User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 31
 | 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. |
Wikipedia workshop for cell biologists
Hi, this is Bill, from Wikimania, asking for a big favor.
I think I might have mentioned to you that the American Society for Cell Biology would like to have a "hands-on" workshop for its interested members in how to edit scientific articles and bring them to Good Article or even Featured Article status. Luckily for me and for them, they've also invited Tim Vickers.
I'd like this workshop to go smoothly and effectively; so I'd very much appreciate your help and ideas, both in advance and (if you'd be willing) during the workshop on December 16th at 12:30pm, San Francisco time. Undoubtedly you will think of things we don't, even with all of Tim's experience. In particular, I foresee that writing accessibly could be difficult for some scientists, and your help there would be especially valuable. I started this subpage as a central place for discussing/planning the workshop. A clear success with the cell biologists could lead to other opportunities with other scientific communities, as I'm sure you're aware.
I think we'll try to produce some online materials as advance reading for the scientists, but such materials might also be helpful for other new editors coming to Wikipedia. If I recall correctly, you've written some materials on writing/editing successfully for Wikipedia, haven't you? We need to keep the workshop itself pithy, since we've only two hours, but the online materials could be more expansive. Thanks for your help, Proteins (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Whenever you get a chance is fine; I remember that you had another Wikipedia paper to write up! However, you might be interested in this video on collaborative writing. Although it takes a long time to download, it has many good ideas, the key ones of which I intend to incorporate into our materials for the cell biologists. Proteins (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| Excellent work at Romeo and Juliet and its peer review. (Not that I expect anything less from you!) AndyJones (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC) |
Join the conversation!
I finally set up a page to discuss when to have our content-writing podcast. We're on our way! Scartol • Tok 12:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- We've got a finalized date and time for the podcast chat, so visit the page and sign up to confirm! Scartol • Tok 21:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Blurt: the other way around
When I'm walking around and not on Wiki, I remember that I should ask you this, then I get involved in articles and editing and whatnot here, and forget. One of the (hopefully endearing) quirky things about me is I forget stuff a lot, so in order to make sure someone hears it, I shout it out at inopportune times before I forget it again. This is such a time.
You mentioned in the podcast that you would like to persuade academics to add to articles on Wiki. What do you think of getting Wiki writers who are not academics to write for academic publications, incorporating their Wiki experiences? Would academic journals accept submissions by folks who have no C.V. credentials, but have as much background from writing FAs? Might academics see the kind of impact Wiki editors have, the readership of articles, and be persuaded to participate? It's something I wonder... --Moni3 (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Most publications aren't going to accept something from someone without a CV, but some might. Perhaps an online journal? (seems an appropriate venue, anyway). I'm in the middle of working on something like this for a journal that the Modern Language Association publishes. Due date: March 2009. Perhaps we could chat over email? Awadewit (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've requested peer review for this article, as I hope to make it a GA (not FA as yet). Any comments would be welcome. Thanks. Gidip (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Experiment
I'd like to impose an small experiment on you, if I may, as someone who has been involved with Wikipedia:FCDW/August 11, 2008. How would you evaluate these images, both from active FACs?
- Image:John McCain interview on April 24, 1974.jpg - This appears to have a sufficient description (although knowing who the interviewer was would be an added bonus), a working link to the source for the image, a seemingly accurate date (McCain looks much younger than he does today), an seemingly accurate photographer (the name matches the one at the LOC), and a precise PD tag (the photographer is one of the ones listed as working for hire for US News, so this image should have been released into the PD as part of the gift and should not need a fair use rationale).
- Image:Beyonce-Deja Vu in Sweden.jpg - The description should ideally contain the location of the concert, but the information is provided later; it is not clear, however, that the people who took the picture are the uploaders and can thus release the rights to it. If the author of the image and the uploader are not the same (which is kind of what "given with permission" implies) we need something from the actual authors releasing the rights of the image.
