User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 15

2007 Malaysian Grand Prix
After you major copy-edit on Brabham BT19 as 4u1e mentioned above, I was wondering if you could make comments on 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix, which after failing FA, is currently on PR. I would be very greatful if you could, and the PR is located here. Many thanks in advance, Davnel03 16:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I can copy edit the article, but as I told 4u1e, it is difficult to copy edit an article on a topic about which one is ignorant. If you can bear with all of my questions, I would be happy to help out. When I am copy editing articles as a lay reader, I usually leave a lot of questions hidden inside the article. They are best viewed with something like WikEd because they are color-coded and easy to see. How fast do you need the copy edit? I can probably have it done by the end of this weekend if need be. Awadewit | talk  18:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I can bear with all your questions. If you could do it by the end of the weekend, that would be superb! Thanks, Davnel03 18:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll go round the article and make comments and changes to the article. I'll leave your internal comments in, and probably add some of my own. If (when) you are happy with the edits made, can you remove the respective internal comments? Thanks, Davnel03 15:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Did so. Awadewit | talk  07:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that so far. The tyre section, looking at your comments needs a lot of work doing on it. I hope my comments don't come across to you as stubborn! Davnel03 16:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all! Awadewit | talk  07:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Left another batch of comments. Based on one or two of the comments, I'm going to be doing extensive work on one or two of the sections in a few hours time (1pm UK time.) I've made some major edits based on one or two of your comments. Thanks, Davnel03 09:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for more responses - its getting late now, so I'll respond to your points tomorrow. If there's things that you still don't get (white strip tires and customer car thing you don't understand), head to WP:F1 and leave something on the talkpage. I'm not very good at explaining things like tha, so hopefully they can explain it to you as well. Thanks, Davnel03 20:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Template review
Hey there. I've developed a template – MoSElement – for article talk pages, which provides a spot to indicate which of the various optional WP:MOS elements will be used (ex: serial commas). (The hope is that this will make it easier to maintain article consistency.) If you have a minute, could you take a look and see if I'm missing anything? Thanks. – Scartol  ·  Talk  18:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the idea, but I think that we need to find a more neutral way of expressing it. Right now, one set of things is set as the default. People are passionate about their commas and we don't want to rile them up - is there any way to set up the template more as a choice rather than as a yes/no? EX: BE or AE? AE. I'll think about the categories more carefully later. One other thing - I do wonder if these templates will cause more debate rather than less. I think a trial run is in order. :) Awadewit | talk  18:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I worried about that. The idea was to accent the visual with the plus and minus signs, but I agree that it might make people angry. I don't know if there's a way to integrate images in a non-value-judgment way, but I'll try to find one.


 * You're right when you say it will probably generate more debate, but I'm sick of trying to keep track of it myself from page to page. And we are supposed to be consistent in the articles, whichever one we choose – surely this will aid that.


 * Thanks as always for your assistance, whenever you can get to it. – Scartol  ·  Talk  22:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Women who wiki too much...
Gah! Help! You gave me suggestions for the Ann Bannon article, and now I don't know if it's way too long and cumbersome. This is the consequence, you see, of making suggestions to a raving perfectionist. Because I'm willing to keep going... --Moni3 19:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3


 * Don't worry! I would take some time (days, weeks) to meticulously go over the prose. Look for a good copy editor, too. In the meantime, keep thinking about how to structure the article and what claims would best represent the published material on Bannon. You need to ponder, mull, deliberate. Happily, there are no deadlines on wikipedia, so have you the time. I would also encourage you to take a break from the article and then come back to it (e.g. a few weeks); sometimes just looking at it again after it has been awhile makes everything clear. You say to yourself "why did I ever include that?" or "why did I not include that vital piece of information?" You are establishing distance between yourself and the article - you are trying to read it as a first-time user would. Awadewit | talk  08:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I second the "take a break" thing. If you're like me, your brain starts finishing the sentence before your eyes have finished the second word. Temporal distance is crucial for good editing. (A rule I don't obey as well as I should, heh.) – Scartol  ·  Talk  15:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Bonaparte crossing the Alps
Hi, about a month back you said you might be interested in kind of helping to get this further up towards FA. I'm out of sources as I cant find anything more in the net, and my local library turns up nothing. I understand you are busy, but, if you are still interested, any help in regard to sources and copyediting (I understand you are excellent with this) would be infinitely appreciated. Thanks, -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that I can't help with research right now, but when you're ready for a copy edit, let me know. Awadewit | talk  07:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Some help needed...
Hi Awadewit! I was wondering if you can helping copyediting Stanley Cup. I'm not a good nor experienced copyeditor, and this was a major concern at FAC a few months back, and since I want to nom it at FAC again, I need a copyedit. And if you're wondering why I'm asking you, Nishkid64 told me you're the best copyeditor around. :)  Maxim (talk)  01:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to help. I will have a lot of questions, though, as I am not familiar with hockey and its ways. If you can bear with all of my pestering, I will do the best I can to polish the prose. Also, I will probably need about two weeks to complete the copy edit, as I am quite busy at the moment. Let me know if that is acceptable. Awadewit | talk  07:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly. Just so you know, you might be interested in looking around the Hockey WikiProject, and more specifically, the featured topic drive. We have about 12 or 13 featured lists right now, and two GAs, and I think this article can go from GA to FA. It failed its last FAC because of a lack of a good copyedit, so I think it's a good idea to copyedit it, or seek the help of a great copyeditor, and resubmit it.  Maxim (talk)  13:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've answered most of your question in the article itself, I'll see to the lead as well.  Maxim (talk)  21:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

