User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 29

Wikimania
I see you're planning to get wikimanic. If you'd like to bounce ideas in preparing your submission, do get in touch. Dsp13 (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be very helpful. I probably won't be working on the paper until May or June - could I contact you then? Awadewit | talk  15:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hullo Awadewit, if it would help, I would also be happy to participate or assist any way that I can in your study. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC).

Helpful sources on collaborative learning and wikis
Public Interest Research, Collaboration, and the Promise of Wikis. This is an article about " the use of wiki technology to encourage active learning and collaborative problem solving in law teaching". Awadewit (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool tool
I asked Franamax to make a tool here, and this is what s/he came up with. Cool eh? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Mission 4
Thanks for the note, Awadewit. I'm slightly overwhelmed with one current and two pending copyedits at the moment, but I'll try to lend a hand! EyeSerene talk 13:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Randegger
Thanks for adding the correct citation! Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI
Awadewit, when you have time, would you mind reviewing User talk:NancyHeise? Thanks, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: FA-TEAM mission 4
I have decided that I'll give it a go. I'm watchlisting the same article as you {the fourth one). I'll be willing to whatever you want me to. Mm40 (talk | contribs) 23:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to notify you. If you can get on IRC, we can talk it over. Mm40 (talk | contribs) 00:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, whenever is good for me. If we get a chance, I'll be there. Mm40 (talk | contribs) 00:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Feature Article Candidate Roman Catholic Church

 * The nomination of the above article was archived by the Featured Articles Director, with the comment that the page had again grown too long. He has asked that all remaining objectors produce a list of their specific problems with the article in its current form. These will then be addressed by the article's editorial team before re-presentation for FA status.
 * Can you therefore please post a complete list of any specific remaining objections you may have on the article's talk page at: Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church. If possible can we have this list in by the end of June, so that editors can begin to address them all in detail in July. To prevent the  nomination again becoming over-long, we would ask that you raise ALL of your remaining concerns at this stage, making your comments as specific and comprehensive as possible. It would help if all your comments were gathered under your name in a single heading on the page.  Thank you. Xandar (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

re: Mary Shelley
Sure thing - I should be able to get to it later today. I can't wait to read it, as Shelley is one of my favorite authors and I've read lots of modern criticism of Frankenstein. I haven't peeked yet, but I'm hope you used some of my favorites (Moers, Gilbert&Gubar, Winnett) -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We obviously love Mary Shelley, too! I don't suppose I can talk you into working on the Frankenstein article? I'm currently working on a Mary Shelley featured topic and that is the article that is going to take the most time. I anticipate that it will take as much time as all of the others put together! But if you've already read lots of criticism.... :) Awadewit (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I would love to work on it. What is your time frame for the featured topic? -- Laser brain   (talk)  16:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the "there are no deadlines on Wikipedia" mantra, I have no real timeframe, but I was kind of thinking that it would take me about a year to finish everything but Frankenstein (I am basing this estimate on my experience with the Mary Wollstonecraft featured topic). I would love to have the help and if you say "I can have it done in two years", two years it is. (I do have a dissertation to write, after all!) Awadewit (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! I think I trim a bit off "two years" as I'll probably be writing my dissertation by that time.  The Mary Wollstonecraft articles are terrific, by the way. -- Laser brain   (talk)  17:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Different RCC Proposal
Don't run away...this should be painless ;) I know you are busy, but if you should by any chance have a few minutes of extra time at some point in the next week or so, I'd appreciate your eyes on a new proposal for the RCC history section. This time, I'm operating on a potentially stupid incorrect assumption that part of the problems in the history section of that article might be that it just goes into way too much detail.  If we can strip that section down to the basics, it might be tight enough to help us get to NPOV more easily.  I'm working solely within what is already in the article (no new sources), and I've managed to cut about 30% of what I consider fluff (for this article) already.  At this point, I'm not looking for copyediting, but more for the appropriate mix of content.  I think I might have addressed some of the issues you raised with the coverage of the origins of the church, but I did not add the material you found because I don't have access to those books right now. If you are interested here's my working proposal; feel free to make further cuts, restore or add data that might be necessary, or make other suggestions for improvements. I'm asking a few other editors with interest in pieces of Catholic history to do the same, and after a while of mulling I'll present it as a proposal at the RCC talk page. Karanacs (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC) PS If you are too busy or just don't want to step back into this, then don't worry about it. Karanacs (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I really, really can't. I have three weeks to write two conference papers. I have to focus on my "real" academic work. For some reason, hiring committees look at "actual" publications, not edit counts or numbers of featured articles. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite silly of them, isn't it? GOOD LUCK and hope you get everything done quickly! Karanacs (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Nathaniel Parker Willis
Thanks for the thoughtful review of Nathaniel Parker Willis, moments before the FAC closed. I still want to make sure I've satisfactorily tackled the issues you've brought up that can be fixed. Feel free to let me know if I've failed. Your reviews are always helpful (even if I don't always show it!). --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Nathaniel Parker Willis. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