You may, obviously, use pre-existing knowledge, but I'm really curious as to whether the dispatch has the information needed to properly evaluate these. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
You were so awesome with Portal:Feminism/Selected anniversaries - care to help out with this one? :) - Cirt (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- If you are interested there are a couple potentially helpful links at Portal talk:Theatre/Selected anniversaries. Cirt (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Featured article review
You've commented on this in the past, I think. So I thought you might be interested in helping out with improving The Lord of the Rings, so I'm letting you know about Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Lord of the Rings. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a disagreement over the inclusion of Image:AntiSmokingNaziGermany.jpg in the article in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany. For this reason a consensus is necessary and discussion is going on in Talk:Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany#Consensus_for_Image:AntiSmokingNaziGermany.jpg. Notifying you because you are involved in it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have given the detailed rationale in Image:AntiSmokingNaziGermany.jpg. Please see the present version. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Yer jab
Hey! He was very important to her. Can't write about Harriet Tubman without a picture of John Brown, right? There's nothing unfeminist about searching for a picture of Mr. P. And shouldn't there be a semicolon after "hours" in that banner at the top of this page? Scartol • Tok 11:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- It wasn't a jab! I really meant that! We are working towards gender equality there! Awadewit (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
If you have the time to take a look
When To Kill a Mockingbird was on the main page, an editor called into question a portion of the lead that he felt was not properly cited. I disagreed, he feels it was not resolved, and we seem to be at an impasse. If you have a moment to get involved, please allow me to link to today's discussion, and the discussion on July 11. I would appreciate your comments in the matter. --Moni3 (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 61
Hello! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 61: Corpus_Linguistics has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 06:10, 21 August 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.
Barnstar
|
The Reviewers Award | |
| Thankyou for all the work you do for Featured article candidates. The FAC Process would surely crumble without your continued efforts. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC) |
Gnome Work
If you could point out here (or where ever, really) a place in which I added a template in a section without threaded replies, it would help me prevent the mistake in the future. Thanks. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Thriller FA
I've replied to the issues regarding images, unfortunately I'm not an image wizkid and need a little help. Cheers. — Realist2 15:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Vacation
Thanks for the note; I may need to restart some that are stalled at the bottom if there isn't some movement in a few days. Are there any you feel very strongly about before you "disappear"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have adopted the approach of beginning with "comments" and switching to "oppose" if the issues are not resolved in a timely fashion. If I strike out the comments, that means all issues have been addressed (I have started writing "all image issues addressed" to make this even clearer). Therefore, consider "oppose" a strong statement and "comments" a work in progress. If you would like me to begin all statements with "oppose" until the issues are resolved, let me know. I was trying to be diplomatic by beginning with "comments" (it is less frightening for nominators, I think). :) If I remember correctly, the only oppose I have lodged so far is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany. Awadewit (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- No, I like the way you're doing it (and it's particularly helpful that you say when you are "looking forward to supporting" as that gives me an indication which way you're heading if issues are addressed, as opposed to cases which need much more work to gain support). But Nazi Germany presents an example: when most issues have been addressed (in that case, prose hasn't, yet), and if we come down to one Fair Use question on a stalled nomination, if I don't get more feedback from other reviewers, I may have to restart to get a fresh look from everyone. I also like what Elcobbola does, where he raises image issues early on in a comment, but opposes when the concerns pass a threshold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 31 | 28 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 32 | 9 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 33 | 11 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 34 | 18 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Help wanted | ||
| WikiWorld: "Cashew" | Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| |
| 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) 05:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Rudeness
Sorry, but that was a clear error. If you continue to act in the manner that you just have, you are no longer welcome on my talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Question regarding Texas Tech University FA review
Can we use the same fair-use rationale as this ring image which appears in a featured article?
This FAC process is killing me. We looked to other featured articles for guidance but they were apparently not held to as high a standard. (Not saying that you're doing that to us. I'm just venting.) Texas A&M's article includes several things that we've been dinged for (including being dinged for them by a primary editor of that article). Ohio Wesleyan University has text sandwiched between images in several places. And, those are just two of the university-related FAs.
