User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 1

Novel, Point of view
I see you totally deleted the section on "Point of view" in Novel. Did you move it somewhere, or just delete it? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:03, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * I moved the entire section to the point of view (literature) page because, though it was good, I don't think that it is not a literary device unique to the novel. Maybe there could be a couple of lines in the definition section about how novels usually use either 1st or 3rd person narration.

Mary Wollstonecraft
I have a couple questions about your contribution to the Mary Wollstonecraft article. First of all, it sounds like it was copied from a book. Did you write that text yourself? If not, it may be a violation of copyright law and Wikipedia policies to include it in the article. Also, I don't understand why you added it to the Mary Wollstonecraft article rather than the article on A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. I think a summary would be appropriate for the Mary Wollstonecraft article, but detailed commentary should be limited to the Vindication article. Kaldari 06:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not copied from a book. I'm flattered that you think so, though. If you check out my little bio, you'll see that I'm a graduate student in English literature specializing in the eighteenth century. I tend to think and write about Wollstonecraft a lot. Also, I would never want to copy from another scholar's work without giving them credit as that would undermine the point of what I do. I did notice that there was a problem with the Wollstonecraft page and plagiarism before. Not good. I was distressed to see that the page contained so little information on such an important figure. I actually feel that the entry on the VRW on the Wollstonecraft page itself is a little small. I've seen some of the science pages and even some of the philosophy pages and they are quite extensive. I don't see a reason not to make the literature pages that way as well. I actually don't think that I provided a detailed commentary at all. I would think that the VRW page would provide an extensive reception history (scholarly and non-scholarly) that would include much more than I've put here. I tried to stick to the text. "Close read," if you will. Awadewit

I'm glad to hear we have an actual authority working on the article :) The reason the article is so small right now is that the last two versions of it were discovered to be plagiarism. There is still one more requirement your writing must meet if you want it to survive for the long term. You should use inline citations to reference your writing. The more thoroughly referenced your writing is, the more likely it will survive on Wikipedia. Once an article approaches Featured Article quality, for example, virtually anything not referenced is excised from the article, in order to remove any original research or anything that is not verifiable through published sources. At lower stages of article development, simply listing references is accepted, but for Good Article and Featured Article status, you have to have inline citations. If you look at some of the biographical articles that have recently been promoted to Featured Article status, you'll see they make extensive use of inline citations (averaging about 2 per paragraph). See for example Natalie Clifford Barney, John W. Johnston, or Jake Gyllenhaal. The intro section is usually an exception. Since the intro is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, it commonly has none or 1 or 2 citations. Also, it is critical that any direct quotations or controversial claims are referenced with inline citations (Harvard style, as you have used, is acceptable although  style is far more common). For example, your assertion that Wollstonecraft supported segregating schools by economic class will probably be removed by someone unless it has a specific citation to back it up. As I'm sure you can appreciate, this is vital to make sure that Wikipedia articles are accurate. Although I'm sure you have the credentials to back up your writing, Wikipedia cannot rely on assumptions about editor's intellectual honesty and/or credentials. That's why referencing your work here is so critical. Sorry to throw so much at you at once, but I really really want you to continue contributing to Wikipedia (as there is a million to 1 crackpot to expert ratio on Wikipedia) and I don't want you to be frustrated by people removing or chopping up your writing (which will eventually happen to anything that isn't thoroughly referenced). Hope to see you around and let me know if you have any questions. P.S. - in case you're wondering, we stick fairly closely to the Chicago Manual of Style for style conventions, although there are significant diversions from it here. You may want to read over the Wikipedia Manual of Style for more info. Cheers. Kaldari 19:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice work :) Kaldari 01:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll slowly be adding sections to the Wollstonecraft page to flesh it out more. Awadewit 26 November 2006

Replied to your template posting
Hi, I replied to your message on the Template talk:18CBritChildrensLiterature page. As I say there, I'd like "Original Stories from Real Life" to be included in the template for reasons I detail, but not W. I've also changed the appearance of the template. Let me know what you think. Thanks! Sanjay Tiwari 22:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Please Add Edit Summaries!
