Jump to content

User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 44

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46→Archive 50

The Chinese Restaurant

Hi, Karanacs told me to go to you for help on how to improve the "The Chinese Restaurant" article before taking it to FAC again. Are you willing to help?--Music26/11 15:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What kind of help do you need exactly? Awadewit (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Sources to start a theme section, I've looked around on NewsBank but haven't been able to find much so far, Karanacs thought you could help. Thanks.--Music26/11 21:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I can, but I wouldn't be able to until the end of January. Can you wait that long? Awadewit (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Well I'm not really in the mood; could you proofread the article for me and judge if a Theme section would be better for FAC?--Music26/11 17:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
It takes a lot of time to dig through the sources and discover whether or not a "Themes" section is possible. I can't do that kind of work until the end of January. If you don't want to wait until then, you can ask others for help. Awadewit (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey man, sorry, I kinda forgot about this conversation. Take all the time you need, it's great you are willing to help out anyway. If you find a theme section cannot be created I'll take your word for it. You've been here longer than I am, and I respect you(r opinion). Could you please back me up at the next FAc if this is the case? Thank you.--Music26/11 17:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I will try to look into the sources this weekend. Awadewit (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. May I also advice the book Seinfeld and Philosphy, I read at some FAC that it is accessible on Google Books in the US, but not in the Netherlands, where I edit from.--Music26/11 05:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to get to this until next weekend - I'm going to be in the hospital for the next three days. I will check out the above book - thanks! Awadewit (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
No, thank you! Hope you're alright, being in the hospital and all. Thank you for your help.--Music26/11 14:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The only serious issue I see is a lack of a "Themes" section, which looks possible. I've outlined one way to do that at Talk:The Chinese Restaurant. Otherwise, everything else looks reasonable to me. Awadewit (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've replied on the article's talk page. If you put it on your watchlist we can take the general discussion there so you can (finally) archive this conversation ;)--Music26/11 17:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Image use guide

Glad to see you're taking this on. [1] Let me know if you want/need any assistance. It might be nice to discuss format of the image summary page, too. For example, I seem to recall that you've requested translations when only non-English descriptions are provided. I also happen to think source information should be formatted as it is in the article itself (i.e. complete citation, no bare URLS, etc. for non-self-made images), but that may or may not be a point on which you agree. Эlcobbola talk 15:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Any help on this guide would be much appreciated! I won't be working on it much until after the holidays, though. I agree with you, although I tend not to push the point. I tend only to push for "full publication information", however it is organized. Baby steps! :) Awadewit (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hubert Walter

This article's had the following sentence in it since May with a citation needed tag, and I can't find anything in my stuff that will source it out. I've removed it, had it added back in, etc. I'm not sure it's even relevant, but you're the lit expert, so if anyone can help me find something to source it, it'd be you... (Check out the talk page of Gilbert Foliot for some background on why I'm bothering now... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

What sentence? Awadewit (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
LOL... I did kinda forget that. It's gone now anyway... Jappa came along and took it out. Sorry about that! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
That talk page debate is interesting - I feel like later representations of historical figures are important to discuss, but only if they can be discussed in such a way to illuminate the way different time periods thought of a particular personage or some such point. Simply listing every portrayal of Shakespeare in film, for example, does very little to help the reader. Awadewit (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
That has always been my opinion also, that unless a portrayal or depiction sheds light on the actual person, it doesn't really need mentioning. A couple of the insertions of material were for roles that were not even mentioned in the actor's article or in the film/movie/show's article either, unless it was just a cast listing. Ah, well... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Huzzah for L4C

Kudos on the TFA. You've done so very much to make Wikipedia a superb place. Cheers for all your excellent toil! Scartol • Tok 00:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I really appreciate it! Funnily enough, that article was on the main page the same day I was giving my children's literature students their final. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I second that. It's a lovely article that explains all the aspects of the books' significance. I feel like I went from zero to comprehension in five minutes. It's striking how irritated Johnson and Lamb were that someone might suggest a child could benefit from noticing that a cat can't talk or read. Maybe a better early childhood education would have helped Charles Lamb ease up on the mocking invective.
When I read the passing reference to Rousseau in the quote from F. J. Harvey Darton, I wondered whether linking to Jean-Jacques_Rousseau#Education_and_Child_Rearing might be helpful. As a complete neophyte, I thought: "What were Rousseau's views on education and why is this guy contrasting them with Barbauld's?" Does that seem worthwhile? I'd add something myself but I suspect you'd do a far better job of it.
And congratulations on taking the plunge! Is the academy is getting a little friendlier toward open collaboration? I hope it's all been positive. Rupert Clayton (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Rupert, so nice to see you again! I'm glad that the article is accessible! Phew! I worry that when I'm writing about my dissertation topics, I verge into the incomprehensible. :) That link looks good and I'll add it to the article. I think the academy is getting more curious about projects like Wikipedia, but not necessarily more receptive. Next year, I will be part of two panels where I am talking about Wikipedia as a research and teaching tool. We'll see how that goes! Awadewit (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind note (I actually missed seeing it when I first went to the main page — how observant I am).. It really does fit the season.. Such a Christmas-y tale. Almost Balzac's version of A Christmas Carol. Except the protagonist dies lost and forgotten and his friends leave the country in disgust. Okay, it's nothing like Christmas Carol. Scartol • Tok 11:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The anti-Christmas Carol. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Lessons for Children

