Jump to content

User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30

Naples

Ooh, those naughty Shelleys; they play games with us, no? Reading about the "Neapolitan charge", I was struck by the similarities with the Fanny Imlay affair. Claire Clairmont's diary is missing, Mary Shelley becomes terse in her diary and leaves big gaps, Percy is silent. As St Clair says, they could be very secretive when they wanted to. On the day Elena Adelaide Shelley was baptised, Mary Shelley's journal has the one word "packed"; now, come on, Mary. I don't know if you have read the gripping letter she wrote, when the incident later came to light, to Isabella Hoppner, desperately exonerating both Percy Shelley and Claire Clairmont, but it leaves a breathtaking amount unsaid. When she says "the rest must be false", she is plainly lying. This propensity for lying on the part of the Shelleys and Claire makes me start to doubt them at every turn. For example, biographers cite the fact that the three went about sightseeing in Naples, including up Vesuvius (where Claire was very ill), as evidence that Claire could not have been pregnant. But now I wonder if they deliberately embarked on such trips to create a smokescreen. The dresses of that period strike me as particularly convenient for hiding a pregnancy.

There is also a mystery about Mary's letter to Mrs Hoppner, because Mary sent it to Byron to give to Isabella Hoppner, yet it was found opened among his papers after his death. Biographers make much of the fact that he had written to Mr Hoppner to say that he believed that the child was Claire's by Shelley ("it is just like them"). It occurs to me (now that I'm wildly suspicious of these people and their self-conscious laying up of letters and diaries to posterity) that if Byron were the father of the child himself (Elise had worked for him as Allegra's nurse and had been desperate to get away), it might suit him to fail to pass on Mary Shelley's letter and let the Percy-Claire claim stand. In which case his statement that he believed the rumour to be true might be a smokescreen. I suspect these people were operating through so many layers of deception that the biographers' task is impossible. qp10qp (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit on The President (novel)

Hi Awadewit. I've belatedly noticed the caveat re copyediting on your user page - if going over this article is problematic, please say so. There was genuinely no element of coercion intended in my note on the Mission 1 talk page, and now I'm feeling guilty for imposing on you at a busy time. If you like, I can crack on with the copyedit myself, and perhaps you'd be willing to just proofread? Best regards, EyeSereneTALK 10:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Awadewit! Thanks so much for putting in so much time on The President (novel) page, we really appreciate it as we are 3rd and 4th year undergraduate students with not much experiance at all in copyediting and wikipedia in general. EyeSerene has been especially helpful as well and your input is invaluble to us! Thanks so much for your contributions! :) --154.20.13.70 (talk)(Mfreud, I forgot to log it!) 05:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll echo that. Thank you! EyeSerenetalk 11:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about crossing out a couple points on the to-do list for the president, I wasn't sure if I should cross out things that were completed or not, I didn't realize it was a breach of etiquette. We really appreciate all of your input and advice. Thanks so much for taking the time to help us out. --Mfreud (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Lessons

Congrats on the star by the way. I just saw it. Fainites barley 22:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Addison's disease

Re: *If everyone can hang on until next week, perhaps we can hash this out using quotations from all of the sources (always the best way, really). I am much too busy this week to track down all of books, but I can do that next week. Awadewit | talk 22:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC).

Sorry to write personally but please, please, be careful not to waste any time on this on my account (I assume you are proposing to analyse references to specific diagnoses and check what original sources they use?). I suspect it will be a large undertaking and anyway the end results may be ambiguous... could even smack of O.R. Just because Wikipedia is my occasional displacement activity doesn't mean you have to make it your career! What about that dissertation you have to finish? All the best - Pointillist (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
That's very kind of you, but I assume the issue will come up again. Best to do the best we can now. :) Simmaren will help, too, I know. It might be a slow process, but I want to make sure that we have the best information available. Awadewit | talk 23:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Interview

Yes, I'd be happy to answer your questions. Raul654 (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too. (Sorry it's taken so long to reply.) --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I recently realized that I never got around to looking at this as you requested. Sorry it slipped my mind. Would you still like a third opinion? Let me know and I'll make time to do it; I hate to promise and not deliver. If not, then I owe you (another) favour. Mike Christie (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure; that'll give me a chance to get my current Anglo-Saxon king to FAC. Mike Christie (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Defending against those vandals

Just a belated thank you for helping to defend John Knox when it was on the main page! Oh, and when you need a reviewer, drop me a line. I owe you plenty! --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
I award this Copyeditor's Barnstar to Awadewit for her excellent work on Fort Saint Louis. Your continued efforts to help other editors is much appreciated! Karanacs (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To show my appreciation...

