User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 22

Analytical Review
I read it twice now, and its very strong. I'm not a great reviewer, so the only help I can offer is to turn the red links blue. Ceoil (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "the first journals dedicated to reviewing books in Britain". My sources tell me that the Monthly Review was the first sucessful journal. Ceoil (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not a big fan of creating stubby articles. I prefer to create articles when I have something substantive to add to them. Awadewit | talk  23:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, its easy work for when your feeling a bit burned out and frazzled from more substantial articles. I'll post to the PR later in the weekend. Have a good christmas. Ceoil (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Which sources are you referring to? The Butler essay I quote charts the rise of journals in Britain, beginning with Philosophical Transactions, the journal of the Royal Society, and The Tatler and The Spectator, which were general-subject magazines. The Gentleman's Magazine was the next important miscellaneous periodical. According to Butler, the Monthly Review and The Critical Review filled a gap left by the Gentleman's Magazine and other periodicals&mdash;the reviewing of books. Awadewit | talk  23:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Feedback on WW interview
I found the interview very thought provoking; I am also a grad student - but I decided to share my Wikipedia hobby with my peers. True, I got a nickname in my dept as the 'wicked wikipedian', but I feel that it is actually helping my career more than impeding it. You are right about job competition - but I see Wikipedia as something that makes me stand out in the crowd, and that is usually a good thing. I'd love to talk more about our 'Wikipedia and academia' experiences one of those days... ps. you can find my WW interview few months back :) Take care, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I enjoyed both interviews. (I wish they'd do more of those, rather than neverending panel discussions which – while good at covering the news – often repeat Signpost stuff.) I've found that my status as Wikipedian at the school where I teach has led to a duality of bemusement ("Wikipedia? That open-source madhouse!") and respect ("Wow, look at all the work you've put in. Awesome!"). Something similar to Piotrus' experience. I hope you can take off the mask before too long, A. Cheers to you both. (Oh, and I did another round at EG, A.) – Scartol  •  Tok  13:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Piotrus, I listened to your interview as I was doing "research" for my own - to see what kind of an interviewer Witty Lama was. I wanted to be prepared! I was impressed with your assignment regarding the assessment the sources - I may have to snag that one. I would like to chat our situations as well. I noticed that you were in sociology. I wonder if that makes a difference? Perhaps we could talk more after the holidays. The big English professor conference (MLA) starts on the 26th. Awadewit | talk  02:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I missed your reply. I operate under the principle 'replies should be delivered on the other user page so they get the yellow notification' :) Since it is after the holidays, I hope you have more time to chat :) Sociology is part of humanities as well...hmm... well, I advertised my Wikipedia involvement from the beginning on my CV, when I was looking for university to do my PhD in, as I heard that being a volunteer in some NGO is seen as a plus. I know there are still people at my dept. who think Wikipedia is not a serious academic interest, but I think I managed to convince most people (including some of the 'important ones') otherwise. Perhaps it's not the type of the department, but the people? Are you sure that your peers would see Wikipedia as a handicap? This term I am TAing one class where we will have more student involvement with Wiki; I plan to collect my experiences into a paper. There is also this. Btw, I like your comment that 'grad students should stick together'. I wonder if we could create some form of wiki organization, or add ourselves to an existing one? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know of several. I will sound them out soon. Wiki lama I think is a grad too, isn't he? Estabilishing Wikipedia as an acceptable and even respectable avenue of grad student expression would be quite worthwhile.
 * I don't think that Wikipedia would prove to be as controversial as damaging; we are not saying it should be used for references (major and righteous gripe I believe) but that contributing to it is academics duty (or at least, acceptable pastime). This has been argued for in quite a few academic papers so far (do you know WP:ACST?). That said, perhaps I have already sunk and I just think I am swimming... :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there
Nice to hear from a Wikipedia Radio Star! I'll have a look at this when I get home but I'm visiting family in Britain at the moment so my Wiki time is pretty limited. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. I have fully embraced "there are no deadlines". :) Besides, it's worth waiting for quality reviews! I hope you are having fun in Britain. Awadewit | talk  18:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Harold Innis
Thanks again for your constructive criticisms. I've tried to fix things, but I'm still a bit uncertain about how to handle fair use rationales for images. Most images are from Wikipedia Commons. I'm most concerned about the two images of Innis himself, both of which are in the public domain in Canada and because of their age, I can't see any problem in the U.S. I hope I have indicated that properly, but I'm not sure. I've created separate pages for Innis's main theories as you suggested and I've chopped other sections. So, the main article is quite a bit shorter than it was. With a great deal of trepidation, I've submitted the entry for GA consideration, but I'm still worrying about how to handle copyright issues for the images. I can't tell you how much I appreciate all your advice. Bwark (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that you found my suggestions helpful. I would not worry about the GAC nomination - the article was, in my opinion, already of very high quality when I read it. I'm sure that your revisions have only made it better. I hope you decide to take it to FAC eventually. If you do, please feel free to drop by - I've gone through the process many times and can offer the advice of a seasoned FACer (I have even created an FAC prep list on my userpage).