FA cadidacy for "List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes"
Hi. you posted the following


 * I'm pretty sure that this should be nominated for featured list candidacy. Awadewit | talk  04:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/List_of_Degrassi:_The_Next_Generation_episodes, except it wasn't because I messed it all up and somehow the discussion ended up in Featured_article_candidates/A_Vindication_of_the_Rights_of_Men. I deleted it and put the discussion in the correct place at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/List_of_Degrassi:_The_Next_Generation_episodes, but I was hoping you would be able to repost your comment. I didn't want to be so bold as to do that! Thanks, -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 04:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Malaysian GP
Thanks for taking the time to work with Davnel. Regarding tyres: Sorry that's rather a long explanation - to paraphrase someone or other, I did not have time to write a shorter one! Get back to me if, as seems likely, I haven't been very clear. ;-) 4u1e 11:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In very general terms, a harder tyre won't grip the road as well as a softer one, and so, all other things being equal, a car will be slower going round corners on harder than on softer tyres. However, harder tyres will last longer than softer ones (an F1 car will use between 2 and 4 sets of tyres during a GP of approx 200 miles/2 hours), so there is a benefit in using them and not having to stop as often to change tyres. That's an oversimplification of course (isn't everything!) and could be completely wrong depending on race conditions!
 * Part of the decision making before a race is therefore to decide a pit stop strategy. How often, and when, are you going to stop to refuel and change tyres? (Again, a car with less fuel in it will be quicker than one filled to the brim, but will have to stop to refuel more often) What is the fastest way to get to the end of the race?
 * Until this year there had been two tyre suppliers in F1 for quite some time. At each race, they would supply tyres in a variety of 'hardnesses', from which the teams would select the most appropriate for their race plan. Each team would use only one brand of tyre, and the two suppliers would perform differently. This provided variety - one tyre might be quicker in one part of the race than the other. Their respective level of performance would change from race to race.
 * As of this year, we have just one tyre supplier. A late decision was made to force the single supplier (Bridgestone) to provide two 'hardnesses' of tyre for each race, and to force the teams to use each 'hardness' at some point during the race. The aim of the exercise is to provide a new variable factor during the race, hopefully increasing excitement and reducing the chances of one driver running away with a race. Because the tyres affect the performance of the cars so much, it was thought important that viewers understand what tyres each car was on at each stage of the race. Is driver X catching driver Y because he's on softer tyres? Does that therefore mean his tyres won't last to the end of the race?
 * Hence the use of the white stripes as an easy way of spotting from a difference distance who is on which tyres at any given point in the race.

Templates
You wrote: ''I really have no idea if templates have to be approved, but its seems like they might have to be. (Do you watch the community portal? I just saw discussions posted there about changing templates - that's why I am thinking maybe they do.)''


 * Having not seen the discussion in question, I think this was probably about Template standardization, about which a big hullabaloo is currently raging. (In light of that brouhaha, it might be a good idea to solicit feedback about MoSElement. On the other hand, it might unleash a storm of hurleyburley that might keep us from ever being able to use it. I'll look into what the next step should be.)

You also wrote: ''I am just as much of a novice as you are (really, more, since I have no idea how to create these templates). You seem to know much more about wiki-code than I do - where did you learn it? I've been looking for some pages, but, alas, no luck.''


 * Yeah, the help pages about templates are aggravatingly complicated and tech-heavy. What we really need are some tutorials for casual users. (This is part of a larger institutional problem of the variety: "Those who know usually do a really hideous job of teaching what they know.") I learned HTML and CSS long ago, and once I got that mindset of approaching this sort of thing, learning other methods became easier – I was able to figure out how to decipher the different codes in general.


 * The main thing I did on Wikipedia was copy other peoples' code and experiment with tweaking things here and there. The MoS thingy is the first one I've tried with extended variables, and it's a bit more complicated than I thought. But I'm getting the hang of it, I think.


