User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 49

Archive 45←Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51→Archive 53

Talk back

Hello, Wadewitz. You have new messages at LoriLee's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

The Signpost: 7 November2011

Peer review

Hi Awadewit - sorry to bug you but I was wondering if you could give the feminism article a quick read in light of WP:GA Criteria & WP:FA Criteria--Cailil talk 14:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Will do my best to get to it this weekend. Awadewit (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
That's great and thanks again!--Cailil talk 01:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Just letting you know that feminism is now a GA. I'd still be very interested in getting your eye on it re WP:FACR if you get a chance--Cailil talk 15:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

Wikiproject Medicine concerns

Hi Awadewit.

Hope you are well. I'm here because of some concerns raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#A bunch of students. I got woken up to this huge Wikipedia/teaching thing when the edits of a class of 1500 students started showing up on WP:MED watchlists. As you'll see from that discussion, I started pretty ignorant about the whole thing and have only now discovered how big and organised it all is. And then from reading the rather good "Wikipedia as a Teaching Tool: Learning Objectives and Assignments Types" page on outreach.wikimedia.org I discovered it was written by you. So that's where you've gone! I have concerns about one particular class being run on the Canada Education Program where IMO the class is too big, students lack support, and the assignment isn't appropriate. What can we do? Can you help? Thanks -- Colin°Talk 19:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

Peer review of Tiruchirappalli

Can you drop in with your comments?-RaviMy Tea Kadai 04:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

Holiday wishes...

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 17:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Season's greetings

and best wishes for 2012!
Thanks for all you do here, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Children's Museum update

Kit Cat Klock

It's time again to share the latest news on the Children's Museum of Indianapolis Wikipedia project! In the last few months we have been busy with our third image donation, which was made up of 150 images that were professionally photographed specifically for this upload. We are asking for volunteers to categorize these images and distribute them into Wikipedia articles. Your help is appreciated! Check them out here.

We have also donated our first video and a second GLAM-Wiki Infographic to Commons. In September we were thrilled to welcome Jimmy Wales to the museum. Following our successful Edit-a-Thon and Translate-a-Thon in August, translations have continued with the help of the established QRpedia community, (particularly Russian translations thanks to Lvova!) We have begun to analyze our implementation of QRpedia codes and completed an extensive case study. In November we presented at the Museum Computer Network conference about how museums can effectively collaborate with Wikipedia. You can see more details on the Prezi.

In more general news, in addition to serving as the Children's Museum's Wikipedian-in-Residence, it was recently announced that I will be taking on the role of US Cultural Partnerships Coordinator for the Wikimedia Foundation. In this role I will be working to streamline the process of connecting interested US GLAMs with the Wikipedia community. If you have any questions or suggestions, feel free to let me know. Be sure to sign up for This Month in GLAM to keep up with the latest GLAM-Wiki news from around the world (subscribe).

We have a listing of High Need and Moderate Need requests on the Ways to Help section on the project page. I encourage you to lend a hand if you're able. While the Children's Museum partnership continues to truck along, we still are in desperate need of volunteers to help disperse our images and update and maintain content. Thank you for your time and help. Happy holidays! LoriLee (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

Main page appearance: Sarah Trimmer

This is a note to let the main editors of Sarah Trimmer know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 6, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 6, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Sarah Trimmer

Sarah Trimmer (1741–1810) was a noted writer and critic of British children's literature in the eighteenth century. Her periodical, The Guardian of Education, helped to define the emerging genre by seriously reviewing children's literature for the first time; it also provided the first history of children's literature, establishing a canon of the early landmarks of the genre that scholars still use today. Trimmer's most popular children's book, Fabulous Histories, inspired numerous children's animal stories and remained in print for over a century. Trimmer was in many ways dedicated to maintaining the social and political status quo in her works. As a high church Anglican, she was intent on promoting the Established Church of Britain and on teaching young children and the poor the doctrines of Christianity. Her writings outlined the benefits of social hierarchies, arguing that each class should remain in its God-given position. Yet, while supporting many of the traditional political and social ideologies of her time, Trimmer questioned others, such as those surrounding gender and the family. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

Good to see you reviewing again

...even if it was only a once-off. Also I'm glad to see that your college project seems to be thriving. I hope things continue to go well. Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Whenever I see polar expeditions in the news I think of you! :) Awadewit (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

"Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" source verification

Hello. Could you please help me verify a source in "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe"? I posted my issue on its talk page: Talk:Cartman Gets an Anal Probe#Directed by. Thank you! --Mondotta (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Sample conversation

