User talk:Sadads/Archive Feb-May 2015

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 03:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I was granted access to Elsevier a while ago, yet still have not received any account information after submitting the google form. I was going to ask Chris Troutman, but on a discussion on his page he said to go to you. What should I do? IJReid ^discuss 15:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @IJReid: I have your information in the Google Spreadsheet, Chris sent a batch just recently which should be activated soon (if not so already) and am sending an email to Elseveir to check on activation status for the last batch. We try to send information in batches to partners, and sometimes processing on their end takes a little while. I will let you know what develops, Sadads (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. IJReid ^discuss 00:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@IJReid: You were in the batch of new accounts activated today/yesterday: you should be able to sign in. Sadads (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 18:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for subscribing to the WikiProject X Newsletter. For our first issue...

Has WikiProject X changed the world yet? No.

We opened up shop last month and announced our existence to the world. Our first phase is the "research" phase, consisting mostly of reading and listening. We set up our landing page and started collecting stories. So far, 28 stories have been shared about WikiProjects, describing a variety of experiences across numerous WikiProjects. A recurring story involves a WikiProject that starts off strong but has trouble continuing to stay active. Most people describe using WikiProjects as a way to get feedback from other editors. Some quotes:

• "Working on requested articles, utilising the reliable sources section, and having an active WikiProject to ask questions in really helped me learn how to edit Wikipedia and looking back I don't know how long I would have stayed editing without that project." – Sam Walton on WikiProject Video Games
• "I believe that the main problem of the Wikiprojects is that they are complicated to use. There should be a a much simpler way to check what do do, what needs to be improved etc." – Tetra quark
• "In the late 2000s, WikiProject Film tried to emulate WP:MILHIST in having coordinators and elections. Unfortunately, this was not sustainable and ultimately fell apart." – Erik

Of course, these are just anecdotes. While they demonstrate what is possible, they do not necessarily explain what is typical. We will be using this information in conjunction with a quantitative analysis of WikiProjects, as documented on Meta. Particularly, we are interested in the measurement of WikiProject activity as it relates to overall editing in that WikiProject's subject area.

We also have 50 people and projects signed up for pilot testing, which is an excellent start! (An important caveat: one person volunteering a WikiProject does not mean the WikiProject as a whole is interested; just that there is at least one person, which is a start.)

While carrying out our research, we are documenting the problems with WikiProjects and our ideas for making WikiProjects better. Some ideas include better integration of existing tools into WikiProjects, recommendations of WikiProjects for people to join, and improved coordination with

– Harej 17:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hi, sorry to bother you, but myself and a number of other wikimed editors have been on a "Pending" list[1] for some time, I was wondering if there is anything new?, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sadads; Its not that I have any difficulty with redlinks, though the ones I removed were taken out because of the length of time they were unaddressed and that the priority of quite of few issues in the article are elsewhere. If you want to add the cites for the redlinks then that is all ok. If not, then they tend to distract potential editors from more important edits needed in the article.

Same for Henry James which contained odd language in the lead section which was not covered in the main body of the article. Just what value is to be placed in the wording "possibly unreliable narrators" which you have restored in the lead section. "Possibly, maybe, perhaps"... in the lead section? If you could glance at this again. Cheers. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LawrencePrincipe: through all my outreach experience, I have never seen large long articles, with problems motivate new users that were persistant enough to stick around (they tend to feel either overwhelmed by the feeling of "whether or not I should make that edit" or lost in the scale of the topic, when researching); on the other hand, most frequently new users write new articles, especially if there is an indication that no-one else has taken the energy to do so (i.e. a redlink). Read Wikipedia:Red link for that policy: the nutshell clearly states "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject." From my perspective, the scholars that were linked seem like clear candidates for articles, even if they might be stubby, because they are prominent Joyce scholars.

Moreover, length of time unaddressed is not a justification, remember

WP:WIP. I have seen plenty of items sit untouched for as many as 3-4 years, to be filled in by brand new users. Most articles, only have one serious editor, in my experience, every 2-4 years anyway. I appreciate your desire for the page to feel more "neat", but that seems counter productive because it discourages new users to recognize the incompleteness of Wikipedia. I hope you have a great day and happy editing! Sadads (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

