User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 27

Veropedia
Hey Awadewit. If you're an editor on Veropedia (which I think I remember reading somewhere), would you mind updating the Emma Goldman article with the current version from Wikipedia. The version on Veropedia right now has a factual error that has been fixed in the Wikipedia version. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 18:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll do it in the next day or so. Awadewit | talk  19:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I am still working on this. Some technical problems have arisen. Awadewit | talk  17:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm really sorry, but some obscure technical issues that I don't understand are preventing me from uploading the latest version. I will persevere eventually! I promise! Awadewit | talk  17:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Technical issues are still a problem. So sorry! Awadewit (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's unfortunate. How can I trust Veropedia if it can't be updated ;) Thanks for trying though. Kaldari (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure
Drop me a line on Skype -- fuzheado.

Re: User:Jbmurray/Madness
(Copied over from talk page:) I'd be happy to chat, or even be interviewed about this, and to share whatever thoughts I may have. I'd be interested in your thoughts, too. I should say that I haven't really thought (perhaps better, got my head about) the collaborative writing aspects; and in lots of ways that's not my priority, though perhaps it should be. Anyhow, do get in touch. You can email me from my user page if you want. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 14:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (Copied over from talk page:) Or wherever it is you email people from; I forget, but you'll know! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 14:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Collaborative Writing
I don't know if I'll have anything of substance to add, but if you're still in need of further interviewees, I'd be more than happy to participate. Carom (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church
Dear Awadewit, I am considering renomination of this article for FA. I would like to know if you see any obvious problems with the article before I resubmit. I am contacting you on the advice of Karanacs who suggested I ask previous commentors to take a look and see if previous FAC issues have been sufficiently addressed. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you've caught me at a bad time. I am currently overwhelmed with work - grading papers, other wiki-promises, etc. I thought I might have time to look at the article in the next week, but I don't think I will. I'm really very sorry. As the end of the semester approaches, madness ensues. Awadewit (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Mail
Now you have mail :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 05:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And again now :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 18:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Umm, me too? :) Willow (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And yet again :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 03:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

LotR FARC
"The Lord of the Rings should really be taken to FARC, for many reasons (e.g. the last time I checked it didn't discuss the trilogy's contribution to the development of the fantasy genre), but I haven't had the stomach yet." - do you think you could warn a few people first? Try the talk page and so on. I could help out if needed, but haven't had the stomach yet either. Would take a long time for me to be satisfied with it. Carcharoth (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in a few months! I wouldn't nominate the article for FARC without some talk page comments first, though. I'm just too busy to do anything about it now. Awadewit (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

AmEng to BrEng copyeditors?
Do you happen to know someone who is good at doing American English to British English conversion? I'm pretty sure I've seen you work with someone for this on some of your pages but can't remember who it was. I ask because there's a comment at the Augustine of Canterbury FAC that the article should really be in British English, and I am not very good at this conversion myself (I didn't nominate the article but I've done a review on it so I'm just trying to help the nominator). If you can recommend anyone, that would be great. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies or WillowW. Awadewit (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

New barnstar
I saw this and thought immediately of you ... -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 09:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Facundo
Thanks very much for your GA review! I've completed a first ce pass, but there's still a long way to go. I'm sure you've noticed, but some sentences don't actually make sense at the moment (I get the impression it wasn't written by a native English speaker). My next suggestion to the editors, before we tackle the prose again, is to pull it into some sort of order. We're grateful for your advice, and do jump in at any time; any input you have would be most welcome... ;) EyeSerene talk 14:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry, but I just can't. I have so much grading to do for my own students and I already promised to do an in-depth review of Gabriel García Márquez. Awadewit (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't feel guilty; your contributions are already far more than anyone could have hoped for. Someone on the FA-team will pick it up; I may be able to get to it tonight or tomorrow.  This is what teams are for.  Mike Christie (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And if you need someone else on the team to take something on that you've promised, just ask. Mike Christie (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies Awadewit - I should have been clearer. I wasn't asking you to take on yet another copyedit; you've contributed so much already! I'm more than happy to continue ce'ing in collaboration with the MMM. What I was really getting at was that there's a long way to go with the prose, and consequently it may take some time to sort out all your GA review issues. We may need to request an extension to the hold, but we'll see how things go. All the best, EyeSerene talk 09:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes - I think it is a good idea to let an article remain on hold if editors are improving it. Awadewit (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello! We've worked on improving Facundo and Eyeserene has kindly copy edited this article for us. I think we are ready for another GA review. Thanks! Bessiec (talk) 08:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
I have to say im shocked by the award (in a good way!! :)) Thanks for the encouragement! With the long list of edits I sometimes wonder if I am really the person who can fix them but I really appreciate the award. Can I copy this sort of thing on to my user page? Thanks again,--Mfreud (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are doing wonderfully, by the way! Compare this to this! (And, yes, you can copy awards to your userpage - many editors do that.) Awadewit (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Award
Thanks so much! I'm very chuffed. But thanks above all to you, for all your patience and hard work on this project. It is very much appreciated. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 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) 20:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

FAC Nomination
Mike Christie has suggested that we are ready to put El Senor Presidente up for Feature Article Candidcy. Do you agree? If you do, would you be able to put it up for us? I am a little confused how to go about doing it, even after reading over the page with the steps on it. --Mfreud (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll go ahead an do it - I think it is ready, too. Awadewit (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to hold off until we finish arguing over the "new" title. Yomangani talk 19:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still composing my gushing nomination speech, but I've already clicked on "initiate the nomination". Sorry! (For what it is worth, I see the same questions arising at the FAC.) Awadewit (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh we're into another one about losing "(novel)" from the end now - check the end of this section. Yomangani talk 19:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This won't last long though: WP:SNOW on losing the "(novel)," I think.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit, can you add a bolded "I am co-nominating this artilce ... " to the first sentence in the FAC, to make it easier on Rick Block when he runs his script post-closing? Also, I hard-wired the ext link checker to deal with the ñ, and I added the wording we use on all archived previous noms that works with Rick Block's scripts. Thx, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have already left a message on his talk page here. Awadewit (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope his memory works better than mine :-) I try to make it easy by making sure the info is there when he runs the script, which could be several weeks from now.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I had originally written it into the nomination, but it sounded tacky (especially since I'm not co-nominating!). Awadewit (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, let's both try to remember to doublecheck that it gets added correctly at the end then; I can't guarantee I'll remember. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I will remember and Rick has always responded to my messages on his talk page before. I don't think there is cause for concern. Awadewit (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It hasn't passed yet so there's nothing to do. I actually look at the FAC nomination, so I expect I will successfully remember. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

How FAC works

 * Thanks for putting the article put for nomination, I was a little confused to go about it all. We really could not have made it this far without your fabulous comprehensive review(s) of the article and experiance with Wikipedia. Just one question, having never done this before, I am wondering how long this process usually takes and how many supporting votes are needed to get a FA. Does it take weeks for a concensous to be reached or is there a minimum number of votes needed to establish a FA? Is it like GAN in that people post copyedit type questions or highlight needed improvements and once those are met FA is decided on? Thanks for your continued help and support.--Mfreud (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I was happy to help out! It's wonderful to have such dedicated editors. FAC can take anywhere from five days to a month - it depends on the balance of support and opposes and the amount of discussion. I have rarely had an FAC last longer than a week or ten days - most literature articles don't attract a lot of controversy. The "supports" and "opposes" are not actually votes. Theoretically speaking, there could be ten supports and one oppose, and if it is a really solid oppose, the article could fail (I don't think that will happen to us - we have had a lot of people diligently checking everything). Ultimately, the FA director decides if an article passes or fails - that is Raul654 or his proxy SandyGeorgia. If you haven't already, you should watchlist Featured article candidates/El Señor Presidente - people will post recommendations for improving the article there that will need to be addressed (and also praise!). Awadewit (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict, but I'll go ahead anyway:) Awadewit knows much more about this than I do. But my understanding is: the process is an attempt to achieve consensus, rather than a "vote."  So one serious objection could in fact sink us.  And it lasts a minimum of five days.  People do indeed post questions and details they want to see fixed.  I'm trying to fend off the easy ones at least.  For a sense of how things go, you can take a look down Featured Article candidates.  As far as I can see, the process can sometimes get contentious, but I do feel we are in the very best of hands.  This is what the FA-Team were set up for!  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * These are not supposed to be votes in any sense, but actionable suggestions for improvement based on the criteria (per the "Supporting and Objecting instructions at WP:FAC). If you pay attention to the comments and respond to them, then there should be no problem.  -- Rick Block (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Images facing text
Awadewit, I first became of aware of the issue of images facing text in articles from you; there have been some minor changes at MOS that I haven't fully followed, but you may want to check in on here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Priestley Riots
I've fixed this - see User talk:Marc Kupper Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 05:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I added a new comment to User talk:Marc Kupper. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 06:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Pastries and people
Hey A!