June 30 Dispatch
I know you're swamped, but this is one you might want to at least keep an eye on, in case you can add anything. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

LSWR N15 class
Thank you for your evident interest in the article. I hope the vast majority of your issues have now been addressed. Cheers! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: FA-Team Mission 4
Thanks for the reminder! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  14:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
Thought you might enjoy this familiar layout. Knowing your many surprising talents, you can probably read Hangul too and switch the lead image left. ;-) Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

MS etc
A, I will be happy to review Mary Shelley, but I'll need a few days (maybe a week). Hope that's not too long? As for the Everglades stuff, I'm definitely on board – but I feel like maybe I shouldn't list myself as an FA-Team member, since I don't feel like I have the time to devote to the work that comes in there. We'll see. Cheers, and thanks for all your support at the EN FAC. – Scartol  •  Tok  17:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We're actually going to nominate it tomorrow (I'm leaving for Wikimania soon) - could you do a review at the FAC? Awadewit (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, no worries. – Scartol  •  Tok  18:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Church
I admire your attempts to move things forward at the RCC article. I walked away from that situation after failing it once for GA and opposing on the first FAC. You may want to look over previous FACs and GA reviews for the article (such as Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church/archive1), if you have not already done so. Issues that you are raising have been raised before, with a similar response. For example, see my comments in the linked archive above about the general spread of scholars and the (mis)use of some sources such as Duffy's Saints and Sinners. You have my great admiration for sticking to the issue and using solid standards of scholarship to measure FA quality sourcing. Vassyana (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate the support. Unfortunately, I've had to suspend my efforts. I need to write a paper for Wikimania, a dissertation and the like! Awadewit (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kindness, A; it's most appreciated. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

MA Theses
Pls see Talk:Terry_Sanford. Is there is a wiki policy or precedent for MA Theses being in "Further reading" sections? I could maybe see this argument if they were refs, but there're only in further readings. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Jane Austen
thanks for the invite. i would like to help out but i'm afraid i won't be able to, certainly not in the near future. i would get your work 'out there' for everyone to use asap, i know there is a temptation to hide things away until they're perfect. shelley and wollstonecraft are FA and FAC so i'd avoid using them as examples of what GA should look like. at least you're trying to get the article up to GA and FA which is the main thing, any help I can do on that I will. thanks again for invite. Tom (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding your message, it isn't something I'm interested in doing, I'm surprised you asked given what you thought of some of my edits! take it easy Tom (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia retirement
My sincere apologies about not being able to fulfill your requests (or responding sooner). Unfortunately, I have recently decided to leave Wikipedia for good, due to overwhelming studies and personal subjects.

In my place, I recommend User:Alastair Haines or User:Ceoil to do the job.

Sincerely yours, LaPianista! 17:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