 * If you have any questions or want help with a specific bit of coding, let me know. If you think the aforementioned Wikicode tutorial is a good idea, maybe I'll work on it with all my oodles of free time. Cheers. – Scartol  ·  Talk  13:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Tinkering is how I've learned, too, but I've done much less than you and I didn't start out with a knowledge of HTML or CSS. I think that a tutorial would be an invaluable contribution to wikipedia. As far as I know, there is only one page like that, and it is very basic. Awadewit | talk  16:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll see what I can do. I really should work on Chinua Achebe, but some days I'd just rather work on graphic design stuff. – Scartol  ·  Talk  17:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * has suggested that the MoSElement template is a bad idea. I disagree, but I certainly don't want to be bullheaded or jerky about this. Thoughts? – Scartol  ·  Talk  21:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I made up a Template Tutorial. Will you be my beta tester? (smile) – Scartol  ·  Talk  22:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You wrote: Can I just keep weighing the pros and cons ad infinitum? No, absolutely not! You must make a decision right now. Just kidding – I know exactly what you mean. How sad that something which could be a useful tool could become a huge nightmare of bureaucracy. It's times like this I wish there were a WP:CABAL. Let's see what other folks say on the template talk. – Scartol  ·  Talk  02:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No rush at all. Whenever you have some time. Thanks again. – Scartol  ·  Talk  19:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Customer cars
Now remember, you did ask for this. Does that make anything clearer? Again, too much detail :). 4u1e 08:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A customer car, in this context, is a racing car built by a manufacturer for sale to a racing team. In the early days of F1 there were relatively few manufacturers, which were mostly road car manufacturers promoting their products. Manufacturers ran their own 'works' racing team in-house, or employed a specialist racing team to do so. Many other racing teams did not build their own cars, but simply bought them from one of the manufacturers. This approach continued from the 1950s into the 1960s, although the balance shifted and the sport came to be dominated by more specialised racing car manufacturers (BRM, Lotus, Brabham, March Engineering etc), rather than road car manufacturers.
 * From the beginning of the 1970s, the sale of customer cars became less common. Teams found that with the wide availability of a competitive off-the-shelf racing engine (the Cosworth DFV) it was relatively easy to build their own cars, becoming manufacturers themselves. However, to be truly competitive a manufacturer needed to focus on their own team, and not on the needs of customers. Sponsorship and other developments made it possible to run a business this way, rather than relying on the sale of customer cars for income. Lotus, Brabham and the rest stopped supplying customer cars, other than on very rare occasions.
 * Because of further changes in the way the sport was run commercially (See FISA-FOCA war) at the beginning of the 1980s, the de facto position in which each racing team was also a manufacturer was ratified into the sports regulations and it became illegal for one team to use a car built by another manufacturer. As of 2007, then, in F1 racing team equals manufacturer, and there are no customer cars.
 * About half of the Formula One teams/manufacturers are now owned by major automobile manufacturers (FIAT, BMW, Renault etc). There are very few of the small, specialist independent teams which used to make up most of the field, and they are no longer competitive. F1 teams spend an obscene amount of money each year, and the small teams do not have the resources to develop their cars to the same extent as the large teams. Nonetheless, the continued existence of the small teams is important to the sport: they fill out the field, arguably making a greater spectacle; they provide a relatively low risk environment for new drivers to be tried out (Although see Lewis Hamilton!); probably most importantly, they are the safety net for when the major automobile manufacturers pull out of this extremely expensive sport. Other racing series have been destroyed when economic conditions change and large automobile manufacturers no longer want to be involved.
 * Many proposals have been made in the last few years for reducing costs, with one of the aims being to make it possible for smaller teams to be reasonably competitive. One of these proposals is to make customer cars legal again as of 2008. The new Prodrive F1 team which will enter F1 next year will (most likely) be buying its cars and engines from the McLaren-Mercedes team.
 * Since the 1980s there have inevitably been several occasions when teams have been accused of using cars from another manufacturer. This year there has been particular excitement over two teams: Scuderia Toro Rosso and Super Aguri F1. Both have close connections with other teams (respectively, Red Bull Racing and Honda F1). STR is using a car which appears identical to this year's Red Bull. Super Aguri is using a car which appears identical to last year's Honda (and which unfortunately appears to be rather quicker than this year's Honda, but that's another story). In both cases the teams concerned have used a sort of loophole: what the rules say is that each team must own the intellectual property to their car, not that they actually have to build it themselves. Super Aguri and STR did not build their own cars this year, but neither were they built by Honda or Red Bull Racing. They were built by separate specialist companies, from design documents. Super Aguri and STR both claim that the IP to the design has been transferred to them from their 'partners', so although it looks like the same car, they own the IP and there is no breach of the regulations. Or something like that.
 * Why are other teams so exercised by all this? There are 11 teams in F1 this year. The first 10 teams in the constructors championship at the end of the year get significant travel benefits next year. Enough to make quite a difference to a struggling team. Life's pretty hard down at the back of the grid - a lot of small teams have gone bust over the last decade.
 * At the beginning of the year Spyker F1 were threatening to protest the STR and/or Super Aguri cars, in order to get them excluded from the race, either before or after the event. Super Aguri, STR and Spyker are definite minnows in the F1 pond. At the end of the year they will be in serious 'competition' for last place. Spyker was either grabbing any chance to improve its chances of getting to 10th in the championship, or making a principled stand on a breach in the regulations, depending on how cynical you're feeling.
 * You are really very good at explaining to the novice! (There can never be too much detail for me.) Awadewit | talk  18:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I suspect I spend far too much time thinking about this stuff. :D 4u1e 21:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

