User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 3

From WT:CAI
Since this discussion now seems to be moving further away from the topic of WP:CAI, I thought it best to continue it here. I'm sorry that I seem to have offended you, and I thoroughly regret issuing you a challenge, which was intended as a rhetorical device to make a point, rather than to be actively taken up. (Incidentally, you could have made criticisms of this nature at Talk:Politics or at Peer review/Politics/archive1, an environment in which your statements would have seemed more constructive.) However, what I can say in my defence about Politics is that before I started work on it, the article had very few sources of any kind, and none cited in inline footnotes; it was also confusing and unclear for the reader. In the absence of experts, I did my best to improve the article as much as I could, and there are a lot of far worse articles on Wikipedia. I don't know quite what you want me to say at this point, so I will ask you one more thing, not as a challenge in any way: can you guess my actual age and educational background? You seem to have a fairly low opinion of me, so I would be interested to know whether you underestimate my age. Finally, I would have to clarify that I really didn't want to pick a fight with you. I believe strongly in the principles of WP:CIVIL and try to apply them when addressing other editors. As you stated that you were offended by my essay, I reworded it and moved the title in order to make it less strong. I don't know what else you'd like me to do or say in order to resolve this argument, other than to apologise, which I have repeatedly done already. Wal ton  Vivat Regina!  19:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To begin with, I am not offended and never asked you to change the title (I said it was "inflammatory" and acknowledged its rhetorical power - sometimes those things are good to start a debate). Challenges are not "rhetorical devices." Be prepared to be burned if you use them as such. And feel free to repost my comments to Talk:politics; of course I am interested in improving articles. While politics may not have had citations before you added them or even if wikipedia has many worse articles, this does not justify your use of poor sources. I am not going to guess your age or educational background. The reason I have spent so much time engaging in this debate is because I think it is important for wikipedia editors to understand how to use sources. Telling me your age or educational background will not convince me that you know what you are doing. The evidence speaks for itself (an argument you should appreciate). You are not trying to sway me by arguments from authority, are you? By the way, I do not have a low opinion of you, I (currently) have a low opinion of your ability to judge the reliability of sources (perhaps your other pages are better). Please do not confuse the two. I am not attacking you personally. Attacks on one's work are not attacks on oneself. Awadewit 20:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am now going to disengage completely from this discussion. The question is now (ironically, given the other uses of the word) academic; WP:CAI is solely an essay rather than a proposed policy or guideline, and it has served its purpose, which was to provoke debate and to clarify that there is no consensus on Wikipedia favouring the obligatory verification of credentials. It now looks like no form of credential-verification policy will be approved by the community (except perhaps for those users applying for CheckUser status, which affects a comparatively small number of editors). As I'm not proposing a new policy, I don't need to persuade other editors to accept my point of view. So I think we can agree to differ on this issue, and stop here before either of us gets annoyed (so far, the discussion has remained civil). To clarify, I was not accusing you of making personal attacks, and I understand perfectly that WP:NPA does not cover criticisms of another editor's work. I am perfectly happy for you to make constructive criticisms of my work, and if you don't like the Politics article, why not add some extra sources yourself? Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  13:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel that this entire discussion has gotten out of hand on wikipedia. Apparently there are only 250 or so users who claim to have a PhD on their userpage and 50 or so with a userbox (many of whom volunteer who they are, anyway, with links to their university pages). If it is only going to apply to checkusers (whatever those are), I feel that this entire debate has only served to reveal a very ugly side of wikipedia's anti-intellectualism. I could work on the politics article if I had time, but I am currently engaged on a whole list of other projects (see my userpage) on which I feel I would contribute more effectively (meaning, I already own/know about most of the sources I need to write them). Awadewit 13:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Politics
I looked in more detail at your comments on the article and my use of sources (which are much tougher than those made at peer review, but possibly that's a good thing, as it's spurring me to improve the article further). I know I said I was going to disengage from this debate, and I have, indeed, disengaged from the debate on credentials. This is about Politics - I have taken your criticisms on board, and intend to improve the article accordingly. Once I have improved it, I would be grateful if you could take a look over the improved version. Wal ton  Vivat Regina!  17:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I accept that gradesaver.com and 12manage.com are not reliable sources; they're more placeholders than anything else. I will search for better sources to use instead; I was intending to do so anyway.
