Jump to content

User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40

The Strange Case of Benjamin Norrel

How can I say no to you, after all your help with I Sing Like the Caged Bird Does? (Sorry, I'm in a total Jackie Harvey mood. Hey, did you know that there was a guy on The Colbert Report recently talking about Joseph Priestley? As soon as he started talking about the discovery of air, I looked at my wife and shouted "Jason Priestley" in reference to that joke-piped-link I left one time when I was working on that with you.)

I'm trying to get some work done on La Cousine Bette, which I finally finished reading after 450 pages, but I guess I'll just put everything on hold and go read all about this England magic book. (Actually I have to finish Bart Simpson first, but I should get to it by this weekend.) Scartol • Tok 19:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm smiling now - thanks so much. :) Awadewit (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Robert Burnell

He's at PR, and he's next up on the chopping block at FAC, can you take a quick gander and let me know what needs work? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Will do - what is the timeframe? Awadewit (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Hilary of Chichester just got promoted, so anytime in the next week would be great. Minor copyediting, jsut go ahead and do, I'm not that worried as long as the meaning of the content stays the same. And thanks muchly! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

{{Quote box}} changes at Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell

Hi,

I don't think that this edit (and the other one for the remaining box) was necessary. In general, it's better to go with the default template values for the sake of inter-article consistency; as the majority of the new attributes are blank, and there was little change from the old values in the rest (save for the steel blue background) I don't see the value in using the more customised template. As for the background color, I have removed the override of the template default - the black-on-blue styling adopted was nearly illegible on my monitor, and I don't see any pressing need to arbitrarily override the defaults. I'd appreciate any comments. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I see you've reverted this. I rather think the onus is on you to explain why the default (which was presumably chosen for a reason) is unacceptable. In my mind, the box's border provides more than enough contrast between the quote and the surrounding text. Arbitrary use of colour in templates has been discouraged for quite some time. If you feel that the default template colour should be changed, I'd rather you suggested that at template talk:quote box2. For now, I'm going to suggest on the novel's talk page that these templates be reverted back to using the standard {{quote box}}. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, there is no "default" quote box on Wikipedia. There are several different types and there is no rule that dictates all quote boxes must look exactly alike. Note that an example, with this color, is even suggested at Template:Quote box2, so no discussion there is necessary at all, nor was this an arbitrary choice on my part. I'm not sure why the color was illegible on your monitor (I've checked these boxes on several monitors), but having it set so that boxes are not differentiated from the surrounding text makes the problem worse, not better. What do you think about a lighter blue? Would that be acceptable? Awadewit (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe "illegible" was a bit strong, but it's certainly less legible than the default, which is #F9F9F9. When I said "default" I meant "the template without manually specifying a background colour". Again, there's already a border and padding and the text is clearly set off from the main article prose - I don't see that there's any need to additionally change the background colour, and feel that using arbitrary colours like that both detracts from cross-article consistency and distracts the reader. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
First, there is no cross-article consistency, since there is no rule about quote boxes and there are lots of types in operation, so that argument is a wash. Second, I find this type much easier to read than the type you are suggesting - we clearly have a different sense of "easy to read". Could we compromise a lighter blue, as I suggested above? Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe that it is that case that there is "no cross-article consistency" simply because some articles deviate from the defaults; there is definitely some consistency. I would wager that that majority of articles use the defaults simply because it's easier to do so - certainly there are four times as many articles using {{quote box}} as {{quote box2}}, and many of the articles using {{quote box2}} use the defaults. I'm a big fan of cross-article consistency, and generally opposed to arbitrarily overriding it. And yes, we might very well have different values of "easy to read". The best way to resolve this for the good of the encyclopedia would be to suggest a change to the default colour of {{quote box}} and {{quote box2}} this would mean that you'd have your colour, and I'd have my consistency. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Economist reference for Strange and Norrell