Mother Earth is waking up again and it's glorious to see! :) I've been busy getting my garden cleared and ploughed; many things are beginning to come up and I don't want them to have to fight their way to the surface. ;)

I'm really happy that the pastry turned out well; I'd been shy about asking because I was worried something might've gone awry. I hope your two shy students are blossoming as well. :)

The explain template is fun, but probably not worth your attention for serious scholarly articles. The new method of introducing footnotes is illustrated in action potential; you'll see ~5 notes scattered throughout and grouped at the bottom in an automatically numbered way, as you and Qp had asked? I made a version that did the numbering by letters, but Steve's solution was basically done and much better anyway, so that was adopted here. The trick is to use the &lt;ref&gt; and &lt;references&gt; tags as usual, but with the argument "group=note", as you may see in the action potential. Steve also has some examples in this sandbox, which might be helpful.

Ta-ta and back to the garden, Willow (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Mario Vargas Llosa
Hi there. I'm one of the students working on the Mario Vargas Llosa article for the MMM assignment. I read your comments on the project discussion page regarding how to discuss his works and definitely agree; there is quite a bit of repetition. From what I've gathered during this project, you seem to be the King of literature articles... Now I understand that you're extremely busy with your own commitments, as well as the other articles for this project that are currently receiving your attention; but, if you do have some time I'd greatly appreciate a brief review of what still needs to be done for FAC, or perhaps you could suggest another article that I could refer to for improving the discussion of his works. If you can point me in the right direction, I have the time to improve this article. However, don't feel obligated; if you don't have the time to do it, don't worry about it. Thanks :) Lincolnchan98 (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure - I can't promise I'll get to it today, but I'll try my best to do so tomorrow. Awadewit (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the comprehensive review. We're going to get started on these suggestions today. For your awesomeness, I award you with this homemade barnstar.


 * [[Image:barnstarofawesomeness.jpg]]


 * Enjoy! Lincolnchan98 (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Third batch
on its way back.--Filll (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of 19th century source
Hi Awadewit. If you have a bit of time free in your busy schedule, could I ask you to comment on the Thomas Cranmer talk page on the reliability aspect of 19th century sources? Thanks. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Awadewit (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Peterloo Massacre
As might be obvious, this is a subject close to my heart. Pass or fail its current FAC, I've got no doubt that you've significantly improved it with your constructive comments and helpful copyedits, for which I really want to thank you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done very little - it is a very good article. I see no reason why it won't pass. I'm so happy you and the other project members worked on it. I was so excited to a see an event from the "long eighteenth century" up for FAC! Awadewit (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th, 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) 15:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Response of sorts
Sounds intriguing. Count me in. I take it this will be done in slow time? Work (and various work on the flat) does tend to intrude otherwise. 4u1e (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It can be done at your leisure, yes. I'll send you the first batch of questions later today. Awadewit (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'll e-mail back so you know it's arrived. I'll be out of contact from tomorrow morning 'til Tuesday, by the way. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw your message at the Simpsons project page. I'd be happy to participate. Zagalejo^^^ 19:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the barnstar. I was looking for a "barnstar of wisdom" to give to you for all your comments, suggestions, and all-around good ideas and help. Too bad there isn't one. :( Thanks again for all your help! Lincolnchan98 (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that I could help - let me know when you want me to read the page again. Awadewit (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

GGM?
I may have a bit of time today and tomorrow and I'd like to help out at Gabriel García Márquez, since I know they want to go to FAC. I looked at your peer review, and it seems that a straightforward copyedit is probably the most useful thing I could do. Anything else I could look at? Mike Christie (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think organization is still an issue at that article - you might play around with moving sections! Awadewit (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm with you on this: it's rather choppy with a lot of short sections. NB the good thing is that they've been mining the one biography that I know of on the man.

NB right now I'm focussed on what I think are our best and worst: Mario Vargas Llosa and Facundo. The former's in good shape; the latter... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 14:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have some time today and was going to drop by MVL to see what I could do. Awadewit (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Heya and good morning. Two things: First, re this.  I'd have thought the new section heading (which is a revert of my change, but who cares about that) is misleading.  What about "List of selected works."  Does that fit with the MOS?  It's clearer and better grammar.  Second, and bear with me on this pedantry, but I'd love it if we could all abbreviate Vargas Llosa as MVLL.  It'd make my day!  :)  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 14:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "List of selected works" is fine - the heading just has to be based around "List of works" somehow. (By the way, I lobbied hard for "bibliography" and lost). MVLL it is. Awadewit (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My day is made! :)  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, and about this... I'd go in and change if I didn't know you weren't still working on it. But confusingly there's our old buddy the Welsh socialist founder of cultural studies Raymond Williams, and then there's Raymond L. Williams, critic of twentieth-century Latin American literature. Easy to confuse. (Unless you happen to read the two of them, in which case the differences become rather obvious.) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I, of course, have only read one. That's why ID tags are so important! Will fix! Awadewit (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

poster
sorry for delaying response, but it seems you've found the source, at UNM for the vargas llosa poster. --Soman (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding so promptly! (The image looks lovely in the article - thanks for that!) Awadewit (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

a little ping
Sorry to distract you from your many activities all over the place, but... D'you think you could have a look here? I suspect that, like Mfreud, and very understandably, the students might feel intimidated and confused about the mechanisms of nomination. Heck, so am I! So how does one finesse these things? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for peer review
Hi! I was wondering if you'd be able to look over this peer review (article). It's got a long way to go, and any input would be greatly appreciated. :) This spam message brought to you on behalf of the current Tzatziki Squad collaboration. Thanks, Keilana | Parlez ici 22:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It would have to be next week - would that be ok? Awadewit (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be great, we'll not have time to fix whatever you find until then. ;) Keilana | Parlez ici 03:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Films
Hello, I thought that you would like to know that I've been in discussion with an editor who came by User talk:Erik/Interpretations of the film Fight Club (the talk page of my sub-article still in development hell). We're discussing literary theory when it comes to films, and I've tried to explain about intentional fallacy as you once did for me. I was wondering if you could review the editor's points and my counterpoints and see if there is anything that needs to be clarified? I have a decent understanding of these film studies, but perhaps not to the degree where I can explain it clearly to another person. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought your explanation was fine. I just added some of my own for fun. Awadewit (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) Perhaps we can change a mind here -- that'd be nice for a change.  I still need to get around to reading that recommended Literary Theory.  I have the printout of the record, so I know I can check it out.  Just need to find the time.  Appreciate your weighing in! — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 15:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (again!)
Thanks so much for helping to try and sort out the issues that have been raised on the El Senor Presidente FAC page. I really appreciate the support from yourself and other FA members. I have to say this "fight" about images seems rather absrurd to me... I did not realize I was so biased! Anyways, I just wanted to say thank-you again because I really don't know how to layout an argument with a rationale that the editor in opposition will find rational or good enough. I also wanted to note that our project actually ends in about two weeks, at which time I think I will be stepping down from editing on wikipedia and return once more to being the "general populace"... and a general populace that likes pictures, even though the article you have helped us work on for so long may not. In either case, I appreciate your continued support and help with both continuous copyediting, suggestions and support through this entire process. Thanks!--Mfreud (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome - it was a pleasure to help out! Perhaps someday you'll become an editor again! Awadewit (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I will! I don't think I have renounced all editorial roles completly. After spending so many hours a day working on the El Senor Presidente page it will be odd to just "quit cold turkey" but we shall see what the future holds for mfreud the editor! :) I have to say I have learned a lot, especially from you extensive copyedits- about what is considered vague, the types of sentences generally needing a more full explanation... important aspects of writing that are often overlooked when as an undergraduate when I hand in an essay. Usually returned papers have few comprehensive remarks and I actually learn quite little about what made my paper a B+ or A-, what the extra something that was needed to make it an overall well written paper with engaging prose. Actually, the last two term papers I have done have actually gotten better feedback than usual. That said, I know my spelling still needs work- I have been praised for my "phonetic spelling" since grade school! If I knew how to bestow an award on you I would, I have really truely appreciated and learned a lot from your comprehensive constructive copyediting notes. I can't say thank-you enough. :)--Mfreud (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad I could help out - I teach composition, so it is sort of second nature to me now. :) Thanks again for your kind remarks - I appreciate them a lot! It means a lot to know that I have helped someone out! Awadewit (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I will also be keeping an eye on the page for vandalism but I appreciate that you will keep an eye on it! I don't think Icould bear letting this page fall into the hands of vandals! After so much work!! Thanks again, --Mfreud (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I know exactly the feeling. Awadewit (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and congrats!
First, thank you again so much for all your work mentoring and editing and helping out with El Señor Presidente. You really did a marvellous job!

