User talk:Gerrit-Jan Berendijk/Archive 2 Nov 10 -Aug 11

Talk:Paris Métro Line 12/GA2

A GA review of Paris Métro Line 12 has been put on hold for seven days. Clean up and cite tags have been placed on the article to indicate where work needs to be done. SilkTork *^YES! 02:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the perceptive review. I've worked through a fair number of tags and will post other observations on the review page. Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Requesting advice on getting article evaluated

Hello again, Kt. Since we worked together on Earnest, I have put a fair bit of time into very substantially upgrading another Wikpedia article: the biography of a late 19th/early 20th century US progressive politician, Robert Latham Owen. The article is rated stub or start class. Even before I started, that rating was a bit out of date, and now all the more so. Since you are much more experienced than I in the ways of Wikipedia, I wanted to ask for your advice on how one goes about getting an article re-assessed after a lot of work has been done on it. Thank you for any guidance you can offer, and all best wishes. Nandt1 (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Humbled that you asked Nandt. Most wikiprojects have an assessment department, you could request an assesment at WP:Biography, WP:Politics or Wikipedia:WikiProject United States for this particular article. If you think the article meets the criteria for GA or FA status, you could nominate it for one of those. I'll have a look over the article and see which would be best. Best wishes, --Ktlynch (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice elsewhere. I have started the ball rolling on a review. All best wishes. Nandt1 (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your encouragement with Robert Latham Owen which made the grade as a Good Article yesterday. Nandt1 (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on the promotion, it's no mean feat. I hardly helped at all. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Greetings of the season to you and yours!

Happy Holidays, Gerrit-Jan Berendijk! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a very Merry Christmas and happy editing in the year ahead! MarnetteD | Talk 20:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The barnstar that isn't

Hi Kt. I am not at all versed in harnessing all the powers of what a computer can do but I want you to know that if I was I would have created a barnstar entitled "The all of us are in the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars barnstar" and awarded it to you for all of you work on Oscar Wilde related articles. Many thanks for all of your efforts. MarnetteD | Talk 20:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your season's greetings and kind praise. I am humbled to be so recognised by an editor of your pedigree, you've been a stalwart in improving and defending those articles for far longer than I have been editing. I am currently moving location and should have more access to strong theatre sources soon, and look forward to collaborating with you on more articles on Wilde's works with you in the new year. A featured topic on his plays is very possible. Wishing you a happy, holy Christmas, --Ktlynch (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

politics and oscar wilde

As far as removing sourced information this can be a case of vandalism. And as far as the structure of the article, maybe it should be broken up into sections such as "biography" "politics", etc. I don´t see a good reason why hiding the political views of Wilde and it happens that his views in The soul of man under socialism were influential and that he was outspoken about them so as to dedicate them a long political essay. And of course you are mentioning that this is the second time you are removing this. --Eduen (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the one citation that you did add was copied from the specific article, so it is still on wikipedia. I happen to be more of the opinion that adding huge chunks of political aggrandising to biographies is closer to vandalism, though as I explained on your talk page I don't think it is. I also cited another example of how one quotation does not mean some is "an influence". Again as stated on your page, you are in danger of overstating the importance of this topic in Wilde's biography. The article is a biography.

The political views of Wilde are not hidden, but are mentioned several times throughout the article: his support for the Haymarket anarchists, his support for women writers, his defence of Parnell and his advocacy of the separation of ethics from aesthetics. The sources that you have mentioned, to the extent that you have provided many, are partisan anarchist sources, i.e. those who want to advance the anarchist agenda and adopt Wilde into it. Biographical and mainstream critical studies of Wilde's work do not give that particular essay the prominence you do. The Portrait of Mr W.H., for instance, is considered to be a far more important piece than Soul of Man.

It is the second time I have removed it because it is the second time the anarchist task force and self declared anarchists have pushed their own political views forward, with the same lame web essay in support. If you want to discuss anarchist responses to the essay in question, then that article is a better place to do it. Best wishes, --Ktlynch (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Political agenda? well. It is clear that he was more of a literary personality than a political activist but he did have an important interest in politics as the long essay The soul of man under socialism shows. That essay shows well he is interested in the relationship of creativity and artistic expression in current society but it goes beyond that as he deals with things like private property, state and church censorship, mass culture and other political matters and does show specific ideological affinity. "Pure" literary personalitites might really not exist and i didn´t try to force on Wilde opinions he didn´t have. Fiction writers are thinking persons just like anybody and it happens that some writers might not write anything directly dealing on politics but Wilde did just as Leo Tolstoy did for example, and so their politics end up influencing their lives. In many articles about literary personalities on english wikipedia a small section on that person´s politics is somehow common and so even about a somehow more "apolitical" personality such as Charles Baudelaire there is one while you somehow seem surprised about the idea. And of course if you talk about "partisan" sources one can very well suggest that on Wilde you won´t find them in fascism or conservatism or marxist-leninism but in Anarchism for an obvious reason. You can claim that some anarchists might "exagerate things" for their political agenda but it happens that the cited work of George Woodcock is a long serious work of historical research and so you will have a very hard task on questioning Woodcock´s scholarship. The book Anarchism: a history of libertarian ideas is not a political or theoretical essay on the author´s opinions but a rigorous historical book which I suspect you are judging without ever having checked it first. A quick look at it should show anyone how silly the sentence "partisan work" is just as a quichk check on George Woodcock´s "credentials" as a scholar. As I check http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/22753/anarchism , the enciclopedia britannica article on Anarchism, it shows at the beginning that George Woodcock is a main contributor to their article. And one of the sources cited for the relationship between Wilde and anarchism is the enclopedia britanica and that same article Anarchism in which Wilde is mentioned.