...I was going to leave one of these:


but perhaps one of these would be more useful?


Thank you once again! EyeSerenetalk 17:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:Featured article candidates/French Texas

Hi Awadewit. I've responded to the rest of your concerns about the article formerly known as Fort Saint Louis. It's been moved to French Texas, as has the FAC nom, and I wanted to ping you here because your watchlist may not notice the updates. Karanacs (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Good to see you on RCC. I'm crossing my fingers that the intermittent and sparse ad hominem attacks won't become flame wars. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorta trying, but I'm just a poor country cousin. :-) For real probs call the real editors.. among whom you glisten like a pearl. ;-) Ling.Nut (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
That is so kind! (Hey, aren't you supposed to be working your dissertation, just like me!) Awadewit | talk 14:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh someone will hear you Ling.Nut (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I live in Taiwan, and I even missed Wikimania 2007. :-( Ling.Nut (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Too bad! I hear it's fun. I'm really excited to go to Egypt - I've never been there before. Awadewit | talk 14:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
You know it's really cruel to make me so jealous, don't you?  :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
If I had the money, I would fund wiki-scholarships for everybody - you know that, right? I think we all should be able to go. I'll have to post pictures! :( (The only way I can go is because my parents are paying for it. I can basically only pay for my passport.) Awadewit | talk 14:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I'm not sure, but I think that's during the semester.. will be teaching... Ling.Nut (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:WP:ACST

Few hours, maybe a bit more. Glad you find it useful; I hope people will keep updating it. If I get to go to Wikimania (I need to get some funds for that, somehow) I plan to have a presentation on current state of research :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

They - who? I'd love for the Foundation to sponsor my Wikimania participation in exchange (I don't think my department is going to), but I don't think it will come to pass :( In the end, most wiki-work is unrecognized. That's life, I guess :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I have to admit that my paper is far from ready - I was planning on writing it around summer - so there is no chance for me to submit anything but an abstract to the website. I don't recall we had such a requirement when I was attending in 2006. Although granted, many conferences do require papers... I guess I was not expecting it. That said, I do see the WP:ACST content as my mostly finished data collection stage, so it's something :) Oh well, maybe I will present it next year... Btw, thanks again for kind words re ACST - you are the first person to have said 'thank you' for that so far :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Throw me a direct link and I will second you ASAP :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed; I have just submitted it. Good luck! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
That's nice. The teaching article, I presume? I have a much newer article accepted for publication in the Sociological Forum now (about Wikipedia and Iron Law of Oligarchy). Plus various stuff 'in works' :) How about you? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes - the teaching article should be quite useful for me, practically and theoretically. I am curious about the oligarchy article. Do you know Tamsin? We're working on an article about online citizenship related to Wikipedia. My publications "in the pipeline", though, are related to eighteenth-century children's literature. :) That was the emerging technology at the time. Pop-up books were the big thing. Awadewit | talk 01:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Tasmin - no, I am afraid I don't recall such a user. Amusingly enough, my PhD will be concerned with (among other things) historical overview of communication technologies :) Most of my other works, however, are more or less relevant to Wikipedia.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review idea

Hi A, I have made a proposal that no peer review request be archived without some response. To aid in this, there is a new list of PR requests at least one week old that have had no repsonses beyond a semi-automated peer review. This list is at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog.

There are just over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, so I figure if each of these volunteers reviewed just one or two PR requests without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog (as there have been 2 or 3 such unanswered requests a day on average).

If you would be able to help out with a review or two a month from the "no responses" backlog list that would be great (and much appreciated). Please discuss questions, comments, or ideas at the PR talk page and thanks in advance for your help, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

sacraments

hey... the editors sprinkled the stuff about the sacraments in what they considered to be the relevant sections... jesus etc. ... rather than the "sacraments" section. I mentioned this on the article's Talk; they said they liked this way better. I didn't say anything else. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you mean like the stuff I just took out? :) Awadewit | talk 15:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
yeah, something like that ;-) Ling.Nut (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
oh. well, it made no sense there! :) Awadewit | talk 15:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I couldn't find my remarks on talk; maybe it was on the FAC.. butthe editor basically said "the stuff about the sacraments makes better sense in the other sections" So... I dunno. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

