User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 45

Image review?
Hi Awadewit! I am coming to beg for another pre-FAC image review from you (after the one you did for us at Suffolk Punch a while ago). This article is a bit longer, however, and has a few more images...it's the Horse article... I realize that going through all of the images in this article will probably take quite a bit of time, and if you do not have the time or interest, that is fine. If you do have the time and interest, however, we would love to see your comments. Thanks in advance! Dana boomer (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll do it today. Awadewit (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Awadewit, thanks for the quick image review! We'll get to work on those images, and drop you a note when we think we've fixed them :) Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Likewise, thank you. It's appreciated! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Karluk peer review
I have responded to your concerns. I wonder if you could briefly revist the review, where Eubulides has commented on the copyright status of File:Vilhjalmur Stefansson.jpg. I am still using the stand-by image at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've revisited. Awadewit (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Takalik Abaj FA review
Hi Awadewit. I have mostly lost my faith in the FA process as my experience has been that those who review articles there are condescending and unhelpful - striving harder to dismiss articles out of hand and disparage nominators than to improve the nominated articles. How happy I was to see your comments about Takalik Abaj. They were insightful and phrased in the most helpful manner, that will allow the problems to be taken care of by the nominator or others. They will surely result in improvements to the article. I am very happy to see that there are also people focusing on improving articles showing up at FA. Thanks! ·Maunus· ƛ · 08:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with Maunus. I dropped by here to say that I've responded to each of your comments and I'd appreciate it if you could drop by and have a look, and strike those that have been dealt with satisfactorily. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for those kind words! In return, let me thank you for writing about such an interesting topic - we don't get many archaeology-related FACs! I've responded and added my comments about the second half of the article. Awadewit (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've responded to your further comments - although I'm afraid that in some cases further information was just not available. Once again, I'd appreciate it if you could drop by the review page. Thank you for all the time you've spent trawling through this article. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Dearth of information is always a problem! I've revisited the FAC. Awadewit (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle PR
Thanks for all the comments. The consensus seems to be that the middle is good but the ends need a lot of work. I also didn't make your reading easier in that, after some of Brian's comments, I shuffled some sections of the article to try to improve the overall flow of the article. Thanks for sticking with reading it despite these complications. I appreciate all the time you put into this article. Jonyungk (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds right to me. I enjoyed reading the article - let me know when you nominate it for FAC! Awadewit (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do. One question: Could you please explain what you meant here, as I'm having a problem figuring it out: "In giving this opinion, Tchaikovsky now showed not only an implicit confidence in his own music, but also the realization that it now possessed the ability to sit comfortably and confidently alongside any number of their compositions, in no way suffering in the ears of any audience. - The music has a lot of agency here." Jonyungk (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just that the music can do things, like sit comfortably. Awadewit (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Voyage of the Karluk at FAC
Per your request, this is to let you know that the above is now at FAC. Thank you for your help in getting it there. A couple of points: I will shortly add a small summary table of the published voyage accounts, as you suggested (I'm not 100% convinced it's necessary but it can do no harm). Secondly, re the Stefansson image - does your recent comment on the PR page indicate that you agree that the original LOC image is free to use, or do you still have a reservation? I am keeping to the substitute image until this is resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'll comment at the FAC. I still have a reservation about the image, particularly since the LOC doesn't itself include that date on its record. Do we have any evidence that ties that date scribbled on the negative to the creation of the photo, for example? Awadewit (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

While we've got your attention...
Can you glance quickly at Thomas of Bayeux and make sure nothing imagewise is screaming? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed them up a bit - they should be ready to go now. Awadewit (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * thank you, you're a doll. (Think of yourself as a nice 18th century china fashion doll if you like...) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that revert. Browsing WP on a mobile phone. Amerique dialectics  18:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to you ...
Thanks to your help The Green Child is now an FA, but more importantly what you taught me during the process has emboldened me to look at other literature articles, and maybe try to help improve them as well. I love to learn, so I really can't thank you enough. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)--Malleus Fatuorum 17:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm so happy to hear that! Please feel free to ask me any other questions you might have or just drop by to chat! Awadewit (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway peer review
Hi Awadewit! Thanks again for the comprehensive peer review of Ernest Hemingway. Last week, just as I was updating the review, I lost power (and then internet) during the snowstorm and when I returned it had been archived. Anyway, much of the suggestions have borne fruit, and the article shows improvement. I will ask for help with the family tree; am still digging around for straightforward information about the wives; and plan to add new sub-articles about style and themes. The lead is still a problem. I'm one of those writers who simply cannot write an introduction, so I'm letting it incubate in my mind, with hopes that one day the perfect lead will simply write itself. Until then, I'll tweak slowly.