Just wanted to stop by and thank you for the lovely article Lessons for Children. I couldn't find milk but I do hope you like cookies. Sincerely, (Ice Explorer (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC))


{{subst:REVISIONUSER}} has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks so much! It's always nice to know people are reading the article. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Happy Holidays

Looking through my bedroom window, out into the moonlight and the unending smoke-colored snow, I could see the lights in the windows of all the other houses on our hill and hear the music rising from them up the long, steady falling night. I turned the gas down, I got into bed. I said some words to the close and holy darkness, and then I slept. — Dylan Thomas, A Child's Christmas in Wales

Peace and joy this holiday season. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which holiday you celebrate, but I hope this passage brings warmth to the season. In any case, best wishes to you and yours. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - that's a lovely quote! Awadewit (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Question

could you help me improve the Family guy artical pilot to GA status.--Saint Pedrolas J. Hohohohohoh merry christmas 22:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What kind of help do you need? Awadewit (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to FA status as you did the SP pilot, can you tell me what can i do to improve it--Saint Pedrolas J. Hohohohohoh merry christmas 14:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If you link to the article, I'll give it a brief review. Awadewit (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Death Has a Shadow--Saint Pedrolas J. Hohohohohoh merry christmas 22:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll review it in the next week or so. Awadewit (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Cartman Gets an Anal Probe

Alright, like I said, I didn't feel strongly enough to start and edit war. Still, though, the rationale for the video doesn't even briefly mention Cartman's obesity, and the image serves a much better illustration in doing so. The rationale for the image is also must stronger in my opinion; when I was doing the GAN, I was really unsure about the video, as the rationale was just so weak, and it really seemed (and still seems) to serve almost no purpose in helping show the thing it's trying to describe. It might be good to beef up the video rationale; what do you think? The Flash {talk} 06:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to add to the video rationale, as I said. Considering that the video actually shows the parody of the song that the article is discussing, I don't know how you can say it serves "almost no purpose". Perhaps the parody itself is unclear to you? Awadewit (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
It's fine; I was just noting the way it's being utilized doesn't seem very useful. I can quite clearly understand that someone sings a song, and the screenshot did seem to show the cutout animation just as well. It's fine, though, like I said — it's not a big deal. :) The Flash {talk} 18:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
It does seem like you don't understand the parody - the clip is not just about someone singing a song - it is about Cartman parodying I Love to Singa, a famous early cartoon. I agree that the screenshot shows the cut-out animation just as well as the video. Awadewit (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I actually do quite clearly understand parodies and this one; I was simply opting that the video isn't actually necessary to understand the parody, but it's perfectly fine nonetheless. ;) The Flash {talk} 21:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As Kermit would say...

Yaaah! You performed a copyedit on History of Sesame Street! ;) I'm a little surprised, though. I mean, heck, with my writing weaknesses, I would've thought that you'd find a lot more issues with the prose. I'm being half-serious, you know. It looked like you just fixed some minor grammar problems, a missed word there, a re-numeration here. Usually, when my work is ce'ed, there are major issues with the structure and whatnot. I guess that being around all you good writers is rubbing off on me, eh? ;)

Anyway, in the spirit of the holidays and to thank you for your copyedit: [2] --Christine (talk) 12:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Pretty soon you'll be a master copyeditor yourself! :) Awadewit (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm working on it. It's true, one of the benefits of becoming a WP editor is that my writing has improved. It's given me more confidence as a writer, too. I wanted the History article to be passed to FA before The Show's 40th anniversary in November, but that was too ambitious a goal. Kinda like how I wanted I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings passed before Maya Angelou's 80th birthday. It made her 81st birthday, though! Thanks again. --Christine (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, A, I've finally completed the peer review of this article. Thought you'd like to know. Specifically, could you weight in on the image changes I've made? Thanks, and happy happy! --Christine (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Shelley

You better finish up some of those Shelley articles. You are the only one left who would be able to. The Wiki depends on you. :) Take care and good luck with your writing. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Best wishes for the holiday season and the upcoming new year! –Juliancolton | Talk 17:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Merry Christmas, Awadewit!