And let me also congratulate you, amid the hullaballoo, also for the excellent Priestley Riots, which I very much enjoyed reading and learning about. Congratulations! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! With regards to Priestley Riots, I know that you had substantial concerns about its coherence. Would you mind rereading it and seeing if it has improved yet? We didn't get to finish improving it. This sometimes happens with FAC. I am more interested in quality articles than the star, so I keep working on articles even after the FAC process is over. If you could leave any further comments on the talk page, I would appreciate it. Your comments were very helpful. Awadewit (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Feedback requested in an RfC
Hi there, you don't know me, but I noticed your work in some FAs in literature and wondered if you might like to weigh in on an RfC that I initiated earlier this week. I know (from up top) that you're trying to finish your thesis; having finished one myself in my time, I can guess how hectic a time it must be, so if you decide to not respond, I will entirely understand.

As for the RfC, I fear that the discussion there has degenerated. I'm aware that you might not know anything specific about the language concerned (which I don't either), but the content issue is more general. I've tried to explain this more precisely in my statement (at the expense of using too many words which I hope you don't find too off-putting). Needless to say, if you do decide to say something, I don't expect you to say anything in support of my position, only to provide you best opinion. Request for comment: When does the literary tradition in a language begin? Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've seen you around FAC - you do excellent in-depth review! Unfortunately, I don't have the time to dedicate to this debate that it deserves. I would like to, but I'm involved in several other projects at the moment. I'm so very sorry! Awadewit (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying, and thanks very much for the compliment!  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

VCH
Like Sandy, I missed your eventual support; if I had seen it, I wouldn't have bothered to comment. But you express your rule of thumb rather severely: really, nothing over fifty years old? In ny own field, that would rule out Ronald Syme and Michael Rostovtzeff.

There are badly researched, badly written, dishonest books being written now; one of my pet peeves is Ron Chernow's life of Alexander Hamilton, a hagiographic whitewash that became a best-seller. If you're going to impose such a rule, at least make it 85 years, which would correct the problem produced by the bungle of American copyright law, that only books before 1923 are public domain. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a good rule of thumb. Rules of thumb aren't absolute, however. For example, there are some excellent books in literary criticism written in the 1940s. However, the point is one must be much more skeptical of older sources. This does not exempt one from being skeptical of modern sources, of course, and I would never recommend a bestselling biography written by a journalist to anyone anyway. The point is that scholarship written by historians (not journalists) has a different, and generally higher standard, than it did in the nineteenth century or the turn of the twentieth century. I see no purpose in connecting this argument to copyright - I see every purpose in connecting it to changes in scholarship, however, and those changes took place in the 1950s and 1960s in history and literary criticism. Awadewit (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Drapier's Letters
I have recently made the corrections you suggested or have explained why they are impossible here. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I want to emphasize that you don't have to ask to copy edit any page on Wikipedia. The only problems that came from one user was switching English for British where it was historically inaccurate and the addition of material that changed the context of the sentence to read inaccurately or add additional grammatical mistakes. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Swift is such a wonderful author - I would love to see the articles on his works promoted to FA. I'll give the article a copy edit later today or tomorrow and post some questions on the talk page if anything is unclear. Awadewit (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have spent a lot of my time compiling work for Sermons of Dean Swift, so I was unable to give the page a proper copyedit. Afterwards, I will work up a page for the Wood's Halfpence controversy, for Wood's Halfpence pamphlets (beyond those of just Swift), and add more on Molyneux. I also work with Literature of the long 18th century (political, poetic, novels, and essays). Ottava Rima (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is absolutely wonderful! Wikipedia's coverage of the long eighteenth century is dismal. I've done some work on 1790s-related articles and have started on Jane Austen and Mary Shelley - joint projects with some wonderful Wikipedians. I tend to work on the late end of the period. Do you know Geogre? He wrote some articles on the early eighteenth century, such as A Tale of a Tub, but I don't think he is very active anymore - too bad. Awadewit (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend not to work with others in any kind of official/unofficial manner. I believe in the standard Wikipedia philosophy that anyone is capable of editing a page, so if a few users are working on a page, I move to an area that isn't worked on yet. Hence, why I tend to go after stubs or empty pages. After I finish with the above, I will be able to move back to Milton's and Keats's works. Also, I believe heavily in using jstor, ebscohost, and university libraries to dump lots of critical pieces into pages in order to guide potential readers/students towards the criticism that might have become obscure over the years. If you have a section or an article that needs help, I have a personal library of over 3,000 books of critical editions and of literary criticism, plus 3 access to three university libraries. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, I'm writing a paper on collaborative writing at this very moment - trying to explore how well it works on Wikipedia (I'm trying to see how dead the author really is here). I tend to work alone as well, but I've found some wonderful partners. Milton and Keats! Yeah! I love Paradise Lost - it is one of my favorite poems. I took an entire class on it as an undergraduate - it helped convince me that literary criticism was the profession for me - all of those readings - all of those ambiguities! I've also spent time building bibliographies on pages I don't have time to write myself - at least I can contribute something. Thanks for the offer of the books and library - I have a smaller personal library (1,000 - 2,000 and always growing!) and only one university library, so I may have to take you up on that! Awadewit (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha, I must add that for Milton, I will work on an obscure and difficult piece, De Doctrina Christiana, to keep up with my editing theme. So, don't get too excited. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not so very obscure - a bit difficult, yes - but well-known amongst literary types. I am anxious to read it. :) Perhaps you could "Sermons of Sterne" next? Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I created a section on my user page for pages I should work on. Add any future requests there if you would like. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sermons of Dean Swift will need a copyedit, if you have time. Two of the sermons need to be fleshed out. Its a shame that three of them lack significant criticism (On Brotherly Love, On the Martyrdom of Charles I, and On the Poor Man's Contentment). Parts of the Walter Scott quote at the bottom refer to some of the sermons, so this could be broken up and added in, so that his "response" is more to a response in general. Any suggestions? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I had time so I established a start to Sermons of Lawrence Sterne. There is a lot to be fleshed out, however, I hope it works as a model. As a bonus, there are two other pictures that can be added to various pages of Sterne: and, which are part of Tristram Shandy.Ottava Rima (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Question - on the edit about "king's favor". I can "seek the king's favor". That is a given. Now, rivals dealing with the king's favor is tricky. "to the king's favor" and "in the king's favor" both sound equally off. "for the king's favor"? "of the king's favor"? What is the relationship/extent of "favor" between people? Someone can be "in" favor, but that would be "in favor of the king" and I don't know if you can be rival in that, since neither would have it yet. Its a tricky relationship. Perhaps it should be killed to just say "political rivals", even though it is vague. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is an idiomatic phrase as far as I know. English defies all logic. Awadewit (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Also - "from being leveled against him after the publication of the third and fourth letters", possibly "in response to the third and fourth letters" would be more appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. Awadewit (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there was a display error with the png size, which I corrected by adding in width dimensions. I was hesitant to add pictures from 18th century databases, but since you took the initiative, I will back you up. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was initially hesitant to add images from those databases, too, but there are court cases to back up the use of digital images and photographs that are aiming to be identical copies of the original (which these are), so there isn't a problem, especially since the texts are so clearly in the public domain. On the issue of sizing, images are not supposed to be sized per WP:MOS. Each browser displays the page layout slightly differently and it is apparently a problem when people have set their browsers or preferences inside Wikipedia for us to force image sizes. Awadewit (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But in terms of formating and regularity, sometimes the images need to be fixed. On two different browsers, the first picture appeared as only half the size with a large white section to the side. See: "The image subject or properties may call for a specific image width to enhance the readability or layout of an article." on WP:MOS. I've never heard of a ban against pre-sizing images though. I think they have always suggested that the images are sized, seeing as how Wikipedia automatically uses "180px" formating if you leave it out. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed the problem you're talking about - it was in the image itself. I know what exception you're talking about - it is usually only invoked for maps. Again, I agree with you on this - I have wanted to enlarge book covers several times so that text is legible. I have made exactly the arguments you are making. Sadly, we are in the minority - as far as I know a minority of two at the moment. :) This is one of those things that people will come by and change constantly in the article. Another battle I preferred not to fight. I'm just making you aware of it. (I prefer to fight battles about content and sources, by the way.) Awadewit (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you may have been mislead. There was never a rule against formating the pages, as the images are already formatted if you leave it off. If anyone bothers you about it, take it to Admin's noticeboard incidents. Most of the formatting I have put in is to limit the size if it needs to be below 180. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nitpicky, but here[ - There are Irish Whigs that Swift condemns also, so "British" might not be the best choice, if it can be avoided. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima] (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say "British" in the article and that is the right page to link to. Perhaps someday it will be better. Awadewit (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently, the article's title was changed by someone. I complained about it here Talk:British Whig Party Ottava Rima (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And his name is Midleton with one d, not two. As with Conolly with one n, not two. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry - I thought I was making things consistent! My bad. :( Awadewit (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Swift misspelled their names, so you don't have to worry. :) Also - "copper or brass" was copper/brass because it was the same coin looked at two different ways (if you believe the coin is good, its copper, if its fake, its brass). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you make that copper/brass bit clear in the article, then? Obviously I had no idea that is what was meant. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Brass is a derogatory term for impure copper coinage, since brass is copper plus a cheaper metal. Thus, you have the same "weight" for less cost. The Drapier never explains it, and neither do critics. But the Drapier does just call it "brass" quite often. A metallurgic reference could explain this, but applying it to the article could be OR. Hence a dilemma. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems like stretching OR even further than I do and apparently I'm the strictest applier of it around! :) However, if you don't want to integrate that little tidbit (which makes total sense to me now) just don't use confusing phrases such as "copper/brass". Awadewit (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully people will notice the "debasement" wikilink at the top, or it could be called "debased copper". Also, I reformatted the responses as you requested. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

