User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 28
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Sterne's secretive squiggle
A favor, if you have any ideas: At the beginning of La Peau de chagrin, Balzac inserts this image, which he attributes to "Sterne—Tristram Shandy, ch. cccxxii". Apparently in the Sterne novel, Corporal Trim traces the image (or one similar) in the air to illustrate the freedom an unmarried man enjoys. I can't find it anywhere in my copy of Sterne's novel, and a Google book search for "Corporal Trim" hasn't been any help. I did find the image online in a discussion of Sterne, and some of my Balzac criticism books refer to it being in Sterne – but I can't seem to find it in the original text. Any thoughts? – Scartol • Tok 11:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
|
The Guidance Barnstar | |
| For helping me find my way to the true origin of Tristram's squiggle, I offer this award as a token of my thanks. – Scartol • Tok 15:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC) |
I got another problem: Pursuant to this situation, assuming I can figure out what language it is, and how accurate Balzac's translation is: None of the books appear to address it. Wouldn't my explanation be OR? Maybe I can find an article somewhere about it. – Scartol • Tok 14:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why are you concerned about how accurate Balzac's translation is? I assume this is all part of the conceit of the novel? I don't think Balzac would have assumed that his audience could read Arabic. Awadewit (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose it's mostly my own curiosity. But given how hard he worked to make sure the details about wallpaper and historical events were accurate, I'm tempted to believe he sought out an accurate rendering of the Arabic script. (Of course, that leads to the question about why the shopkeeper calls it "Sanskrit" – but I think that may be a consciously-selected element of character; he doesn't even know the language of the thing he's selling.) – Scartol • Tok 13:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
DYK
|
On 23 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Gatoclass (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Is this draft funny?
Look here. I want to make people smile at least, or groan in disgust. I just about die laughing writing these, but maybe I am peculiar.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopaedia
Well, it looks like there are conflicting reports regarding the number of volumes in Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopaedia. 133 v. 134. The article on Dionysius Lardner claims it was 134 volumes, but that's coming straight from Encyclopedia Brittanica. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- That is the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, which is less reliable than the academic, peer-reviewed sources I have used for the Lives article. Peckham, for example, says 133 volumes and lists them in his article. My other sources confirm this. Awadewit (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
If you can ...
I saw the notice at the top of the talk page, but I would be grateful if you could have a look at Roman-Persian Wars, which is on peer-review. I always have a high esteem for your opinion, and I still remember your excellent copy-editing, and useful suggestions before Battle of Greece became FA. But if you have no time, no problem at all! Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Another request for help
Surely, you wouldn't mind popping in at the peer review for Washington Irving, considering a minor connection with Mary Shelley? :) User:Federalistpapers is a relatively inexperienced yet ambitious editor and I've been trying to help him through the challenge of this article. Don't feel the need to be in depth, but any advice would be helpful to us. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Maurice (Shelley)
|
|
On 26 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Maurice (Shelley), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--BorgQueen (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll review Maurice. I may need a day or two off first, tho. (I really pushed myself to finish The Skin this weekend. Let the good times roll on Memorial Day weekend – woo!) Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 02:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I just want to say that I haven't forgotten to do the review. I'll get to it this weekend. How would you feel about a longer lead for the article? – Scartol • Tok 15:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- I put it on hold. It's really close, but some small stuff needs to be fixed, which I didn't feel comfortable doing myself. (In the case of missing texts in the Bib, I can't do it.) Also, I tried to think of how the lead might be expanded, then realized you have a very good-sized lead as is. So never mind about the longer lead. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 20:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- I just want to say that I haven't forgotten to do the review. I'll get to it this weekend. How would you feel about a longer lead for the article? – Scartol • Tok 15:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
FAC for Hubert Walter
Just wanted to let you know that I'll be on those concerns (which are really valid and not a problem at all, except the dreaded "make the flow better" which I may punt to you, since you are the English person, I'm History!) once I get off the road and settled in. Didn't want you thinking I was ignoring it. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Request for Peer Review help
Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.
1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...
2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.