You offered a prose review. The prose is a problem, I realize, for a couple of reasons. There was an article in place, which I overlaid and to which I added sources (there were none in many sections), which resulted in stiff prose. Also I'm not entirely comfortable with the topic, as is evident in the writing. What do you think of asking someone (such as Malleus maybe) who doesn't generally write about literature to have a go at the prose? I'm at my best as a copyeditor when I know nothing about the subject.

Once the prose is smoothed out I think the article should be nominated to regain good article status and then eventually on to FAC - that's the long term goal. The short term goal is to continue research and tweak, tweak and tweak. Thanks again. Sorry for the long comment! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a hard time writing leads, too. I usually do just what you are doing. I think asking a variety of copyeditors is a good idea (Malleus may have left Wikipedia recently, I'm not sure). Some other good copyeditors are:, , and . Let me know when you want that prose review - I can't do it this weekend (I'm commenting on student papers), but I can do so sometime next week, if you think it is ready. Awadewit (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you...
...for your New Year's Wishes and the alert about Speed of Light. I've been away from Wikipedia for a bit, and am slowly working my way back. Markus Poessel (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good to hear! Awadewit (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle at FAC
Thanks very much for your input in peer review, and look forward to the same in FAC. Jonyungk (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just sending a ping to remind you that the article is at FAC. Jonyungk (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I will try to read it in the next few days, but I can't promise anything. My life is crazy beyond words right now. Awadewit (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I understand if you can't get to it in the near future and remain thankful for what you have done so far. Jonyungk (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Message from WikiProject Children's literature
I have recently proposed some extensive changes to the layout of project pages in WikiProject Children's literature. The changes can be viewed in my sandbox, and are summarised on this talk page. The proposed changes include major reformatting of the main project page, the creation of five new project sub-pages, and moves to two existing sub-pages. Please look over these proposals, and join the discussion. strdst_grl  (call me Stardust) 10:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

American Beauty FAC
Hi; I considered your comments carefully, and despite initially disagreeing, I eventually saw the wisdom of your suggested cuts. I've worked through all of them now, so I'd be happy for you to take another look. Only in a couple of spots did I retain tidbits you suggested I cull, but given the 11kb of information I've removed today I think I can justify them if you still disagree. It was only when I started editing this morning that I realised how bloody thorough your review had been, and how much thought you put into the suggested cuts. So I really must thank you again for taking the time to look at the article. As an aside ... I hope you realise this is all your fault (indirectly, at least). Several years ago you convinced Erik about the necessity of including themes and interpretations in our film articles; he convinced me, and I guess I overcompensated for fear that someone would criticise the article for not being a thorough enough treatment. So, thanks for that. :-) All the best, Steve  T • C 23:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words! I really appreciate it. I will try to reread the article again during the FAC, but I'm not sure I will have time. I'm extraordinarily busy right now. I'm so glad that you both worked this article up - it makes me think there is hope for wiki yet and I can use it as an example in my forthcoming talk on Wikipedia! :) Awadewit (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

American Enlightenment
Hi Awadewit. I have just expanded the 'American Enlightenment' article which was previously an inadequate paragraph - and is still rather rough. I've never written an article before and I thought you might be a good person to have a first look at it. --Tediouspedant (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I look forward to reading it and will do so this week! Awadewit (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I had some life stuff get in the way - I'll try to get to this soon! Awadewit (talk) 05:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Image question
Hi,

Dana Boomer mentioned that you might be a good person to ask about legal image use. I hope you don't mind my pestering.

