User talk:Scartol/Archives/2007/November

Re: Achebe

if you look on http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/wyrick/debclass/achcon.htm and look at paragraph 37 it states that Achebe orignally used the word "Bloody" but it was changeds in the book to "thoroughgoing." just felt that i should tell you scince you asked about my source earlier

XOXO Demonman5 00:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Achebe

if you look on http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/wyrick/debclass/achcon.htm and look at paragraph 37 it states that Achebe orignally used the word "Bloody" but it was changeds in the book to "thoroughgoing." just felt that i should tell you scince you asked about my source earlier

XOXO Demonman5 00:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Need another pair of eyes

Hello Scartol. Awadewit referred me to you. I have been working on an article, John Knox, and I was wondering if you could take a look either through a reviewer's or a copyeditor's eyes. One word of warning though: I am a neophyte so the article probably cannot be compared to Awadewit's or qp10qp's masterly output! I am neither historian, writer, theologian, nor even anglophone. I'm just someone who wants to give something back to the encyclopaedia. --RelHistBuff 10:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I would just like to mention that RelHistBuff's carefully-constructed, well-researched, and well-written article is near FA quality at this very moment. :) S/he has done a remarkable job. Awadewit | talk 18:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry! I don't have time. I'm busy! I'm not a bad person. Stop hassling me! (sob) =) – Scartol · Talk 19:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Really, Scartol. I'm shocked. You can't grade, mentor students and wiki-newbies, edit articles, peer review, copy edit, and [insert life]? Well, I never. :) Awadewit | talk 19:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry about that. Awadewit had mentioned that you would be busy working on an article, but somehow I got confused and my synapses weren't working for some reason. Qp10qp has volunteered but thanks anyway! --RelHistBuff 09:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Adoption Program

Hi Eric, Looking at your user page, it would be truly an honor and a priveledge to be mentored by a user as experienced and interesting as you. I plan to work in as many sections as I can, ammeding grammar and adding to the baseball section. Thanks! Dave --Daveroo69 23:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me this opportunity once again. Firstly, I'd love to get specific assignments as this would really "show me the ropes" of Wikipedia editing. Secondly, regarding the article I created, John McIntyre (copy editor), I thought his blog and his work as an editor were perhaps noteworthy enough for an article. If there is a notability issue, however, the article should be deleted. Thanks again! Daveroo69 00:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Hello Again. I am wondering about Wikipedia's policy on copying from a source verbatim. Specifically, in my quest for citations for sabermetrics, I came across a source to define sabermetrics (as the first sentence in the Wikipedia entry). I would also replace "records" with "statistics" simply to paint a clearer picture. Would it be acceptable to copy this word-for-word under fair use laws? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveroo69 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've tried to do what I can with the sabermetrics references. Please take a look at them and tell me what you think. I will continue to find sources for it as I continue with this program. If you find it adequate right now, though, perhaps I could continue on with another assignment. PS I'm really enjoying this so far! Daveroo69 03:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have finished up the ALA citations for sabermetrics. I was aided by BibMe, and it appears to have turned out all right (let me know if there's a problem). How should I send the article to admins to consider getting the citations banner off? Or can I just take it off myself? Also, if you find time, I'd be more than willing to start a new assignment. I can't thank you enough!!! Daveroo69 01:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Love it

Great copy editing cartoon. --JayHenry 17:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• It has a vague Peanuts flavor to it. It's inspired. Awadewit | talk 17:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Vague!? It's a total ripoff. But thanks. It's really sad how long I spent on it. (Time I could have spent doing copyedits!) – Scartol · Talk 19:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Rocky watch me pull a rabbit outa my hat!

