User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 39

Dean and Knapp
While you have Dean and Knapp, does it have any discussion of Ero e Leandro (a.k.a. Qual ti reveggio)? I'd love to get that article up to GA (or at least a firm B), but it doesn't seem to have a lot of sources. If Dean and Knapp have decent material on it, I might be able to improve it. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The Covent-Garden Journal
Hello Awadewit,

Myself and a few others have been attempting to improve this article recently. Ottava Rima mentioned that you might be able to produce an image of the title page of this periodical, so I just wanted to know if his suspicions were correct. Thanks for your time. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 13:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I could only find the journal published as part of the collected works of Henry Fielding, not on its own. Microfilm would be the next place to try. Do you want me to try that? Awadewit (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Anything you could do would be appreciated. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 01:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Finally done! Awadewit (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Biographical material and plagiarism
Is it posible to have some guidance on what are "commonly known facts" as regards biographical articles, and which phrases or descriptions should be rephrased. In particular, some biographical sources are nothing more than condensed listings of biographical "fact", and rephrasing or rearranging these into Wikiepdia's house style is effectively copying the material. If you want an example, the Royal Society biographical database of its deceased Fellows and the shorter Dictionary of National Biography entries are what I was thinking of. Carcharoth (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is indeed quite difficult and I have struggled with it myself. Who is this guidance for? Awadewit (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking as a high school English teacher, I can say that this line between "commonly known facts" and info requiring citations is very frequently a problem for budding writers. Another podcast maybe? Scartol  •  Tok  00:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It was really meant to be just guidance for me, but to be put somewhere where others would also benefit. Some examples would probably help. The problem is most acute in articles with only one or few sources. If you have an article built up from several sources, the problem is lessened. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Overboard, underboard, or just...on board
I'm dangerously toying with the idea of bringing And the Band Played On to FAC. Too many nonfiction books by Cirt put that idea in my head. I am expanding the criticism section, and — refreshing — it has so many reviews I'm wondering how many is too many. I think I have to split them up between literary reviews and science/legal reviews. So, at what point would you roll your eyes and say, "Enough already!" at the reviews? --Moni3 (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the weakest section is the "literary" section because it is rather listy. Is it possible to figure out the general views of the book? What did reviewers agree were the books strengths and weaknesses? I've found that book reviews tend to repeat each other a lot (it is as if they are copying each other!). In the articles where I have had to list lots of contemporary reception, I try to say "several reviewers criticized the author's melodramatic style", for example, and then give one example of that view. Does that help at all? Awadewit (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

this should do it
I've worked a lot more in, including another direct biography and some journal articles on Somerset's Case. Hope this helps, Ironholds (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A new section about La Cousine Bette so that my comments will not get lost in the meshugaas of your talk page
I prefer to err on the side of being missed, rather than risk being obnoxious with my pestering. Anyway, I replied to your final questions on the PR page, so a little later today I'll archive that sucker and send it along. Thanks again as always for your help! Scartol •  Tok  17:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How many more to go? 90? 80? :) Do you think the FT people will grant you a special dispensation and allow the creation of "Half of La Comédie humaine"? Awadewit (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Dude this will be my fourth Balzac novel FA.. If we count Les Chouans as Good-Enough, then I have around 95 to go, depending on if I take Illusions perdues as one or two pages (note: it will be one). But I love the idea of halfsies. More like 1/10th at a time.. Scartol  •  Tok  19:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have a second could you review the image objections at the FAC? I'm not familiar enough with the technical aspects to address these. I'm happy to move the images from the book if necessary, but I'm surprised at the request. (And the Bette Davis thing is all very complicated.) Thanks. Scartol  •  Tok  23:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Jappalang knows what he is doing and is very patient - just ask him for help or explanations. Awadewit (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Vanessa Rousso
Can you confirm that we have resolved all of your issues with citations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
Your recent edit removed the infobox from. IThe text has been restored, as you can see from the. If it seems wrong, fix it, don't just blank it.--Auric (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:DTTR. :) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't know. (changed the text warning to reflect user status.)--Auric (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell infobox book template
Should you ever decide to restore the infobox to the page "Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell", I hope this will aid you. All info is as near to the first edition as I can find.

--Auric (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Image Usage
Just a quick question (I was directed here by User:Yohmom): I'm looking for images on the topic of Osteitis fibrosa cystica and came across, which has a few images that I'd like to use. They're licensed under Creative Commons       Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License, which allows rights as long as the images are not being used for commercial ventures. Does Wikipedia fall under this heading? Thank you. Strombollii (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Although the Wikimedia Foundation is a noncommercial entity, our current GFDL license allows anyone, even corporations, to freely take from us and even license it commerically if they so wish. As such, the current image policy requires us to mark files licensed as fully copyrighted, noncommericial, or nonderivative as fair use. There has been discussion about changing this in the past, but for now, that is how policy is. For your case specifically, your images fall under fair use (though I have not checked to see if those images qualify as irreplaceable), though you could write to that website and see if they would be willing to relicense under a free license. NW ( Talk ) (How am I doing?) 17:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 11 May 2009 ==


 * News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
 * Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Age of Reason
I have done all I know how to convince the majority how wrong it is to remove text from an FA article without first deliberating about it. I'm sorry if I have disappointed you in the effort to keep the Moore blurbs in. I think you and the others are on the right track, though. And I wish you the very best in all your works. .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  07:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! I really appreciate your thoughtful replies on the talk page! Awadewit (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