As for the Henry James edit: you removed a key critical concept, "unreliable narrator", from a lead section, while changing the meaning to "intricately crafted moral narratives". James is a model of early unreliable narration, and as far as I am aware of the scholarship, he is one of the trendsetters in American modern fiction for that move. I see nothing in the article that justifies moral narratives: two small quotes, but that is a very odd emphasis on the moral, when his novels also breach a number of other thematic moves. Sadads (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back on this. As your comments are strongly felt, the only concern which I can express is that in the James article the material on 'unreliable narrator' does not receive adequate (glancing at best) attention in the main article which is normally required before it can be summarized and included in the lead section. I inserted the comment on 'moral narrative' because it is generally recognized in several essays by different authors in the Chelsea House anthology dealing with James. Cheers. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LawrencePrincipe: sorry if that came off rather hard on the links, its just one of those pet peeves (something that grows out of being on the outreach end of the community, where I have some perspective on how micro-actions like removing redlinks compound other difficulties in recruiting new contributors).

As for the James concern: I agree neither of those stylistic features are well covered; it would be great to have someone go through the article and write a couple paragraphs on both themes and the unreliable narration. I am not well read in American fiction from that period, and don't usually have patience with the scholarship or the fiction :P I tried reading The Ambassadors, and its been sitting on my bedside table getting dust since about 9 months ago. I see it more in reference to James when reading about British works that follow soon after. If you have the anthology: it would be great to summarize a paragraph or two on the Moral realism/moral novel issue. If you need sources, I have access to an academic library, so can get you anything you want (we have very good interlibrary loan). Just send me a link here, or an email.

That sentence we are talking about, however, is focused on stylistic traits: so unless you can make a case for this being a "genre" thing, rather than a theme of "morals", it should probably be in a second sentence. Most readers, and English majors, seriously muddle themes, style and other literary traits: its probably best not to unintentionally associate them in the same sentence, just as a humanist communications issue. Hope that helps, Sadads (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your kind comment, I do not currently have one of the James anthologies on my shelf. There are three excellent anthologies of essays collected about James that I recall. These are The Cambridge Companion to Henry James (Cambridge Companions to Literature) Paperback, May 28, 1998 edited by Jonathan Freedman; the second one comes in two volumes edited by James's biographer Leon Edel from Prentice Hall; and the third one on Henry James is from Chelsea House edited by Harold Bloom. Any one of these anthologies contain a sufficient number of essays by different scholars to offer an adequate composite of scholarly opinion rather than just one selectively chosen opinion as in the current version of the article. If any one of these exists in your library then you might be able to significantly move the article on James forward. Cheers. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @

WP:WIP; there are so many times when I find work here, and think "I could write that if....": its why I went into community outreach: I realized that I couldn't possibly effect the change and impact I would like, without more people with similar skills and access to resources as me. Please let me know if I can provide feedback/resource support on that article, or any other project you work on. Happy editing! Sadads (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Nick-D on the British Pacific Fleet Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the advent of chemical warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

Have the subscriptions ended? My access seems to have been removed for some reason. Connormah (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great question: I recently handed off coordination and support for the donation to @HazelAB: who can look into it. It would help if we had a little more information:Did this problem start happening recently? Have you been able to get access previously? Are you still able to log in, but not able to access the paywalled parts? Thanks for the further bits of information and we can followup on this! Sadads (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just started the day I posted the above message. Could access up to the day before - my account seems to have been relegated to a "free account". Connormah (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following up with our contact person at Newspapers.com and hope to have a solution for you soon. HazelAB (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to pick up more women...

Hello! Wikimania 2015. It's titled, How to pick up more women... -- as in more women editors and more women's biographies. Examples include the Edit-a-thon blitz during WikiWomen's History Month and the "new articles" work underway by WikiProject Women Writers. The Wikimania talk proposal review process has begun and there's no guarantee that this proposal will be accepted. That's where you come in. Please review our proposal and give us feedback. Ultimately, we hope you add your name to the signup at the bottom of the proposal which signifies you're interested in the talk (it does not signify you'll be attending the event). Thank you! Rosiestep (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply ]

I am a new Wikipedian, working with the Oklahoma State Library, and I was wondering if you could help me out with a page I am working on currently. In my sandbox, I am constructing a page on Betty Boyd (Oklahoma Legislator) and I am having some difficulty making the "infobox." Is there a template that I can use? I have attempted to copy and paste other infobox templates from other pages to see if I could work with it that way, but the information does not show up correctly when I press preview. Let me know if this is something with which you would be willing to help me. Amcdougal (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