Yep, I've been busy, and I'm starting to get my sea legs a little bit. But it still seems over whelming at times, particularly with the one article that I am working on Forensic Social Work. It is such an important topic, but right now the article is almost unreadable. I thought about trying to go through it line by line, but I think that approach won't work, so I settled for rewriting the lead paragraph, and seeing if anyone else can start to fix it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwthemoose (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm trying, but these references aren't easy;-) I hope I'll get better as I go along.--Bwthemoose/Talk 22:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol

See Talk:Joseph Priestley#British English?. Part the second. Awadewit | talk 02:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It's passed! (It'll take an hour or two for the bot to update.) Well done. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 07:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

PS: there's a tiny typo on your user page. "Due settimane" (two weeks) not "due settimana" (two week)

Congratulations! Can grade no more...Can't go on... Awadewit | talk 08:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 10:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations from me, too! :) It's been wonderful to see how roses, FAs and friendships have been blooming, and how the fine nectar of wit inspires inexhaustible laughter in Elysium (lol). Well done, all! You could call it deux semaines de bonté. ;) Willow 11:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Harriet Tubman picture

There is no chance the photo is copyright under U.S. law. The New York Times can claim copyright all they want, but any image from before 1923 is public domain and she died in 1913. This is a bit of a no-brainer, and I wouldn't have uploaded it if it wasn't PD, so help yourself. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi there scartol. I'm really interested in being adopted (noticed that you put a message on my page). What I most need to learn about is talk pages (only managed to post on this one on the off chance that there was a talk link on it). I also want to understand references and such like. I've already got the cheatsheet and the main help page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents/Editing_Wikipedia). Please post back (however that is done).

Nibinaear 11:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Contacting Dr. A

Well, it's quite true that he might respond quite negatively. Some academics have a visceral negative reaction to just about anything done by non-academics. Some people have a visceral negative reaction to just about anything that appears on Wikipedia. Combine those two forces and the mere letter inviting a look at the article would send some into conniptions. Maybe Achebe is one of those people. I mean, of all the things to relinquish to the internet — the story of one's own life the way one wants it told. Imagine! Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world!

But on the other hand, many of us who toil at Featured Articles believe that Wikipedia is a worthwhile endeavor (Oh the humanity! We are talking about Achebe: I meant endeavour! Dear children of Nigeria, I apologize for my misspelling, but you can never accept my apology — can you? — because you know if I were sincere I would have said apologise.) and if we take our work seriously shouldn't we invite Achebe to share what he thinks? Well, he might hate it. And that would certainly be disappointing for those of us involved. But how many angry letters do you think the editors of Britannica got over the years from subjects who wanted this-or-that changed? I'd wager that a good portion of biographers have received angry letters from their subjects upon publication. But is any of that a reason not to ask? Is any of that a reason to even doubt the quality of our work? And truly, what do we gain by not asking? --JayHenry 23:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's like the old saying goes: It's better to regret something you have done than to regret something you haven't done. I think not taking the chance would drive me crazy. How many times will I have this kind of opportunity? – Scartol · Talk 23:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've replied here to avoid fragmenting the discussion. I don't know if he will object but, in my experience, you can never predict how someone will react to an article about them though they nearly always want it changed; either in the detail or in the thrust. Because of WP:RS and WP:COI it may not be easy to oblige here. On specifics, his family background is written about very much from a Western perspective; he may dislike that. He may not agree with your takes on his work and his contribution, and he is famous for looking beneath the text for a sub-text (cf. Conrad). He may also consider that a rehash of other people's writings is insufficiently vigorous or insufficiently current and he does have a habit of publicly criticising people he disagrees with. (Google on "acheve outspoken" and "achebe scathing".) Of course it's a great opportunity for you but I'm not sure what is achieved for Wikipedia by sending him the piece, which essentially you are asking him to approve ... --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 00:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to your experiences in this area (though I'm still not clear on whom you've contacted and had them "want it changed"), I think you're assuming the worst. The article in question mostly just summarizes the biography by Ezenwa-Ohaeto, which he authorized (and gave interviews for). Achebe does lash out at some people, but from what I see in the Google searches you recommend, it's people who write original works about Africa (which I have not), and they're perspectives which – in my opinion – ought to be scathingly attacked. Comparing this article to Conrad's Heart of Darkness is very strange to me. Besides, I'm not asking him to approve anything; I just want to inform him that the page has been brought to the highest standards possible. – Scartol · Talk 00:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right: I am assuming the worst and think the risks in contacting Achebe outweigh the advantages. Achebe lashes out at those who write about Africa/Africans in dehumanised/stereotypical terms. What follows is three example areas which he might take issue with. Firstly, although this article is based on Ezenwa-Ohaeto's biography, the massive redaction has removed a great deal of nuance and context, and probably Westernised the account. For example, all reference to Achebe's family's high status has gone and, instead, there is an emphasis on handouts (bursaries, scholarships, etc). Secondly, Achebe's relationship with English is complex and nuanced; the article may be over-simplistic on this. Thirdly, Achebe's relationship with the US is highly complex; he has said repeatedly in interviews that he would live in Nigeria were it not for his injuries. He has also said that his perception of the US has changed dramatically (for the worse) since he was a student. None of this is examined. Finally, unless Wikipedia constraints are made very clear, a leading academic is unlikely to agree that this article "has been brought to the highest standards possible". And like it or not, sending the subject of an article a copy of that article is implicitly inviting comment. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 19:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