Please add edit summaries to your edits. It is very confusing to other editors. Also in your Orginal Stories edit "National Union Catalogue" is too vague; you need to provide the exact website. According to my evidence, Carpenter and Prichard, "it was reprinted several times up to about 1835." And, there seems to be a 1820 reprint: Unknown Binding: 168 pages, Publisher: Printed and published by John Arliss, Juvenile, Library No. 38, Newgate Street (1820), Language:English; ASIN:B0008C3QDS. Thanks. Sanjay Tiwari 14:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Mary Wollstonecraft
Awedewit, just a note to say thank for the work you've put into Mary Wollstonecraft. It has been improved enormously, and I love the lead. I hope you and Kaldari will consider putting it up for FA status one day soon. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 03:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks!Awadewit 23:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hymns.pdf
Thanks for uploading Image:Hymns.pdf. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 09:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:Bio
 Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Mocko13 22:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Trojan War
I've replied at FAC- keep in mind I wasn't trying to lecture you, or tear up your BA or Masters, neither of which I have at the moment. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:SarahTrimmer.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SarahTrimmer.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 11:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Surviving the Main Page
I don't think I've ever seen an article change so little while being featured on the main page. Whether this is because of the lack of public knowledge about Wollstonecraft or because the article was so well written to begin with I don't know, but I suspect both :) Don't let the policy wonks get to you. Everyone has their pet issues and sometimes it gets very annoying. But honestly, I think the article has seen relatively little controversy given its current high profile. And ultimately the debates on spelling and date style are inconsequential. Just be glad you didn't have to debate "BC" vs "BCE"! That one isn't fun I can tell you from experience. Anyway, just wanted to say congratulations on surviving the main page exposure. Let me know if there's any way I can be of service in the future. Kaldari 00:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I knew that I was getting too worked up about it. The whole thing just seemed so silly. What about "Renaissance" vs. "Early Modern"? That's a big one in literary studies. If you have time, would you mind reviewing an article I wrote that is up for FAC right now? Any suggestions that you could offer that would improve Anna Laetitia Barbauld would be much appreciated. Awadewit 00:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Mary Wollstonecraft
I'm confused about this edit. First-wave feminism treats Wollstonecraft as part of the first wave and says that she influenced the suffragettes, also part of the first wave. ShadowHalo 00:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I wish that they had cited their sources because from what I have read (see in particular Cora Kaplan's essay in The Cambridge Companion to Wollstonecraft), Wollstonecraft's influence on feminism was mixed at best. As I try to explain in the "Legacy" section of the Wollstonecraft page, it was her biography that was most significant to later feminists. As I understand it, the Vindication was not widely read or known. Also, the First-wave feminism page asserts that Wollstonecraft's "later unfinished work "Maria, or the Wrongs of Women" earned her considerable criticism as she dared to acknowledge the existence of women's sexual desires, almost certainly becoming the first published woman writer to do so." This is most certainly untrue. Women novelists of the early eighteenth century (their works are sometimes referred to as "amatory fiction") were much more daring than those of the late century in this regard. Also, I would have to check on how much criticism this novel received. It is a fragment and was published posthumously. Wollstonecraft was indeed villified as an "oversexed" figure, but this happened largely after Godwin published his Memoirs. The page also refers to Wollstonecraft as "the grandmother of British feminism" but it is far from clear that Wollstonecraft herself was a feminist. On the A Vindication of the Rights of Woman page, I have a long quotation from Barbara Taylor, one of the foremost scholars on Wollstonecraft, explaining some of the problems with calling her a feminist at all. To then identify her, even tangentially, with a specific feminist movement (especially one that happened over a century later) is, I feel, even more anachronistic and problematic.Awadewit 01:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good then. In this case, would it be wise to simply remove the "influence" field since it simply overlaps with "subjects"?  ShadowHalo 04:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a good idea. I did not know such a thing was possible. I am not familiar with infobxoes and their ways. Awadewit 06:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hammurabi
