Jump to content

User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 43

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

Peer review

[edit]

Hi Awadewit, if you have the time and inclination, I was wondering whether you wouldn't mind taking a look at Sholes and Glidden typewriter and commenting at the peer review. Thanks, Эlcobbola talk 14:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to! Awadewit (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I had so little to say! Awadewit (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look. I think no new is good news in these cases. I'll consider it a victory if I can avoid getting a recusal and strong oppose from Sandy at FAC. :) Эlcobbola talk 16:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I looked at the images and it was so nice to see impeccable documentation like yours! Awadewit (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm glad you said something; I wasn't sure whether anyone had looked at the images, so I was debating whether or not to contact an image reviewer. Эlcobbola talk 13:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your fault, but many ways to redemption

[edit]

Since this is clearly your fault (note my gracious edit summary), whenever you have the time, a review would rock out.

What would be the awesomest ever would be uploading an ogg file of the music here, which is thankfully in the public domain. Please, please, please??? --Moni3 (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, but I have a stack of peer reviews to do at the moment - can it wait until after the weekend? Also, I'm a bit unsure that the recording is in the PD. Sound recordings are extremely complex. Perhaps I just missed something. Can you explain why you believe it is in the PD? Awadewit (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's held at the Library of Congress. More info here. If not, shape note singing is so rare that it is essential to illustrate the article and I can do a fair use rationale. Yes, it can wait. --Moni3 (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First piece of info: not everything held by the LOC is in the PD! Shocking, I know. This recording of Amazing Grace does not seem to be part of the 1939 recording trip described in the copyright notice here. Notice that the two versions of "Amazing Grace" that are part of the collection are not the one you linked me to. Sound recordings have a very complex copyright. The text, music, and performance all have to be considered. In this case, I am concerned that the performance is still under copyright - to the Sacred Harp Singing Society. Fair use may be an option, as you say. Awadewit (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can see if I can bust a move all over that fair use rationale, but I bet you dollars to donuts it's public domain. Yeah, yeah. I know... --Moni3 (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC for Bale Out

[edit]

At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bale Out/archive1, I noted that I have had further communication with the image owner. Hopefully this is now satisfactory. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) Cirt (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waterfalls, waterfalls, waterfalls!

[edit]

Feeling wikistress? Wish you could have a vacation someplace with two dozen waterfalls? Well the next best thing is here!

If you want to, please come look at pictures of waterfalls and pick which ones you like best. You'll be helping make a better article too.

Thanks, Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. That wikilink again: User talk:Ruhrfisch/Waterfalls

Thanks for your votes and comments - I rotated the one you suggested, and I found a picture of FL Ricketts frozen solid and another of Ganoga forzen solid. Should I ask if they'd release either under a free license? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Alienist

[edit]

Got any further plans for The Alienist? :) I did a bit of work on the Film section, but not sure I will be able to find anything else on that. Not sure where else to focus research on the article. Cirt (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still have plans to work on it - there are about 50-60 more articles available on the book. Awadewit (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay great. Let me know if I can help. ;) Cirt (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to do any more of the research? Awadewit (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can try to poke around a bit regarding Themes. :P Cirt (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of works

[edit]

I am standardizing the articles as proposed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Books/Archive_3#Bibliography_title_format_standardization--Marcus Brute (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One person responding to you in January is not a consensus to move that many pages. You need to revive the discussion at MOS. I would suggest leaving messages at some of the pages that would be affected or at relevant WikiProjects so that there can be some real discussion about this. Awadewit (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attachment theory

[edit]

I see you have gotten round to editing this article. I'm terribly embarrassed by my inability to improve it—just out of curiosity, didn't you find the subject matter difficult to work with? I'm baffled. Maybe the sleepless nights are taking their toll on my cognitive functions... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not you. I'm also finding the topic incredibly hard to work with - so much of the topic is so vague. It is hard to write precisely in this environment. Awadewit (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another page I have been meaning to keep up with. Don't worry, I have seen published authors in the field of psychiatry/psychology miss the mark as well. I'll take a look at this one soon. have been snowed under and well and truly frazzle IRL recently...Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You and me both. Awadewit (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re map

[edit]

I'd be more than happy to :) It may take a while as I've got other stuff on, but as long as you're in no immediate hurry all should be well. Do you have any preferences/requirements for the end result? EyeSerenetalk 12:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! And no rush. The only requirement I have is that the two trips should be easily distinguishable. :) Awadewit (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SVG and non-free content and the graphics lab and FAC

[edit]