 * I assumed that the What is Rationality, What is Power? essay was an approved publication of the University of Aalborg (Department of Development and Planning), as it has their header at the top. It's only when I looked more closely at the web address that I saw you were right, and that the website belongs to the academic himself (Bent Flyvbjerg) rather than the university. That was a careless error on my part for which I accept responsibility; however, it does not indicate that I do not understand reliable sources, just that I did not pay enough attention to the URL. I understand that self-published sources do not tend to be reliable.
 * Ok, but you have to see, how to someone not inside your head, like myself, the fact that it was cited indicates to me that you, the writer, felt that it was reliable. I do not assume editors are careless.
 * I also intend to remove the Geoff Boucher reference - I checked the site, and it belongs to a project called "Ethical Politics" describing itself as a "somewhat intellectual discussion group", with no mention of credentials or formal publication. So you were right about that one as well, but again, my fault lies more in carelessness than lack of understanding, and I intend to correct it. I would also add that I used this essay primarily as a source of quotes relating to the views of Norberto Bobbio, who is reputable, though I didn't have access to any of his writings first-hand.
 * Again, I would say, I do not have access to your mind, only what you represent. I see this source on the page, so I have to assume you meant to claim reliability for it. Does your library have interlibrary loan? It's a wonderful thing. You can get all sorts of books that your own library doesn't have.
 * The one thing I do not intend to change is the references to Tansey and European Politics Today. I think that, as introductory textbooks, these works provide more helpful and succinct quotes to use in the article - like the textbooks themselves, the article needs to explain politics clearly to non-experts, making use of "layman's terms" where necessary. The introductory books do, of course, qualify as reliable published secondary sources.
 * Against this, I would argue that it is important to know more than you are planning to include in the article. Textbooks tend to simplify and summarize for the student. That is your job as well; you are essentially teaching in your article. You should learn the complex material and decide how best to present it to an audience that does not know as much as you. Why don't you check the bibliography of those books for better sources?
 * No problem. I far prefer reviewing articles about politics to debates about wikipolitics. I must warn you, though, as I say on my userpage, I am "careful and thoughtful" reviewer, which means that I take time to go over every sentence of articles I review. You can look at my review of Peer review/George V of the United Kingdom/archive1 for a review that focused mainly on writing and style.
 * I have now removed gradesaver.com (replacing it with a direct reference to Leviathan itself), 12manage.com, Bent Flyvbjerg, and Geoff Boucher (I found the details of Norberto Bobbio's actual book, which is clearly a more reliable source about Bobbio's view on the left-right distinction). I have also removed the project paper that was formerly at footnote 25; once again, that was a careless mistake on my part, as I found the paper on a university website and assumed without checking that it had been peer-reviewed. After due consideration, I would actually like to thank you for your comments, as you've drawn attention to a flaw in my editing technique that I hadn't thought about. Basically, when I see an article that's unsourced and poorly-written, I tend to rush to improve it, and don't take enough time over checking out the provenance of sources. As a lot of the articles I've edited have been on minor topics, this problem has rarely been flagged up before; however, I'm going to check back over some of the other political articles I've edited, such as Left-right politics and Street-level bureaucracy, and evaluate my sources against tougher criteria. I'd appreciate if you could take one more look at Politics and see if you're satisfied with my improvements. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  17:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just adding that in response to your charge that the article was dominated by "little references to obscure sources", I am now working on expanding the section on the major philosophical views of politics. To start with, I've added a reference to Plato's Republic (of which, luckily, I had a Penguin Classics copy readily available on my bookshelf) and am going to work on adding more such books, such as Machiavelli's The Prince, to the existing references to Aristotle, Hobbes and John Stuart Mill. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  18:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That is good, but you want to be careful about original research. Be sure that you aren't presenting your views of these philosophers. Politics is a huge subject. You need to find works about Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes and Mill by scholars that will provide you with the scholarly consensus on those philosophers. Sometimes Penguin editions list "Further reading" in their introductions, but they can be very outdated (check the publication date). Cambridge University Press publishes a series called Cambridge Companion. These are introductory works to major figures. Each of these philosophers has a book that will provide essays from major scholars in the field on several different aspects of his thought. These books will also have helpful bibliographies. You have undertaken a huge project with politics. I commend your ambition. I will help you however I can. Awadewit 19:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've now added some scholarly views on Plato and Hobbes, but it's a work in progress. The reason I took on this huge project is because I noticed a systemic problem with political coverage on Wikipedia; articles on politicians and parties, since they tend to invite controversy, attract a lot of editors who improve the article, while the less controversial political science topics tend to languish towards the lower end of the quality scale, due to lack of attention. Although major article rewrites aren't my main task on Wikipedia (I spend more time on RC patrol and in projectspace) I decided that these core articles merited serious attention. But are you now satisfied that all my sources meet your reliability criteria? In addition to the more obscure sources, I have five references to Max Weber, several to Norberto Bobbio, one to Hannah Arendt and quite a few to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, always a useful resource. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  11:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that these core articles deserve far more attention than they get (perhaps I will, in the end, try to help you out). You might nominate politics for a collaboration of the week. I applaud your efforts to improve the citations but part of improving citations is also increasing one's knowledge. One must read the sources and understand what they are saying. That knowledge should then be added to the essay. More thoughts on sources. Please don't get discouraged. I wish I had students (of any age!) that were as eager to learn and improve as yourself.

Again, like I said, please don't get discouraged. I will post some comments to the peer review for politics about the structure of the page overall. Awadewit 12:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You use popular dictionaries to define "politics" and other words This is not the best source in my opinion because "politics" is such a difficult word to define and has been defined in different ways in different times and places. Popular dictionaries usually reflect the way a word is used in common speech, not the way a word is used in philosophy.
 * According to the pdf document you link to, Rajaf holds a degree in environmental science and engineering. That is usually not the kind of the scholar one turns to first to discuss politics (that is, when one has 30-odd sources). The Tellus Institute I would have to research more, but it looks primarily environmental, so that would be their area of expertise.
 * The Artistotle page seems fine. The site itself is uneven, though. Some articles have no author or bibliography. But you will note that there is a nice bibliography on the Aristotle page with explanations of the strengths of each book.
 * The essay on the Stanford site looks good. I couldn't at first glance find the author's name but the extensive bibliography divided up by subject matter (again, helpful for you) is a mark of someone familiar with the scholarly literature. Also the site says that "All entries and substantive updates are refereed by the members of a distinguished Editorial Board before they are made public" - it is peer-reviewed, in other words, because the editorial board is made up of academics.
 * Although you have listed one Thomas Hobbes reference as coming from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and one from Britannica, they both come from the IEP.
 * www.boogieonline.com is a personal website which makes it less reliable.
 * I am not sure about Domhoff's essay. It seems like the website it is on is a supplementary website to a textbook that he wrote. Is that right? I do not know if the essay he wrote had to undergo any peer-review to be put up on the website. It might just be that the publishing company said, "Oh, and he can have this website on the side for writing the textbook where he can post whatever he wants and it looks legitimate" or it could very well be legitimate. I don't really know. I can tell you that such a publication would not "count" in academia. I wonder if he is basing it on this published work, listed in his bibliography, a work that would be peer-reviewed and thus be considered respectable in academia: Dahl, R. A. (1979). A Review of "Who Really Rules? New Haven and Community Power Reexamined". Social Science Quarterly, 60, 144-151.