FAT Mission 4
The things were striked out after discussion between me and Juliancolton on the IRC network irc://irc.freenode.net/%23%23wikipedia-en-friends. We are both there right now if you want to join us :) Mm40 (talk | contribs) 01:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok - I am just loathe to strike out anyone else's stuff, I guess. Awadewit (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that while trudging through my morning watchlist. :) Too bad, I was hoping the article would be renamed! Oh well, on to the next article... Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  14:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A copyediting party?!?!?! SIGN ME UP!! Cam (Chat) 05:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is a big increase in traffic. The articles are very good already, so I don't know how much more work there is to do to 'em! I assmue you sent that message to all the participants of Mission 4, so I couldn't decide whether I needed (or whether you wanted) to respond... Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  15:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the good wishes...
...regarding general relativity. I can understand why you don't want to weigh in on the FACy, but if you should happen to find any more of the "rough edges" that TONY has commented on, I'd appreciate a heads-up. As for more "Introduction to..." articles: no plans yet; I'll wait to see how it goes with Introduction to general relativity. After all, the debate there was not finished, but only postponed until general relativity itself had been brought up to FA standards; I wouldn't be surprising if it flared back up if/when general relativity makes it. Markus Poessel (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Lissa (1811)
Many thanks for you comments and suggestions on the above article that is now a Featured Article. Your assistance during the review process was much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Everglades
Your encounter with this splendid article wasn't unlike mine, but one difference may be my consumption of novels by Carl Hiaasen. He writes novels that tend to be trashy, angry and worthwhile (an odd combination, I know): good for long flights. His characters tend to be two dimensional and his plotting has its ruts; I've read at least two novels by him that I thought were no more than tiresome pastiches of his best stuff, which I thought very good indeed (in their sordid way). Tourist Season would be a good way in. Morenoodles (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the recommendation! I really appreciate it! Awadewit (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Trump Chicago FAC
Thanks for reviewing the images. If you get a chance to consider supporting the article that would be great.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Trial by Jury
Please vote or comment on the FA nomination of Trial by Jury here: Featured article candidates/Trial by Jury. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

A favour if possible
Hi Awadewit,

I got this image from the Japanese Wikipedia: so the credit and licensing looks poor. Can you help. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 19:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it possible to link to the Japanese image description page?
 * 2) Who released the image under the CC license? The uploader on the Japanese Wikipedia? If so, we have to have a statement to that effect, I think. Right now, it sort of looks like you are releasing it.

I'm just learning all of these image rules myself. I thought that it would be a good idea, since so few people know them. They are very complex, however. You might ask for some advice at Commons since I presume you will be moving this to Commons? (Note: Wikipedia and Commons have different rules regarding images.) Awadewit (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll ask at commons, Graham Colm Talk 20:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Structure of novel articles


I wonder if you have an opinion about this. I'm going to work on the Everglades stuff tomorrow, promise! – Scartol  •  Tok  20:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a good day for me to get involved in anything, really. I've spent the past few days just reading the archives of controversial Wikipedia pages. I feel rather cross. Awadewit (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * But still, there's beauty lurking in every corner of Wikipedia. I'm sorry that I haven't written lately, but you've never been far from my thoughts.  I hope your sundry writing and preparations for Wikimania are going well! :)  With abiding affection, Willow (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * PS. The last glow of my strawberries is fading now, but it was a wonderful year. I know you don't have much room, but maybe you could consider growing them in a container?  I promise you, you'll never taste anything as good, even from a farmer's market. :) My currants and blueberries are coming on now, with the grapes and raspberries waiting their turn patiently. :) Willow (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Willow! What a beautiful flower - I'm going to put it on my desktop. I'm working on the "how to collaborate on a controversial article" section of my paper. I have lots of "what goes wrong" data and the patterns are clear to me, but the solutions are not. Hopefully I will figure something out soon. By the way, I am going to read Zinsser's La Dame d'Esprit on the way to Egypt. It just arrived and I keep looking over at it longingly! And, I promise, when I move out of my box-like apartment, I will erect a little Willow-garden. Home-grown strawberries sound wonderful. Awadewit (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries – I can imagine the RCC stuff must have you drained.. I don't know how you've been so civil for so long. Hope you feel better soon! (Do you still want to do that Skypecast? I have some time this week and next, or else we can do it mid-July when I get back from my road trip.) Cheers. – Scartol  •  Tok  00:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Charity (play)
I just read your user page. Check out our little article on Charity (play). It's an astonishing piece for a male (or any) Victorian playwright. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration
That is much appreciated and made my day! The sentiments are mutual, of course, but I'm waiting till the end of the FAC to give voice to them. (The chickens are still crossing the road, but we have been very lucky with our reviewers so far. (If we are discussing things like full stops in quotations, we can't complain.) qp10qp (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting developments
Holy schnikies!

This article appeared as new today. The story I quickly put together for Wikinews is posted on their front page, but I don't know if it will get posted on Wikipedia's.