Hey-o! Have a wonderful holiday. May you eat much breakfast (or whatever that euphemism was for gettin' jiggy with it). Let's go bowling some day. --Moni3 (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings and all that ...

Happy Holidays
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
<font=3> Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and all the best in 2010! Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And now... yes, you've guessed it

Here’s wishing you a happy end to the holiday season and a wonderful 2010.
Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Calling in a favor

I've probably used up my political capital somewhere else, but this is a similar request, so I'm making the connection anyway. Remember when I went through Jason Priestley and suggested things to cut? Well, the tables have turned and now I need your help. I'm (finally) nearing completion with my reconstruction of the Chinese-American architect I. M. Pei, and even though I still have one more chunk of biography and the style/legacy section left to do, it's already at 71k. (He's just that interesting.)

I'm probably still a week or so off from even moving it into mainspace, so I'm making this request early. When you have some time, could you look through it and see if there are spots that stand out for trimming? I've tried picking some on my own, but I don't think I have enough distance to judge. No rush, and I can tell that (as usual) you've got lots on your plate already. Just lemme know. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 17:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I lied about the timeline. I finished today and pasted it to article space. Scartol • Tok 22:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
It is going to have to be after the semester starts. Too much going on right now. Finishing dissertation chapter, planning a new class, life stuff, etc. Can you wait two to four weeks? Awadewit (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Sure, no rush. Whenever you have time. Scartol • Tok 20:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bug you, but I notice that WP:MOS#Images no longer discusses having an image just below a third-level header. Has this guideline/recommendation/rule been removed, or am I dreaming its existence in the first place, or is it somewhere else? Scartol • Tok 21:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I cannot keep track of that rule, either. It was rule, wasn't, was again, etc. At this point, I have no idea what the image placement rules are and I'm supposed to be some sort of image expert! If someone brings them up, I reread them and say "that's what they say today, eh?" :) Awadewit (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Whew. Glad to know I'm not the only one. Just an FYI on Pei: Apparently I was looking at the wrong stat for the prose size. The actual article (sans refs etc) is "only" 63k, which is still on the long side but not unheard of for someone of his stature and experience. So while it would be good to find some spots to trim, it's not nearly the massive undertaking I originally thought. Again, no rush.. All in good time. Scartol • Tok 14:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I have a little list of reviews to do, which I want to finish first, because those are easier to do than prose trimming. I'm looking forward to learning about Pei next week! :) (We'll see if we can chop it down to 50kb, which is already hard to read in one sitting.) Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
No worries. As for images, for the record. Scartol • Tok 16:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Out of the blue: I was clicking around idly today while recuperating from classes and found myself amused by the lopsided primary authorship of the FA-Class feminism articles. Scartol • Tok 20:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Football (soccer) barnstar
For your help reviewing the images, all of the cited sources, and copyediting of Seattle Sounders FC on it's way to becoming a featured article, I present you with an award that is not yet found in your trophy case. It was an honor to have your help on an article that's well outside of your normal body of work. SkotyWATalk|Contribs 21:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov

Hi, I have just listed this article for PR and would greatly appreciate your feeedback. Thanks! Jonyungk (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to review it in the next week or so. Awadewit (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year

All my best wishes to you too, Awadewit!

May you never tire of sending forth filament after filament across this great encyclopaedia... --Azurfrog (talk) 10:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And a happy New Year to you & all lurkers here too! Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy New Year, and best wishes for the coming year. Hopefully your students will be stimulating, your research will go well, and everything goes to your liking. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
A Happy New Year! Walt has a whole new different meaning now I know it's spelt "soul". Thank you. Fainites barleyscribs 17:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
What a lovely poem. Happy New Year, and best wishes for a very happy healthy and successful 2010! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, cheers for that, A. Happy New Year to all! Anyone got any Wikipedia New Year's Resolutions? (Mine.) Scartol • Tok 21:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Mine.  :) Awadewit (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Mine "/ Fainites barleyscribs 22:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Thanks for the nice poem! Happy New Year to you too! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks from me as well! Three hours to go my time.... :) Kafka Liz (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Happy New Year! Finetooth (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Happy New Year and thank you very much for introducing me to such a lovely poem. All the best in 2010! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm chiming in my thanks and best wishes as well. In addition to WP article about Sesame Street and Maya Angelou, this will be the first significant event of the new year for me. I'm goin'! Not as a skater, silly, but for my vacation! ;) --Christine (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 Greetings

