User talk:Sadads/Archive January 2014-May 2014

@Bearcat: No worries. If you find anything in a database, I have access to a number. I just don't know where to look for biographical information for Canadians... I haven't really done a look through reviews of her works to build out a list on the page. I was thinking that kind of critical reception might be worth building, Sadads (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• s]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• s]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Okey Ndibe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Igbo (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 reviews: Rabaul in World War II and Australia in World War I

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MasterOfHisOwnDomain -- MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

The article

I just learned that you are (were?) a Wikipedian in Residence at the Blake Archive. I'm a librarian at UNC and am planning our second edit-a-thon around the theme of African American history in North Carolina. The date is Sunday, March 30, 1:00 to 4:30. (Wikipedia page to come, but here's the page from last year). Are you still on campus? Would love to talk and see what you're up to in the Wikipedia world!

Cheers, Sodapopinski7 (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2014

— Harej (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article The French Lieutenant's Woman you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The French Lieutenant's Woman for comments about the article. Well done! |2ndopinion|2ndopinion=Hello, I want to tell you that I need a 2nd opinion on whether the article you nominated as a good article, The French Lieutenant's Woman, meets the good article criteria or not . Another experienced reviewer like me will look at the article and see if the issue that I need a 2nd opinion on can go through or not. See Talk:The French Lieutenant's Woman for the issue. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MasterOfHisOwnDomain -- MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk · contribs) 21:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Wikipedia Tutorial April 8, 2014 Lawrence Public Library This box: view talk edit

You are invited to the Lawrence Wikipedia Tutorial on April 8, 2014 at the Lawrence Public Library. Experienced editors invited to help new users learn how to use the Wikipedia and build the community in Lawrence, Kansas. See Lawrence Wikipedia Tutorial.

James Michael DuPont (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I know you are not going to make it, but maybe you can share the event.

Lawrence Wikipedia Tutorial April 8, 2014 Lawrence Public Library This box: view talk edit

You are invited to the Lawrence Wikipedia Tutorial on April 8, 2014 at the Lawrence Public Library. Experienced editors invited to help new users learn how to use the Wikipedia and build the community in Lawrence, Kansas. See Lawrence Wikipedia Tutorial.

James Michael DuPont (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice of you to say hello yesterday on "Semiotics". I noticed that you might have more background than myself on finding Wikipedia data. My present thought was to prepare an edit dealing with the trends in the creation of FA articles on Wikipedia. It seems easy to get the stats on the number of FA articles that exist right now, but how do I find out how many there were 1 yr ago, 2 yr ago, 3 yr ago, etc. If you know how or can show me how to get one of then, say number of FA articles in 2010, then I could likely figure out how to get the rest. If this data is too hard to find, then just let me know its not easy to get. Sadads (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FelixRosch (talk • contribs) 20:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FelixRosch: Glad that you appreciated the welcome. I think what you are looking for is Wikipedia:Featured_article_statistics. I hope that helps.

Also, make sure that you sign comments on user pages with four tildas (i.e. ~~~~ ). This tells the software to sign your name and date after the comments. Feel free to contact me if you need any other help, and happy editing! Sadads (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was the exact info I was looking for on featured articles. While there I noticed there was a similar page for "good articles" as well which was useful. Would you happen to know if a similar page is available for "High importance article statistics," "Low importance article statistics," etc. The total number of Low importance article is growing so fast (over 2Million), that I was thinking of making an edit on the Wikipedia History page regarding estimates of the amount of editor effort needed to systemically improve existing Pages in general for them to move towards Good article status. If you know of any other related pages you could let me know about (I have the 2 pages for Featured and Good article stats, and I don't have them for A-level, B-level, C-level, etc, stat histories), it would be appreciated. (Last time I typed 4 tilde for some reason your id was unexpectedly printed out instead... maybe it will work correctly this time...) FelixRosch (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FelixRosch: I don't think there are published sets of importance information. I would poke around Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team. The data does exist in the software somewhere, but I imagine it would require some creative programming and API culling. Here is a couple ways you could find what you are looking for:

• Their is always checking through the history for the 1.0 template at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AWP_1.0_bot%2FTables%2FOverallArticles&action=history and for older numbers at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVersion_1.0_Editorial_Team%2FStatistics&action=history .
• You might check out http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:English_Wikipedia_statistics, to see if you can find some related statistics or pages discussing those number.
• Also, there might be something in the archive for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost.