In a sentence here seems you are accussing me of "pushing an anarchist agenda" and of being a "self declared anarchist". Maybe you need to take this discussion in a less emotional way.--Eduen (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

1.I don't deny his interest in politics, I just think the article is already long and the essay in question is already given considerable space.

2.The style of the Wilde article is different to the ones you cite, here literary criticism is mixed with biography. This is an acceptable and standard style.

3. Woodcock is the single reliable source I mentioned that you cited. But there's only space for a few words based on his book. The point is that it's a book all about anarchism. If you read a book all about Oscar Wilde there is little or no space devoted to anarchism

4. Your userpage has anarchist written all over it and all of your contributions seems to be about it, that was all I meant. I have already said I think you are working in good faith. There have been previous attempts to hijack the page for various causes, see the essay I linked on your talk page. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

To summarise, I agree that Wilde's essay is an important part of his work, but his take on political theory is typically unique and deserves a proper nuanced treatment. According to WP:SS the Wilde article is already too long. The best place to add new information on The Soul of Man under Socialism is that article which is still a stub. Finally, I apologise if my tone was a little brisk, I was very tired when I wrote that last comment. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom Hooper

Thanks for your thorough review of Tom Hooper (director). Regarding your suggestion about his style, I have actually being drafting such a section over the last few weeks but have chosen not to incorporate it thus far because of a) the risk of it being a bit original research-y and b) it would only cover his works over the last four years. Hopefully as the Oscars draw nearer, more reliable publications will profile his career as a whole and that information can be covered. Thanks again. Bradley0110 (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, thanks for providing us with an interesting article to read, with the success of the King's Speech it should prove useful to many people. The narrative and cinematographic style is obviously the most interesting feature of any director, though of course the basics have to be in place first. As I mentioned he is still a youngish director with only a handful of features, but I smiled to myself when I read about the crane shot in Eastenders, and early sign of ambition! One if already starting to see deeper mediations on the King's Speech and its maker as attention continues beyond ordinary film reviews. Please let me know if I can be of any help. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Sister Wives

Thanks! Looking forward to working through the review with you! — Hunter Kahn 22:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks again! — Hunter Kahn 17:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Paris Métro Line 12

I've closed the GA Review as a fail. Once the sections and statements that are tagged as needing citing can be sourced the article can be nominated again. SilkTork *^YES! 16:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

A pity, apologies for the wait, I simply could not track the sources over the holidays. I now have access to a large research library and will try to locate some soon. Many thanks for your patience and thorough review. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sage Ross,

Thanks for your invitation, I'm flattered to be asked. I'm interested because I think building links between wikipedia and academia is a good idea, because I'd like to become a better teacher & mentor, and, as a bonus, I know a little about public policy since I studied economics and political science at university. I'm going to send you an email about it. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks

Hello again. Many thanks for the wee dram. Whew - what with the holidays and then WikiP's 10th anniversary my liver has been put through its paces :-) Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 03:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Body of Lies (film)

Thank you for your efforts on the above article. I believe you may have forgotten something though - see the last sentence (fragment) of Body of Lies (film)#Location and design. Cheers, –xeno^talk 15:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion and kind remarks. It certainly is a little too tantalising for an encyclopedia, I suspect I was drafting different lines and forgot to delete it, it could be for either section. What do you think of the article's chances at GA? It would be a shame for it to sit in the queue for over a month and then fail. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with the GA processes or what's required, but I thought it decently written with a lot of interesting information. FYI I didn't correct the error above - should the line just be deleted? Please do the needful. Thanks, –xeno^talk 17:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding aesthete and link to article about aesthetics movement.

You wrote: But the article linked to discusses aestheticism as a philosophy advocating the beautiful, one which Wilde was a part of for a large part of his career. Do you mean that the word "aesthete" has other meanings?

Thanks for your keen eye regarding tinkerings with your project. In the article, there is a link to aestheticism in the next paragraph or so - the embedded link from "aesthete" does not link to an article with that specific title. It seems to me to be confusing and redundant to include the same link from both terms. The word "aesthete" has meaning independent of the movement of which Oscar Wilde was associated - in fact - even though the "Aesthetic Movement" was an 1800's philosophy, the perceived "ending" of that European phenomenon does not preclude later - or even present-day aesthetes - who may have a cultivated sensitivity to art or beauty without being a part of any "movement."

I enjoyed reading the Wilde article, and surmise you are to be credited for its fine composition...

McHuston — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mchuston (talk • contribs) 22:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the lead intended to associate him with the 19th century movement, though I understand the confusing nature of the term. Given that the lead already associates him with that movement, what would you think about removing that clause completely from the first line? I think it's best left as a definition for uninitiated readers, perhaps best not introduce so nebulous a term early on. And thanks for the kind words, the subject itself is quite a good story. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Mentor

Kevin,

I'm a graduate student at Western Carolina Univeristy in North Carolina. I would like to choose you as a mentor. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjwiki14 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Kevin,

Thanks for responding and agreeing to be my mentor. So far, it's still a little complicated but kind of getting the hang of it. We have a few assignments coming up so we'll find out how well I will do. Again, thanks for your help. Jjwiki14 (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, It's not that hard, do a few more practice edits on your sandbox/userpage. Click "Show Preview" to make sure you've the right syntax!