3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.
Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we've addressed all of your concerns. If you could take another gander, it would be greatly appreciated. — MusicMaker5376 22:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Random thoughts
I've been reading Footsteps by Richard Holmes, and thought I'd mention one or two things that occurred to me while doing so.
- Where does that thing about Fanny Imlay being conceived in a tollbooth come from? ("At one point during Wollstonecraft and Imlay's relationship, the couple could only meet at a tollbooth between Paris and Neuilly, and it was there that their daughter was conceived.") This might just make sense if by "there" is meant Neuilly, rather than the tollbooth. Reading Holmes, it seems clear to me that Fanny was conceived in Mary's cottage at Neuilly, where Gilbert Imlay often spent time with her. Mary would often meet him at the barrier, but then they went to her cottage, which she was renting. I think what is meant by "tollbooth" is the sixty barrier towers built into the Paris wall, which were locked at curfew, to go through which you needed a passport: Imlay had one and Wollstonecraft did not. These towers had been built in 1784 "for tax collection purposes", so perhaps this is where the "tollbooth" comes from. What clearly did NOT happen is that they conceived Fanny inside one of these towers. They conceived at Neuilly, by the Seine, just outside the barrier. She was a "barrier child" in the sense of a child conceived by a couple that lived on each side of the barrier, I think, rather than one conceived on the barrier.
-
- As it explains in the footnote on the page, it all goes back to Godwin's edition of Wollstonecraft's letters to Imlay. Godwin added a note explaining that "The child is in a subsequent letter call the 'barrier-girl,' probably from a supposition that she owed her existence to this interview." The note is appended to a letter which MW wrote to GI, asking him to meet her "at the barrier" and she does refer to Fanny as the "barrier girl" in a later letter. Awadewit (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, she is referred to as a "barrier girl", but I don't take that to mean she was conceived at the barrier (the barrier was the wall, and the way through was via gates in the towers). That would have been impossible. Wollstonecraft would meet Imlay at the barrier because she was not allowed through herself; he would then go with her to the cottage nearby, at Neuilly. qp10qp (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- However, all of the biographies except Holmes say she was conceived at the toll gate at the barrier - that is how they read Godwin's note and MW's letter. Since I'm not really sure what the toll gate is, I hesitate to contradict them. If you are really concerned about it, how about putting the entire bit about the toll gate and the barrier into the footnote along with Holmes? I don't think the exact location of her conception is that significant, anyway. Awadewit (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh it doesn't matter to me a lot; but I think these interpreters are puttting two and two together and making five, and that this will raise a reader's eyebrows or set their imaginations off in the wrong direction. Perhaps Wollstonecraft regarded her cottage as at the barrier. More likely this was local parlance for children conceived by couples separated by the barrier. It might even be, where neither partner had a passport, that barrier copulation did indeed take place, somehow, hence the expression. But Holmes makes clear that Imlay spent a lot of time at Wollstonecraft's cottage at Neuilly, which is plainly where the conception took place.
- Holmes says this: "Her most frequent visitor was of course Imlay, whom she would go to meet at the barrier in the summer evenings. Long after, she would recall with delight the smiling, expectant look of his barrier face. Mary remained in her retreat at Neuilly for four months, until September 1793. It was a magical time—perhaps the happiest of her whole life. Within the turmoil of the Revolution she had unexpectedly discovered what came to seem like her own private Garden of Eden. She was writing hard, and at the same time successfully sharing her life with someone she deeply loved. Intellectually Imlay was a stimulating companion, and constantly brought her the latest news of events in Paris, which they would discuss long into the night ... The sole remaining evidence of the place lies in two of her little love-notes scrawled to Imlay: the one regretting a 'snug dinner' she had missed with him, but leaving the key in the door; the other begging him to cherish her, 'and your own dear girl will try to keep under a quickness of feeling, that has sometimes given you pain'." For me, it is hard to see where a "tollbooth" comes into this as a place to make love. qp10qp (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
qp10qp (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Holmes has a lovely detail which I don't know if you think would be over the top to put in Fanny's article: that her birth certificate states she was born on the 25th day of Floreal in the Second Year of the Republic!