Hi Awadewit, I've seen your requests for peer review of Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell on a couple of talk pages I follow. I notice from the talk page of the article that you haven't been able to find the review in The Economist from 16 September 2004. My library carries the back issues of this publication, so if you still want the review drop me an email and I'll send you a copy. (The date of that issue is actually September 18, I don't know whether this affected your ability to find it.) I should perhaps also mention I have just finished reading the book, though I found it heavy going after the first couple of hundred pages. Dr pda (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have online access to The Economist, but I haven't been able to find the article. It's strange. :) If you don't mind returning to the material, would you look over the plot summary in the article? It is too long, but I am having trouble cutting it down. Awadewit (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I was able to find an article on Strange in the Economist through Ebscohost, but it was listed under a different title and date than the one listed on the talk page. Title: "Fogbound"; 9/18/2004, Vol. 372, Issue 8393. If you want, I can e-mail you a copy, if you can't find it through your online access. BuddingJournalist 16:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I've got it now - thanks. How odd that my search terms of "Jonathan Strange" and "Susanna Clarke" and "Clarke and Strange" didn't turn that up. Ebsco, Ebsco, Ebsco. Awadewit (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look at the plot summary. I agree it does look a bit scary in terms of the amount of space it takes up, but when one actually reads it, I don't think it is overwhelming. Trying to summarise 800-odd pages is never going to be short; in fact it's essentially a trilogy which has been published in an omnibus edition. You cover all the main points from the novel, and I don't see any obvious extraneous ones. Yomangan(i) recently trimmed some excess verbiage, which has shortened the summary a bit. The only other real thing I could think of to shorten it would be to omit the prophecy—is the wording sufficiently important to be reproduced, or can the significance just be explained?

I've had a look at some FAs on novels, and have extrapolated what the length of their plot summary sections would be if the novels were the same length as JS & Mr N (assuming this simply scales with the number of pages). This is shown in the table below. As you can see (from this admittedly limited sample), the length of the plot summary in JS and Mr N looks fine by comparison. Coincidentally, it's almost exactly the same length as the plot summary for the first three novels in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy article.

Book Pages Plot summary length Extrapolation to JS & Mr N
The Penelopiad 216 3228 B (517 words) 11687 B (1872 words)
El Señor Presidente 321 5945 B (1013 words) 14483 B (2468 words)
The General in his Labyrinth 285 4715 B (809 words) 12937 B (2220 words)
To Kill a Mockingbird 296 3211 B (546 words) 8483 B (1442 words)
The Well of Loneliness 512 3450 B (583 words) 5269 B (890 words)
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy First three books 5748 B (967 words) 5748 B (967 words)
Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell 782 5851 B (954 words) 5851 B (954 words)

Also, from the missing reference file, Google brought up an archived copy of the review by Sacha Zimmerman in the online version of The New Republic , dated 11 November 2004—http://209.212.93.14/doc.mhtml?i=pulps&s=zimmerman111104. Dr pda (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That table is very helpful - thank you. For some reason, I can't access the article from The New Republic - I get a security warning that I can't bypass. Could you possibly cut-and-paste it into an email for me? Awadewit (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Sent. Interestingly, when I click on the link above I get a security warning, then a load of gobbledygook, but when I repeat my Google search and click the link it works OK. Dr pda (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - I've now added material into the article from it. Awadewit (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, JS & Mr N popped up on my watchlist, and got me thinking—have you tried Google scholar to see if it gives anything useful? This search brings up an article in a peer-reviewed Austen journal, and there's also apparently a master's thesis on it (in Dutch). Dr pda (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - it seems every day another source trickles in. :) Awadewit (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ohai, I iz trolling ur tawkpagz

The Writer's Barnstar
I summon thee to an article I need copyediting on. This barnstar is the sugar atop my request. Do you like it? ^_^ Synergy 00:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
What's the article? Awadewit (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. But only when you have time. I can wait. Synergy 19:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I must say, I've never cared for the college-ruled blue-and-red lines on that Barnstar. But I agree that you deserve it, A.
But that's not why I'm here. I wonder if you have thoughts about the use of the original French vs. English translations in the article text. For example, here I've got some quotes from Balzac about what he wanted to accomplish with La Cousine Bette. Do you reckon I should include the original French in the article, with an English translation following (as it appears now)? Give the English in a footnote? Give the French in a footnote? Leave out the original French altogether, since this is the English Wikipedia? Your thoughts would be most appreciated. (And yes, I will look at Johnny String & Mr Normal soon, hopefully this weekend.) Scartol • Tok 15:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Long, long ago, in a MOS far, far away, there was a rule about foreign-language quotations. I don't know if it has changed. Personally, I think having them next to each other (as you have it now) is best - that way both French-speaking and English-speaking readers are equally served. This is also the way most scholarly publications do translations and that is, of course, my bias. :) Awadewit (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good. Should I also put in a notice to French readers that says "Tu es servi", so they know they got served, like that dancing movie? Scartol • Tok 18:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

thank you

The Invisible Barnstar
For the behind the scenes help you do all the time, including helping me with prose, thanks. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I just found that article today: Actually, two other works from the Shakespeare Gallery are already FPs, and had I known, I'd have put them in:

