User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 4

Leonardo da Vinci

I am the person who has done most of the recent rewriting of the Leonardo da Vinci article and also created Leonardo da Vinci - scientist and inventor. All the writing on Leonardo's workshop paintings, training, influence, and contemporaries is mine, as well as most of the intro etc. The extent of my edits, of course, are obvious to anyone who checks the history. I have, however, not done anything extensive over a couple of weeks because I've been out of the country.

Your review is valuable and I'll work through all the points that you have made.

On the other hand, I find Natl1's behaviour in seeking a peer revue for an article that another person is obviously spending a great deal of time improving to be impudent to say the least.

I'm terribly sorry, I did not know that you were still in the process of improving it. I have had this happen to me as well. Someone nominated an article I was working on for GA way before it was ready. I sympathize. Awadewit 15:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

About the US spellings and so on, I'll try and sort that out, but it's a battle against well-meaning Americans who keep removing the u from colour and dropping "zees" in where one doesn't want them.

I would suggest posting a little note on the talk page invoking WP:ENGVAR. If the page is primarily written in British English, it should stay that way. Hopefully this doesn't spark a gigantic debate. (No one can come along and demand it be written in Italian, anyway.) Awadewit 15:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There are also style inconsistencies because when I'm doing major edits, I'm too kind... I'm always loathe to ruthlessly remove what other people have worked on and try to leave a little bit of everybody, unless it's ridiculous. I'm getting less kind though...

I would also recommend that the editors wait until the page has achieved some content stability before they bother with copyediting. It can be discouraging to take the time to copyedit large sections that are later removed. Awadewit 15:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

--Amandajm 07:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Re Section references

Frankly, I dunno what else to do! I previously had a problem with an article that I submitted for FA review. Some reviewers want virtually every sentence to have an inline reference, which is ludicrous. The only things, by the rules, which require inline referencing are those things that might be queried or are direct quotations.

This is true, but oftentimes in practice reviewers want verifiable facts cited as well. Awadewit

Much of what I write is not drawn directly from a single source, but is the result of extensive reading. It becomes impossible to have inline references for everything. So I reference the section. The reason being that an inline reference can be expected to pertain to the information immediately preceeding the punctuation mark. So a reference put at the end of a paragraph would appear to relate only to the content of the last sentence.

I perfectly understand this problem. You might look at the Johannes Kepler article. They seem to have done a good job of trying to balance out these problems. Awadewit 15:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

One way around this, taken by some wiki editors, is to write at the beginning of a section "Much of the information in this section has been drawn from SoandSo's book, "Suchandsuch"". This is quite unencyclopedic and messy. So I write Section references: Vasari, Berenson, Bortolon instead.

The only problem I see with this is that readers cannot check up on you or go to those sources for more information on a specific topic because you have not given them specific page numbers. Awadewit 15:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The other matter is this, as an art historian one uses images (or works of architecture)as documents. If I say "Pisa Cathedral is in the Romanesque style" I don't expect to have to cite anything to support this statement except Pisa Cathedral itself. But those wikipedants who are not familiar with the topic find it difficult to believe that one can look at a cathedral and say "That's Romanesque" just as easily as another person can say "That's a Ford" or "That's a Poodle" or "That's an Applemac".

As a literary scholar, I understand your problem completely (a sonnet is a sonnet, for example). I simply try to appease these editors to avoid unnecessary strife but also because I feel that overciting for wikipedia is not a current problem. I feel that my wikipedia articles, which from an academic standpoint are overcited, add legitimacy to wikipedia simply because I back up so much of what I say. One way to legitimize wikipedia in the public sphere is to offer a lot of citations. That is what I have chosen to do (see Mary Wollstonecraft and Anna Laetitia Barbauld), but like I said, the Johannes Kepler article provides another model. Awadewit 15:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So any advice you have on the difficult matter of referencing is welcome. --Amandajm 08:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Update on Politics

