User talk:Katie322

Hello Katie322, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

DYK

A reminder that those articles that are eligible for the "Did You Know?" section of the Main Page should be submitted within five days of their creation or first edit. See the DYK rules and this dispatch about DYK.

The important issues are that the article must be no more than five days old (or have been expanded fivefold or more within the last five days), have a minimum of 1,500 characters (around 1.5 kilobytes), and have a "hook" that is cited with an inline citation.

For now, don't worry too much about what's meant by an "inline citation." Once you have the information there, I or others can format it appropriately. But you do need to do some preliminary research and flesh out the article.

Good luck! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

models

To have a sense of what you should be aiming at as you work on your article, you are advised to look at relevant good articles and featured articles. Recent featured articles about novels, for instance, include El Señor Presidente and The General in His Labyrinth. These were written by a UBC class last semester. You may also want to consult the Novels Wikiproject. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reminders: regular editing and plan

Two reminders, from our project page:

Over the course of the semester, you need to log in and make at least one edit, again however minor, to your article twice a week.

By September 19, each group should have their plan in place, and have written it up on their article's talk page.

--jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Anaoaks

hey i don't knowif i'm doing this right so i hope u get his message, lol but hey I found a web site that talks about the book its not reliable sourse but it talks about the creek "The creek symbolizes the "road not taken" by staying in an abusive relationship. The creek's origin is unknown, mysterious, and possibly even frightening, as is the road not taken."(http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/APS/hispanicamerican/story2.html) then i found out the the creek does exsist an its in texsas, and it has a legend that a woman killed her baby there becasue the husband didn't want it or he left for another woman, and after she killed the baby she cryed and its said that when she died her spirit hounted the creek. in spanish its called le llorona. I think if we can add some of this maybe the mystery of the creek will be a good hook let me know what you think. I will send this on face book just in case. esmeralda --Anaoaks (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. unreliable resources

(copied over from [[User_talk:Jbmurray|my talk page:) Hi. Yes, that looks at first sight like an OK source. To learn more about what Wikipidia thinks are "reliable sources," see WP:RS. Note, however, that your focus should be on the book itself. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can always go ask the librarian if they can hurry the order up! Librarians are always eager to hear from students. I recommend you go talk to them about the project in any case. Note that very many articles on Wikipedia in fact use unreliable sources: the fact that another article uses a particular source doesn't necessarily make it OK. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woman Hollering Creek...

I've been cleaning up the article. i look forward to workingon it with you and your classmates. ;) —Sunday [speak+] 11:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Anything else for DYK?

(copied over from my talk page:) Hey, I saw that they finally got around to checking it. Nope, I think that that's that... It'll go on the main page probably in the next twenty-four hours. Keep an eye on it, just in case. (I am, too.) Well done! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Looks like your DYK goes live in quarter of an hour. Congrats! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 25 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cirt (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katie322!

You are a quotation-adding machine. Wow! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA-Team

We have been adopted by the renowned FA-Team! Please add the project page to your watchlists, and feel free to ask FA-Team members if you have any queries or need help. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Page Numbers

(copied over from my talk page:) Heh. It's not just those two. You need to provide page numbers for articles in journals or newspapers (which you have done) or in books (which is the case for the two in question). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

happy face!

You get my happy face for your work on Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories. Well done! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Background

I edited the last sentence in paragraph 1 of background, but this is what one editor said, maybe you can just verify if this is the meaning you wanted for the sentence

Mike Christie said:

- "Other versions of this story are recognized throughout the world among the Aztecs, the Greek, the Spaniards, and found its way into Cisneros's work." Not quite grammatical -- did you mean "have found their way"? -- and in any case I'm not sure you mean what it appears to say; do the Aztec, Greek and Spanish versions all appear in Cisneros's work?

--Jacqui Nicole (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence structure/meaning?

Hey Katie, I think your addition to the character's section is great, I just had a question about the wording of the following sentence:

"The revenge achieved in this vignette by the protagonist, Clemencia, is not only sought for La Malinche, but also for the women who feel that their value depreciates if they do not have a husband."