  • Coriolanus Act V, scene 3
    Coriolanus Act V, scene 3
  • The Tempest, Act I, scene 1 (not "Scene 2" as the list formerly stated - I've fixed that
    The Tempest, Act I, scene 1 (not "Scene 2" as the list formerly stated - I've fixed that

I've found about six or ten more that I intend to work through, including three As You Like it - though two of those are the Soldier and Old age from the seven ages. I didn't know you were involved with this.

Oh, and if you poke Garden, he's had that Angela Kaufmann Troilus and Cressida image in a much higher resolution form, already cleaned up, just needing a levels adjustment... for a month, and has been self-admittedly lazy. Seriously, kick his arse a bit, and you could have it done fifteen minutes' later. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The quality of mercy

Thanks for asking, I have unblocked User:Revolutionaryspirits and left a note asking him/her to discuss this. I never like blocking people anyway, but this was a fairly clear 3RR violation after a warning. SInce we are the only ones who have reverted his edits, I have no problem unblocking, take care and thanks for catching the comma error in the new Priestley House ref. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

high-quality

Hi there. I wonder why you piped to this rather than using the word "reliable". [1]. Cheers. Tony (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite follow - the new criteria does use the word "reliable" which is piped to the RS policy. Awadewit (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

new 1c

Lots of great stuff found here.

Thanks a lot for standing up for higher standards. Now I gotta get back to improving my prose... --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - the long debates seem to have paid off! Awadewit (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Light at the end of the tunnel

Or should that be a tunnel at the end of the light. [2]. Thanks for being a calming influence through this. Ceoil (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Now we can get to the good stuff. Awadewit (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm gald you reminded me why you are held so highly. We'll knock a fine article out of this yet. Ceoil (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Barnet peer review

Hi, Awadewit, would you like to take a look at this article on a medieval battle that killed a Kingmaker? There is a section about Shakespeare's treatment of this battle as well (Henry VI, Part 3, Scene 5, Acts I–III). I am planning to bring it to FAC, and appreciate your insight (especially on prose). The review is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Barnet/archive1. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to help out, but I need a few days - can it wait? Awadewit (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
No problems. See you there later. Jappalang (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK issue

Forget to add the ref confirming that Woodrow Wilson received his Ph.D. at Johns Hopkins and was the first Nobel laureate for the List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Johns Hopkins University DYK. Fixed now. Thanks, — sephiroth bcr (converse) 01:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Responded. Awadewit (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Image for Premiere (The O.C.)

I have read what the suggested Signpost and also a recently promoted TV episode to try and establish the shortcomings. I would remove the image, but am keen to treat that as a last resort. Basically could the rationale be rewritten to establish how it meets NFCC or is there a more serious problem there. I think is fairly strong due to it depicting the 4 main characters in the show (this is the first time they are being introduced as a "group"), the fashion show is much of the focus of the show (leading to popular culture references), and in shows a very much upper-class world which is much different from Ryan's lefe (for example, it is the first time he has ever worn a tie). However you sound like much more of an expert in this field than me. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  • There is no need to remove the image - we just need to write a stronger rationale. It sounds to me like you have the makings of one right here. Let's look at it piece by piece.
  • The fact that all characters are shown in this one shot will help with WP:NFCC - you are using one image to show four characters. That should be part of the purpose of use. That this is the first time they are shown in the show as a group makes this shot even more important - mention that as well.
  • I read the plot summary of the show and I wondered why you didn't choose a scene from the party, but you say here that the fashion show is the focus of the show. I would explain in the purpose of use that the fashion show is the focus, evidenced by its references in popular culture. Can you point to any critical reaction that would also establish this?
  • You also point to the "new world" that Ryan enters by putting on a tie for the first time in this scene. I would mention that as well, as this "new world" is clearly part of the premise of the show's tension. Sourcing this kind of material to a review would make the rationale that much stronger.