- Holmes quotes a number of charming little extracts from Wollstonecraft's Lessons. Do you have the text of those? I think one or two might be worth placing in the article, since they are about Fanny and are very touching.
- On Joseph Johnson: I have just read your and Willow's article for the first time. Excellent stuff: I warm to that bloke. The article mentions that Wollstonecraft thought of him as a father and brother, but I wonder if her little note to him in which she says that would be worth including, since it really is very sweet and moving. It would be good to hear her voice in the article.
I wanted to read the book for the Shelley stuff, but now I've drifted into the Wollstonecraft parts. On Shelley, each time I read that Casa Magni episode I feel sorrier for Mary Shelley. This poor woman: not only does she have a life-threatening miscarriage (followed, I suspect, by depresssion), but she has to cope with Percy romancing Jane Williams under her nose. Holmes cannot believe that a man like Percy Shelley would leave his own child in Naples and so opts for the adopted-an-orphan theory; but I don't know so much. How could he treat Mary that way? How could he write to someone else two days after Mary's miscarriage complaining of how cold she was being? How could he leave her side to go swanning up and down the coast in his boat? I think in many ways he was a well-meaning (certainly a charming and charismatic) man, but the key to his character seems to be that he was deeply amoral. And there is nothing more frustrating and exhausting than that sort of person, in the long run.
- It's probably not clear-cut about Percy. I try to resist casting either him, Mary, or Claire as villains in a story: they were real people, with messy lives, and there was a lot of good in them, even Percy. He does seem appallingly selfish, but not on the scale of Byron. You're right that free love becomes tricky when children are involved. And one gets the impression that Percy made the decision that free love was to be the order of the day, and that Mary had little choice about it from the first: clearly she was temperamentally unsuited to it. qp10qp (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- PBS seems personally selfish to me yet oddly idealistic. It seems he wanted to be generous to the world but not to his companions. Byron is another story entirely - I don't think he had PBS's ideals at all - he seems more cynical and manipulative to me - perhaps more realistic. I feel like I'm being sucked into their world! Visions of a Byron biography are dancing before my eyes, but then I think of all the literary criticism on Byron and I despair. It would be another Austen. I just can't do that. Awadewit (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, so much for my rambling. qp10qp (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 50
It may not be weekly, but Wikipedia Weekly has finally reached Episode 50! Listen or download MP3 and OGG versions at the episode's page.
- Have a comment about the episode? You can leave your comment right on the episode's page!
- Miss an episode? Catch up in the Wikipedia Weekly archives at wikipediaweekly.org!
- Know someone who would love Wikipedia Weekly? Tell them about it!
- Care to participate in a podcast? Sign up here!
For the Wikipedia Weekly team, WODUPbot 00:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.
FA team initiation?