However, be cautious on how you use that information on Wikipedia. If you add information onto the Wikipedia history article, make sure that you don't add

WP:OR. Hope that helps, Sadads (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Sadads; Small update that someone seems to be deleting the nice section you had edited and expanded on "Quality control and peer assessment" at Wikipedia. There is also an administrative review on the person doing the deletes at this time. Your material looked like a nice edit and the deletion of your edit was unexplained. FelixRosch (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

British marxist critic Raymond Williams, for example, wrote a seminal critique of pastoral literature in 1973, The Country and the City, which spawned two decades of leftist suspicion of the ideological evasions of the genre and its habit of making the work of rural labour disappear even though Williams himself observed that the losses lamented in pastoral might be genuine ones, and went on to profess a decidedly green socialism.

I removed "Marxist" just as I would remove any other attempt to spoon feed the reader irrelevant material. This entire paragraph is problematic. "Two decades of leftist suspicion", is this some kind of joke? The only thing relevant here is his name and the title of the book. In fact there is nothing about Marxism anywhere in our article on the The Country and the City. This would be like referring to George W. Bush as a Republican in reference to his paintings, or to Leo Marx as a "socialist" in reference to his seminal work, The Machine in the Garden, even though Marx does not consider himself a socialist now, and the book has nothing to do with socialism. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@

Marxist criticism and the political mechanism of Marxism that you are overlooking, hence the wikilink I added. I am going to re-add the comment and remove the leftist comment, Sadads (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 01:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

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 reviews: Hawkeye7 on military command and Nick-D on F-111s in combat

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Novelist, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Realism (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Ed Hall & I are working together to improve the article -- the new section is mostly his work, actually, but I put it into WP format. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edits you placed on the "Wikipedia" Page last week. If I followed them correctly, you seemed to suggest that it made sense to consider (FA, GA, A) as a group, and as separate from unassessed start and stub articles. I did the arithmetic for these percentage totals and they come out as Top Class=.60% of all Wikipedia articles(.11FA + .03A +.46GA), while the unassessed start and stub articles are at a total of 90.29% (24.77Start + 54.33Stub + 11.19Unassesed), following a recent version of total page counts. It seems to suggest a very wide base of total articles with a very narrow funnel leading to the top class articles. The "funnel" ratio is about 150:1 when contrasting the broad base of total articles compared to the top class as you identified it. I still cannot find the history of Page Counts data at Wikipedia (other than FA/GA) and perhaps these statistics are not of general interest and not maintained. Those were useful comment edits you placed at the "Wikipedia" page. FelixRosch (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FelixRosch:: I am glad that you found that helpful. GA, A, and FA class content all are just varying degrees of peer review, with slightly more strenuous standards for quality as you look at them (and I haven't noticed a radically big difference in A vs GA). The quality funnel is a problem in the all of the academic studies I have seen of content as well. However, that just provides more motivation for people to participate as far as I can tell.

As for historical page count data, that is captured in the revision history of the Wikipedia 1.0 template at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AWP_1.0_bot%2FTables%2FOverallArticles&action=history and for older numbers at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVersion_1.0_Editorial_Team%2FStatistics&action=history . If you click through the old revisions, you can find the old numbers. Best of luck and happy editing, Sadads (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those links above were quite useful and clever. Your comments regarding the "quality funnel" also were on target and I did not know if you had read them somewhere or was speaking directly from your experience. Using your ideas I was able to add a short edit on the "Wikipedia" page in the other Quality subsection on the future of Health-care edits following the phrasing format in your own edit there. Regarding the actual data tables in the links you provided above, they all looked good until I got to 19Feb2010 stats compared to the 9Oct2009 page where there is a change of table format and a sudden jarring growth of 2 million total articles and a sudden growth of 800 top-importance FA articles from 200! Did I miss something, or were those 4 months really that jarring in growth? It does not seem to match some of the separate graphs you had previously directed me to about the growth rates. FelixRosch (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sadads, I'm here onbehalf of

