User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 34

Re: Joseph Priestley

Recent personal research into the Writings of Thomas Jefferson caused more than a passing personal curiousity regarding Joseph Priestley. The Priestley Wikipedia stub greatly exceeded my expectations when arriving there from a Google search. It's breadth and scholarship are of outstanding quality, and is deserving of especial éclat.

Presently, another area of personal fascination and curiousity for is Google Books. It's search functionality still leaves much to be desired though, and locating complete collections often involves abstruse methods. Yesterday, I located the complete four volume collection of a Joseph Priestley work, referenced in footnote 143, sans online URLs, and thought you might appreciate the data. Hopefully, the Chicago style citation is agreeable to you.

Priestley, Joseph. 1803. A general history of the Christian church from the fall of the western empire to the present time. Northumberland [Pa.]: Printed for the author, by Andrew Kennedy.

• Volume I
• Volume II
• Volume III
• Volume IV

Also, from a present project of mine; here are a few links to transcriptions of letters Thomas Jefferson wrote to Priestley marked up to XHTML. Again, this is just a presonal pet project (the ability to directly reference citations with online links pointing to specific paragraphs amuses...). Feel free to copy any or all of it, if you have any use for it. It is not necessary to provide citations to the site. There were some letter exchanges between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson regarding Priestley, which I've not provided links to. Adams at times expressed incredulity about Priestley's opinions, but Jefferson, as far as I've read up to this point was strongly supportive of his worldview.

• Letter To Dr. Joseph Priestley; Philadelphia, January 18, 1800
• Letter To Dr. Joseph Priestley; Philadelphia, January 27, 1800
• Letter To Dr. Joseph Priestley; Washington, March 21, 1801
• Letter To Dr. Joseph Priestley; Washington, June 19, 1802
• Letter To Dr. Joseph Priestley; Washington, April 9, 1803
• Letter To Doctor Joseph Priestley; Washington, January 29, 1804

If you're interested, I'm more than happy to share any more links to Priestley's authorship pulled from Google Books. Just leave a note on this page, and I'll return at some future date to check.

cheers 76.0.225.57 (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you so much! I've added the online version of the General History to List of works by Joseph Priestley. Do you know if the first volume (which is from a three-volume set) is from a different edition than volumes 2-4 (which are from a four-volume set)? Priestley's works are often difficult to decipher, as you will see from the list of works. Some of the letter links weren't working above, so I wasn't sure if you have already edited the letters between the two in which they discuss what an ideal university would look like. I would love to link to those from the Priestley article. Whatever we can add to the Priestley pages to improve them would be wonderful. By the way, do you know about Wikisource? They would probably be very interested in your work on Jefferson's letters. Again, thanks so much for your kind works and assistance. Awadewit (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• • I believe the Letter links in the above post have been fixed. (extra spaces between the URL and anchor text, oops) I've pulled the links to many Priestley books from a second stage search in Google Books, which is still very incomplete. He was a prolific writer on several subjects. I'm not real keen on reading texts printed in England; 17th century or earlier. The older spelling variants slow me down tremendously, and unless it relates to subject matter that directly piques my curiosity, I tend to avoid it. Blackstone is where I've spent the most time, BTW. There was something about a four volume collection, becoming a three volume collection, or vice versa, in this last Google Books Priestley search. It should not be difficult to reproduce, and dig it up. I'll let you know. The Priestley bibliography with Google Books URLs will be posted on the liberatedtext.org forum board, after sorting through them a bit (at least a couple of days more). I'll message you here with the URL for it when it's been published.
    
    The stated time for publishing this is not definite. Presently I'm chasing down what I believe to be an apocryphal Jefferson quotation: “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” I've not located an original source for the quote, and it seems very un-Jeffersonian in content as well as form. I've issued a couple of challenges, where it has been cited as his quotation, and will probably be issuing a few more soon. cheers 76.0.225.57 (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Priestley's History of Christian Church

This wasn't the collection with 3 and 4 volumes, depending on the edition, that I saw earlier. It was a two part series, with the 1st part 2 volumes, and the 2nd part 4 volumes. Note: The Google Books records have been filtered to show "Full View" texts only. That is a personal preference, and there may well be more records if the filter is removed.

• A general history of the Christian church, to the fall of the western empire - 1790 - 2 volumes - (World Cat - Google Books: 5 entries)
• A general history of the Christian church from the fall of the western empire to the present time - 1802 - 4 volumes - (World Cat - Google Books: 8 entries)

(TinyURLs get blacklisted as spam on a talk page?) cheers 76.0.225.57 (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly related to your studies

After reading your Wiki bio page last night, I thought you might be interested in an excerpt from a Jefferson letter to Thomas Cooper. Hopefully, it won't offend. It is one of the finest "girlieboy" style derogations I've seen from an American Founder. Jefferson intimates that Trinitarian fanaticism in Richmond, VA, is chiefly due to lustful women who go to night prayer meetings, but some henpecked husbands are dragged along with them:

"In our Richmond there is much fanaticism, but chiefly among the women. They have their night meetings and praying parties, where, attended by their priests, and sometimes by a henpecked husband, they pour forth the effusions of their love to Jesus, in terms as amatory and carnal, as their modesty would permit them to use to a mere earthly lover." - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, November 2, 1822

mirthfully yours, 76.0.225.57 (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

update

I dumped some Google Books data onto Talk:List of works by Joseph Priestley. Unexpected circumstances have suddenly appeared (work and personal) making it unlikely that I'll be digging much deeper soon.

Are you familiar with Maria Cosway?

Randolph, Sarah Nicholas. 1858. The domestic life of Thomas Jefferson comp. from family letters and reminiscences, by his great-granddaughter. New York: Harper & Brothers. Google Books - Specifically: pp 84-92, and pp 372-377, but search the whole book, as there are a few more references.

