User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your comments on my article

Thank you very much for the feedback; it mirrors a lot of what another friend said. I was unclear when describing the venue for this; it's not for a WikiProject newsletter, it's for the History of Science Society Newsletter that goes out to members of that society...mostly professional historians of science, to some degree at least, and mostly not Wikipedians.--ragesoss (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Ah, I see. I'll start again, then. I just assumed...and we all know where that leads. :) Awadewit | talk 18:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks so much. I sent it off yesterday, but I was trying to make some of the changes along the lines you suggest. One point where I was reticent to put too much weight is the 'education changing the world' ideal. As another anonymous graduate student (User:Fastfission) reminded me, historians of science take a critical eye to public education, since science popularization and its limitations is part of our recent histioriography. As you noted, my optimism in this and other Wikipedia-related matters somewhat exceeds what most people think is warranted. Cheers!--ragesoss (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry I didn't get to the second set of comments sooner. I owe you one. :) Awadewit | talk 09:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

I saw your comments at Willow's page about ArbCom. I'm trying to make heads or tails of the whole thing too. My sense is that the community doesn't really take non-admins seriously for the position (that's not a situation I'm particularly happy with, but it is what it is). For the admins I worked up a table, User:JayHenry/arb, of how long they've been with the project, how many edits they have in main space and overall (the ratio I think provides useful insight into the sort of Wikipedian we're dealing with). Support at previous RfAs or elections is usually a good indicator of how someone will do in these things. I'd say Newyorkbrad will almost definitely be elected. After that Deskana is extremely popular. Raul654 hasn't faced the community like this in a long time (he's been an admin forever) but I suspect he's quite popular as well. I'm a bit dismayed to see such little article work from most of the candidates. Anyways, thought I'd share. --JayHenry (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If you looked up WP:WBFAN that might be a bit misleading....because it lists people by their "sig" Thebainer (talk · contribs) is listed under "Bainer" IIRC. Last year when I ran, I vowed not to run until I passed an FAC....Well Ian Thorpe was up there in Nov 06 and it stalled and I didn't know anything about how FAC decision making works so I just nominated anyway while it was still hanging but Raul passed the FAC on the weekend before the first Monday of voting. I think I had about 45 DYKs this time last year and two FLs and nothing else. But yeah, you're general assertions are correct and I think your prediction of the first 2 is correct as well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, bainer wrote Dietrich v The Queen but someone else nominated it. Although nowadays the vast majority of FAs are self-nom, in the old days when it was easy to get FAs, a lot of people did drive-by noms of random articles which were actually successful, so some people in that list have multiple stars for nomming other people's stuff. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Aha, I didn't know that's how WP:WBFAN worked. I had noticed some people weren't listed by their precise username. Although it's in my userspace I still want it to be correct so updated accordingly for bainer. Also I note that Wizardman nominated George B. McClellan and was a responsive nominee, but the article was largely written by User:Hlj. While I know the ArbCom deliberately avoids "content" disputes, their actions reverberate through the whole 'pedia so I remain concerned (some of them have probably never seen an arbcom decision trickle down to content so don't really realize). --JayHenry (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And after this exchange with Blnguyen I wandered over to his talk page and saw your comments to him. I can explain the basic process. As an example, here's the recent case of a deletionist admin, Eyrian, who got disenchanted with the project (for not deleting enough to suit his tastes) and created a sockpuppet. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian.

  • Cases are first proposed at WP:RFAR. Involved and uninvolved parties make statements about what happened and encourage the arbitrators to accept or decline the case. Arbitrators usually look for evidence of trying to resolve the dispute elsewhere. If a case receives 4 more accept than reject votes (so 4 accept, 0 reject; 5 accept, 1 reject; etc.) then they create a page for the arbitration like Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian.
  • The case then moves to an evidence phase. An evidence subpage is created: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eyrian/Evidence. Anybody can post evidence about what happened, including the people in the dispute. Usually "evidence" is links to relevant conversations, logs of behavior, edits, etc.
  • Proposed remedies, such as blocks or bans, are posted on the workshop page. Before a case the arbitrators always affirm a bunch of principals too. The principals are usually really broad platitudes like "You can't use sockpuppets abusively." Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eyrian/Workshop. Again, anybody can weigh in with suggestions on how to word things, propose remedies, etc.
  • The arbitrators then vote on the principles and remedies at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eyrian/Proposed_decision, a page that only the arbitrators themselves are supposed to edit. Once they're satisfied they move to close the case.
  • The arbitration clerks (which are not committee members, just volunteers who help move the pages around) then copy the relevant pieces to the main case page and archive it. A clean summary ends up at: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian.

The arbitrators do have a private mailing list that they use for some cases that have private information like IP addresses, real-life identities and personal e-mails as evidence. Though User:Blnguyen would have better perspective here, I think they make a good faith effort to keep their proceedings and deliberations mostly out in the open. Always feels a bit rude to post this much on someone's talk page. Hope this is helpful and not just a waste of your time ;) --JayHenry (talk) 07:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well Jay, I guess you only included admins in your table. Giano has about 9 FAs I think (non admin). The thing with WP is that the key to winning things is to not be opposed. In the end it is the approval rating which counts and the general culture is that by default people are ok with others unless the other person does something they disagree with. So that sort of means that WP:RFA favours "small target politics" and the same with ArbCom elections. Same for arbcom elections really. I guess most people vote in line with their wiki-ideology. I sort of tend to oppose people who I feel spend too much time talking about other people's stuff. The way the culture is, most article writers just mind their own business and are apathetic and over time as WP gets bigger, there is more of a divide between people who just write and ignore the politics, and other folks who just become career administrators and bureaucrats (not in the technical WP definition). I happen to think that's unhealthy so I oppose people who are too bureaucratic. Mostly all the article writers being apathetic doesn't matter so much, but every now and then there is an "incident" and the class tensions occur again.A comment by Irpen here - I've always encouraged article writers to have their say, although most people just say stuff like "I don't like politics" and then a class division emerges and every now and then there's a bit of rioting. I presume you would have met User:!! at DYK and you probably can figure out his previous incarnation easily ... was caught up in an incident last week when he was blcoked mistakenly as a sock of a banned user and there's been rioting since then for about 14 days. Last year there was a much more serious one. Giano (talk · contribs) aka Giano II (talk · contribs), look for him at WP:WBFAN, called for pedophiles to be banned in January 2006, and one admin blocked him indefinitely for "hate speech", and then there were some riots and some admins got fired after they were involved in a fight about a "pedophile userbox" (they kept on deleting and undeleting it). The admin that blocked Giano, Carnildo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), was fired (removed from admin). Then he applied at RFA to get it back and the third time Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3 he got about 61%. Normally the pass mark for RfA is about 75% but Carnildo got a bit of a helping hand from the bureaucrat who refereed the RfA. This was at the beginning of September 2006, and that sparked very major rioting that lasted about 6 weeks. Giano and his supporters and many passersby were rather upset about why Carnildo got let back in without getting the usual % and because Giano and his closest friends were all prominent writers, it turned into a class warfare debate between admins and article writers. Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) who wrote 170 DYK articles got blocked for some rather blunt criticism of the admins and it turned into a massive class wars.