I'm quite glad I've been working on this series of articles. I would have been mortified to see the news of the Big Sugar deal and that jump of hits when the article was in its former sad state. --Moni3 (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is so exciting for you! How many news reporters do you think will base the background of their stories on these articles!? Awadewit (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Textbook
Alberts is very good, both my parents and I used various editions of that in our respective times at university! Homeopathy is just an infuriating subject to discuss, since it is a point of contact of two entirely different cultures. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer review request
Hi there. I just nominated the article on opera singer June Anderson for a peer review. I hope to eventually get this article a GA rating. I would appriciate your feedback. Thanks.Nrswanson (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I am not doing any peer reviews right now. You might ask Ssilvers. Awadewit (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Austen adaptations
Hi, Awadewit, how goes it? As promised, I have begun work on the "Adaptations" section in my sandbox. I was wondering, however, if you had any suggestions on where I could find info on the stage adaptations? So far all I've researched are the films, which are highly interesting, but I feel Austen's popularity before the big screen should be covered as well. I read that Groucho Marx apparently saw P&P on the stage in the 1930s and suggested that the first Hollywood film be made soon after, so I'm quite curious now as to the plays' influences. Feel free to jump in at my sandbox anytime, by the way; I'm probably making a mess out of your reference style. :) María ( habla  con migo ) 14:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen anything on stage adaptations yet. The various introductions to Austen and collections of essays on Austen that I have do not say anything about stage adaptations - only film. If you would be willing to undertake research on this front, that would be very helpful. Awadewit (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Definitely willing, but it all depends on what I can ferret out of the stacks. We surprisingly have quite an extensive Austen section, but most of it is lit crit, of course.  Let me know if you come across anything.  María ( habla  con migo ) 15:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Everglades
I'll see what I can do. RC-0722 361.0/1  15:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
It's good to have some non-geek eyes acting as a balance to my ability to spout technobabble. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me know if I can transform any other sections into stream-of-consciousness layspeak. Awadewit (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You could comment on if the new section on membranes is any clearer, that would let us know if we're on the right track. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I finally got what you were trying to tell me. I've added some explanations of what effects these differences might have on the organisms to the article. I think that should cover the problem that we were focusing too much on the bacteria/archaea difference and what that told us about evolution, and not enough on the properties of the archaea themselves. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

New ref feature on Shelley
Congrats on Shelley! In case you missed the thread, see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates; it still makes me pretty nervous to use something that has that many disclaimers and isn't yet documented. If you want to switch them over to ref and label, I can do that for you (see Gettysburg Address). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 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) 07:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Trial by Jury
Thanks for all your help with the article! It was really important to its improvement to FA level. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Adminship
Have you thought about it? I've seen you plenty of times at FA (and its clearly rubbing off on your impressive contributions). I can't recall any bad incidents you were involved in and you come across as civil. An administrator candidate description in itself. If you have had other nominations, please ignore this. :) Rudget   ( logs ) 17:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * How kind of you! I don't really think that adminship is for me, however. I tend to focus on writing articles and I think that my strengths on Wikipedia lie in content creation and article reviewing. I fear becoming immersed in administrative tasks, which will take time away from what I love: researching and writing. Thanks for thinking of me, though! Awadewit (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I totally understand. No problem. :) Rudget   ( logs ) 20:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankenstein
Hey there, I am getting ready to start working on Frankenstein. It's a mess (I'm sure you've looked at it) so I'm just going to tackle it section by section. It does not currently have a "Themes" section, so I thought I'd start there. I'll ask for your comments throughout since I've not written an article about a novel here. I was thinking about writing about homosocial vs. homoerotic desire, mourning vs. melancholy, gothic themes, frame story, epistolary fiction, sci-fi, and bibliogenesis. I don't know, perhaps these are too much for one section? -- Laser brain  (talk)  03:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds like two sections to me: "Styles and genres" and "Themes". The frame story, the gothic, sci-fi, and epistolarity would all fit very nicely under a "Styles and genres" heading, I think. I'm wondering about the "birth myth" stuff from feminist critics, the postcolonial reading of Frankenstein that emphasizes the novel's oblique references to slavery, and the Marxist readings of the novel. Those are important as well, I think. Awadewit (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Have you read the Spivak criticism?  I recall having a bit of a hard time parsing it, so I might ask for help on that one. :) -- Laser brain   (talk)  17:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't read Spivak yet, but I would be happy to in order to help out with the article. Awadewit (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have time...
Please check out User:Laser brain/Dispatch, a draft of a future dispatch about finding general reliable sources using research databases. Thanks -- Laser brain  (talk)  06:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No hurry ... Tony has July 7 for monthly updates, not sure if we'll use this for July 14 or July 21. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added some material. If you think it is too advanced or specific, please cut it out. Awadewit (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Fight! Fight! Fight!
(Who would win in a fight between Shelley and Dickinson?) Hard to call, that is. Both led very unconventional lives for women during the 19th century, so obviously they were tough. On the small chance that Dickinson would want to meet Shelley face to face, wouldn't they rather have a good chat over a cup of tea? Shelley can talk about her travels and Dickinson can talk about her... uh, baking? In true Celebrity Deathmatch style, however, I have to vote for Shelley. Sitting around in one's bedroom for thirty years like Dickinson did would not help as far as strength or physical training goes, I should think. :) María ( habla con migo ) 19:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw that question and wondered, win at what? A poetry slam? Foxy boxing? Scrabble? Oh, that's a game I would not want to play with these ladies. I'd keep score, though. How about an "Eccentric-off"? Mad letter-writing? --Moni3 (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Foxy boxing" made me rotfl my waffles, but only after I read the article to find out what it meant. How about a talking smack contest?  It could start with some basic "Yo mama" jokes and go downhill from there; Dickinson saying "at least I'm not a one hit wonder" and Shelley countering with "at least my writing can't be sung to the theme of 'Gilligan's Island'".  Oh, snap!  María ( habla  con migo ) 20:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I laughed at "foxy boxing", too. Surely that deserves more than a stub? I also love the idea of an eccentric-off. Would it involve deciding whether wearing a white dress and staying hidden away from all society is stranger than having sex on your mother's grave? Awadewit (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 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) 03:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Ep. 51
Hey. Episode 51. [http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/06/26/episode-51-usernames-shmusernames/ Go. Listen. Comment. Enjoy.] WODU P bot  04:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't want these notifications anymore? Remove yourself from WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.