I've noticed a couple of requests at the graphics lab for conversions of non-free images into SVG. I asked "why" the requester wanted the conversion done, and they basically said "I don't know, they told me to do it at FAC". I tracked down 2 such FAC, and found that it was you giving this advice! So that is why I am contacting you. I feel strongly that non-free content should be sourced, if at all possible, to official sources. I do not believe that the process of "SVG conversion" is accurate enough for us to be able to make an SVG equivalent that would be representative of the brand. Companies spends thousands and thousands of dollars for creative professions to choose specific colors, and typefaces, and make original drawings, and spacing choices, and a number of other variables that could easily be messed up by someone creating an SVG. Therefore, when it comes to corporate logos, and the such, I would strongly urge you not to send individuals to the graphic lab, but instead ask them to find a higher quality raster image, or even a vector image from an official source. More often than not, I've been able to locate official vector logos in instances like this (often in PDFs). If the user needs help extracting an image from a PDF and saving it as an SVG, then the graphics lab should step in. I just don't think it should be our job to re-draw logos, as it is impossible to accurately, 100% recreate logos in that manner.-Andrew c [talk] 17:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize - I was simply trying to improve the quality of these logos. I saw that at our image use policy, we recommend SVG for logos and I know that SVG images are better for simple designs like logos. If there is a simpler way to achieve a high-quality image, I am all for it. Awadewit (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Weight Gain 4000

[edit]

Hey Awadewit. When you get a moment, would you mind taking a look at my response over at the Weight Gain 4000 FAC? I was hoping we could have some more discussion on two of your objections over there. I'm not sure if I articulated this well at the FAC or not, but basically I'm concerned with the idea of a full-blown removal of some of the items you are talking about (the first appearance of characters, cultural and pop cultural references, etc.) because I feel those items are consistent with other television episode articles and FACs, both inside and outside of South Park. Also, any information that is there presently is information that is cited by reliable sources. That being said, I'm willing to discuss this further and see if we can reach some sort of compromise. For instance, I'd be willing to part with some of the cultural references like Star Wars, Scooby-Doo, The Texas Book Depository, etc.; but I'd rather not lose stuff like the introduction of characters and Jesus and Pals, which I think is more relevant to the development of the series and whatnot. Anyway, I'm just hoping for more discussion on this if you don't mind... — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HK, I promise I will respond. However, I'm going to myself a day or two. I tend to listen more carefully and fairly in debates in which I have a strong view (like this one), if give myself a little bit of distance. :) Awadewit (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your response. I've given the matter some thought since I posted my original comments, and I think you have raised some very good points. I'm sorry if I seemed too defensive at first, but I've recently made some changes in response to your suggestions. Although I've preserved some content, I've removed a great deal, and tried to contextualize the importance of what I've kept. I'm hoping that the recent changes I've made will be enough to win your support, or at the very least are a step toward a compromise that will ultimately lead to it. At your leisure, take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks again! — Hunter Kahn (c) 06:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: Regarding your comment about the need for some more info on the style and symbolism of the show, would you mind if I used some of the sources and wording that you used in "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe"? Since what we are talking about here is not episode-specific but a commentary on the show in general, and since both episodes are from season one and their broadcast dates are very close to each other, it seems that a lot of the information you used in that article could be applied to this one. (I'm not talking about a complete copy-and-paste job; I have some ideas from my own sources that I can use to beef up the article, but I also thought some of the information you presented could be applicable). Let me know; I'll wait to hear from you before I start because even though the text of the articles is considered fair game, I still wouldn't want to be accused of plagiarism or anything like that... — Hunter Kahn (c) 17:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I've gone ahead and added a bit of content from the "Anal Probe" episode, as well as some more "Weight Gain 4000"-centric stuff from another source. I was going to wait, but as I've had FAC conversations shut down on me while in the middle of making improvements, I've become very paranoid about the process and wanted to get started sooner rather than later. lol. I'm sure you won't mind, as the WikiProject South Park has a history of sharing and collaborating such info (much of the South Park Season 1 came from articles I wrote, although I didn't know it was moved to that article until weeks later). If it is a problem though, let me know and I'll remove it. — Hunter Kahn (c) 16:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use purpose

[edit]

Regarding [1], I'm about ready to just dump the picture from the article. Personally, I feel like the article is less complete without the picture as there are no other pictures in the article depicting players on the team. On top of that, this picture depicts the most significant event of the team's short history. I've said all of that in the fair-use purpose, but I guess it's still lacking. Do you have any suggestions on exactly what I should be going for here? I'm about ready to give up on this and remove the picture rather than keep throwing darts at a problem I don't understand. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the end of this dispatch, as I suggested? If not, please do so. If you have, please let me know what is confusing. I tried asking you questions to elicit a more precise purpose of use, but that apparently was not helpful. Let's try it the other way around this time. You ask me specific questions about what you don't understand. Awadewit (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had already read the dispatch a couple of times. The thing I don't understand is why you thought it didn't already explain why readers needed to see it, specifically that it depicted a significant event being discussed in the article. However, a few hours ago I took another stab at it based on your question. Let me know what you think. The last sentence I expect addresses your question more directly: It is used in this article to facilitate identification of the trophy being discussed in the context of historical commentary for the club that won it. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of my key questions in looking at this photo was: "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" - See WP:NFCC. With the addition of the trophy, sentence that is less likely, so I think this is strong enough now. Good work! Awadewit (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larkin