PS I didn't incidentally compare this article to Heart of Darkness but it would be wise to be extremely circumspect about someone who has sustained a principled debate for more than thirty years. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 19:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Might I just pipe up here? I would also strongly encourage you not to do this. I also think that it looks like you are inviting comment, which would then only create a conflict of interest. More than likely, he has already seen the entry or will soon. Most people google themselves every once in a while. :) Awadewit | talk 19:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I respect the comments everyone made, but I've decided to send it. I've wanted to communicate with him in some fashion for years, and this is the only chance I may have to let him know how much I respect him. I think my work on the article is the best possible reflection of that respect. I hope I haven't brought any uncomfortable complications onto the page, but insofar as it's in the mail, we'll just have to wait and see. If this creates controversy, I'm more than willing to take whatever heat may come. (For sending a letter. Horror!) – Scartol · Talk 23:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you ask for a free-use picture? :) Awadewit | talk 23:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Actually, I thought about it. The E-O bio has a number of photos from his own collection, and I'd just need permission to scan them. Then I thought about asking him about the BrEng/AmEng thing. Then I decided to stick to business. (If he responds with deferential praise, I'll push my luck with the photos.)

The other thing I thought of whilst riding my stationary bike just now was this: Awad, you mentioned Bill Pullman visiting a listserv, and I can only imagine other perspectives about people lashing out online are informed by the fact that usually folks only inject themselves into these discussions if they have a gripe. But is that a fair way to look at it? I don't know that we're working with comprehensive data if we use those folks who edit (or try to have edited) their own articles as our starting point. – Scartol · Talk 23:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• (Lol - I have a stationary bike, too!) Pullman comments and critiques - it is his tone that riles people up. It is sometimes harsh. His critiques are not necessarily unwarranted. :) However, to some extent you are correct that we go by the cases that we see, which are the visible cases. People rarely drop by and say "good job!" (I think it is fair to say that this extends beyond wikipedia articles). However, that does not necessarily mean our concerns are crazy. Lawsuits have erupted over the biographies on wikipedia. Writing about dead people is safer, in my opinion. :) Anyway, if you have a genuine respect for the man and his writings, I'm sure that came through in your letter and there won't be any problems. Assuming there is no vandalism on the page the moment he looks at it. Not to make you paranoid or anything. Awadewit | talk 00:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism template

Hey there. I like the anti-vandalism template you used on User_talk:66.203.60.35, but I can't find it. Did you make it? – Scartol · Talk 00:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No I didn't make it - Template is {{bv}}, please keep in mind, if you are going to use it, it should be treated as a level 4 warning which should usually only be given for obviously obscene/vulgar vandalism. Happy editing. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Bourse de Commerce

About your comment at that peer review, have a look at the article talk page for a discussion about the Bourse de Commerce. There are two candidates at the moment, but it needs someone with local or better knowledge to work out what the original building was and the history of the buildings in that area of Paris. As bourse show, it was undoubtedly a financial centre, so would a parenthetical note saying that be enough? Carcharoth 02:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

Yes, I'd be happy to have you adopt me. Bdhook 20:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Various and sundry

Please think about adding yourself to this list of peer reviewers.