1. I am not attacking you, so you don't have to be defensive. 2. FAs are not exhaustive, and do not refer to every piece of criticism out there. 3. MOS and Reliable Source guidelines emphasize that if there is redundancy to have one source say it, and Ehrenpreis wins out, since most are building off of his work. 4. No one is stopping you from adding sourced information, so you don't have to act like the burden is on me. 5. I don't own the article, nor is it my job to perform all the edits on it. Be Bold, add some stuff if you really feel it is needed. 6. This is only the Drapier's Letters. If the article expands anymore, it will not be encyclopedic. Remember that. An article has to be concise and to the point. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I took the initiative and posted here: Noticeboard. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Community consensus seems to be against you. You can choose to accept the community consensus, or you could politely recuse yourself from the topic. Otherwise, your actions may be deemed as going against the basic principles of Wikipedia. If you do not like the inclusion standards, there are other Wikis out there with stricter standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope there is no long lasting ill will between us. I have started Sermons of Laurence Sterne per your request and have yet to flesh it out. I believe that with the long list of sermons (possibly needing to be divided into two columns), that the page would be st be designed with a long background Sterne as a sermon giver, background to their writing/composition, the religious background to the ideas found in the sermons, their critical interpretation, and to their reception (then and now). The oldest work I could find having all of the sermons was the 1851 edition. If there were more found later, then that would be important. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I always like to think that ill will can be overcome. Thanks for making the Sterne page. On the edition: The point is to find the most reliable work with all of the sermons - the standard critical edition of Sterne's works that includes a history of the text. Perhaps The Sermons of Lawrence Sterne published the University Press of Florida in 1996 as part of their edition of Sterne's works? It will tell you the complicated publishing history of the sermons. If you want to read the sermons in their original form, try ECCO - they have several collections of the original publications. Awadewit (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I will look into it later. And I know a lot of the complicated publishing history. Hence why I threw up the one edition as temporary. :) Also, ECCO wouldn't have a complete set of the sermons, since they weren't all found/published until the 19th century. By the way, I added a post-colonialism source to the Drapier's Letters. I added the material that is not so controversial nor could be seen as controversial, and limited to comments on the letters themselves. Jane Ohlmeyer's Political Thoughts Seventeenth-Century Ireland:Kingdom or Colony (2000) could be used, but would be more useful on a page devoted to the whole controversy. The same can be said of Charles McGrath's The Making of the Eighteenth-Century Irish Constitution: Government, Parliament and the Revenue, 1692–1714. (2000). There are a few other marxist/post colonialist articles that examine the economic ovement published in the 90s, but few focus on the letters and more on the pamphlet war as a whole. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A Tale of a Tub has just been dropped from FA status, mostly on citation problems. In a few weeks, will you work with me on the page? I have over 20 difference sources ready to contribute, and I am sure I can pull together a few others to fill in. I believe that if we combine our efforts, we can redo the page and turn it into a real FA. What do you think? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would love to, but I am overwhelmed with work at the moment. I added some citations in the process of the FAR, but it would take me a lot more time to become well-versed enough on Tub scholarship to consider myself qualified to work on the article and I really need to work on my dissertation! If you want a pair of fresh eyes to look over the prose every once in a while, though, let me know. Awadewit (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to note that I added some more information on Drapier's Letters, including some modern views (some neo-colonialist debate). Ottava Rima (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The General
Hi Awadewit -- if you're going to be up for a while, could you keep an eye on The General in His Labyrinth and make sure it gets its FAC nom too? I'm not going to be awake much longer. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 03:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. Awadewit (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Good night!  Mike Christie (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

NTWW#8
Isn't there kind of a huge difference between creating a style guideline like the film project vs setting up content guidelines such as this, which extends into areas like article naming (incidentally defying WP:NAME, which advises that article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize) and which includes plain weird and arbitrary rules like e.g. "pop cultural item[s] that the firearm appeared in must accurately represent the firearm", or my personal favourite (which was cited to me): "In order for a criminal use to be notable enough for inclusion in the article on the gun used, it must meet some criteria. For instance, legislation being passed as a result of the gun's usage". Dorftrottel (vandalise) 03:59, April 14, 2008


 * HUGE issue, I answered at Wikipedia talk:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode 8. Going to bed soon, don't know what's happening with those FAC noms.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Force
At this point, I've responded to all your queries. There are three outstanding issues from my end:


 * 1) Introductory vectors.
 * 2) Explaining special relativity better.
 * 3) Explaining the observations that led to quantum mechanics better.

You also mentioned some other issues that I didn't address for lack of being able to pinpoint the exact problem. For example, I'm not sure what to do about the organizational issues of when/how to first mention friction/normal forces (vis-a-vis the equilbrium sections), the issue with Feynman diagrams' prose being impenetrable, how to better describe the strong force, what to do about tensors, and how to handle non-conservative forces. I think everything else has at least nominally resulted in an edit of the text.

You've been a kind and patient editor. I hope my work is up to your exacting standards.