[edit]

Slimvirgin sickens me. Thanks to her we've now lost one of the few editors who was in a position to add content and the only one of that select few to have the inclination to do so. The arrogance of experience! User:Macphysto made a flying visit to WP and made a extremely thoughtful contribution to the talk page on the subject of the lead. It seems to me that it would be helpful if you, knowledgeable yet objective, could add your thoughts to his almost-instinct 11:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the above consists a personal attack. Slimvirgin has already goaded one editor into getting themself blocked: I'm not going to be another, so will do my best to keep away from the PL page almost-instinct 13:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some comments at various pages. Please don't be disheartened - nothing is all that bad there. Everyone just needs to take a few breaths. We're not down to arguing about single words or categories yet! Awadewit (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw what you wrote on Allriskinrev's talk page. The final comment in this dialogue, which you may not be aware of, contains a very sensible suggestion, which might tie up... almost-instinct 17:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Missed that. Yes - it is a good suggestion. Awadewit (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy, I can't wait to work on this puppy! Scartol • Tok 03:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

[edit]

Your note

[edit]

Yes, you're right, and thank you. I've been meaning to apologize to you for my reaction during the last FAC, so this is a good time to do it. I find these FACs very difficult to get through. It's the sheer amount of work involved in getting it there—polishing, polishing, polishing—so that once it's on the FAC page, the idea of having to do even one more thing feels like the last straw. But regardless, I'm sorry I behaved like a baby, and thank you for being so gracious about it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I appreciate it. Awadewit (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attachment theory

[edit]

I've tackled everything. Hopefully to your satisfaction m'lady.Fainites barleyscribs 22:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't quit just yet!

[edit]

Hi, I happened to be reading the FAC talk page just now, I wonder if you could have a look at the work I have been doing on the images in the Rolls-Royce R after your image review. I appreciate the work that you are doing and can understand that it might be a thankless task. I fear to review FACs as I have had my ears chewed after adding constructive comments in some, also appreciate the barnstar that you sent me as it has spurred me on to work at the higher quality end of the project's articles. Cheers and all the best. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. Any image review I've started, I will finish. Awadewit (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I thought that you would. I quit WP completely for a couple of months earlier this year but I'm enjoying my work at the moment (mostly!). Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could I trouble you to revisit the last questioned image please as I have revised the permission template and noted this action on the FAC page [2]. Many thanks and I hope that wiki things are going better for you, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are an extremely strong and valued contributor here. Thank you for all your hard work, and shouldered pain. Try not to forget that in addition to trouble-makers there are a great number of people here who admire and respect you. Best wishes, DrKiernan (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I appreciate it. Awadewit (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saddened to hear this, Awadewit. Thoughtful, judicious image reviewers, like yourself, are few and far between. You're owed a great deal of gratitude for the work you've done. Эlcobbola talk 17:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. Perhaps we need a rotating schedule of image reviewers? We each do it for a month at a time or something? Are there twelve of us? :) Awadewit (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think a problem has been, and continues to be, the general practice (or at least the appearance thereof) of one reviewer per criterion. People see Ealdgyth, for example, has checked sources, and then decline to do so on their own. People see that someone has reviewed images, and then decline to do so on their own (frankly, the things some image reviewers are missing are rather amazing). We all miss things from time to time; a high quality review process must place multiple sets of eyes on the same aspects. In addition to catching things others might have missed, additional reviewers would, ideally, comment and assist existing reviews. I found few things more vexing than receiving no assistance in cases of combative, uncivil nominators/respondents. I've noticed Sandy now seems to be stepping in more often to suggest people re-approach issues with a more tempered attitude (a luxury she didn't really have before there was a second delegate, due to the need to retain the appearance of impartiality). Long story short, we need about 24 or 36 reviewers to do a monthly rotation. :) Эlcobbola talk 19:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that completely - we need more pairs of eyes on every aspect of the article. Awadewit (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear this, A, but not surprised; I know it's among the hardest reviewer work, and all of your work has been much appreciated (including your maintenance of the Urgents)! Unless others kick in, promotions will just have to wait longer for reviews. Perhaps you'll come back to image reviewing after a well deserved break? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much - less time on images = more time on the dissertation, which is good. :) Awadewit (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I can't volunteer a month—my available time is usually unpredictable—I can certainly do the image reviews (as well) of articles I normally review for prose etc. Sorry, I hadn't realized that you were having to check all the image information. Will pay closer attention to your notes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any reviews at all help take the burden off the few of us who there are, so thanks F&F! Awadewit (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rambles

[edit]

I haven't forgotten my promise to look at this for the PR. I've been thinking about the various things a PR does - and am sure that I, not having ever been to FAC, am not qualified to worry about some things. One thing I can do moderately well is be a pedantic reader. For example, looking through the article I notice the following seeming contradiction:

  • "Rambles in Germany and Italy, in 1840, 1842, and 1843 is a travel narrative by the British Romantic author Mary Shelley. Issued in 1844, it is her last published work. Divided into two parts, the text describes ..." (lead)
  • "Rambles is divided into three parts" (Description of text)