The image 102 329 nobel oilwells.jpg that I'm using in an article doesn't have it's public domain status firmly established. I found the exact place it was copied from (though that was a copy from another credited source that I don't have direct access to) and updated the image page with the info. I have found copies of this image around different locations on the web but have seen no specific info on the photographer or the date it was taken. Since the photo is specifically described as the "Nobel wells" and the Nobels abandoned this site in 1920 (which would be the cutoff for the public domain justification for Russia) it seems likely the photo was taken before that year. However, I don't believe the wells were destroyed in any fashion after the Soviet takeover so it is not inconceivable that the photo was actually taken after 1920. I hate to take the photo out but I'm not sure how else to pursue establishing with certitude the dates/rights. Would you have any suggestions or should I just give up?

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My knowledge of Russian copyright law is very shaky - I would suggest asking . Awadewit (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism?
Hello Awa. Moonriddengirl appears to be on break, so I'm coming to you. :) Battle of Ciudad Juárez is on WP's main page in the DYK section, but I'm wondering if the first paragraph of this section is plagiarized from page 95 of Villa and Zapata: A History of the Mexican Revolution (search for "Tom Mix"). Thanks! — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a gray area. The structure of the paragraph is the same, yes, but the wording isn't a direct copy. The article seems to alternate between two sources, so at least it is not relying on a single source. Are the other paragraphs like this, too? Did the editor fail to summarize the sources but rather copy their structure and details? If every paragraph was like this, I would become increasingly concerned. Awadewit (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church
Hi Awadewit. I used a quote from you in my filing statement at Arbitration/Requests/Case. Please let me know if you feel I've misrepresented your intent, or if you are otherwise uncomfortable with my using your words. I'll be happy to fix it/remove if you feel it is necessary. Sorry to drag you into this in any way.... Karanacs (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The quote reflects my views accurately and I don't have a problem with you using it. I've sent you an email regarding my thoughts about participating in the case. Awadewit (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

South Park Season 1 FT
I think the first season of South Park is ready for FT! As you were a participant, and will be listed as a co-nominator, I wanted to bring this discussion to your attention before I officially nominated it. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  00:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Commented there. Awadewit (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI
I know you're very busy right now, but because you did so much for this article, I just wanted to let you know as a courtesy that I nominated Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov for featured article of the day for March 18, which is R-K's birthday. Jonyungk (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The Rookie review
I mean the film, not the editor. We basically were telling the editor the same thing (I do believe you expressed yourself better). Thanks for clarifying it to him. No way that was ready. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Qp
See here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Opera calling
I've been working on Monteverdi's Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria, a sister-article to the recent Poppea. It's now at peer review, awaiting judgement. If you have time, please look it over; any comments or suggestions will be very welcome. And you can listen to Panelope's lament as you read through! I've just seen, higher up this page, that you are crazily busy at the moment, so there's no hurry for this; it will be at PR a while. Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been off-wiki for awhile - sorry! Awadewit (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway - again
Hi Awadewit! In an attempt to come to grips with the enormous body of scholarship for Hemingway I decided to work on a stub article of one of his books. True at First Light was published posthumously and has less scholarship than other works. When you have time, can you have a look at the article and let me know whether it's too long? The problem with Hemingway is the complexity below the simplicity! Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Truthkeeper, I've been away from Wikipedia for a few weeks, so I just got this message. I would be happy to look at this article. I will have to wait until I come back from my conference, though, which won't be until next weekend - do you mind waiting until next week? Awadewit (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I assumed you were busy. Not a problem at all. Whenever you have the time. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