Copyedit
I do not have a huge amount of time, but should be able to do something over the next 2 or 3 days - is this timeline is OK? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be wonderful and, of course, I would owe you one! Awadewit (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I just sat down and read the article carefully, then went to the FAC to see what the problem was (as I frankly did not see much to change). I was very pleased, but not really surprised to see that it had already passed and is FA. I enjoyed it and learned several things, and assume I am off the hook. Congratualtions! Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I can say I sought out a copyeditor, if anyone asks! :) I'm glad you learned something! It was a fun article to write. Awadewit (talk) 04:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The one thing that struck me most as I read it was this Mary Shelley wrote all of the biographies in this volume except that of Ercilla, whose author is unknown. She, therefore, wrote: Boscan, Garcilaso de la Vega, Diego Hurtado de Mendoza, Luis de Leon, Herrera, Saa de Miranda, Jorge de Montemayor, Castillejo, Cervantes, Lope de Vega, Vicente Espinel, Estaban de Villegas, Góngora, Quevedo, Calderón, Ribeyro, Gil Vicente, Ferreira, and Camoens. I wondered if it might not flow better as something like Except for the biography of Ercilla, whose author is unknown, Mary Shelley wrote all of this volume, on: Boscan, Garcilaso de la Vega, Diego Hurtado de Mendoza, Luis de Leon, Herrera, Saa de Miranda, Jorge de Montemayor, Castillejo, Cervantes, Lope de Vega, Vicente Espinel, Estaban de Villegas, Góngora, Quevedo, Calderón, Ribeyro, Gil Vicente, Ferreira, and Camoens. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is better - changed. Awadewit (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"Introductions" alert
Many thanks for the heads-up. I'll definitely leave some comments at the FAC for "Intro to Virus". Markus Poessel (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: FA-Team Proposals
I'm currently working on Unabomber, but I think it may be a bit too grim for a collaborative effort, eh? :| Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 17:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