ScienceApologist (talk) 06:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to need a day or two to go through everything again. (I hope exacting standards are a good thing!) Awadewit (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For me, exacting standards is a very high praise. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, someone after my own heart. :) I've responded on the article's talk page. I think WillowW may be able to help out with some of these questions. She usually does a good job of explaining difficult scientific concepts to the lay person. She's been working on Action potential recently. Awadewit (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured topic advice
I've been thinking about this Poe featured topic idea and was hoping to seek your advice. I'm thinking of bundling Edgar Allan Poe, Bibliography of Edgar Allan Poe, Death of Edgar Allan Poe, and Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe, maybe even Rufus Wilmot Griswold. Am I cherry-picking here? What other gaps should I fill in? (The first I think of is Edgar Allan Poe's literary influence) --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What about Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture? It's really too bad none of the works are in the list. Can you make a case for the "major works"? Is there a list somewhere of the "most important works" you could rely on? Awadewit (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I can't see myself putting a lot of work into that article because it's really just a list (and the sourcing is struggling/would be a struggle). As far as "most important works", that might fall into the OR category... as far as I know there really is no "absolute" list (even Poe changed his mind a lot), and everyone would have different opinions. The only ones I think that would go without much argument are "The Murders in the Rue Morgue" (currently GA) and "The Raven" (currently at FA). --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure how hard it would be source the popular culture article - sometimes there is a lot of scholarship on those topics, as with Jane Austen, and sometimes not. Could you make a featured list? The works look like they will have to be left out until all of them are done (!). Awadewit (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I presumed as much about the works... egads... maybe some day! :) In the meantime, I might give it a shot with what I have mentioned above. The worst that could happen is that the nom fails, I guess. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the topic covers the life of EAP without any problem, so I don't anticipate any issues there. Awadewit (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

William Wilberforce
Gosh, you have many requests on your time. Hmmmm, well, I have another request. The two main editors have just completed a series of edits on the William Wilberforce article per a peer review request. As says, it's "time for a bit more feedback for the lowly editors." The editors really are not lowly but they are very congenial. I hope you do have some time. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to help. Unfortunately, I won't have time until this weekend. Would that be acceptable? Awadewit (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. William Wilberforce has been actively worked on for at least a year (when the film 'Amazing Grace' came out) so it would be silly to say this weekend or next weekend would not be acceptable! Whenever you have time; and thank you in advance. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

My Disillusionment in TFA
Get it? It's a clever reference to My Disillusionment in Russia! (insert uproarious laughter here) Yeah, I saw someone add the "this article will be on the front page" tag to the talk page yesterday, and I had mixed feelings. On the one hand, I'm happy that her life story (and our work telling it) will be proudly displayed to the world. On the other hand, I know it will be a mess of IP vandalism and less-than-helpful edits (along with three edits which actually improve the piece). So yeah. I'm sort of bracing myself.

I know you're busy, but I wish you could be around here more. We miss ya. – Scartol  •  Tok  15:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been helping out at the WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem lately, so most of my work has been in the background. The shadow editor. :) I understand your mixed feelings about the main page, hence my mixed punctuation marks when I posted that announcement. Awadewit (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heya. It's not really been too bad, and I've been focusing on the positives involved. There have been some interesting comments on the talk page. Thanks again for that article! – Scartol  •  Tok  00:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

JSTOR
Please accept my assurance that I don't mean to beat up on you; I commented on a discussion that seemed still in process, partly in the hope of convincing you. I have said several times that there are half-a-dozen FA reviewers of whom I have a high respect (and are, indeed, the chief reason I haven't proposed to eliminate the process); you are of course one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, no hard feelings at all. Consensus was clearly against me. Perhaps I'll be persuaded some day. I haven't seen any convincing arguments yet, but if you come up with new ones, let me know. I am one of those people who always reconsiders her position when presented with new arguments. :) Awadewit (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 14th, 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) 09:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Portraits facing the text
Awadewit, I seem to recall you addressed the issue of portraits facing the text a very long time ago in MoS, after it came up on a FAC; do you have time to review this thread for tweaking the next Signpost Dispatch ? I thought you added that long ago, and it wasn't a recent change. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a busy day for me - I won't be able to do anything until tomorrow. Let me know if that is too late. Awadewit (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's sorted now; no need. I realized after the fact that it looks like text redundant to a point you had already added to MoS was re-added, so it looked like a new addition.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WikipediaWeekly Episode 45
Hello again! Just a note that WikipediaWeekly Episode 45 has been released. Listen and comment at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/04/14/wikipedia-weekly-45-blps-revisited/. Cheers, WODU P  20:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you no longer wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from that list.

Gift book
I am pleased that you noticed the little article on gift books. I added Mary Shelly to the article (hope you don't mind). I would be happy to have any info you would like to share or please feel free to add to the article yourself. Looking at your user page, it seems we share a similar interest. I am very impressed by your list of FAs! - Epousesquecido (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Timekeeping peer review
Thank you so much! That is an *amazing* peer review, we've got loads to do. Thanks! Keilana | Parlez ici 18:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Doctor Who
I'm so glad to hear I've sullied that fine literary mind with Daleks, Cybermen and all the rest :D The new series is pretty good, but I still look back on and treasure the Doctor I knew when I was growing up (via heavily rose-tinted spectacles, probably...) And who wouldn't want to own a TARDIS? EyeSerene talk 20:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to admit to being a huge B5 fan! If you ever fancy a change from Star Trek... :D EyeSerene talk 21:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/1960 South Vietnamese coup attempt
Hello Awadewit and thanks for your kind self-revocation of your retirement from copyediting :). Thankyou for feeling sorry for this hapless butcher of the English language :). I've done the tweaks....Also, you forgot to sign. Thanks,  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 03:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly a butcher! Signed away - don't know what I was thinking! Obviously I wasn't! Awadewit (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Aubrey William de Vere Beauclerk
A tag has been placed on Aubrey William de Vere Beauclerk requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.

editing help
Hi there!

The university class I've been trying to convince to get involved in using WP in their class has today agreed to do so. In the class they rewrote the text of Religious Nationalism. I was wondering if you could have a look at it and edit it mercilessly (as the saying goes). Perhaps if you could convince others to get in on the act too that would be great.

Here is the diff of the edit they made.

Thanks for your help,

Witty Lama 10:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a terrible time for time - finals. Have you asked them to add sources? Awadewit (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Hey A,

I read the proposals page at long last, and, and — well, thank you. Please don't get frustrated, either at yourself or them; all that doesn't matter — this story has a happy ending. The article will be an FA. Even if everyone turns away, stones will break their silence. ;) Willow (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and a question
Thanks so much for the support. Although you took it with your characteristic wit and grace, please rest assured I was not trying to call you a small child in the Black Moshannon State Park FAC (and apologize for any misunderstandings).


 * Oh, I know - I just thought the insinuation was funny! Awadewit (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This question is totally unrelated - I noticed reviewing an article on a museum in Lebanon that there is a WikiProject Museums - should we add their project banner to Joseph Priestley House? Seems a good fit to me (although I am against the proliferation of WikiProject banners). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am also against proliferation, but add it if you want. I think projects just secretly want to add to their number of FAs. :) Awadewit (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Need opinion
OK, we need some more eyes at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Getting It: The psychology of est - some are supporting while others have a problem with comprehensiveness, criticizing it as a book review. I have niggling doubts along these lines too but Cirt can't find any more material to expand the last two paragraphs. I am happy to go with a bigger consensus so am keen for more folks to look in. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Finals are beginning for me. Grading is becoming my entire life. I will be more available for these kinds of requests in a few weeks. Awadewit (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, you need to concentrate on RL things, I think the issue will be settled then one way or t'other....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Service badge
I was looking at your userpage and I saw that you had a Yeoman Editor badge, but the number of edits and experience shows you are qualified to reach the Veteran Editor IV badge. Just a thought. Chris (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey :)
Hi A,