I see Balzac is going to be on the mainpage in a few days! Congratulations! I'll watch it for a few hours. Awadewit | talk 19:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint

Its never really clear to me when the job is done to satisfaction, or the satisfaction of others, so I feel a bit reticent about removing the template, since that seems to give the impression that the job is done, when really its just started. But otherwise I feel a bit more comfortable moving around the site. Thanks for checking in.--Bwthemoose/Talk 01:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer rev

I've now responded to your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Catherine de' Medici's building projects/archive1.

As part of the process of ever decreasing circles in which we seem trapped like mice in a washing machine, I'll have a look at your responses at Honoré de B tomorrow. qp10qp 23:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

adoption offer

Thank you for the offer Scartol! Sorry I'm so long responding, I just started a new college program and pretty much all of my pastimes, luxuries, and hobbies (wikipedia included) have been thrown onto the back burner. I'm a touch more settled now, and I think I'll have enough spare time to work on the page I'd like to make.

My first question if your offer still stands, can I edit the site without publishing it until I feel my contribution is satisfactory?

Cheers, Ill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illsouljah (talk • contribs) 02:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

Let's try some assignments first, and if I don't care much for that style we can switch to option 2. You should be able to determine many of my interests by looking at my userboxes, but if you need more let me know. Bdhook 19:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your precision and professionalism in copyediting the Yasser Arafat article and bringing it to a higher level of reading. Cheers! --Al Ameer son 03:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Charter School of Wilmington

Hello Scartol,

I'm a student at Charter, and have been a contributor to its article for at least two years. I believe I remember that the section you labeled as possible copyright infrigement was originally contributed/written on Wikipedia. In fact, the site http://www.publicschoolreview.com/school_ov/school_id/16376 has "Source: Wikipedia" written at the bottom. I removed the warning, but if you think it still needs to be modified, let me know.

CmaccompH89 06:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Biography suggetion

By the way, I noticed that Willow put in a request for Truth. Might I also make a suggestion? Kaldari has had a reward up for Emma Goldman for two years now, I think. I can't add to the pot, unfortunately, but I could add moral support and peer reviewing. She might extend the date, if she knows you're working on it. (I noticed your feminist userbox.) Awadewit | talk 09:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Harriet Tubman

Of course I'll look in! As per usual my review will be roughly one-quarter to half as valuable as the others, but I suppose every little bit helps. --JayHenry 02:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

And ooh, I just saw that you're taking copy editing requests. I think you should consider looking in at J.D. Salinger which is currently up for GA and has FA hopefully written all over it. User:Hobbesy3 has been chipping away at it for nearly half a year and I think some good guidance could get it across the line. (And imagine the generations of 9th graders that will be eternally grateful.) --JayHenry 02:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm too slow! I already missed the party! --JayHenry 03:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Turning the Harriet Tubman article from embarrassingly bad to amazingly good in two weeks was a spectacular feat of editing. Keep up the fantastic work! -- Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

PR

Hi Scartol,
Thanks for contacting me about the peer review. Sorry I didn't get back to you quickly enough—but I'm sure you've been better served by the other reviewers! ¶ I suspect you're the patient type, so, enjoy Balzac's front-page moment, regardless of the ballsacks and nutsacks (and their edits :). BTW, your "language genius is accepting requests" graphic is awesome. –Outriggr § 02:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat

Greetings Scartol, I apologize for my late responses and edits in the Yasser Arafat article and Peer review. My internet has been frustrating and I'm sure I have a virus. It has been better than the past week however. Al Ameer son 20:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Scartol. I wanted to inform you that I added some references to the article and I have a couple subjects to bring up. See the Arafat peer review --Al Ameer son 19:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have renominated the Yasser Arafat article. Comments can be left here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yasser Arafat.