Sadads, why did you put a citation needed on Allusion to Events in History section in Post Captain (novel)? The full story is told in the Wikipedia articles linked in the short text of the new section. The same links had been in the Plot summary, which was getting overfull of links to real historical events, so I made the new section for what is real and what is fiction. What sort of citation do you expect, beyond the information in the two Wikipedia articles? Thanks for reading the changes, BTW. I clicked to watch your page so will look for the response here. --Prairieplant (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Prairieplant: It needs a citation because you are interpreting the historical inspiration for the events in the novel, to be attributable to a particular event. This kind of real world context isn't necessarily "true" connections, but rather requires a knowledge of O'Brian's intentions and scholarly context. You need a citation that verifies, that this is the source of his interpretation through either the preface to the novel, one of the biographies or one of the interpretive books. I am pretty sure that you can make this assertion (when I was doing O'Brian research, I saw a number of such interpretations), but you need to verify that connection, Sadads (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sadads, I added the biography of the true captain of the Lively which source an 1804 publication that says he was on board his ship -- marking Aubrey on the ship as fiction, and quite rightly. The biography is handily on line. Then I boldly deleted your Citation needed, perhaps prematurely. Your other point about it being the same action, well, a previous editor made that link, I just moved to what I think is a more appropriate section. The prior editor simply linked to the Wikipedia article. The wikipedia article Action of 5 October 1804#In popular fiction makes the connection of the real to the fictional, in both the C S Forester novel and the Patrick O'Brian novel. Does that suffice? --Prairieplant (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this has bothered me in the Wikipedia articles for the Aubrey Maturin novels, that I have read so far. Prior editors put an impressive list of books about O'Brian and the series, put a fair amount of wiki links in a battle-oriented Plot summary, and avoid altogether putting in line citations to the page of the weighty references that supports the link from reality to a base for fiction. For the first novel, there hangs a short section that seems to claim the whole novel is Cochrane's life and naval missions fictionalized. Flagged since 2008, a long time. I thought it might be better to reproduce the author's introduction, where O'Brian describes the many sources for his novel, and says no fiction could outdo the reality of the early 19th century Royal Navy and its personalities (my rough memory, which is never word for word). I have read the novels, going through them again, but this is my first time to see what is on Wikipedia for them. I trust the lists of ships, but miss those in line citations, and miss the actual plot of the story, which is far more than segues from action to action. --Prairieplant (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Prairieplant: I can agree with all of the critiques for the Aubrey-Maturin novel pages. I tried, a few years back when I was reading all of the scholarship on O'Brian, to refocus some of the content and spent time working on the page Aubrey–Maturin_series. However, the relative deficit of easily accessible critiques of the novel in academic databases, and the obsession many of the companion books have with trivia, makes them hard to rewrite. This is precisely why we need to add more references to the allusions discussions, that are about his process or historian/critic assessment of the history he is writing about, rather than simply to other Wikipedia articles or assuming that these allusions are "truths". If you decide to take up rewriting one of the pages (I think Post-Captain would be great for this, there are relatively more reviews, and plenty of discussions in secondary matreials), I can pull sources via academic databases or interlibrary loan if you need. I think I might go back and read some of the novels this summer, I am doing work on food, representations of British culture, and adaptation into film. These novels are great for all those topics, Sadads (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sadads, my local library did a cost saving measure that cuts me off from the newspaper reviews of novels, just when I was set to learn how to use it. On-line without benefit of the library, I find blogs of course, and a good New York Times review from the 1990s, (Mark Horowitz, Patrick O'Brian's Ship Comes, May 16, 1993 In http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/10/18/specials/obrian-comesin.html) and Paris review interview with the author in the same decade, (Stephen Becker, Interviews: Patrick O'Brian, The Art of Fiction No. 142, Summer 1995, http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/1628/the-art-of-fiction-no-142-patrick-obrian) done before his true biographical past was revealed. I suppose that does not affect the author's comments on how he did his writing, from using quotes from so many languages & authors in the mouth of Stephen Maturin to using real naval history. He does claim to use real naval battles and says he cannot make up a fleet action. He does move them in place and time if it makes his story better. So I guess I do not see that a well-identified battle was improperly linked to the real one. My point with that battle was to make clear that he (PO) gave Aubrey the satisfaction of that fleet action with a fantastic crew, stealing the Spanish gold, and did it on the same date, but that the real captain did not go off to Parliament in real life, which is why the link belongs in allusions and not in the Plot summary. Okay, got that? (my brain is seeming convoluted, hope you can follow it.) On the other hand, I believe the ship Polychrest was a complete fiction, which the ship list fails to note (well it does now, I wrote sloop of fiction). I found that in a blog, I know, not a valid Wikipedia reference, but it was persuasive, even suggesting the two other ships on which the Polychrest was likely based. If you have access to academic databases, that will put you way ahead of me. I think I will be happy to find a serious reviewer who is not raving happy, or if so, explains why in simple language. Another blog (all I can find, sorry) made clear why the author's stated love of Jane Austen's writings shows up in Post Captain, by quoting a line seen to be Austen-like. Well I am getting wordy. My first step will be to take out comments not backed up by a source (the "everyone knows" sort of remark). And to have the Plot summary be more than fleet actions, because the character development is a huge part of these novels. If they were only fleet actions, he would not have found so much success. I guess I am taking out my frustration with my local library on you, not really fair. --Prairieplant (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sadads,