This article has now been listed as a GA. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't have passed it (that's the problem with having only one reviewer). It fails at least on criteria 3, in my opinion. Why don't you look at Law, a concept at least as broad as politics to see what a more comprehensive page looks like. Awadewit 19:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Criterion 3 says ...this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed (my bold text). However, I understand what you're saying in that the article is still not perfect in its coverage. Ideally I want to improve it to FA status, and will start by adding references to Locke and Machiavelli as you suggested, as well as Rousseau and "The Social Contract", and Karl Marx (who I really ought to have thought of earlier - mea culpa). But bear in mind that I don't really want the article to become insanely long, or full of every single philosopher and political theorist whose books have been influential (I could sit here listing those all day). That's why we have numerous other articles on political theory. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You have hit on it exactly - I do not feel that the article has a "broad overview" yet. You should be proud of all of the work you have done on this article, but I have a feeling that this article will take months of sustained work by many people to achieve FA status. I agree that the article should not list every political philosopher, but certainly the most influential ones should be listed. Also, you may not want the article to be long, but it is a huge topic and will by necessity be quite long. Awadewit 22:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Machiavelli, Locke and Karl Marx are now covered in their own sections, as you suggested. In terms of the long list of prominent political philosophers, I've added a section on "other philosophers" which lists most of the other central thinkers. I've also put in a {{mainarticle}} tag for Political philosophy. Overall I think it's quite hard to find the correct balance for this article; on the one hand, it shouldn't just explain to the reader what politics is (a dictionary can do that), but on the other hand, it would be unproductive to try and cover every aspect of politics, or to repeat all the content from Political power, political philosophy, political history, etc. The Politics infobox is provided on the page precisely because it's helpful to the reader to have main articles on all these fields, rather than cramming everything into one article. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that finding a balance is incredibly difficult, especially for a page like this. But I also think that careful reading and reflection will allow you to decide what to include. You seem to want to improve this page quite dramatically and quite quickly. I think that it will take time; revision is tough but necessary work and often involves the insertion of new material and the deletion of old material. Like I said before, I believe this page will take months to complete and will probably need the input of several editors since the topic, as you say, is so large. Awadewit 16:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

When you have the time, could you provide a further review of Politics, or a list of other things you think need expanding within the article? You clearly aren't fully satisfied with it yet; I accept your point that rewrites like this take time, but I'd appreciate clear instructions on what needs to be done to get it to reach your standards. Hard work doesn't scare me. :) Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Update - the peer review is now closed. But I'd still welcome further feedback on the article, as you stated that you're not fully satisfied with it yet. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, to begin with, I would definitely have sections outlining the different forms of government. I would order the philosophers chronologically. I would also have a section on Rousseau - he Social Contract is very important. You should explain the ideas of the philosophers in relation to each other better. Your explanation of Locke is not quite right, for example. Hobbes does not promote a "social contract" in the way you suggest; he argues for a dictatorship, really, because the people cannot agree with each other because the "state of nature" is a "war." Locke, in response, argues for a "social conract" because he believes in a relatively more stable "state of nature." Rousseau has entirely different take on the "state of nature" and the "general will." This is why I was saying that you need to read a lot and that this page will take a lot of time. (By the way, Locke was responding to a person named Filmer in the Treatises.) Also, two sentences on Aristotle? These are just a few of the things that I would suggest. Awadewit 17:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've done most of that, including the section on Rousseau. I've reorganised the philosophers into chronological order (the only potential problem I see is that it puts Confucius first, which could confuse the reader, as his thought is so different from the Western tradition). As to my explanation of Locke, I expanded and explained it a bit better. I'm still worried that the wording is unclear in those sections and that I'm over-reliant on quotes, but I'll go back to it in due course. So moving on from the philosophies section, what suggestions do you have for improving the rest of the article? Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be describing the major ideas of the philosophers. I think what you should be doing is describing what those philosopehrs say about politics, the topic of the page. If the "social contract" is important to understanding politics, you need to provide an explanation of why (from scholarly sources, of course). This is why I keep saying that you need to read more. The page isn't a "greatest hits," it is a synthesis of the scholarship on lots of different topics. Also, I was thinking about the phrase "the personal is the political" that feminists adopted. It would seem that personal politics has been left out of the article. You mention it briefly in the lead, but you don't really return to do. I think that it bears some investigation and inclusion here. Awadewit 04:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in the case of philosophers like Rousseau, Aristotle and Confucius, I ignored a significant body of their work (Aristotle's scientific work, Confucius' moral philosophy, Rousseau's literature and so on) and wrote only about their political theories. However, I'll work on rewording this to make it clearer. As to "the personal is the political" (hence family politics, office politics and so on), I agree that more is needed on that, particularly in the section on political power (feminists assert that the family structure is a method of perpetuating male power, etc). I'll get to work on looking up some sources for that (which is really the hardest part of the whole exercise). Thanks for your advice; I'll get back to you in a couple of days after I've made the requested improvements. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I know you did (I am familiar with these philosophers' works); I just want to make sure that users who read the page understand the connection between the ideas you have outlined and the idea of politics. This is actually quite hard. Awadewit 16:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is quite hard. I must say, when I started this task, I wasn't aware of how hard it is to write a good article on a serious academic topic (as opposed to popular-culture topics or permastubs). This is much more challenging than the other stuff I do on Wikipedia (vandal-fighting, XfDs and so on). Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It might have been easier to pick a smaller topic to start with and then slowly move up to something as challenging as "politics." I myself would be daunted by "politics." Perhaps once you have finished "politics" or have tired of it, you should select a smaller topic. Then you won't feel so exhausted and you might actually have a chance at "completing" the page - this one seems like it might be endless. :) Have you found anyone else to work on it yet? Awadewit 18:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Reviewers Award
		Thanks for going over the article on William Monahan over and over at FAC. Your comments on the article's layout ultimately helped to steer the article in the best direction.-BillDeanCarter 02:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Recommended Ronald Reagan Books