 * I'm afraid that my knowledge of fair use is rather limited. I usually work on articles about the eighteenth century - most images from that time are in the public domain. Have you tried Media copyright questions? You can ask questions about specific images there, as I understand it. I look forward to reading more of your contributions! Awadewit | talk  01:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We're Away...
'nuff said. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. I'm in the middle of a nightmare of my own. Awadewit | talk  02:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Erg, we've had to mutilate our article and we've had a bit of a disagreement, but I think we're back on track after cutting about a 3rd. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds rough. I'm glad things are going better, though. I had to do some seriously painful cutting of Joseph Priestley before I took it to FAC (it's probably still too long - unreadable except for the Priestley fans out there), so I know the feeling. I saw some rather alarming announcements on your talk page - I hope your own life has settled down a bit. You know, vampire will always be here. :} Awadewit | talk  08:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

AR
No problem. The phrase "Perhaps most importantly" seems like too much editorial voice for me... and the object phrase "for radical political and religious ideas" could be more nuanced. Perhaps "provided a forum for the radical critique of political and religious ideas" would be better. Beyond that, I think this is a very good article and I'm sure it will pass. Amerique dialectics 18:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The "perhaps most importantly" is cited later in the article, so I don't think it is editorial voice. I agree that the "for radical political and religious ideas" is vague, but unfortunately I think the new formulation is just as vague. If I didn't know anything about the eighteenth century, I would still be forced to ask "what radical political and religious critiques"? I contemplated listing some of these, but I thought it might be too detailed for the lead. The only details currently in the lead concern the French Revolution and the Pitt administration. What do you think? Should more be added? Awadewit | talk  18:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the phrase only appears once... i'm not trying to deny any claim that the AR providing a "forum for radical political and religious ideas" was the most important aspect of it, but the current phrasing in the lead makes the AR seem rather pamphleteering or broadsidedly "for the Revolution"... as I read the content in the text, the AR seemed to spread its critique around more liberally, i.e. it also critiqued "radical" voices, rather than being an publication like CounterPunch, for example. The current detail re: the French Revolution and Pitt administration is adequate, but the lead-in to that should emphasize the AR's critical function rather than the object(s) of critique, I think. Amerique dialectics 19:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Analytical Review's most important function was position as a liberal journal, as Teich makes clear in his evaluation. My understanding of the scholarship on the AR and my reading of the AR itself is that it was rather pamphleteer-y and broadside-y. It might not have always sounded like Thomas Paine, for example, but it defended many of the same principles. It is difficult to draw a bright line between these types of literature at the time, actually. The AR tried to spread its critique around, but I'm not sure how effective it was. As the first paragraph in "Content and political leanings" makes clear, it favored anti-Burke rebuttals during the Revolution Controversy. It was no Anti-Jacobin Review, but that doesn't mean it was objective. I have tried to emphasize these tensions in the lead by beginning the lead with it offered readers summaries and analyses of the many new publications issued at the end of the eighteenth century and emphasizing that it aimed at impartiality (something other journals did not do). Eighteenth-century politics and rhetoric is quite difficult to convey in three or four paragraphs. Please keep helping me refine this because I constantly struggle to explain in broad terms what I know to be a very complex subject. Could you perhaps suggest a rewrite for the second paragraph? I have stared at it for several months now and have reached a dead end at this moment. I need a fresh infusion of ideas or more time to fix this problem. Awadewit | talk  19:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I'll marinate on that. As a side question, do you have French Revolutionaries in plural to emphasize or suggest the various authors it reviewed? They haven't been introduced yet, so I think just "French Revolution" would adequate for the lead at this point. Amerique dialectics 20:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * re: my removal and restoration of "gadfly publication," I had thought previously that AR, perhaps because of its title or the contributors involved, was closer in spirit to Critical Inquiry than a more overtly politically-oriented or committed review sheet. Still, Teich's quote as to AR being "the most important radical review adopting the encyclopedic format for the attempted universal coverage of published works" leaves room for interpretation as whether the AR was important because of its radical politics or encyclopedic format, not that the two can be easily separated. My concern was that the line "Perhaps most importantly, the Analytical Review provided a forum for radical political and religious ideas," emphasized the "forum" or political function over the "encyclopedic review" or analytical function, which at the time must have seemed and still seems (to me) the most novel aspect of it, the aspect that distinguishes it from broadsides and pamphlets etc. Still, as even the contemporary commentators seemed to agree that it was not altogether successful at impartial analysis I suppose the line (and "gadfly" characterization) should stand. Amerique dialectics 20:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the encyclopedia format was a political statement in the eighteenth century. Remember Diderot was in charge in the French Encyclopédie. The whole idea of encyclopedias was associated with the Enlightenment, which most commentators then and now associate with "liberalism" in one way or another (rightly or wrongly). These political associations are hard to tease apart and are often very different than our own. However, when you think about Wikipedia itself, for example, I think that it can become clearer. Wikipedia is not an apolitical collection of knowledge, is it? :) Awadewit | talk  08:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sir Wayne and Kermit the Knight
Yeah, I'll copyedit it. In 2053! Just kidding. But I will copyedit it. Curse this insufferable ego of mine! I feel so proud and respected when I'm asked for copyedits, and meanwhile I've got stacks of work on other things that I want to do.

