User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 30

KIng Arthur and Tom Thumb
Thank you for that :) I genuinely enjoyed doing the rewrite; I do think it's important that reliable and well-referenced data is made freely available and am happy to do all I can to help with that.  I have two chapters of a book left to write after this FAC goes through and then I'll go to work on another article, any suggestions v. welcome :) Incidentally, I need to say thanks to you too, for putting so much time in on the article -- let me know if I can ever help out...

On that note, with regards to Tom Thumb, the two cited articles are the only ones which discuss the connection between Arthur and Tom in detail. By and large it is dismissed as simply 'in the days of King Arthur' as a variation on 'once-upon-a-time', but I think that this is too easy. There are brief discussions in R.H. Thompson, "Arthurian Literature in English (Modern)" in The New Arthurian Encyclopedia ed. Norris J. Lacy (New York: Garland, 1996), pp.136-44 and James D. Merriman, The Flower of Kings: A Study of the Arthurian Legend in England Between 1485 and 1835 (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1973). There's also quite a good website at |The Camelot Project. An interesting article on Tom Thumb in general is "Three Hundred Years of Tom Thumb" by H. Weiss, in (bizarrely) The Scientific Monthly 34, no. 2 (1932), pp.157-66.

I hope that helps :) Incidentally, have you done any work on Jack the Giantkiller as part of your research?  This also seems a very interesting tale with strong Arthurian links.  Several versions were circulating in chapbooks and children's compilations etc also feature him.  All the best, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for this! I haven't done any work on Jack, but I have read the amusing stories (the Jack I read about in childhood was much tamer!). Currently, I'm working the sensibility angle in didactic children's literature written by women (I'm sympathetic to it, you see!). I just like collecting references for the future. We'll have to think of something suitably important for you to work on next. The Canterbury Tales too late? The article is abysmal, but I know nothing about the topic, so I can do nothing. :( Awadewit (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Canterbury Tales are a bit outside of my expertise, although I have an interest in Middle English lit (with a work on the ME Havelok and its Old French antecedents potentially in the pipeline; I have a fondness for the 'Matter of England' as well as of 'Britain'...) and it might be an interesting challenge.  On Jack, I assume you have read the 18th-century chapbooks -- wonderfully bloody and 'vulgar', there is a transcript of one of them at Arthuriana.co.uk.  Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the context of this conversation, but are you familiar with Henry Fielding's take, where in the end everyone kills each other? =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol! Yes, that is wonderful! I wonder if it ever gets performed nowadays...? :)  cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Btw: we got the FA status! :) cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Mary Astell
I wasn't able to find anything about Mary Astell at my library, but I have put in a request for both The Celebrated Mary Astell: An Early English Feminist and The Eloquence of Mary Astell. Keep your fingers crossed. Kaldari (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I will check out     Mary Astell : theorist of freedom from domination, Mary Astell : reason, gender, faith, and The veil of chastity : Mary Astell's feminism. I'll pick one of them up before I go to Egypt and read it on the plane. Awadewit (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Another, when you get back, or whenever
Such is that beauty, or curse, of Wikipedia: articles are never completed, even when they're featured. I count you as a bad influence on triggering my perfectionistic tendencies that never allow me to leave something alone. That's both the mark of a good FA writer and obsessive compulsive (as if there's any difference). I added 10k of information to Ann Bannon (which you gave a PR for many a moon ago), including sections on themes and style, all in the wake of reviewing Mary Shelley. And much like your statement about Mary Wollstonecraft during the podcast, that she was considered a whore and her literature was disparaged, there's not far to go in the lack of validation for the genre Bannon wrote in. But the more I consider these six books, regardless of genre, they were indeed so unlike anything available during this era, that I predict history will redefine revolutionary literature. It will probably take 100 years or more to do it, though. At any rate, I don't know if you're familiar with Bannon's novels, but if you would care to take a look at the Themes and Style sections to give any constructive criticism, I would appreciate it. Whenever you have time.