I see that you are scrutinizing the Ronald Reagan entry. Thank you for that. I very much want the TRUTH of Reagan to be told, but there is so much fake propaganda espoused, such as the outrageous claim that Reagan destroyed USSR with force. In fact, Reagan quietly worked for peace and used diplomacy. That's the REAL Reagan we need; NOT a war-monger, which he was not.

Please help police the Ronald Reagan from false information - mainly form the neo-cons. These books are the most reliable (not propaganda) books I especially recommend for books on Ronald Reagan, widely available at libraries and such. Ronald Reagan's autobiography "An American Life," which refutes much of the neo-con propaganda said about Reagan, "President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime" by Lou Cannon. "President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination" by Richard Reeves, "Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended" by Jack Matlock, "The Cold War: A New History" by John Lewis Gaddis, "Ronald Reagan and the Triumph of American Conservatism" by Jules Tygiel, "Ronald Reagan and his Quest to Abolish Nuclear Weapons" by Paul Lettow, "The Cold War" by Ronald Powalski," "Lenin's Tomb" by David Remnick" and "From the Cold War to a New Era" by Don Oberdorfer.,

Question on Ronald Reagan

Hi again. If you look at the Ronald Reagan Peer Review, you'll see that some editors and myself are implementing many of your suggestions, which is really helping us. I have a question though. If you have some time, could you please go to Ronald Reagan, and scroll down to the "References" section, for I think that Kaisershatner is incorrectly citing some of his/her sources (especially numbers 31 and 32). If you look at many of the citations that I added, I followed the page Template:Citeweb. Kaisershatner is adding a sentence in the front, after the [?] , and describing a specific line of the article in the citation, which (after looking at Gerald Ford's article, a Featured one) I think is what you are ont supposed to do. I tried to delete the added sentence and fix it. Then I wrote a message to him/her, saying I think you have inncorrectly added a citation, for when you click on the external link in the "References" section, you should be able to find the cited fact you included in the article. I told Kaisershatner that I fixed on it. He/She wrote me back (see: User_talk:Happyme22), with a rebuttle that I don't really understand. Anyway, could you please look at it, and tell me if I was right, or if he/she was right? The citations he/she added don't look like the other ones, so I wanted to get your opinion. I know this is mostlikley confusing, but it would help me if you could look at it. Thanks, Happyme22 23:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

CFD comment

Hi awadewit

I hope you'll forgive me for writing to you about your contribution to the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March_23#Category:Women_writers. Thanks for joining in: it's always very useful to have input from those with particular knowledge of a subject area, and as at deletion review, your thoughtful contribution shows that you clearly do know a lot about the area!

It's also valuable that you have tied your arguments to wikipedia's policies and guidelines; too many of the contributions to that CFD (as to other CFDs on gendered categories) have either ignored the guidelines or simply dismissed them without providing any reasons for making women writers an exception to the guidelines (most of the "delete" !votes are in fact general objections to any categorisation by gender, contrary to the guidelines at WP:CATGRS).

However, I was a bit disappointed when I saw your closing paragraph in defence of scribblingwoman, and I hope you'll take a moment to try to understand why I see it that way, both a wikipedia admin and someone who has been persuaded by the very cogent arguments that my initial vote to delete the category was overly-hasty and misinformed.

Scriblingwoman did great work in bringing the category to deletion review after first raising the issue at Category talk:Women writers. Her efforts allowed editors the chance to reconsider the merits of the category after an initial CFD which was procedurally correct but failed to even consider the guidelines, and it's thanks to her that we have a further chance to argue the case for a category which clearly reflects both a broad area both of scholarly work and a dimension of literature which is valuable to many readers.