sleepy time
Given that Henry Fuseli appears on your Wollstonecraft template, maybe you're interested in the cultural context of The Nightmare? I've only consulted one source so far. Just FYI. –Outriggr § 08:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed I am interested - in fact, I'm interested regardless of the Fuseli/Wollstonecraft connection. The Nightmare is an intriguing painting. When I finally manage to rewrite the Fuseli page, I will definitely look into this more. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the Fuseli page together? Awadewit | talk  21:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would try that, if I am able to find sources. Would you mind suggesting a DYK hook for the painting if you're around? (I think I've got one day left to nominate.) Thanks, –Outriggr § 23:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * the Frankenstein connection would be good to use, except it's not in the article yet. :/ –Outriggr § 23:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I went my own way, but thanks for those suggestions. ...that Henry Fuseli's 1781 painting The Nightmare (pictured) portrays a contemporary folktale about lone sleepers? -- "oh, what kind of folktale"? Let me know when you're ready to tackle Fuseli. I know you have many priorities, and I'm in no rush, but on the other hand you're so productive... –Outriggr § 01:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have a Fuseli bibliography put together? I could at least start reading a biography. Awadewit | talk  01:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I added a bit of a bibliography to the Fuseli page. Awadewit | talk  17:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for putting together the bibliography. These books don't look easily come by; I can probably only acquire one (Tomory?-memory) and am not in the practice of buying things to support wikipedia habits. :) I will check out that book. I see that Fuseli is a good painter for a literature buff to write about; paintings on Shakespeare, Milton... –Outriggr § 07:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I take it you don't have access to a good library, then? These are just the best Fuseli books that my library happened to have. I agree with the buying bit - I certainly don't have the money for that. One of the reasons I find Fuseli fascinating is because he really integrated the sister arts. And his paintings are so haunting. Awadewit | talk  19:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not exactly. I'm assuming you're referring to a university library, because if that's in your public library system I'm jealous. I have to admit, I didn't bother checking the public library, but I now have, and my suspicions were confirmed. I could try interlibrary loan, but am always skeptical: You can have the book for four hours with one renewal. Then we'll place the book back on our shelf, where it won't be touched for two years! Well, I'll see if the one available book piques [spelling crisis averted] my interest. :) –Outriggr § 07:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Tis a university library, yes. I do know of a few good public library systems, but not many. Awadewit | talk  08:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

A Vindication of the Rights of Men
I have just read, with great pleasure, your latest Mary Wollstonecraft article. Purists might criticise: occasional lapses into AmEng (defense, labor); the unreferenced statement about Burke's Reflections sales figures (2nd section, 2nd par); and the repeated use of the archaic "middling-" for "middle-" class (charming on first use, laboured thereafter?). None of these, of course, diminish the excellence of the piece. -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 08:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am most familiar with AE, so I write in that. It is easier to produce "brilliant prose" in one's own dialect. :)
 * The reference for Burke's sales figures is included in the note at the end of the paragraph - it is page 35 and Paine's figures are on page 108. I wanted to condense the notes a bit - was that too much?
 * I have deliberately chosen to use "middling" rather than "middle-class". In this, I am following one line of scholarship on the eighteenth century that argues there wasn't a true middle class until the nineteenth century - those works all use "middling". Some of the works on the VRM use "middling" as well (there is no real consistency). I had to choose and this time I went with "middling".


 * I'm glad that you enjoyed the article! Awadewit | talk  19:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Exhausted but happy
Oh Awadewit, thank you so much for your gift! :D

It's been a very long day, and lots went awry, so I was feeling rather blue and down on myself. :( First, I burned the two bushels of tomatoes that I was making into sauce; then I accidentally sawed into a work-bench I was making; then I messed up a scarf I was knitting for a college-bound orphan; and then I discovered I'd made a silly mistake in the Schwarzschild metric that someone corrected with (perhaps deserved) edit summary Everything you know is wrong. (Shades of Descartes!)  But all was mended with time and patience and grace: I learned my mistake and understood better; I rescued my sauce, my workbench and my scarf; my raspberry, pepper and tomato plants are still producing wonderfully; and I contributed a work-day at another charity, which made me feel happy.  But the gift of your friendship redeemed the day entirely and makes me feel robed in light.  I'd already saved the carriletta to my scrapbook yesterday, but your note made it twice welcome.  :)  Now to sleep, perchance to dream; more work and knitting await tomorrow, Willow 04:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your life sounds Dickensian - it even includes the Shakespeare allusions. :) Awadewit | talk  04:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sadly, neither of those illustrious authors has many knitters, with one infamous exception. The remainder of my Dickensian weekend passed well, with only a few more mis-adventures; I very successfully knit up the ravelled sleeve of care. ;)  Willow 19:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ever since I saw the List of knitters in literature, I've been on the lookout. I think Dickens has more than you think. :) Women are always knitting in nineteenth-century literature. (I should know - I was originally going to be a Victorianist and have spent many hours reading Victorian novels.) I'm glad your weekend improved. I am currently trying to finish Julie, or the New Heloise. It is, um, a long sentimental epistolary novel by Rousseau. I'll just leave it there. Awadewit | talk  20:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I'm still keeping a lookout myself, although it's on the back-burner for now. :)


 * I'm still in the process of reading Burke and Wollstonecraft's pamphlets. I'm making a little set of notes for each one so that I can remember each of their main arguments as they occur and recur.  I think I'll try out my thoughts on you before venturing to comment on the FAC page.