To me it sounds a bit confusing...but I'm not sure how I would reword it--Jacqui Nicole (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was one of the suggestions that Awedit made and I was wondering if you would be able to take a look at it, to see how to reword it? --Jacqui Nicole (talk) 03:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clemencia is the Chicana protagonist in "Never Marry a Mexican", who captures the identity of the historical figure La Malinche, an indigenous woman who befriended the Spanish Conquistadors in the 1500s, and is "doomed to exist within a racial and class-cultural wasteland, unanchored by a sense of ever belonging either to her ethnic or her natal homeland". - What does "captures the identity" mean? Who is "doomed to exist with a racial...wasteland"? The sentence is a bit ambiguous

Thank you!

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		You have done an excellent job improving Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories - your desire to continually reevaluate the article and carefully revise it are valuable traits here at Wikipedia. We hope to see more editing from you in the future! Awadewit (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHC note

Katie, I got your note about Woman Hollering Creek; I have been out of net contact or busy with other Wikipedia obligations, and haven't been able to get to it. However, I see Awadewit did respond and gave you a long list of things. Awadewit is a top-flight literature editor and her advice will take you all the way to featured article status. I will be glad to take a look when I have a bit of time, but I'm about to get on a plane right now and won't have another chance till late.

Perhaps the most useful thing I can do is offer to do the GA review. If you do nominate tomorrow, I can mark it as under review (unless Awadewit would like to do it herself) and then work with you to get it through GA. Without going through every single line of Awadewit's review, I can tell you that you can probably make GA without resolving each and every point -- GA is not as demanding as FA. However I would suggest you read the GA criteria and look at the article with those criteria in mind, in addition to the notes on the talk page. You may well find lots of improvements that reviewers like myself would miss.

I'll keep an eye on the article; drop me a note with any specific requests for help. I should have a bit of time Monday evening. Mike Christie (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories

(copied over from my talk page:) Different people take different approaches to this. Some articles on Wikipedia are, in my view, over-cited. In this case, it might help if you used a less loaded word than "dominates." You might say something like "Additionally, "Never Marry a Mexican" is characterized by the consistent use of interior monologue." This is then phrased more neutrally, and is more obviously a simple description. Do you see? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. GA review WHC

Thanks for the note on my talkpage. It looks to me as if all my review concerns have been answered and I propose to close the review later today. As to what further edits you should do, my experience is that every article, whether it has passed GA, FA or whatever, can always be improved by judicious further editing, but I can't see anything obvious now (I did a couple of minor edits a minute ago). If you're like me, you'll be tinkering with it for evermore! Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone deal with the last points on the GA review page - my answers to questions, chiefly about the Characters section? I am waiting to close the review. Brianboulton (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To let you know - I've promoted the article GA, see final report and comments on article talk page. Past my bedtime...Brianboulton (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little something for you...

Your outstanding efforts in getting Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories to GA mean you've earned one of these:

This user helped promote Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories to good article status.

You can put this on your user page (or somewhere suitable) by copy/pasting {{User Good Article|Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories}} into the page code; this will also add you to the 'Good article writers' category.

Excellent work, well done! EyeSerene^talk 11:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

		The Literary Barnstar
		For an excellent job on Woman Hollering Creek: from nothing to Good Article over the course of the semester. Featured Article next? jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Realism Reconsidered

Welcome back! I'm looking forward to working with your class during the semester - if you have any questions about the project or Wikipedia in general, please feel free to leave me a note at User talk:Awadewit. Wikipedians are here to help you! Awadewit (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography assignment

Hi, here are the details of the MRR annotated bibliography assignment...

Good Wikipedia articles are built on a foundation of good sources. In this respect, Wikipedia articles are not much different from academic essays. In fact, if anything a good Wikipedia article is more reliant on good sources than are other academic or scholarly texts. The whole notion of verifiability, which is the first of the encyclopedia's five pillars, depends upon reliable sources.

The aim of this bibliography assignment, then, is to identify, read, and comment on the most important and reliable sources that relate to the topic of your chosen article.