--Ktlynch (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Film Invitation

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's film-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Film? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's film-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. We also have a number of regional and topical task forces that you may be interested in joining as well. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! Erik (talk | contribs) 16:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Film

Welcome!

Hey, welcome to WikiProject Film! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Film}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

• The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for December has been published. January's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
• Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
• Want to see some great film article examples? Head on over to the spotlight department.
• Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of the majority of film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Mentor for a public policy project

Hello there, my name is Anna Wilson and I'm a sophomore at James Madison University. I'm currently working with my technical communications class on a public policy project and was wondering if you would like to be my mentor. Thanks for your time- Anna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aennulatw (talk • contribs) 20:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anna, I'd be delighted to be your mentor. First lesson: sign messages on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~ You seem to have been making good progress already on making some introductory edits, you should start choosing pages on which to work in the long term. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if you had any ideas of other sub sections I could add onto the Holmes v. California National Guard article. I've kind of hit a road block and can't think of anything else... Thanks! Aennulatw (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

1. First of all good work on developing your article, you are really making a big job of it, I always find getting the structure of the article right is an important part, after that it's easier to flesh out the sections. It's hard to make specific recommendations because, though I've heard of the case, I don't know it well.

2.It looks like you have the main sections already, though I'd place one about the Don't... policy before the one about Holmes. Then include a very brief biography of Holmes, and his joining of the National Guard. Particularly mention any incidents which lead him to take the case. Then the court case and decision. Then a section of two describing praise and criticism for the judgement, and how the military have implemented the decision.

3. Another point to note is Neutral Point of View. The article reads a little like you are in favour of the outcome. As a technical writer you should learn to minimise adjectives since they often give opinion rather than description.

4. Apart from asking other editors interested in the area, there are two places you can go in Wikipedia for hints on improving articles. WP:Featured articles#Law and Wikipedia:Good_articles/Social_sciences_and_society#Law have more complete articles. Reading over some about other important cases might give you an idea on how to proceed. Normally there are style guidelines available, though WP:Law doesn't seem to have any.

5. Finally, try to draft articles in your sandbox, adding all those empty sections to the articles isn't particularly good for readers!

Best, Ktlynch (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much! that really helps a lot. I'll definitely move those sections to my sandbox and look over the adjective choices...It's kind of ironic you said I sounded in favor of the decision because I'm actually opposed to the DATD policy. Thanks again for your help-- Aennulatw (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

How exactly do you reference a PDF file? Aennulatw (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the illiteracy of the last post by me, I was quite tired at the time and didn't read over what I'd written.

What exactly is the document? If it's a journal article use Template:cite journal, if just a pdf online use Template:cite web, (copy-paste the fields and fill them out as applicable). There's more information here: WP:cite Ktlynch (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

For the court case use Template:Cite court. Though since this is a primary source you should use it sparingly. There should be plenty of academic work on this case and that should be the basis of the article. Ktlynch (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

King's Speech

Hi. I wasn't really planning on doing anything to the TKS article. I had a go at keeping it up to date when filming began but quickly gave up - it was quite hard to keep removing uncited/unimportant but good faith additions and there was simply the matter of having no time. You're doing quite well with it now though. If I come across any good sources, I'll add them to the talk page of the article. Bradley0110 (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, That sounds good, and thanks. There still is some good faith fluff added, but in its relatively more developed state the good content is driving out the bad. --Ktlynch (talk) 11:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It was nothing to do with Bieber hating (I didn't even know what it was at the time). I just don't think self-backslapping language like "discovered" is encyclopedic enough for Wikipedia. Bradley0110 (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I know it wasn't and I agree that it sounded ridiculous, there's plenty of pop articles which read like tabloids. --Ktlynch (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realise you'd taken the article through GAN already. Well done! Any predictions for its success at the Oscars? Bradley0110 (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting a review for months, there's an huge backlog but someone happened across the article and decided to review it, good timing I suppose, patrolling all the edits to it at the moment is a real pain, especially as a few minutes of vandalism can be read by thousands. For the Oscars it's hard to call, Hooper won the DGA award but David Fincher has won every other directing award. TKS is strong in many areas but I think the praise has been a little too much, there are plenty of other great films in the running. Though we'll see soon enough. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

If you have time

Hi Kt. If you have the time would you please take a look at the edits going on at the Oscar Wilde bibliography article. User:Karlis44 has been performing a rather large overhaul seen most easily here [1]. Here is the version without most of the changes [2]. As you will see from this conversation User talk:MarnetteD/archive19#Oscar_Wilde the user is not very fluent in English. Here are some of the problems

1. S/he keeps removing the first two references because they no longer work. I know that some things from the net can be resurrected through archiving websites but I have no idea how to do that. I also know that a dead link tag can be added to the refs but I haven't done that before either.
2. Numbers are changed in the "bibliography infobox". For all I know they could be correct but, if possible, I would like you to confirm that.
3. In their version the "Completed Works" section is a poorly formatted mess that even includes the price (who knows when or where that comes from) of one item.