Would my doing a read-through looking out for that kind of thing be useful? Or would it be merely annoying? almost-instinct 22:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be perfect! That is exactly what I am looking for! Awadewit (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are too pedantic for the page's talk page, so if you don't mind I'm going to put them here, where you can happily ignore as many as you wish :-)

Thanks so much - I've moved the comments to Wikipedia:Peer review/Rambles in Germany and Italy/archive1, which is the easiest place for me to work with them. Awadewit (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm done. 34 points, all of them tiny enough to fit on tip of a pin ;-) almost-instinct 23:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalera Conspiracy

[edit]

Hi, you might want to look at my view of the images at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cavalera Conspiracy/archive1. Unless I'm mistaken, I think there's a problem. Black Kite 18:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would be VERY careful with Commons images that have been uploaded from Flickr via a toolserver interface or a bot. Many of the interfaces are available for anyone to use without knowledge of the various licenses, some have had bugs, and I know that many images at Commons uploaded with such interfaces have previously been deleted as copyvios - I've tagged a number myself. It is best always to be suspicious of anything from Flickr that hasn't been human-checked by someone at Commons. Whilst of course there is always the possibility that the Flickr user has changed the license, given that Flickr defaults to copyrighted, it is unlikely that many Flickr users would deliberately CC-license images and then change their minds. In this particular case, the fact that many of the Flickrstream images appear to be professional backs this up. My advice - if an image looks at all professional and is on Commons, look at the original source on Flickr and see how it's been transferred. Black Kite 20:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

L'incoronazione di Poppea

[edit]

I'm back after my short break, and I've nominated Poppea at FAC. I think I've done all I can - but every article can be made better. You may like to know that while I was in Rome I visited the house where Keats and Shelley lived, and where Keats died. Got to peek at their library, too. Wonderful. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you take pictures? :) I'm so jealous. Awadewit (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello Awadewit,

I have just come across the strangest of all strange copyright issues I have seen so far:

While trying to check on the phrase about the Victorian expectation of "the egregious display of sound and colour" that should authenticate powerful emotions, I just came across this Googlebook answer to my request : all of these books are using your article, with exactly the same words, the same notes and sourcing! Moreover, one of these books was published in 1925 (complete with a photograph of the cover), and I rather think you were not around at the time... Were you and Simmaren (as a lawyer) aware of it?

I don't have any douts as to who is copying whom... But I have not seen any mention of Wikipedia in these books. Or would you be time travelling?

Regards. --Azurfrog (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in - it is not a copyright violation if it is properly cited in its use here. The phrase appears as "the egregious display of sound and colour" (not quite what you wrote) in two Wikipedia articles: Jane Austen and Reception history of Jane Austen. In both it is clearly in quotation marks and properly cited. Perhaps this was meant as a joke? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Azurfrog means is that these books appeared to have copied the Wikipedia article we wrote, but they don't mention that the material is from Wikipedia. Awadewit (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I saw the published in 1925 and did not investigate further. Thanks for clearing this up. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely what I mean, Awadewit: I haven't seen Wikipedia credited anywhere so far. Apparently, your article has just been renamed "Background of Jane Austen", and left at that. Likewise, the article on Sense and Sensibility has been copied as Background of Sense and Sensibility. All that supposedly in 1925. Funny: Wikipedia must indeed be much older than we ever thought... --Azurfrog (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I alerted the Wikimedia Foundation to this - I thought they might want to follow up on it, but apparently not. Awadewit (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How disappointing ... Archibald Tuttle (talk) 10:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From WikiProject Military history

[edit]
 The WikiChevrons 
I have the happy duty of presenting you with these WikiChevrons for contributing "Plagiarism and how to avoid it" to the Academy.

Thank you for participating in the 2009 Academy Content Drive. We appreciate your help in building this valuable resource! Maralia (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a good piece y'all wrote. I wish I could convince my students to read it. =P Scartol • Tok 03:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the barnstar - and, Scartol, I agree. I have to write ever more convoluted assignments to avoid plagiarism. :( Awadewit (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

[edit]

Ramblin' Man

[edit]
Rambles Maps

I've been playing with your map, and present this for your approval (or otherwise). It's still a little rough around the edges and I'll be making some tweaks (such as the scale font), so anything you don't like can be changed easily enough :) It's also temporarily on WP at the moment, so difficult to scale without editing the width parameter in the image markup... hence the large size, though please feel free to edit my text to shrink it! I'll eventually move it to Commons when we're done. All the best, EyeSerenetalk 23:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: changed format to a gallery; notes in the captions. EyeSerenetalk 11:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are so much prettier than mine! Some day you will have to teach me how to do this. I like 3 the best. Do you think you could squeeze in more names of towns, if I get them for you? I couldn't fit in any more, which is why I had unlabeled towns in my version, but that is not ideal. I would like to label every town, if possible. Also, if you could change "1943" to "1843", that would be great. :) Awadewit (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course - let me know the details and I'll add them to V3 of the map (and "1943"... I clearly spend too much time on WWII-related maps!) EyeSerenetalk 08:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go to the library and scan it for you - it will be a few days. Awadewit (talk) 01:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever you're ready. Might be an idea to drop me a note though, as I may forget to check back (or my email's enabled if you prefer). EyeSerenetalk 17:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rambles