I've also been hampered by the lack of available information, and by my own fatalistic assumption that there's nothing available to find. I've searched the MLA (8 entries), as well as analyses written in gay press and women's publishing (a few more in newspapers and such). Maybe I'm just drawn to subjects that have no literary pedigree. --Moni3 (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we say sometime in August? My life is crazy right now and I'd like to take time with this. Ponder, muse, as WillowW would say. Also, I have some friends who might be able to help out with sources. Awadewit (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. Whenever. It's a long shot, but I've asked her if she's up for the wild ride that might be the main page on her birthday, September 15. She's a 1-pointer right now. If there are more sources, whatever I need to do to get them, I will. I'm totally serious. I have pilfered and begged to find book chapters and articles that might contain any little scrap of further information. --Moni3 (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet collaboration
Greetings! The current Shakespeare Project Collaboration is Romeo and Juliet. This project is currently going a thorough peer review and copyedit before moving on to FAC. The link to the peer review is Peer review/Romeo and Juliet/archive1. Have a look! « Diligent Terrier   Bot    (talk)   20:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely the dumbest concerns you'll see today
Hey, this is so silly, but: In that screenshot for Nuthatch, I think you should have released it under GFDL since it's GFDL content. Also, dunno if you care but your email address is showing on it (sorry, probably bringing more attention to it by saying). I would think you could G7 it if you do care. Peace, delldot   talk  15:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded a new one. I'll just have to delete both later. *sigh* I should have been more careful in cropping. Awadewit (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me know if you want this deleted. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you could delete the original file, that would be great. Thanks so much. Silly me. Awadewit (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the whole lot goes when you delete, but you can re-upload for a "clear" history. I forced the image size, so the issue is patched (resolved?); the image may not be needed now anyway. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Aw, I'm sorry Awadewit! I didn't mean you were silly, I meant I felt silly for even bringing up something so minor!  I hope you didn't interpret it as the former!  delldot   talk  21:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I understood completely! I just couldn't believe I had been so careless! No worries at all - thanks so much for bringing it to my attention. I really do appreciate it. Awadewit (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't even notice! Just a thank you for the effort you are putting into the ce for this article jimfbleak (talk) 05:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Hi A,

It's nice to see that you're back already! :) I'm dying of curiosity: how did your talk go?  I imagine that you impressed a lot of people there. :)

My sister's wedding went off wonderfully, and the newlyweds are off enjoying their honeymoon. The preparations were a little stressful sometimes, but it all went smoothly once the guests arrived. The young minister was English and had a hilariously droll humor that I think you would've liked. :) The weather was sunny and cheerful, and everyone was in a good mood. Every time my sister looked at her new husband, her face just beamed love; you could feel her emotion palpably, as though a heat lamp had swept over you. I almost cried a few times, but I kept it together.

I'll be back here only part-time for a little while, as I catch up on my real-world responsibilities. I was away almost a month and there's never rest for the wicked. ;) Willow (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

PS. Ummm, you know my last letter? You should ignore that; I was just being silly as usual. :P