If all of this were in the "purpose of use" section, this would be a model fair use rationale. :) Awadewit (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Truce terms

Many thanks for the review. So what was the truce term you used when little then? Fainites barleyscribs 23:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome - I think "time out". Awadewit (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah. You're obviously not older than than 83 then. I've added an extended section on the USA if you wouldn't mind having a look. Thanks. Fainites barleyscribs 21:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Awadewit (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

The Teamwork Barnstar
For your outstanding and valuable assistance in getting I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings to featured article. Everyone involved should be very proud of such an accomplishment. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A, if I knew your address, I'd send you a copy of the book, since you've said you've never read it! In lieu of that, I'm sending you a virtual copy, along with the URL to go order yourself one. ;)

Except that we're not supposed to use non-free content on talk pages. So I've switched the image to a free caged bird instead. Scartol • Tok 15:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Agrippina review

I wonder, have you had a chance yet to see if the Dean/Knapp book has significant new information? Brianboulton (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the book - apparently delivery during spring break is slow. Awadewit (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Priestley article

Hello. I had added Jackson's scholarly book which I had read into the article on Joseph Priestley, but, without discussion, you reverted the good faith edit. I should have made a "Further Reading"? I was impressed by the treatment on Priestley's influence over the American thought as expressed by Jackson. What is your opinion? Thanks and Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the edit summary (which I did mark as "good faith"), I undid your edit because that reference was not used to construct the article. I hesitate to create a "Further reading" section, because it could easily be just as long as the current references section. There are many articles and books about Priestley - how would we decide what to put in the "Further reading"? Certainly the current list of references is enough to get anyone started on Priestley research. Awadewit (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Many articles have a further reading section as do respected paper encyclopedias and published scholarly papers in journals. I knew you said "good faith edit", thanks. Prof. Carl T. Jackson makes a strong case for Priestley's influence of orientalism on American thinkers in the 19th century in his The Oriental Religions and American Thought: Nineteenth-century Explorations (Contributions in American Studies) book. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that people would bother to have such an unscholarly thing. A further reading is what you put in an anthology or a text book that admits that it is lacking a discussion on an issue or is unwilling to actually do it. It is not an encyclopedic feature. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Unscholarly? Yikes. Hardly.
  • Jackson, Carl T., "The oriental religions and American thought : nineteenth-century explorations", Westport, Conn. : Greenwood Press, 1981. ISBN 0313224919.
  • Carl T. Jackson is a specialist in American intellectual and social history. His research focuses on the American interest in Asian religious and philosophical conceptions. His work, The Oriental Religions in American Thought: Nineteenth Century Explorations (1981) won the Ralph Henry Gabriel Prize from the American Studies Association for the best manuscript published in 1979. Other publications include, Vedanta for the West: The Ramakrishna Movement in the United States (1994), as well as scholarly articles in Journal of the History of Ideas, American Quarterly, American Transcendentalist Quarterly, and the Journal of Popular Culture. He is presently working on a book manuscript entitled “The Asian Religions in Twentieth Century American Thought.” He has received research awards from the National Endowment for the Humanities and the American Philosophical Society, and was selected as a Fulbright lecturer to Osaka University, Japan, during the 1999-2000 school year. In 1981 he was selected for an AMOCO Foundation Teaching Excellence Award. In addition to courses in U.S. History, he regularly teaches world history courses. [3]
-- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
This is clearly a scholarly work. That is not the issue. There are many scholarly works written on Priestley that are not mentioned in the article. The question is why we would create a "Further reading" section when there is already a hefty amount of research listed in the article, including all of the major Priestley research. We cannot create such a section just for this item. Wikipedia articles do not list all of the scholarship on a topic. In this case, I do not think that adding a "Further reading" section is warranted. However, if you are interested in creating a complete bibliography of all secondary sources on Priestley, that would be most helpful. We could call it List of sources about Joseph Priestley or some such. Awadewit (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I take your points. After reading Jackson's work recently, I was simply impressed how much Priestey's work had an influence on 19th century American thought, e.g. Emerson et al., his emigation to America in 1794, his befriending Benjamin Franklin, and his turning to the ministry. &c. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Scholarly -thing-, i.e. the "further reading" section. Either include it as important to the body or not. Not some inbetween "I like these books therefore you should read them" kind of promotional section. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't do promotions. Take care. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Agrippina amendments