Why do you like to read YA lit? Crazykaystar (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Because I like bildungsromane. Crazykaystar (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Fancy SAT word. Crazykaystar (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
It constantly keeps me picturing how I'll teach a high school English class someday. Rowenator (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Conversation about the weather

So, how about the ice storm? Rkvist (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

i didn't see any ice. Rkvist (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
i love ice - it is all slippery and stuff.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkvist (talk • contribs) 00:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Weather

The weather here sucks. Grapefr00t (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

little women

who was the oldest girl? Dmbfan85 (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

meg was the oldest, however jo often seemed more mature. Dmbfan85 (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

Main page appearance: Cartman Gets an Anal Probe

This is a note to let the main editors of Cartman Gets an Anal Probe know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 7, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 7, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

"Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" is the pilot episode of the animated television series South Park. It first aired on Comedy Central in the United States on August 13, 1997. The episode introduces child protagonists Eric Cartman, Kyle Broflovski, Stan Marsh and Kenny McCormick, who attempt to rescue Kyle's younger brother Ike from being abducted by aliens. At the time of the writing of the episode, South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone did not yet have a series contract with Comedy Central, and Parker later commented that they felt "pressure" to live up to the internet shorts that were the precursors to the series, and which first made them popular. Short on money, the duo animated the episode using paper cutout stop motion technique. As such, "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" remains the only South Park episode animated largely without the use of computer technology. Part of a reaction to the culture wars of the 1980s and 1990s in the United States, South Park is deliberately offensive. Much of the show's humor, and of "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe", arises from the juxtaposition of the seeming innocence of childhood and the violent, crude behavior exhibited by the main characters. The episode also exemplifies the carnivalesque, which includes humor, bodily excess, linguistic games that challenge official discourse, and the inversion of social structures. Initial reviews of the episode were generally negative; critics singled out the gratuitous obscenity of the show for particular scorn. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion for Forever

What did you think of the ending of Forever? JustBreve (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It felt rushedJustBreve (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

Adolescent Literature Spring 2012 (Adrianne Wadewitz)

Hello! I remember when you used to edit as Awadewit. User:JMathewson (WMF) left me a message about your class on my talk page, and I've signed up on the Course Page as an Online Ambassador to help your class. It doesn't look like the students have asked the Online Ambassadors for help yet, but please let them know that I would be more than happy to assist them. The more they practice using WP, the sooner they will get used to the software. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help them. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Great - thanks! I really needed an Online Ambassador. I'm not asking the students to find their own (too difficult), so I will direct them to you. I really appreciate your help! Wadewitz (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Happy V-day! I took a look at the talk page of one of the students, and I noticed that it does not have the "Welcome" notice with the usual links. Should I add one, or did you decide that you'd rather not add it to their talk pages? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Your work is being discussed.

Also, shame on you. --Moni3 (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


More shame. Kind of. But definitely a more interesting venue. --Moni3 (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

Dan Leno

Hi. I imagine that you're always swamped with review requests, but I thought you might find this one of particular interest: The article on Dan Leno, the British musical comedy and music hall star of the 1880s and 1890s, has recently been much expanded and is headed towards FA consideration. If you have time, please be so kind as to take a look at the article and comment at this Peer Review [on the talk page]. Thanks for any assistance! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll try! If I don't get to it within a week, ping me again! Wadewitz (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Here I am, pinging you again.  :-) (The peer review is closed, so you can just comment on the talk page). -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have time for a FAC review?

Hi. You were recommended to me as an outstanding FAC reviewer by user Kaldari. I nominated Birth control movement in the United States for FA status recently. It has had two reviewers so far, but needs one more. Do you have time to review it? The article has been through GA and PR, and scrubbed in detail. Any help at all would be appreciated. The article's FAC page is here. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I will definitely try! If I don't get to it by Sunday, ping me again! Wadewitz (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

New Jane Austen portal

Hi there, based upon your great past work on Reception history of Jane Austen, I thought I'd let you know I created Portal:Jane Austen. You are more than welcome to put your name down at Portal:Jane Austen/Editors, even if you have no current plans to further improve her articles. Let me know if you have any queries. Thanks! Ruby 2010/2013 21:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have time to work on the portal - thanks for setting it up, though! Wadewitz (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

Timeline of Jane Austen

Hi Adrianne,

I'm still trying to get Timeline of Jane Austen up on the main page in the Today's Featured List section. The nomination is looking more hopeful now, but new concerns have been raised here. If you have time to help addressing these concerns, it would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I added a comment. Wadewitz (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