FAR
Hi Awadewit, since you said you were interested in high standards at FARC ....
 * Featured article review/Mumbai/archive1
 * Featured article review/Prostitution in China/archive1
 * Featured article review/William Monahan
 * Featured article review/Opera (web browser)

 YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 00:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Four Award
Do you know why the WP:FOUR award has not been updated in over two weeks?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, I just noticed this. That was really sweet. You're so nice and supportive. I mean, gosh! Have a donut. Scartol  •  Tok  20:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * yum. Awadewit (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

New tasks
There are whole sections of Homo floriensis that are controversial and based on ideas proposed during the last year. Also, folks over at Bird evolution are trying to push ideas based on data from 2008 which they claim "will likely necessitate a wholesale restructuring of the avian phylogenetic tree." Based on your novel interpretation of WP:RECENTISM, propounded on Talk:Frankenstein, as a basis for disqualifying documented items within existing articles rather than new articles themselves, you have your work cut out for you.Syzygos (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Saruman, schmaruman
Hey there. Thanks for the GA assessment. Harsh but fair ;-).

I think I'm progressing in the right direction, but if you have time, I'd like to ask your view on something. Tom Shippey and Paul Kocher are among those to note that Saruman is deeply entwined in the series of events (probably not coincidences, given what appear to be Tolkien's views on fate) that drive the narrative of the first halves of The Two Towers and The Return of the King. Ultimately they lead to the (temporary, no doubt) defeat of evil in the book. Saruman's orcs attack the fellowship, causing, amongst other things, the Ents' interventions against his forces at Helm's Deep and Isengard which free up the Rohirrim to intervene in their turn at Minas Tirith against Sauron. It's not exactly hard to spot, since Tolkien has Gandalf comment on it in the text.

Now, the questions of fate vs coincidence and of evil harming itself are often taken to be themes of the book, and several of the strongest examples involve Saruman, but is that really about Saruman the character and does it belong in this article? My view so far has been that really it's about the book and just happens to involve him (and others) so I haven't reflected it in the Saruman article.

Any advice?

Ta. 4u1e (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would include it, as characters contribute to themes just like they contribute to plots. Think about it this way. If you were going to write about Frodo, would you write about "the role of the individual in history"? Absolutely! One of the questions that Frodo's character explores is whether a single person can change history. Just because other characters also explore that theme or because the novels explore it on a larger level doesn't mean it isn't integral to Frodo's character. Such a discussion would make the article much better in my opinion. Awadewit (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was coming round to that point of view, but needed a nudge in the right direction! I suspect that I'm going to have to restructure the article to deal with this kind of stuff: cramming it all into 'Characteristics' doesn't seem like the most elegant solution. Perhaps we need to add a section on 'Themes', for example? 4u1e (talk) 07:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe "Involvement in themes"? Something like that? Awadewit (talk) 05:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a go. I think I can split that off from his more specific characteristics (appearance, voice, tendency to be rather sneery, etc). I've had a look at the three FA character articles (Superman, Captain Marvel (DC Comics) and Nancy Drew) and didn't find much to inspire me there, structure-wise. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are listed as a GA reviewer. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Frankenstein
Within the next couple weeks, I'm going to try to hit the notes hard and get everything done that was on my list. -- Laser brain  (talk)  08:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow - that won't happen for me. I'm hitting the dissertation hard. I'll try and wrap up my other wiki-projects so that I can focus on Frankenstein this summer. Perhaps I can try to have my notes done by the end of July? Would that be ok? Awadewit (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, absolutely. It just happens to be a good time for me. Good luck on your 'tation. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

jackdaw
If you can think of any literary allusions of jackdaws I have missed, let me know, but don't spend too much time on it :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I will try to work on this tomorrow. Awadewit (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: another one I am beginning to work up is Asmodeus '(grins devilishly)'' - give me a yell when you want a copyedit of the Historian, and I will see if I can add anything else..Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Five on a Treasure Island. Full of the buggers. –  iride scent  05:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So funny - that is one of those lit articles that is all plot summary! :) Btw, I just read in the Enid Blyton article that she is the sixth-most translated author in the world. Really? I wonder... Awadewit (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Aaaaaaargh!!!!!!!!!! Blyton! oh noes!! (calms down)'' great. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * @Awadewit, yeah well, MacDonalds and KFC are popualr too but this is no indication of quality....Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 18 May 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Writers needed
 * Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
 * Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
 * News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Neil Hamilton Fairley/archive1 - images
Hi Awadewit. I can't tell whether the nominator at Featured article candidates/Neil Hamilton Fairley/archive1 has addressed the image concerns you brought up or not. Could you revisit the nomination and leave a quick note as to whether the changes he made were adequate or not? Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I must have accidentally unwatched that - sorry. All is in order. I've said so explicitly now. Awadewit (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Karanacs (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