 * As usual, I was overly ambitious with my talk. It was more like three or four talks smooshed into one. Ah well. Someday I will learn. I met lots of wonderful people, of course, but very few bookish people. Lots of computer-equation people. :) Very few word people. Ignore a Willow letter? I couldn't do that! I'm just totally overwhelmed at the moment, trying to get back into the swing of my life. Awadewit (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, welcome back. Do we get to read your paper(s) now? – Scartol  •  Tok  01:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yard and Crane
Hi, Awadewit, how are you? I hope your trip went well. Thanks muchly for fixing the list of works header at Robert Sterling Yard; if it's not one MOS idiosyncrasy, it's another, right? Also, I thought you may be interested in knowing that I have almost-kind-of-sort-of-hopefully finished most of Stephen Crane, which is now sitting at GAC. I believe I mentioned it to you when I began working on it over Christmas, but it's now almost, etc. finally complete! I would greatly appreciate your feedback on it if/whenever you get the time, but absolutely no rush, of course. It'll take forever to be reviewed for GA, after all, and then it will receive a lengthy PR treatment. Now the trouble is finding a new project to procrastinate on... María ( habla con migo ) 18:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I will definitely review it, but not until August. All of my big projects have to be put off until then. I don't suppose I could tempt you with a Mary Shelley article? I'm working on a featured topic that will include all of her works (there is a list on my userpage). There are interesting novels just waiting for articles! Incest, war, love, and death! She was a Romantic, ya know. :) Awadewit (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tempt away! What do you have in mind?  Her works, I'm sure, but Percy, Byron, Claire?  Sex, drugs and rock and roll?  María ( habla  con migo ) 14:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OMG. If you would do Percy Bysshe Shelley, I would be, like, so grateful, dude. :) Canonical literary figures like PBS are very time consuming when one isn't already an expert! Qp10qp might be willing to work on PBS with you, I don't know. We once discussed it and shuddered in fear - we were afraid of drowning, too, I think (bad PBS joke, sorry). If you want something smaller but still high profile, try MS's novel The Last Man. There is a film adaptation coming out this year. (Perhaps that could get on the main page!) Someone has started Claire Clairmont, but they could do with a little help, I think. Her life is a soap opera that is hard to untangle. I have good bibliographies for all of these - just no time, no time! Awadewit (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Percy (and any other major English poet) scares me on many levels, but I could, um, help? :) I'm actually more familiar with him and his fellow poets than I am with Shelley; I've read Frankenstein, of course, but nothing else.  I'm such an average American -- save for the fact that I'm one of the few who know that "Frankenstein" is not the name of the monster.  Every Halloween I have to drop some knowledge on poor unsuspecting trick-or-treaters!  I actually did an early GA review for Claire, and I think Qp10qp is already helping out there.  Maybe once a priority list is drawn up, I'll be able to decide what to sink my claws into.  The fall semester begins in a month, so I plan to enjoy what's left of the summer before burying my head in the books again. María ( habla  con migo ) 14:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What about working on Frankenstein with Laser brain? That is definitely the most important work by Mary Shelley and I'm sure he would appreciate the help! Awadewit (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I do have Percy on the distant horizon, and Mathilda (novella) for the Autumn (just re-read it, sources now collected), but I have a big FA planned to work on before then, all things being equal. I've been reading Mary Shelley's notes on Percy's poems (quite substantial), but, as Awadewit says, PBS is a colossal task. Reading through the poems will be a major job in itself.


 * By the way, Awadewit, could you possibly look into something for me, with your librarian manquée hat on? Percy Bysshe Shelley, a Biography: Youth's Unextinguished Fire,1792-1816 by James Bieri seems remarkably unavailable to borrow or buy. Did it in fact ever come out? This guy Bieri is an amateur but the pedantic thoroughness he shows in the second volume would come in very handy for the young Shelley. Perhaps it's a POD, or something. I just wonder why I can't even get a sniff of a copy. qp10qp (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and welcome back. Bet it wernt arf ot. qp10qp (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's right here in our library. We have four copies. Do you want me to mail you one? Or you can buy it directly from the press (very expensive, though). Awadewit (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't need it yet, but I'll bear that in mind. Many thanks. It's reassuring to know that it's not a phantom book, anyway, and so I will keep a serious watch out for a used one. It's a challenge for me now, like Moby Dick was to Captain Ahab. The other volume was expensive, but some things you gotta have, and for Shelley (on Gradgrindish ole Wikipedia, anyway) this is one of them, unfortunately. My nearest library is about the size of two sheds knocked together: the librarians are very willing, but they panic as soon as you mention the word "book". qp10qp (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