Template:Infobox state representative. The documentation for both is at Template:Infobox_officeholder. I hope that helps, let me know if you run into difficulty: you may be using an infobox that doesn't handle all the information you want it to. Cheers, Sadads (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Sadads Thank you for your help! That template worked well. I apologize, but I have one more quick question/problem regarding the infobox. Her birth/death date are only showing the year on the infobox even though I have the month and date filled in in my editing section. Do you know why that might be happening? Thank you again for all of your help. Amcdougal (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Amcdougal: Pipes ("|"), in templates, act as code dividing variables. The software was reading the numbers subsequent the year as separate unlabeled variables, thus not knowing where to output them. See the change I just made Sadads (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadads: Hopefully just one more question! I have submitted a draft for review and want to use my sandbox to start working on another page. How do I move the Betty Boyd draft out of my sandbox while it is waiting for review? Thank you for all of your help! Amcdougal (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadads: One more thing I forgot to mention about Betty Boyd's draft. It is saying that a Betty Boyd page already exists, and this is true, but the one I have drafted is about the Oklahoma Legislator, not the film actress or Colorado Legislator. How do I verify that I have made a different one?

@

WP:Moved the page to a draft, and left a redirect in the sandbox. You can also create additional sandboxes. To differentiate between different articles with the same title, we use our policy at Wikipedia:Disambiguation

.

Thanks for leaving questions here on my talk page, but you will get feedback and responses from a few more editors if you add comments at Education_Program_talk:The_Wikipedia_Library/Library_interns_(Fall_2014) and more than likely, one of them will review the article and move it live. A cursory glance, and it looks like you have done an excellent job! I have a busy couple weeks coming up, and don't want to leave your thoughts/comments waiting. Also, thank you for doing so much great work! Sadads (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sadads! I have also proposed a proposal here, I'm not sure if it will be accepted or not but I want members of our Women Writers Project and those who are interested to sign up as my proposal is also indirectly related to picking up more Womens from developing countries. My proposal's main aim is "provide free of data charges access to Wikipedia" which will increase the traffic and ultimately more Womens. I would be glad if you and other members could sign up. Thanks! Jim Carter 07:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. 02:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nautical fiction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edward Howard. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including

Hey @

User:Mad Hatter get credit in helping get the article to DYK (they have been doing a lot of great work helping support the research and development of the article). I was having trouble deciding on a good public-facing hook: I find all of it interesting, and have had several previous DYK noms where I have gotten comments for not having "compelling enough hooks". Do you have a suggestions? Cheers, Sadads (talk

)

I'd mention Moby Dick for sure. Maybe ...that books from Moby Dick to Hornblower series are examples of nautical fiction? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk

)

@The Mad Hatter: I would love to help you with that article: lets do it in a sandbox or draft space, so we can get it forward as a DYK and we can take our time developing the materials! Also, might want to include @Rwood128 and LawrencePrincipe: since they has been so helpful in working on nautical and historical fiction (still some lingering work to do on Nautical fiction as well: I imagine I would be best able to work on historical period drama beginning of next month. Sadads (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

hpd in the next couple of months. @Rwood128 and LawrencePrincipe

: were awesome contributors and collaborators!

Kindest regards guys, it's been pleasure working with you:

talk

)

Dear Sadads, I see you have added some links - linking agricultural supply to agricultural supply store. I have reverted this on George Grantham (economic historian) and agricultural economics. But I think there are others. Could I ask you to have another think about this. Agricultural supply can mean the output of the agricultural sector whereas as the supply store, I think, sells inputs for the sector. So they are, I think, substantially different. What do you think? I think that someone needs to go through and check all these links and revert those where it is not appropriate. Also it seems a bit odd where it does mean inputs for it to go to an input store rather than just a page on agricultural inputs. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

@Msrasnw: Thanks for bringing this up: I changed the page because it was an orphan for a topic we don't have as a concept, and I couldn't find anywhere in the mainstream agriculture pages. I know nothing about the rhetorical usage of "agricultural supply" as input vs. output. I am only familiar with the concept of it in the store sense, and some brief Google searches confirmed it last night (admittedly, I typically do orphaned article work towards the end of editing while I am tired, so my use of find link my have been a wee bit overzealous). My hope was to provoke an expert in agriculture to pay more attention to the glaring gap on Wikipedia in the common idea/topic, someone knows more and could provide better nuanced definition of the article. I am totally game for an article on "Agricultural inputs" with a section on "agricultural input retail" per your reasoning. It seems to be a more nuanced, and sound approach to such an article, Sadads (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sadads, I have removed some more of the links you added which I feel were inappropriate .... best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]