vampire killing kits and other fun packs for picnics
Hmmm...I've looked in my vampire books and there are plenty of entries on individual methods of killing vampires, as well as a table or two, but I can't find a mention of a kit as such. I reminisced about films such as the Lost Boys and wonder if there might be an article out there in scholar-land. We had a section Vampire#Protection in the vampire article which covered more folklore than fiction, and Slate had an article which highlighted vulnerabilities. JayHenry found this too, and I am sure there are others. My instincts tell me something like "Methods of destroying vampires" would be a better title. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds a little broader than I wanted to do at this time. I'm surprised, actually, as there are plenty of faux-vampire-killing kits for sale. Ah well. Awadewit (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ???? really - food for thought....Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See here. Some originals have sold for enormous amounts of money at Sotheby's and whatnot. :) Awadewit (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:FOUR
You have a current nominee at WP:FOUR. We are trying to clear out the log of nominees without having the nominator confirm the eligibility. If you have a chance could you help confirm a nominee or two.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the Four Award! Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Pinafore peer review
Hi Awadewit. You had indicated that you would take a look at H.M.S. Pinafore when you had time. Not to rush you, but we have finished responding to everyone else's comments at this point. Thanks so much for your help. The peer review is here: Peer review/H.M.S. Pinafore/archive1 Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry it has taken me so long. I've started tonight and I will make every effort to finish up tomorrow night. Awadewit (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yay! :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Time Traveler's Wife
Sorry, should have sent you a heads-up Talk:The Time Traveler's Wife/GA1. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking of.... as soon as the mare foals, I should be free to go to U of I. I've even found the Undergrad library on the map! So start assembling your list. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Here it is!
 * v48 # 2, No.493, February 2002 - Locus - Review of The Eyre Affair by Faren Miller


 * v47 # 2, No.487, August 2001 - Locus - Review of The Eyre Affair by Jonathan Strahan


 * Apr 2002 - Locus - Review of The Eyre Affair by Gary K. Wolfe


 * Thanks so much for doing this! Awadewit (talk) 03:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you want the time traveler one too? I should be able to get there today... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Or not. Car started making funky noises... I don't do distance drives when it's making weird noises! Later this week (Have to return books by the 29th, so I will get there this week) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I need the Time Traveler one, too. Thanks again! Awadewit (talk) 04:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Kmeic
Great work!--Tznkai (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Double Four Award
Keep up the amazing work! Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It is always nice to be reminded of the Wollstonecraft days! Awadewit (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome - as I think you already know, TonyTheTiger nominated you for both awards, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Peer review/Billie Jean/archive2
I think I've dealt with the image concerns you had in Billie Jean's FAC—I've expanded the fair use rationales and added a moving gif file for Jackson's moonwalk. Your comments would be more than welcome at the above peer review. :)  Pyrrhus 16 ''' 14:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I will look at this tomorrow. Awadewit (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Awadewit (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I've removed the David Cook sample, but have no idea how to create or convert ogg video files.  Pyrrhus 16 ''' 12:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Did you know...
JulieSpaulding (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Two questions
Hey Awadewit, I have a couple of questions for you regarding Stanford Memorial Church. First, Robert Huw Morgan has graciously given his permission to put a clip of one of his performances on the organ in the article. How would I go about adding that to the article? Secondly, I'm adding some details about the church's architecture and artwork. According to Glory of Angels by Robert C. Gregg, the original dome, before the 1906 earthquake, had a fresco of a God's eye in it, so that when you looked up into it, you saw the eye staring down at you. Pretty freaky, eh? Anyway, there's a picture of the eye in Gregg's book, and I was wondering if a copy of the image would be fair-use, since it was taken pre-06 but it's in a more-recently published book. While you're thinking about that, could you please go over to the article and look at the tables I added? Personally, I think they're ugly, and think that we should break-out with a new article. Erp agrees, but would you mind weighing in on the matter? Thanks for all your help. --Christine (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I will look at this tonight. Btw, do you still want me to compare the article to its sources? Awadewit (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not just yet. I'm still adding content, and expanding the sections as requested by the FAC reviewers.  I'll let you know when I'm ready, thanks. --Christine (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just drop me a note. Awadewit (talk) 05:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Christine, on the Morgan front, you need to have him upload the recording (in OGG format - if you need someone to translate it into OGG, let me know and I can do that) and declare on Commons that it is him and he is releasing under a CC-by-SA license, GFDL, or PD. He'll probably want to do a CC-by-SA 3.0 license. He would need to have an account on Commons to do this. Alternatively, someone else (like you or me) could upload the file and he could send an email to OTRS saying that he was releasing the clip under one of the above licenses. Awadewit (talk) 04:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Tell ya what--I'd bet that you already have Theora (I don't), so if you could convert one of his videos to OGG, I'll do the rest. There are a few samples of Morgan's performances at MemChu on his webpage .  If you wouldn't mind, could you convert one of the videos with him in his bare feet, since that's what I told him I'd do?   (Somebody playing the organ with his bare feet; I just think that's so cool.)  Would OTRS accept Morgan's email to me?--Christine (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've very new to the video thing, so it is going to take me a few days to get it right. :) Morgan needs to email OTRS himself, I think, to be on the safe side. Awadewit (talk) 05:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The God's Eye fresco is awesome! The all-seeing eye of God right there above you - how nineteenth century. If the photograph was published before 1923, then you can use it. The key to copyright is publication. Does that make sense? Awadewit (talk) 04:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse my denseness. So this means that we wouldn't be able to use it because it was in the Gregg book, which was published in 1995.  Too bad the image wasn't published (or in something we can find) pre-1923, because it'd be a good example of Jane Stanford's sensibilities and taste. --Christine (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's right - if you can't find any evidence of the photo being published before 1923, you cannot use it. :( Awadewit (talk) 05:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The tables need help. :) If you retain them in this article, they need to all be of one style, for example. Also, there is a lot of white space on the right-hand side of the article now. Is there any way to stack the little ones? I'm unsure about an entire article just on this topic. That seems a little bit excessive to me - I think refining this is the way to go. For example, instead of listing all of the mosaics straight down, could you list them next to each other like this: "Noah, Noah's wife, Isaac, etc...."? That would save some space. Awadewit (talk) 04:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I think my changes to the mosaics table is adequate, but the windows one is way beyond me. I think the solution is to nest the tables, but I'm stupid about coding, so I haven't been able to figure it out.  I'll ask Scartol, the tables guru, to help out. --Christine (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The changes are a definite improvement. There must be a way to improve those four tables, but I am a prose person, not a table person. :) Have you tried just looking around at other articles that use tables to see all of the options? That's what I do. Awadewit (talk) 05:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A question about paragraphs in quotations
Hello Awadewit, I have a query about formatting in quotations, and qp10qp suggested that I ask you, because you are particularly rigorous. :-) If you have time, would you mind taking a look? It is here. If you're busy, please feel free to ignore. Cheers,  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 07:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Commented. Awadewit (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