And please do leave your opinions on the article( ; --Al Ameer son 23:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, unfortunately. However I will go over the article again (I've already trimmed some unnecessary info) and renominate it once more in perhaps a week or so. Thank you again for all your efforts in editing the article and keep on doing so if you see any problems in it. --Al Ameer son 20:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have renominated the Yasser Arafat article. See, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yasser Arafat

Hopefully it passes this time. Cheers! --Al Ameer son 04:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you think I should remove it from nomination? --Al Ameer son 16:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If you have time could you overlook the Aftermath section. I'm a little bit wary of my recent edits there. --Al Ameer son 04:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my late response. I removed two images whose fates have not been addressed too well. I kept the one with Ahmad Yassin because I think the discussion will be over soon in favor of keeping it. Also, I just created a new section per FAC talk, Establishing authority in the territories that I'm sure needs to be copyedited. The subsection is very short so I don't think it will be too bothersome ;). Once again thanks for all your help. --Al Ameer son 16:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you think I should remove the article from nomination or wait how this one turns out. --Al Ameer son 16:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok. Thanks for your advice. --Al Ameer son 17:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes!!!!!. I'm very happy right now and surprised because I didn't know it would be decided so soon. This is by far my best accomplishment on the wiki and I can't thank you enough for all of your help. I must say this article was very frustrating but we as the wikicommuntiy have managed to pull it off. Don't be a stranger! Once again, thanks! --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Doing ok?

I noticed that the Balzac vandalism was kind of getting to you. I nearly died when Mary Wollstonecraft was on the main page (my first experience with that level of vandalism), but millions of people are actually reading your article (really, it could be millions!). Stand firm, o vandal fighter! (And be glad that you don't have to fight vandals every day - be glad that someone else does that for us!) Awadewit | talk 22:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I've actually made the slightly insane request to have A Vindication of the Rights of Men appear on the main page on the 29th, the date of its initial release. If you feel the inclination to comment on this nomination, you can do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Awadewit | talk 03:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the star! I'm ambivalent about WP:NOPRO, but if it is ever revisited, I hope it's done so with rigorous data to accompany discussions of the ideology behind the policy. What's interesting to me about the Balzac vandalism is that when vandalism lasted for more than a minute it was because it got caught up in a mix of several edits. Suggesting that perhaps better vandalism fighting tools are needed for these heavily trafficked articles. If this is a topic of interest to you, you might also be intrigued by Wikipedia:Flagged revisions and its associated proposals.

P.S. with regard to J.D. Salinger, I think you could place the article on hold and still help Hobbesy with the copy editing yourself. Part of the hold process is fixing the weaknesses you see, and direct involvement with the copy editing can be a part of that. I don't think it would compromise the review. I'd advise against failing it, really. I think it'd be needlessly discouraging to a good editor. If you feel you'd be compromised by copy editing and reviewing, maybe just leave the GA review to someone else entirely? --JayHenry (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Slight emergency

Hey, I just tried using GAList3 on Talk:Oil shale extraction, but it didn't work. please help! VanTucky ^Talk 23:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I love what wikipedians label an "emergency". It's not that I wouldn't have done the same, mind you. I'm just commenting on a surreal element to all of this. Awadewit | talk 23:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, for the aid and the tip. Happy editing, VanTucky ^Talk 23:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've had more than one incident like this, and I know exactly how he felt. It is surreal – but I think whenever anything computer-related is supposed to happen a certain way, and then it doesn't, it feels like an emergency. (And I can't do anything else until it's fixed!) I'm just glad I was around when he posted the message! – Scartol • Tok 23:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the NMA Link