    

HAPPY NEW YEAR

This is Carcassonne in southern France where I spent Christmas, safely away from Wiki temptations. Back to work now. I hope you have a great year in 2010 for reading writing, reviewing, or whatever takes your fancy. Always willing to help when I can. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A request - Baker Street and Waterloo Railway FAC

Brianboulton suggested that you might be kind enough to offer your thoughts on the likely copyright status of a number of images contained in Baker Street and Waterloo Railway which he has queried at the article's FAC. --DavidCane (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not doing any image reviews at the moment. Awadewit (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal library list

I am sure this is not an original idea, but it occurred to me that it could be useful if I made a page listing the books I own that might be of use in a Wikipedia article. I've made such a page, and have more books to add to it. Do you think this is worth suggesting to others? It would be even better if there were a way to cross index them, so that (for example) if you were researching Mary Shelley and wanted to see if some obscure source discussed her, you would be able to see if anyone on Wikipedia had the work and could easily check. In lieu of an index I might post a note at the relevant Project boards to let folks know. For academics who might own thousands of books and journals that are reliable sources it's not going to be feasible for them to post such a list, but for others it could be a useful way to make their sources more useful to the Wikipedia community. What do you think? Oh, and Happy New Year, by the way. Mike Christie (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This is indeed already set up, though it doesn't seem much used - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange and the links from there, especially Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Shared Resources. My favourite is this one. Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not surprised it's already set up; thanks for the pointer. I think the central format has advantages for those searching for resources, but it makes it harder for an editor to maintain their own library. Well, I'll keep mine up to date and leave a note on my user page, I think. Perhaps small groups of editors who are likely to collaborate on similar topics are the way to make these lists more useful. Mike Christie (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
What we need is some sort of global database that everyone can import their personal databases into. I have a database of several thousand books and articles that I own, for example. I wouldn't really want to type those out anywhere on Wikipedia. Can Zotero be used in this way? Can Google Library? I haven't explored those enough yet. Awadewit (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
My own library includes many things not suitable for Wikipedia; I probably have only a few hundred reliable sources, which is all I'd want to list. In my areas of interest I doubt I have two hundred books, so that's fairly manageable (over a period of time).
I agree a database would be handy, but it's not that likely that an editor you've never heard of has a trove of books that you'd like to refer to; if they have those books then they are probably editing similar articles already. So it's more a case of having a quick way to peek at their list, before bothering them with a question. Mike Christie (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we need more of a conversational page rather than a list? That way people can just drop by and ask for what they need? It would be a place for researchers to gather and chat, too. That would be soo fun. :) Awadewit (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
It would, though I suspect you need a relative small ratio of researchers to interests for a given page to be the most fun. E.g. I won't respond to requests for works on wrestling, or wombats, or Wooky Hole. I'd like to watch a page where a reasonable percentage of comments have a chance of being interesting to me. The existing page that does this (which Johnbod mentioned above) is Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Shared Resources and I suspect it's the ratio problem that makes it less successful. Mike Christie (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
You're right, of course. I would just like to imagine my idyllic coffeehouse for a moment. :) I suppose topic-based lists is a good idea - for medievalists, definitely! :) Awadewit (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
You have a dream? Well, how about a better dream? Lots of coffee houses, each of which is fun to hang out in and each of which has like-minded folks (for various parts of your mind). I'd certainly hang out in the literature coffee house, though I don't have much to contribute there; and I'd be a regular in a few others too. Isn't that better than a vast cacophonous "Starbucks of the mind"? As long as we're dreaming, might as well make it ideal . . . . Mike Christie (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Literature coffeehouse Awadewit (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I've just put it on my watchlist, in case it ever happens. Mike Christie (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you, too!

Thank you for the delightful New Year's addition to my talk ... and a very Happy and Healthful New Year to you, as well! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome and here's to lots of good, new FAs! Awadewit (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Princess Alice of the United Kingdom

Hey. I know you're completely swamped, but would you mind adding the above to your review list? No hurry at all; at your convenience. Thanks! PeterSymonds (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Added it to my list to review this week. Awadewit (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

He's at it again

WP:MRR. Should be fun. Mike Christie (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see you again! Awadewit (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Jane Austen Articles

It's very kind of you to invite me to edit other Jane Austen articles, but I think my main focus tends to be in the film and television aspect of Jane Austen. So, yeah, I think Jane Austen in popular culture would definitely be something I would be interested in. If I'm feeling scholarly, I'll work on Janeite. They're also a few other pages I think need to be created (like other Jane Austen Character articles and the like). If you need any help on anything else, please be sure to let me know! :D ImperialJaineite (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you might be willing to work up Jane Austen in popular culture into a featured article or a featured list? I've always wanted to put together a "Jane Austen" featured topic, but have been loathe to work on that particular article. I think with Jane Austen, Styles and themes of Jane Austen, Reception history of Jane Austen, Timeline of Jane Austen, and the popular culture article we might have a chance. Awadewit (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Peter Heywood

I have responded to your FAC concerns. Brianboulton (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

So quickly, too! :) Awadewit (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

oh, marvellous!

