This is an archive of past discussions with User:Wadewitz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedLynn Hill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Long (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
I've just relisted my first ever FA attempt - which was closed last week due to lack of commentary. I'd be grateful if you would give it the once-over. I'm sure you'll find Norman Selfe to be a fascinating character! (nomination).Wittylama09:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
A plea for a moment of your time. I have a problem with Jane Cobden, which I have worked up from a stub. The difficulty is - what to call her in the text? The surname convention is problematic, as the article deals also with her father, Richard Cobden, and other Cobdens too. Referring to her as "Jane Cobden", which I have done in the lead, makes wearisome reading if applied throughout. For the moment I have done what her biographical articles tend to do, and mainly referred to her just as "Jane". Can you suggest an alternative that might work better? Any help would be much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Later: having taken other advice I think I've dealt with this issue, so no need for you to find time for this. The article will be on peer review soon, and you are of course welcome to comment there if time permits.Brianboulton (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! My latest, Lynn Hill, is also up for FAC here, if you want to read about a female rock climber. I've recently gotten into rock climbing and I thought I would stretch myself and write about something new! Wadewitz (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I am going to make work specific templates. The huge template has a lot of content that is related, but it is formatted differently than a lot of other great writers. When I am done the bottom of this page will look something like Charles Dickens, Oscar Wilde, H. G. Wells and Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Creating works specific templates allows for some tangential content that is relevant to the work but not the general audience for the author. I am notifying you because you are one of a handful of editors with more than 5 edits to the template. Ping me if this is a problem.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Tweet that to my boss--he won't count these articles for real. Good to see you again, by the way. I'm trying to get a copy of Pandora's Box but haven't found one online yet. Have a great weekend, Wadewitz. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi - I just wanted to say that I really appreciate your blogposts on the current controversies. There's lots of emotion involved - nobody likes to think they have been relegated to the junior varsity team (even if that is just their perception); nobody likes to put in a bunch of hard work over a long period of time and get accused of a) sexism, and b) being part of a monolithic Borg that has "an" opinion; and nobody likes to be personally called out by the whole Internet, led by the New York Times, as being sexist, "shadowy", "misguided", or whatever. And, being that we are all human beings, stuff happens...
I have mixed feelings about the whole practice of using gender in categorization. I think there is a certain amount of validity to the criticisms expressed, and I am not saying that everyone couldn't stand to be challenged on what they think, why they think it, and how they came to think that way (that is true for many things) but I think that a lot of this drama stems from reactions to perceived group insults. And, I think that while there may be some merit to the argument to discontinue use of the female subcategories for writers and novelists, there are still times where there is some utility to gender-based subcategories, just because of the fact that members of a certain gender are uncommon in a certain category. For instance, I thinkCategory:Female heavy metal singers is appropriate, because people generally don't think of females when they think of heavy metal singers.
I hope this turns into more of a discussion/debate/brainstorming session of how the display and nesting of categories ought to work. Maybe design it so that users could choose to display all the lowest-level categories for an article, or the highest level, or some combination thereof. (Of course, all categories do not follow a child-->parent--> grandparent structure, so we would need to figure out what to do about that. Maybe invent some extra systematic tags for certain categories?)
On a side note, I have had the following on my wishlist for a while:
In any event, I am confident that no matter how long this controversy lasts in the media, or what direction it goes, that eventually Wikipedia will be the stronger for it, whether from a vetting of assumptions about gender-based categorization, or invention of ways to better display and organize categories, or bringing in more people who have never edited before into the community of editors. KConWiki (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much for this comment! I agree with so much of what you said. I, too, feel very conflicted about the categories. I see both sides of the argument - I understand how the category "woman writer" has been used to denigrate women writers but I also see how it has been used to write them into literary history and empower generations of younger writers to find them. Many of the saner discussions about this issue have raised just the point you have - that it is the category system that needs revising; I'm not sure I see that happening any time soon, though. My most fervent hope is that more people will edit as a result of the news coverage. Again, so nice to meet you! Wadewitz (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
If there were some sort of feature that allowed custom viewing of subcategories by individual readers (as opposed to just editors) (based on broader categories, as with the Thomas Jefferson example above) then maybe we would end up tagging articles for people as male or female, but have those be invisible categories (kind of like how "Year of birth missing (living people)" is now invisible) and then if someone did want to customize a category of, say, American female science fiction writers, they could - Or female science fiction writers of any nationality, or whatever. (And, of course make approp. accommodations for articles about persons of undetermined gender or transsexual persons.) Or maybe as we got into discussion of categorization it would be better to get away from using male/female as the examples of what we want to achieve, just to have the heatedness of the sexism accusations not get in the way. So, back to the presidents, you could maybe go to the Jefferson article, click something to show a big menu of categorizations that pertain to Jefferson, and custom build something to see "U.S. Presidents who were also U.S. Secretaries of State who were also from Virginia" and that would give you Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, but not Adams, Van Buren or Buchanan. Of course, that wouldn't cover all categories, just ones that were based on a parent-child relationship, and I am also certainly an advocate of categorizing based on more abstract ideas, too. KConWiki (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm intrigued by the idea of allowing readers to customize Wikipedia. I guess I am a little more top-down than that, because I see Wikipedia as a way to fight systemic bias rather than allow readers to put it back in, if they want. Wadewitz (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! There don't seem to be very many female athlete FAs, so perhaps I'll do some more rock climbing bios of awesome women. ;) Wadewitz (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I just don't know anything about those sports and do know a tad about rock climbing, which is why I was thinking of sticking to that. Talk page stalkers? Anyone up for a challenge? Wadewitz (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Do you mind if I vent?