In coordination with your group, you need to do the following:

Identify the most important sources for your topic. These will be both books and articles. They will vary depending upon the kind of topic you have chosen, but to give a couple of examples this book is a key one for the general topic of magic realism, while this biography would be essential for the article on Gabriel García Márquez.
Use databases and the Koerner library catalogue to identify these sources. Look for as many as possible in the first instance; you will later choose between them. On the whole, they will not be online sources (though of course many articles are now available online thanks to JSTOR and other services).
Aim to come up with a long list of, say, 5-20 books and perhaps 15-40 articles. Obviously, for some topics there will be more material than for others. So for some topics you will need to do more searching; for other topics, you will need to be more careful and discerning as you choose between sources. Look far and wide and be inventive in thinking about good sources.
In some cases, the article may already have a number of references, either in the article itself, or perhaps somewhere in its talkpage archives. You should take account of these, but you should still undertake your own search, not least to find new material that has not been considered before.
To figure out what you need, you will also have to look at your article and consider what it is missing, what needs to be improved, where it could do with better sources, etc. In other words, you will have to start planning how you are going to work on and rewrite the article.
Come up with a final short list of c. 2-4 books and perhaps 6-24 articles.
Put the long list (of all the sources you have found) as well as the short list (of the sources you have decided are the most important) on your article's talk page by Wednesday, January 20.
Distribute the sources among the members of your group. Each person should be reading the equivalent of one full book or six articles. Exceptionally long books may be divided up between group members.
Read the sources, bearing in mind the information that is going to be useful as you work on the article. Think about what it covers and take a note of particular page numbers.
Produce an annotated bibliography of the sources you have read. This will consist of a summary or précis of the most important aspects of the texts, which should be at least 150 words long for each article read; 600 words for each book. You should put this on your user page by Monday, February 8.

To coordinate with the other members of your group (whose names you can find here), use their talk pages. Each time that you log in to Wikipedia, you will notice that if you have a message waiting for you, there will be a yellow banner at the top of the page.

Good luck! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

taking a lead

Katie322, it's grand to see you taking a lead on your article; you will indeed probably have to help your fellow group members to get into the swing of things. I suspect it would also be a good idea to drop a note on their talk pages, rather than immediately assuming that they will check the article talk page. You'll know that people don't straightaway pick up on the Wiki way... Just a suggestion! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi Katie322!

Hiya. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

just added!

wanted to try this out and leave a message. will start on koerner for some books on this project as you suggested

thanks --JordiHUBC (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

added some books

I added a bunch of books and articles to the page that I found at SFU and online just before I got your message. I think I entered about 7 or 8. I found a lot information (about 20+) sources but most were already found by members of our group. --JordiHUBC (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course :)

Hi Katie; thanks for your note, and I'd be delighted to help out if you need anything. I've added your article to my watchlist and will be dropping by from time to time, though please feel free to drop a note on my talkpage at any time. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 08:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok. i put my books on there. i didnt put the other one which was by donald shaw. you guys already have it. --Tniamath (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!

Hey thanks Katie, Yeah with the deadline so close (well used to be so close) I thought that I'd at least put a little effort into responding to Ettrig's comment about the photo. But now we'll have some time to sort all that out. As for submitting the article to GA status, I was lost on that aspect and then forget to even communicate about it this past deadline. You seem like you know what you're doing in that department, is it too much work to submit our article yourself? Let me know! Hope all your work is going well!

--Josiemitchell (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Alejo Carpentier

The article Alejo Carpentier you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Alejo Carpentier for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Katie, I put up a message on the discussion page- we may be able to resubmit by Tuesday? Maybe. Hope all is well!--Josiemitchell (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC) And then this dude, Mike Christie, offered to copy edit AND help with the photo! Woot! Yeah, check the discussion page! Take care.--Josiemitchell (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quote section

It is Navarro who said that, I was in the process of noting that, but I agree with you, the quote section isn't really adding anything to the article. We might as well cut it. The important quotes are sprinkled throughout the article as it is. Woot! So I'm editing some of the things that Mike Christie had suggested. I should be done in the next hour or so. Woot!do we want to resubmit to GA status?--Josiemitchell (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again I just reformatted the further reading section so it was in the same format as the the references, like Jezhotwells suggested. Did you add something or correct something right before I did that? I was looking at our history page and think you may of and I don't want to erase something you already fixed- just checking!--Josiemitchell (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

resumbit! Yeah! Go for it! We covered all their suggestions and critiques- woot yeah! Good job! My eyes burn.--Josiemitchell (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question? Did we hear what the final word was on Hanne and her malfunctioning wiki-stuff? I tried sending a message to her, but never got a reply. I just want to make sure before I turn in my group assessments to Jon.--Josiemitchell (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Started a new GAN of Alejo Carpentier here. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]