South Park Season 1 FT
The FT passed! Congrats! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  04:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Tragedy
Thought you would enjoy this. --Moni3 (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did. :) Awadewit (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A gap
I haven't seen you around in a couple of weeks and thought I'd check in to see that you're OK. I hope the gap just means that you're being tremendously productive on your dissertation. Hope you're well. Mike Christie (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I had some off-wiki drama. I hope to be more active in the coming weeks. I'm going to a conference next week and giving a presentation on how English professors can use Wikipedia in their research and teaching - suggestions? Awadewit (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Joseph_Priestley_House
You might be interested in this Smallbones (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Links to wikisource
It was not unlinked. Is in your opinion "On Fanny Godwin" better than "On Fanny Godwin"? -- Basilicofresco  (msg) 23:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize - it looks like I was a bit too hasty there. The difference is not material to me. Awadewit (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia as teaching tool
Hi Awadewit! I saw your comment above and hope you don't mind if I chime in. Wikipedia can be used with quite a bit of success in a variety of ways in an English class. Would you mind if I contacted you off wiki to share my thoughts (and classroom experiences) about using Wikipedia as a teaching tool? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be wonderful - the more examples and samples I have, the better! Awadewit (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sent e-mail this afternoon. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review - Petrarch
What an outstanding Peer Review you gave for the article I am working on of Africa (Petrarch). Obviously you are one smart cookie. And just as obvious is that I am STILL an amatuer writer after 4 years. I'll be working on those ideas and improvements over the next few months to increase the quality of the article. I'll read over the suggested FAs you gave to get some ideas.

Can I ask if you can do a PR (or even some suggested ideas for improvements) to another article I recently started of Chaucer coming in contact with Petrarch or Boccaccio. If the suggested ideas were ALSO in a separate "archive" THEN I would have all the suggested ideas in one spot and I can work on each suggestion. I know it also needs work and can then also can work on this one also over the next few months. Your suggestions are great and I would like to get some ideas from an expert. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell talk 12:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those kind words! I often feel like I am still learning about writing, myself - there is always more to learn, isn't there? I will look at the above article this weekend and leave my suggestions on the talk page, if that is ok. If you would like them somewhere else, just give me the link to wherever you want them and I'll place the comments there. Awadewit (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The article's Talk page would be great, thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 19:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Am I allowed to change my mind? I think Talk:Chaucer coming in contact with Petrarch or Boccaccio/Peer Review might be better, then I can respond to each point when I have made the improvement. Otherwise it will fill up the article Talk page rather quickly. Take your time because once I see your comments I suspect I'll be busy for months making the improvements.--Doug Coldwell talk 12:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are certainly allowed to change your mind! :) I've added the peer review there today. Let me know if you have any questions about it. Awadewit (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, great ideas. That should keep me busy and out of trouble for the next few months.--Doug Coldwell talk 11:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Burroughs-Ali'sSmile.ogg
Thanks for uploading File:Burroughs-Ali'sSmile.ogg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Philip the Arab and Christianity
Hello, Awadewit.

We do not know each other personally, but your reputation precedes you. I once watched the FAC list with some avidity, and it always gave me a little shock of joy to see your articles come up. You worked well with users across diverse materials, giving them the polish and depth demanded. Some of your better quests ended too early, as you were snowed under with other work or too tired to take on the entrenched habits of the multitudes. Time proved you right: FAC has the strong language on reliability you once asked for, and standards for literature are incomparably higher now. Even though I do not know you very well, I can have only the highest admiration for the work you do here.

I would like you to review an article I've been tendering for some months now. It's Philip the Arab and Christianity. It's done some battering in GAN, but I don't seem to have gone very far with it; the reviewers did not engage me on the specifics. I would very much appreciate it if you looked over the language to help me serve their needs (and the demands of our content standards). I am told it needs clean-up for clarity, flow, and jargon. I am also told that it is unfocused. Perhaps you could help me with these things.

The peer review is up here. Whatever you decide to do, thank you for your time.

Regards, G.W. (Talk) 06:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * GW, thank you so much for those kind words! Currently, I am preparing to leave town for an academic conference, so I don't have enough time to give the article the attention it deserves, but once I return (a week from Sunday) I will do so. Can you wait two weeks or so? It will probably take me about a week to thoroughly review the article. Awadewit (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for agreeing to take this on! You can have as much time as you need. G.W. (Talk) 05:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Seeking a second opinion
A question has come up in the FA review of Qwest Field regarding a picture of artwork that is on display in the stadium. In my previous interactions with you regarding non-free images, you were obviously very aware of policy and best practices. I'd really appreciate it if you would take a quick look at the image in question (found in Qwest_Field and discussed in the last paragraph in the section). Your time is valuable, so if you're busy, I want to keep this request as simple as possible. Please, just take a quick look at the fair use rationale and the comments in the FA review about the image. I can't offer much in return other than continued gratitude for a most excellent Wikipedian. :) --SkotyWATC 22:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I weighed in on the image - I think that it could go either way. And gratitude is welcome any time! :) Awadewit (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