Hi Wadewitz, please first excuse me for being in a foul mood (busy time of year, eye strain, and so on) but wanted to drop you a line re your blog post. My feeling is that not only have the media excluded WP women from the categorygate issue but the WP men are hell bent of solving it as quickly, as expediently and wonderfully as possibly without accepting input from a woman (who might have subject knowledge). I remember when I first began to write here: you were active, as was Moni3, SandyGeorgia, Karanacs, Maria, KafkaLiz and many others - all women, all bright and capable, all now gone. I remember when I first heard of the "woman problem" a few years ago and though, naw, doesn't exist. I've changed my mind since - it's very real and seems to be getting worse. Anyway, thought of you and considered sending email but decided to plop this here instead. Sorry if it's a bit of a rant - when I'm less tired, I'll be able to think more clearly. But in the meantime want you to know that you hit the nail on the head. The question is: what to do going forward? Truthkeeper(talk) 19:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Vent away! I know how you feel. I feel like the "getting worse" part is because it has become such a visible issue - there is always an inevitable backlash in these situations. I'm trying to write a longer, more thoughtful blog post about just this question right now. If you want to think about it with me, message me and I'll share my Google Doc with you! Wadewitz (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll do that. I'm in the process of formulating a "reasoned response" regarding categorization on Ernest Hemingway. I see that article as a bit of testing ground because it's impossible to shoehorn his novels into genre. Ironic that such a macho guy is the test for this - but there you go. Truthkeeper(talk) 19:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I've always found the category system (and especially it's whole "diffuse big categories" thing) to be less than useful and very much a walled garden of a certain type of editor who often strike me as very OCD. I rarely mess with them beyond the most obvious cats I can find. Ealdgyth - Talk20:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm digging into an obscure little French medieval poet who wrote in Latin, and data is rather sparse on the ground. Already searched through JSTOR, but these journals aren't in JSTOR. Any help would be appreciated!Ealdgyth - Talk20:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name fromWikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite.
Precious again
teaching of reading
Thank you for expanding our knowledge of literature and of the people who love it, write it and teach it, -repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (24 Novbember 2008)!
Lynn Hill (born 1961) is an American rock climber. Widely regarded as one of the leading competitivesport climbers in the world during the late 1980s and early 1990s, she made the first ascent without aid of the difficult sheer rock face of The Nose on El Capitan in Yosemite Valley and the first free ascent in 24 hours. Hill shaped rock climbing for women and became a public spokesperson, helping it gain wider popularity and arguing for gender equity. She has publicized climbing by appearing on television shows and documentaries and writing an autobiography, Climbing Free: My Life in the Vertical World. She took to climbing at a young age and became a part of the climbing community in Southern California and Camp 4 in Yosemite Valley. During the early 1980s, she traveled around the United States, climbing increasingly difficult routes and setting records not only for first female ascents but also for first ascents. From 1986 to 1992 she won over thirty international titles, including five victories at the Arco Rock Master; she left competitive climbing in 1992. She has been described as both one of the best female climbers in the world and one of the best climbers of all time. (Full article...)
Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles(the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members).
So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, readthe process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom ofthis page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.
A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)
Please join the Chemical Heritage Foundation Edit-a-Thon, June 20, 2013. Build content relating to women in science, chemistry and the history of science. Use the hashtag #GlamCHF and write your favorite scientist or chemist into Wikipedian history!