Many thanks!  :) Looking forward to being in more contact. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should author an article about these projects - "The Professor and the Wikipedian". Awadewit (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Seriously! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Emailed you. Awadewit (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
So does that make me (and other non-profs involved) a madman? Scartol • Tok 11:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
That makes the Wikipedians, myself included, madpeople, yep. :) It was just sort of a catchy title that refers to another collaborative knowledge-making project - the OED. There is a book called the "The Professor and the Madman" about the making of the OED. A fun read. Awadewit (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Dude, I know.. Thus the joke about me being a madman! (Gimme a little credit, dude!) Scartol • Tok 03:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Profuse apologies - I usually assume I'm the only one nerdy enough to own a copy of the OED. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
This is not a place where you can easily out-nerd people. I own a compact (13 volumes shrunk to 2) and a shorter (2 vols) as well as four other unabridged dictionaries and half a dozen college dictionaries, and I am also a contributor to the OED via this site, which I helped start. I suppose someone else will come along and say they own three copies of the OED now . . . and in fact I know that Jesse Sheidlower is an occasional editor here. Mike Christie (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I only own one copy of the OED. I do, however, own a compact set of the Complete Peerage on top of that. As well as complete sets of various stud books for horses and ... the compete set of Horseclans novels. (And we won't discuss my RPG collection...) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I actually don't own a copy of the OED, but I do love telling my students about how Homer Simpson's ubiquitous catchphrase "D'oh!" was placed in the OED in 2001. And Eald: I think I may have you beat on video game nerdiness.. I do a weekly podcast about 'em. (Have you played Dragon Age? We should continue this conversation on someone else's talkpage, heh.) Scartol • Tok 11:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Shelley rambles

Latest version (now on Commons); all placenames included but still needs some tidying up and tweaking. Comments? EyeSerenetalk 23:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's beautiful! I just the most minor of suggestions:
  • Two comments that someone brought up about the old map: "Trier" should be "Treves" and "Kissingen" should be "Bad Kissingen".
  • Could "Antwerp" go below the dot so it is easier to read?
  • Can the blue line go up to Cadenabbia?
  • I think "kilometers" and "miles" should not be capitalized, since they aren't proper nouns.
  • Do you think we should put names on the major rivers? Shelley did travel on many of them, like the Rhine.
Thanks again for doing this! Awadewit (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll get working on those changes. You should probably also take a look at the image page itself on Commons; I took most of the information for my upload from your existing image uploads, but if you could double-check and make any alterations that need to be made... :) EyeSerenetalk 08:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
A couple of questions for you:
  • There is no Trier on the map (did you mean change Treves to Trier?)
  • Where should the Cadenabbia line start from?
Cheers! EyeSerenetalk 12:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Rivers added, changed Treves > Trier, tweaked line (plus some other tidying). Anything else? EyeSerenetalk 10:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you add a red line from Naples to Pompeii to Salerno to Sorrento to Capri? and a blue line from Lecco to Bergamo to Milan (instead of from Lecco to Milan)? That should be it! Thanks so much! This looks wonderful! Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
All done now, unless I've missed anything or you need more tweaks? Regardless, it's been a pleasure to help out, so if you need anything else you know where my talk page is :) EyeSerenetalk 17:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again! Awadewit (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

WikiProject Children's Literature Roll Call

WikiProject Children's and Young Adult Literature Roll Call

Hello Wadewitz/Archive 44! WikiProject Children's literature is currently holding our second annual roll call. Your username is listed on the members list, but we are unsure which editors are still interested in the project. If you still consider yourself to be an active member of the project, please move your name to the Active Members list. If you no longer are interested in this project, please move your name to the Former Members list, and you will no longer receive messages regarding this project.