Just a word of thanks for the peer review. It was very thorough, and extremely helpful. Mocko13 22:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. What else is peer review for? Awadewit 05:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Dartmouth
I, too, must thank you for your tips on the Dartmouth College article. Your suggestions will soon be employed.DMCer 08:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Just trying to be helpful. Awadewit 09:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies
Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of unassessed articles tagged with. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 20:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Along with writing my own pages, I have been making peer review and FAC reviews my priorities at the moment, but I will do what I can. Awadewit 21:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your editing - you're getting to the articles before I can - again, thank you for helping! --Ozgod 01:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Anna Laetitia Barbauld
Thanks so much for the great copyediting. I could use some help on A Vindication of the Rights of Woman if you have time. If you need any help on a page, just let me know. Awadewit 08:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Awadewit. Certainly, I should be glad to help you on A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. I shall be quite busy later, but when I have the time, I will start this. Well done on attaining a star for Barbauld. Brainmuncher 01:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Vindication
I'll be glad to read the article, but if you're wanting any advice or help with it, I won't be much help. I've only read the book once and that was quite some time ago. Thanks for contributing! KSchutte 21:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Well, if you feel like giving it the once over and letting me know how it reads (organization, flow, etc.), I would still appreciate that. Thanks. Awadewit 21:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I will be happy to read it over -- thanks for the invite. If you, in turn, would be interested in looking at a draft on women's writing, I would be most grateful. scribblingwoman 20:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I will take a look at it over the next few days. Thanks so much. Awadewit 20:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Anaximander
I read your review on the Article on Anaximander. I know know if I should answer here but if not, please let me know and I'll move the text where it belongs. I'll go point by point, if you don't mind. Usually, editors/writers respond on the FAC WP:FAC page under the comments like this. Awadewit 23:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I agree. I even think it's a little obscure. I'll try to develop. However, I once moved the moon reference in the biography section and was told that it should go in the lead, for diambiguation purposes, so I'll leave it there. It's only one line anyway. There is already a disambiguation page for the Anaximander crater and Anaximander himself, so I think this is unnecessary. The sentence just looks tacked on and out of place.
 * 2) What do you mean by identify? wikify, describe on the spot or in a footnote. If there is already a link to the sources, is it then really necessary to explain further? I think that you need to explain who your sources are for the reader in case they don't know. Although I have read the major Greek philosophers, for example, I did not know many of the people you were referring to. Just a give brief descriptive phrase.
 * 3) Yes it implies "known to Greeks", but it could be re-phrased to make sure it does not include the Eastern documents. That would be good, I think.
 * 4) Ouch! It's very hard to write about someone from whom we only got five lines without claiming anything stupid. You're right, it's a little choppy, but it includes all we know about his life. After all, WP is not a novel, right? If you have any suggestion about romancing it, let me know. You're right that it's not supposed to be a novel, but perhaps you could transition from one topic to another more smoothly?
 * 5) OK. Working on that. I've got tons of books that I can list there...:-)
 * 6) The sentence is as undefined as was Apeiron... But I'll try to rephrase.
 * 7) Was like that when I started. It was probably copied from the Dirk Couprie website (same look), then slightly altered, for all I know. Could you help and make it look more natural according to conventions? I'll edit it.
 * 8) It means that previously, everything came from the gods. Heavens, Earth, Ocean, Mankind, you name it. Hesiod has made a genealogy of all things.
 * 9) It means at different distances from the Earth. If you look at the models, it's quite clear. I don't think further specification is necessary.
 * 10) The process of designing it. It's all I could find to translate the French démarche. It's a vague sentence.
 * 11) Not my text. I didn't read it so I'll leave that so someone else.