John Calvin and Capitalism and Democracy
Please reconsider your opposition to the inclusion of the statement that John Calvin was at all influential in the development of capitalism, democracy or individualism. The reasons are multiple: (1) He lived almost 200 years before Adam Smith, who is contributed as being the "father" of modern capitlism, which is itself a bit of misnomer, since he did not use that word at all. And in fact, the idea of "capitalism" is considered to be much more of a post-Industrial Revolution concept, coming to prominence more as a result of worldwide industrialization in the latter half of the 19th century. That is almost 300 years after the death of John Calvin.

(2) John Calvin had about as much influence on Democracy and Capitalism as Martin Luther, John Knox, John Wesley, and Henry VIII. My point is that he was no more influential than thousands of other religious reformers of the 16th century. Why would he be given such credit where others are not?

(3) There is not even a citation to footnote this assertion that "some historians" make this claim.

(4) There is no opportunity for others, such as myself, to dispute the validity of that claim, or to posit how he may have even been opposed to "Individualism" in a political context. Remember, he was a theologican, not a politician. Yet, this sentence describes an economic and political theory, not a religious one.

(5) There is a current impetus in the United States among some political groups to overly politicize the education process, to rewrite American history, to emphasize that the USA was founded as a "Christian" nation. Texas State Board of Education has already required the removal of Thomas Jefferson from World History standards and required the inclusion of John Calvin, specifically, in his place. They are attempting to claim that John Calvin had a greater impact on the American and French Revolutions than did Thomas Jefferson. Yet, Thomas Jefferson lived DURING the time of both revolutions, whereas John Calvin lived 250 years prior. It would be akin to saying that Brigham Young was more influential on the defeat of the Soviet Union than was Ronald Reagan. The absurdity of this revisionist history then becomes more tolerable when a respected site such as Wikipedia makes a similar assertion (sans the Thomas Jefferson deemphasis). It then lends credence to the agenda pursued by the Texas SBOE to diminish the role of separation of church and state, the impact of Deists, and the role of Enlightenment Thinkers and instead substitute them with religious figures of prior centuries.

(6) John Calvin supported the idea of Predestination. This is not consistent with a view of a meritocracy, where one can improve their station in life. According to Calvin, one was resigned to the preordained destiny of the Supreme Being. This is what Calvin was known for. To put an unsubstantiated claim about his alleged impact on democracy, capitalism and individualism into the INTRODUCTORY text of this entry is itself being dishonest about the man's own impact on history. If even one historian makes this assertion, another sentence should be included to state that "Although, the vast majority of political and religious historians do not share this view." That way, people can at least not be misled by Wikipedia into believing the matter is settled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oghmatist (talk • contribs) 18:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please make your arguments at Talk:John Calvin rather than on individual user pages. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church
Things have stabilized somewhat on the article, since admins began to get involved. Would you be willing to contribute a literature search? See Talk:Catholic Church. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've commented there. Awadewit (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiEd
So I tried to copy and paste an article from a sandbox into mainspace after I turned on WikiEd, and it messed up all the spacing of the entire article

making every other line look like this.