 * And recur and recur and recur and recur.... :) Awadewit | talk  17:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm in need of thoughtful advice on something altogether different. As you might remember, I was making articles for the major poems of Catullus a little while ago.  The pivotal issue is their illustration; I added images near the beginning of many of the poems so that the modern reader could apprehend the poem's theme at a glance before beginning the text.  The pictures enliven the page and I believe that many people learn better if they apprehend things by several senses.  Some illustrations are not controversial, methinks, such as the contemporary funeral urn at Catullus 101, or even such anachronisms as the 19th-century painting of a young woman and bird at Catullus 2 or the napkin in Catullus 12.   However, the picture at Catullus 5 seems to have been too risque, having been deleted twice now.  I was looking for a sweet picture of two people kissing that also captured for the modern reader the faint air of scandal that aroused the "rumors of snide old men" referred to in Catullus' poem; in that I may have been a little too successful.  I'm also worried about slipping into WP:NOR here; for example, the picture of Othello in Catullus 70 feels faintly editorial to me, and must seem more strongly so to others.  So I'm weighing very regretfully the possibility that I'll have to delete all those nice images, or whether I should argue for their virtues in illustrating the poems. :(  Willow 12:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Some comments: I've never read these poems (shocking, I know), but now I definitely want to!


 * I would identify all the works of art and their creators in the caption; that helps dispel WP:OR. See what I did in Mary: A Fiction, for example.


 * Could we remove "totally cool" from Catullus 12? It is so vague and informal. The napkin image does not seem quite right to me. It seems like the article should have some sort of image of friendship, since the poem is about the value of friendship, in a way. The napkin image seems to lessen the poem, but, then again, it also highlights its funny side. What do you think?


 * In Catullus 70, I think that you need to explain that the painting is of Othello. I did not know that when I looked at it intially. That is why the explanatory captions are so important. Currently the caption reads "a poem about (mis)trusting female lovers", but of course, the picture is not the poem! A small but important detail.


 * I left a note at Catullus 5. Awadewit | talk  17:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

One-off
It's not such a big point - ultimately I'm happy to drop it. Now that Tony's raised it, I'm actually surprised that several of you on that side of the pond aren't familiar with it, but if three of you (I'm counting GURoadrunner as well) aren't familiar with the term, then perhaps it should stay. On the one hand, why do we have the ability to link to wiktionary if we're not going to use it? On the other, Tony's got (sort of) a point: you could link all complicated words on the basis that it would be useful. . I'll mull it over tonight.


 * Whatever happens, happens. My roommate, who is American, has heard the term and now that I think more about it, I think I've heard "one-off printing". I'm just not sure how common it is. I do see Tony's point and have grumbled when people linked "commensurate" in an article I was editing, but, in the end, who does the link hurt? As you say, though, where does one draw the line? Awadewit | talk  02:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hope the explanation of tyres was useful. I'll get back to you on customer cars. As you might guess, that too takes a bit of explaining to get the context.


 * It was - I'll be going back over to 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix now to see what I can do about that section. Awadewit | talk  02:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Bet you weren't sufficiently taken with the topic to actually watch this weekend's race! ;-) 4u1e 22:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have TV. Send me a link to the results. :) Awadewit | talk  02:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ¡¿No TV?! From the BBC, the world's favourite quasi-autonomous Public Corporation: news.bbc.co.uk. 4u1e 08:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no reception where I live, so I had to choose between the internet and cable (I'm poor). Awadewit | talk  18:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Amazing how many places that's true. Mind you, hereabouts TV, cable, broadband and phone are often packaged together in various ways. We currently get our TV free bundled with a cable enabled (cabenabled?) phone which we don't use (It's the cheapest way of getting the telly, they told me at the call centre). Did you like the neat avoidance of 'one-off' btw? It's a shame in a way, but that debate was taking way too much time. :) 4u1e 21:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Compromise by avoidance - it's fabulous! I should try to follow that advice here. Awadewit | talk  23:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just one of many forms of compromise in which I am expert! Or at least well-practiced. (Odd that that's the one word I habitually use US spelling for....) What's the sticking point on VRM? Modern criticism? 4u1e 09:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Something about modern criticism (I'm not really sure what) and BE vs. AE - I think that's it. :) Awadewit | talk  09:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