[edit]

I'm sorry but what with 2 FACs and several GAs I forgot about this. I promise I will read through it tonight and offer my uneducated opinion. Parrot of Doom 00:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is such an important perspective, as I'm not writing for people who already know all there is to know about Shelley and Romantic literature. :) Awadewit (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read it and made notes a few days ago (excellent article), but I'm so bushed from work at the moment that I haven't got to the review yet. But it will come. qp10qp (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Just a couple of questions:

  • Was it divided into two volumes, or published in two volumes?
  • Mary Shelley and her husband Percy Bysshe Shelley had lived in Italy from 1818 to 1823 - the previous section says that Italy wasn't formed until 1870. Best to say "what would become", or words to that effect? I think I understand what you're saying but it did strike me as a little bit odd.
  • Percy sounds like a bit of a twat. Is this true generally? Could we have a line or two explaining his dissatisfaction? Parrot of Doom 22:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apolo Anton Ohno

[edit]

Hello Awadewit, I was pointed towards you talkpage after passing the GA-nom in hopes of working Apolo Anton Ohno to FAC. I have the article up in a peer review. I was wondering if you could take a look at the article and because you have experience in FA-noms, if there's any areas that need more work or have advice on the content... Anything at all... I would appreciate it! Thank you for your time, oncamera(t) 03:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm a bit too busy at the moment - end of the semester is looming! Awadewit (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving!

[edit]

Happy Thanksgiving! I am thankful for you and your contributions here! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And me, you! Awadewit (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your offer

[edit]

I'm coming to take you up on your offer to help resolve the concerns you raised in the FA review for Seattle Sounders FC. I can see that you've made two edits already cleaning up the prose for which I am grateful. My English skills are far from professional, so this kind of help is (unfortunately for me) necessary. I'll get started on a "deplagiarization" effort in the article now based on the dispatch you provided (thanks!). Please add any requests, ideas, pointers, etc. that I can follow up on to either my talk page or the article talk page. Oh, and sorry for referring to you with "he". I hope I didn't offend you. I am ashamed. :) --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! I just finished going through the article sentence-by-sentence comparing the text to the sources cited. I'm pretty confident that the article is "clean" now, but definitely require your second opinion on this before I can resubmit it for FA review. I've documented my progress on the article talk page. I welcome any further tweaks you want to make to improve the article and look forward to reading any comments/suggestions you have. Thanks! --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will look at it this weekend. Awadewit (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thank you! --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I just wanted to thank you for what you've done so far in reviewing Seattle Sounders FC. I've attempted to address everything you noted on the talk page. You've brought a fresh pair of eyes to the article which is helping a lot. I look forward to continuing the review with you. Thank you! --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can renominate as soon as Awadewit is satisfied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I'm hoping to do. I think she intends to do more reviewing/commenting/tweaking before she signs off though. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 00:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to remind you that I've taken a shot at addressing your review comments on Talk:Seattle Sounders FC a week ago. I need your sign off before I can submit the article for FA review. I apologize if I'm being a pest. Thank you for your help. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 20:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the end of the semester where I am - a busy time. I've left more comments on the talk page. Awadewit (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! I believe Cptnono and I have followed up on your comments on Talk:Seattle Sounders FC. Sorry if it felt like I was pestering you, just wanted to make sure you hadn't forgotten :-). Also, I wanted to repeat one thing from the talk page... after looking over your "wikium vatae" I wanted to say that it's an honor to have your help on an article that's likely well outside of your normal body of work. Thank you so much for your help! Good luck on your finals and Happy Hollidays! Feel free to check back in on the review comments at your earliest convenience. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 00:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome - the beautiful game deserves beautiful articles, eh? Awadewit (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it does. Your help has been phenomenal. Thank you. I think I've addressed all of the outstanding issues on Talk:Seattle Sounders FC except one where I asked a question. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver

[edit]
WikiProject Vancouver
You have been invited to participate in Operation Schadenfreude to restore the article Vancouver back to featured article status.

- Dear FA Team member, we could use your help if you're available. Mkdwtalk 06:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Attachment theory

[edit]

Made it! Many, many thanks for your detailed and skilful reviewing. Fainites barleyscribs 17:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Awadewit (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Frightfully Decent Chap Award
For your erudite and selfless work on helping get Attachment theory to FAC. Fainites barleyscribs 20:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is one of the coolest awards I have ever gotten - thanks so much! Awadewit (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

[edit]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Castle/archive1

[edit]

I think the content issues you raised at the FAC (ie: non-image) are about as resolved as they're going to get. [3] [4] Regarding the prose, I've replied to all of your points on the talk page bar one, as the information about when boys came of age escapes me at the moment, and I'm struggling for a source. As for the images, thank you for your patience (and perseverence), I'm quite sure it's felt like you've been hanging your head against a wall as I seem to have developed a blind spot in that area during this FAC. Nev1 (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am so happy to support this article - it really is quite an achievement! Awadewit (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What really killed Jane Austen?