Totally unrelated and unsolicited and maybe you don't care, but I'm going to complain anyway: I got two Balzac books in the mail yesterday, and they were nearly worthless! One was little more than a pamphlet – Balzac, Force of Nature indeed! The other was a Balzac Bibliography, which I figured – at 450+ pages – must have some commentary as well. Wrong! Growl spit. Hopefully the other three on their way to me will be more helpful. I think I've developed a Balzac-book problem. I'm close to owning all the books published in English about him. Damn you, Alibris! – Scartol  •  Tok  16:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I might be able to offer a solution to the book problem. You can always ask me if my library has the book you are going to order (we have a very good library here) and I can take a look at it for you and give you my professional opinion regarding its worth. :) Awadewit | talk  17:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that; but I seriously think I'm close to owning every single book in English about the man. So I don't think it will be an issue. But I'll let you know. – Scartol  •  Tok  20:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I mentioned that when I was adding LPG to the 1FAPQ page. Hey, I envision myself making that steady progress. In five years, who knows? I also have a nightmare of a more experienced Balzac scholar coming on board and showing me up. "Outta the way, junior – lemme show you how the real Balzac scholars do it." – Scartol  •  Tok  02:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, hopefully it would be nice Balzac scholar, eager to share his/her knowledge with you and the rest of us. That is what I want to do - chat all day about the eighteenth century. "Let me tell you how it was way back when..." :) For the moment, you're our Balzac expert, as well as of the rest of the world who clicks on the first google result. Scary isn't it? Awadewit | talk  02:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Reagan TFA
Hi Awadewit. I'm just kind of stressed because I have been waiting for this day since it became an FA on August 25. It's just a shame that Nancy's got in the way, and they are very different topics. He was a president of the United States (and would be the first to be featured on the main page since Harry Truman in September), and she was a first lady. As you well know, they are very different positions with very different job roles. And the Ronald Reagan article is much more informative and engaging than Nancy's. You even said yourself that three 19th century America articles will be put up in February; by the time Feb. 6 hits, Nancy's will have been two months before. Again, I urge you to reconsider. --03:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Happyme22, I realize that to someone as interested in the Reagans and in twentieth-century politics as yourself, Ronald and Nancy as completely separate people. However, you have to be able to step back from your own perspective and see how they appear to people not interested in them or in politics. You have to approach this from the perspective of our readers. Some of our readers could care less about presidents or politics. Some of them are interested in science. Some of them are interested in ancient history. Some of them are interested in movies. These are all completely different topics. Compared to those topics, Nancy and Ronald are not so different. That is what we mean when we are talking about topic diversity. Yes, "First Lady" and "President" are different titles, but you are talking about the same couple - two people who led, in different ways, the free world at the same time. This is not even Martha Washington and Ronald Reagan. Also, I would strongly discourage you from disparaging other editors' work by saying it is less "informative" or less "engaging" that your own. You are only going to alienate editors that you might want to work with in the future. Awadewit | talk  03:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much
Dear Awadewit, thank you very much for the Photographers Barnstar for my work on Joseph Priestley House. The staircase shot was the last one I took inside the house (just as the tour was leaving), as that was the only time no one else was in the hallway when I was. I want to try and get the same shot as this one on a sunny day, as I think that would look nice on the Main Page if this were ever WP:TFA. I have some more comments on the article but will add those to the talk page. I know we are not done, but it has been a real pleasure working with you on this. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have enjoyed it as well. I have rarely had the opportunity to work with anyone on an article from start to finish. It has been such a pleasure. The ideal wiki-experience. Awadewit | talk  19:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

John Day (printer) on Veropedia
Hi Awadewit. I noticed one of your userboxes says that you contribute to Veropedia. I found the John Day article on the site the other day, but unfortunately it was ported over there on January 6, before and I had finished expanding/verifying/reffing the article in response to the FAR and in preparation for an appearance on the main page (which was yesterday). I think the current version is now a significant improvement. Any chance this one can be ported over to Veropedia? Budding Journalist 17:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I will do that in the next few days. Thanks for making me aware of it. I always want to promote knowledge of the eighteenth century! :) Awadewit | talk  19:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! Many thanks. In this case though, it would be promoting knowledge of the 16th century ;). Budding Journalist 20:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have to try harder to make my jokes funny. Awadewit | talk  07:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with astronomical aesthetics?