O for the wings
Although it was simpler in Nuthatch to change seed wings to an alternative material, seed husks, this is what seed wings actually are (just pointless information). jimfbleak (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Not pointless at all! Awadewit (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch July 28
Awadewit, the piece that Laser, Eubulides and you started long ago is up for FCDW/July 28, 2008 (they always publish at least three days late, often five). Regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I've done some fine-tuning. Awadewit (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing date auto-formatting
You're most welcome, Awadewit! The move appears to be very popular, with rebuttal by a contributor at only two out of many many articles. Tony  (talk)  13:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Image Chagrin
Of course I don't hate you. The exclamation points were a bit much, but I know they were meant at least partly in good fun (I hope). Lemme know if I missed anything. Cheers! – Scartol  •  Tok  17:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Would smiley faces have been better? :) Awadewit (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Fortunate in my friends
Dear A,

I just got a nice letter from a professor whom I think you met, telling me a funny story that I think you've heard, about a certain article that we both worked on? Thank you; I'm really touched by your kindness. At the end, he wrote that I was fortunate in my friends, and I couldn't agree more. Willow (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Willow changes the world one person at a time. :) Awadewit (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Félix Houphouët-Boigny
It does sound like a great project, but I've got some stuff to do IRL which must take precedence. Holler at me again in two weeks if you still want my help? – Scartol  •  Tok  14:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. Awadewit (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Nuthatch
Thanks again for your ce work, which got this one through. The bad news is that Greater Crested Tern will be flying in soon, just waiting for some possible additional stuff from storm-lashed NZ before posting. 05:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me know if the article needs any polishing. I'll be busy until the beginning of August, but then I can help. Awadewit (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team Mission 5: Solar solicitude/solidarity
Hi Awadewit,

As an FA-Team member, I'm soliciting your assistance with FA-Team Mission 5 on Scattered disc and Solar energy (and possibly others). Your all round FA and FA-Team expertise would be much appreciated. Please sign up on the mission page and watchlist the mission page and articles if you are interested in helping out. Thanks, Geometry guy 15:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 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) 05:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Quiney nominated for GA.
Hi Awadewit,

Since you were kind enough to review Judith Quiney last year, I'm being so forward as to let you know that I've finally got around to applying the polish to Thomas Quiney and nominated it for GA; particularly since the two were originally written i parallel (so are very very similar) and I used your GA review of Judith's to try to polish Thomas'. --Xover (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm very busy right now, but if I have time next week and the article is still up, I'll definitely review it. Awadewit (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if you get a chance that would be awesome; but please don't feel obligated on this. I mainly just thought you might be interested, and given lack of time is why this didn't happen last year when Judith's article went through GA, I completely sympathise with your time constraints. --Xover (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review the article! I had pretty much stared myself blind at it and your review was immensely helpful (and triggered some fascinating research on the subject)! I think we've adressed all the points you brought up (hopefully to satisfaction). --Xover (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet review
This article is up for peer review and several editors from the Shakespeare project are working on it. We've covered just about everything from the Peer review so far and I think we're about ready for one of your reviews. Wrad (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to do a peer review for R&J, but I won't be able to get to it until the beginning of August. Will that be too late? Awadewit (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That will be fine. Wrad (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly
Hello there! New: Episode 58: Wikimania 2008, Jimbo and Reflections. Have a listen. Also, if you haven't heard, all of the other Wikimania episodes are up and accessible through the homepage at http://wikipediaweekly.org. Peace.  W ODU P bot  09:10, 28 July 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.