I sent you some winged words this morning, but something seems to have gone awry on my end; did it arrive? It was a spectacularly nice letter, so if you didn't get it, I'd like to send it again. :) Things are looking up at action potential; I'll get back to your comments soon.  Hoping that you're well, Willow (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Theodor von Holst
The image police seem to have hit the DYK nom. Johnbod (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 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) 16:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny...
It took only a year for someone to respond. :) Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 17:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't know how rename a page way back then! Awadewit (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Boydell
Sadly, I only do slow copyedits! I don't want to lose my thread on what I'm doing at the moment (complex genealogical points), so I'll get to it tomorrow or Sunday, all else being equal. Good to see that Jb isn't going to cut and run, now that his project is over. qp10qp (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt ANI will lead anywhere, and I hope you won't mind if I don't comment. The admins will probably just tell you to put up with it, to be honest. One doesn't have to act on anyone's comments and can easily ignore them or agree to disagree. Sandy and Raul are not going to take any notice of unjustified comments or opposes, after all. I wouldn't worry about this too much. qp10qp (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I can explain my reasoning for brining the case elsewhere. However, I totally understand if you don't want to comment. I was just obligated to alert you about the ANI since you are mentioned in it. Awadewit (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good luck, Awadewit. I keep trying to intervene with Ottava Rimi because I really think he means well, but every time I feel like he might finally understand why people are upset something like this happens again.  I'm glad the pattern is being documented; I wish I still thought that a little self-introspection was possible here.  Anyway, keep thinking positively and don't let it get to you.  Karanacs (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the encouragement! Did you see User:WillowW? Awadewit (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, was I shocked to see YOU on ANI
Seriously. Sorry to hear that Ottava Rima is giving you such trouble. FWIW, I am not sure that anyone at FAC who is in real charge (Raul and/or Sandy) is really taking him seriously. Just know that you do great work, and people who matter recognize that. Even people that DON'T matter (like me) also recognize that. Good luck and God bless, and I just want drop a note of general support here.--Jayron32. talk . contribs 03:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I appreciate the note and please don't sell yourself short! Awadewit (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you really and truly want to bother with this...but the place to go is Requests for comment/User conduct. Warning, it is the Wikipedia equivalent of the briar patch. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Noticed you popped up at Filll's talk page (I watch list his page.) Filll is a master of the user conduct RfC. I think he'd find that you've encountered an eft - a neophyte, as it were - in comparison to some of the mature specimens he regularly encounters. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm replying to your comment to me here ...off of the notice board. I had a really nasty encounter with a editor at FAC when I was involved with Introduction to Evolution. My nightmare editor was awe inspiring in his/her ability to be disruptive. He drove away completely a really good contributing editor. It was so bad, I left wikipedia. In the end, it was a month long break (all of Feb). Filll was a good resource at the time. I don't have any super good advice. I'm not the best admin. I'm not very knowledgable. I do know though that Wikipedia can not effectively handle a disruptive editor ...or at least no better than a high school teacher can handle a disruptive student. I empathize. I sympathize. I hope you don't leave. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I was involved in that article, too, and with its FAC. I eventually had to leave the article to retain some sanity. I know of what you speak. I am just very unfamiliar with how to handle disputes on Wikipedia through the appropriate bureaucratic channels and I don't want to drag out unpleasantness any longer than necessary. I would rather write articles. :) Awadewit (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 06:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit, please don't sweat it; I fully understand you aren't well versed in dispute resolution, and I had no problem with the thread until Durova proposed a ban. Unlike you, Durova is well versed in dispute resolution, and should know the place of ANI in this matter. It was her mistake, not yours. Please try to set this aside, and carry on with your excellent work. That's probably all I should say, and I've probably already said too much, but I wasn't going to sit quiety and watch long-term damage happen to FAC, when I struggle every day to retain good reviewers. All the best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Awadewit, I added some (hopefully) closing comments at AN/I; I'll engage the thread about our instructions at FAC more fully after some current FACs close (when I can discuss some other FACs that illustrate the issue, interestingly, none of those involving Ottava Rima). On another matter, you're mentioned in the next Dispatch, in case you want to preview it for accuracy (I honestly had no idea what DYK was before this Dispatch was written, and missed a lot of chances to contribute!).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For me Ottava Rima's editing was separate from the FAC problem you were discussing on the thread. It was very unfortunate that the two issues became confused. Awadewit (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes ... I think you would have been better advised to have taken it to WQA, and bringing it to AN/I (as others told you above) wasn't going to resolve it. What I really hope for out of this is that other, uninvolved FAC reviewers will begin to pick up the ball when they see issues like this:  that's what I used to do, but as delegate, I can't really do that anymore.  Best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a result of Wikipedia's labyrinthine dispute resolution system. I have no idea how it works. What is supposed to happen where? I don't really know. I tried to figure it out to the best of my ability but nothing is very clear and different parts of the "case" seemed to be covered by different processes. Should I have taken the civility part to one section and the content part to one section,etc.? That seemed like overkill. However I can tell you that I was totally unwilling to "start over" somewhere else. Awadewit (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Usually (not always) the best starting place with civility and disruption is WQA. Because there had already been one AN/I thread, AN/I initially seemed to make sense.  Where it took a wrong turn was the request for a ban, because that is just unprecedented.  There needs to be a history built for a ban that broad; I dealt with harassment over a FAR for well over a year, and AN/I still wouldn't support a ban, and that was how I ended up at ArbCom (and learned about dispute resolution :/ ) Anyway, I don't want FAC nominators or reviewers to have to end up in disputes; I wish uninvolved parties would take the issues to WQA when they see them.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully I won't have to use that advice. :) Awadewit (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Right :-) Seems today is Tony1's turn at AN/I, being accused of sockpuppetry.  Ah, wikifun.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Woes and WillowWs
Whew! I just spent a little time looking over the ANI debacle. What a hurleyburley. And to see our friend taking a leave – it's all very saddening. I'm sorry that I missed yesterday's NTWW, but it started while I was still in school, so there was no way to make it. I look forward to hearing you on it.

Anyway, it looks like that ANi dealie has resolved itself somewhat, so I trust the waters shall be more calm for a while. The GA reviewer for Louis Lambert (novel) suggested that it should go on to FAC, so I might ask for your eyes on it soon. (I want to leave it as it is so as to let Durova examine it for my Napoleon nom.) Truth be told, I expected it wouldn't have the weight to go beyond GA, but I suppose I found more than I expected to. – Scartol  •  Tok  15:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me know if you want some reviewing help or anything. I feel like I let Willow down somehow. I don't want to let anyone else down! Awadewit (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think either of us are allowed to feel like that; I think the enormity of the process and the recesses of technical writing into which the article required diving were really exhausting. Of course that's guesswork. But I daresay the last thing she would want is for you to beat yourself up! =) – Scartol  •  Tok  23:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Jane Austen image
You're correct; the image constitutes a derivative work and, as such. the uploader does not have rights thereto. Commons guidelines explicitly identify action figures as unacceptable. Additionally, Step 1 of the Commons upload template lists commercial packaging as "not allowed" (which is, however, poorly enforced; this, for example, was unidentified as a "quality image", basically a Commons GA). The Jane Austen action figure image would only be in the public domain if the creator of the figure/packaging has released it as such. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Copied to Talk:Jane Austen. Awadewit (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Plaudit for you, apology from me
I just wanted to congratulate you for the massive amount of work you have evidently put in to get Boydell Shakespeare Gallery to FAC. As you may have noticed I have been pretty much invisible for the last couple of months and stuck you with the tasks of finishing off the article (which was already much more yours than mine) and dealing with the less constructive side of the WP community. Now, I've logged into WP for the first time in a long while to find the article review process in full swing.

I do have a bit of an excuse, having gone from about 0 to 60 hours of gainful weekly employment, and that means I'm unlikely to be doing any more WP editing until someone decides to fire me. But that has only given me more respect for the amount of work you put into WP alongside your regular academic commitments. I'm surprised at the patience you were able to muster for the stale English vs. British argument. Some people seem to have a lot of trouble disentangling nationalism in history from present-day politics.