Questions?? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

From the September 2006 archives Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
No wonder I couldn't find it in the regular archives. A separate page in the archives. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Giano. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I am slowly making my way through all of this. What a mess! So, do you think it is better for people to be on ArbCom that don't have this kind of history? Awadewit | talk 20:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Still a newbie

I'm trying to figure out the ArbCom elections. I was wondering what you know about those. What can you tell me about ArbCom and its doings? I've read some lengthy litigation reports, but the whole process still seems a bit mysterious to me. What qualities do you think are essential for an ArbCom member? What do they really do? Any insight you could offer on these questions would be much appreciated. I have an anonymous email address linked from my userpage, if you would prefer to respond using that. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 08:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, the ArbCom acts as a sort of Supreme Court of Wikipedia. Whenever there is an issue or controversy that cannot be settled through the normal means, it gets decided by ArbCom. The tricky thing about ArbCom elections are that they tend to attract people interested in wielding power rather than acting simply as dispute resolvers. Some ArbCom members (won't mention any names here) have sought to influence policy through the ArbCom, by taking on and making rulings about policy disputes. In my view, this is anathema to Wikipedia, and not what the ArbCom was originally intended to do. I usually don't have time to really get into the ArbCom elections and find out who's who, instead I tend to just support the candidates I know and trust personally, not that this is a good idea, mind you. With that said, I personally think Will Beback and Raul654 are good candidates. Let me know if you know about anyone else that might be compelling. Kaldari (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
With 27 candidates, it is overwhelming, but I have managed to make it through all of the candidate statements and questions. :) However, I don't think candidate statements and questions are everything. And what does it mean when someone refuses to answer questions? I can interpret that in a myriad of ways (especially being an English person). I noticed that Raul654 also fills many other positions here at wikipedia (as do some of the other candidates). Do you think this is an advantage or a disadvantage to being a member of ArbCom? Does it give the person a wider experience of wikipedia or does it detract from their ability to focus on ArbCom? Should they focus on ArbCom? I really feel very uncertain about all of this. I feel much more certain about the upcoming US Presidential primaries. I know exactly who I'm going to vote for. :) Thanks for taking the time to respond - I appreciate it. Awadewit | talk 15:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

About that history of anticonvulsants essay

You wouldn't happen to know when primidone was approved in the United Kingdom, would you? Because sources from the 1950s say that it was "introduced" in 1950. A source that Colin used said that it was approved in 1952.--Rmky87 (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[but in] btw: there are bits of this discussion on User talk:Colin and User talk:Rmky87. Colin°Talk 20:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid the essay isn't that detailed. Awadewit | talk 06:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot summaries