Maya Angelou

Wadewitz, I don't know if you've been following Dr. Angelou's article improvement, but it's now at the point in which it could use some additional eyes for copyediting. I respect you as a person and a scholar, and you've helped me with her articles in the past, so I thought you'd be one of the best editors in WP to do that. I know you're busy, but it would honor me greatly if you were to take a look at this article. On its talk page, I've made a list of things I'd like copyeditors to focus on: [1]. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I would love to help out, especially for such an important article! I'll try to take a look at it during the next week. Wadewitz (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, W! You rock. User:Gandydancer is taking a look at it, too. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

GA review of A Guide to the Scientific Knowledge of Things Familiar

A long time ago (2007) you participated at a Featured article candidacy (FAC) for the book 'A Guide to the Scientific Knowledge of Things Familiar'. I've recently been trying to complete a Good Article (GA) review at Talk:A Guide to the Scientific Knowledge of Things Familiar/GA2, but I'm a bit stuck and looking for a second opinion. Would you be able to help? Carcharoth (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to get to it this week! Wadewitz (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

Update

Thanks for the message. Will do.  :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Upcoming edits

Hello, Wadewitz. You have new messages at The Interior's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

Ezra Pound

Hi, Awa - have a favor to ask. Recently Ezra Pound has come back on my radar because of a talkpage discussion re an infobox, and after about a year so I've had a good look at the page. I think after SlimVirgin's rewrite it's in fairly decent shape and at some point should go to FAC. I've submitted it to Peer Review and am hoping that you might have a bit of time to look it over and make comments. If so, I'd very much appreciate it. It not, totally understand. I hope you're well btw - I see your students working on a few pages I have watchlisted and as usual am impressed with your work. Best, Truthkeeper (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Edits to Forever... (novel)

Hi Wadewitz. Just wanted to talk to you about some edits on the above article. These additions seem to be more general to the topic of censorship. The tone is also quite essayish. What's your feeling? The Interior (Talk) 17:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Censorship is central to this novel, so the topic is crucial to include, but only as it is tied directly to the novel. I also agree with you that the writing style is much too essayish. Can you work with the writer on the talk page of the article? Wadewitz (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Left a note. Best, The Interior (Talk) 21:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Engagement on Talk pages

Hi Wadewitz. I have a bit of a concern. I've been reviewing new additions and leaving talk page notes as you requested I do a few weeks ago. (see Talk:Laurie Halse Anderson, Talk:Forever... (novel)) Unfortunately, there has been no response or interaction with the students. I have left user talk messages with links to make sure the students know about the notes. I am concerned about this. In both cases, they have continued to edit the pages after the feedback was given. If this is just a one way process, where the students add their content and leave, I'm afraid I can't in good faith be an ambassador for the course. I certainly don't need students to implement my every suggestion, but zero communication is not really acceptable. Perhaps you could discuss the communication aspect with the class? The Interior (Talk) 19:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand it is very frustrating. Please try to understand, however, that these students are not Wikipedians by any stretch of the imagination. They do not really grasp the use of the talk pages and it is very hard to get them to respond - that does not mean that they are not reading what you have written, however - I know they are. If it is too frustrating for you to experience this kind of non-interaction, I totally understand. However, try to see it from the students' perspective as well - they are in the middle of finals, they are working with a strange technology, and they do not understand why communication is necessary. I do repeatedly try to explain why talk page communication is necessary (and that is why I require assignments be posted there), but remember that only a small fraction of their grade comes from onwiki communication and most often (fortunately or unfortunately) it is grades that drive students. At this point in the semester, I'm afraid not much more can be done, as the articles are due tonight. Part of outreach, which includes projects like this, is realizing that much of the learning about Wikipedia that the students are doing is not necessarily visible. Please know that these students are gaining a great deal from this assignment and that you are a vital part of making that possible. Wadewitz (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe my message was a bit overwrought. I didn't realize this was the final day of class. I guess my experience with Ed. programs was a bit coloured by a history class I worked with this term. That class had a lot of on-wiki interaction, and the students did a lot of revising based on feedback they received from Wikipedians. (this class also used four-person "teams" for each article, so I guess the odds of getting a response was quadrupled) I see on-wiki interaction as a way to bridge the gap between the students' inexperience and the difficulty of editing WP. I spent a few hours this weekend reading the threads on the new education noticeboard, and noted some serious anger about how the ed. programs are being run. (I'm still not sure how much of that anger is based on a wide experience with WEP, or just difficulty with one particular course) I really believe in this idea (WP and higher learning), and I guess right now I'm conflicted about how to match the high expectations of long-term wikipedians with the reality of how these courses work. I appreciate your thoughtful response, and the work the students have put in. Just out of curiosity, what do you think about larger percentage participation marks if you were to do this again? The Interior (Talk) 20:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm still adjusting my grading. If anything, I would raise the percentage for the earlier assignments - the bibliography and the outline - and make the assignments more substantial, because the students are still doing the bulk of the work at the last minute, which seriously deteriorates the quality of what they contribute. Many students were still doing research a week before the article was due. On-wiki communication, while important, is still one of the lesser problems that I'm trying to solve in this assignment, honestly. Wadewitz (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it is essential to get them going earlier. I had lots of time to help earlier in the term, but by the time the students finally started putting things on Wikipedia, I had gotten too busy at work to help much. If the work had come gradually throughout the semester, I would have been able to give feedback to the whole class. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The idea was for it to be gradual, as you will see by the timeline, but I just can't seem to get them to do that. I'm thinking requiring drafts or certain numbers of words by certain dates may do the trick. Wadewitz (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