Hi A,

I've been tinkering with this amazing free software package called Blender, with the aim of sprucing up some of my older articles and maybe elevating them to Good Articles? Anyway, several of them have to do with planetary motions — an excellently 18th-century topic! ;) I made the animation at the right, and I'm wondering if you could make suggestions on how I should improve its look?

Here's what I want this image to do. I want to show how planets, comets, etc. move on ellipses and go faster when they come close to the gravitational center and slower when they're further away. That elliptical orbit should be the main focus, but I also want to show that the elliptical orbit is independent of the rotations of the planet and the central star. I want everything to be scrupulously accurate, in case any finicky physicist starts criticizing me for being sloppy. :P Last and maybe not least, I want people to say, "Oooooh, that looks cool! This must be an interesting article." :)

Right now, I'm not sure about the obvious rotation of the central star — is it too distracting? But any advice about colors, speed, lighting, or whatever would be very welcome. :) I've never really done anything aesthetic before, unless you count calligraphy, so I'm clueless about how to make pictures look good.  Willow (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Butting in - came to see the reply above and this caught my eye - first off WOW! This looks great. Second, here are some suggestions. I would lose the rotation of the star - it is distracting (draws the eye) and my guess is that it is not to (time) scale (i.e. if this were the earth and sun, the orbit takes a year for the earth and the sun takes about 25-34 days to rotate, so does the star in the figure rotate about 12 times in one orbit of the planet?). Also, since the planet does not rotate, that makes the figure inconsistent. I also wondered about adding some sort of speed indicator to the figure - perhaps a red line that got longer as the speed increased and shorter as it decreased. This could be on a scale marked max and min and would perhaps make it clearer when the planet was fastest in its orbit. The star also looks flat compared to the more spherical appearance of the planet - not sure if the satr could be yellower and its surface could glow (like embers - not expressing this clearly). Or maybe a solar flare or two? Anyway, I just want to finish by saying that this is really nice work, hope this helps. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, am I really dense, or does the orbit "line" look like a circle rather than an ellipse? I guess I'm a little confused. Also, what do you think about two little dots showing the two "foci" (or whatever they are called) of the ellipse?

The star is centered on the left focus, and the other focus is placed symmetrically at the right. I didn't want to show anything there, though, since nothing more is needed to produce an elliptical orbit. Willow (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So, ellipses aren't defined by two foci? They are defined by one asymmetrical focus? I must be losing my mind. Awadewit | talk  21:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I know, that surprised me, too! I first learned about the string-from-two-foci definition, but you can also define an ellipse using an equation relating its distance and angle from a single focus.  There are other definitions, too, e.g., as a conic section, an algebraic equation in its x and y coordinates, or something involving the ratio of distances to a directrix line.  There are even fifty million definitions of a circle, too. :)  Just so it's clear, the second focus is still there geometrically; it's just that I don't need to put any gravitating matter there to make the planet move on an ellipse; Newton's laws do it with matter at just one focus! :) Willow (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The faster as it approaches gravitational center is definitely clear. My question would be: are the speeds relative or are they just arbitrary for the cool animation? If they are just arbitrary, that should be in the caption. I found myself saying - in my uninformed way - "wow, that star is spinning really fast compared to the orbiting speed of the planet".

The relationship of the speeds was indeed arbitrary; the spin of the star wouldn't affect the speed of the planet in its orbit, I think, if it were really spherical and general relativity isn't being counted. Willow (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So, I guess you need an asterisk linking to the GR article. :) Awadewit | talk  21:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How come the planet isn't spinning, too?

Umm, because I said so? ;) The Moon always shows the same face to the Earth, and so it is here with the planet and its sun.  You might imagine the sun has entrained its planet to always look at it, as a king might demand that his retainers never turn their backs to him. ;) Willow (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought about the moon, but then I thought about the earth, which does twirl. Why is that, by the way? Why does the moon not rotate around an axis, but the earth does? See me display my ignorance for the world to see. Awadewit | talk  21:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I should find time to provide wikilinks, but this is such a nice question that I cannot resist to pose an answer. The rotation of the moon has become gravitationally locked to the earth because of the sea. The moon is what causes the tides: it pulls on the earth and the sea to create a bulge in the ocean which rotates around the earth causing high and low tides, and tidal currents. But every action has an opposite reaction, and this reaction has pulled on the moon and caused its rotation around its axis to match almost exactly its rotation around the earth, so that we always see the same side. The earth's rotation is also affected by the sun (hence the need for "leap seconds") but the affect is much much smaller, and the earth is not going to be gravitationally locked to the sun for a very very long time. Geometry guy 01:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you think about making the star yellow? I know this is lame, but stars are usually thought of as yellow in the popular imagination and planets as "earth tones".