I don't know if you'll be interested in the Edit-a-thon, but I can't resist thanking you for all the great work you've been doing on some of my favorite women writers, like Anna Barbauld! Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm just curious, is there a policy for names? I see in most articles, the names in the intro read like "John "Jack" Smith" or whatever the person goes by. Also, it looks to me like Lynn is part of her name. Carolynn, which is where I suppose the Lynn comes from. Beerest355Talk19:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, I found it here: If a person has a commonly known nickname, used in lieu of a given name, it is presented between quote marks following the last given name or initial, as for John F. Kennedy, which has John Fitzgerald "Jack" Kennedy. I figure I will add it back unless there is a reason. Beerest355Talk19:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
At WP:MOSBIO, it says to put the legal name first and commonly used names after the full legal name. I just didn't want there to be any confusion and this formulation avoids that, but I won't revert again as I certainly don't want to get into an edit war over name formatting! ;) Wadewitz (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation in theChemical Heritage Foundation Edit-A-Thon , June 20 2013! We are glad to have met you (virtually), and hope to work with you at many more fun edit-a-thon events!
Hey Wadewitz, how are you doing? Eric Corbett and I have been working on an article that falls within your field as well, methinks, and perhaps you'd like to have a look at the current FA review. Thanks in advance, Drmies (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I meant for you to rubber stamp the thing, not make me do actual work! (I'm on it--thanks for your time and comments.) Drmies (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Just remember to roll over and play nice the year that your paperwork is on the T&P committee's desk. The job marked in my biz has been pretty bad; I hope it's better in yours. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Wadewitz, I'm sorry you were pulled into this. I tried to disengage, but the last comment to my page put me over the edge. You know my name, you know what I do for work (though not the exact specialty). I think that we have the right to divulge as much and as little as we want to whomever we choose and that shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not a reviewer's comments are heeded. I changed my user name from Truthkeeper88 toVictoria (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
You don't? She and Drmies are academics at established US institutions, per Drmies on my talk. Therefore her comments carry more weight, (in his mind), than mine. Victoria (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Where did you get that from? Have I not responded to every single one of your comments, and made edits to the article based on most if not all of them? The only thing I haven't done anything with is Moffat, for reasons made clear and apparently understood by you. Who said I attached more weight to Wadewitz's comments? All expert commentary is welcome, as far as I am concerned, especially at FA. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
No, not quite. But this isn't the place. And you yourself admitted that you and she are academics in established US institutions and that she specializes in children's lit (which I happen to know). I see it as canvassing for a second opinion. From someone who is an academic, as you are, and hence more trustworthy. Anyway, huge apologies to Wadewitz. I've added the reception section and hopefully they can finish it up soon.Victoria (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
For all I know Victoria you're also an academic at an established US institution, but whether you are or not your opinion is no less valuable to me than theirs. So I'm still not getting it. I'm not an academic at any institution, but I can write the pants off Drmies, who I would suggest has a tendency towards a rather ponderously didactic style. Can we not just work together on this, each of us contributing what we can, playing to our strengths, and relying on our colleagues to plug any gaps? EricCorbett02:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I didn't ask for a second opinion--it would have been a third or fourth opinion, as is proper for an FA. For the record, I asked Wadewitz not because she knows children's lit (I didn't know that until just now) but because she knows the 19th century. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Um, I'm really at a loss for words. You all do great work here. I know all of you and your work, so I'm just going to be blissfully ignorant of this and go on editing and reviewing for the time being.Wadewitz (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Those are difficult. I've reviewed that article several times in the past few years, though, and don't really feel like going back to it. Wadewitz (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Jane Austen to be face of the Bank of England £10 note
Hope all is well with you. I saw this BBC story and remembered all the soul-searching we had back in 2008 about the direction of the portrait. The version on the new £10 note bears a faint resemblance to the original. - Pointillist (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I hadn't spotted the second story. Surely they can't be proposing to have both a fake pictureand an inappropriate quote? Whether it's populism, tokenism or just cynicism, it's not a great start forMark Carney. I suspect Miss Austen would have been amused, though. Best wishes from London -Pointillist (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
We should leave it at 'First female free ascent', because it is a greatly respected climb in all articles and videos about the Leaning Tower, and it's also a record about Hill's longevity at the top of her sport.Akseli9 (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Can you add that to the article with a new source? The source currently used does not say first female free ascent. Wadewitz (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