Assuming this is the right place, what else do you have to say about plot summaries? I'm doing my first GA-drive for a novel page, Les Chouans, and I'm nervous about how to approach the summary. (And there's no help available anywhere – all the writing about it is critical and analytical. And there's no Cliffs Notes for it.) Thanks in advance as always for your kind assistance. – Scartol • Tok 21:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I find the whole idea of including an original plot summary problematic. All summaries are readers' interpretations of texts. The best way to demonstrate this is to have multiple people "summarize" the same movie or book - you will end up with similar, but by no means the same result. For me, all summaries are original research, but I doubt I can convince anyone else of this. Sourcing the summary to the book itself wouldn't solve this problem, as it would just be offering page numbers for where one's own interpretation comes from. Only one time did I find a summary nestled within some criticism - I just copied it right into the article here. This is rather uncommon, though. I've had to "go with the consensus" on this one, but it makes me very nervous. Let me give you an example of why. In Mary Wollstonecraft's Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman, one of the major characters has an abortion. It is not entirely clear whether she is forced to have the abortion by the man by whom she became pregnant, chooses to have the abortion, or is forced into it by circumstances. How should this statement be worded? Any statement of this plot element (and one has to be chosen), is an interpretation. How you read this scene largely depends on how feminist you think the novel is. Again, though, I see no movement to delete plot summaries among editors or to include them only when they are sourced to secondary material, which could be prefaced with a description of that person and perhaps their angle on the story. Awadewit | talk 06:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I agree with what you're saying; interpretation is a necessary evil of summary. However, I think a summary is useful to readers who haven't read the text in question – and it can make an article more complete if little else has been written about it.
  • I know, it just bugs me. :) Did you check out the MLA database? There were a few articles there. All in French, alas. Awadewit | talk 12:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the library had a bunch of french texts, but I don't feel confident enough to tackle any of those. – Scartol • Tok 13:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I like the essay about the writing process. I'll need to read it again when I have some more time in order to really reflect on it. I tried thinking about it from the POV of some of my students at school, and sad to say the very concept of reading is anathema to them. I expect the same is true about the folks who work on all the pop-culture articles 'round these parts. But for those stepping up to history or literature, the essay is sage advice. More anon. – Scartol • Tok 12:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think if reading is anathema to someone, writing articles isn't the right wikipedia role for that person, do you? Perhaps copyediting? :) Like I said, the essay is very much a rough draft. Awadewit | talk 12:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You'd think not, huh? And yet it appears folks whose reading habits don't go beyond trade magazines are running riot all over the place, working to make articles "better". Am I being a snob? Isn't this just elitism on our part? We're guilty of bookism, methinks. (Anti-magazinism? Anti-websitism?) – Scartol • Tok 13:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it's not elitism. I'm all for websources, for example, if they are good. Unfortunately, so many of them are not (for the fields I work in, anyway). I think the more links we can have to online sources to verify our information, the better. However, this should never take precedence over choosing quality sources. Some day, all books will be online. :) Awadewit | talk 14:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Back to the matter at hand: I notice the summary of Mary: A Fiction is quite short. I was envisioning a much more detailed summary of Les Chouans, but perhaps I don't need to bother? Insofar as there's not much been written about it, I thought I needed a longer summary to fill out the article. But maybe not. Thoughts? – Scartol • Tok 21:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, Mary is actually quite short. :) Fewer than 100 pages. I would strongly discourage you from writing a detailed plot summary as that will only encourage other editors to write detailed plot summaries for other books. Have you clicked around on the Dickens novels, for example? What a nightmare. The whole point of a plot summary is to be a summary. :) Also, I don't know how much has been written on this novel - there might be a lot more information in French that we are missing. If you can't read French criticism, perhaps Balzac is not the best author for you to do multiple pages on, eh? Unlike Rousseau scholarship, I don't think that much of Balzac scholarship is translated. Even crucial pieces of Rousseau criticism aren't translated. Awadewit | talk 21:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm happy to get the advice that I should stick to a very short summary, since I didn't exactly relish having to take such detailed notes while reading the novel. I hear what you're saying about maybe not working on Balzac, but:
  1. No one else is even touching WP:BALZAC;
  2. I do think I can help improve the articles somewhat; and
  3. Most of the works in LCH have no page at all – see {{BalzacFooter}}.
  • I set out with the goal of making some of the more easily-made novel pages into something more than the stubs they are, but then I figured I could shoot for at least GA on Les Chouans. You may be right that I need better French skills (or an author working in English) to get beyond GA – or even B, in some cases – but I'd like to give it a shot, at least. (I can get myself some DYKs at least. Gotta start working toward that Alex the Great triple crown.) Besides, I just sent away for three books on Balzac. =) Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 00:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
(In response to a note Awadewit left on my page that seems to fit into this discussion) Scartol, I'd personally be glad to help finding and refencing some French sources, but probably not until January, both because I won't be back in the U.S. until then and because I haven't read Les Chouans (so far I've only had the pleasure of reading La Maison du chat-qui-pelote and Le Colonel Chabert.) Looks like you're doing a great job on the Balzac pages, though. Even if you can't get Les Chouans to featured status right away, a lot of Balzac novels don't even have articles yet, so I'm sure any work you put in is appreciated. Lesgles (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Huzzah! Magnifique! Thank you so much, Lesgles, for your kind offer. (At the same time, I am – in a humorous way, mostly – nervous about someone else coming along and showing me up or surpassing my Balzac article-ism. No! I won't WP:OWN pages. I won't!) Seriously, though, I'd love to have some help with the French sources. To be honest, I'm totally fine with not getting Les Choux into FA, but GA would be lovely. (Side note: Can you imagine all the work it would take to make Balzac a WP:FL? You had it easy with the Wollstoner, Awad! =) Be honest: It was a piece of cake, wasn't it? (Headline: Area Wikipedian stabbed with heavily-vandalized copy of A Vindication of the Rights of Men.)) How is the TFA madness going, A? – Scartol • Tok 18:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Les Choux definitely needs to be made into an FA. It's been long enough. :) Lesgles (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Query: Do you think stub/start versions of pages are worth writing? I dislike creating them because they are so incomplete. All of the stubs I had to create for Joseph Priestley drove me up the wall. When I first became an active editor, I was instructed to create stubs right and left, but now I do it as little as possible. I don't like to create an article unless it is reasonably comprehensive. I think poor articles might actually be worse than no articles. If someone comes to wikipedia and there is a little, poorly sourced article, they might rely on that rather than going somewhere else, which is what they would be forced to do if there were nothing. I know that it is bad for wikipedia, but it is good for the dissemination of accurate knowledge. :) Let me know what you think. Awadewit | talk 16:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually think it's worthwhile to make stub – or at least start-class – articles. At least then a person has a starting point, with other possibilities. For example, the page on Chouan has been helpful for me, meagre though that help has been. Many readers (myself included) might get discouraged at the prospect of having to seek out information elsewhere. "If there's not even a Wikipedia page," the thinking goes, "what chance do I have of finding something on my own?"
Tangent alert! I was discouraged early on at the thought of contributing to WP, since it appeared that everything was so comprehensive and well-sourced in these parts. So I think stubs may have the residual benefit of showing folks that there's more work to be done. Or maybe not. But I think they are beneficial. That said, I think it's silly that you were instructed to make stubs. I think all WP work should be motivated by the drive to help, not a mandate from someone else. – Scartol • Tok 16:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, see I tend to think that stubs discourage people from contributing because they think that there is already a page on that. I like redlinks. I really detest that mantra I keep hearing "there is nothing left to create a page on". It is so ridiculous. [Preventing myself from getting up on soapbox]. Awadewit | talk 16:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


Your User page

I was thinking of trying to tidy-up/enliven my User page a bit, and I really like your design. Would you mind if I borrowed a bit liberally (but not too liberally) to design my own? I wouldn't want to steal it... --DO11.10 (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't mind, but as I state in my "Wikipedia bio", Phaedriel deserves all of the credit for designing it, so perhaps that is the best person to ask. Awadewit | talk 06:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I was going to ask her too, but her talk page says that she hasn't been around for a while. Should I try e-mailing her? I was hoping to use the "file folder" type design, but change the colors, ect... Do you think this might fall under "inspired by Phaedriel's design of Awadewit's user page"? I am just terribly bad at the whole code thing.--DO11.10 (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I really know nothing about how permissible it is to copy someone else's code. I assume it is acceptable on wikipedia, since nothing here is proprietary. However, maybe a little nod like you are suggesting would be the generous thing to do? Awadewit | talk 15:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"We lucky few, we band of" scholars