New portraits
Kaldari (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm in portrait heaven. Awadewit (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to virus
Dear Awadewit, Thank you for your CE, it's getting late here in the UK, I'll catch up with the article and it's FAC in the morning. You are a treasure. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm Talk 21:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Awadewit, I can see that you have had a lot on your mind today, but do you have time to revisit this FAC. I hope I've addressed all of your helpful comments. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 16:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am doing so at this very moment. Awadewit (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

primary cont stuff
This is really freaking me out. Are we that impersonal now? Are numbers and statistics all that matter? I don't want to be just another number. :( Wrad (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just worried that the real experts will get squeezed out by people changing "a" to "an". :) Awadewit (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, it's a great skill and I hope I can develop it! But still... Wrad (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Themes and style section in Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV serial)
Hello. I have finished the themes and style section in P&P, including copyediting to an IMO acceptable level. It will however take some days (at least) to iron away all the prose wrinkles. Would you give the section a pass to speed up improvements? – sgeureka t•c 17:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I did a quick once-over. Awadewit (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

King Arthur Awards
Don't forget User:Cuchullain. He's from the King Arthur project and has been working on the article for ages, including this last FA push. Wrad (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, thanks! Awadewit (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

dustup
Hi Awadewit, hope all is well. I'm still shlogging through my dissertation.. saw your dustup over at FAC. I added what I hope is a cleaner solution.. cleaner from FAC's perspective; though perhaps not from an omniscient one. :-) Later! Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 08:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Pardon me for inserting myself into this, but I respect both you and SandyGeorgia a great deal and hate to see this type of incident. It seems that the two of you are talking past each other, and the discussion has had so many tangents.... I can clearly see why you think that the nomination removal was a mistake.  I can also clearly see why Sandy thought it was the right action - King Arthur had already had one premature nom, and a different article under the FA-team umbrella has previously been prematurely nominated for FAC.  In WP:MMM, the FA-team made the recommendation of when the articles were ready to be nominated, and it looks like that was what Sandy was looking for on this article as well.  You may very well be right that the rules for withdrawing nominations should be firmed up, butSandy was operating within the parameters the community set up.  I hope you will reconsider your characterization of this incident as an "abuse of power" - to me, that seems an unfair assessment. Karanacs (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Good luck at Wikimania.  I hope your paper will be easily accessible afterwards so that I can read it. Karanacs (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems clear to me that SandyGeorgia and I have a different idea of what a "significant contributor" is. Considering the FAC nomination page offers no real illumination on this point and SG has still not explained what her definition is, I consider the ongoing discussion important, much more so than the particular incident. Awadewit (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks! That means a lot to me.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

FAC for Battle of Mount Austen, the Galloping Horse, and the Sea Horse
I believe I've addressed your concerns. I appreciate your review of the article and the constructive feedback. Sorry for taking so long to respond. Cla68 (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Egypt
Have a great time! (I'd write this in green if I knew how.) qp10qp (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia
I don't know if you are interested or not, but I was informed that you might wish to know about http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'd love to!
Be happy to talk about copyediting. Btw, I'm about to move that content from Uriel Sebree's FAC talk to my userpage, because the userbox I was planning on using identifies "significant contributor" and co-nom, and that's not what I'm after. As much as I hate to try to drum up interest in a brand-new userbox and designation, I just think the concept of "significant contributor" is already taken, and it doesn't mean "copyeditor". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What about "brilliant contributor"? :) Awadewit (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there are only so many articles you can copyedit, Awadewit! - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, darn it, now I think the "copyeditor userbox" sucks, too. It's just not likely that Wikipedians would find that a source of egoboo.  I'll keep working on the idea at User_talk:Dank55/Copyediting; feel free to join me. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I ain't gettin' on no plane!
Just a heads-up to let you know that I'm pulling my name from the FA-Team list. I've got so many things going on, and I don't think it's fair to pretend like I can help out with much of that group's activities. I'm still happy to help with individual projects from time to time, but for now I think it's best if I don't pretend to be a member in active standing. Enjoy Egypt! – Scartol  •  Tok  15:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

A " thank you " letter for Introduction to virus
Awadewit, thanks for your critical review, edits, and suggestions. I enjoyed answering your questions. The FA status could have not been achieved without you. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm Talk 19:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: FA-Team successes!
It's great to see that we've had another success. Also, I'll try to take a look at that FAC when I get a chance. Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  00:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 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) 09:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: When you are back....
(copied over from my talk page:) I see that this has been featured in the meantime... but am open to any other copy-editing you think needs doing. Oh, and meantime I hope you're enjoying Egypt! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)