As mentioned on my talk page this person thinks that their version of the page is state-of-the-art. Some of their changes may well improve the page but others [like throwing a link around the 1881 release of "Poems" which does not take one to an article about that volume) do not. If you can find items of value from their changes I would certainly support your adding them to the article. I appreciate any time that you can give in looking at this but if you are too busy please don't worry about it. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 20:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've seen some of his edits. A couple have merit, some, particularly stylistic changes, do not. Others are just messing around but not changing anything of substance, since the bibliography isn't in great shape I didn't bother changing it for the moment. While checking over some histories, I happened across his comments on your talk page. They were hardly elegant and definitely impolite; at least he's in breach of wiki-etiquette, but it seems like he's pushing to be accepted. He probably should go and write about Wilde in whichever be his own language. I would just fix his mistakes and avoid unnecessary confrontation. Ktlynch (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks and wilco on the advice. Thanks again for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 21:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

King's Speech

Hi, Thsnks for your kind approach to my IMDB addition - your explanation was worthwhile and appreciated.. alapalfour — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpalfour (talk • contribs) 14:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you're interested in working on the article I have a few high quality sources which are not yet used in it. --Ktlynch (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Wiki-Monday

Thanks for your supporting the wiki-volunteer trip! :)

Monday, new week, time to dig in and start the week off with a good workout; Monday, new start, time to do something in Wikipedia~~

Hi, Silver bullet here ^0^~~ I am a new "Wikier", majored in Environmental Econ and Policy, Indiana University Bloomington, thank you for your patience and time--We half a world away 17:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello to you too. I don't really understand, but I presume you are looking for a mentor? --Ktlynch (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for misleading, yes, I am looking for a mentor. And I will appreciate it if you could help me :) --We half a world away 06:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be delighted. First lesson: type four tildes ~ x 4at the end of a talk page message to sign your name and a time-stamp. Ktlynch (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, get it. Thank you. --Silverbullet527 02:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

King's Speech good article review

Hey, Ktlynch. I've reviewed The King's Speech, and detailed some issues that should be resolved before the article can be listed. The review has been placed on hold until then. It can be found on the talk page. Regards, Swarm ^X 09:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

That's great thanks. Super quick service, alas that category has been backlogged for some time! Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, good job doing all that in such a short time. I've listed the article. And that category is indeed severely backlogged. I didn't notice, I just came across this article directly. I'll guess I'll focus my GA reviews on the film category for awhile. Swarm ^X 14:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. I've been reviewing a lot there recently. There would be enough with just theatre and feature films, but there's, er, articles on television episodes and characters...I think it needs to be split in the long term. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that category is probably over inclusive. Considering the sheer number of articles that the category covers, at the very least television could be split out. But then, if television had its own category, it would seem like film should have its own category as well. Maybe this would be good sooner than later. Ah well. Not the end of the world either way. Swarm ^X 14:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Hi again. In the event that I get blocked for a bit I wanted to pass along some info that I have meant to since I last visited the page for De Profundis. I was lucky enough to purchase one of the 590 facsimile copies of this letter that were published back in 2000. My copy was the last one available at the Morgan Library's shop when I went there to see the exhibit that they had on Wilde's life back in 2001. One of the items on display was the actual letter. Thus, even though it was a little pricey, I felt I had to make it a part of my library.

The forward by Merlin Holland contains many interesting bits of info. The one I want to share is from pages 10 and 11. After Douglas lost his first court case over the publication of Arthur Ransome's critical study of Wilde (which was going to make it clear who the letter was written to - something that had not been apparent in Ross's earlier expurgated publication of 1905) Ross needed to make sure that the letter was protected by copyright. This had already occurred in England but

"...in America things were different: to establish copyright a work needed to be printed and published and offered for sale. Ross hurriedly sent a typescript to Paul Reynolds in New York, who had fifteen copies run off and made and made the necessary deposit at Congress on 24 Sept 1913. The law also required Reynolds to offer one copy for sale in his showroom which he did at the prohibitive price of $500. Amazingly, a member of the public, who was never identified, walked in off the street, paid the price and took it away."

Don't you wonder who that person was and whether the copy still exists somewhere? I don't know whether any of this is notable enough to include in the article but I did want to make sure that I shared it with you. Congrats on your work on The King's Speech and Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 23:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this, it is fascinating information! $500 in 1913 must have been a fortune. I knew as much about the copyright being kept, there was the 1913 "suppressed portion", of course today we have the full thing and the sole copy bought does not have any inherent value; though I wonder who bought it and why? It is possible that if was later lost.

I read about the facsimile copy recently but have not seen one, though I did read a detailed study of the manuscripts and typescripts, which was very interesting in itself but not entirely encyclopedic. I'm finding the De Profundis article one of the most difficult I've ever worked on. I think the structure and content of film, biography and novel articles is more immediately apparent. While Wilde's plays, poetry and prose fiction tend receive critical attention in their own right, DeProf tends to be treated with biographical information, and other stuff, it's hard to prise information out of sources. Any comments would be welcome.--Ktlynch (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Oddly, the passage I quoted does not make clear which version Ross sent to the US to be published though it does intimate that it is more complete then his first published one. Another item of note is the fact that the first seven or eight pages have are free of the blots, crossing outs and emendations that exists throughout the rest of the letter. Holland speculates that, although it was against the rules that had been set out before he began writing this letter, the Governor of the prison was allowing Wilde to cleanup his work just before being released. When I get a chance I will take a look at things and see of there is any info that I can add from Holland's intor. MarnetteD | Talk 00:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hah. I should have read the article before making my last post as I see you already have that info in it. Things are a little hectic today so I don't know how much more I will get peruse it but it looks pretty good so far. It seems well referenced and the attention to detail is impressive. I'll leave any other comments that I can later. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Further followup: Having read the publication history section of the article I am guessing that the edition printed in America was the "The Suppressed Portion of "De Profundis" edition. Good to have the WikiP article that you worked on to flesh out the Merlin Holland intro. MarnetteD | Talk 18:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