 * 12) Same thing.
 * 13) Good idea. It's always good to get more than one opinion, particularly by experts. I might even send a note to Dirk Couprie, an expert on this philosopher. He gave me a hand with the French article. I'll ask him to take a look (or maybe collaborate with some edition, if we're lucky!).

My work was mainly a translation of the French text that was promoted featured article recently. I tried my best to leave untouched the elements that were already there in respect with previous editors. You must keep in mind that English is not my first language so my vocabulary has some limits. That's why I asked for help.
 * Kudos on the translation; philosophy is very difficult to translate. I definitely did keep in mind that it was a translation as I was reviewing which is why I edited why I was reviewing (I don't usually do that). Awadewit 23:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your insight. It will be taken into account.

Regards. — Robin des Bois &#9816; &#10163; &#9993; 23:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I change your text to numbered bullets to make it easier for you. Sorry for the inconvenience.
 * Once I added my comments in here, the numbers changed. I don't know why. Awadewit 20:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The software considers your comments as normal text and restarts a new bullet list each time. I know you told me not to edit some one else's text, but for education purposes, I fixed it... Robin des Bois &#9816; &#10163; &#9993; 20:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made lots of copy-editing. You may want to take a new look at it (or at the update in the peer review. I'll now ask the League of Copyeditors for some help. Thanks again for your support. — Robin des Bois &#9816; &#10163; &#9993; 06:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages with no article
I have encountered a few of those - perhaps tagging them for Speedy Delete will clear them off of Wikipedia. Thank you for helping out! --Ozgod 06:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't feel like I'm doing very much. I will keep doing what I can. Awadewit 09:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter
The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

George Bernard Shaw Biography--Peer Review.
Awadewit-I am grateful for your suggestions. You've suipplied exactly what I needed. I have printed the list and will give each item close attention. -- Wugo 15:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Awadewit 22:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessment from an article page
Thank you for helping out with the Biography assessment drive. Good news. Outriggr recently designed a script that will cut youf biography assessment time down by about ten fold (what took ten hours now may only take one hour with Outriggr's script). For more information, please see the 'assessment from article page' discussion. -- Jreferee 20:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan Peer Review
thanks very much for the comments. i'll try to work on the invasion of Grenada, and incorporating the critisisms into the article more. Again, thanks a lot.Happyme22 05:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Paolo Uccello Peer Review
Hello, Awadewit, it is nice to meet you! I'd like to thank you for your copyedit work on the Paolo Uccello article, and for the very helpful comments on the peer review. I appreciate that you spent the time to look at it. Although I did not write the article and have not yet significantly contributed to it, with the help of the review, I may "adopt" it and see what I can do to move it toward Good Article standard. I agree with you that it was a "nice start", which is why I thought to submit it for review. May I copy the comments from the Peer Review to a comments subpage of Talk:Paolo Uccello? (WPBio tag links to such a subpage - currently a red link). Do I even need to ask permission to do that, or would it be a "given" where a recent peer review exists?

Once more, thank you, and hope to talk to you again soon, Lini 11:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I hope you do "adopt" the article. I think it is perfectly acceptable to copy the comments. I have no idea why it wouldn't be. The only reason that I can think of is that if someone doesn't know their comments are in a new place, they won't have a chance to respond if someone queries or challenges them, but I think this is less likely to happen with a peer review than an FAC, for example. Awadewit 11:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan
I appreciate your voting on Ronald Reagan's featured article candidacy. Although I happen to disagree, I want to thank you. Yes, President Reagan's Autobiography is the main source, but you will see that it is only used on things are proven facts, and not so much on opinion statements. Ok, so we can improve it by adding more sources, but the article is about Ronald Reagan, and the book is written by Ronald Reagan, so I understand the point that you are trying to make, but I disagree. Happyme22 23:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * First, let me state, one cannot read an autobiography uncritically, that is, one cannot assume that all of the statements in it are true. Reagan would have had an interest in representing his life story in a particular way. That is why even basic facts have to be verified using secondary sources. But beyond basic facts, you present Reagan's analysis of his own life as a fact and as at times the undisputed interpreation. This is problematic. Here are some examples:
 * Reagan's father was a problem drinker and sporadically unemployed. - It is Reagan's decision to portray his father this way.