I appreciate the link to the NMA on the Mozart Symphony No. 31 page. I plan on expanding this page with history behind the work, more on the form, and a brief explanation of the mystery behind the applause during the first movement in the premiere. Please feel free to help if you have time. Parkerjl (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Arthur_Morris

Hi there Scartol. The famous Andplus (talk · contribs) has copyedited it and modifications have been made as you suggested. Best regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scartol. I'm not sure if my writing/research technique is unusual in WP, but I tend to read a few books and then open them up when I am typing, so that everything that I type will match up 100% with the sources in the book. That way I tend to have paragraphs that only have one or two refs, since they were all a subset of the book that I was reading at the time. A lot of people (usually on modern topics) tend to add things that pop up in their mind and then google up and then stick in whatever gets pulled out, and because it often isn't a perfect match they need lots of different refs to put it all together. As for your query about the "imposing" comment not being referenced, it was referenced in the sentences after, since I got most of the section from the same two sources, so I didn't feel the need to repeat the same ref at the end of each sentence. I can assure you that every statement is sourced to an inline cite in the given paragraph, lower down if not immediately. If you want anything to be reffed immediately, feel free to {{cn}} whereever you want, I can simply cut and paste the refs upwards from the bottom of the para and it won't take long. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there again. I doubt I'll be able to convince you otherwise but I have made some enhancements mainly based on a more anecdotal biography I found that will hopefully humanise him more, showing more than his statistical record I hope. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I've taken a look and made some comments. VanTucky ^Talk 20:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

DIY conversion kit

I've done a sortable list of common words requiring transmogrification into other English spelling variants. It covers about 80% of the variants I've encountered so far. It's here. Could you please take a look and add, delete or comment? Many thanks, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: a Kneed for citations

Well some of that is professional experience, but also I wasnt in the Citation Mode at that point. I was cleaning up the text for readability and style and figured I would search for citations. later.--Bwthemoose/Talk 15:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No rest for the weary

To Kill a Mockingbird has come up for FAC. You might want to look at it. I assume you are familiar with it? :) Awadewit | talk 04:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if I can provide much more constructive criticism on this front. Perhaps you should take a stab. :) Awadewit | talk 07:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Knights of the Nine Featured Article Candidacy

I have responded to your comments as best I could. As they were not comments on the article, but on the topic, it has become something of a digression. Thank you for your time! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Emma Goldman

I was urged by Awadewit to have a go at Ms. Goldman, now that I'm done with Harriet Tubman. I'm intrigued, but improving an article about such an important anarchist for the sake of profit? =) Seems wrong somehow. What if I did it and then asked you to make the payment to the East Timor Action Network instead? – Scartol · Talk 15:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do realize the irony :) So far all of the people that have won rewards I have offered have donated them to charity anyway, so that would certainly be fine by me. I could donate it directly if you'd like. Kaldari 16:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - The peer review suggested a complete reorganization of the article, which I would tend to agree with. The question is, how do you organize an article about someone as complex as Goldman? -- Kaldari (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Emma Goldman counts for the Core Contest. Even more money for East Timor. :) Awadewit | talk 05:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request

I've put Joseph Johnson (publisher) up for peer review. If you have a chance in the next few weeks, would you review it? I would greatly appreciate it. (I promise to resume the French soon!) Awadewit | talk 07:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!

Great work on Harriet Tubman. I never found the time to review, but it didn't seem like you really needed the help anyway. This is a much needed achievement for WP, so thanks for upgrading the article. Time to add the barnstar! Cheers, Melty girl (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Let me add my congratulations as well! Awadewit | talk 06:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• [Have you thought about joining this project? It seems like just the thing for you. :) Awadewit | talk 12:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)]

• Thank you both for your kind comments. I might join the 1FA/Q project, but I don't know if the pressure would be daunting. (I'm already surpassing it in terms of rate of work, but something about having the requirement over my head – I'm not sure.) But I might sign on. Who knows. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 15:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Fine. I'm in. – Scartol • Tok 16:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