2007 Malaysian Grand Prix - next step....
Right, now the PR is over for the article, like whats been going on with Brabham BT19 with 4u1e, I've put a comment on the WP:F1 talkpage (see here), asking if they don't mind making in-depth comments on the talkpage. Just thought you'd want to know. BTW, many, many thanks for helping me squeeze out any teething problems with the article! Thanks! Davnel03 18:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I haven't got any response. Do you think that I should go and have a second attempt at nominating the article for FA status now? Davnel03 19:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The season ends in a few weeks, so I'll probably wait until then. And, yes I do have one or two trusted editors, but, no offense to them but one or two of them don't want to be bothered in editing race articles, and even when I do leave comments on talkpages, see here, I get no response, which is pretty annoying. I left a comment on the LOCE page requesting a copy-edit, see here, but have no response (there again its only 3 weeks on). And yeah, two days is a bit to soon - I'll wait a bit longer for someone to comment. Should I leave a message on five or six of the WP:F1 members talkpages and see if I get a response? I don't want it to seem like I'm being "harsh" as such towards them, sayin "you must make comments on the talkpage". I haven't had a good relationship with one or two for different reasons. Should I leave comments on the talkpage? I think I've gone on too much now! :) Davnel03 16:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the editors who didn't respond, they might just have been busy - I wouldn't take it personally.
 * LoCE doesn't seem to respond very quickly, I've discovered.
 * I think contacting people personally from WikiProjects can be very productive - I would go through the F1 membership and try to find people who have edited similar articles, particularly GA or FA-level. Whenever I leave a message asking for help, I usually volunteer to do something in return (I usually volunteer to copy edit or peer review, since those are my strengths). Whatever your strengths are, you should volunteer them. I think it shows a cooperative spirit that other editors respond well to. Does that sound preachy? I hope not. It really is just meant as helpful advice - it has worked well for me in the past. Awadewit | talk  16:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with the first two, but the third one sort of counts. We at WP:F1 only have two FA race articles. As you know, I've tried to get this to somewhere near FA, but comments like this during the PR process really, really annoyed me. I'm going to leave comments on some peoples talkpage, and I'll ask whether they would like me to do something to help them in response to their comments on the Malaysian talkpage. Davnel03 16:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Review
I definitely intend to have a look at it, but I may be some time. (I've become bogged down in trying to make some articles relating to Catherine de' Medici and the arts, and it's difficult, tortuous going. I feel that if I stop, I might never get my momentum back—and I like to give my whole attention to a review). I hope I don't miss your FAC, but if I do, I'll post my comments on the talk page anyway. Of course, by then, having queened all your pawns, you may be in Featured Topic overdrive.qp10qp 16:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope this one remaining pawn doesn't lose me the game! Awadewit | talk  17:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Since you posted both on the article talk page and at FAC, I thought I'd consolidate my thanks here for your assistance (and support) on Authentic Science Fiction. Both are appreciated. Good luck with Vindication, by the way; I'd comment at FAC if I thought I could say something useful, but I'm sure it will sail through without any trouble. And then the Wollstonecraft Featured Topic, I presume? Mike Christie (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you have a moment, I wouldn't mind your comments at the Vindication FAC. I would be curious to have your opinion. It is not looking good at the moment. The last one! (I was going to nominate the featured topic on my wikibirthday - November 22 - isn't that silly?) Awadewit | talk  01:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. I haven't been following the FAC, but I just read it because of your comment.  Lots of debates going on there, indeed.  I will see if I can find something constructive to say, but please forgive me if I don't make it: I'm a bit overcommitted for now.  And no, that's not silly, that's a very nice way to think about it.  Mike Christie (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

VRM FAC and the MoSElement template
Yeah, I know what you mean about the FAC being proof of the difficulties in MoS standardization. I'm pretty chagrined that it's become such a big deal, in that space. If it's important to the objector, it seems like a matter for the article talk page – like Qp10qp said. Therefore, I still feel as though the MoSElement can be helpful, even if it's not a magic bullet (and will probably bring these disputes more into the foreground). I don't know that it will cause more of them, though.


 * I've been involved in several AE/BE disputes. Apparently there are strong feelings there. I don't really understand it. I was once accused of perpetuating the American hegemony. Apparently by writing a series of articles on Britain in AE, I was perpetuating the American hegemony. :) Awadewit | talk  15:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Still, the tyranny of my interests and workload mean that the template is definitely on hold for now. I need to work on getting math/science feedback and figuring out how to collapse it. I wonder if, to address SandyGeorgia's concerns, I could make it more streamlined – maybe include all the info in a single line? – Scartol  ·  Talk  15:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there some code here that might help with the hiding? You might ask Markus Poessel for science feedback - he's a physicist and wrote much of introduction to general relativity. He's a wonderful wikipedia editor. Awadewit | talk  15:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That link is money – many thanks. I've been searching for it for some time now. Awadewit to the rescue! (Again.) I'll ask Markus Poessel too. Cheers. – Scartol  ·  Talk  01:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, did you see this? – Scartol  ·  Talk  01:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean about the headaches at VRM. To tell you the truth I'm a bit offended that it's become such a nightmare – over such an incredibly tiny issue. As if you have nothing more important to sweat over! (Don't the people who are pursuing the objections?) I don't get why it's so important to them. I personally don't even care enough one way or the other to bother discussing it.