Many thanks indeed for sending us the Dean and Knapp chapter, which has enabled useful information to be added to the article. A summary of the changes is on the article's talkpage. We are still considering other minor points, but I'd be happy for you to look at the article in the context of your FAC review, and to add any further comment. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have revisited the FAC. Thanks for your hard work on this! Awadewit (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Noel Coward

If you have time, would you kindly comment or vote on the Noel Coward FAC here?: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noël Coward. Your input is always super. Thanks! Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid I don't have time at the moment - the FAC looks like it is going well, though. I look forward to reading the article when I have some time. Awadewit (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

All the people say Yay for your TFA

Just noticed the TFA with your stamp on it. Kudos! Let the fun begin, eh? I'll check in when I can to help keep it clean. Scartol • Tok 01:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Was it really a surprise? Do you know that — after all your work advocating on its behalf and the kind notification you sent — I missed seeing Harriet Tubman on the front page? I think I remembered at 7:23 or something and just missed it. Argh! Scartol • Tok 18:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Better that you weren't fretting all day long! Awadewit (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but it's the glory, man! =) I actually have a real question, about how to cite the English translation of a Balzac quote. The book I'm working on now, La Cousine Bette, is available on Wikisource. I remember reading somewhere once (though of course right now I can't find it) that online citations are preferable, since they allow the reader to more easily access the source. So when I refer to an English translation of a quote (after linking to the original French on French wikisource), it seems logical to link to the English Wikisource translation. However: (A) that translation is older and sometimes that means less preferred; and (B) I can't give a page number. There are sections in the English Wikisource version, but they're different from the French Wikisource version, and the sections were all wiped away when Balzac added the damn thing to La Comédie humaine in 1848! So if someone wants to find the English quote in her own copy, it would be impossible if it doesn't have the sections.
Help! Scartol • Tok 13:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there a better English translation available online? Awadewit (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'm stupid. I realized yesterday that the Wikisource version and my own are the same. (The books I have don't list the translator, so I never connected the two.) This leaves the problem of section numbers etc., but I wonder if it would work for me to put the page numbers like I have been, but also link to the appropriate spot in the Wikisource? Scartol • Tok 12:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I think both would be a good idea. Awadewit (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 03:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


The Guidance Barnstar
To Awadewit, for locating and making available important additional material during your review of Agrippina (opera), enhancing the article and assisting its promotion to FA. Grateful thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

PD review

See commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#PD_review. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

GAR

I think this article no longer meets the GA criteria, just letting you know as the orginial GA reviewer a few years ago. Gertrude Barrows Bennett has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Thanks for letting me know, but I'm afraid I don't have time to work on this at the moment. Awadewit (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK hook for Joe Riley

Hello. I've added a request for clarification about your comment on Joe Riley at Template talk:Did you know. Regards, — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 20:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Responded. Awadewit (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Responded both at DYK (related to hooks) and article talk. (Sorry to ping you on a Sunday, but it looks like time's running out for Joe.) — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 19:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Added a funeral home source and tweaked language of article. A short note at the DYK page and a last batch of answers at the article talk. Regards, — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 20:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: I see Joe Riley (artist) has been moved to a queue for DYK, thank you for the collaboration on sourcing. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 17:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Strange & Mr Norell