Let me know about the ring FUR and thanks for "listening" to my venting. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Vent away - we all have to do that. When I am writing FAs, I tend to forget about the criteria and instead think about how to make the best article on the subject. This has generally been a good strategy for me. If you ever want to trade tips on writing FAs, let me know. We have all had our MOS breakdowns. Awadewit (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think that fair use rationale will work since the ring has its own section, but I do wonder if the image is really necessary. The ring is well described in the text. I'm not sure the image adds much. Awadewit (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. While I've pitched in on a couple of FAs in the past, this is the first one where I'm on the front lines and it's tough. For the ring, I'll let Elred know and leave the decision to him since it's his image. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Since I know you just have oodles of free time, any chance you could take a copyedit crack at India House? It's up for FAC and facing opposition. I did a copyedit not long ago, but it still needs some prose work. Thanks again for the great podcast! Scartol • Tok 23:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
re: belated barnstar
Aw, thanks for the barnstar! I hope it didn't take too much copy-editing. :) It's odd, but although I'm not the biggest fan of Austen's work, I quite enjoy the film adaptations. It was interesting research, so if more is needed, just let me know. María (habla conmigo) 12:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
James Caird images
After your careful work in vetting the images on Voyage of the James Caird, User Fasach Nua has registered an oppose, on some general grounds which I don't understand. I know this user tends to oppose most FACs on image grounds. What would be the most appropriate response, if any? Brianboulton (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for P&P
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
| For your helpful copyedit and FAC comments to make Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV serial) the notch better where I have an unvoluntary blind eye. – sgeureka t•c 17:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC) |
I know the article still has some footnote-y issues, and I wished the FAC had stayed open until after they have been fixed. But I intended to thank you for your help anyway, which I hereby do now instead of later. – sgeureka t•c 17:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Could you Peer Review an Children's Literature for me please?
Hi there,
I noticed you were listed on the Peer Review volunteers, and I've request that Harry Potter has an Peer Review, if you have time, can you please peer review the article, and leave comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Harry Potter/archive3?
Thanks in advance, The Helpful One (Review) 13:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
You would think the beating I took at Introduction to Evolution would have kept me away from the Wikiworld. (Actually my Random Replicator account still has a self-imposed ban) Yet I return with a new identity, dragging my little innocents behind me. Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008 Perhaps a tad sadistic! Actually I'm optimistic that they will grow from the experience. As not doubt others before me have deduced; writing on Wikipedia can be more meaningful than writing your teacher a paper that is destined to the circular file cabinet. If you should stumble across any of the little buggers, feel free to give them a hug! They all perused the talk pages on the Intro Article and universally agreed that you must be a saint in real life! If they are correct in that summation -- then please bless our project. Cheers! --JimmyButler (talk) 04:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you mind If I cap your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mangalore since all the Image concerns have been met, or you can do it yourself. Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thought you would like to know that while you were away the image storm that was brewing seems to have blown itself out - I trust. However, the satellite image of Elephant Island that we wrestled over has had to go; apparently the source image was not free and permssion would be required to use it (see User:Elcobbola on FAC page). I have replaced it with a photograph of the party arriving on the island, and you might care to take a look when time permits. Thanks, anyway, for the help you have given with this article's images - which have proved an unexpectedly bothersome issue. Brianboulton (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Article was promoted 30 August. Thanks indeed. Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Nice of you to show interest. Current project is Southern Cross Expedition, currently at PR. Image issues to be resolved. The main Antarctic expedition and biographical articles are all done - I'm working on the lesser-known expeditions and supporting figures. I'm hoping to help another editor to get Tom Crean to FA. I'm also turning my attention northward - going on a trip to the Arctic in 2 weeks to take some photos. Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
14:55, 25 August 2008 Cloud Gate FAC edit
You never gave us a final word on the image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Disintegration FAC
I've made the fair use rationale you are objecting to on Disintegration a bit more specific. If you think it needs to be rephrases again, let me know. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Félix Houphouët-Boigny