Likewise! I've seen a lot of your work and admired it from afar, but my tastes tend to run a bit more modern (about two hundred years) than yours, I'm afraid. ;) I'm greatly looking forward to Jane Austen's replacement article, however; it's been a long time coming. I've just recently nominated my first FAC, but I'm finding it absolutely nerve wrecking. How do you manage it again and again? María (habla conmigo) 14:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm glad you've taken on Emily Dickinson. What do so many literary figures have pathetic pages?
  • I finally developed a triple-super-duper checklist that I put all articles through before I take them to FAC. That way I'm pretty sure there aren't any major or minor problems. However, you never know what can happen.
  • What a crazy discussion at the Core Contest, eh? I was going to repost, but then I just decided, nah, best to let it go. Awadewit | talk 15:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
You know, I couldn't say why these literary giants are getting so little attention, or the worst kind of attention ("Harry de Ballsack"? What?), but I'm sure it has something to do with disgruntled high school students. ;) Dickinson will be a challenge to improve, but I have a sack full of books I've checked out that will hopefully lead me in the right direction. If I plan to take that article as far as it can possibly go, I may need a checklist of my own devising. And, yes, the crazy is definitely alive at the Contest page; how people can be so adamantly against it is beyond me. I never knew that there were so many Wikipedia purists. María (habla conmigo) 16:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I look forward to reading the Dickinson article when you have "finished" it (whenever that happens to be - two weeks is ridiculous!). If you want my checklist, you are welcome to it. :) It has helped others. Awadewit | talk 16:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I doubt they are really wikipedia purists. Just give them the ticking bomb scenario with writing articles for money. :) Awadewit | talk 16:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd love a link to/copy of the checklist, if you wouldn't mind. That would definitely come in handy. Oh, and thank you for your helpful comments (and ce, of course!) at the Knut (polar bear) FAC, I really appreciate the time you took to review it. It's a little article, and nothing like the work you've put into yours, but the little fuzzy guy has grown on me. I think I'm looking forward to Dickinson as a change of pace, however. Genius! Heartbreak! No German newspaper translations! Thank goodness she's American, though, from what I see below... oi. María (habla conmigo) 17:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Well I think starting small is good - dipping your toe in, so to speak. I just happened to have done all of that research on Wollstonecraft for my dissertation. Handy things, dissertations. :) Who knew. Here's my basic checklist. It begins after an article is at this stage:
  • Good article nomination
  • Copy edit
  • Peer review
  • Copy edit
  • Be sure article adheres to MOS
  • Proofread (read article aloud)
  • Check all citations to make sure they are located correctly and formatted correctly (page ranges, commas, etc.)
  • Check all links to make sure they go to the right articles
  • Read article aloud one last time
  • Nominate for FAC!
This is extremely laborious, but I have found that it makes FAC nearly painless. Awadewit | talk 17:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Wonderful, thanks! I've sandboxed it and I'll definitely follow it next time around. Is Joseph Johnson to be your next FAC, then? When do you sleep? :) María (habla conmigo) 20:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Bearing in mind your comments there, if you are doing JA in AE, is it worth getting up a collection to make you change your mind? The arguments on MW are nothing compared to what JA would produce, surely? Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems you haven't read my arguments - my intransigence over the MW articles really is largely pragmatic (although I feel that I have good arguments on my side). See archive and talk page. Simmaren and I already have a BE translator for JA. We assumed we would be working with many editors once we posted, so we have found someone to translate for us, namely Roger Davies. He has already done Timeline of Jane Austen. I'm not as unreasonable as you think. Awadewit | talk 16:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Congrats

...on the front page appearance. Worthy reward for all your effort and scholarship. Hope you're not finding the process of actually having the article on the front page too much work!

Is anyone actually contacting you from the list of 'willing peer reviewers', by the way? I've not heard a peep out of anyone. 4u1e (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks! There are lots of helpful vandal-fighters and I know what to expect now, so it's not too bad. I haven't heard anything, either. Perhaps the idea just has to catch on? Perhaps we need a big banner? :) Awadewit | talk 16:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Big banner sounds good. But do we write it in BrEng or AmEng? ;-) 4u1e (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Christ, I know. I vote for Esperanto. Awadewit | talk 16:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Ha! I kept out of that debate because I initially thought (still do) that 'by the rules' BrEng is the correct version. Then I realised that I was putting Wiki-rules above common sense and retired in confusion. :) Looks like you kept up your end of the debate anyway!
Still, you don't want to get into that again. About the peer review thing, who (if anyone) is running that page? 4u1e (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, congrats on the TFA dealie. I noticed that someone moved some pics below the third-level headers, ostensibly for accessibility purposes. I asked here; I'll let you know what I find. – Scartol • Tok 18:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I found that confusing because I made the text large on my screen with the old arrangement and nothing odd happened until it got so large that everything was funky (five letters per line kind of thing). Awadewit | talk 12:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


Goldman on Wollstonecraft

Had to share this with you. The bio on EG I'm reading (in an odd section trying to psychoanalyze her radicalism) quotes her concluding a lecture on Wollstonecraft: "Mary was born [a rebel] and not made through this or that individual incident in her surroundings."

(I can't get to the full text, since I – a lowly public school educator – don't have JSTOR access; I know you can, but I suspect you've already read it. Still, I thought of you.) – Scartol • Tok 02:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I'll have to check out the article, but I did know about the lecture. See oblique reference here. Awadewit | talk 12:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I've emailed you a copy of the article. Awadewit | talk 12:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yay! Thanks. Will you steal other JSTOR pieces for me in the future? =) I figured the oblique reference was evidence of your familiarity with it. I'm always right! – Scartol • Tok 16:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Not again with the illness! Get well on the double, y'hear!? – Scartol • Tok 19:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