FFD comment request

You were the image reviewer at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Weight Gain 4000/archive1 which was promoted to FA on 29 November 2009. This included a review of the infobox image File:South park weight gain 4000.jpg. I am in a debate at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 April 15#File:Pilot .28The Cosby Show.29 monopoly lesson.png, which is a debate over the infobox image for a television episode. The reviewer believes that the image currently violates WP:NFCC. I was hoping you might weigh in on this debate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have the time right now! Wadewitz (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Louisa May Alcott

I notice that an editor removed all of this information during the time that your students were editing the article, and I don't know if they noticed. I don't know if you think the edit was useful, or whether some of this information should be retained in the article?: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Louisa_May_Alcott&diff=487754360&oldid=487754119 Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a defensible edit to me. Did you ask on the talk page? Wadewitz (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to check with you first. I don't feel strongly either way, I just wanted to know if you did. I'll mention it on the talk page and leave it to posterity to decide (posterity is much more decisive than me). -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Help/advice

I've been working on George Crabbe, and have come to a bit of a standstill. The biography was easy of course, but the critical response is something else. Criticism already isn't my strong suit, and Crabbe, who holds a really strange place in English literature, being not much read nowadays, (and not much criticised it would seem from the lack of sources), is proving to be very difficult for me. I could really use your help/advice, or a recommendation of someone else who might help me. I'd like to see about getting Crabbe to GA, as articles on English poets of GA or FA quality are few and etc. Any time you could spare to this question would be much appreciated. INeverCry 01:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

HighBeam has some things that (at first glance) appear potentially useful. You'd have to use a template that includes HighBeam as a parameter (or similar, see Wikipedia talk:HighBeam/Applications). Email me if you want some stuff..Ling.Nut3 (talk) 06:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I have 2 long and detailed critical sources, long enough to make my eyes glaze over in fact. These include the complete Routledge Critical Heritage for Crabbe and the Cambridge U's collection of his poems published in 1967, including a 20+ page critical introduction. My need for help goes more toward how much and what details are important and needed to bring the critical section up to GA standard, and how much of those needs are addressed by the critical section as it now is. INeverCry 07:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
INeverCry: Emily Dickinson has a good critical Reception section. Indeed, you might look at the whole article for ideas. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
A monumental article certainly. My personal interest in and appreciation for criticism is very low. I hate even reading criticism, and rarely subject myself to it. I'll just leave good ol' Crabbe for someone who likes that kind of thing, and isn't put to sleep by it. I love expanding bios, but when I get down to that critical section the enjoyment quickly wanes; and what's wikipedia without enjoyment? I'm not here to do something that feels like work. ;) Atleast what I've added for a critical response section doesn't look embarrasingly small next to the bio of Crabbe. Thanks for your help guys. INeverCry 07:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I've done a bit more for the article and nominated it for GA. INeverCry 21:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for improving this article! I know literary criticism isn't for everyone. Hitting the high points of genre, style, and major works tends to be what is important to include in a "Works" section. I would actually think that a "Critical response" section is much less important than a description of what kind of writer Crabbe was, if you see the difference. Wadewitz (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Should I rename that section? Some of it is critical response, but a big part of it deals with what kind of writer he was, the background for his progress, his innovations, etc. "Critical response" was chosen as a generic title. How about "Legacy"? I think I like that a bit better.
Also, could you take a quick look at this article: Ivan Bunin, and give me an opinion? I was thinking of GAN for it if/when I could find an editor who can work with the Russian refs. I also have some pruning and adding to do with some English refs. Could you give me your opinion of it simply as an article; layout, size, topics, etc?
You might be interested in some of the expansions I'm planning, including Elizabeth Inchbald, Amelia Opie, Susan Edmonstoune Ferrier, The Countess of Blessington, and Frances Trollope. You'll laugh, but I'm thinking of doing a big expansion of Amelia Bloomer as well. I also intend to do more for Elizabeth Gaskell, in which the critical coverage would be very tough for me on my own. I'm waiting till I get a copy of Uglow's bio of Gaskell. INeverCry 20:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm so glad you're working on those! I'm afraid I don't have time to look at anything right now, but some of my talk page stalkers might (hint hint). Wadewitz (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
What I'm going to do with the above ladies and other writers is to expand their articles as much as I can, as I've done with Crabbe, and then try to find more expert users, like yourself, who can make them GA or FA in the future. I love doing the bios, but I'm just not qualified to do the critical work. INeverCry 21:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