Nuthatch
Thanks for letting me know, quite a surprise given the struggle to get it through. I can't help thinking the ill-thought out "oppose" from Ottava Rima actually helped the cause. Thanks again for your help, sorry to say there's yet another one from me in the system now (three birdies at FAC in total) jimfbleak (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Take a break
Hey A.. I know how hard you're always working here, at school, at the Library of Alexandria, etc. So I thought you might enjoy a half-hour break watching the new blockbuster documentary film about a road trip the wife and I took this summer. It's edited together with music and silliness and stuff – not the drab usual home movie, I promise. Cheers! – Scartol  •  Tok  21:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words. =) I did indeed spend many hours editing, but now I can watch it over and over. (And notice all the tiny things I wish I'd done differently, heh.) Cheers! – Scartol  •  Tok  21:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Cartography
Hi A, I will try to get you a more detailed explanation soon, but for US maps here is something that may help; User:Ruhrfisch/Resources. Maps of the UK are tricky because of Crown copyright, but Online Map Creation has free maps of the whole world and you can add cities, grids (lat and long), etc. She traveled in Europe so borders will have probably changed since then. I use MS Paint and Paint.NET for playing with the images. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I've got a version of the map, but none of my Windows programs will open it and I can't figure out how to alter it with my Linux programs! Ah! Awadewit (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What are the file extensions? I often just capture the screen with Control and Print Screen and paste it into Paint. Paint.NET is useful as it can do layers, varies the opacity of those layers, and rotates the images any number of degrees. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried both of the download versions, .art and .ps, neither worked in Paint or Paint.NET. .art worked in GIMP, though. I just can't figure out how to change the colors to match the WikiProject Maps guidelines. *sigh* (See the lovely article the first one is for - History of a Six Weeks' Tour.) Awadewit (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. You probably already know this, but .art is ART image file format, which can be opened in old versions of Internet Explorer and saved as a bitmap, while .ps is PostScript, which you may be able to open with some sort of PDF program. Can you save the GIMP version as a bitmap or png and then work on it in Paint? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * PS Bluestocking in the article is a dab. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is one reason why I am a Neanderthal ;-) - I know Paint works with the little eyedropper color selector and bucket filler for colors. Print Screen also works every time ;-) Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It has opened in Paint! Yeah! (The first computer problem to go right for me today). Awadewit (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, so here is my first effort at the map - Image:HistorySixWeeksTourMap.png. All help and advice would be appreciated. Lots of its could be improved, I realize that. Awadewit (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Forgive my butting in, but I like messing around with graphics. What's the original source map you used, A? The lines appear very jagged, and I'm wondering how we might combat this. (I've got a number of graphics translation programs so perhaps I can be of service?) Maybe it would help to start with a blank map of Europe from the Commons? – Scartol  •  Tok  01:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I used the online map creation program recommended by Ruhrfisch above. Awadewit (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's very impressive. I'm impressed anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks quite nice, especially for a first map making effort. I assume that each dot represents a stay? Why are there two overlapping dots at Cologne? Two nearby stays or stays on each trip? Would it help to color code the dots for the trips? Red for one trip, green for the other, and perhaps black for cities that did not visit (Leipzig, Munich, Amsterdam)? If they stayed somewhere each time, then a split dot could be used (left side one color, right side the other color). It appears the second journey ended in Switzerland, but this is not clear from the map or a very quick reading of the article. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why the Cologne and Bonn dots are so close together. I like your idea of color-coding the dots. Working on that now. Awadewit (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See what you think. Awadewit (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Much clearer. I would try to clear up the small stray black marks, especially in eastern Europe (lakes perhaps, but not colored blue?) There are also two black dots on the English coast that are unlabeled - I am fine with unlabeled green and red dots, but am not sure of the purpose / usefulness of unlabeled black dots. I had thought the overlapping Cologne dots might br Cologne and Deutz (across the Rhine from each other). Bonn should be below and a bit to the right - see Image:Germany CIA map extended.gif. Would it make sense to add a small key in the lower left corner with red and green dots and something like "1814 trip" and "1816 trip"? Finally I think it has to be made clear that the return journey to England in 1816 is not shown (presumably because they flew home ;-))(or presumably it is not described in the book). I knew Shelley drowned somewhere in Europe (Italy) and thought at first the 1816 trip ended in Switzerland because his life did there too. Very nice job! Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 10:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Working on those suggestions, thank. Perhaps you could help me figure out why I can't properly fill the sea on this map? The English Channel is currently a land bridge. Awadewit (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed the unlabeled black dots and tried to clear up the black marks. I used very detailed latitude and longitude numbers for Cologne and Bonn, so I don't know how they could be wrong. I think the dots are just very big. I've added a key. The rectangle isn't quite in the right place, but I couldn't move it once I had placed the dots. Oof. I've added a note to the image description page that the 1816 return trip is not on the map because the source map doesn't contain it. Awadewit (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks really great - I can fix the box if you want me to. I fixed the ocean color on Image:RamblesMap.png - to use fill, there has to be a complete border and there were some one pixel gaps in the coastlines. I should have mentioned that I always save a copy of the base map (before labels) to fix problems like this. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, silly me. Thanks so much for fixing that! If you could fix the rectangle or tell me how, that would be much appreciated. Awadewit (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There are copies of the basemap saved on Commons without the box there - I was going to save one of those earlier versions to my computer, open it, copy the coastline and paste it in the latest version over the right end of the box, then redraw the box end over the ocean. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * PS Assuming you used OMC for the base map, I would credit that on the image page. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed the box in the corner of the Six Weeks map. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the barnstar - it is much appreciated. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