OW's imprisonment

Just wanted to run one item by you that I remember reading at some point. Some of the bios that I have read claim that Wilde was released from Pentonville as an attempt to avoid any public gatherings at the Reading Gaol gates. One bio (and I apologize for not being able to recall which one) pointed out that it was a rule of the penal system at the time that a prisoner was returned to, and released from, the gaol that that they were first imprisoned in. Thus, Wilde's situation was not an extraordinary one. I don't think this matters to any of wikipedia's articles but I did want to make you aware of it in case you hadn't encountered it in you studies. MarnetteD | Talk 18:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Happy Anniversary

Hi again. Happy 116th Anniversary of the first performance of The Importance of Being Earnest. It is always remarkable to note that the night in which he reached the pinnacle of his theatrical career was followed so quickly by the events that led to his downfall. I sometimes feel that Wilde wouldn't have wanted it any other way but that is just WP:OR. Cheers and have a great week. MarnetteD | Talk 17:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that my favorite filmed version of the play is from 1974 with Michael Jayston, Gemma Jones and Coral Browne [3]. I haven't seen it in over thirty years so I don't know whether I would have the same reaction today. One of the things I enjoy most about the '52 version is seeing Dorothy Tutin so early in here career. I think I may just have to pull it off of the shelf and watch it tonight. MarnetteD | Talk 17:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

marking mentees' userpages

Hey Kevin! This is just a quick reminder: please be sure to add {{WAP student}} (for an example, see User:Sfofana) the user pages of your mentees. And once they are working on articles, be sure to tag the talk pages with {{WAP assignment}}. Cheers--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Rollback granted

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

One thing: when you revert vandals, please be sure to always warn them, using warning templates if necessary. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll read up on those links. Thanks for your trust, I'll try and live up to your good faith! --Ktlynch (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring students: be sure to check in on them

This message is going out to all of the Online Ambassadors who are, or will be, serving as mentors this term.

Hi there! This is just a friendly reminder to check in on what your mentees are doing. If they've started making edits, take a look and help them out or do some example fixes for them, if they need it. And if they are doing good, let them know it!

If you aren't mentoring anyone yet, it looks like you will be soon; at least one large class is asking us to assign mentors for them, and students in a number of others haven't yet gotten to asking ambassadors to be their mentors, but may soon. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alexander Stoddart

The article Alexander Stoddart you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, 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:Alexander Stoddart for things which need to be addressed. SMasters (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The International (film) on hold

Hello, I have reviewed The International (film) for GA and placed it on hold. You'll find what needs to be done in the article's talk page. Thanks. -- Matthew RD 17:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Matthew. I have fixed or responded to all those points now. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There are still the odd outstanding issues. It's nothing much. Thanks. -- Matthew RD 17:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep it up!

Ktlynch, great job with The King's Speech! Really glad to have you working on film articles. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 18:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments Erik, it means a lot from someone so active in the area. I quite enjoy working on film articles and perhaps would like to get involved in higher level collaboration within the project. Best, Ktlynch (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Please be the mentor for the students working on Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act

Hi Kevin! I'm currently trying to assign mentors to all the remaining groups in Professor Obar's class. Would you be the mentor for the group of students working on Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act? If you can do it, thanks! If not, please let me know.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me. I'll take a look and review my schedule and commitments, I don't want to sign up and then have to pull out! Keep up the good work! Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassador Program

Please take a look at this project page and see if you can be a mentor to one of the many Areas of Study. If you can, please put your name in the "Online Mentor" area of the Area of Study of your choice and then contact the students you will be working with. As the Coordinating Online Ambassador for this project, please let me know if I can be of assistance. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Article review

Hi, I have added my ideas about proposed changes for the article "Brownfield Land" for the project and I would like to receive feedback regarding these. Thank you. --Silverbullet527 22:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Silverbullet, You've done good work assembling a list of possible sources, but that's no use except for writing the article! You've mentioned two thematic sections to the article, but I think you should draft the structure a bit more fully, nothing big, just a list of section and subsection titles, this will help you get your own head around the structure of the article. Make sure your sources are scholarly (as in academic books and articles, then reports by respected agencies and institutions.) and secondary. While following your course guidlines and timeline, I'd go ahead and start writing the article asap. I'll do a more detailed read over soon.--Ktlynch (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alexander Stoddart

The article Alexander Stoddart you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Alexander Stoddart for eventual comments about the article. Well done! SMasters (talk) 04:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I think the article is a solid compilation of easily available material, but that it needs some more specialist sources. --Ktlynch (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Body of Lies (film)

The article Body of Lies (film) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, 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:Body of Lies (film) for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your review Jezhotwells, those stumbling blocks seem so silly now. I've made changes where you pointed out problems, except for the phone about the sophistication of telephony, I'm going to try to re-word it. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Somewhere (film)

The article Somewhere (film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Somewhere (film) for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Jezhotwells (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That's great, thanks for taking the time to review it. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on the nomination! Looking over the article (but not too closely as not to spoil myself), I decided to bump it up my Netflix queue. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 15:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Correction: Can't bump it up yet, but did save it as part of the queue. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Erik, I'd love to hear your comments after seeing it. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Marking articles students are working on

Howdy, Online Ambassador!