 * Your "Gompers" link needs to link to the right Gompers.
 * Your link "Authority and Rationality: Max Weber" led me to believe that you were linking to Weber's text, but it links to someone else's work, whose work is it?
 * Yes, a lot of these concerns are in line with what I was thinking; like I said, it's a work in progress.
 * I've tried to limit my use of popular dictionaries to the opening paragraphs, to provide a basic definition of the terms that can be expanded on further. I agree that "thefreedictionary.com" doesn't look like a particularly impressive source when seen in the bibliography.
 * The "Gompers" reference was not added by me, unlike the rest of the sources on the page, so I don't really know what it's meant to be about (although I presume the Gompers in question is Samuel Gompers, judging by the title of the article given). I'll change the link, although to be honest it might be better to remove that reference, as I prefer references that have some sort of verification of the text's existence. (Hence my predilection towards online sources, and my use of ISBN numbers for book sources.)
 * Fair point about the Rajaf essay - that's another example of me being a little careless in checking the provenance of my sources.
 * The thing with Domhoff is that he is a well-known and reputable scholar within the political science-sociology field, so I didn't check the origins of this precise text too closely - but as he is a prolific writer, it shouldn't be too hard for me to look up a more reliable source for his views. As to the Dahl reference, Domhoff's essay was a critique of Dahl and was used in that sense; I already included a direct reference to Dahl.
 * I saw that. It seems that he originally published the critique in 1979 in the citation I listed (which he also lists in his bibliography). Better to use the source published in an academic journal, I think. Awadewit 17:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Boogieonline isn't a particularly good source, I admit (the title sounds unpromising, for one thing), but it's a libertarian website that I quoted from solely to summarise the views of libertarians. I used a better source for a similar purpose in Left-right politics, however, which I will copy over to this article ASAP.
 * "Authority and Rationality: Max Weber" was the title of the fifth chapter of a textbook, Perspectives in Classical Sociological Theory, which I found online; however, the parent website (www.pineforge.com) doesn't seem to yield any information on the book's provenance, let alone an ISBN number or publication details, so I'll get rid of that source just as soon as I find something to replace it with.
 * I'm sorry to keep bothering you about this; like I said, I'm fairly inexperienced with (re)writing major articles, and obviously a higher standard of sourcing is expected for Politics than for Lord High Admiral of the Wash (one of the first articles I ever wrote). I realise that I've developed slightly sloppy research habits during my time on Wikipedia, but I am eager to improve to meet your standards. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  17:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, whoever reviewed the Admiral should have made the same points. :) Different reviewers are looking for different things. That's why some wikipedia articles are much more reliable than others. Did you hear about the Sinbad (actor) article? Apparently it reported that he was dead when he was not. There was a funny AP story on it. Awadewit 17:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have now carried out most of the changes you suggested at peer-review, including the layout changes and the re-writing of bullet points as prose. Re Eastern philosophers, I've added a subsection on Confucius, probably the one who's had most influence on contemporary thought, although I appreciate there are probably others who are more obscure. The only thing I haven't done is added pictures - I haven't quite figured out what kind of pictures would be useful for the understanding of the text. Certainly I could add pictures of politicians, philosophers etc from other articles (providing they're not fair-use, as I don't think it qualifies as a necessary use under WP:FUC), but I don't really see how that would enhance the article, and it would make it longer and harder to read. But are you satisfied with the other changes I've made? Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  21:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Despite what I said above, I've now added pictures of some of the philosophers quoted, although feel free to take them out if you think they clutter the page. I think my work on the article is just about done; the only problem I can foresee now is that the page may be considered excessively long. Possibly some of the detail about power and authority could be removed, as it's duplicated at Political power and the Tripartite classification of authority (Weber etc.). What do you think? Wal ton  Vivat Regina!  21:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps you are done, but the article is far from done. Under political philosophies, for example, you do not explain why you are including just Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Mill and Confucius. What about Locke and Machiavelli? Anyway, you have done a lot, but this page will in the end be huge, I think, because the topic is huge. Awadewit 01:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Women writers
I just (finally) submitted the category for review for reinstatement. Fingers crossed. Sorry I haven't yet given any feedback on the Vindication. Soon, I hope! scribblingwoman 14:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope it goes through. You'll see that I tried to add evidence to help you out. Awadewit 15:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Me too. And your comment is most helpful. Would you consider reposting it from the talk page, to the current discussion page? If not, I quite understand. It's getting a little fraught over there. scribblingwoman 14:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have posted a vote. The insanity over there! Awadewit 15:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are certainly a voice of sanity. scribblingwoman 18:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Some reflections about your review of the article about Cicero