On a short lead
Hi, Awadewit, I'm in a bit of a pickle over at Stephen Crane. Another user and I disagree on the length of the lead (roughly 400 words) and whether or not it contains superfluous detail. I wrote the current incarnation, so of course I'm biased, but I think it adequately follows WP:LEAD. Do you have time to comment upon its state? Would you suggest anything be removed or changed? The pertinent discussions can be found on the article's talk page. We'd appreciate your input! María ( habla con migo ) 14:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Online and offline sources
First, I'm not dogmatic about making an online/offline distinction either; it was just the first phrase that came to mind. Further, as I looked into what is available to the "average" Wikipedian about The Readers' Guide, I found that an electronic version of it currently exists. (No, I don't know when it went online; my knowledge of it is pretty much circa-1980, when I last vitally needed to know how to use it.) So any of the online databases mentioned in the Signpost article would be an equally good place to start as at the Reference Desk of a library. However, as you probably would agree, there is a lot of information which currently is only in print, & is only findable using print reference works, e.g., Business Periodical Index, The Year in English series, etc. I do know that I am not qualified to write such an article (as well as the fact that my mother-in-law died last Friday, which not only means that am I busy helping with that, but I don't have a reliable connection to the Internet for the week), so I hope one of Wikipedia's many librarians could either be encouraged to write such an article -- or know of one that could be "adapted" to the Signpost's needs. -- llywrch (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In your debt
I notice that you have, unasked, copy edited Greater Crested Tern. As always, I am very grateful for this assistance. I hope it is a bit more straightforward than nuthatch! jimfbleak (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Getting close?
See User_talk:SandyGeorgia I know you've put a lot of work inot the review; how is it looking? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Feminism
I figured if there's anybody out there that would know offhand about related WP:FAs, it'd be you. :) Would you be able to take a glance at the list so far at Portal talk:Feminism/Selected article and see if you can think of other relevant WP:FAs that could be added, either general articles or biographies? It's for a Featured portal drive. Thanks for your time, Cirt (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Awadewit. Thanks for your help with the feminism portal drive.  The list of biographies is pretty long.  Would appreciate your astute editorial eye if some of them ought to be culled.  As long as we have at least 10 we're in good shape for featured portal candidacy.  More is better, but we might be unfocused with this broad a selection.  Your estimate of the appropriate standards is probably better than mine.  Durova Charge! 16:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If someone else could look through the "Music" and "Video game" sections of the FAs, I would appreciate it. That is not really my forte. I have looked through the rest. Awadewit (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As a Video Game Addict, I took a look at the VGFAs, and didn't really see anything that fit the bill. (It's almost as though the video game industry is dominated by emotionally-stunted males!) The only game I'm really inclined to call feminist at all is Metroid, since it had a female protagonist when such a thing was unheard of. But it's not an FA, sad to say.