[edit]
  • ...and started infecting thousands... of less talented writers, who plagued our popular literature and movies with stilted, paint-by-numbers, cut-out-doll stories that somehow made vast fortunes for their authors...? • Ling.Nut 00:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I don't put the romance novels with the other books, but I don't put the equally formulaic Horseclans or other such sci-fi fantasy there either. The "real" books are horses or history (I find most "popular" fiction to be equally formulaic as romance, and most "lit" is something I thankfully left behind in college.. (sorry!)) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try The Golden Compass. I'm teaching it this week and reminded just how totally awesome the His Dark Materials trilogy is. Love, death, sin, free will, physics, Milton, Dante, Blake - what more could a person ask for? Awadewit (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gods. Milton (shudders). I adore Blake, but I read it direct. I am just now getting out of a phase of only reading hard sci-fi, or mil-sci-fi, so I'm not sure I'm up to more Tolkien-wanna-bes. (So much of fantasy is ... "let's rewrite Tolkien"!) And while I'm not exactly a bible-thumper, I'm not that fond of things written to push a view that "religion is bad" or something similar. (Now making fun of some more wild religious practices, such as Stranger in a Strange Land is great). Nor am I a big fan of reading juvenileish fiction, never was as a child even. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't read Harry Potter (so inappropriately classified as juvenileish fiction) I might have to take drastic measures, Ealdgyth! I am not a fan of classic British literature, but I love the French works of the same time period - Alexandre Dumas is one of my favorite authors. Karanacs (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of great things about Pullman is that he is not a simple writer (unlike Rowling, who is not even close to being in the same class). Interestingly, when The Golden Compass was first published, it was placed in the fantasy/sci-fi section, then moved to the children's section, then moved back to the fantasy-sci section, then placed in both. It draws from so many literary traditions that it can't easily be pegged as one of those boring rewrites of Tolkien (of which I have read many). Moreover, its moral complexity is what makes it such a good book and is what religious readers objected to. In the later books, there are even these awesome talking horses.... Awadewit (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read that book in Middle School and it blew me away. I hadn't read Blake before then, though :) Wrad (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CS Lewis and JRR Tolkein wrote their works to express their competing Anglican vs Catholic views. This guy decided to come by 60 years later and promote atheism in a rather lame kind of way. He really got Blake incredibly wrong and in a rather upsetting way. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fascinating thing about the books is how Pullman uses the literary traditions. Since Blake lends himself to so many interpretations (not just one "right" one), it is interesting to see the ties to Milton emphasized. (Btw, Ottava, what writers have challenged religious institutions and religious belief in a good way?) Awadewit (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blake, for one, challenged religious institutions and belief in a good way. Look at Blake's Milton, where he says that Milton was mislead by an ultra confining set of rules and doctrines instead of realizing that the soul's desire for governance, truth, and fulfillment is not sinful but part of the divine spark. The laws, then, are evil's way of trying to limit and bound the soul and the individual because of fear of the uncontrollable expanse of the divine. There is no such embracing of an all expansive divine environment that can never fully be known, comprehended, or controlled by rationality in Pullman. Instead, Pullman creates a system that is far more like Urizen while it attempts to mock a parody of Blake's rational/satanic force. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are going to have to stop here. Your post makes no sense to me. I don't know what you mean by "soul" or "the uncontrollable expanse of the divine". If we go further, we'll have to commit ourselves to the full-fledged "religious debate", which is probably not a good idea on wiki. Awadewit (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are in the same boat as Pullman. :) Blake is a very complicated and deeply spiritual individual with rather revolutionary ideas about the sublime, the divine, and the rest. I recently expanded/created 18 pages on Blake's mythology. They aren't complete, but they are much better than our previous coverage. Spend an hour to go through them and see the various opinions he puts forward and some of the above statement may be clearer. Chances are, probably not. It is a bit insane after all. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've already a lot about Blake since I wrote a Master's Thesis on him and Paine. I'm trying to make the point that words like "soul" and "spiritual" actually have very little meaning. It is nearly impossible to pin down a definition for them. That makes it difficult to have a real discussion about these topics. Awadewit (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is fine. :) I do wonder what you said about Blake and Paine, because Blake's works suggest that Paine would be considered a promoter of some of the worse evil (regarding Deism) but Blake was quite friendly with Paine. A strange mix, those two. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of books to read over the holidays

[edit]

Please make suggestions here! Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any books? Fiction? Any type of fiction? --Moni3 (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any type at all. Awadewit (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, if we are going to list silly novels, then I am adding my childhood favorite - Mattimeo. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