GFDL

That's just the thing about contributing to wikipedia - we do it for free. We know our content will copied by others under the license. We know they can sell it (as long as they acknowledge it). So can we, if we so chose. If you don't want you write to be sold by others who are in business, then do not write. If, however, you are truly interested in the dissemination of knowledge, perhaps you should be happy that others are picking up our material. Awadewit | talk 12:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Awadewit. You posted the above on that contest's talk page. I'm writing because I hope you haven't misunderstood my opinion, which you posted below my message on that page (twice-indented). I regret that I can't persuade you of the difference between "anyone reusing what we contribute to wikipedia" and "a for-profit reusing Wikipedia's content while also sowing the seeds of their own company using wikipedia's resources". We agree to the former in our work on this project; we don't agree to the latter when we think of Wikimedia Foundation as a non-profit organization. The encyclopedia is already benefiting people through its reuse; it is not, however, a guerrilla marketing experiment for startups, no matter how "small and harmless" the startup is. Just wanted to respond personally, and I admit to being a little peeved when people pull out the "then do not write" line as if there are no other dimensions to the issue. –Outriggr § 03:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, the GFDL license is very permissive. I think that one has to be aware of the extraordinary level of openness that it provides. If one is unwilling for one's writing to be "traded" or used that permissively, wikipedia isn't a good place to "publish". I actually read about the license and took a while to consider whether I wanted to contribute to Wikipedia under such a license.
  • You know I'm always open to discussion, so here are some questions I have.
  • Query: If three other people unconnected to Veroopedia had set up the contest and offered the same amount of money but Veropedia had used the contest results, would you have had the same concerns regarding the contest?
  • Query: What Wikipedia resources do you see the contest using?
  • Query: How is the contest a guerilla marketing experiment?
  • Query: What is your opinion of Veropedia?
  • By the way, I stopped watching the Contest page after the offensive remarks much lower on the page regarding my mercenary motives. If you could respond here, I would appreciate it. Awadewit | talk 12:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Raphael

Thanks, I'll let you know if I need anything, but I'm expecting to use what I have to hand, Jones & Penny and other stuff. Johnbod 16:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Extraordinarily kind, ma'am

Thank you very much: it was an unexpected and delightful gesture. --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  • You're welcome. Awadewit | talk 17:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 36

Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 36 has been released!

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/11/30/wikipedia-weekly-36/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 04:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.

Potentially useful article

This guy has interesting things to say about primidone, the diones, the barbiturates, and the hydantoins, not to mention the bromides, which were still in use.--Rmky87 01:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Anything that verifies this since 1957? :) Awadewit | talk 10:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking in terms of saying what people thought of these things back in 1957. I forgot that you were editing the epilepsy article not history of anticonvulsants. In retrospect, I should have sent this to Colin, who seems more interested in editing the main article on anticonvulsants. --Rmky87 20:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Another solution is to throw anything you find on our collaboration page. We can work out the best place for it from there. Thanks again! Awadewit | talk 21:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: GAN of Winston Churchill

I would like to let you know that LordHarris has contacted me to review this article extensively.[1] OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, I've already started to do so, copy editing and writing down extensive notes, per his/her request on the GA page. If you haven't already started, there is really no reason to. I would hate to have wasted all of that time. (That's what the little review icons are for!) Awadewit | talk 18:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Johnson (watch maker) is now GA

Just a joke there. Joseph Johnson (publisher) has now been passed. While I could ask that you take a look at Les Chouans, I'm actually more eager to see J. D. Salinger get another review. (I think this time it's cleared the bar.) – Scartol • Tok 18:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

  • If it hasn't been snapped up by those eager GAC reviewers in a few days, I'll do it. Right now, I'm working on Winston Churchill, another longie. :) Awadewit | talk 18:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Winston Churchill

Hello Awadewit and thank you for your offer to review the article. I have no need to ask anyone about your wiki qualifications as I am aware of your excellent contributions and skills on/to the wiki! I noticed that a few days ago A Vindication of the Rights of Men was on the main page and I offer you my congratulations. OhanaUnited has offered to give comments but I do not believe is doing the GA review. I wish to thank you for the excellent copy edits you have done to the article today and would welcome your subsequent review and notes. I know the article is not yet perfect and it still needs work but I am happy to respond to your thoughts and comments. As the man in question once said I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. Thank you again and I look forward to your thorough review. LordHarris 21:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure what is going on here! (see above under "Re: GAN of Winston Churchill"). I will just go ahead and finish reviewing the article, then. Awadewit | talk 21:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm doing a GAN review on that article. If LordHarris was looking for inputs or comments, it should be peer review and not GAN. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, sorry for all this confusion as I misintepreted that OhanaUnited was only doing a peer review on the talk page. I am happy to recieve both your GA reviews if you come to the same conclusion of hold/fail/pass. Perhaps you should both add your review when ready to the Churchill talk page. Thank you! LordHarris 07:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I will let you know when I do a peer review after the current GA. LordHarris 12:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Reception history of Jane Austen

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Reception history of Jane Austen, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: User:Simmaren/Sandbox/Draft Reception and Literary Criticism. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 10:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

BE and CE done. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks muchly for copy editing my blatant copyright vio. :) Awadewit | talk 11:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps they'll give us adjacent cells :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

get well soon

Hello, I was impressed by your erudite comments at WP:CFD so I checked your userpage, and so I learned that you're currently ill. I hope you feel better soon! --Kyoko 16:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks! I think we will prevail in this debate! Awadewit | talk 01:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Wollstonecraft at Anarcha-feminism

Thought you might want to improve this sentence that currently appears in the Anarcha-feminism article (and perhaps offer them a reference or two):
"Early feminist Mary Wollstonecraft held proto-anarchist views[citation needed], and William Godwin, her husband, is often considered an important precursor to anarchist feminism.[citation needed]"
Kaldari 16:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

  • She did? He was? (See Godwin caption on Fanny Imlay.) As far as I know, the major Wollstonecraft scholarship doesn't tie Wollstonecraft to anarchist views at all. Perhaps historians of feminism or anarchism do, but none of the material I have read does that. I know less about Godwin. I know that he is considered an important influence on anarchism, but whether that makes him de facto an important influence on anarchist feminism, I can't really say. Certainly, from what I've read about him while reading about MW and Co. doesn't lead me to believe that. It might be something more like others took his thought to its logical extension while he did not. Awadewit | talk 14:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

New straw poll at the content review workshop

Awadewit, I'm sorry to see that you're not feeling well. Hope you get better soon. I dropped by to update you on the current situation with the content review workshop, which you contributed to for a while. We have a proposal for automation of peer review, and it seems Gimmetrow is going to try to find time to write the bot code for that. Once he has something to show people we'll post more notifications so people can see what they think of the idea.