However, she did do a lot of damage to her case by inappropriate canvassing. I'm sure that she acted in good faith and that if she had known of the relevant guideline (WP:CANVASS), she wouldn't have made that honest mistake.

But the guidelines are clear:

In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly unacceptable to send mass talk messages to editors that expressed only a particular viewpoint on the previous debate, such as only "Keep" voters or only "Delete" voters.

What scribblingwoman should have done was to a) place a neutrally-worded notice on Category talk:Woman writers and on any other public places (such as other similar categories or relevant projects), and b) if she was to contact individual editors, to make sure to do that in a balanced way, and to include people on the other side of the argument.

Broadly, she did part A correctly: the wording wasn't perfect, but it certainly wasn't blatantly partisan; the net was possibly cast a little wide, but I'm sure that anyone assuming good faith would regard that as a marginal call. So far so good :)

Unfortunately, the only individuals she contacted were those who had already expressed an opinion in favour of reinstatement, and that's where the WP:CANVASS guidelines were crossed: if she wanted to contact individuals, she should have considered the recommendation against excessive cross-posting.

Sorry to Labour the point, but since here are a lot of editors seemingly determined to remove any gendered category, it's important not to give the impression that those in favour of the category don't care about procedure or don't understand it. I sure that's not what you intended, but it did seem to me to slightly come across that way.

Anyway, sorry if this sounds preachy ... that's not how I want it to sound, so please forgive e if the tone is wrong. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for comments. I do appreciate it when people try to explain what my actions and words look like to other wikipedians, but in this case I still feel that scribblingwoman has done nothing wrong. First, the guideline on canvassing is not a policy, it is only a guideline and it begins with the statement that canvassing itself it "controversial," so even if scribblingwoman had canvassed (which I don't believe she has), her canvassing is not necessarily against wikipedia policies and there are obviously people who would support her right to canvass otherwise that sentence would never have been inserted in the guideline. Second, you quote a part of the guideline that suggests scribblingwoman posted or sent out a "mass" of posts. I do not consider her posts a mass - what do you consider a "mass"? It does not seem that she has sent out over ten at the most. The guideline suggests that spamming is disruptive and out of order; to me spamming indicates hundreds or thousands of messages within the wiki-community. That is clearly not what happened here and the people she contacted only elevated the conversation. Also, you suggest that she only contacted people who had already expressed an opinion in favour of reinstatement, but again in my case this is not true. I had reviewed her page Women's writing in English (see Talk:Women's writing in English) and in response to one of my criticisms, she mentioned that the review debate was going on and that was why she had written the page as she had. I checked the debate out, was appalled by the level of the discussion (and, frankly, that the discussion was going on at all) and decided to participate. I have asked scribblingwoman to keep me updated on the category's progress in case I miss the various stages of its progress because I am unfamiliar with the process of trying to reinstate a category, so she posted a message to my talk page letting me know about the reinstatement debate (also, I was going out of town, and I did not want to miss my chance to "vote"). I do not feel that any of this was out of order. If you feel that I should amend my comment on the reinstatement page to make this all clearer, please let me know. Also, in general, I feel that informing people who have a vested interested in the category (such as people whose pages use the category, as mine formerly did), would have been a better way to go about deleting it. I had no idea it was being deleted originally, but would certainly have participated in the debate had I known it was being deleted. I am afraid that I do not have time to look at every department within wikipedia, and I have decided not to focus on deletion debates (I am more of a peer-reviewer and FAC-reviewer myself). It is only fair, I believe to notify those of us who will be affected by the deletion before it happens and ask for our input. Awadewit 17:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey you two! I don't think I did anything wrong either, in the sense of anything unethical, but it has certainly become clear, from some of the reactions, that I transgressed Wiki-culture. I suspect that some emphasised their outrage more than they might have in a different debate, but be that as it may: I unwittingly handed them ammunition. When GRBerry removed the debate to Categories for discussion I think s/he did me an enormous favour. And in future I probably will act differently, and I don't just mean more subtly, because of one simple fact: I did not send a message to BrownHairedGirl because of her vote in the earlier debate, and think how diminished the current debate would have been had Radiant (a big hug to him/her!) not contacted her. So I have learnt something in spite of myself. ;-) Oh grief, an emoticon; time to sign off. scribblingwoman (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It would seem, scribblingwoman, that transgressing wiki-taboos is a mortal not a venial sin. Ignorance of the commandments is not an excuse. :) (By the way, I find the ethics of wikiculture confusing at best. When I suggested it was unethical for people to support their own articles at FAC, almost no one agreed with me.) Awadewit 20:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