[edit]

My pleasure, I keep putting stuff through GAN and FAC myself, so it's only fair to put something back, even if I lack the detailed copyediting skills of some other reviewers. I've just put two GAs through, so that spurred me to do some reviewing there and at FAC. The good news is that the two new GAs will be going no further, just needed for a GT (speaking of which, must be nearly time for a G&T) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish more people thought that way - perhaps we should make December worldwide FAC reviewing month. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks. :) I'm in the same boat as Jimfbleak, it would seem. I had an article up at FAC, so I felt I owed the process some additional participation. I'll try to hold up as long as civility does. Эlcobbola talk 17:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eek! Awadewit (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eek? Did you see a mouse? Эlcobbola talk 17:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that I don't think civility will last long. I'm a bit jaded at the moment. Awadewit (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right on. I unwatched one just this morning. Hopeful by the time I burn out, you'll be ready to go again. :) Эlcobbola talk 17:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow - I just saw that one as I was reviewing the FACs this morning. I suggested that editor apologize to you. It is amazing how rude people are to image reviewers. Awadewit (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, A. To a degree, I can understand frustration when it's a copyright issue, as copyright is extremely esoteric and counter-intuitive. But this isn't a copyright issue; it's exactly the same as if an article said, "The United States imported X tons of granite in 2008" and cited it only to "USGS". Ealdgyth or Fifefoo would no doubt comment on that inadequacy and there'd be no disagreement. Why is it any different with an image? WP:V is for content/material, not just prose. IUP requires a verifiable source. You know this, of course - I'm venting. :) Why are sourcing concerns on images always twisted into assumptions of bad faith? What is it about images that makes them "second class citizens"? It mystifies me. Эlcobbola talk 15:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because you can "see" them - why do you need a source for what you can see? It is obviously a Goya painting! Who needs a source? Does that make any sense? Awadewit (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly makes sense for well-known paintings, and the logic does seem to carry over to "old" works (it looks old enough; it must be PD!) Even then, that may well explain why a source isn't initially provided, but that the arising hostility is so out of proportion to the request for a source is what I can't get my mind around. Эlcobbola talk 15:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could anyone clue me in to where the rudeness happened? I haven't started through FAC yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one example. Awadewit (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, A; at least it wasn't the nominator. Off to see if an admin has warned for NPA, but if no admin has, not sure what I can do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ec, as always, I'm sorry that happened to you, but as you know, there's not much I can do to stop attacks on reviewers, other than leave a warning for the editor (which I just did). By the way, I hope you both know (A and Ec) that when I see image clearance from either of you, I don't even read through the full discussion, since I know you both know your stuff better than I do, so if I miss these kinds of attacks, please let me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sandy, I know that's all you can do. Эlcobbola talk 15:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Wadewitz. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
Message added 18:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

ww2censor (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of Sesame Street

[edit]

Awadewit, I've finally put this article up for peer review. I realize that it's probably a really bad time to ask, this being the end of your term and all, but I figured what the hey. So if you wouldn't mind, could you please take a look at it? Thanks. --Christine (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't have any time until next week - is that too late? Awadewit (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not at all. Scar can't do it until then, either. I know that everyone's right smack in the middle of end-of-the-term woes. Thanks. --Christine (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ketogenic diet

[edit]

As requested. Here's the FAC nomination. Since your review/copyedit there have been some minor changes throughout, mostly as a result of the expert review I received. I've rewritten the Modified Atkins Diet section so that will be worth a close look. I see that Maralia is already on the case. Colin°Talk 22:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! I am really so impressed by this article. Awadewit (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Davenport, Iowa

[edit]

Are you able to help me improve Davenport, Iowa so that you can support the FAC? CTJF83 chat 20:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No - I'm afraid I don't have the time. I'm a teacher and it is the end of the semester, so I'm quite busy at the moment. I hope the suggestions I gave were enough to guide you. Awadewit (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your busy in real life, but how am I suppose to properly fix up the article, without advice and assistance from the opposer? I don't think it is really fair for you to give me this long list of reasons you're opposing, and then make me fix it all with no help. Why do you not think http://www.visitquadcities.com/site/page.php?page_id=43 is a valid source? CTJF83 chat 08:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement for opposers to help nominators fix their articles at FAC. You are the nominator, you are responsible for fixing the article. If you cannot do it yourself, you should definitely seek help, but I am under no obligation to fix every article I review at FAC. If you have specific questions about my review, please post them at the FAC. Awadewit (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will the source of Samuel Franklin Cody being born in Davenport, on his page, be good for my FA? CTJF83 chat 05:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know - I don't know anything about Ancestors - I'd have to look into its review board and publication practices. Awadewit (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Children and Young Adult Literature/Intro

[edit]

Care to have a go? I think otherwise everything is  Done. :) Cirt (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think there is still a lot to do. I don't think everything in the "In this month" section is sourced, so I need to go back and add sources for some of that material. That could take a while. Perhaps I will try and work on it after the semester is over. Awadewit (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh the stuff in the "In this month" section usually is sourced at the articles themselves. But I think once Portal:Children and Young Adult Literature/Intro is done, the portal would certainly be ready enough to go for a portal peer review. :) Cirt (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But I remember that some of them are not sourced in the articles. That is what I have to go back and do. Awadewit (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, no worries. :P Cirt (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Introduction to evolution

[edit]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Introduction to evolution. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ISS FAC4.