I'm really enjoying reading this, and I wanted to thank you putting together such an excellent article. I've made a few tiny tweaks to the grammar (minor comma stuff here and there, nothing major) and moved a "however" or two... I hope you don't mind! I will probably leave some comments too, but at a first glance I'm very impressed. Thanks again, Kafka Liz (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! If you enjoy Romantic-era writing, you would probably enjoy the novel itself. I look forward to your comments. Writing this article was a challenge, since there is only one academic article published on the novel. Newspaper reviews are pretty thin! Awadewit (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I've read it - it's long been a favourite of mine. I've always thought it must be especially difficult to write on a novel like this because there would be so few sources. Yet it's such a beautifully constructed and clever book; I would have thought there might be an article or two on the use of folklore, perhaps, or maybe on possible sources of inspiration for the fictional corpus of magical works. Or maybe I'm just indulging in wishful thinking. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I reread it again - I get immersed in it every time. (I revel in the footnotes.) If you have any suggestions for the plot summary, I would really appreciate them. It was very difficult to condense the novel into a readable plot summary and I still don't think I've succeeded. Unfortunately, there is nothing significant published on this novel - Wikipedia revealing yet another gap! Awadewit (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
That's part of what I'm mulling over just now. There are a couple of points I think perhaps ought to be added, but I don't want to either spoil the book or weigh down the article with too much fannish detail. So... I'm considering. I think you've done a really excellent job summarising it overall. It's not easy to boil down a book like this. (The footnotes are my favourite parts too. :) ) Kafka Liz (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Another PR

Hi Awadewit. Would you have any time to take a look at Martin Bucer? It is on PR right now. I have been taking your advice on tackling my writing demon of wordiness. I am still reading it over and over again, trying to catch things on each pass. But it is likely that I missed a major diction or syntax faux pas somewhere. If you have time, of course... --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops! I just saw that you submitted Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell to FAC so I assume you will busy with that. Sorry, I will see if I can deal with this myself. Thanks anyway! --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikivoices/Wikipedia assignments

Time on Tuesday night is tentatively shifted to 22:30 UTC. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Tippecanoe

Hello! Thanks for you comments at the Battle of Tippecanoe FAC, I have responded to them on the review page. Charles Edward (Talk) 17:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have responded to you post on the review page, and also added a paragraph to briefly explain Britain's minor role in the affair. Please check it out when you have a chance. :) Charles Edward (Talk) 17:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Truce terms

Thanks Awadewit. Fainites barleyscribs 22:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll/Autoformatting_responses

Regarding your comment in support of your opposition to date autoformatting, I'd like to make it clear that date autoformatting and date autolinking are two completely different issues. It's currently possible (thanks to a recently installed patch by User:Werdna) to autoformat dates without linking them, and other suggested alternatives would also allow for autoformatting without autolinking — or with it, as specifiable by a separate user preference. --Sapphic (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I noticed that like me, you are opposed to any form of dates autoformatting. I have created some userboxes which you might like to add to your userspace to indicate your position. You will find the boxes here. One of them will help get some annoying posters off your back. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 06:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Another annoying image question

This isn't directly related to a specific article, but I hope you'll indulge me anyway. Some images (like the Mona Lisa) are free content, since their age (life of the author +70-100 years) prohibits claims of copyright. But for photographs (and photo-like images), it seems like the onus is on finding proof that it was published in the US before 1923. Why is that? For example, there are some images of Balzac's sister that are obviously free, but since I'm getting them from a 1994 biography, its free-ness seems questionable. Am I just being crazy? Can you shed some light? Do I need to give more specific examples? Scartol • Tok 18:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Part I: Some photos of the Mona Lisa will be copyrighted because they have creative input - any photo that is in any way artistic or not trying to render the the painting as it is is copyrighted. So, not everything related to the Mona Lisa is PD.
Part II: Photos are also PD if their photographers have been dead for 70 years. However, if you think about it, there are many more paintings that fall into this category than photos, since photography is a newer art. Moreover, many photos lack information on the photographer, so then we have to demonstrate that it was published before 1923 for it to fall in the PD. Awadewit (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that makes sense. I should have figured all of that. Thanks. Scartol • Tok 10:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Horrible news

Hi A, there is a good chance they may close the Joseph Priestley House this summer. See this from ACS, this from the local newspaper (which has some useful further information on recent annual visitation and budget), and the Priestley House itself is fighting this. On more pleasant news, your work is officially recognized here. I will add this to the article, need to be more calm to be neutral. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I am done with my additions - edit away as you have time and inclination. I tried adding a bit to the lead too. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Dissertation as a source

At Cyathus, a dissertation is used as a source. Vasdev K. (1995). Lignin degrading enzymes and ligninolytic system of Cyathus sp. PhD. Dissertation. University of Delhi, Delhi, India. I recall having a conversation somewhere once about the use of dissertations as sources, but don't recall the conclusion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