List of jazz standards (before 1930) peer review request
Hi! I found your name on the WP:Peer review volunteers list. Could you take a look at List of jazz standards (before 1930) if you have time? The peer review is located here. I've split the former List of jazz standards in four due to WP:Article size, and this one is the first that I've updated into a new format. I'd like to get some input on the list before I change the three other lists. The WP:Peer review jazz expert (Kakofonous) seems to be inactive, so I thought I'd ask you even though the request isn't strictly 17th-century, 18th-century, and 19th-century art or classical music... Thanks for your time! Jafeluv (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't have time at the moment - sorry! Awadewit (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for the quick response. Jafeluv (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 25 May 2009 ==


 * License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
 * News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace?
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

D Kmiec
Great work improving the Kmiec article! Nathan  T 13:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 05:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Shall We Play A Game?
Pursuant to this exchange about finding a link between our two literary Wikipedia obsessions, I propose a game for us to waste precious time with, somewhat akin to Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. I call it Six Wikilinks to Wollstonecraft: I'm going to try it right now. Scartol •  Tok  17:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Click the Special:Random button on the left toolbar.
 * 2) In six clicks or less, find your way to Mary Wollstonecraft. (I'll shoot for Honoré de Balzac.)
 * 3) No fair adding wikilinks, even if it should be linked!
 * 4) Extra bonus points for synchronicitous random page assignments. (That is too a word, WP spellcheck!)
 * Results of my first attempt, then I'll leave you alone: Seven links. My random article was Entry (cards) -> Bridge (game) -> Oxford English Dictionary -> William Shakespeare -> Charles Dickens -> Realism (arts) -> Literary realism -> Honoré de Balzac. Beat that! Scartol  •  Tok  17:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Random article Entry (cards) -> User talk:Awadewit -> Talk:Mary Wollstonecraft -> Mary Wollstonecraft. 4! ; / Ottava Rima (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No no no! No fair using "What links here" — you must use the links in the article text! Scartol  •  Tok  18:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want cheating then I can just add some. Obviously, Mary Wollstonecraft coined the term "Entry" in regards to cards, didn't ya know. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Random article Entry (cards) -> Card game -> Henry Jones (writer) -> Category:English writers -> Category:English novelists -> Mary Wollstonecraft 6! Ottava Rima (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Both mentioned in Lesbian. Slam! --Moni3 (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, very nice. But you're all supposed to come up with your own random articles to start from! (And presumably you'll use your own target article to shoot for, although you're welcome to use good ol' Mary W.) Scartol  •  Tok  20:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The game where I win and stuff is better. Fine... Post-it notes to Gatorade...let's see if it's possible. --Moni3 (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Post-it note → Arthur Fry → University of Minnesota → University of Florida → Gatorade. Эlcobbola  talk 20:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried it with Frankenstein. My results: Schoolhouse Rocks the Vote!: A Benefit for Rock the Vote → Etta James → The Rolling Stones → London → England → English literature → Frankenstein. Barely made it. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try! I tried The Wiggles.  Province House → Canada → Commonwealth of Nations → South Australia → List of people from Adelaide → Sam Moran → The Wiggles.  This is fun! --Christine (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Awadewit, you don't mind if we hijack your talk page for this ridiculous nonsense, right? You didn't have any actual business to conduct here, did you? Scartol  •  Tok  01:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Random click: George H. Noonan > Republican Party (United States) > Abolitionism > William Blake > Mary Wollstonecraft! (By the way, I like how quickly I enter the liberal realm, there.) Awadewit (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, see Wiki-Link Game and Six degrees of Wikipedia. :) Budding Journalist 07:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (random to my pet article, William Barley) Kumanovo Municipality -> City -> London -> Ben Jonson -> Ben Jonson folios -> William Barley (!)
 * (random to Wollstonecraft) Kumanovo Municipality -> City -> London -> Somers Town, London -> Mary Wollstonecraft Budding Journalist 07:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have a bio FA, but Auguste Rodin was closest. So: René de Obaldia -> Académie française -> Honoré de Balzac [bonus points for passing through Scartol's!] -> Auguste Rodin. I got a random French subject, so I'll try again.
 * Torsion-free -> Mathematics -> G.H. Hardy -> Camille Jordan -> École Polytechnique -> Champs-Élysées -> Tuileries Palace -> Franco-Prussian War -> Meudon -> Auguste Rodin. [Too long! But I purposely avoided French]. Outriggr (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mine Keith Rossiter -> County Wexford ->Henry VIII of England -> Thomas Wolsey -> Archbishop of York -> Paulinus of York (todays TFA! Do I get bonus points?) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! We should play only with FAs! :) Awadewit (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk about luck! This morning, I played this game with the article I'm focusing on now.  Random article: 2002 College World Series → Stanford Cardinal → Stanford University → Stanford Memorial Church.  Beat that, suckas! --Christine (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