This is a quick message to all the ambassadors about marking and tracking which articles students are working on. For the classes working with the ambassador program, please look over any articles being worked on by students (in particular, any ones you are mentoring, but others who don't have mentors as well) and do these things:

1. Add {{WAP assignment | term = Spring 2011 }} to the articles' talk pages. (The other parameters of the {{WAP assignment}} template are helpful, so please add them as well, but the term = Spring 2011 one is most important.)
2. If the article is related to United States public policy, make sure the article the WikiProject banner is on the talk page: {{WikiProject United States Public Policy}}
3. Add Category:Article Feedback Pilot (a hidden category) to the article itself. The second phase of the Article Feedback Tool project has started, and this time we're trying to include all of the articles students are working on. Please test out the Article Feedback Tool, as well. The new version just deployed, so any bug reports or feedback will be appreciated by the tech team working on it.

And of course, don't forget to check in on the students, give them constructive feedback, praise them for positive contributions, award them {{The WikiPen}} if they are doing excellent work, and so on. And if you haven't done so, make sure any students you are mentoring are listed on your mentor profile.

Thanks! --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Start It Up (Shake It Up) and Meatball It Up

Hi, are you actually planning on doing these reviews at any time in the near future? Jezhotwells (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I was and am. Apologies for the delay, I was swamped off-wiki. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 11:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

New Mentee

Hello Kt, Thank you so much for getting back to me so quickly and providing me with such useful guiding pointers. Thank you for agreeing to mentor me, I look forward to my time working with you on the Wikipedia Public Policy Initiative. Msdesmon (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Delighted to have you. First lesson: to start a new topic on a talk page click "Add topic" at the top, beside the edit button. That automatically begins a new section at the bottom. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

For your many efforts

		The Writer's Barnstar
		While you deserve this for your editing on many Wikipedia articles it is being awarded for your specific efforts on all things Wilde. Many kudos for your work MarnetteD | Talk 17:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

.

Hi KT. This is the most appropriate one that I could find. If I knew how to do even the most rudimentary things on photoshop I would try to put a picture of Oscar over a barnstar to give you a more appropriate award. Many apologies for my techno ignorance. One thing to note about archiving. You don't have to put all of your messages into the archive. Thus, if you like the wording of my message from December feel free to leave it on your talk page, or to move it to this message or even to graft it into this barnstar. Whatever you prefer :-) Once again many many thanks for all your work and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Service Entrance at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review it. I've expanded the article further and put a more interesting bit of info in the hook. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on Notorious

Hi, Ktlynch. Wanted to thank you for your interest in—and work on—the Notorious article. I reverted a few of your changes: your edits to three of the photo captions lengthened them enough to force a single word widow to form a fourth deck. These I trimmed back. I also relocated two footnote cites back to where they had been, to be closer to the part of the sentence they were noting: "famous shot" and "celebrated scene". Small things all. Thanks again for helping out with this article! Cordially, Harry. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mr Smith, Thanks for your note and kind comments. I was going to contact you to congratulate you on your fine work on the article, there is a lot of interesting, scholarly information. It should ideally be an FA, it would be good to have as many articles on Hitchcock at that level as possible. It's already about the GA standard, I recommend you nominate it there and would be willing to help with any fixes recommended by a putative reviewer.

My changes mostly removed contractions and familiarities from what should be a formal redaction. If the captions are too long with an extra syllable, then I suggest cutting some of the decorative prose before the colons. It is a general citation practice to place footnotes at the end of a sentence, not after nouns with a superlative adjective, in any case, there should be no citations in the lead since that merely summarises information in the body of the article.

I think we can achieve A class for this article with just some minor work. With best wishes, --Ktlynch (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative, but the use of characters' first names in articles about movies is commonplace on Wikipedia — Tender Mercies, Casablanca and Sunset Boulevard are all Featured Articles and all feature characters' first names — and it is de rigeur in film criticism and scholarship. I would agree absolutely to surnames-only if this were a biographical or non-fiction topic, which operate on a narrower level of formality, but given the precedents within Wikipedia film articles and without, I'd like you to reconsider your stripping of all characters' first names. Cordially — HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really so sure that film articles are special. What really matters is the name of the character, in most novels, stage-plays or films, characters may be called different names by different others depending on their relationship. Notorious is set in the 1940s, and the characters, except where they are intimate refer to each other by last names, usually with titles. The article still reads a little too much like a personal essay, a reminiscence by an old friend. Using surnames is an important step to establishing the required distance and formality. Regarding the captions, I see your point about widows, especially in the longer ones and will pay attention to this in the future (I've learnt a new term as well, Thanks). Further, I wish to thank you for your reasoned discussion and polite approach to collaborative editing, as before I am sure this article can reach a very high standard as befitting such a great film. With best regards, --Ktlynch (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Make sure that you are checking in on your students work for WP:USPP/C/11/PTE

Hey, just a happy reminder to make sure that you are regularly checking in on your mentees work for JMU'S Technical editing class, Sadads (talk) 11:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Service Entrance

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That's great, Thanks for the notificiation. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive

Again, on behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, thank you for making the March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive a success.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 21:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If you are so inclined

HelloKt. I am wondering if, when you have a moment, you would take a look at this thread Talk:Oscar Wilde#John Gray .26 .28briefly.29 Robbie Ross that I started on OW's talk page today. Any comments or suggestions - or indeed additions to the article - that you might have would be most welcome. Let me say that I know that your editing has moved on to many different areas of WikiP since you worked on Wilde's article so please don't feel obligated to respond. Thanks for you time and enjoy your weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 17:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Please help assess articles for Public Policy Initiative research

Hi Gerrit-Jan Berendijk/Archive 2 Nov 10 -Aug 11,

Your work as an Online Ambassador is making a big contribution to Wikipedia. Right now, we're trying to measure just how much student work improves the quality of Wikipedia. If you'd like contribute to this research and get a firsthand look at the quality improvement that is happening through the project, please sign up to assess articles. Assessment is happening now, just use the quantitative metric and start assessing! Your help would be hugely appreciated!