I'll try to read through the article again just to check that the myriad edits haven't sent anything awry. But I think you should regard the work as yours now. I'm embarrassed that you're kind enough to give me credit after the little I have contributed. BTW, while killing time at the Art Institute in Chicago a while back, I discovered in the shop a whole book on Whatman Paper (not many Boydell references), so it appears there's no aspect of 18th-century art too obscure for a monograph. It's been a real pleasure to work with you. Rupert Clayton (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No apologies are necessary! I am so happy that you have a job! I hope you are enjoying it. There were several questions at Featured article candidates/Boydell Shakespeare Gallery that I couldn't answer. If you have any answers, that would be wonderful. Good to know there is a book on Whatman paper - I'll have to tell the people considering making a stub! Awadewit (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And congratulations on your latest FA. Hooray for A! – Scartol  •  Tok  02:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 46 and 47
Just a quick note: Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 46 and 47 are out. A good listen as always. :) Cheers, WODU P  03:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Featured article candidates/NeXT
Please review the NeXT article again - it has been copy-edited by User:Gusworld. A lot of context has changed - and a lot has been reorganized into the proper chronological order. — Wackymacs (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply to your latest comment at the FAC page. Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I have misunderstood why you are saying I am ignoring Gusworld's comments, But do you realize that I have already addressed some of those issues that Gusworld mentioned? (I'm the one who struck out at least half of them after resolving the issues...) Of course I fully understand how much work Gusworld put into this as a copy-editor, so much so that I left a thank you note on his page and I am continuing to work with him on the article. — Wackymacs (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and another thing - I already told Gusworld that I had struck some of his comments out. He didn't mind. Infact, he said he'll be reviewing the article again this weekend (please see my Talk page to read the reply Gusworld left). — Wackymacs (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I just think that striking other people's comments is a good practice not to get into, especially since it is specifically mentioned as something not to do in the talk page guidelines. One other reason to respond on the talk page and not just to strike is so that others can follow what is happening. Since this is a wiki, it is important to be able to follow the collaboration visually and verbally. Awadewit (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the issues you highlighted at the FAC. I am going to go through the rest of the article ASAP. Please strike as necessary on the FAC page. — Wackymacs (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit, please revisit when you get a chance. Thanks, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have made further changes to other sections regarding the prose (please see the article history for specifics). Please re-evaluate ASAP. Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Stretching it a bit...
He's from the sixteenth century not eighteenth but what's two hundred years in history? Also, he's English and kind of a literary figure (he wrote the Book of Common Prayer). Do you think you could take a look at this? Well, it's ok if you are too busy... --RelHistBuff (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It will have to wait until I am done grading - finals and all. Perhaps Sunday? Awadewit (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! You can comment at any time, even waiting until it is on FAC if needed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

History of science newsletter
Awadewit, FYI: you make a brief appearance in the new WikiProject History of Science newsletter. I'm curious about this governance project you're working on (if I understand correctly), which I'm currently hearing described second-hand on NotTheWikipediaWeekly episode 11. I look forward to seeing what you've done once you've done it.--ragesoss (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

References and Dissertations
Hello Awadewit,

I am currently working on the page on homicidal ideation and have come up with a minor problem I am hoping you could help me with. One of the sources I have referenced is a dissertation (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/etd/d/2005/duntleyj48072/duntleyj48072.pdf) and Ruhrfisch, who has kindly read the page and offered some constructive advice, suggests that I cite it as such. However neither he nor I know how to do this, it seems. I've been using the citation templates. Could you please advise: How do I cite this source properly? How do I show that it is a dissertation using the cite book or cite web template?

Thanks in advance! Orinoco-w (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Since Awadewit is on Wikibreak, I looked through her recent FAs as I knew I had seen a dissertation cite in one. I found this in Boydell Shakespeare Gallery:


 * Wenner, Evelyn Wingate. George Steevens and the Boydell Shakespeare. Diss. George Washington University, 1951.


 * I would make the cite something like this


 * Duntley, Joshua David. Homicidal Ideations Diss. University of Texas, 2005.


 * Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello again, Ruhrfisch has been kind enough to suggest a method, but I'm still very much of a noob and uncomfortable without my cite blah templates. I have made something up using cite book that approximates the appearance of Rurhfisch's suggestion. I hope it's alright - I'd still appreciate it if you had a quick look to verify that I've used the template correctly. Cheers! Orinoco-w (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/NeXT
Please review again and strike as necessary. All issues solved. I have edited every section - made a lot of grammatical changes. Please see here for the changes made. Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Although the FAC might have ended by then (not sure). — Wackymacs (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A un de ces jours
Wishing you sweet essences of serenity, Willow (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's so good to see you back. :) You've never been far from my thoughts, and I hope that everything turned out well. My back is terribly tired from gardening, but as a reward, most of my berries have set at least some fruit!  The blueberries, grapes and a few gooseberries are being tardy as usual, but even they have made flowers.  My brain's been working overtime as well, trying to understand Emmy Noether's theorems, but if I mistake not, there'll be a harvest there, too. ;)  Thanks muchly for the support over there, Willow (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Please take your time
Next week is fine. Considering your busy schedule, I really thank you for even volunteering your time! --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A radio program about Darwin
This claims that Darwin lived in the era of Jane Austen. Well sort of I guess.--Filll (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church
Dear Awadewit, This page was resubmitted for FA yesterday. There is a discussion on the talk page regarding capitalization of the word "church" in the article. It was my understanding that the proper way to address the issue is to capitalize church if referring to the subject of the article, in this case, the Roman Catholic Church. This was also Karanacs suggestion. I am under the impression that you are a very qualified person in this area and I invite you to come to our talk page and give us your advice. Thanks for your time and opinions. NancyHeise (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 48
Hey there! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 48, Wikipedia Weekly's third talk with Jimmy Wales, is now available. Listen or download MP3 and OGG versions at the episode's page.


 * Have a comment about the episode? You can leave your comment right on the episode's page!
 * Miss an episode? Catch up in the Wikipedia Weekly archives at wikipediaweekly.org!
 * Know someone who would love Wikipedia Weekly? Tell them about it!
 * Care to participate in a podcast? Sign up here!

For the Wikipedia Weekly team, WODU P bot  23:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Something for you

 * Ping! -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 04:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 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) 06:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Feminism's lede line & WP:FRINGE
Hi Awadewit I am really sorry to bug you with this. Seriously I have been talked to death in this situation so I'm bring it to you very reluctantly because you'll probably be exhausted after reading it.

In short, there was a dispute about the lede line of feminism. A troll, User:SorsImmanis1 (who is now indef blocked) claimed that Feminism is not about equality but about "more rights for women". User:Blackworm reverted the troll partially but removed the mention of equality from the lede. This is my suggestion for a new lede line:"Feminism comprises a number of social, cultural and political movements, theories and moral philosophies concerned with gender difference and with women's rights and equality." But Blackworm claims we cannot use this because two authors dispute feminism is about equality - even though I have gone through the dictionary definitions outlining "feminism is about equality..." and the scholarly sources and site policy (WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE & WP:LEAD) they still don't get it. See the talk page discussion here and see the FTN I made [|here]. I'm moving to close all of this as it was a)started by a troll/bad-faith editor, SorsImmanis1, b)has been attempted to be hijacked by an anti-abortion pushing IP 69.140.152.55 and c) the substantive issue with Blackworm is addressed by site policy - we don't reflect fringe theories in the lede.

As you can see I am exhausted by this and again I ask reluctantly but if you get a chance could you give your opinion on my above suggestion - we need to move on--Cailil  talk 12:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have started a new section and will try to help you resolve this issue. Hopefully by seeing all sides clearly, it will become easier. I'll bring along my optimism. Awadewit (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Waterloo
Hi there. You recently made some fairly extensive comments on the Battle of Waterloo FA candidacy, but had to duck out for a week to take care of family issues. The nomination has been archived, and we're now trying to address the comments before re-nominating. Would you be willing to engage in a bit of debate with the subject experts (mainly Tirronan, Urselius, Philip Baird Shearer, and Tirailleur, if he's around) concerning some of your comments? There were some concerns about the reliability of a few sources, and there has been some discussion regarding the inclusion of historiography in the article. The place to do this would be the article talk page. Also, I have tabulated the reviewers' comments there, so please check whether I have accurately captured yours (feel free to edit the table if not). Thanks. -Kieran (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have edited the table and added a summary of my concerns. Awadewit (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

An argument
See this--Filll (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/NeXT
I have reorganized parts of the article into a more logical order as you suggested. Please review again. Thank for your help so far. — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 21:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Jargon issues fixed and other sentences clarified. Please copy-edit ASAP. Thanks for all your help so far. — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 16:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