How shocking! It's been bowdlerized!
Hey, can someone smarter than me (pointing my chin at you) take a look at this draft of the Background_section for Naked Ali, please? Ling.Nut (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I will not have time to look into this in any depth until Friday. Awadewit (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I replied to your comments re: Naked Ali. i think asking them to strikethrough is reasonable; I dunno if there's cause to be angry about it though... Ling.Nut (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the entire GAR? I think I have been rather patient in general - it has been going on for almost a month now. I feel as if it is a gigantic review, not a GAR. Awadewit (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm very good at concentrating on other things, but I have Wiki-ADD... after more than two years, posts just all kinda run together etc and I skim a lot.. minor burnout symptom ... have people been truculent etc.? Note that I agree that people should strike SYN comments if they can't be established after a while.. but I kinda thought you were really into this Burroughs topic.. for me, Burroughs is just the guy who takes credit for mumbles an old old African American (Walter Donaldson / Edgar Leslie) song on The Black Rider... Ling.Nut (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No - too twentieth century for me. I'm an eighteenth-century scholar, after all. I can't stand his style. Every time I have to read the short story to comment on the article, I gag. :) (Btw, there are people at the GAR claiming the article can never be GA because there isn't enough scholarship on the book - that sort of thing.) Awadewit (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Holy Cow! I would've thought it would be blasphemy for one Lit person to say "I gag" about the works of a Lit-saint, even if that saint is from a different denomination, so to speak. To let you know how unspeakably lowbrow I am (you probably already know), I read the same Burroughs stuff and thought "Mmmmmm... Burroughs... Ling.Nut (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm a heretic. :) Awadewit (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Pinafore
Hi. Would you kindly strike through the ones that we have recently satisfied, so that it is easy to see where we are? I think there are a few more that are OK now. I'm still waiting for Shoemaker to advise on the images, but he doesn't seem to be feeling well enough lately to address it, so I'll have to be patient. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been doing that. Awadewit (talk) 03:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think you missed the one on 'Big, big D'  All the best,  -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Newington Green Unitarian Church
Subsequent to this discussion, I would like to unveil for you a new article, Newington Green Unitarian Church. Enjoy! Your thoughts are appreciated. Any idea of other editors to whose attention I should bring this? BrainyBabe (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to look at it this weekend. I would also suggest asking and . Awadewit (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Returned victorious...
With specified Locus reviews in hand. Give me a few days to get them scanned, and go ahead and drop me an email through Wiki, so I have your address to send the attachments. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Awadewit (talk) 05:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Re Ali's Smile GAR
Thank you very much for agreeing to take a look at Ling's text despite your disenchantment with the reassessment. It really is much appreciated, and I'd just like to reassure you that my emphasis on this point in my closure proposal reply to Ling is not intended to imply that I believe there are any OR or SYNTH issues to be addressed (knowing you and your work as I do this would normally go without saying, but it never hurts to be clear!) I believe the thrust of Jayen's comment was with regard to 3(b) (focus), and as a substantive point and one on which Ling has put in considerable effort, even though Jayen has struck their comment I'd like to be sure it has been seriously considered. I hope you understand. Best regards as always, EyeSerene talk 17:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughtful closure comments. Awadewit (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Billie Jean
You told me to remind you about the video conversion for the moonwalk. There's no rush, though.  Pyrrhus 16 ''' 10:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Paraho process
You removed the Paraho process for the DYK nomination list. Did you checked the article before removing it? Because the problem the article was copyedited ja the problem was resolved (and this was did even before the last comment by Moonriddengirl. Could you please restore the nomination. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I assumed the issue had not been resolved since there were no additional comments. I will be happy to look at the article again, however. I started by looking at footnote 2, which is a 517-page document. Could you please add page numbers to this note and any others that reference documents of significant length? Readers need to know where to go to find the information you are pointing to. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I added missing page numbers. Regards. Beagel (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I can't restore the DYK nomination. There are still some problems with paraphrasing in the article. I left an explanation at Talk:Paraho process. Awadewit (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyway. Beagel (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost <span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: 1 June 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Browsing the archives
 * Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
 * Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
 * News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Awadewit - Thank you so much for the note you left me the other day. It really touched me and went a long way toward dispelling some of the doubts I've been having about being here. I'm hoping we'll have Lucy up for a second run soon, and that I'll have a chance to work with you again as well. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is wonderful news to hear! Awadewit (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Pinafore
Hello, A. I've made some more progress. Would you kindly update the strike-outs so I know where we stand? I know that I still need to do more research on the musical analysis, but I've taken care of most of the other time-consuming stuff, I think. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have now returned from vacation and struck everything. How is the musical analysis section coming? Awadewit (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