[edit]

Hello there! As an editor who has posted a comment in one of the recent Peer Reviews, GANs or FACs of International Space Station, or who has contributed to the article recently, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting in the current Featured Article Candidacy with any suggestions you have for article improvements (and being bold and making those changes), whether or not you feel any issues you have previously raised have been dealt with, and, ultimately, if you believe the article meets the Featured Article guidelines. This is the fourth FAC for this article, and it'd be great to have it pass. Many thanks in advance, Colds7ream (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy

[edit]

Everyone's favourite lady is on the mainpage today. Just thought you'd want to know, as we couldn't have done it without you. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 11:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on Lucy by the way, survived as front page news rather well...Modernist (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Moon (2009 film) and Eclipse (2010 film)

[edit]
Both these two articles were recently submitted for a name change. I did agree with this name change in February, however, now I am a strong opposing factor in why the name should ramian New Moon and Eclipse with the signifigant other name in the first line of the articles.
WP:NCCN and WP:PRECISION both state the title should be "terms most commonly used", "A good article title is brief and to the point", "Prefer titles that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles", "An article can only have one name; however significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph". "And despite earlier reports that the movie would be known as The Twilight Saga's New Moon, the title will remain New Moon according to the movie's rep. They just have Twilight Saga in the artwork to identify it for anyone less devoted than your average fanggirl."Source.
Also see WP:PRECISION. I quote from there: "Articles' titles usually merely indicate the name of the topic. When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise but only as precise as is needed. For example, it would be inappropriate to name an article "United States Apollo program (1961–1975)" over Apollo program or "Nirvana (Aberdeen, Washington rock band)" over Nirvana (band). Remember that concise titles are generally preferred."
However, I personally do not think we have had enough input and would like input from people who might not like these movies, or just edit them to help wikipedia out. The pages are: Talk:New Moon (2009 film)#Requested move and Talk:Eclipse (2010 film)#Requested move. Any help/input would greatly be apriciated. I am not stressing weather you should oppose/support either of these.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

[edit]


Yo ho ho

[edit]

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

PS Hope to be back on the Skype chats in the near future. ϢereSpielChequers 20:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We miss you! Awadewit (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops?

[edit]

G'day Awa :-) - I'm a bit dusty this morning (but don't worry - I'll make the next christmas bash this evening!) - but I think I've gotten to the bottom of the problem I inadvertently created yesterday - my apologies for publishing the file which contained the personal banter at the end - which is, I suspect, the reason you felt a quick deletion was a good idea. I'm minded to upload the correct file, with all the chat cut from the end, as soon as possible, so thought I'd drop a quick note in here. Once again, apologies for any stress - and a merry christmas too! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that wasn't the most serious problem - there were points in the conversation that we specifically stopped and said "we will edit this out". Those all need to be edited out. Also, I have already spent several hours editing the file so that it sounds decent. It would be preferable to use my edited copy to your unedited one. Please don't upload anything. In the future, when we have all agreed that one person is going to edit the file and upload it, please abide by that decision. Awadewit (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
heh... I had no idea you were editing! - That's great stuff :-) - I think maybe a small on-wiki note on the talk page or something might be a good idea in the future, perhaps along with an idea of timescale - obviously we're all volunteers, but I really do think it's a good thing to try and get these online as soon as possible - I hope the editing is going smoothly, and thanks for your efforts on this. Further - when I listened through to the file, I don't recall any specific sections where anyone said 'we'll edit this out', so I'll double check that, with apologies. Privatemusings (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ps. - I half raised this with Coffee and Durova, but it's worth mentioning here too... I wonder whether the deletion on copyright grounds was more of a handy and expedient way of getting rid of my bungle than a valid copyright concern (this doesn't bother me, but I'm curions...) - if not, then I wonder if we might need to look at formalising a process of copyright approval for each edited file? If, as you seem to assert, each individual participant must give copyright approval, do we need some sort of distribution system and 'sign off' sheet on the wiki somewhere? - My understanding previously has been (and continues to be, though there's plenty of room for doubt!) that whomever records the skype conversation owns the copyright on that recording - which sort of makes life easier. For what it's worth, I don't have releases from any previous participants that I've uploaded, though it would bother me if a participant could at this point insist on deletion. Let me know your thoughts... best, Privatemusings (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

< thanks for getting it online :-) - I've updated the 'subscription' box, and re-added the ep. to the community portal, so the audience awaits :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wadewitz/Archive_43&oldid=1146554537"