User talk:Federalistpapers
It's nice to see someone paying attention to this article. I'm not sure how active you are on Wikipedia but if you'd like to collaborate on Irving, let me know. He's on my list of articles that should be at Good status or above. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response! Can I ask which book you have written? My assumption is that citing your own work is slightly bad form, but a good source is a good source. See WP:COS for more specific policies. Besides that, though, as long as you're not the sole author (and since we'd collaborate on it, this wouldn't be the case) it can't possibly break the Wiki's policy... I think! --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm the author of this Irving book. I'm relatively sure it meets the standards defined under WP:COS, so we won't be too crass. My main intent -- as is clearly yours -- is just to be certain we get this listing as informative as we can. Thanks much for the discussion! --Federalistpapers (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- I had a feeling it was you! Your book is on my wish list! Normally, I'm a Poe expert but I've been trying to broaden my knowledge of 19th century American literature. I have a list of authors who I feel are short-changed by not having high-quality, well-sourced and documented articles here on the Wiki... I just worked on Henry Wadsworth Longfellow and Walt Whitman before that. Anyway, it's great to "meet" you, and I look forward to collaborating! --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I've added quite a bit to the Irving section over the last two days -- including yet another session in which I neglected to log in. Apologies.
- Nice job! I see you've really gone in and given it a good few edits! Just for advice (I don't mean to presume you need my advice; you're more of the Irving expert, but I've done more work on the Wiki), footnotes should be ample. Take a look at Edgar Allan Poe and Walt Whitman (two articles I've put significant work into) you'll see how often I footnote. By the way, I stopped in Tarrytown / Sleepy Hollow for the first time just last week! That's another author's grave I can check off my list... --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments! I'll be more liberal with the footnotes. The grave is really unassuming, isn't it? I'm also starting to branch out to some of the other Irving links to try to clean them up and get some new material into them. I'll likely get a posting for the Oldstyle letters here shortly.--Federalistpapers (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I thought it was quite nice (and the plot is enormous). If you really want to see unassuming, see Henry David Thoreau, Nathaniel Hawthorne, or Sarah Josepha Hale! We're doing some good work on Irving's article, by the way, so maybe within a couple weeks we can apply for Good Article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I did not know about the Irving-Poe connection! What a great tidbit! --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, fantastic work on the Irving article. I think we've really made it credible. Once you take your much-needed break, I'll take care of clean-up, add further footnotes where needed, and nominate for recognized status. As an aside, I haven't yet purchased your book but I have flipped through it. I'm interested in a couple claims you have made partly because I am interested in the mindset and context of this time period (well, specifically the 1833-1866 period). If you ever want to correspond outside of the Wiki, my email address is on my user page. Just go to User:Midnightdreary and on the left side find the "E-mail this user" line in the so-called Toolbox. Don't feel obligated, but it's not every day I collaborate with a published author! --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just created an entry for this, the first published work by Irving. Any additions are welcome and encouraged. Ideally, I'd like to get a clean entry for each of Irving's works, with a good cross-referencing under Categories (right now, the categories are inconsistently named).--Federalistpapers (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
As I noted on the page for TSB, I'm going to start moving in summaries of the stories in TSB, and start getting some background materials into it. I'll also try to do the same for Bracebridge Hall.
- Most of the work on TSB is complete, though it could likely use some help on the summaries.
I've set up just a cursory page for Traveller, with an infobox and a breakout of the stories included in the book. Anyone who wants to start cracking on it is welcome.--Federalistpapers (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Simply because I don't know when to leave well enough alone, I've started what can only kindly be called a stub of an article on Salmagundi, the magazine Irving created with his brother and with James Kirke Paulding. I'm not clever enough to create a disambiguation page just yet -- perhaps someone else can (there was already a "Salmagundi (magazine)" page, so I had to settle for "Salmagundi (periodical)" as a label). At some point, I'll start improving it, but at least wanted to get a placeholder for it. Anyone who wants to have a go at improving it is more than welcome.
Washington Irving
[edit]You're very welcome. Always glad to be able to help. Best, Gwernol 11:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Apologies
[edit]Hello! Sorry I've been less-than-helpful on the Irving article lately as I've been finishing up my M.A. I think we're in pretty good shape on this article. My recommendation is we put it up for peer review before we jump on the quest for good article status. PRs usually take about three weeks (the first week or so we'll probably get nothing) and tend to offer really good advice on how to improve the article, perfect the writing, follow all Wiki-policies, etc. I can make that request and monitor their responses if you think it's ready. I've also got a request for a thorough copy edit from the so-called League of Copy Editors... not sure if that will prove fruitful. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- No worries! I've been slow on the draw lately as well, though I've been slowly inserting footnotes and will keep doing so. Let me add the last two footnotes this week, then I think we can submit it for copyediting and peer review. (I still have a section on "Writing Style" to write, but that's not vital at the moment...)--Federalistpapers (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I went ahead with the peer review request. It seems like a good time because there are very few other literature articles lined up (less competition). Besides that, the last "citation needed" tag has been taken care of. Check it out at Wikipedia:Peer review/Washington Irving/archive1. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Irving up for Good status
[edit]I've gone ahead and put Washington Irving up for Good Article review. Remember, the Good status isn't quite as unattainable as the Featured status so, with any luck, we're already at that level. We'll see what happens. If nothing else, I'm sure we'll get good advice for improvement and, besides, if it fails, it just motivates us to keep building it up! I've attached your name as a co-nominator, if you don't mind. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's been reviewed and it's officially passed GA status! The reviewer left us one note to clarify. See Talk:Washington Irving/GA1. I'll see if I can find an answer to that because I think that info came from me. Anyway, congratulations on your first Good Article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all the hard work, Dreary! I'm pleased we hit the Good Article mark -- I promise to get around to improvements in the article, as well as adding material in separate entries on his works. Kudos to you.Federalistpapers (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Navboxes on author pages
[edit]Since you have over 100 edits at Washington Irving, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#Derivative_works_and_cultural_references_templates regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 18
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Biographers International Organization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nigel Hamilton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Federalistpapers. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Federalistpapers. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)