MemChu close paraphrasing
A, I realize you're still on vacation (I hope you're having fun!), but I wanted to add my voice to all those clambering for your attention. I'm now ready for you to complete your review of the close paraphrasing problem. As promised, I've expanded the architecture and earthquakes sections; I've also restructured part of the article and added some images. (Scartol is gonna see if he can improve the tables.) Take your time, though; I suspect that you'll need to recover from your vacation. Thanks again for everything. --Christine (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I will try to get to this tomorrow! Awadewit (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Miss Sue From Alabama
I know your busy, but if you get a chance in the next 7 days, could you see if you can locate some sources for this article? <font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Sy <font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">n 22:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see someone found a source! (I was away all week - sorry I couldn't help out!) Awadewit (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Senior Editor
Hi, I award Senior Editor (or Grand and Glorious Tutnum of the Encyclopedia) to you. I know, you're on vacation. One week after your vacation I'll try to remind myself to upgrade this award to Master Editor (or Complete and Perfect Tutnum of the Encyclopedia), as you passed the 40,000 edit mark a while ago, and will be editing Wikipedia for 5 years on July 18. You're still displaying yourself as an iron lady on your user page. You're entitled to platinum. Have a nice holiday! Dedalus (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But I did so little in those early days! Can I really count those? Awadewit (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for peer review
I see that you are a volunteer peer reviewer (but also note that you are on holiday at present). I have requested a peer review for John Douglas (architect), recently accepted as a GA. Following the comments by the GA reviewer, I am wondering if it is worthwhile submitting it as a FAC. Douglas was an architect working between 1860 and 1911, mainly in Cheshire, and I wonder if he would be of interest to you and if so, could you do a peer review. Hope the holiday was good! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see the article has already been submitted to FAC! Good luck! Awadewit (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Saruman
Hope you're somewhere fun and inspiring. When you're back, any chance of having a quick look at Saruman. Proceeding in the right direction? Ta. 4u1e (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * One place I saw was Monticello, which was fun for me. I think Saruman is looking much better! The ways in which the character is interwoven into the larger themes of the novel is much clearer - he seems much "thicker" than "just a wizard" now. Awadewit (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankenstein GAR notice
Frankenstein has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Feminism
Hello Awadewit, Iam having all my contributions deleted from feminism and other related articles.
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_and_Eve&oldid=295962769
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminism&oldid=295878575 Jackiestud (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is spelling errors such as "otehr", or perhaps it is lack of page numbers, or perhaps it is from using very unreliable sources in a very biased and inflammatory way. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OR, I saw a thread on this at ANI. Try here. --Moni3 (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL!! No spelling error, only bad typing as I can see you couldn´t guess it. Unreliable sources such as Campbell, Bible and WP itself. As for the inflamatory compliment ... not as much as you are rude, unethical, agressive. If I was as inflamatory as you are rude...It´s good to know what happens here when one asks for help or a third opinion. Jackiestud (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

WillowW
Dear Awadewit: Welcome back (when you're back). Do you have any contact with WillowW? I am concerned about her because of her very abrupt, lengthy absence from Wikipedia. Finell (Talk) 01:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Every once in a while I send her an email, but I haven't received a response, so I am concerned as well. Awadewit (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering. I wish it were a different answer, though. Finell (Talk) 14:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Me too. Awadewit (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I also send Willow emails I know won't get answered. The other day I found her on the list of editors who have started the most articles, with over 4,000. I had no idea. --Moni3 (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't it amazing? She did some big project about proteins, I think. You should have seen her edit summaries! They were wonderful! So personalized. I miss her. Awadewit (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Enzymes (not just any protein :) and RNA, though those stube were only some of her most visible contributions due to their sheer volume; as I'm sure Awadewit remembers, here on-wiki interests were envy-inspiring. Willow was awesome. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I have yet to meet another editor who makes me feel so stupid, yet is so gracious about everything. I have half a mind to move her user page to Wikipedia space as a template how-to for newbies and oldies to follow. Maybe we can create a Willow out of dead leaves and fancifully painted trash bags and ask it questions only to patiently await the response and contemplate its silence with furrowed brows. --Moni3 (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Willow was the most patient editor I ever met - she explained everything to everyone - it was glorious!. I think that Willow would love that her influence is so long lasting! Or perhaps we should work on a Willow-inspired article? Awadewit (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * She told me she always wanted to improve Sappho to FA. Now that I have knocked around in the Ancient Greece section of Lesbian, I'm almost to the point of being able to assist in the history and representation portion of that article if not the poetry section. Sadly, poetry is my bane if it isn't Ogden Nash or Jabberwocky. --Moni3 (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What a teensy project! We should amass all the Willow fans to work on it! :) Awadewit (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Pinafore
Thanks for bringing the Pinafore review up to date. It looks like Shoemaker is not going to be helping any time soon, so I am on my own. I am still trying to find more musical analysis, as you had suggested. Sullivan was considered to be "slumming it" musically, when he did comic opera, so there is not the kind of musicological attention to Pinafore that there is for well-known grand operas. I had already included all the "musical analysis", such as it was, that Sullivan's major biographer, Jacobs, gave to Pinafore. Even Francois Cellier's book had nothing on musical analysis. Still, I am hopeful that I can find something more. Then I'll go to FAC. Thanks for all your help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a huge music library at my university (our music school is like number two in the country or something). I'll see what I can dig up next week. Awadewit (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Image woes
Hullo, Awadewit, how are things? Midnightdreary and I have been working on Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. for the past few months; we plan to take it to FAC within the next few days so that it can appear on the mainpage for the doctor-poet's 200th birthday in August. Because you're the most thorough image reviewer I know of, would you be willing to give the images a quick look? I just want to make sure we take care of any glaring issues in this admittedly minor area so that the reviewers will have to concentrate on the article itself, and not nitpick copyright tags and image resolution. ;) We'd greatly appreciate any help you're able to give us!  Take care, María ( habla  con migo ) 19:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done! Awadewit (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Coleridge DYK
I submitted the first set of hooks of 6 sets here at DYK. Since you show interest in reviewing DYK and have a literary eye, you might be interested in reviewing. Any problems or questions and you can contact me directly and I will quickly fix anything. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost <span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: 15 June 2009 ==