I had to deactivate WikiEd to post such a significant rewrite. What's going on? Do you know how to fix it, if it's possible? --Moni3 (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've never had that problem - you should post the question to User talk:Cacycle/wikEd. Awadewit (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me think about it. Thanks for the reply. --Moni3 (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a problem with the new skins. Go to My preferences/Editing and switch off the Beta features. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've turned Beta features on. The Beta options are unmarked in my preferences. --Moni3 (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Children's Literature Collaboration Article
WikiProject Children's literature has recently launched a new Collaboration department. The first Collaboration Article is Curious George (book) - please contribute in any way that you can! If you wish to be alerted to future collaboration articles, this template will be updated regularly, and can be included on your user page as a template. Thank you, strdst_grl   (call me Stardust) 17:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Jane Austen becoming more popular?
I have noticed that recently, I keep encountering Jane Austen in the news, over and over. First it was Bride and Prejudice, then it was Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Now it is the new biography, Jane's Fame: How Jane Austen Conquered the World. What on earth is going on? Is there some sort of new burgeoning interest in Jane Austen and her works for some reason? I don't quite understand.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 14:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It does seem that there is a recent uptick in interest in all things Austen. Most people point to the 1995 Pride and Prejudice with Colin Firth as a turning point for popular interest in Austen, and I think it has only increased since then. Awadewit (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Donner Party
Thanks for your comments, with which I think I'm in almost total agreement. Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome - I'm glad that they seem mostly reasonable. :) Awadewit (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review?
Hi there! I am here to (if you are interested..) ask a Peer review about Sarah Geronimo. Also, a week ago, recommend you to me that you are expert in reviewing images because I asked someone to put an image in the said article. However, I want to be sure that those images are in fine use. helped me in improving this article if so, please review this article and comment if the article is fine to go to GA class. If not, please tell me on how to improve it. Thank you!--White paladin888 (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The images look correctly licensed to me - I'm commented at the peer review to say so. Awadewit (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again! thank you for your comment in the images. This time, can I ask you something? What is the article missing to make it to GA class? Again, thank you for your time!--White paladin888 (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a few comments at the peer review. Awadewit (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank for all the comments! Regarding the Sources, umm.. if it isn't too much, (I know you are so busy since told me,) If you have time, you can also do the source review :) Again, Thank you!--White paladin888 (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done! Awadewit (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey! I've answered your questions in the Peer review page :) If you have time, you can view it. Again, Thank you for Reviewing the article.--White paladin888 (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry
Didn't mean to be rude, was being bold because the lead for that Article clearly aligns it with Alternate history. Sadads (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are interested in that sort of stuff, could you take a look at Quicksilver (novel) which I have been working on and am putting up for GA review. Sadads (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) The lead of Jonathan Strange says: It has been described as a fantasy novel, an alternative history, and a historical novel. - And if you read the "Genre" section of the article, you will find that it is even more complex than that. Having read all of the sources for this article, I can assure you that critics do not agree on the genre. Notice, for example, these sentences at the beginning of the "Genre" section: Reviewers variously describe Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell as a fantasy novel, an alternative history, a historical fiction, or as a combination of these styles. Clarke herself says, "I think the novel is viewed as something new ... blending together a few genres – such as fantasy and adventure and pastiche historical – plus there's the whole thing about slightly knowing footnotes commenting on the story."
 * Do you want a review of the whole Quicksilver article? (That is an awesome book. Are you working on the whole trilogy?). Awadewit (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Anything or everything on the reviews, and I am working on the trilogy, yes. Sadads (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good to know we all have the same taste in fiction. I love Stephenson. BTW - I really want to delete the infobox! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes and open boats
