these, users will be notified whenever someone else adds them to a course.

Once again, if you have feedback about these new features, or other questions or ideas related to course pages, please let me know!--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Subscribe or unsubscribe from future Wikipedia Education Program technical updates.

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

March 9 edit-a-thon at MOCA in downtown LA

LA Meetup: March 9 edit-a-thon at MOCA
 

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

You have been invited to a meetup and edit-a-thon at the Museum of Contemporary Art in downtown Los Angeles on Sunday, March 9, 2014 from 11 am to 6 pm! This event is in collaboration with MOCA and the arts collective East of Borneo and aims to improve coverage of LA art since the 1980s. (Even if contemporary art isn't your thing, you're welcome to join too!) Please RSVP here if you're interested.

I hope to see you there! User:Calliopejen1 (talk)

To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Unforgetting L.A. at MOCA

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for your RSVP! We look forward to seeing you today at MOCA. A few notes on today:
*We'll be working outside on the Grand Ave. sculpture plaza (upstairs from box office).
*There are street closures today for the L.A. Marathon. The streets near the museum should be open during the hours of the edit-a-thon, but you may want to check your route.

Stop by anytime 11am-6pm with your laptop computer + power adapter, and any reference materials you'd like to work from or share; we've also prepared reference files on about 40 artists, curators, and organizations that you can work from, if you don't already have an article in mind. I will be leading orientations every hour on the hour, so new users might prefer to arrive then. For those of you who are experienced Wikipedia editors and have indicated you are able to help, please introduce yourself as an editor when you check-in. We'll be distributing badges so that new users can identify you and ask for help as needed. Thanks & see you soon! StaceyEOB (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Novel of circulation

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Perhaps of interest to you. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello from California!

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Welcome to Wikipedia! Queeralice (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Steph Davis may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * 2008, ''Concepcion'' 5.13b/c, [[Moab, Utah]]]] — Third ascent of the route, first woman to [[redpoint (climbing)|redpoint]] it.{{citation needed}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wadewitz/Archive_52&oldid=1168309658"