 * Book review :Review of Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
 * News and notes: License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
 * Wikipedia in the news: In the Google News, London Review of Books, and more
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemistry
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Priestley lead image
I have implemented an Infobox Scientist in the lead of the Joseph Priestley article, effectively right-aligning the much-disputed placement of the image and left my rationales on Talk:Joseph Priestley. Because I strenuously disagree with the alleged consensus about violating guidelines about image placement and consensus across a wide body of other articles, I have offered to open an RfC for more editors' involvement. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See my response at Talk:Joseph Priestley. Awadewit (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC on Joseph Priestley lead image alignment
A RfC has been opened to discuss the issue of alignment of the lead image on the Joseph Priestley article. Because you have previously commented or been involved with this issue, your input is requested. Please stop by Talk:Joseph_Priestley and leave any feedback you may have. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Major options
Thanks for taking the lead on summarizing the option and trying to wrap it up. It's clear we have a lot of options and I hope there is movement towards a consensus with which everyone can be pleased. Is this something that should be re-canvassed for previous editors' input? Madcoverboy (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you think? What about alerting the people who have commented on the RfC so far? Does that seem appropriate? Awadewit (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to re-spam those whom have commented on the RfC to date, though I wonder if we should give it a few hours to: (1) let those who have been paying close attention to the debate some time to make their preferences known and (2) prevent a fustercluck of incoherent !votes as I initially did. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Shall we wait 48 hours? Awadewit (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking something in that neighborhood. I'll go ahead and spam it out tomorrow evening if that's okay with you. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing that! Awadewit (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

H.M.S. Pinafore
I have submitted the Pinafore article to FAC: Featured article candidates/H.M.S. Pinafore/archive1. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your assistance at Pinafore. I know that the kind of careful reviews that you give are hard work, and I appreciate it.  I hope people enjoy the article.  Assuming that it gets promoted to FA, I suppose I'll ask for it to go on the main page on the 130th anniversary of its American premiere (December 1, 2009).  Any other ideas about that?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. At Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests, there is a box in the upper right, where you can try and request the date ahead of time. It doesn't guarantee you the spot, but it helps make people aware of the upcoming anniversary. Awadewit (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Lucy 'GAN
Hi, Awadewit. I know you must have a million things on your plate just now, but I though you'd want to know that I've put Lucy up for GA. I hope everything's going well with The Time Traveller's Wife; I'd hoped to help out more there... Kafka Liz (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you like some help during the GAN? Awadewit (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but only if you have the time. I know you are busy, but it would be much appreciated. I just though I'd let you know, in any case, because you've helped us so much already. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to help out! Awadewit (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! off to shake the dust off my Lucy sources ;) Kafka Liz (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking after the TFA
Hi Awadewit. I haven't been on Wiki very much recently and I will probably not be able to monitor the Calvin TFA on 10 July. Could you keep an eye on it? Flex, the other major contributor to the article also does not participate on Wiki very much, so you are probably the last expert on the article! --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure! :) Awadewit (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Billie Jean moonwalk video
Wow! Thanks. It's awesome.  Pyrrhus <font color="#FF0000">16 ''' 17:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you like it! Awadewit (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:Preserve
Hi again, Awadewit. Just wondering if you are totally burned out on the book article, The Age of Reason, issue? If you are, I do understand. If not, there might be a way to prevail using the WP:Preserve policy. It's a subsection of "Dealing with problems", a section of WP:Editing policy. This policy appears to hold that the Moore blurbs must stay in the article until the dispute is resolved – completely resolved. I don't think the dispute is resolved yet, but that's just me. How do you feel about the whole thing? .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  20:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is probably best just to let it go. Thanks, though! Awadewit (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely understandable. You put up an amazing battle.  Wish I could have come up with this Preserve thing earlier.  Anyway, thank you for making the good fight!  And best of everything to you and yours!    .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.   21:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

French version of Jospeh Priestley proposed as FA
Dear Awadewit,

I would like first and foremost to thank you for your articles regarding Joseph Priestley. I recently translated and adapted some of them in french. Joseph Priestley House is now a FA on the french Wikipedia and Jospeh Priestley is proposed today as FA. If it may be of some interest to you, the "Featured article candidate pages" in french are Discussion:Joseph Priestley House/Article de qualité and Discussion:Joseph Priestley/Article de qualité. Should you have any questions, about this or any other matter, do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours faithfully. Giovanni-P (talk) 09:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for all of your hard work! This really makes my day and is clearly what wiki is all about! Awadewit (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it was not exactly a hard work, but rather a true pleasure. Giovanni-P (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Apology
I am sorry for letting my cool slip a bit during that discussion (there is nothing like taking a day off in that situation). Had it not been a time-sensitive issue, I probably would have remained calm. I was just surprised that someone as well versed in the ways of Wikipedia as yourself, someone who had reviewed and accepted many of my previous NRHP submissions that, as far as I could tell, primarily relied on the nomination document, without comment, suddenly found this problematic. I didn't realize you weren't aware of the precedent AfDs, but there have just been so many DYK submissions from myself and other NRHP editors that I thought it was a settled issue (as indeed WP:IHN explicitly notes). Also, your comments and Jake's about the church DYK seemed, taken together, to imply that I was making the article up (picture and coords notwithstanding), which I experienced as a failure to assume good faith by one of the last editors I would expect that from.