we'll see. Awadewit | talk 15:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
found it Ling.Nut (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Thank you for your message of encouragement. I appreciate the kindness. I had just logged on to begin addressing your new commments. I too want the article to be the best it can possibly be. However, it seems there are some irreconcilable differences between some FA reveiwers and others. Not all FA comments are even possible for me to address because they are such broad condemnations of the article in its entirety. Tony's comments come to mind as well as Vassyana's suggestion that I can not use as references books written on Christianity, they have to be Roman Catholic Church specific - this even though the Christianity books speak directly about the pope and the church in Rome. While I address one set of FA reviewers comments regarding trimming the article to be a certain size, I am subsequently hit with others, like your comments asking me to expand on certain subjects that had just been trimmed by several other editors three of whom are not Catholic and whose edits I thought made the article more concise with excellent prose. While I am going through your comments to address the ones that I think will improve the article, please understand that some of them conflict with previous FA reviewers comments and I may not change it as a result. I am not ignoring your wisdom, I am just trying to be respectful of the whole body of editors who have commented on the over three pages of RCC FA nomination so far (two pages for this nom and one of a previous nom). If I dont answer all your questions in one sitting, I will eventually get to them all. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


Re: Tiny point of Wikipedia etiquette

(copied over from my talk page:) Gotcha. I have wondered about this, in fact. I'm not sure how much these particular wikipedians identify with their wiki personae. But anyhow. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Caps at FAC

Awadewit, when you cap comments at FAC, please be sure to add your sig to the subject line of the cap where I'll see it; that way, I know it was you and not someone else who hid your comments, and that you consider them resolved. Also, that dark blue is really hard on my eyes; I can't see the show/hide button. Thanks for all your patient help at FAC. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Sandy, I'm not really what you mean when you say "cap comments at FAC". Also, I hate that dark blue, too, but I don't know how to change the color. I just copied the hiding thing from someone above. If you can change the color, please do! Awadewit | talk 00:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

oh, my, how did I get this here twice; trying to do too much at once (what else is new). Can you copy instead a different color? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

ack, your caps aren't working right at all, I haven't figured out yet what's up ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I know what's wrong, it's the same issue Ealdgyth had, see here. I think you have to remove that bar from your sig. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Testing here first. Awadewit (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll catch up in a bit; when I promote/archive, I have to have seven tabs open, so it takes full concentration :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm back. Your caps at RCC still aren't working for me, and I'm pretty sure I have to do the same thing I had to do earlier to Ealdgyth's, which is to change those bars on your capped sigs to commas. Is it OK with you if I do that on your old capped sigs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've signed anything yet. I'm still reviewing the article. Be there in a few minutes (yes, you can fix my sigs - sorry you have to do that - I had no idea). Awadewit (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
For some reason, that bar interferes with the cap; I'll ask Gimmetrow if he can figure out a fix. I'll go fix your old sigs later, so I don't edit conflict with you while you're doing (more important) review work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow had the answer; yes, the "|" interferes with the hide template. Now that you've changed your sig, we'll be OK, but I'll go back later and remove the old bars. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

RCC FAC

I'll try to look in today. No promises, I've got to get ready to haul a horse cross country tomorrow. (Nervous horse+16 hour trailer ride=Frazzled nerves) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and replaced the Poughkeepsie Journal reference with glorious books. I've also left my opinion on the Barry resource - I don't think it's great, but it's better than what it was. My opinion doesn't carry a lot of weight with the nominator on sources; she seems to think I am overly picky ;) Karanacs (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I looked. I don't think it'll help much, but I looked and wrote up my concerns. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

Congratulations on your latest FA! If you're like me, the excitement isn't much lessened from the first time around. Then again, you've got so many, perhaps it's just an expectation now. ("It's been two weeks. Where's my FA?") Regardless, well done. – Scartol • Tok 15:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll add my congratulations; though to save wear and tear on the typing fingers I'll only congratulate you every twentieth one. Nice work joining the 20-FA club! Mike Christie (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
You guys are great - Thanks! (Is there a t-shirt?) Awadewit (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Re copyedit on The President (novel)