I have put my thoughts and also some answers to your questions concerning the article about Cicero beneath your review on the Talk page. So, if you are interested...... Thank you once more for your peer-review, many good hints and opinions to reflect on. Regards. --Tellervo 17:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

FA reference standards
Post by Awadewit copied from Featured article candidates/Battle of Shiloh.

One of the ironies of this situation is that I belong to a listserv of eighteenth-century academics. They are currently discussing footnoting. The very issue I complained about here, that paragraphs use numerous citations in one note so that it is impossible to tell what information comes from where has already been complained about on that listserv. I don't think I can quote the person from the listserv since they did not intend their words to be broadcast to the web (if I can, please let me know). Such a complaint is not irrational since other academics believe that it hinders the verification process as well. Awadewit 09:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm replying to your post here because I think it's getting way too general to apply to the Feature Article-status of an article. And as you may have noticed, the discussion isn't really doing much good at the nomination page. As for the discussion:
 * Wikipedia doesn't serve the same function as academic works and has never been intended to be a replacement for academic works. It's still just an encyclopedia even if we by necessity have to be more thorough in presenting our sources. Holding it accountable to roughly the same standards of referencing that (primarily North American) academics are used to isn't a fair or relevant comparison. No professional historian would demand such lofty standards of reference from an article of this scope and purpose. And I can't for the life of me understand how an unrelated discussion between scholars of 18th century history would be relevant to the FA status of a Wikipedia article...
 * Peter Isotalo 14:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is not supposed serve as a replacement, I agree with you. But the argument I keep trying to make is, you must know more than you are presenting. If wikipedia is supposed to be presenting a summary of the research on a field, how can an article be pretending to do that, if its references do not reference the research in that field? And, actually, you might take a look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . While they have chosen not to footnote, every article I have looked at so far has an extensive bibliography of the important literature relevant to that topic. One reason they can get away without footnoting, by the way, is because the SEP is peer-reviewed. It is written by academics and peer-reviewed by academics, so that gives it a validity wikipedia doesn't have. The footnotes on wikipedia reassure the readers that the editors know what they are talking about. You have to think about wikipedia's unique system ("anyone can edit"), its place in the world and how others will view it when you make decisions about citation. When I first started editing wikipedia, I was very much against citing every tiny thing; some things are just "known" in a field and I thought to myself "This is ridiculous, why do I have to cite this?" But the more I thought about it, the more convinced I became that for wikipedia it is the right thing right now. Wikipedia has very little credibility, particularly in the humanities. One way to bolster that credibility is to say to the reader: "See, I am quoting the best scholars on this" and to even say that (that is why I even say "a prominent scholar writes, etc." in my articles. Perhaps wikipedia won't have to do this someday, but right now it has to. Also, you might keep in mind what I said about publishing books. Particular theories are associated with particular scholars; to deny them that association in an article is unfair - their reputation is based upon the acceptance of those theories and those theories are their "intellectual property." You should not mix theories willy-nilly. Not everything a scholar publishes is new, but something in his or her book must be or it will not get published. And, actually, yes 18th-century scholars do discuss footnotes. They discuss all sorts of issues. They are people, too. :) I really don't mean to be incredibly difficult. I just think that wikipedia's FAs should really be its "best." I think that writing a well-researched, well-written FA is time-consuming, particularly if someone is unfamiliar with the scholarly literature on the topic. That does not mean it is impossible, just difficult. And I applaud anyone who is dedicated enough to take that plunge. Awadewit 15:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not really disagreeing about having to cite particular theories or speculation presented by individual scholars, but I don't think this is relevant to an article that isn't exactly filled to the brim with questionable interpretations. It's just a pretty straightforward account of a battle. Most of the facts isn't just mere guesswork or extrapolations, but merely a synthesis of accounts. Quite frankly, it's not really that hard to do a decent job of writing an article about recent military history, and I think a lot of those who complain about the reliability of Wikipedia forget that. If we as editors are to criticize one another for not doing enough research, I think we should at least do it by pointing out errors in the end product, not by setting up overly ambitious demands for how it was achieved.