 * As for music, I've sometimes heard Kate Bush described in feminist forms, but the word doesn't appear in the article. Rebecca Helferich Clarke is described in the lead as "the most distinguished British female composer of her generation" – useful? Gwen Stefani is sometimes seen as a trailblazer for women in ska, and The Supremes were certainly one of the most important US female music groups of the 20th century. – Scartol  •  Tok  21:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Selected anniversaries
Please check out Portal talk:Feminism. Would appreciate your help fleshing out the other months in this new subsection of the portal. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 03:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is great fun! Awadewit (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Candide
Candide, being recently, and completely, copyedited by User:CharlotteWebb, is now ready for your re-inspection. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A Favour to ask re:India House
Hello Awadewit, I was wondering if I could ask you for a massive favour and have a look at India House. The article failed an FAC nom earlier, but has since undergone c/e, and I think it is more or less ready for a renom. Scartol mentioned that you may be able to make recommendations to further improve it. Would appreciate any help. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 02:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I have too many commitments at the moment. Awadewit (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikimania paper
Looks like your paper never showed up on http://wikimania2008.wikimedia.org/wiki/Presentations. Kaldari (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All of the Wikimania talks are finally available as videos. You can scroll through the list until you find "Wiki-Writing". They take a really long time to download, though. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yay, vid of A. Good stuff! So what's your take on the relationship between code and content? – Scartol  •  Tok  21:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Proserpine
GA completed, article promoted. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Félix Houphouët-Boigny
I need a couple of days to catch up with some projects. If I can do this, I'll try and read the Felix article with a view to a GA review, unless someone else picks it up meantime. Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 59
Hey there! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 59: An Interview with Sue Gardner at Wikimania 2008 has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page (at least one listener thought this could be the best interview ever), and as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. Peace.  W ODU P bot  01:10, 9 August 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.

Candide
I wrote Candide with British English, not American. I'd appreciate it you'd stick with that. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it was impossible to tell, it was such a mix. Could you please go back and make the article entirely BE? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Tell me when you're done, and I will. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Awadewit (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

William Godwin
Thanks, Awadewit, but I mainly had knowledge of one facet of Godwin which I noticed was absent from the article, which I wanted to correct and which I did correct. That is as much Godwin writing as I can contribute or am interested in contributing. --Ben Best (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies
Very sorry for the long delay in addressing your comments on the Greater Crested Tern. I've been very busy in the last few days and must have missed it on my watchlist. While you were waiting for a response, I was wondering why no one was reviewing the article. I can't believe how stupid I can be. Thanks for the review, it is really much appreciated. The bad news is that the next one really is written in American English (White-breasted Nuthatch jimfbleak (talk) 06:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Awadewit (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

date autoformatting
Awadewit—you commented here about my pro-forma post on an article talk page, proposing to remove DA. It's really part of a survey of attitudes to the move. Since no one else has posted, I can't assume consensus to remove in this case. Do you have a feeling either way? Tony  (talk)  11:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think your reasoning is spot-on and definitely agree with removal. I've posted to the talk page as well. Awadewit (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Candide's FAC (again)
Hello. I've updated my responses. Would you please update yours? Thanks. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I believe I've fixed the last issue by removing that bad image (and replacing it with a better one). -- 15:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're too fast for me! Thanks for the support. I do think the article has greatly been improved due to your rigourous criticisms. Thanks for them! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

How is Candide looking? I've been too busy to give it a careful look over. I corrected many of the redlink problems, and I can't see anything general like that. I would like your opinion, since you've devoted a lot more to the FAC than I have. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your speedy response. It was a great help to forming my own decision. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image added to Fun Home
Hi, Awadewit. I noticed that you added Image:Fitzgerald House 2.jpg to Fun Home, with the edit summary "adding free image for feminism portal". I see that that portal is working on becoming a featured portal. I don't know much about that process — do FAs associated with a featured portal have to have free images? I believe that the question of free images came up during the FAR process for Fun Home, but their absence from the article doesn't seem to have been a barrier then.