Thank you, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Good Article Review: design management

Hello Ktlynch,

thanks for taking up the GA review of the article design management. I have further improved it and you mentioned that you are going to close the review soon. Looking forward to your final conclusion and comments for improvement.

All the best, Wiki4des (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Good work, I'll give it a detailed read over in the next two days. Best, Ktlynch (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ktlynch: Do you need any help with the review? Please let me know if I can help in some way. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 10:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Racepacket, I have been quite busy off-wiki for the last while and have somewhat neglected duties. I am unsure about the article and would appreciate your comments, would you give it a read and leave some on the review page? I'll close it out in the next day or two. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ktlynch, the Good Article review it is open now for two months and is the oldest open review / nommination on Wikipedia, as WhatIamdoing is mentioning on the discussion page. It is great that you took the initiative to open the review, but you seem to be very busy. I'd like to see the article review wrapped up, in order to have leads to further improve it or see it nominated. If you do not have the time for a proper review, just write a comment so that other reviewers can take over. However there are already two offers for support. Looking forward to your decision. Best, Wiki4des (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador sweatshirt

Hi! This is the last call for signing on for a Wikipedia Ambassador hooded sweatshirt (in case you missed the earlier message in one of the program newsletters about it). If you would like one, please email me with your name, mailing address, and (US) sweatshirt size. We have a limited number left, so it will be first-come, first-served. (If more than one size would work for you, note that as well.)

Cheers, Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Paris Metro Line 12

Do you remember this article? I just got the necessary information from a French editor to clear the "citation needed", but while checking, I found out there is an issue in the text: the method mostly used to dig the tunnels in Paris was not the cut-and-cover but rather a regular tunnel boring ("galeries boisées"). I'm not sure how to express that in French. Can you help me? --Anneyh (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour Anneyh,

Can you share the citation and any works you've found, in English or in French. I think it's possible the term was misread during translation. I suppose "galeries boisées" must be a tunnel re-inforced with with wooden or metal stakes on the sides? I'll search for the correct term and add it in the article. Bien à vous, 19:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ktlynch, the easier for me is to point you to my wp:fr talk page: fr:Discussion_utilisateur:Anneyh, in some other source they used the expression "methode belge", but basically it is just what you wrote. In French, "cut-and-cover" is "tranchée couverte". I'll check my English sources too. --Anneyh (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I checked further, Brian Hardy writes "driving galleries forward from working shafts". Also the cut-and-cover method was rather seldom used in Paris, mainly for the first lines. --Anneyh (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

King's Spreche

Hi, Ktlynch. I've finally gotten around to adding that "Style" section to the Tom Hooper (director) article. There were quite a lot of good sources that you might want to incorporate into The King's Speech article, particularly on visuals, cinematography, and high school symbolism. A couple of sources are subscription-only, but I can email them to you if you need them. Bradley0110 (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bradley, well done and thanks for the note. Could you use the email function on wiki? I'll proof read the new section now if you like. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Good section and impeccable citation. Congrats. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have the DVD? If not, I can make some notes off the audio commentary for you as there's some quite good info on it. Bradley0110 (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't, any info would be great! It seems there's still plenty of good material to include, feel free to make edits yourself of course, yours regarding Dargis's comments were good. I'm going to concentrate on including some of that material in the lede in the next few days. Best wishes, --Ktlynch (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll make some notes from the DVD at the weekend and email them to you. On another, rather annoying note, take a look at the photo credit underneath a familiar picture in this article; Laurie Sparham took the photos at the Queen Street Mill, probably on behalf of the UK Film Council, and it would appear that Lancashire County Council took it upon themselves to release his photos under a false licence on Flickr.[4] This didn't even occur to me when I uploaded them but it looks like the images will have to be deleted from Commons. Pity really. Bradley0110 (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again, you're very generous. It would be a real shame about the picture, it is of real encyclopaedic value. Though it has been released under the CC2 licence. It seems some investigating has to be done. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ambassador Program: assessment drive

Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.

In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM July 2011 Newsletter

The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Accolades

For your information, I am going to start working on List of accolades received by The King's Speech along with the peer review that is upcoming by working on the lead and the references. I think it will make the movie look better. Cheers, Guy546^(Talk) 00:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, I have a lot of info on sources regarding it if you need some help. I was going to collaborate on it a while ago with someone else, but we shied awai in the end. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but George V was linked in the previous paragraph, so I thought I should remove that link in the paragraph. Thanks, Guy546^(Talk) 18:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Mea cupla, then. I just checked the diff. Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, sorry, but some of the references were inconsistent with the cite news template, and they usually nitpick that at FAC. Secondly, that is because I usually edit sections during that kind of thing. Again, sorry, but it's a habit. Thanks, Guy546^(Talk) 15:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde sheet music cover

If you click on the image, you will see all the information that I know about it. I did not upload it. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