WikiProject Orphanage is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive to de-orphan articles which have orphan tags!
The goal is to eliminate the backlog of orphan articles. There are currently 57549 articles which have orphan tags. The drive is running from April 12, 2014 to May 12, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all editors participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive. To add your name in the participants list click here.
So start de-orphaning articles! Click here to see the list of articles need de-orphaning.
Visit Suggestions for how to de-orphan an article to know more!

Thanks.

WikiProject Orphanage through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014

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 reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at Britain's War Machine Interview: Article writers discuss German military history

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 20:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		I've been meaning to thank you for all your help and encouragement with the Porius article. This was invaluable and, in particular, has encouraged me to develop other articles more fully. Thanks. Rwood128 (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rwood128: Glad I could help! And thank you for the barnstar! Sorry I haven't been around too much to help do more deep editing and feedback. I finish my masters in a couple weeks and hope to be around a little bit more often then (And plan to expand articles like Novelist and push a couple more articles through GA, like Regeneration (novel)). Hope everything is going well! Sadads (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for assessing Owen Glendower. All the best with the studies. Rwood128 (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may not remember me, Georgiasouthernlynn, but we share an enduring love for the novel. You have helped me on several articles, and I respect your opinion, so I have a request.

In collaboration with another editor, I have written an article on Vanna Bonta, a speculative fiction writer who also voices feature films. She had a role in Beauty and the Beast, for instance.

It's in a sandbox, and I am wondering whether you would mind doing a formal or informal review of the article before I move it to the encyclopedia.

I became interested in Bonta's writing this year when I read her novel Flight, so this article is a labor of love for me and for Italstudio who may have answered a call for help that I placed on the Italian Wikipedia's Vanna Bonta page.

In researching the article, I learned that an article on the subject was previously published on Wikipedia, but it was deleted. I found this a little surprising, because the Italian Vanna Bonta article is in good standing as are the Vanna Bonta articles on the Spanish, German, and Japanese Wikipedias. The arguments on behalf of deletion mostly said things like "Well, sure there's media coverage, but she's not that famous" and "I've never heard of her" and "She probably wrote it herself" and then, in the same discussion, "Her agent wrote it."

None of these arguments look like to me like they are solidly rooted in Wikipedia policy, though I have to admit I never get involved in deletion debates, so the way they are negotiated remains something of a mystery to me.

Feel free to say no. If you have time to review the article, it's here:

I appreciate any advice you can give me,

Lynn

Update: There is now a third contributor to the article. By the time I finish this message, possibly more.--

@

User_talk:Georgiasouthernlynn/sandbox/VB, and will find my way back sometime next week or the week after. Give me a ping if I am not timely, Sadads (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 20:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)