Joining a worthy project

What kinds of things would be involved in joining the project? I was vaguely aware of the MMM project last time around, but am not quite sure what I'd be signing up for. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As with all areas of the wiki, you can do as much or as little as you want. All of the users are new, so a lot of the work involves explaining wikicode and policies, but towards the end of the semester a lot of reviewing of the students' articles is needed. The WP:MMM project succeeded in getting articles to FA, but the WP:NRG project did not - I think one of the reasons for this was less engagement from Wikipedians, so another element of the project, from my prospective as a Wikipedian, is communication and encouragement with the students. Awadewit (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
What Awadewit said: as much or as little as you want. In actual fact, in this case not all the users are new; I'm not sure how that will change things. I also have a couple of rather different strategies in mind, and actual editing may not start until a little later. I am still, frankly, thinking things through. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I am totally shocked - you don't have every single minute of your class planned already? :) Awadewit (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Speaking from 20 years experience in teaching and training, we all know lesson plans are for the benefit of the auditors :) To misquote Helmuth Graf von Moltke, no lesson plan survives first contact with the students... EyeSerenetalk 10:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Huzzah and Hooray

Mmmmm, yet another TFA
We get so much praise and support during our early FAs and TFAs, such that by the time we have more than five or so, it seems silly to hand out more egoboo. (Especially when a particular editor has given several barnstars already.) But we also know that the amount of work required does not decrease. So each FA is every bit as laborious as the one before. Perhaps we can call it the Law of diminishing Barnstars. Anyway, kudos for your latest TFA. Scartol • Tok 11:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for gracing the front page with needed diversity. Shii (tock) 23:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway

Hi Awadewit! I see you're doing the PR for Ernest Hemingway. In case you don't have a ton of time at the moment, I wanted to let you know that at this point I'm simply looking for another set of eyes to the article, and TonytheTiger suggested a PR. I've spent considerable time adding sources to the biography section, but in my view some of the other sections should be moved out of the article. I haven't edited any of the sections below "Posthumous works" so entire sections are still in rough shape. Since it's such a long article and requires so much clean-up I've thought I might have to bring it to PR more than once. Anyway, wanted to touch bases. Thanks for taking on this task! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification - I've posted a broad review. Awadewit (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I'm at a point where I'm losing some perspective, so have decided to step back from that article for a time. The "Notable works" and "Posthumous works" sections need to be moved out in my view, so I'll be concentrating on moving that material into the individual articles which I expect to take some time. Thank you very much for taking the time for the review. The suggestions are helpful. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad someone is working so diligently on this important biography! I don't have time to do read research for it (in the middle of Jane Austen), but I would certainly be willing to offer reviews and get sources as you advance through the stages. Awadewit (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Congrats on Rambles in Germany and Italy! Also, hope you're feeling better. While you were in hospital I left a few comment on the Hemingway Peer Review (didn't know you were out until you returned) and then a few more today. I may need to pick your brain about writing for Wikipedia about a topic that's very big, and I'm not entirely certain how to structure a few sections. Anyway, wanted to check in, and to let you know I'm still plugging away. I'll wait until I'm done to rewrite the lead and then have you look at the prose, but so far pretty slow going. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with slow - there are no deadlines on Wikipedia. I've added some more comments. Awadewit (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

Warrington Academy

You might be interested. Having been drawn forward a century into writing about Dissenters in the eighteenth century (seems plenty to work over), I have added somewhat to the Warrington Academy article, concentrating on expanding the facts in it. A quick scan over the literature suggests that a neutral approach will be harder to achieve - there were problems with rowdy students and finance, as well as the internal quarrels, and we should of course reflect properly on the whole business. There is a dissertation on all the students who passed through, but unfortunately at Hiroshima University, so it's in Japanese! Any ideas about getting an overall assessment? Charles Matthews (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Update - the paper by Wykes cited there now has quite a bit of what I wanted. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Have you read Irene Parker's Dissenting academies in England; their rise and progress and their place among the educational systems of the country? That might have some useful material. Awadewit (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
No - I have hardly any background in this area. I see that's online at archive.org, too, so it promises to be useful. Particularly as it has lists of academies, complementary to the many DNB articles. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov

Thanks so much for all the time you are putting into the PR for Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov. I have added information on R-K's time with the Five and on the February Revolution, and while these sections seem to look good to me, I am starting to become concerned that I am overdetailing. Could you please look over these sections and give me a second opinion on the PR page? Again, thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Done! Awadewit (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the added input. I have shortened one quote in "The Five" and incorporated the other into the text, so the section seems more manageable now, and while I am still concerned about overdetailing, the issue does not seem as pressing as it did before. I have also answered some other issues you addressed in PR, so if you have any other concerns, please let me know. Again, thanks for all your help on this article. It has really made a big difference. Jonyungk (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your message, I'm looking forward to another project further interaction with the wikipedia community! --Mstmaurice (talk) 06:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

And I'm looking to be inspired to read more Latin American literature! :) Awadewit (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flag of Japan/archive2

I do thank you for giving good faith for the sources and information in this article, but if you need anything explained or thinks something need a cite, please let me know. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I woulda said. I'm not bashful. :) Awadewit (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ketogenic diet