That said, I would allow that there are some issues regarding NRHP noms (that nevertheless I do not see as fatal to their reliability even as the article's sole source, because of the review process involved). There are occasionally mistakes in them (it's been obvious that, until they started making it possible to do them on word processors, nobody really copyedited them too closely because who wanted to go through the effort to retype a seven-page narrative?), and older ones (from the early 1970s or so) are often rather skimpy as well as being outdated sometimes (my favorite example is Fish and Fur Club, where the aspect of the building singled out as giving it architectural interest and thus justifying the listing, the rustic trim on the front unusual for the region, was replaced long before I took the picture (which then made the article's DYK hook). In an ideal world someone would file an application to the NPS to delist on that basis, but I don't have the time ...).

And sometimes there are broader issues. I wrote the article on Hebrew Congregation of Mountaindale Synagogue including the fact from the nom that it was the only synagogue in Sullivan County with its own mikvah, which I successfully nominated for DYK. Then, later, the nom for Ohave Shalom Synagogue, in the same county, mentions that it, too, has a mikvah. And both noms were written by the same person. This was discussed on one of the talk pages ... I think it should be modified to the Mountaindale synagogue having its mikvah on the same property (the other one's is across the street)

However, I don't necessarily think their POV is problematic. They are trying to get these properties listed (and whatever some people think, I know from talking to property owners (and it's even in some of the articles, see Rushmore Memorial Library) that the NPS is hardly a rubber-stamp for these things. I've heard that some other states have really gushy ones, but my experience is with New York's primarily, and here we have a pretty large historic-preservation budget and thus the state has its people, or former people now working as consultants, write the noms mostly as opposed to local historical society people or activist group people (oh my, to think I wrote a sentence like that to a composition teacher!). So, New York's are often very coolly written by professionals who generally tend to let the facts (and their learned interpretations of those facts) from their research (they have to document their sources in the application just like we do, although I wish they'd be more consistent in using footnotes. And they're allowed to do original research of course) speak for themselves.

Believe me when I say that I do do a Google search on just about every property I write an NRHP article on. When the nominations are older, that can often reveal some new developments (so to speak) as it did in the case of the church. But at the same time keep in mind that while there's certainly no problem in finding additional sources for National Register listings like the Empire State Building or most other listings in large or even small cities, the only reliable source readily available to us for many listings in rural areas would be the NRHP nom (as well as for more mundane historic buildings like the post office in Hudson, New York, which I'm currently working on). It's nice that other people went and added other sources to both articles; however they didn't add much factually to the article that wasn't already in the NRHP nom, or that was encyclopedic, or I would have used them to begin with. Nor would they, on their own, have sustained the thorough articles I was able to write if New York's Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation didn't do the very valuable public service of putting those apps on its website. Frankly, as it is, those additional footnotes are little more than cluttter (or, dare I say it, notecruft), the work done in finding the sources notwithstanding.

Finally, I should call to your attention some aspects of your editing that came out in this which you may or may not be aware of that inadvertently inflamed the situation:


 * I would ask in the future that if you have the same issue with DYKs for a category of articles that you bring it up at WT:DYK instead of in each individual nom. I don't think this endeared you too much to Nlu, and while his userpage implies he's contributing less because of time issues due to increased offline responsibilities I do wonder if your dogging each and every one of his noms with the complaint that he can't use ancient histories was part of the reason he stopped contributing to DYK. It feels a bit like harassment.


 * As much as we all try to be civil in disputes offline as well as on, sometimes a cool, rational tone in response to someone getting emotional can backfire, in my experience (again, offline as well as on) since it can imply the emotional person's concerns are trivial or irrelevant. A rational tone works wonders to cool down a hot discussion when you acknowledge that someone getting emotional may have a valid concern.

That's all. Happy editing, and looking forward to working productively with you in the future. Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Comment on DYK hooks
I have produced hooks with what I perceived to be intriguing factoids aimed at a wider audience (including several at American readers as they seem to be everywhere) and these too have been questioned. On the other hand I sometimes anticipate a particular difficulty with a hook which never arises and then there are also situations where a hook is questioned repeatedly only for an admin to come along and see no problem with it whatsoever, while on other occasions this week I have had hooks approved by an admin and then questioned by someone else thus leading to a long delay. So it seems everyone has different tastes and it is difficult to please all. I have not changed anything in the last while yet several DYKs have suddenly been very difficult. I fix any problems or anything which is thought inappropriate. I can only continue as I do with the best of intentions or else give up entirely (which I hope not to do just yet). -- can  dle &bull; wicke  21:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

did you know
If your goal is to make people want to avoid submitting articles to DYK, you're on the right track. <font color="#000080">APK  <font color="#99BADD">(If You Wanna) 22:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If your goal is to be incivil, you have definitely succeeded. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And you are? (that's rhetorical) <font color="#000080">APK  <font color="#99BADD">(If You Wanna) 22:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm the guy who has most of the major DYK records and one of the top amount of DYKs in addition to having spent over a year there. That is who I am. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should have added a link to the definition of 'rhetorical'. <font color="#000080">APK  <font color="#99BADD">(If You Wanna) 23:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

APK, in the future, I would appreciate it if you would avoid personal attacks and simply respond to the issues that I raise about the DYK hooks. For example, at DYK I identified a series of issues and then narrowed down to the most important issue. All of this was clearly laid out in my posts. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)