!!??! Okay, now I have a headache. scribblingwoman (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

We agree on something

Re the FAC para you wrote "...One's prose would be functional, mechanical and sparse...", well said! We agree on something! Tony1 just doesn't see that there are other ways to write prose, while he often has good suggestions, the problem is his single minded attitude.Rlevse 20:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I am debating whether or not to post the comment to every FAC Tony1 is currently commenting on. Awadewit 20:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, such a well written comeback to Tony1 is long overdue. See the snit on his talk page he and Sumoeagle179 recently had, Tony1 resorted to lowly name calling twice.Rlevse 21:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Reagan

Thanks for your input on the fn on Happyme22's page. I think I understand the confusion, see what I wrote to him here. Best, Kaisershatner 18:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That's clear to me. Did you get what I said about quoting a quotation? Awadewit 18:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about that, will get to it when I have sec; not controversial at all. Kaisershatner 18:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Contest

Thank you for being a contestant on my contest! If you wish to receive the $15 prize money yourself, email me with details on how I can pay it out to you. PayPal or a money order will do. Or if you wish to just have it donated to the Foundation, let me know. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 10:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Reagan Lead

Hey again. If you have some time, do you mind looking at Ronald Reagan's lead? The article was recently tagged for POV, and I had some questions regarding it. My lead was replaced by another, longer and more detailed one, and I'm not really liking it, but tell me what you think. Thanks, Happyme22 14:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was too long, too. I have edited it to make it shorter and less POV. We'll see what happens. Awadewit 18:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In response to what you said on RR's talk page, I said this: "I think I was the one who I deleted the nuclear weapons statement, for I found it unnecessary for the lead. If you insist that it go in (or some form of it) put it in. I just think it was an odd way to phrase the statement. Mabye another argument would be better? Happyme22 04:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)" Get back to me Happyme22 04:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive

Thank you for your contributions! -- WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive 16:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your tireless and endless efforts in assessing biography articles, WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive hereby awards you The Working Man's Barnstar. 16:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		In recognize of your particularly fine contributions in assessing biography articles, WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive hereby awards you The Original Barnstar.16:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Novels Collaboration of the Month

You supported The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling, which has been selected as the Novels WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Month. Please help improve this article towards featured article standard. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

RR

Just wanted to check before I run this down: the fn in question is the one regarding the botulism quotation, right? Kaisershatner 19:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the botulism quotation, but I was referring to (what has now become) quotation 33 in my earlier post. The footnote states: Ford considered himself a "a moderate in domestic affairs, a conservative in fiscal affairs, and a dyed-in-the-wool internationalist in foreign affairs." The quotation marks indicate that the text is taken from the article, but the words inside the quotation marks are actually a quotation inside the article itself, thus you should really try to find the source for that quotation or at least say "Qtd. in." (I don't know how you keep editing that article. It's nuts over there; all of that constant reverting and refusal to follow wikipolicy.) Awadewit 21:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts concerning Some thoughts concerning...

I just noticed that Zleitzen objected on the basis of "the author coming through". This is what I tried to address in the GA comments when I said "essay-like". I am not writing to say "I told you so!"--just to commiserate. Or because I haven't talked to anyone on Wikipedia today. Or something. :) –Outriggr § 03:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think your point was slightly different, actually (perhaps better). He just latched onto all of the "ones." I'm trying to address it, but at some point it just becomes silly. You should be happy about not having talked to anyone. After the dust-up I got into on the Ronald Reagan page last night, I made a firm decision never to edit controversial pages. I was just trying to help someone out. What a disaster. Awadewit 04:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User box creator with template

I noticed you made a userbox here are two useful userbox creators you might be interested in

• Userbox Creator with template - designed to easily generate Userboxes and has builtin template.
• Userbox Creator with template has religious image database - designed to easily generate Religious Userboxes and has builtin template.

Java7837 20:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica OK?

Hi Awadewit,

I think I made have addressed all of your comments at the FAC of the EB. Your attention to detail was excellent, and I made most of your changes. There were a few, however, that I didn't change, for reasons that I outlined there. I also added a few items over the past few days. Would you please look the article over and tell me where it still needs work — or (tremble) that you Support it? Thanks muchly for all your help, Willow 21:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)