Since it will be some time before Gimmetrow gets to that, we're currently running another straw poll to identify the next topic, and I thought that you might be interested in participating in that, even if you decide not to get involved with the subsequent topic discussion. Please drop by to take a look if you have the time; the section is here. Thanks, and best wishes with the cold/cough. Mike Christie (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Nguyen Ngoc Tho

Hello there Awadewit. I've responded on the talk page. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And again. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Preliminary review

Hello there. Sorry for bothering you but I have seen you been reviewing and editing articles for GA so I would like to ask your skilled hands to review Marcela Agoncillo for POV issues and any concerns for it to be ready for peer review or to GAN, if it's ok for you. Thank you. BritandBeyonce (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for asking, but I'm afraid that I don't have the time at the moment. I'm sick and I need to take time to get well. Awadewit | talk 03:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry too. I forgot to state about your condition at the moment but if you have time, would you? Anyway, what I am asking is not that as formal as GA Review processing. Just pieces of comments. Thank you. Get well soon Awadewit. BritandBeyonce (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If at all possible - would be infinitely appreciated

I don't know if you remember, but a few months back, you said you'd be interested in taking a look over Bonaparte Crossing the Alps - you said you had access to some text relating to the matter, or, if I remember correctly, that you'd "read up on it". Of course, if you no longer can do this due to time restraints, other commitments, or even a lack of interest, then please do not go out of your way. If you have the time and inclination, even a simple copyedit would be unbelievably appreciated, and if not, then that is completely ok too. Even an opinion on where I could improve things in order to get this closer to FA in the future would be great. Thanks a lot. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Will do. However, I'm in the middle of several other projects at the moment as well as finals, so it will have to wait until the holidays, if that is ok. Awadewit | talk 10:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
No problems. Thanks again. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Jeremy Kyle Show GA on hold

Thanks for reviewing the article, but I feel that you have raised too many issues with the article concerning reliable sources. For uncontroversial material, WP:SPS such as the ITV link and things like The Sun are OK in my book. Also, without opinion pieces, where would it be possible to even get information about criticism of the show? I realise that the article may not be quite up to GA status but you may be applying too harsh standards on the article. A good article is supposed to be a decent article, but need not be a brilliant one. Could you please reconsider some of your more minor points?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

  • On the point about "uncontroversial material". You use the ITV link to cite this sentence: "The show is distinctive for its confrontational style, which sees guests attempt to resolve issues with others that are significant in their lives, such as family, relationship, sex, drug, alcohol and other issues." It is precisely this "confrontational style" that is the point of contention. Choosing how exactly to describe the show is difficult. Relying on an advertisement for the show is not a good idea because it is hardly unbiased. However, if you can find no other description of the show, why not simply write that: "The show bills itself as..."
  • On the second point about opinion pieces. Perhaps I did not explain what I meant clearly enough. What I meant was that I don't think opinion pieces can be used to cite facts, since such pieces are not held to the same journalistic standards as other newspaper articles. I agree that they can be used as evidence for the controversy surrounding the show, but that is different (and even then, they are only the opinion of that columnist). The examples that I cited on the talk page were instances when the article used opinion pieces to source facts about the show.

I hope this clarifies the issue a bit. Awadewit | talk 10:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency)

A copy of my reply at Talk:Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency)#GA fail:
I feel your decision is unnecessarily harsh here. This is not FAC; the article addresses the the main points in context, gives detail where known/ noteworthy but remains focussed; and it is broad in coverage, particularly in comparision to other parliamentary constituency articles (at 42kB length). The primary information, the complete list of members, is a resource which is not compiled anywhere else. The prose is clear, the grammar is correct and it complies with the manual of style guidelines. It is factually accurate, verifiable and properly referenced. In my opinion therefore, it is well written and meets the criteria set-out for a good article. In terms of your specific (smaller) objections:—

  • See British House of Commons article, for the formal style.
  • The Franchise section discusses the key dates 1800 and 1835 (electorate), 1872 (secret ballot), 1832 (Reform Act), 1868 (enfranchising the skilled working class) and 1919 (universal manhood suffrage). The period of the interregnum is covered in the following table, ie. the period between the Long Parliament and its brief restoration.
  • A colour key is redundant, as the table gives the party affiliation (since this existed) in longhand.

Can you please review your decision in light of this, or otherwise set-out your objections in terms of the relevant criteria. Cheers, Chrisieboy 16:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

  • To be clear, I was not using the FAC criteria while reviewing this article and I was also agreeing with the previous reviewer. It is precisely the issue of broad coverage that is at issue. There are only a few isolated examples of the borough's political history given, not a broad overview. Those are actually two different things and GA demands the overview.
  • I would suggest including dates for the interregnum and other pre-1800 events that are currently just linked for readers who don't know when they happened.
  • I was initially confused by the colors. I had to scroll down through the table and start checking to see if the colors matched with the parties. It is always a good idea to be as explicit about these things as possible - to be as helpful to readers as we can.

You are free to appeal the decision at WP:GAR. Awadewit | talk 16:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wollstonecraft

If you'd like an overly long answer to your question, see my talk page.--Mike Selinker 14:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


A note of appreciation

Just a quick note as I work through your comments at the Wulfhere FAC: I really am delighted when I see you have reviewed one of my articles. I can tell from your user page that you're busy, and I actually feel slightly guilty when I see that you've taken time out to provide feedback to one of my FACs, but I'm always glad you've done so. Thank you for taking the time; I have been lucky enough to get some very high-quality reviews from Wikipedians, you among them, and I want you to know I appreciate it.