 * Witnessing what he believed to be inefficient and overreaching government programs firsthand, Reagan believed that liberals were naively leading the country down a road to serfdom. - this should be a quotation, not a statement of fact, if it is coming from an autobiography
 * Reagan implied that Roosevelt would have also disapproved of the change in the Democratic Party. - this should be a quotation
 * Reagan would often ask his flight crew if it would be any inconvenience to change the published flight schedule because he did not want to keep his support staff from being with their families and any family planned events. - this is Reagan's interpretation - make that clear
 * The misery index had considerably worsened during his term, which Reagan used to his advantage during the campaign. - which Reagan believed he used to his advantage - that is his interpretation of events; aa political scientist or historian would be more reliable here
 * His most influential remark was a closing question to the audience, during a time of skyrocketing prices and high interest rates, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" (a phrase he would successfully reuse in the 1984 campaign). - you should use a secondary source to prove what his "most influential remark" was, not Reagan's opinion
 * Your sole source on the "Federal Air Traffic Controllers' strike" is the autobiography? This is an event which sparked a lot of controversy. You need to have sources from across the political spectrum and from more dispassionate observers.
 * Reagan was considered a small-government conservative and supported income tax cuts, cuts to domestic government programs, and deregulation, but no one knew what concrete steps he meant to take, or whether the House (controlled by Democrats) would support him. - Reagan was considered by himself?
 * All of your citations in the "Reaganomics" section come from the autobiography as well. Reagan was not an economist. He cannot speak with any authority on these issues.
 * Nevertheless, some surveys showed that illegal drug use among Americans declined significantly during Reagan's presidency, leading supporters to argue that the policies were successful. - so quote the surveys and the supporters
 * Again, I would point out that all of your citations in the "Judiciary" section are from the autobiography. For such contentious issues, you simply cannot rely on a single source, especially one that is so biased.
 * "The invasion of Grenada," a military action, also only has citations from the autobiography.
 * Supporters responded that SDI gave Reagan a stronger bargaining position. Indeed, Soviet leaders became genuinely concerned, and SDI ended up playing a major role in ending the Cold War. - you mean, Reagan believed it did! Awadewit 00:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan
Sir, I can see that we are in a bit of an argument. tell you what- I have Reagan's autobiography, as well as many other books on Reagan. i will cite them, instead of the autobiography. if i do, will you think of supporting Ronald Reagan's featured article candidacy ( give me alittle time to do it) ? Happyme22 03:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. It's not just a matter a replacing citations. As I noted on the FAC page and implied in my brief peer review, the page seems to be written from Reagan's point of view. That is one reason I suggested integrating the criticism section into the narrative. I would have to give the page a much closer review. I can tell you right now that the page appears to me to have a pro-Regean tilt. Writing pages about recent political figures is extremely difficult because they are often polarizing and one person's idea of neutrality is not another's; that is why the editors on this page have to make an extra effort to be "fair and balanced" (and not in the FOX news sense). I applaud your effort to take on this extremely delicate and difficult task. I would suggest that you revise the page substantially, resubmit it to peer review and solicit real feedback. You did not let the article remain on the list for a very long time this time and as you can tell, sometimes it takes a while for multiple editors to review an article. I didn't even have time to go back and do a thorough review. If you let me know when you have thoroughly revised the piece, I will do a long peer review. You shouldn't be afraid of multiple revisions and even major structural changes, they tend to make pages better. And certainly Reagan is worthy of the highest-quality page that wikipedia can produce since he is a figure that many people will be looking up. Awadewit 04:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)