 * Peter Isotalo 17:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Scientific Revolution Short Bibliography
As someone who just retired, and in the last few years of teaching didn't do much on such a "modern" field as the Scientific Revolution (I'm a medievalist) I have to think a bit. A good place to start -- if somewhat dated -- is the 20 year old bibliographic essay by Richard S. Westfall at Bob Hatch's course page.

When I retired I gave away a lot of books to graduate students and others. But as someone trained to look at the internal coherence and interaction of scientific ideas more than at social history, I kept some of the classics. Butterfield's The Origins of Modern Science still bears re-reading. A more recent book is Peter Dear's Revolutionizing the Sciences which does a nice job of putting ideas in context. One nice set of readings is David Lindberg and Robert Westman, ed., Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution; most of the essays are in the "internalist" tradition and, since you've read Shapin, I don't imagine you'll find their reappraisals too radical. --SteveMcCluskey 01:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. Awadewit 02:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

SteveMcCluskey knows much more about the scientific revolution than I do. I was going to also recommend Revolutionizing the Sciences as counterpart to Shapin's book; unlike Shapin's it is not very historiographically oriented. Another that has broad appeal to humanists is Galileo, Courtier by Mario Bagioli; it's focused on Galileo, but it adds an important dimension (patronage) that gets underemphasized in the internalist accounts of the scientific revolution.

Science education is a really awesome thing to be working on. I gave my first talk a few months ago, on 19th century American high school physics textbooks. (Like Kepler and the scientific revolution, it was more of a hobby topic than an main research focus.) Some books I recommend for doing an 18th century science education, literature-related project:
 * The Man Who Flattened the Earth by Mary Terrall - about Maupertuis, it paints an excellent picture of the intersecting scientific and literary cultures of the mid 18th century
 * Masters of Theory by Andrew Warwick - about mathematics and science education in 19th century Cambridge, but easily the most important thing to be aware of in terms of the historiography of science education from a cultural history of science perspective.
 * An utterly fantastic book I recommend in general to you as an English literature scholar interested in the history of science is Victorian Sensation by James Secord.
 * Also, you might get in contact with Katherine Pandora, an historian of science at the University of Oklahoma. She does work with children's science literature (and you can tell her I sent you).