To echo Melty girl, thanks for bringing such an important person to Featured Article; you're a wonderful writer with great taste. :) It's a funny coincidence, but ever since your Balzac and Achebe articles, I've been seeing their names everywhere — it must be magic. ;) Willow (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Imperial triple crown jewels

I, Durova, am pleased to thank Scartol's exceptional mainspace contributions to Wikipedia with these imperial triple crown jewels. May you wear them well. Durova^Charge! 02:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Your Imperial Majesty, a featured article on Harriet Tubman! As a female war veteran I say well done. Cheers, and thank you. Durova^Charge! 02:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Salinger

Oops! I didn't see your comments about J. D. Salinger until after I'd done my reviews. Hope I didn't bollocks everything up too bad. – Scartol • Tok 14:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm a bit of a softie, I suppose. The important thing is that you gave the article an excellent review and it's now on an irreversible collision course with real excellence. And by the way, you are now eligible for (and darnit I need to beat Awadewit in awarding you one of these for once!)... --JayHenry (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

		The Featured Article Medal
		In recognition of your troika of transcendence: Honoré de Balzac, Chinua Achebe and Harriet Tubman. Oh my, the rest of us need to pick up the pace! --JayHenry (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both very much. I'm blown away by the support and kindness I've seen from my fellow Wikipedians in the past four months. You all rock. – Scartol • Tok 12:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Soon you will outpace us all at WP:WBFAN. Awadewit | talk 12:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Salinger article

Hello! Yes, actually, help would be awesome. I put J. D. Salinger up as a good article candidate about a month ago, though no one has reviewed it yet. If you're eligible (I don't know if you have worked on the article in the past?) and willing, it would be great if you could review it. Eventually, JayHenry and I are hoping to get it to FA status, so if you have any advice to that end, that would be great too. (It was a FA candidate this summer, but had trouble getting passed because it doesn't have much about academic analysis of Salinger's writing.) Thanks, -- Hobbesy3 (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I've been out of computer range for a while. The fail is probably for the best anyway, thanks again for agreeing to help. Hobbesy3 (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I have made or addressed all your suggested changes to Salinger, except for one which I'm having problems addressing. It's about replacing the SparkNotes refs, but I put my whole spiel on the article's talk page on the off-chance some do-gooder comes along and knows how to fix it. Thanks, Hobbesy3 (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Confusion

So, this just appeared in the edit history of A Vindication of the Rights of Men: Protected A Vindication of the Rights of Men: appearing on Main Page as Today's Featured Article - 29 November 2007 [move=sysop] (expires 00:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC). But I thought TFAs weren't protected? Je n'y comprends rien. Awadewit | talk 15:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

TFAs are always, always move protected; if I recall correctly, page move vandalism was once quite popular, and (this I can confirm :) is an absolute nightmare to fix. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. My mind just isn't devious enough. :) Awadewit | talk 06:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

ome == Wiki newbies together ==

I have started trying to collect information on the ArbCom elections from people I know who have been here longer than I have and who have more experience. You might be interested in reading in what is accumulating on my userpage. You seem like the type that wants to be a good wiki-citizen and vote. :) Awadewit | talk 15:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• By the way, my essay-in-progress on writing articles is here. Awadewit | talk 06:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Just in case you miss the message on the mess that has become my talk page, see User talk:Awadewit#Plot summaries for some exciting news. I also noticed that Roger Davies is FR-4 and does translations from the French wikipedia. Maybe he would help? Awadewit | talk 17:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

League of Copy-Editors comment re: c/e vs. peer review

Left a response to your September 2007 post about articles with issues beyond copy-edit. Hope to see you participating when you can, with the articles that truly are ready for c/e. Unimaginative Username (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving images below leve-three titles?

Hello Scartol, I've continued the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#Moving images below leve-three titles? Best regards, —surueña 08:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)