A completely brilliant suggestion. :) My "star" looked more like a Moon, didn't it? All homage to Selene, Willow (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope these comments aren't too picky. I think it looks very good and definitely gets the idea across. Certainly, any article with animation is going to attract attention! (So, how can I add animation to Jane Austen...) Awadewit | talk  20:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You could do a fading slide-show, like those Qxz ads? But that might distract from your brilliant and compelling prose. :) Willow (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We really weren't chatting over IRC or anything and colluding behind the scenes on our comments. :) Awadewit | talk  20:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have never even been on IRC. I am also not sure how I avoided an edit conflict - when I started the above there was no other reply, when I finished mine was wedged in between the original and Awadewit's. I am also stumped on animating Jane Austen - Wuthering Heights in semaphor (a la Monty Python) might work though. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Those are brilliant suggestions! It never occurred to me to make the star yellow (sheepish grin), although the bluish planet reminds me of water with clouds or maybe dry land. I removed the spin of the sun (which rotated six times per orbit), and made the orbit yellowish as well; I think the blue-orange-complementary-color thing works pretty well, don't you? I was sorry to see my beloved pink go (you probably didn't see the article in Glamour this month, did you?) but it looks much better this way. :) I tried but I can't seem to make the sun look more three-dimensional, or make any cool solar flares. :(  But in my next animation, I promise to make the water boil off as the planet approaches too close to the sun. ;)

Should I add back some spin to the planet or the sun? The picture looks a little static to me now, but maybe I'm just used to the old image. I can make them spin as many times as you like per orbit, but it would be better if it were a divisor of 80 and relatively small, like, maybe, 5 rotations per orbit? Willow (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I liked the spinning - I just think they should both spin, since the little planet looks like the earth, but that's me being stuck on the details of representation and not properly imagining the "spherical cow". Awadewit | talk  21:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)



Blender also lets you tinker with perspective; is this an improvement? It shows the dark side a little better, and might be a good basis for adding the spin back in, so that you could see the planet rotating. I could have it spin at an angle, like the Earth does! :)

I could also add a velocity vector per Ruhrfisch's suggestion, but I need to figure out the math; maybe I can use that hodograph trick somehow? Ideally, I'd like to be able to add such a labeled orbit to the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector article. Oops, I have to dash off now; talk to you all later! Willow (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I like this angle. The orbit looks more elliptical - is that an optical illusion? Awadewit | talk  21:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is: take a ring and look at it from an angle and you will see an ellipse. Similarly, an ellipse looks more elliptical from an angle. Willow has been asking me about these images too: they are great aren't they? In answer to Willow, I would say that the sun is too big. Also, even in the slanted image, it should be centered on the one of the foci of the ellipse. But I love the way the planet gets bigger when it is closer! Geometry guy 01:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Geometry guy! :) I made the sun a little smaller and set the planet spinning; do you all think it looks better?  I didn't want to make the sun too small, because the center of mass needs to be very close to the center of the sun, since I didn't want to have the sun rotating about the common center of mass, per the two-body problem.   Finicky physicists might object otherwise. ;) Willow (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

New template
In an attempt to make the information about (and provide a remedy for) the left-image blockquote dealie, I've created a new template called Imagequote. As you'll see, it provides a simple way for users to fix the problem. Please let me know if you think the instructions are unclear or any other comments or suggestions or complaints or criticisms or deconstructions. Cheers! – Scartol  •  Tok  18:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The size of the left-margin should be selected based on the size of the accompanying image. - Is there any specific ratio? Should the blockquote always be x pixels away from the image, for example?
 * No, ratios won't work here. Such a thing is achieved in CSS with percentages, and due to readers' widely varying screen-widths, what might work for one user will be gruesome for another. (Sort of like how one person had such a big problem with that timeline a while back? I don't remember any specifics but perhaps my vague reference will ring a bell.) And while yes, the blockquote should always be about 10 pixels away from the image, that leads us to the next point.
 * As I re-read the instructions on the template, I think I figured out what you were asking. (Apologies if I'm wrong here.) The number in the template should always be 30 pixels more than the width of the image. Sorry for the confusion! – Scartol  •  Tok  14:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A specific size is suggested for the image code, since a properly-formatted blockquote for one user's default image thumbnail size will look awkward or even vanish if another user has selected a smaller default. - I'm not totally sure what this means - does it mean that the images need to be sized?


 * Yeah, I wasn't sure how to word this, so I'll take another stab at it. As you know, the default for a thumbnail image is set by the user in his/her preferences. So as you can see in the example I made in my sandbox, the same setting for this template will produce different results for two different users with different default settings for thumbnail size. (Because the image is larger in Example Two, the blockquote isn't indented.)


 * Therefore, each image used in conjunction with this template should have a specific size indicated. (And this is why it was so important to leave that image in the Boydell Gallery article unaltered.)