I know I owe you some feedback on your articles, though I'm afraid my knowledge of your field is so slight that there's little I can do to help. However, if you do want a review of something you're working on, please let me know and I'll be glad to try. And of course, get well soon. Mike Christie (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm glad that you don't feel besieged by my reviews! I would welcome a review whenever you have the time (I know you're busy with the workshop and other things as well). It is always good to have an "outside" reader who can say "but I have no idea what the article is saying here!" I kind of feel that I serve this function for the Anglo-Saxon articles you are working, since my knowledge of that period is so limited. I've had to borrow books from friends just to be able to converse semi-intelligently and I know I don't do it very well. I don't know OE and I don't remember my Latin, so I really am at a disadvantage. However, reading the articles has been wonderfully instructive for me - and isn't that the best part of wikipedia: learning? Awadewit | talk 15:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 7 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Reception history of Jane Austen , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Advice

Because you've got a couple literary featured lists under your belt, could I get a comment or two on Bibliography of Edgar Allan Poe? Is the introductory prose material worthwhile to the article? Also, do I (or how should I) provide a source for the full list of works? Thanks! --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, feel free to comment on the article's talk page... maybe we can get a discussion going from anyone else who might happen to be watching the page. :) --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
See comments on talk page. Thanks for asking. I was afraid that my unspeakable rudeness at our last encounter would have rightfully discouraged you have from ever asking my opinion again. Please accept my apologies. Awadewit | talk 16:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I just saw this... frankly, I feel I was the one being rude... It was certainly a series of atypical moments of over-sensitivity and defensiveness for me. "I shall not sin quite so egregiously again," as Poe once said! I have great respect for all you've done here, and consider you one of the strongest literary contributors I've encountered in this Wikiworld! Just wanted to make that clear. :) --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm just glad we can work together. :) Awadewit | talk 04:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Charlotte Stuart, Duchess of Albany

Hi, I've tried to meet the concerns you pointed out when you reviewed this a few months ago, and I've renominated it for GA. I don't know if you'd like to take a look or not, but since you put the effort into reviewing this last time, I just thought I'd let you know the progress.--Docg 18:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • It is kind of you to ask, but I am in the middle of grading finals right now. I'm afraid that is consuming me at the moment. Good luck with GAC! Awadewit | talk 02:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Austen Reception and Criticism subpage

I will deal tomorrow with the problem raised by Churchh about the image caption. I'm about to go with my son and family friends to have dinner and see The Golden Compass. :) The citation in the caption is flat wrong. I want to look at the history (which can be found on the page we are using for the "style" section after all) and some of the references in surrounding citations. (One hypothesis: things were moved around and the proper cite misplaced or mislaid.) If necessary, I will confess error. Simmaren (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I think I added or changed the caption at some point, but I don't remember doing anything to the citation. This is why all citations have to be rechecked before FAC. :) What a mess. Awadewit | talk 22:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

When you get a chance, take a look at the note I added to the Talk page of the main article concerning the image of the Austen family coat of arms Churchh added to the article today. Simmaren (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I saw that and appended a thought. Awadewit | talk 22:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You should be!

Hi Awadewit: I noticed your comment at the content review workshop that you are a "lowly content editor and not an administrator". Editing content is clearly the most important and valued aspect of Wikipedia, and you are evidently brilliant at it: quite the opposite of lowly. You are also, in my experience, fantastic at providing constructive criticism of the work of others. Furthermore, you understand the importance of Wikipedia processes and contribute valuable ideas on how to improve them based on real experience. Wikipedia should have more admins who are as in touch with the main purpose of the encyclopedia as you are. The word "admin" is a misnomer: really it means "Wikipedians trusted by the community to have access to extra tools". I find it almost impossible to imagine anyone not trusting you with them, and they are occasionally useful, as you may have notice recently ;-) However, contrary to popular opinion, becoming an admin does not have to change your wiki-life (it hasn't changed mine). I would love to nominate and support an RFA for you, as you are clearly a top-class editor. There are many respected Wikipedians (e.g. Willow) who surely share my view. I hope you will accept. Geometry guy 23:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What he said. You'd get my vote. Mike Christie (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Amen. Simmaren (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Lowly editor indeed...:p In a more serious note, if you don't want the administrative tools, which I could understand, don't give into pressure. Being a sysop can be extremely stressful at times (dealing with trolls, socks, banned-schoolkids-with-nothing-else-to-do, et cetera...) However the tools can prove to be useful; ability to look at deleted revisions, to edit protected pages such as T:DYK and the Main page, and access to the admin cabal channel and various mailing lists. It all depends on your view; and whether you feel you want to help Wikipedia in these areas. Having administrative status is not synonymous to a higher social status, so you shouldn't feel that you are just a lowly editor. If you do decide to go for adminship, I hope you wouldn't mind a co-nom by me :) --DarkFalls talk 07:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks guys! However, I feel that I can best serve wikipedia by contributing content. I feel that becoming an administrator would not really help me do that. In other words, it is not necessary for me to be an administrator to contribute quality articles to wikipedia. I also want wikipedia to be fun and relaxing - a hobby if you will. I have this fear that by becoming an administrator I would get sucked into political dramas. I joke about "lowly content editors" because I do feel a kind of hierarchy at times, as if admins are "special" somehow. Perhaps that is not what is supposed to happen, but I do get this sense. Awadewit | talk 09:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Au contraire - sorry I really hate the idea of a schism between contributors and admins - many admin tools are useful to contributing content - I am sure you have a huge watchlist and reverting vandals is quicker, as is moving pages (uncontroversial pages anyway). not to mention Protecting pages. One can also see deleted content. You'd be a shoo-in. Admin status has little to do with getting mired in or, conversely, ignoring politics. I'd be happy to nominate yer too. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm relieved that Awadewit has declined. Wikipedia needs admins who are active with the mop, which is inevitably a distraction from content production. Awadewit is one of our best content producers; it would be a shame to diminish that activity. I suspect Awadewit's watchlist is more genteel than most of Wikipedia, and has less need for vandal fighting and protection. Colin°Talk 10:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Erm, you'd be surprised what gets vandalised. All the whale species seem to be a big target, Emu too....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
People make way too big a deal of being an admin. Yes, we need admins who are active with the mop, but that doesn't mean we don't need admins who are firmly centred on content. Nobody says that because you have the tools to deal with trolls and vandalism, you have to. I have absolutely no intention of doing any vandalism related work with the tools. I also edit Wikipedia for fun and relaxation, and political drama rarely interests me. So far, so good ;-) Geometry guy 11:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh man, the dreaded double negative ;) - (had to read that twice.....) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I support Awadewit's decision. Every purely administrative action would detract from her article writing. Also, given her intended career, it would a mistake as far as anonymity is concerned, because Wikipedia has enemies who delight in naming and mocking Wikipedian administrators. This has caused horrid problems for some administrators in real life. Only those with a watertight username and history are safe. qp10qp (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Dead from poetry