Hi, Awadewit, how have you been? It feels like we haven't crossed paths in ages, although it's good to see you're still fighting the good, academic integrity fight; makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Since you were so very positive and encouraging about my work with Stephen Crane, I thought you may be interested to know that over the past month I've re-written and expanded "The Open Boat" with my sights set on FAC. It's one of the best, as I'm sure you know, but it sadly receives very little foot traffic. Would you have the time to take a quick look and see if anything jumps out at you? It's currently at PR, but again it's sadly received very little interest outside the always excellent comments from Finetooth. By the by, is there even an infobox for short stories? How useless would that be? ;) María ( habla con migo ) 12:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You know I love to review these kinds of articles (eagerly clicks). Awadewit (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strike that, it's now at FAC -- the bullet is bit, but your comments are still very, very much welcome. :) María ( habla con migo ) 14:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Response
I'm curious what your response to this is. That blogger, a self-described "Stark raving feminist", wrote a rant about how Wikipedia was sexist because we created a hoax article about wife selling. Then she found out the hoax was real, deleted the first rant, and post a new one about how she got fooled, but Wikipedia is still sexist. Raul654 (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good thing you didn't ask me, 'cuz my response to that woman isn't fit for print :) Since when is the opportunity to get out of a crappy marriage "misogynistic"? Apparently, she didn't read the article the second time, either. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly? I did not think that the article was the best choice for April 1. Because it appeared on the main page on April Fool's, readers were bound to wonder if it was indeed a hoax. There is enough confusion and deliberate misinformation out there on the history of marriage and women's rights, in my opinion - we don't need to add to that confusion. The question we should ask ourselves is why it seemed possible for this article to read like a hoax - the reason, I think, is that most readers lack a good knowledge of women's history. If the average reader knew about the historical situation of women during these centuries (like they know "dead white male" history), they would not "fall" for the "joke". That is why it doesn't seem all that amusing to me (and why I sighed to myself when I saw it was scheduled). I need to write more articles about women from the 17th and 18th centuries, don't I?! :) Awadewit (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm getting a little pissed at these charges of misogynism, inventing the whole thing as an elaborate hoax, or just having an insensitive laugh at women's expense. All we were doing was documenting an English legal curiosity, and we tried to do that as best we could. I really fail to see how anyone who took the trouble to read the article could take offence. Malleus Fatuorum 02:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Malleus, to me the incident reveals the misogynism in our culture (because it would not seem humorous if it were not for the ignorance of readers), so what I was saying was not a attack on you personally. Yet, when you say "All we were doing was documenting an English legal curiosity", I start to wonder if I should be attacking you personally! This topic is a mere "curiosity"? That is the kind of language that has been used to downplay women's history and is one reason that people are often so ignorant of it. Awadewit (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue with you about it, because I doubt if we would ever end up agreeing. I will simply point out that if we had not produced that article, and it had not appeared on the main page, then even more people would be unaware of women's history than were already. That this is a mere "legal curiousity" – as opposed to a mere "curiousity – is incontrovertible. Malleus Fatuorum 18:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you completely about exposure - and that is wonderful. But the fact that the article appeared on April 1 mitigates that argument. Many readers doubted the article's authenticity. Awadewit (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point, but many have always doubted its authenticity. Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I still think that a lot of people who didn't get it just didn't read it... in particular the blogger Raul asks about. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But, SG, you are not responding to my argument - my argument is that the only reason there is something to "get" - the only reason there is a "joke" that works for April 1 is because of the woeful ignorance of women's history and the assumptions we make about women. That Wikipedia is perpetuating that kind of humor is what I have a problem with. Awadewit (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Follow up
Hi. I decided to do my follow-up on your note at the user's talk page. Your participation there would be welcome. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are so much nicer than I am! ;) Awadewit (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Donner Party page
Hi, Adrianne--