 * Thanks for doing this pro-active, problem-solving Scartol! Awadewit | talk  19:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback! =)
 * By the way, does your template work for pages like Fanny Imlay, where there are two quotes and one image? (I adjusted things there manually, after you showed me how. I haven't added the spiffy new template yet.) Awadewit | talk  07:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, that won't be a problem. You simply need to apply the template before each blockquote; it does exactly the same thing as the code inserted into the tag. – Scartol  •  Tok  14:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Lavoisier
Excellent choice, I think. I applaud and salute you!--Filll (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it seemed natural after Joseph Priestley and since mav is already doing oxygen... :) Awadewit | talk  08:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Atom
I was going to peer review Atom, but before doing so, I wanted to ask a question. What audience are you aiming for? What background knowledge are you assuming? Thanks. Awadewit | talk  08:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably an educated adult who hasn't taken physics in college. Or possibly a knowledgable high school student. Otherwise I was expecting that the wikilinks would be used to fill in knowledge blanks. I did try to avoid formulae and heavy physics jargon. Does that sound reasonable? I think a vital article should probably address a wide audience.&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Since that is me, I won't have to pretend to be anyone else. :) I read popular science books, but I don't have any science training. A perfect lay reader to test the page on. Awadewit | talk  20:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Favor
I don't suppose you have a way to access this document, do you? – Scartol  •  Tok  19:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Emailed to you just now. Awadewit | talk  20:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Reception history of Jane Austen
Belatedly, I've added the material I mentioned earlier concerning individual reactions to Austen's books upon their publication. My little bit of ivory is wider than promised - seven sentences rather than "two to four." However, the number could be reduced by one through judicious use of a semi-colon ;) and I wouldn't feel martyred if Honan's juicy reaction to Lady Vernon's comment, or both comment and reaction, were removed. I believe this is a useful addition to an article on reception, dealing with what ordinary (rich) people (as opposed to critics, who are neither rich nor ordinary) thought. What do you think? Simmaren (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I might tweak some sentences and add a transition to the next paragraph, but this is good. It adds life to the article. :) Awadewit | talk  00:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, each and every quotation needs a citation immediately after it. Awadewit | talk  01:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll add the individual sentence citations tomorrow. Thanks. Simmaren (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Imlay and Shelley
I'll check Fanny Imlay in a day or two (I have been keeping a vague watch on your edits: amazing how that Polygon picture blows up). As for Mary Shelley, I think we should perhaps start by discussing the possible headings and proportions, so that we don't end up overstuffing the thing. We might need to separate responsibilities a little. I break out in a cold sweat when I think of the film stuff, because I don't watch films (I think I did see Young Frankenstein and laughed about once). qp10qp (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Whenever the FI fancy strikes you - it is not urgent, obviously. I think your MS plan sounds good. Do you want to discuss MS on a userpage here, over email, or some other way? My solution to the film stuff: Frankenstein has been made into a film X times. :) I am envisioning a "Mary Shelley in popular culture" or "Frankenstein in popular culture" page that we don't necessarily have to write. This is what we are going to do with Jane Austen. The films were not written by MS and are only tangentially related to her work (they were made 80 years or so later). My argument would be, with all of the other important material that needs to be covered on the MS page, there is no room for extensive coverage of Frankenstein films (I don't even think any of her other works have been made into films, but I'm not totally sure). However, I would barely grant them a sentence. Awadewit | talk  00:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey. I just stumbled onto this conversation while poking around. If you want a scholarly review of Frankenstein films, go to the popular culture section of the Frankenstein page rather than the Frankenstein in popular culture page. It has better stuff (and it was written by me :) ). Anyway, whether or not you use it doesn't matter to me, just thought you'd like to know better what's available to you. Wrad (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

SGGK
I've gone through everything at the peer review except standardizing refs and copy-editing stuff. Feel free to have another look. Wrad (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I will try to do this tomorrow or the day after. Awadewit | talk  08:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Project notes
Hey, I had some thoughts on our next joint project, which I sent you by e-mail. Ta ta, Willow (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on another FA!
Well deserved, that's very clear. You're on the team now, so stay relaxed and enjoy WP! Geometry guy 03:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on the Promotion of A.R.

An F-A-C that's titled Analytical Review is sure to draw attention from the many and the few. The left-brained self-appointed come to know their role too well; The righter side uphold our pride: who could blame them—easy sell! Still... With almost-unanimity did thy latest work ascend; Joseph Johnson looks on fondly with the hope for his book-end. We fear thou, starred achiever, hast a mind for "publish/perish"; but don't forget that where thou be'st   even one of these we'd cherish.