Thanks for your kind words.--ragesoss 03:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Awadewit 12:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Mary Wollstonecraft
I haven't been around much lately (due to real life keeping me busy), but I'll make an effort to check on the Wollstonecraft article periodically while you're gone. Have fun at the conference (if such things are possible) ;) Kaldari 21:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Last push for the Biography Assessment Drive
We've done great work so far on the WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive, reducing the 135,345 backlog by 38,626 to 96,719 as of March 20, 2007. We have only 6,720 more to go to get below 90,000. That would be outstanding and any extra effort that you can offer in these last few days of the drive (which ends March 24, 2007) would be much appreciated. If you haven't already, you may want to load Outriggr's assessment script in your monobook.js. If you have any questions, please feel free to post them on my talk page. -- Jreferee 23:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Credentials and Reliable Sources
I copied the following sentence from Wikipedia talk:Credentials are irrelevant to Wikipedia talk:Credentials matter: Please check whether I've quoted you out of context.--Kevinkor2 05:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am trying to point out that experts are far from useless, in fact they are an asset, because they are able to draw quickly on sources, analyze the reliability of a source, think carefully about complex issues but also "debate well with others".
 * That is fine. Thank you. If you want examples of source debates and source evaluations I have done, see the Ronald Reagan FAC at Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/March 2007, Featured article candidates/Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia, Talk:Cicero, Wikipedia talk:Credentials are irrelevant (section labeled "Sources and beyond"), User talk: Awadewit (section labeled From WT:CAI) and Talk:Mary Wollstonecraft. Awadewit 17:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

eo:Mary Wollstonecraft
Dear Awadewit,

Shortly after the Slovenian version, I am pleased to announce that your brilliant article about Mary Wollstonecraft has been translated into Esperanto, and should become featured in a few days. Keep up the great work ! -- Thomas Guibal 18:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. I am particularly pleased that it has been translated into Esperanto. Awadewit 17:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back
Hope your conference went well. The discussion continues. scribblingwoman (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It did go well. I am looking at the discussion now. Awadewit 02:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw! Who needs knights when we have Amazons? scribblingwoman (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Locke
I understand your concerns about changing content with stylistic changes. For what it is worth, I don't think it is accurate to say that Locke's notion of the 'self' is the "origin" of modern conceptions. Modern conceptions of the self have historical and theoretical origins in the work of Aristotle, Plato and other ancient philosophers. "Basis", maybe, but not origin. As for the copyediting, I don't think you would disagree that some of it really is bad writing. So I was just being accurate. But I understand the need to avoid edit wars. Thanks. - Barometer Rising 10:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am relying on sources for that statement which I will someday add in to the article when I get around to improving it, specifically Charles Taylor's Sources of the Self and Jerrold Seigel's The Idea of the Self. These are very well-respected intellectual histories. I did not say that this was the first conception of selfhood, I said that it was the origin of the modern conception of selfhood. Taylor's book, which goes back to Plato, makes this distinction as well. On the point of bad writing, I agree that there is a lot of bad writing on wikipedia (of course, I don't class myself with those bad writers!), but it is so hard to "edit well with others" anyway that sometimes simply improving the writing without disparaging others' writing is the best way to go. In fact, one might hope that those writers would see your improvements and learn or think "I should ask for his/her help on other pages." This is not always possible, sometimes one must debate over comma usage, but that is the ideal, is it not? If you are interested in copyediting, you might think about joining the League of Copyeditors. That way you will be working on pages that are well-advanced and just need some clean-up. The Cicero page, for example, which I noticed you had copyedited as well, seems a lost cause at this point. I did some copyediting on that as well, but I think that much of the page needs to be rewritten. Much of its information is taken from a problematic source and the tone of the page is at times entirely wrong. Awadewit 18:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hugely important question
Is the 18thc userbox of your own making? I would love to have one too, but I didn't want to just filch it in case it was original. scribblingwoman (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I did make it, but I also made it available to others on some list somewhere (I'm not that well-versed in userboxes, so I forget where that was). I freely offer my userboxes to all! (I thought that it was funny that there was a userbox for ancient Greece and Rome, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Romantic era, and the Victorian era but nothing for the eighteenth century - we are always left out!). If you improve the box, let me know. I didn't really want to spend the time figuring out how to put in a little picture, so I just used an icon. Awadewit 18:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It is now proudly displayed on my page. (Re. the 18thc as a black hole: I hear you!) scribblingwoman (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)