Thank you for your kind note on my talk page. I'm not certain how these talk pages work; would it be possible to e-mail instead?

Kristin —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnsoKr (talk • contribs) 21:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are used to leave personal messages to individual users, but if you are more comfortable with email, we can email instead. One reason for using talk pages, however, is that it keeps discussions transparent, something Wikipedians tend to value highly. Also, it allows many people to participate in a conversion and offer a variety of opinions - something that can initially be disconcerting, but is ultimately very rewarding. :) Awadewit (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'd gotten the impression that Wikipedians like transparency, but it's outside my comfort zone -- I've been a pretty private person and had to screw myself up to "come out" on the DP page. Some people enjoy bickering, but not me; all this wrangling is pretty upsetting. Wikipedia's philosophy is so alien! I have a pretty good idea of how to write decent history, and this ain't it. Anyway, I don't want to discuss the page's content, I'd like an insider's advice on how to survive on this bizarre planet I've landed on. Thx. JohnsoKr (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Understood - I will give you the best advice I can. Awadewit (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Your articles in Spanish Wikipedia
Hello, Awadewit! I am Mel 23 from Spanish Wikipedia. I want to tell you that a lot of your featured articles have been translated into Spanish language and they are featured in our Wikipedia as well (for example, es:Mary Shelley or es:Sarah Trimmer). Articles like es:Joseph Johnson, es:Anna Laetitia Barbauld and es:Mary Martha Sherwood are good articles there. Perhaps you have already knew that, but I wanted to tell you that a lot of users from es:Wikipedia think you are a great user and an inspiration (including myself, of course). Regards, Mel 23 (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Congrats, Awa. You'll be famous world-wide before you know it! :-) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  00:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow! Thanks so much for letting me know! I'm so flattered! Awadewit (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way: FAs fr:Mary Shelley and fr:Sarah Trimmer. Boy, you are popular. :-) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Image review
Hi there Adrianne, I wonder if you'd mind doing a quick image review for Roderic Dallas, which is at FAC right now, and I believe ready to be promoted. Many thanks, Ian Rose (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't have time at the moment - sorry! Awadewit (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No prob from my POV, hasn't stopped its promotion - guess they trust me after all this time...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer review request: Adrian Boult
Hi! I wonder if you might have time to look at this article, which I have put forward for PR. Most grateful if so, but quite understand if not. - Tim riley (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't have time at the moment - so sorry! Awadewit (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood, absolutely. - Tim riley (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; 91.198.174.201 (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Reciprocity
How out-of-the-question is it to replace the Balzac quote? That would be the perfect synergy! Anyway, thanks so much for your diligent application of Strunk & White's Rule 13. Sorry for the delay in responding; it's been a crazy semester! I hope to have more time to spend 'round these parts now. Scartol •  Tok  17:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem - I've had a crazy semester, too! On the plus side, I've been teaching poetry! Awadewit (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yay! Which poets? Adrienne Rich, I hope? Scartol  •  Tok  14:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly, no! I'm doing Paradise Lost right now. It's so awesome. Awadewit (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Man, I tried attacking that thing a few years ago. Never felt more stupid in my life! Scartol  •  Tok  22:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Since you are making a project of 19th century articles
Any chance you could review the FAC of Ashford v Thornton (1818)?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't have time at the moment - I'm busy conferencing! Awadewit (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Magic Realism
Hi Awadewit, we've finally finished up with our page (at UBC) and I am interested to know if you think it has potential for reaching good article status, or if it requires more help. It's due April 19th, so a reply at least a couple days beforehand would be appreciated. Thanks! --Larodge (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I will try to read it tonight. Awadewit (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I recommend....
reading the five books in the Joe Pitt Casebooks - a great combination of vampire stuff with film noir type gangstery detective stuff set in NYC. Just finished book 5 and loved it :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll put it down on my "to read" list. :) Awadewit (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Paradisio
Hi Awadewit. I have a feeling you might be very busy at this time of year, but since you're teaching Milton, I thought you might have an opinion on Dante's Paradisio which is at GA and a second opinion has been requested. I can take a shot at it, but your expertise is much better in this area of literature. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I am overwhelmed with end of the semester grading. A quick look at the article raises red flags, though. WP:OR is the first one - there are lots of citations to the work itself, rather than to secondary sources. Awadewit (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion on non-free images in FA review
I'm coming to you again with a humble request for a second opinion on non-free image use. 2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final is currently under FA review and a concern has been raised that one or both of the non-free images used in the article (File:LHUSOpenCupLogo.png and File:SoundersUSOpenCup.jpg) are in violation of WP:NFCC. You may recognize the latter of the two images as you helped me write a FUR for it when reviewing Seattle Sounders FC back in December. I'm now trying to include the same picture in an article about the Cup Final itself. The editor who's raised the concerns has not elaborated on them. Your unbiased second opinion would be very helpful. I know you are busy and so I only ask you to look at and comment on the images if you're time is short. Thank you again for your help on this, and I promise to not make a habit out of pestering you like this. :) --SkotyWATC 03:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the article has been promoted! Awadewit (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Brougham Castle
Hi, Featured article candidates/Brougham Castle/archive1 is currently without an image review; I was wondering if you had time to do one? Nev1 (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the article has been promoted! Awadewit (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Missing humanities articles
Following up on something we chatted about in Denver, take a look at Stanford Archive answers. There are lots and lots of missing humanities articles listed there. (Caution - about 90% of the links are "bad" - the result of alternative names/typos/errors in scraping the lists. Take a look at the subpages like 1, 2, 3, 22, and 23, which have been manually pared down to actual missing articles) Raul654 (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)