A pleasure it may be, but given your other commitments your time is still very much appreciated! It's been a learning experience for me - I was totally unaware of the existence of these books (my diet of reading, whilst voracious, tends to be confined to certain areas that would not perhaps be regarded as 'literature' by you highbrow types). Anyhoo, thanks once again! EyeSerenetalk 10:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  • It's been awhile in literary studies that anyone sniffed and said "that isn't literature" and since I study children's literature, I can assure you I am definitely not one of those people. :) Awadewit (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Kannada literature

Hi Awadewit. This article of mine is currently in FAC. The article relates to what appears to be your favourite topic, "Literature". So I though you would be the right person to request a copy edit from. user:Tony1 feels the article needs more prose work. Please let me know if you have the time for this. If you dont, please forward me to someone who is good at this and your help will be greatly aprpeciated.thanks,Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  • That is a fascinating topic about which I want to learn more, but I'm afraid you've hit me at a bad time. I have to do quite a bit of grading in the next few days, so I'm afraid copy editing is out for the moment. So sorry! Have you tried WillowW? Awadewit (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Thank you for your thorough review of the article. After seeing your comments and making changes to the page to answer them, I saw things that the page really needed to make it more complete. I am working with the other editors to improve the page based on your final comments and I just hope you will come back again when we need a peer review before trying for FA again (many weeks from now!) NancyHeise (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I read your and Lingnuts conversation about the sacraments sprinkled throughout the article. I just finished sprinkling the rest of the sacraments in their appropriate places and indicating their presence in the different subject headings. Each sacrament's purpose is a direct result of the content in each section where it is addressed. I think the organization is better but that's just me - I was wondering what your opinion is on the matter, if your not too sick and tired of this subject yet! NancyHeise (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I would be happy of offer a peer review in a few weeks (post-finals, of course!) Awadewit (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for Peer Review

Hi! I noticed that you were on the History Peer Review list, and that you had a particular interest in 18th cenutry American history. Well, it's not strictly American, but I wrote an article about a period historic site, and was wondering if you'd give it a once-over for me. Thanks in advance :) --Haemo (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Felicitations

My goodness: [1].--Filll (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Alexander the Great edition triple laurel crown

It is with great pleasure that I award this Alexander the Great edition triple laurel crown to Awadewit for outstanding encyclopedic contributions. The coveted Alexander the Great award goes to editors who earn at least 15 pieces of featured content, 15 good articles, and 15 "Did you know?" entries. Thank you for conquering vast realms of knowledge and freely licensing your considerable work. Gratefully, DurovaCharge! 21:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Your Ancient and Most Honored Conquering Majesty, well done. :) DurovaCharge! 21:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Niiiice. My GAs are lagging behind for that one... I am only at Napoleon's :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yay! Congrats, A. Well done. – Scartol • Tok 11:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

TKM

Well, the stars finally aligned, at least enough for the library and me to exist within the same space. I had to go fetch some of my sources, but I've either taken care of or need clarification on about 95% of your last comments on the talk page. When you get a chance, I'd appreciate another look-over. Someone has also added they they call "points" in the reception section, against my esteemed judgment. Another voice to say it reads awful wouldn't hurt. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If you used the papers to line the birdcages, like I did when I taught, your time would be much freer. I also found this to be an effective method of assessing student understanding and growth. Whenever you get to it is great. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
For Awadewit, with gratitude

I wish this were a barnstar, but it serves the same purpose. Thank you for your editing assistance for To Kill a Mockingbird. It would not be in the state it is in without your help and guidance. --Moni3 (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 11 13 March 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor 
Accusations of financial impropriety receive more coverage Best of WikiWorld: "Five-second rule" 
News and notes: New bureaucrat, Wikimania bids narrowed, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Vintage image restoration WikiProject Report: Professional wrestling 
Tutorial: Summary of policies Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Volume 4, Issue 12 17 March 2008 About the Signpost
Best of WikiWorld: "The Rutles" News and notes: Single-user login, election commission, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Changes at peer review 
WikiProject Report: Tropical cyclones Tutorial: Editing Monobook, installing scripts 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw that and though of you :)

The Veneration of Virtue
In the name of V: For valiantly verifying the various vitriol in this voluminous venue and vanquishing the villains of vulgarity – vindicating the value of our venture – whilst voiding the visibility of your visage, I volunteer to you, Awadewit, this veneration of virtue. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Maynard James Keenan Peer review