Just to make sure that you're aware that it's on the mainpage tomorrow (17th). Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! I'll be working on my dissertation most of the day, but I'll check in after that. :) Awadewit (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

My first FAC

Hello Awadewit, just wanted to drop you a note that I've nominated my first article for featured article status. If you have some spare time on your hands, feel free to give it a copyedit or share your opinions on the article. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I had already started reviewing it - I'll probably get to my second read-through today. Awadewit (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Lovely

Thanks Awadewit! We'll be sure to come to you eventually. Picked up a dozen critical books at the library today; must wade through them in 2 days. Ack! :D
Cheers--

--Larodge (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If you need any advice about notetaking, let me know! :) Awadewit (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

HELLO my name is Laura and I'm working on the article for ONE HUNDRED YEARS SOLITUDE.. I was wondering if you had any advice for great articles to research to add to the page :) or any advice on a new heading you might think could be a great benefit to the wiki page... ALSO the painting you have of that man in the library I have an etching of it in my room here at school... i love it :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurarosenielsen (talk • contribs) 00:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome! I would suggest starting with an introductory essay, such as this one in the Cambridge Companion to the Latin American Novel. It will give you a good overview of the scholarly views on the novel and some further articles to look at in the "Notes" section. I would also suggest adding a section on "Style" to the article, as the author's use of magical realism is quite notable, as I'm sure you are aware. :) (I just wish I had as many books as the man in the painting!) Awadewit (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

THX

Thanks for archiving that talk page. I realize now how much more accessible the thing is now. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larodge (talk • contribs) 02:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

We're here to help, even if it is just to file things away. :) Awadewit (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Grateful for the support!

Hi Awadewit! You were a great help for my last group project at UBC on the Woman Hollering Creek and other stories article and I look forward to working with you again(/frustrating you with questions, haha!). Your support is always appreciated. We are just starting our bibliography for the Alejo Carpentier page so look for new material soon! Thanks again! Katie322 (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to another good semester as well! Awadewit (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice

yea that DOES make sense.. okay I'll do my best--Laurarosenielsen (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

100yrs article

I was just wondering.. now that I have the articles I'm going to be reading, I want to make sure I grab what is important from them to better the article.. I was planning to focus on themes and symbolism because the page already has a ton on the characters...or would it be better to find more stuff on the characters to add to the subtitles already up.. i hope that question makes sense :)--Laurarosenielsen (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That question makes perfect sense. In my opinion, the article has too much on characters, focusing on "Themes" and "Symbolism" would be an excellent idea. If you plan on submitting the article for GA or FA, the "Characters" section will definitely have to be pruned. It will also have to be sourced to reliable sources. Awadewit (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

thank-you

really appreciate you helping us!! --Tniamath (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! Awadewit (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar

That was realy a wonderful surorise. Thank you, and thanks for the encouragement and help on Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, which is now at FAC. Jonyungk (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It was my pleasure! I will try to get around to posting to the FAC later this week, but I'm going to be in the hospital for the next three days, so it will have to wait a bit. Awadewit (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I managed to reread it before I left for the hospital - it looks even better than before - wow! Awadewit (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
And wow! Thanks so much for the glowing praise at FAC. Hope all is well and that your hospital stay is short. Jonyungk (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much!

...both for the shiny stuff and being so complimentary about what was only really an adaptation of other people's work. All the best with the article's FA candidacy :) EyeSerenetalk 09:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It seems to be going well and people are continuing to compliment your map! Awadewit (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Belated

Awadewit, I never got to thank you for you x-mass wishes. You were a great help again in 2009, with Lucy and Goya; I hope you know how much it is appreciated. Ceoil sláinte 13:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I greatly enjoyed working on those articles! I hope this year is even better on wiki for we arts people! :) Awadewit (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Quid Pro Quo

Ruby Pen
I, Scartol, hereby bestow this Ruby Pen upon Awadewit for her superb copy editing of I. M. Pei. Scartol • Tok 12:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Best Wishes

I was distressed to see the note above about your hospital visit. I hope that things are not too serious and that you will have a good result and a speedy recovery. I had time at home today and so offer as a "get well" present a first run at the "Religion" section under "Styles and Themes of Jane Austen". It still needs work (your hand, I think) but is a decent start. Thanks for your New Year greeting, which touched me. I look forward to working directly with you again soon. Simmaren (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

My best wishes for a speedy recovery too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Same here. Jonyungk (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Every day in every way, you are getting better and better....... Fainites barleyscribs 21:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks and what a wonderful present! Awadewit (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