LAST MINUTE HELP!!

Hi there! I need some help if you don't mind. I am doing the article on Gene Luen Yang and every time I try to put in one specific source, I have problems. It is coming up on the 3rd source. It was working and now it keeps giving me an error message. This is the message I get now:

''' Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Hamline; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text'''

It was just working about 10 minutes ago, then, I edited a different section and now it is giving me this error. If you can, tell me what to do to fix it so I can try to fix it on my own and learn how to correct such issues. Also, I will post this to the campus ambassador's talk pages as well, just in case you're too busy to respond. Let me know if you're not able to see what I do. Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veganchic (talk • contribs) 11:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

Question

Can I nominate you for adminship? --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 20:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't need it (and also, I have no idea who you are)! Thanks anyway! Wadewitz (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Children's / Young Adult literature "explodes

I thought you would find this interesting: http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2012/04/study-confirms-what-weve-all-expected-childrens-lit-has-exploded/?goback=.gde_124067_member_107193515 -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That is interesting - thanks! Wadewitz (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

Main page appearance: Fanny Imlay

This is a note to let the main editors of Fanny Imlay know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 14, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 14, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Fanny Imlay (1794–1816) was the illegitimate daughter of the British feminist Mary Wollstonecraft and the American commercial speculator Gilbert Imlay. Although Mary Wollstonecraft and Gilbert Imlay lived together happily for brief periods before and after the birth of Fanny, Imlay left Wollstonecraft in France in the midst of the French Revolution. In an attempt to revive their relationship, she travelled to Scandinavia on business for him, taking the one-year-old Fanny with her, but the affair never rekindled. After falling in love with and marrying the philosopher William Godwin, Wollstonecraft died in childbirth in 1797, leaving the three-year-old Fanny in the hands of Godwin, along with the newborn Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin. Four years later, Godwin remarried and his new wife, Mary Jane Clairmont, brought children of her own into the marriage, most significantly from Fanny Imlay's and Mary Godwin's perspective, Claire Clairmont. Both girls resented the new Mrs Godwin and the attention she paid to her own daughter. The Godwin household became an increasingly uncomfortable place to live as tensions rose and debts mounted. Imlay became increasingly isolated from her family and committed suicide in 1816 at the age of 22.

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Precious

teaching of reading
Thank you for expanding our knowledge of literature and of the people who love it, write it and teach it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much! Wadewitz (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

Heads up

Hi Adrianne, yesterday one of the articles you wrote, Fanny Imlay, was the TFA on the Main Page. There's a discussion about its notability at its talk page. Graham87 01:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Fanny Imlay for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Sorry to see the mess that erupted about this article. I've only had one TFA, but the trolling I received after that made me want to try to permanently opt out of TFA. In any case, I found the article quite interesting and well written, good job! Regards, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks! I appreciate that! Wadewitz (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Hi Adrianne, long time/no speak! We're struggling, I think, with an issue that might have been at the root of the problems described above. I think your expertise could really help here, if you haven't spotted this discussion: Talk:Fanny Imlay#Very weak header -Pete (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
        • I would love to help, but I'm in the middle of moving to Los Angeles. I'm a starting a new job on June 4! If I can help after that, I certainly will, but I don't have access to any of my books right now and am surrounded by boxes, bubble wrap, and friends who want to say good-bye. :) Wadewitz (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

Pride & Prejudice (2005 film) peer review

Greetings! I found your name at the peer review volunteers page. Would you be interested in weighing in on my article Pride & Prejudice (2005 film)? Even a few short comments would aid in its improvement. You can find the review page here. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 17:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm busy moving right now. If you still want a peer review in the middle of June, let me know! I'll have more time then! Wadewitz (talk) 03:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

The Signpost: 11 June 2012