If a free image is needed, I'm not sure that the Fitzgerald House is the best choice. Although Fitzgerald does feature in Fun Home, it's more as a literary touchstone than an architectural one. Ideally, we could have a photograph of the Bechdel home, which still stands in Beech Creek, Pennsylvania — but I haven't found a free image of that house yet. A quick search on Flickr did yield this photo of Bechdel, which isn't a great photo but is licensed under cc-by-sa-2.0. I could crop that and put it in the article — I think it might be a bit more suitable than the Fitzgerald House photo. It just seems a bit tangential to me, unless I'm forgetting something in Fun Home — I'm away from my home at the moment, and can't check my copy to see if I've forgotten a Bechdelian reference to the F. Scott Fitzgerald House. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:FPORTs don't need FAs with associated free-use images, it is just an extra added nicety. However I will defer to those more familiar with the article itself as to what should go in there. Cirt (talk) 05:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All images used on portals have to be free. We are going to use Fun Home as part of the Feminism portal, so I thought this image was better than no image (the other option), but please go ahead and change out the Fitzgerald image with the Bechdel image. Awadewit (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do — real life stuff is keeping me busy, so I probably won't get to it until tomorrow or Wednesday. Hope that doesn't interfere with the FPORT process too much. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Hope that works OK for the portal. :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Which would be more fun to watch: Stonewall riots or Priestly riots?
I rewrote the Stonewall riots article, much to my unending mirth. I've asked for a PR, but had such a good time writing the article that I'm inviting you to read it for pleasure. If you're so inclined to respond at the PR, that's great. If not, have a ball reading it! --Moni3 (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Question about pictures
You've been the most eagle-eyed scrutinizer of images for FAs lately, so I'm coming to you with this question: Is having an author for an image in an FA an absolute necessity in your eyes? I'd really like to include this image of Lydia Becker in the article I'm writing about Emmeline Pankhurst, but I've been unable to find out who made it. (I've even tried contacting the Isle of Man government with no luck.) If it's going to cause headaches at FAC, I don't want to include it. Thoughts (or someone I could ask)? – Scartol  •  Tok  18:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sometimes photographers are impossible to discover for images. This is a reality. However, can you discover when it where it was first published? If it was first published before 1923, you could use "published before 1923" license. The particular 1923 license will depend on what country it was first published in (I'm guessing US or Britain). Awadewit (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, sure – I'm actually not too worried about the license. (I thought I remembered you urging me in the Peau FAC to find an author – but then I realized it was the source you'd requested.) I've not been able to find a "first published" location, but I expect since she died in 1890 there won't be much dispute about a PD tag. Thanks! – Scartol  •  Tok  19:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, it does matter which PD tag we use. We cannot use death of author + 70 years if we don't have a death date, particularly in this case, when it is theoretically possible for the image not to be in the PD. Awadewit (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I suppose you're right. Let's hope I can find more info.. – Scartol  •  Tok  23:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have a spare moment...
As someone with an eye for detail and an ever-expanding competence in the realm of image reviewing, would you mind taking a look at and commenting on the accessibility of FCDW/August 11, 2008 to the image layman? Obviously, input on any other aspect would be welcome as well. <i style="color:red;">ЭLСОВВОLД</i> talk 21:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We should be getting close to publication on that, btw. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly for the comments. I tried to address the suggestions; would you mind taking another look? <i style="color:red;">ЭLСОВВОLД</i> talk 03:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Tulips
Just a note that I think we've responded (and hopefully satisfactorily) to everything at Featured article candidates/Tulip mania. Thanks much for the review and copy edits! --JayHenry (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for doing the image reviews on U.S. Route 491 it passed. Dave (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 60
Hello! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 60: Diplopedia has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page, and as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org.  W ODU P bot  05:09, 15 August 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.