I've just started college again, but since the early days aren't too stressful, I think I can manage focusing my attention on FHB for the month. I also picked up some English sources on FHB, so I will be adding more references to the article in the near future. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'll try to work on it when I can. I'm really not much of a copyeditor, so Nishkid will probably do most of the work. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should hold a second PR? --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 10:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of History of a Six Weeks' Tour
The article History of a Six Weeks' Tour you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:History of a Six Weeks' Tour for things needed to be addressed. Xover (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
re: Frankenstein
Guess I was too slow, hmm? :) --Laser brain (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hardly! That article is a multi-editor project! :) By the way, check out the newly promoted Proserpine (play) and the advancing History of a Six Weeks' Tour! I am slowly creeping through the "Mary Shelley wrote that?" list. Awadewit (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Meshuggah image
Good day Awadewit! I have a question. I want tho use this image (Image:Meshuggah-Catch33.jpg) in the article Meshuggah. May I use this image for the article as it is, or does the image need some changes? Like the fair use rationale etc.?-- LYKANTROP ✉ 18:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would recommend using this template. Also, be sure to include who the copyright holder is in as specific terms as possible. Awadewit (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- There are several problems. The picture does not have its source (is it better to upload new one?). The other thing is that I need to use it for 2 articles: the main body of Meshuggah (the band) and the infobox of Catch Thirtythree. How do I write this to that template? I also noticed that the template says "This template is optimized for album cover art used in the article about the album. Other contexts may work, but it may not", what is pretty confusing. I also noticed two versions of this kind of usage of an image (both in FAs). Metallica has in its article the cover of Load (album). But for each purpose there is a different image, each with a fair use rationale for one of the articles. Slayer has in its body the cover of Christ Illusion, the same one as the album infobox. This image says nothing about the usage in the Slayer article. Is there a way how to make the fair use rationale for 2 articles at the same time? Or is it better to use two different images (/unnecessary 2 same inages?). Or some better solution?-- LYKANTROP ✉ 20:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Uploading a new version of the image with a known source would be the best way to go, yes.
- Looking at the cover of Load (album) within the Metallica article, I can see why they included the image. I think the fair use rationale could have explained what the caption does so well, but clearly this is a distinctive cover in the history of the band.
- The Slayer article should have a fair use rationale for the Christ illusion image. I would leave a note myself, but I am leaving for India in a few days, so I wouldn't be able to properly follow up. Perhaps you could mention it to them? The description of the image in the caption certainly explains why the image is necessary. Wow!
- I would place two fair use rationales on the image of description page for Image:Meshuggah-Catch33.jpg, one explaining its use in Meshuggah, which will hopefully say someone interesting about the cover like the Metallica and Slayer articles did, and one explaining its use in the Catch Thirtythree article, which will be the more generic claim to identifying the subject of the article. Does that make sense? Awadewit (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Great! Thanks for that! This is the result. I wish you a pleasant visit of that beautiful country, culture and people (my sister is currently in India as well :) - what a chance!). If you have several minutes, I would be glad if you could read the short "Lyrics, songwriting and recording" section in the article I linked above and just have a look if the language of that section is allright (small copy-edit). Thanks again and have a nice day!-- LYKANTROP ✉ 16:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that! If you like you can leave some comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meshuggah. :) Cheers.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 21:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Vinland Saga
It looks like it won't be necessary for the review to be sped up since my grandfather is recovering nicely from his stroke so far, but if you're still interested in reviewing it, I'd be fine with that. Whether you know much about manga or not isn't particularly important, since getting an outsider opinion on the article's accessibility is an important part of the assessment. (Plus the WP:MANGA project is actually a bit of a stickler about getting its passing reviews done by non-members.) --erachima talk 20:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Reception history of Jane Austen
The article Reception history of Jane Austen you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Reception history of Jane Austen for things needed to be addressed. Xover (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Podcast
Thanks heaps for recording the podcast last week on a wide range of copy editing / content issues. Awadewit dropped a note on my talk page letting me know that it was 'good to go' - and as I said at WP:AN, I feel smarter already, and I've only heard it once! It's now online at 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly', and hopefully it's only the first in a series!