In general, dissertations should not be used as sources. They are not written by acknowledged experts in the field (graduate students haven't been credentialed yet) and many are not fact-checked. However, some dissertations are very good and are cited in the secondary literature on a topic. I would say that using a dissertation which has been referred to in other scholarly publications as a reliable source for information is acceptable. I used two dissertations in Boydell Shakespeare Gallery (Bruntjen and Friedman) precisely because other scholarly articles referred to these dissertations as good sources. Usually, the good material from a dissertation is later published in an academic journal, but this is not always the case. Awadewit (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, A; since the article is in Casliber's territory, I asked him to have a look as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Dr Strange...

Grats! Nice to see something sci-fi related going up... and great work on it too! Maybe someday I'll read the book... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It is interesting to do contemporary works. I might do a little GA-fest of contemporary novels I like. :) Awadewit (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to add my congratulations, and also suggest, for your possible GA-fest, The Historian and The Book of Lost Things. Both have inadequate articles at present, both deserve better. But I daresay you have your own ideas. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, those were both on my list! :) Awadewit (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
My daughter recommended these. She is also a fan of Hilary Mantel and Kate Atkinson. Ring any bells? Brianboulton (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Those I don't know. Awadewit (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
How far back are we going? Would something by Stanislaw Lem or Philip K Dick be too old? Scartol • Tok 21:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
That is too old, because actual criticism exists. I'm looking to do a few GAs, which will be restricted to reviews and online sources. :) I want to model a few such articles. Awadewit (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Really, I am the one who should be thanking you for everything you've done for the Lucy Poems. I know our work there isn't done, but I need a small breather before returning to them (I was starting to feel a bit like Wordsworth must have done, shut up in a cottage in a foreign county with only his sister for company). That said, I still wanted you to know how much I appreciate the work you've put in there. It's a much better article, thanks to you. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've enjoyed working on the article as well. Awadewit (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Image reviews

A, did you by chance review the image reviews on those you struck as already done? I don't know that editor's image work or background, so wanted another look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I just assumed those reviews were fine. I can take a second look later today. Awadewit (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks ! Since I'm not very well versed in images, I need a double check on those reviews. I appreciate the help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
A few clarifications were needed on each one. Awadewit (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Barnet

Hi, Awadewit! Thank you for copy-editing Battle of Barnet, and sorry for interrupting your work. I inserted some more information and dropped others (based on the sources recommended by Ealdgyth). This diff shows the changes. If you have the opportunity, could you take a look? I fear some of my sentences might be stilted. Thank you very much again. Jappalang (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Ugh, sorry to bother you again. I have expanded on certain details to address your confusion. Clarence is explicitly stated to have fled to France with Warwick in Background. In Pre-battle, I tried to clarify that Clarence was intercepted en route to Coventry and that was the point where he was asked to return (and gleefully did the turncoat accept). Edward's commercial policies are explained, and for the Shakespeare analysis, I replaced the two sentences in the article with the single clearer sentence that is in the FAC.[4] Jappalang (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

South Park

Hey Awadewit, glad to see you're getting involved in the South Park Featured Topic Drive. Please feel free to let me know if you need any assistance with Cartman Gets an Anal Probe or anything else you work on. I have limited access to Lexis Nexus, so if you need any help getting news sources or anything like that, let me know. Happy editing! — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 05:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have access to a university library, so sources shouldn't be a problem. However, I have never written an article on a TV episode before, so I would appreciate any advice you could offer me. Awadewit (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't like the template? :)

[5]? (Only thing I don't like about it is my tendency to forget the "l" in publisher. I do this again and again and again....) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Templates are evil! They are so restrictive! Awadewit (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:RSN

Unfortunately sometimes definitive answers don;t happen there and sometimes in the case of an ethnic advocacy site, racial extremists who like to cite the websites will swamp it and say that there is a consensus even if they are heavily outnumbered. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Category:National Portrait Gallery, London

Ever wanted a Byron FP but didn't know where to get one? How about George Elliot?

...Well, thanks to a new huge upload, these and far, far more are now possible =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That is an excellent resource! Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wadewitz/Archive_37&oldid=1142699287"