Thoughts
The lead has been rewritten in a well intended effort to increase readability. The problem is; such a late game rewrite implies instability and I so don't need an edit war, nor do I want to reinforce anymore accusations of ownership, nor am I even certain the re-write is not better than the one we wrote. Could you take a look:I think this is the link. It would be great if you say --- wow that's really good --- are at worse can tweak a few lines and make it so. They don't realize that I was just a "ghost writer". I get jumpy when they are changing your stuff... it is never about my ego.--Random Replicator (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh Even my attempts at humor merely inflamed the situation.--Random Replicator (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's hard to strike the right tone. I hope I helped focus the discussion. Awadewit | talk  05:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I told them to wait on the goddess of the written word ... that was a joke. You are an angel ... that is not a joke. My suggestion was reverting to the original "Awadewit approved version"; take the new one, drop it in a sand box and address "The List". This will allow edits without implied instability. We may ask for another look over; for the green check. If no one is passionate enough over the re-write to do that; then I'm screaming for a revert. Again thanks. --Random Replicator (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to evolution lead
Could you come back and take a look. Also please see the talk page. We have two contributors going in two directions, and we both could be wrong. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TableManners (talk • contribs) 04:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Posted comments. Awadewit | talk  05:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your time, your comments and your suggestions. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. I tried to incorporate your changes, so you might want to take one more pass, if you're still willing.  Also, could you comment on the use of the term creature in the article.  Thanks again.  Table Manners C·U·T 06:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't want to rush things, so how about I wait until tomorrow? Awadewit | talk  06:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article does seem to be unstable, so why not wait for some stability. Table Manners C·U·T 06:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? I get told to get lost, now I get invited to what? To get told to get lost again so someone can have fun pointing out what a complete idiot I am? I'm not that gullible. Please take your nasty jokes to some other location. I was only interested in the article. --Amaltheus (talk) 07:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It was not a joke. I have not been involved in the disputes on that page recently. I noticed that you had felt excluded, so I thought I would make a nice gesture and specifically invite you to the revision discussion so that you would know that we value your opinion. Somehow you have gotten the wrong impression about the editors on that page - they really do value constructive criticism and anyone as informed on evolution as you obviously are would be a welcome editor. My invitation was sincerely meant. I thought that perhaps with a fresh start on the lead, we could ourselves - as editors - have a bit of fresh start. We all want the same thing - an excellent article. Awadewit | talk  07:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to say, I don't really appreciate you deleting my invitation on your talk page. There was nothing offensive or rude about it. Awadewit | talk  07:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Inviting me after I've been told directly that I was not to post to the discussion of the lead article is not funny at all. I will unwatch this page, and we can go our separate ways. I am not amused at all by being told in one moment to get lost then being invited to participate. At some point these vicious jokes have to stop being funny to the lot of you. It's enough. --Amaltheus (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith, Amaltheus. Behave on Wikipedia as you would do in real life, and maintain a level of etiquette. Not everyone's playing a vicious joke on you, so please keep your good faith in mind. &mdash; DarkFalls  talk 08:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith when asked why I bothered to post to a discussion of the lead section of the article? What is the good faith in this?  Being told I'm not wanted as a participant, then being given an invitation?  Having the editors discuss me and make snide remarks, including an administrator, on their talk pages about me for over a week?  What good faith should I have seen in this week of nasty remarks, in being told to go away, then invited to participate in what I've been told to leave?  How dumb do you think I am?  Don't reply here or on my talk page.  I'm done with being fed lines like this, "Assume good faith, Amaltheus."  Then people come to my talk page and tell me to cut it out?  After putting up with over a week of being poked and jabbed and mocked all over Wikipedia?  No, there's no good faith involved here.  It is simply viciousness of an extreme nature to bait me to continue allowing myself to be mocked and derided.  The article needs a ton of work.  The editors would rather play nasty games on me.  --Amaltheus (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Any evidence/diffs of the mocking? &mdash; DarkFalls  talk 08:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of Jane Austen
Are we under peer review yet? Where should I look to follow the proceedings? The "Talk" page of the article? Simmaren (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Peer review/Timeline of Jane Austen

Thanks for the (thoughtful and generous) change from "assisted" to "with." Given the gross disproportion of our work on TofJA, I thought the change should be your to make. Simmaren (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I think we are in all of these pages together and we shouldn't quibble over the "proper" level of attribution! Awadewit | talk  17:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you got the table figured out. They can be very annoying; one little thing off = the whole thing goes kablooie! – Scartol  •  Tok  00:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight
Everything's done. I went over all your stuff at the Peer Review. Finetooth just went over the refs, fixed a bunch of MOS issues, and did a copyedit. I'd be curious to see what you think now. Wrad (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to do this today or tomorrow, like I said above. Awadewit | talk  22:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh! Wow. I couldn't even find my old post. Anyway, it's just getting better and better, so no worries. Wrad (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing, but it might be sooner. I'll just drop you a note. Wrad (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. 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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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) 22:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sirius
Here's one from left field, one which combines astronomy with all sorts of odd cultural refs......any help or comments on Sirius much appreciated as I am working it up to FAC. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have regretfully pass on this one. I love astronomy articles, but I am just swamped with on-wiki-work and off-wiki-work at this moment. Perhaps the next time around? `Awadewit | talk

May I ask a small favour?
As one of the main authors of the Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft, a fairly recently promoted FL, could you spare a few moments to take a look it this FLC, Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester?