An invitation to the NotTheWikipediaWeekly
G'day NotTheWikipediaWeeklian (p'raps we need a catchier nom de plume?) - it's terribly short notice but I'm going to be hosting a discussion tomorrow, Thursday 15th May at 23.00 UTC (head to the 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' page for full info, and a date and time convertor) - that's about 21 hours from now....... There could well be an additional conversation 24 hours later - so take your pick! - I will likely cover the topics which I nominated, and am aiming for a snappy 40minute conversation - do come along if you can! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 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) 09:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Advice on an article
Awadewit, I know you're busy, but I wanted to borrow your Wiki-expertise. If you get a chance, take a quick peek at Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe. Do you feel this article is comprehensive enough to survive an FAC review? Considering she only lived 25 years, I'm having trouble bulking it up any further. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Will look at it on Saturday. Awadewit (talk) 04:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Got your response on my talk page. Yes, please, offer any comments you would like on the talk page for Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe! --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

A wee request
Dear A, I know you're busy, and I apologize for not moving on the skypecast thing sooner – we're hosting our annual fundraiser bike ride this weekend, so it will have to wait a week or so, I suspect. But I thought I'd stop by and see if you're still willing to have a glance at Louis Lambert (novel) and drop some comments in the peer review? If so, I shall sing your praises unto the heavens for all eternity. – Scartol  •  Tok  18:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Will look at it on Saturday. Awadewit (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for your comments (and kind feedback) on ol' LL. I'll have a look at the Mary Shelley poem – er, the not Mary Shelley poem – in a few days.


 * WRT the skypecast: I'm a little worried about doing it as a WP:NTWW project, just because it might be tricky for us to get the folks we want on board for a time that works for us and doesn't interrupt the schedule of NTWW's other shows. What do you think? – Scartol  •  Tok  02:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Umm, they have absolutely no schedule - don't worry. They're excited about our plan, by the way. We should do a time that works for us. No worries at all. Filll has agreed to be our techie. Awadewit (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 49
Howdy! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 49 is now available. Listen or download MP3 and OGG versions at the episode's page.


 * Have a comment about the episode? You can leave your comment right on the episode's page!
 * Miss an episode? Catch up in the Wikipedia Weekly archives at wikipediaweekly.org!
 * Know someone who would love Wikipedia Weekly? Tell them about it!
 * Care to participate in a podcast? Sign up here!

For the Wikipedia Weekly team, WODU P <font color="#666">bot  22:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

The Last Man
I just finished reading the novel this morning, and I'd love to work with you on enhancing the article. My plot summary is a bit long, so I think a summary at the top would be in order. Also, right now I'm not near my normal resources, I only have the intro in my edition to use for criticism, so I can't do much with that at the moment. I think the section on Romantic politics needs some expansion. I also wonder what your thoughts are on the lengthy bibliography? Dozenthey (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree the plot summary is a bit long, but rather than adding a summary of a summary, why don't we work at cutting it down just a bit? I also agree that the "Romantic politics" section needs expansion. Indeed, the entire article needs major expansion! The "Themes" section is stubby and we have nothing on "Genre", for example. I just added the bibliography the other day, hoping someone would come by and be inspired to do some research! Those are not all of the works on The Last Man, of course. I gathered them from things like The Cambridge Companion to Mary Shelley, introductions to The Last Man, and a brief search of the MLA database, so I'm relatively sure that they are important. Since most of them are articles and book chapters, it shouldn't take too long to read them all. I've read some of them already for the Mary Shelley article. Want to divide them up? Awadewit (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back
Your welcome back is welcome. Thanks. Synopsis of the last seven weeks: international travel, influenza (overlapping with the first), recovery (extended), and overwork (resulting from the first three). The JA itch never disappeared, however. My immediate goal is to finish the research I'm supposed to (and want to) do. After that, work with you on "Style," something I've been looking forward to. Simmaren (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent! When you finish the research, let me know, so we can focus on the "Style" article. Awadewit (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Good news indeed!
Thanks for your very nice letter; my kitties and I are really happy. :) Incidentally, you may find a trifling trifle of a present in your stocking...with promises of better things yet to come. :) Willow (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The thing at the FAC is a joke. We all make mistakes. I'm just trying to be funny. Please don't be mad. – Scartol  •  Tok  15:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries - what an appalling mistake! Awadewit (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Whew. I always worry that my comical over-the-top jerky attitude will be interpreted as genuine animosity or haughtiness. Cheers! – Scartol  •  Tok  16:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bathpostcard.gif}
Thank you for uploading Image:Bathpostcard.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The Wiggles FAC process
Hi Awadewit,

Thanks for your kind words on this article's FAC. Getting it upgraded has been a long, difficult process, almost to the point that I have some misgivings about the whole FAC process. I realize that part of the challenge about this particular article is that this is the first article I've tried to get to FA-status. I'm an unexperienced editor and writer. However, I'm beginning to think that this article is suffering from some bias. I've read the project page to the Wikiproject that addressed the systemic bias on WP, and I think that this article may be an example. The Wiggles fall within the work, life that isn't fully represented on WP. As a result, I've been pretty much on my own trying to improve their article, and the editors that have reviewed it know very little about them. User:Dihydrogen Monoxide's recent changes of the lead is evidence of that, although to give him credit, he did revert it when he found it was full of errors and he has supported the article. I don't think that this article has received nearly the same amount of support that others have received. I also think that it's been criticized more heavily than others, probably due to the bias.

So what do we do about it? I'm coming to you for advice. I've thought about writing SandyGeorgia personally about it, because I strongly believe that the article is currently as high quality as other FAs, even the ones that are on the main page. So help! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * FAC can be a brutal process. I looked through the previous FACs and this one again. I don't think that there has been any topic or editor discrimination. I noticed that one FAC was closed because of lack of respondents - that happens to a lot of lesser-known topics (I think The Wiggles can be classified as a lesser-known topic). That is a perennial problem at FAC - we don't have enough reviewers. The other problem is people reviewing articles about which they know nothing. When I do this, I usually announce my ignorance, as I did at the The Wiggles FAC, and try to ask my questions in the nicest way possible. Not everyone does this, however. I understand your frustration in trying to improve an article all by yourself and having it ruthlessly reviewed. I have edited many articles alone, too - it is very time-consuming. I am sure you felt very unappreciated when you arrived at FAC! However, FAC reviewers really do have the article's best interests in mind. In looking over the comments, it seemed that prose was the primary complaint of the reviewers. This is the easiest issue to bring up when someone is ignorant of a subject matter and has become increasingly important at FAC. You did the right thing in a getting a copy editor from the LoCE - I'm sorry that they didn't help out more. Please don't let this FAC discourage you too much. I think that you can provide excellent material for Wikipedia and I would like to see you write more articles! If you would like some help with them, please just ask me. I've become something of an FA expert in the last year. I could peer review or copy edit articles for you, with the FA criteria in mind. Awadewit (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and I appreciate your help in getting the article to FA. My first!  It was brutal, and frustrating for me because it was my first.  Don't worry, this isn't gonna make me go away--I'm hooked on editing WP.  In addition, I have a few other projects I'm working on (Blue's Clues, Maya Angelou).  I tend to take on projects that are a bit over my head.  On the other hand, though, editing a project alone means you have complete control over it and don't have to contend with personalities.  I've learned a lot this time, which I'm sure will help me with my other projects.  Thanks for your offer of future assistance; I may just take you up on the offer.--Figureskatingfan (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I was so excited for this article, that it finally made it after so many FACs and so much work, that I almost added a note of congratulations to the FAC when I closed it. I'm so glad I didn't see this thread sooner, as it deprives me of that little joy of promoting the article, and saddens me that FAC is perceived this way :-( Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Copy editing
Wow thanks. I hope you find them funny at least while you clean up my horrible text.--Filll (talk | <font color="Green"> wpc ) 22:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How is my signature? Not too bad? Not too distracting? I don't think I have any takers yet on my new exercises. I might have to do more one on one inviting :(--Filll (talk | <font color="Green"> wpc ) 23:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The code goes on forever. :( Awadewit (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a bit long. But it does not look too bad on the page when executed, does it?--Filll (talk | <font color="Green"> wpc ) 15:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)