TFA

Just to let you know - Attachment theory had a successful TFA yesterday, (just a bit of standard vandalism and helpful people trying to change the spelling to USA versions). Thanks again for your help and encouragement.Fainites barleyscribs 12:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm so happy to hear that! Awadewit (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Plan Bodham Castle.svg

Hi, can you help me out with the status of the above image? It's been redrawn from a plan in a copyrighted book, so I'm not sure whether it's free use or not. Nev1 (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Answered at your talk page. Awadewit (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Portal rename heads up

Hi there, hope you are doing well. Please see Portal_talk:Children_and_Young_Adult_Literature#Rename. (I'll defer to your judgment) Cirt (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting idea

Why shouldn't wikipedia pay for reviews? It neednt be much just a few micropennies, but it would make the point. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably one of the few people who think it is possible to institute some sort of system where editors could be paid (altruism doesn't pay for my internet connection). In fact, I think it is better to know what is going on and try to manage it than to have it all be under the table. Awadewit (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we should form a new cabal, because I'm of the same opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Only if you pay me to be in the cabal. :) Awadewit (talk) 05:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually I might think of paying a few micropennies for one of your reviews, even though you did destroy my chance of glory at DYK. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 05:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank You
For your excellent and wonderful contributions at Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates during the month of December 2009. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle at PR

Glad you're out of the hospital and hope you are feeling better. Thanks very much for all your help with Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov at FAC; I really apprecaited all the comments, which helped improve the article immensely. If you are not too busy, I have another article at PR that would benefit from your attention, Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle. The subject is not as well-known as Rimsky-Korsakov, but I hope you would find it no less interesting. Again, thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll review it within the next week - I always like reviewing classical music articles! Awadewit (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

FAC RFC

A, the RFC is growing; wanted to make sure you saw my ideas/queries in the "Discuss 11" section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments at FAC

Thanks for removing my comments at the FAC talk page. Its always nice when opinions are eliminated from discussions and athough I will admit that it was initially confusing, the part that I added stating that they were my opinions and not representative of what was displayed above should have have clarified it if one was to take the time to read it. But, perhaps that is an example of why few reviewers take the time to paticipate in FAC reviews. And of those that do tend to not come back. Most find it to be a complex and combative atmosphere and although I have had constructive comments from some FAC regulars lately this type of action simply lends evidence to that point. --Kumioko (talk) 08:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Your opinions were not eliminated from the discussion - your !votes and any other comments were still there. By creating a section summarizing your own !votes, you were confusing other readers of the discussion (evidenced by the comments following your post) and giving your voice much more strength than any one else's (and imagine if all 30-40 people participating in the discussion followed your lead - we would have 30-40 more sections, making the page unreadable). I'm sorry if you thought this removal was inappropriate, but starting an entirely new section simply to summarize one's own !votes, which was so confusing as to require commentary from other users, was completely inappropriate in my view and harmful to the discussion. Awadewit (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congrats! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Awadewit, I am a UBC student and I received your offer of help. Thank you very much! I am working on a project in Spanish, but might ask you for technical help anyway.. --Alikea (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll do all I can - you might look for Spanish-speaking editors, though, such as SandyGeorgia. Awadewit (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Like a Box of Chocolates...
... your contributions at Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates during the month of January 2010 are greatly appreciated. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Voyage of the Karluk

I am glad to see that you are active again and hope that your hospitalisation last week was nothing too serious. Also, congratulations on "Rambles". The above article is currently on peer review, and has attracted fairly positive comments from several editors. Nevertheless, I would very much appreciate your giving it a quick check over. I realise that this will not be a high priority, but I am in no hurry to send it to FAC and it will be at PR for a few days yet. With a possible new reign of piety and iron beginning at FAC, I want to make doubly certain that my nominations are properly prepared! No worries, though, if you can't manage it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy to review it sometime within the next week, if that is fast enough. Awadewit (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Much appreciated. I plan to keep it on PR until Friday or Saturday (5th or 6th). If you can't reach it by then, never mind. Dissertation rules. Brianboulton (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Davenport, Iowa FAC

Per your suggestion for more on the history of gov't in the city. Should I put that at the beginning of Davenport,_Iowa#Government or somewhere in the middle, after a summary of gov't like after the first or second paragraph? CTJF83 chat 00:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't remember the article well enough to answer that question. Awadewit (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
But in general, do you think it is best to list currently about government, then go back to the history and work back to present times? Or start off with the history? CTJF83 chat 00:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it depends on the material. Sorry that I'm not going to be able to answer this for you. Awadewit (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
It's ok, I'll go with it and see what others say on the next FAC, thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wadewitz/Archive_44&oldid=1088872572"