Since the FA team is fairly new, I don't know if you can answer this question, or if there is an answer to it. Since yours is the only overt response to my proposal of articles to bring to FA, I was wondering if the editors listed on the project page are as enthusiastic about the project as they were when Murder, Madness, and Mayhem articles were going through. If they are, I was imagining that everyone is active, and it's rather like a sorority where they kidnap unknowing initiates and haze them by tying them to a tree in the woods, and forcing them to drink the entire bottle of Jack Daniels. I don't mind the hazing, with or without the paddle - just FYI. You can pass that on to the other members. Or... I don't know what I need to do, if anything. I'm also ok with being patient and bringing my articles to FAC with GA and PR to face what music may play at the right time. Anything you can tell me would be appreciated. --Moni3 (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is nothing you have to do. The FA-Team was a bit exhausted after MMM, I think, and needed to get reorganized a bit. This has now happened and your project should hopefully be up and running now. Awadewit (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wot Awadewit said. :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The FA-Team
Hi. There has been some discussion of how to improve the FA-Team's functioning. It's be grand if you could comment on the new suggested structure, and perhaps also look at our current proposals. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Responded. Awadewit (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Many thanks. I moved Adam Smith over to mission 3, as per the proposal. The idea is to group all single-article missions together, to try and create some synergy. If you think that this is a problem, feel free to undo. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 21 | 19 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 22 | 26 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Moving your peer review at Talk:Adam Smith to WP:PR
Do you mind if I move your review to a formal peer review request that I will open, so that things are more organized? The list is useful so it would be better if it was easier to reach with a PR link on the article's talk page. Gary King (talk) 03:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
A wee request
I know your banner up top says "bug off", but this is only about a single paragraph (specifically, the final lead ¶ in Emmy Noether). A suggestion here (toward the bottom of the section) suggests that we trim it; I respond in the same spot with my reasons for keeping the items proposed for removal. A rewrite of the paragraph is suggested in the second comment here, but I'd rather just keep the lead as is. We agreed that you'd be a good person from whom to seek a third opinion. Thanks in advance; I understand if it's not feasible. – Scartol • Tok 15:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Zelda
Hi Awadewit, I hope I'm not violating your banner here :) I finished expanding Zelda to the level I think appropriate. I'm planning on going through and adding more of the scholarship to Save Me the Waltz, which is the article for which I think the majority of it will be most appropriate. A Fitzgerald featured topic would be a project I'd enjoy if I could keep it limited. If the FTC community would accept Zelda Fitzgerald, Save Me the Waltz, F. Scott Fitzgerald, This Side of Paradise, The Beautiful and Damned, The Great Gatsby, Tender Is the Night and The Love of the Last Tycoon as a topic--there lives and novels--I would go for it. But if I had to get into the short stories as well I'd be overwhelmed. The scholarship is difficult for me to come by once we get off into the weeds, and I don't actually enjoy his short stories all that much. --JayHenry (talk) 05:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Awadewit. I tried to add a little more history info to the New York State Route 28 article, but I can't find much more. If you could take another look, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Egypt
I saw the notice on your talk page a while back, soliciting input for the Wikimania conference. If you're still looking for material, I would like to contribute. I'm not sure what you're looking for, though. If you have already compiled all the information you need, I would be interested to know what is the end result. This is a fascinating thing we're doing. --Moni3 (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Midas (Shelley) DYK nom
Hi Awadewit - a minor issue - where is the mention of "Metamorphoses" in the article? It should be made clear if it is to be part of the DYK hook. Vishnava talk 19:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
6/5 DYK
|
|
On 5 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Midas (Shelley), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Bedford Pray 01:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Shoemaker and I (to a lesser extent), have done a lot of work on Trial. Some sections have been added or re-arranged quite a bit. Could you take a quick look and update your comments? Thanks for all your help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message. Sure. The article has continued to move along and is now up for GA review. Let us know if you have any updates to your comments, further comments, etc. Also let us know if you think we made any ill-advised changes to the detriment of the article. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men
The article Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men you nominated as a good article has passed 
, see Talk:Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Cirt (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Austen comic
I thought you'd like to see this. She does some very amusing comics involving historical and literary figures. (I also really like this one.) – Scartol • Tok 19:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
RCC FAC
This message is being sent to all opposers of the Roman Catholic Church FAC. Thank you for taking the time to come see the page and give us your comments. I apologize for any drama caused by my imperfect human nature. As specified in WP:FAC, I am required to encourage you to come see the page and decide if your oppose still stands. Ceoil and others have made changes to prose and many edits have been made to address FAC reviewers comments like yours. Thank you. NancyHeise (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
May reviewer award
|
The Reviewers Award | |
| To Awadewit, For your excellent work at Featured article candidates during May, thank you for the solid reviews of articles this month and for your thorough work towards helping promote Wiki's finest work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC) |
Temporary help with the EB?