Once again - thanks :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Johnson
I looked at what you say and I can't really do what you ask, because you ask a lot. However, what I can do is trim part of the childhood section (made it its own page per Charles Darwin) and put in his literary philosophy, which is just a summary of some of his views on genres. I did part of that here, and I still have to add a paragraph on the nature of criticism. However, you are still treating him as an author, when he was a in fact a scholar. DGG said to follow Charles Darwin as the best model, and this page goes above and beyond Darwin right now. If you don't agree, then you are going against the consensus of a lot of editors that came from an extensive peer review and very extensive talk page consensus building, and this would not allow you to argue anything under 1b or 1c. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Cloud Gate images
Hey Awadewit, I wanted to post this over on your talk so we don't unnecessarily clutter the FAC page any more than it already is. I have a couple of questions about potential images. Firstly, do you think this image would need a fair use rationale? I'm hoping not since it does not even show the sculpture. If that is a yes, then I'm planning on using that to replace the current seam picture which would put the article at only 3 fair use images.
The other question I have concerns this picture. Would this need a fair use rationale too? I'm not too sure so I thought I would ask before I asked the author for permission to use the image. If it does, do you think we would be able to write one, or is this a lost cause? Thanks for all your help and sorry for being a pain. --TorsodogTalk 05:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- If both of these images are taken by Lynn Becker, then they would require an OTRS release from the author since the website claims copyright over them. However, I cannot find the images situated in the website, so it is hard for me to figure out who the actual photographer is for sure. The first one would not need a fair use rationale since it does not, as you point out, show the sculpture. I assume the second one shows the sculpture in production. That one I am less sure about. Since the sculpture is not identifiable in that photo, I would guess that it does not need a fair use rationale, but I would suggest you ask Elcobbola to make sure on that one. And by the way, you are not being a pain. It is always best to ask! :) Awadewit (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: my medal
I've just seen the review medal you sent me for Proserpine. That was most kind. If anyone deserves a medal it's you, if only for your willingness to tackle image reviewing - in addition to your already vast workload. I'd send you a medal myself, but I'm too stooopid to know how to do it, so you'll just have to bask in my warm thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- I add my thanks for the image work. I didn't even realize Emmy was TFA-bound, but whee! Now I get to check compulsively all day for vandalism. I didn't realize the pic of her at the desk was unfree, but apparently I uploaded it with the intention of adding an FUR. Anyway, it would appear that the current pic is free. Thank goodness for whoever switched it! Scartol • Tok 11:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
re: Reception history of Jane Austen
Hey, congrats! I'm glad to see that the Austen FT is on its way. Happy to be of service, but to be fair, I had the easy stuff to work with; you two did all the heavy lifting. :) As if I didn't have enough on my plate, now I want to try my hand at a film article... María (habla conmigo) 13:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Samuel Johnson list
Awadewit, NO hurry on this as you travel ... I'm just trying to do the "done" ticking off. Ottava says he's gotten most of the excess quotes that concerned you. When you get a chance, can you see if there are any of concern remaining? You can put your response wherever most convenient for you so you don't have to trudge through the entire FAC while you're traveling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Awadewit. I started a discussion on an image and its caption in the above article. As you were the person that added them, I wanted to make sure you are involved or at least aware. As you are traveling, I'll hold off any edits at least until the end of September or until we've heard from you. Enjoy India!!!--Objix (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Shelley
Invest in a used, cheap copy of the Modern Critical Views of Mary Shelley edited by Harold Bloom. Although Harold is kind of a jerk (by needing to write on everyone), it collects some essays that you might find interesting. I mention this because you didn't mention his Samuel Johnson edition, and I haven't seen it in any of the references. Most people don't realize that its out there. Also, I have quite a bit of information on The Last Man which I can transcribe and host onto a sandbox page for your use/so you can pick and choose anything you might want to incorporate. In particular, I have quite a bit of works about Apocalyptic narrative/Christian apocalypse. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- That's a helpful suggestion, thanks. Would it be easier for you to list the citations for The Last Man material rather than type everything out? By the way, did you know about The Last Man (film)? I was thinking I should do the novel article soon, so that film fans can read about the original. :) Awadewit (talk) 05:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)