 * At the risk of repeating myself, I don't know that the template will either abet or impede these flame wars. It'll just serve as a reference for those who do copyedits etc. If this nonsense is important to people, they'll fight about it regardless of the tools available. Meanwhile, I still think MoSElement could be useful to people who are just here to "do the damn thing" (as the rap kids say). – Scartol  ·  Talk  12:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

A Vindication of the Rights of Men FAC
I've left my final points on Featured article candidates/A Vindication of the Rights of Men, with more citations. Obviously you see things one way, I see things another, and we are both able to throw citations at each other until we're blue in the face. Wikipedia works by consensus. If you can show that the other editors taking part in the FAC believe I am out of line and wrong, feel free to remove the information. But if you can't get consensus to remove it, I hope you will leave it. This is distracting from my own writing and I plan to focus on that again. I hope there are no hard feelings from all this.--Alabamaboy 23:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm really much more interested in the scholarly consensus, as I believe that wikipedia should rely on the best scholarly works (that is its only hope of gaining legitimacy). That is why I am so intent on asking for citations. I am easily convinced by good citations and easily alienated by poor ones, I'm afraid. The thing is, I've read almost every major work on Wollstonecraft in the last two years and the addition you are proposing is just not something I've seen in those works - I have tried to present a more nuanced view of the work while at the same time ending the article with a few sweeping claims. Obviously I could have missed something, but I am not convinced that is the case yet. I have tried not to let the debate become personal; I hope you have as well. However, for future reference, anyone who has done extensive research will feel offended (as I did) if you start citing clearly unreliable sources or clearly useless sources (such as two-page introductions) at them. Such things are not useful and should not be used as the basis for writing an article - the sources must be more sophisticated than the finished product. But perhaps we disagree on this point? Awadewit | talk  23:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously we do. I for one see your attitude tied up in ownership of the article and I take back that comment about bad blood--this experience has created plenty of bad blood with me. I have reformatted the FAC so it will be easier for people to comment on this issue and so our long back and forth argument doesn't distract from the overall FAC. I'm going to see this issue through, but after this I will be avoiding like the plague any article you work on and I hope you'll to do the same with me. You mistake stubbornness for scholarship and insults for discussion and your understanding of Wikipedia leaves a lot to be desired.--Alabamaboy 00:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (Big sigh on my part.) Please forgive me for ranting and engaging in personal attacks on that past post. As I originally said, I thought you're article was deserving of FA status and had only one issue which I thought should be addressed. I presented my view and will no longer argue over this; as I said on the FAC page, whatever the consensus view is is fine for me. This experience has reminded me why I no longer enjoy Wikipedia and how it is distracting from my personal writing, so I think I'm going to take a good long break from this place. Good luck with the FAC and your other work.--Alabamaboy 00:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
(That was hard to phrase!) The VRM FAC bothered me (and has again made it harder to imagine I'd ever have the wherewithal to nominate there). Honestly, I hope you don't think I pop up in too many places — I've just been interested in your contributions because they seem to me to exemplify how wikipedia is supposed to work (and further, there certainly aren't loads of other examples on my radar). You are very open to suggestions about your articles, and for someone to accuse you of owning articles is disheartening. –Outriggr § 00:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've begun to imagine that I got lucky with Balzac. Suppose someone had demanded that I write it in FrEnglish? ("You need to replace 'the' with the more apropos 'ze'!") Chuckle. – Scartol  ·  Talk  01:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks all! I appreciate it! Awadewit | talk  02:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Almost done . ..
I'm glad that you will be back soon, although I can't complain. I've had trouble finding the time, myself. I'm just back from oral surgery - broken molar, extraction, implant - on Tuesday. Liquid diet until Friday. Part of aging. All distracting.


 * That sounds so uncomfortable! I'm so sorry! Awadewit | talk  02:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you have stories about VRW that I'd like to hear - I look forward to the December MLA.


 * As do I. I have staked out a claim to a sofa at my uncle's house. :) Ah, the life of a graduate student. Awadewit | talk  02:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As for AE and BE, I'm sure there will be a fuss. All I can say is that I am schooled in AE, not BE, and will not work in a dialect I haven't mastered. [Reading seven volumes of Harry Potter to my son in the English originals isn't enough.] Part of me says that this is something that doesn't matter very much, ultimately, but another part says that translating my work (my gift freely given to WP and its readers/users) into a "foreign dialect" is disrespectful. Don't people have something important to worry about? Let's write as we want to and "hire" someone to do the "translation" if that seems advisable at the time we post. Simmaren 02:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We may have to hire - I know some people who would do this, I think, especially for Austen. I fear the overwhelming outcry at having the Austen page in AE, even though we will have toiled long and hard. Ah well. Awadewit | talk  02:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Southam
I assume you mean his history of/excerpts from Austen criticism. I haven't read these, although I was able to find the Southam Critical Essays on Jane Austen from 1968, which I may read (when I have time) as part of my exploration of well-aged and/or obsolete criticism. I did some more looking after our last exchange on this, and while one of the Southam volumes on criticism (covering the most recent period) can be had on Alibris for $150-200, another costs over $1,000. There is room for a reprint here, I think. Simmaren 02:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Being poor, I am reduced to using the library. :) I am looking at a 1968 Jane Austen: The Critical Heritage which covers 1812 to 1870 and a 1987 Jane Austen: The Critical Heritage 1870-1940, Volume 2. Volume 2 has a 150-page introduction and volume 1 has a 30-page introduction - obviously I will read and post my notes on those. As for the primary sources included - do you want me just to read them and extract interesting and relevant bits? This could start to look like WP:OR if we're not careful, however, a careful summary is fine. Let me know. Awadewit | talk  03:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Mary Wollstonecraft
I am sending this to everyone who participated about six months ago in the discussion about the appropriate English variant to use for the Mary Wollstonecraft article.