I'm not asking for your support, or because I think that you will support, only for your honest opinion, as the article is being opposed on the basis of the referencing system used and its use of percentage width tables. Both of which I see are used in the Wollstonecraft article, quite properly in my view. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Done - seems like we agree. Awadewit | talk  05:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for a new bot
I'm going to learn how to program Wikipedia bots and make one that will periodically – every two weeks or so – put a note on your talk page to say: "Congratulations on your latest Featured Article!" In the unlikely event that two weeks go by without an FA, I'll add a disclaimer at the bottom: "If this is an error and you haven't successfully brought an article to FA status recently, please disregard this notice."

Seriously, though, congrats. I'd give you a barnstar for all your magnificent work, but it seems silly at this point. So have a donut instead. Mmmm, FA. – Scartol  •  Tok  15:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Scartol. It's just too much work to periodically count the two separate columns of FAs on Awadewit's user page, checking for ones that weren't there last time you checked, all so that you can offer up the standard treacly comment about how awesome she is, yadda yadda, can't wait to see the next one(s), etc. etc.  I mean, honestly, where does one find the time? :) Congrats x 2! María ( habla  con migo ) 15:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ditto on the congratulations - I was going to be a gadfly and make an edit to Analytical Review, but found I did not have to. In place of a long poem, bot or donut, please accept this haiku (the poetry for those who can only count syllables): Awadewit shines / brighter than her eighteen stars, / makes Wiki better. Ruhrfisch  &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Aw, shucks! You guys are so nice! Awadewit | talk  03:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * At last. I was trying to repay your kindness, but you gave me a still finer gift, of getting to know him.  Aunque esté muda debo hablar, Willow (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on AR
Congrats on AR reaching FA. I am going to have to read Paul Keen's book as you suggest. The first two chapters interest me: on the Republic of Letters and on Men of Letters.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Lit FARs
This offer is extremely helpful. The review would be in your debt. You might start with A Tale of a Tub. It's currently at FAR again, here. I can understand concern about rankling initial nominators, but improvement is improvement and the current review is civil. Marskell (talk) 09:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 40
   Wikipedia Weekly Episode 40 has been released!

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/01/24/episode-40-wikipedias-genetic-makeup/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

For Wikipedia Weekly —  W ODU P  05:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.

Introduction to evolution
I've summarized (beginning with Summarizing, because there is an entire talk page archive ... ) and tried to calm things at the end of the FAC page, Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution. It certainly got out of hand while Raul and I were busy. I'd hate to see ill will prevail; would you consider wading back in and looking at the few remaining items summarized now at the end of the FAC? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Darn, I just saw your break notice. Sorry :-)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I hadn't noticed that. (I'm used to you having the "I'm going to work on my dissertation so I'm only going to send 5 articles to FAC this week" banner.) Hope nothing's amiss. Hugs n stuff. – Scartol  •  Tok  22:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You're back! You might want to review the note I just left at User talk:Raul654. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that and more; additional complications that might have been avoided through rigorous application of AGF and civility early on (of the type we routinely engage in with difficult editors on the autism-related articles). The current dilemma is who can uncomplicate the matter ... TimVickers could cut through it all in a second, but I don't blame him for choosing not to.  Thanks for the feedback!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan
Hi. I am new to Wikipedia and am having some trouble with some of the editors on the Nancy Reagan article. As you mentioned during the early peer review of this article, many of the items are written in a Non NPOV.

I have cited many sources and offered many solutions to minor details in the article to improve it's viewpoint (on the Nancy Reagan discussion page), but four editors in particular (Users: Happyme22, Wasted_Time_R, SandyGeorgia, and Tvoz) have consistently teamed together in support of each other's actions and edits in moving this article forward to FA status while giving little or no validity to any contrary opinions., despite multiple reasonable requests and many many reliable cited sources.

I have begun the appeal process but the same three editors acted in the same way, and I don't know how to move forward to make the changes necessary. Can you PLEASE PLEASE review my comments on the Nancy Reagan discussion page and PLEASE PLEASE help?

Thank you in advance so very much for your cooperation.

207.237.228.83 (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This IP is canvassing, I can't recall the last time I edited Reagan, and someone should tell IP that Tvoz is an Obama supporter has far more edits to Obama and other politician's article than Reagan :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sandy Georgia has made numerous edits regarding the Nancy Reagan and that discussion page of recent. Further, it is not relevant to which articles Tvoz has multiple edits nor is it appropriate for SandyGeorgia to attempt to decline bias in the Nancy reagan article because of this fact. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to enter this debate right now - sorry. Awadewit | talk  20:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)