It's not in the genre of articles you're into, so if you don't want to review it, I totally understand. Trust. Just dropping a request, as I'm going for FA. Thanks for your consideration. Regards, Lara❤Love 05:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Footnote extension

Hi A,

How's life? I've come home at last, and I was greeted by my first crop of crocus; Spring is here indeed! :) Most of the other early-spring flowers are lagging, though; for example, there's no sign yet of the winter aconite. :( I see also that your own work is coming up roses, especially the Timeline of Jane Austen — congratulations! :)

We couldn't get everything done for the wedding, but we did a lot, anyway. How did your pastry turn out? I'm dying to know. :) It seems ages since we last spoke. I replied to your collaborative-editing questions, too, but I think you must've gotten that e-mail by now; please let me know if it didn't arrive. I hope my answers were helpful. I also see that we have a lot to do for the FA-Team! I'll try to do what I can, but I think I need the weekend to catch up on everything in real life. ;)

I've been looking into your footnote problem, and it wasn't as hard as I'd feared. I came up with a solution basically by duplicating and modifying slightly the PHP code for <ref>. I was ready to try to have it adopted, when it turned out that someone else had already coded up a more general solution. I don't know everything that's involved in getting such an extension to the MediaWiki software accepted here at the English Wikipedia, but hopefully his code will be working soon for you all. Willow (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, check out user:sanbeg/ref test! I think Steve's got it working, at least as an initial go. Willow (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I was away all weekend and I'm frantically trying to catch up with a million things at once, but I promise I'll respond to all of your messages soon! Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Priestley

Merry Christmas! Kaldari (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

...and happy Easter. :) Willow (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much! It's lovely! Awadewit (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

James Bond

Could you e-mail the resources in Wikipedia:Peer review/Goldfinger (film)? The more essayish ones not avaliable online I mean. Thanks. Alientraveller (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Literature FAC

I know you're swamped, so I wanted to alert you to review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The President (novel). SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Also about the President, the student editors there obviously read the comments on the rushed FA nomination page and are a little insecure about the MoS fixing that needs to be done. I don't think they should be worrying about that since there'll be plenty of people to copy edit the article before April 10th which is their deadline for nomination. Do you think you could give them a few reassuring words here, anything you say is going to carry alot more wait than any comments I make since they obviously have alot of respect for you(and rigthly so), thanks :) Acer (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Also see here and here Acer (talk) 10:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 13 24 March 2008 About the Signpost
Single User Login enabled for administrators Best of WikiWorld: "Clabbers" 
News and notes: $3,000,000 grant, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Banner shells tame talk page clutter WikiProject Report: Video games 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Master Juba peer review

Hi, Awadewit. I just recently submitted Master Juba to peer review, and I saw your name listed among the "Arts" reviewers on the peer review volunteers page. Juba was a 19th century dancer and minstrel show performer, and he is significant as the first black man to headline over whites in popular entertainment. His contribution to American dance was also significant. His story might be beyond your expressed field of interest, but I thought I'd take a gamble and ask you for feedback on the article. If you have a chance to look it over, It'd be most appreciated. The peer review page can be found here. Thanks! — Dulcem (talk) 05:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm, help? Eep!

Hey A,

I'm going to try to rescue action potential from the pit of being delisted and I could really use your keen insights and help with the writing. I know you're really busy, but can I call on your help once or twice next week? Thanks terribly, and good luck to you, Willow (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

PS. Sometime in the next week or two, a glance at whether List of scientific publications of Albert Einstein is ready for Featured List-dom would be very welcome! :) I intend to add a few more sources for the referencing of each paper, but aside from that, I think I'm reasonably happy with it. It's rather long, just over 100 kb, but I don't see any sensible way of breaking it up. Willow (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

President question

I'm copyediting The President (novel) and there's one point I'd like to get your opinion on since you've done so many literary articles. If you have time, would you take a look at the paragraph on Miguel Angel Face's character? It finishes with a quote that is characterized as "an exceptionally striking example"; the quote is cited only to the novel. Should this be required to have a critical citation too? Or would it be sufficient to take out terms like "exceptionally striking" and regard it as an obvious example, without a value judgement? Any help appreciated. Mike Christie (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I suppose "best practices" would be to include a critical citation, but I'm not sure it is absolutely necessary. However, I would definitely remove the judgment and write "for example" - it's simpler anyway. Awadewit (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense. I'll make the change. Mike Christie (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wadewitz/Archive_26&oldid=1142079001"