You may wish to read a similar discussion, taking place over a Mary Wollstonecraft pamphlet, A Vindication of the Rights of Men, currently a featured article candidate.

The FAC discussion is here: Featured article candidates/A Vindication of the Rights of Men

The applicable part of the article's talk page is here: Talk:A Vindication of the Rights of Men

-- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 19:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

John Steinbeck
Hi, thank you for your comments on the peer review. I have ordered some old biographies and will use them to expand the article in the coming month. Thanks again. LordHarris 21:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Too busy for speedy replies??


I dunno. I think this whole "I'm busy in real life thing" is a front, Awad. You've posted five replies here today, and made something like fifty edits today. Who does that while writing a dissertation!? Are your eyes like those of the chameleon, able to focus on two different things at once? I imagine you multitasking on your dissertation, editing Wikipedia, making a sandwich and doing your taxes all at the same time.

Geez, I'm scared to think of what your WP workload will be like when you're not busy! – Scartol  ·  Talk  01:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's beautiful! Thanks! I have to cut back on my editing, though. I need to spend more time cutting my dissertation chapter down to size. Right now, all I do is expand it! Awadewit | talk  07:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I should have added the div there to clear it. Sorry. Speaking of being too busy – I'm flattered that you'd ask me to review Jason Priestley. So flattered that I'll probably say yes. But insofar as I just got done with big work on a number of other folks' articles (Yasser Arafat and Candide especially), I'm really looking forward to putting in some time on Chinua Achebe, which I've been neglecting (and the books are due back at the library soon). So it may be a week or so before I can get to it. – Scartol  ·  Talk  12:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * When I said "in the next month or two", I was serious. So, a leisurely review or a postponed review would be fine. I'm more interested in quality reviews than fast reviews! (By the way, it's Joseph Priestley - did I for some insane, late-night reason, type Jason Priestley?). Awadewit | talk  18:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was making a joke there. Kinda like Jackie Harvey. I'll get to the review when I can. No promises on time.


 * Also – I fixed your userboxes. Apparently the all-in-one Babel box is align-right and forces a left margin of ~10 pixels (and there's no way to get rid of this margin). Meanwhile, all other userboxes align-left for some reason, and have no margin. I tried to find a way to make it all happy, but in the end I had to split up the Babel ones into four separate boxes. You've lost the Babel header and footer ("Search user languages"), but at least your userboxes are all lined up. Sorry I couldn't make them both work – perhaps there's some method of which I'm not aware. – Scartol  ·  Talk  12:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am very embarrassed about missing the joke. So sorry. Nothing deflates humor like having to explain it.


 * Thanks for fixing the userboxes! That is exactly what I mean about not knowing wiki-code. I have deduced a lot from looking at the code for my userpage, but not enough. It looks much better now (and I don't search by user language, anyway). Awadewit | talk  19:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Just wanted to run this by you – I figured out how to collapse the MoSElement template (thanks in part to the awesome link you provided earlier). I also added an "other" field for additional comments people might want to include. I know you're nervous about the potential it presents for flame/edit wars, but maybe these amazing changes I've made will cause you to completely reverse your position and lavish the template with your undying support and also send me a check for US$500 so I can by a Wii. – Scartol  ·  Talk  17:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What's next?
Just curious, but once (knock on wood) all those Woolstonecraft works are "done", what's next on the list for you? Any more big projects on one topic, or just articles here and there? Wrad 20:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have this big list building, as you can see under "Current projects" on my userpage. The biggest project of all is the rewrite of the Jane Austen page that Simmaren and I are currently working on. You can imagine how enormous that project is.


 * I do eventually want to rewrite all of the articles on Template:Mary Wollstonecraft so that they can all be included in the Wollstonecraft featured topic. If you want to work on any of those together, please let me know. It would have to be awhile from now, though. Perhaps even a year. Awadewit | talk  20:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * On another subject, I finished the items on your Philostrate review. Wrad 22:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5
To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

Stanley Cup
Hi Awadewit! Thanks a lot for the very thorough copyedit. I'll try to address all your concerns ASAP, but right now I feel a bit exhausted to add content; click revert is very easy, but researching stuff all over the web is a different thing. Thanks for your patience!! --Maxim (talk) (contributions)  20:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. I am in no hurry. Let me know when you want me to look at it again. Awadewit | talk  00:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)