"Emilie" Dickinson ate my brain. Even if I don't win $100, I think I'll treat myself to a nice, mindless entertainment magazine tonight. ;) I think you and Simmaren a definite shoe-in with Miss Austen, but there are some extremely good entries for this contest. Have you seen Domestic sheep? Who knew? Good luck! :) María (habla conmigo) 16:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I have no idea what the criteria for "winning" are. If one of the criteria is "completion", we won't win, since we don't have our "Literary style" or "Themes" section up yet. Ah well. Dickinson looks fantastic to me. Perhaps next year they will consider running the contest at a different time. I cam consumed with finals right now - grading finals and final papers. Not a lot of time for wikipedia, I'm afraid. I love the sheep! Do you think it is a hidden comment on the contest? :) Can you tell I'm a lit crit type? Awadewit | talk 02:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Ha! I hadn't thought of sheep in that way, but now that you mention it... I resemble that remark! ;) I agree that the timing was pretty bad; perhaps that's why there weren't as many entries as I was expecting. The only criteria that I see is that the five winners will be the five most "improved" articles, which is such a gray area. I hope they're not looking for completely, er, completed work -- surely they can't expect that kind of output in just two weeks? María (habla conmigo) 02:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I kept wishing the contest was a month long. How much can anyone really achieve in two weeks? Awadewit | talk 04:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a definite and previously unsuspected tie between "family of woollen manufacturers" and "Domestic sheep." :) Simmaren (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:One featured article per quarter

I've made the 'fancy' table per your request. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Andrews and turtle doves

That's exciting news about the Andrews book! :) I'm going to try to add some more to JJ soon, although I confess, I have less enthusiasm for the Anti-Jacobin Review. If I were only Leibnizian enough, I would see that beauty arises from the harmonious interplay of light and dark. I was also delighted to hear about the little birds that came to nest in your box; I'm sure that they were relieved to find such a hospitable new home after what must've been a long night-flight in the cold. :) Willow (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I know what you mean about the AJR. Unfortunately that is a common problem, so Mary Wollstonecraft has shelves of scholarship while Hannah More doesn't. :) Perhaps someday we'll be in the mood. I'm overloaded right now, anyway. I just wanted to let you know about the source, because it is such a good one and there aren't many! Awadewit | talk 22:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Awarded to Awadewit for numerous and effective suggestions that lead to G/A status for Introduction to Evolution


It would have been easy to fail us and walk away. Instead you opted to invest your time and skills in elevating the article to Good Article status. It is not an easy task to write for the laymen and accommodate the experts; especially on such a volatile topic. Thank you for a critique that allowed us to do just that. --Random Replicator (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks! I'm glad you found my endless comments helpful! Awadewit | talk 19:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A heartfelt thank you!

The Editor's Barnstar
For your invaluable assistance in pushing us to GA status at Introduction to evolution, my boundless thanks. Filll (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • How very kind! Thank you! Awadewit | talk 19:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

?

Thanks for another insightful review. Re: 'our friend'. I'm all cut up. I'm told there are seven stages; I'm struggling at the first still, if the truth be known. He'll be back. Ceoil (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I was actually physically pained when I saw the black box. I couldn't breathe for a moment. It was really quite saddening. Awadewit | talk 05:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Emma Goldman review

Hello there, friend. I don't suppose you've time for a peer review of Emma Goldman, do you? She was, after all, a big fan of Mary Wollstonecraft. – Scartol • Tok 21:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, I will, but it will take me a few days. It is a long article and I am in the middle of grading finals. :) Awadewit | talk 01:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • No sweat. Thanks so much. I can probably insert more citations for each note, but (a) it feels repetitive, since I've oscillated between the texts so much as it is (Drinnon, Chalberg, and Wexler are all very similar in what they say), and (b) there's been some complaining on the talk page about how I already have too many different citations. – Scartol • Tok 13:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The whole point is that the reader doesn't know that the biographies say the same thing unless you show them that in the footnotes.
  • Pay no mind to the talk page. It is better to cite too much and too rigorously! Awadewit | talk 17:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Jane Austen table of contents

I noticed some back-and-forth with another editor on the optimum "depth" of the table of contents for Jane Austen. Why don't we leave it as is for a few days (depth = 3)? The awkward look should become apparent to readers fairly quickly, and I doubt that it will get past GA/FA reviewers in any case. Simmaren (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I only revert once, unless the edit is truly heinous. I agree that the TOC won't get past the FAC reviewers. In fact, I pretty much know that for a fact. :) Perhaps, in the meantime, someone else will come along and change it. Least of our worries right now! Awadewit | talk 03:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The second serious piece of editing I did on WP was a properly sourced and detailed rewrite of the "Military" section of Ancient Rome. After I was done and after one of the military history wonks said he/she liked it, a junior high school kid made some really stupid, incoherent, ungrammatical edits that badly sullied my spotless and shining work. We went back and forth, after I reverted the first time and politely explained why I had done so, and he/she insisted on standing on his/her unsourced dignity (worse than Watt) as a fully-entitled WP editor. I eventually just left it, and many of the changes are still there. I'm waiting in the weeds for the student to graduate or get expelled or fall in love or something, and forget. It's important to take the long view. :) Simmaren (talk) 03:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah yes. Well, in junior high a month is an eternity. :) Awadewit | talk 04:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Coincidentally enough, last night, someone unknown to me (not a junior high school student, apparently) revised the mutilated portions of the "Ancient Rome - Military" article and restored it almost to my original wording. I need to express resentment more often -- doing so has power. :) Simmaren (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on all your featured articles! I am very impressed. RedRabbit (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! You are too kind. I have it easy - I research for a living. `Awadewit | talk 06:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wadewitz/Archive_19&oldid=1091654255"