Hey A,
Could I ask a favour of you? The Encyclopædia Britannica is beginning an advertising campaign about its wikification, which seems like an online version of its old system by which its readers would send them corrections? I feel as though I should be writing that up and incorporating it into the EB article—there's a nice interview with Jorge Cauz online as well—but my brain is already overtaxed with trying to learn all this abstract algebra developed by Emmy Noether, and I can't really pull myself away. As the saying goes, I'm in deep. ;) Maybe you could take the article under your wing for a week or so? Tim added something already, so it may not be any work at all. Anything you or Tim want to do with the article is fine with me, as I'm sure you know. :)
Thanks muchly; you're the best! :) Willow (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Just this once, can I say no? (Guilt overtakes Awadewit.) I have four weeks to write my two Wikipedia conference papers. I don't think I'm going to be doing much on Wikipedia for the next few months, aside from copyediting Mary Shelley. You know I always want to help you out, but I am just swamped with work and I must do it so that I can get a job, you know! Awadewit (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course, and you know that I want the best for you. You should definitely be working on whatever will help you; I daresay it will help us all, too. :) If you'd like, maybe you could send me the papers when you're proud of them? I'd very much enjoy reading your work, and I wouldn't blab the conclusions to anyone. ;) Willow (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Mary Shelley peer review
Wikipedia:Peer review/Mary Shelley/archive1 now exists: please add your signature (and change my gauche wording, if necessary). In view of the above thread, I'm happy to field most of the comments if you are busy (I mean, I have quite a Mary Shelley library going on here these days, kept separate from my history books, of course!). I'll beg some reviews from victims people tomorrow. qp10qp (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Creatures of Impulse
|
Creatures of Impulse Barnstar | |
| Thanks for all your help with this article, looking up reviews, finding an image, copyediting assistance, and good advice. It managed to become an FA today, just one month, two days after its creation! =) For that help, I award you this special barnstar Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC) |
Hello, A. Thanks for all your help. Thanks also for sending the Grove online article about Alberto Randegger. I added some information from the grove online article to Alberto Randegger, but I am not sure exactly how to cite the grove online article. Can you please fix my footnote number 2 at Alberto Randegger? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
John Newbery
I have written articles on Newbery's history with Christopher Smart. Newbery wrote at least three books. He also wrote poems. Cease and desist now. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- What children's books did Newbery write? Show me the sources. As far as I know, there is no conclusive evidence that Newbery wrote any children's books. Awadewit (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Next time you pretend to know something that you don't actually know, don't make it so obvious. Here is one easy to find source among hundred: source. "In 1744 John Newbery wrote A Little Pretty Pocket Book for children." You are wrong because you edit without researching first. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ottava Rima, these accusations are tiresome and unfounded. I have done quite a bit of research on eighteenth-century children's literature, as it is the topic of my dissertation. As for the Little Pretty Pocket Book, if you will check the Roscoe bibliography for Newbery, you will note that it indicates the Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature only "tentatively credits" Newbery with authorship for that book. This is an excellent example of my claim that there is no conclusive evidence for Newbery's authorship of children's books and, as I stated on your talk page, scholarly debate over the issue. Awadewit (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- You edited warred. You didn't research. You are wrong and still wrong. Macmillian's encyclopedia gives him full credit. You haven't clue. You can stop the harassment now, or I can file a civility complaint against you. Wikipedia is not a battleground or a place to push your unfounded unresearched POV. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ottava Rima, these accusations are tiresome and unfounded. I have done quite a bit of research on eighteenth-century children's literature, as it is the topic of my dissertation. As for the Little Pretty Pocket Book, if you will check the Roscoe bibliography for Newbery, you will note that it indicates the Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature only "tentatively credits" Newbery with authorship for that book. This is an excellent example of my claim that there is no conclusive evidence for Newbery's authorship of children's books and, as I stated on your talk page, scholarly debate over the issue. Awadewit (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
FAC MS
I say we go for it in about a week's time. (We've only had one PR so far, but it is like about four!) I've got some holiday in early July, so will be freely available. With luck, it could be over by the 10th, when you go. qp10qp (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 24 | 9 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Gayden Wren - A Most Ingenious Paradox
Actually, word in the scholarly community is that it's not particularly good. Ah, well! Just have to use my other... 16 books and couple dozen vocal scores and hope for the best =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)