, Ok, thanks for the info and bringing it to everyone's intention. best, --Ktlynch (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Film award

Thanks! Bradley0110 (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A Kitten

FeydHuxtable has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Thanks so much for taking on the currency war article. I was reluctant to ask for help from the guild, as I wouldnt even trust most econ PGs to understand that topic. Several of the sentences that might seem poorly phrased are probably the clearest way to concisely express the various nuances and interrelations without over simplifying or loosing NPOV. I thought a lot of information might be lost. But almost every change was an improvement. Probably you either really know your finance or you've been blessed with exceptional instincts. It was a real honour! FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fred, thank you for the article, very well researched! I did economics at uni, so am into this stuff! I'm actually on holidays, hence the abrupt stop to editing. I'll be back on Monday and hope to do some more work with you guys. Best of luck with the GAR. Best wishes, --Ktlynch (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. Im not sure the article would have passed if not for you! I hope we work together again too. Perhaps we'll bump into you about the Wiki. Just drop a note on our talk pages if you want to work with either of us on any particular article. Lihaas likes to work on current events, IME they are a great editor to collaborate with - they have a very broad international perspective and are good at achieving NPOV across multiple dimensions. Dont hesitate to ask if you'd like my help with anything no matter what the subject. You may remember I once added something from Ellmann to the Wilde bio - so you never know what interests we may have in common! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Lol, it's true currencies and Wilde...who would have known? I'm going to nominate TKS at FA soon. Then do some more copyediting, reviewing, and translation from French for a while. I'm moving house soon so don't want to buy any more books!!! Well done on the GA. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 07:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors: Time to join pods

Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:

• Working closely with the instructor and Campus Ambassadors, providing advice and perspective as an experienced Wikipedian
• Helping students who ask for it (or helping them to find the help they need)
• Watching out for the class as a whole
• Helping students to get community feedback on their work

This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.

You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.

Once you've found a class that you want to work with—especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area—you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.

If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: There are still a lot of student articles from the last term that haven't been rated. Please rate a few and update the list!

Edit summary Wall Street film

Hi

I just saw that you pu--Ktlynch (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)t "refs need to be moved to end of sentences" - can you tell me why you said that please? If I have missed something in MoS about refs having to go at the end of sentences I would rather get it right.

Also your edit "that writer Allan Loeb, who is a licensed stock broker" has changed the context. Check here and you will see that he is a writer, not a stockbroker. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Unless neccessary, I think it's clear references should be at the end of a sentence; one sentence=one idea=one reference. That's generally how it's done. I'm pretty sure this is written somewhere in Wikipedia too.

In general the practice of attaching an office or occupation to a name is rather clunky and to be avoided. The main clause in the sentence says Mr Loeb was selected to write the script, so it's pretty evident that he's a writer. The sub-clause points out that he is also a licensed stock-broker, relevant information given the film. I don't think it changes the context as such but it's possibly open to misinterpretation, someone could think that they plucked a stockbroker off Wall Street to write the film. I'll be looking over the whole thing again tomorrow, today's edits were very scattered.

Thanks for getting in touch, I'll do more work on the article in the next few days and we can iron it all out. Looking forward to working with you. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that as WP:CITATION says "If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the sentence or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text."

It then adds an example: "The Sun is pretty big,^[1] but the Moon is not so big.^[2] The Sun is also quite hot.^[3]" it is safe to assume that refs do not go at the end of sentences, rather at the end of statements.

I always try and avoid those sort of formatting changes when copy-editing, though I only wanted to bring that to your attention prior to your copy-edit so that any possible problems could be averted. The issue is that when we do a GOCE copy-edit, we should bear in mind that the usual editors of an article have their own style and we have to respect that. :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

I think the image of Colin Firth and Helena Bonham Carter should be moved to the cast section instead of just the Colin Firth image, and maybe you can fit what you put in the Colin Firth image in there? (The Colin Firth one also seems too big to it near a quotebox) Guy546^(Talk) 15:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I agree that the Firth portrait is a bit squeezed up against the box, I originally wanted a longer caption, but I think I'll just resize the image again. I think the image from the film itself works better in the synopsis. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Would like to say thanks

Thanks for taking on my c/e nom Wall Street MNS. I'm so sorry about the bad grammar! I started working on this article when I first started using wiki and I tried to paraphrase quotes but wound up making a mess of the sentence/s. Crystal Clear x3

You're welcome, and thank you for the article! It's not a bad film article at all, I can see that you ran into some problems trying to avoid extensive quotation, and paraphrasing reports, and so the whole thing became a bit convoluted. I'll be on to you in the next few days for clarification on certain points, and some final suggestions before GA, which I'm sure it will pass after. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for copyediting Wall Street MNS

Great work! I've submitted it at GAN after following the suggestions you left on the talk page. But.... that plot section 0_o, is there anyway you could trim that down? It pretty much tells you the entire movie, so from that would you be able to decide what's important enough, even though you might not have seen the film? Crystal Clear x3 10:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"Rehab"

Thank You for the copy-edit you make on "Rehab", I really appreciate it. Since I want to nominate it for FA, so for that can you further copy-edit it. You can use it "Irreplaecable" as an example for a FA prose. Thanks again ! Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 17:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I haven't really done that much, I cut some extra words and strange adverbs at the beginning of sentences. Honestly, in general I didn't really like the style at all and wanted to re-write the whole thing, it reads differently to other articles, though I think this is a problem I have with all music articles on wikipedia. That said this is one of the better ones. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)