Also, I was right about the errant Jefferson quote.

until the future; cheers 76.0.225.57 (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Augie March

Hi Awadewit, I was hoping you'd be able to take another look at Augie March, especially in light of this recent edit. Obviously, the article needs a bit more spit and polish before it's ready for another go at FAC, but since you were the one that gave us the most useful feedback last time around, I thought I'd check with you to see if there were any further outstanding issues you can see that would make you Oppose again. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC).

• I left a comment at Talk:Augie March#Re-review. Awadewit (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Many thanks, your insight is very much appreciated! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Gustave Rolin-Jaequemyns

Hi. I found your name on the list of peer review volunteers. The article in question allready has FA status on the dutch and german wikis, and seems to be in your range of interests. I would very much appreciate you taking a look at it and saying what you think. Since i'm aiming at FA status on en.wikipedia.org, too, i urge you to set your standards high, should you decide to review the article. Tjuus, Kleuske (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Dropped a line at the peer review. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Pride and podcasting

I'm flattered by your kind comment in the Signpost interview. I don't know if I can claim that title, but it's interesting that Saintsbury's introduction to the works of Balzac begins with the quote: "Sans génie, je suis flambé!" As always, it's an "if I grow, the harvest is your own" sort of thing; I learned from the champ.

Thanks too for sending out podcast reminders – I was going to do that tomorrow, but you beat me to it. Also, I've been thinking about the moderation task, and I'm forever opposed to playing the stereotypical role of the dominant male voice, taking charge of discussions by virtue of the Y chromosome. Do you want to take the helm on this one? I think it could be healthy to move the gavel around. Either way is fine with me. Scartol • Tok 09:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Duel of the English teachers! Who gets to lead the discussion?! (Wait, that's a phallic reference! Ah!) I'll be happy to lead this one. :) Awadewit (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz

I was kind of angry at the comments you left at the article's FAC. I have brought the article up as high as possible, and almost nothing else can be done, so please don't ask anymore of me. Lastly, could you please look at the comments I left you? I hope they say something. Limetolime ^{Talk to me • look what I did!} 17:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Please note that the FA instructions say "nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism". I spent over an hour reviewing this article - carefully looking at its structure, thinking about what should be included, and analyzing its prose. I had hoped that this kind of attention would be appreciated. Awadewit (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Skype

Hi Awadewit, thanks for the reminder. I have an account on Skype now with username user:NancyHeise. I sent you a message when I added you to my Skype account. I think I did everything correctly, let me know if you don't see a message for me. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 17:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've added you to my Skype contact list. Awadewit (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Logging in as well. I've added you as a contact. Do you have a webcam? I just discovered my wife has added one to our computer. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see this addition, which may need some additional reinforcement? Calling out specific editors by name doesn't seem to be the best path forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree - that restriction has already been included. Awadewit (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've signed into Skype and I'll be in all day. Hopefully I'll be near the computer when you log in; just holler at me. Scartol • Tok 14:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Images

Hi, following on from the discussion re. Richard Williams, you mentioned a more knowledgable colleague - perhaps you could put me in touch to run past a couple more scenarios re. images for similar articles I'm working on - or happy to discuss with you as well, just let me know. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• You are welcome to ask me or the person I consulted, Durova. She is an admin at Commons. Awadewit (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, Awadewit. Since we know each other now, let me start with you...! Recapping, once we established that Defence’s Wikipedia-only permission for the official portrait of Richard Williams was not sufficient, we were left with a fair use claim that was, as you said, weak due to there being public domain images of him available – at least one of which was a perfectly good portrait, albeit not one that showed him at an advanced age and in full regalia. This is where your guidance would be useful, since the question in my mind revolves around what is considered a free "equivalent" image. Take an article I’ve recently expanded, Colin Hannah. The two pics there now are PD. However I’ve found no portrait of Hannah (not simply an RAAF Chief but a Governor) suitable for the infobox, where a portrait is the norm – not even pre-1955, the usual PD-Australia cutoff point. On the other hand, the Defence site that supplied the Williams portrait has a very usable study of Hannah. So the question is, when we say no free equivalent, do we mean no reasonable portrait or no image at all? If the former, I’d expect to be able to use the RAAF’s official portrait of Hannah under fair use; if the latter then I’d have to try and get Defence to release it free. Your thoughts? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• We mean no image at all. Let me give three examples, one hypothetical and two real. In my conversation with Durova, she explained it this way: If we had a glamorous headshot of a celebrity taken by professional photographers that was fair use versus a terrible photo taken by a fan while desperately trying to get an autograph that was freely licensed, we would have to take the free image. For Félix Houphouët-Boigny, for example, we had to crop him out of a larger portrait for the infobox photo. The picture of Mario Vargas Llosa is of him autographing a book. These are clearly not the best images of these people available, but they are free. Since there are free alternatives, there is no justification to use a fair use image. We only use fair use when there is absolutely no free alternative. Does this make sense? Awadewit (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.

Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 42	8 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
News and notes: The Price is Right, milestones	Dispatches: Halloween Main Page contest generates new article content
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 43	10 November 2008	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens: Over $500,000 raised in first week	ArbCom elections: Nominations open
Book review: How Wikipedia Works	MediaWiki search engine improved
Four Board resolutions, including financials, approved	News and notes: Vietnamese Wiki Day
Dispatches: Historic election proves groundbreaking on the Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 44	17 November 2008	About the Signpost

Lawsuit briefly shuts down Wikipedia.de	GFDL 1.3 released, will allow Wikimedia migration to Creative Commons license
Wikimedia Events Roundup	News and notes: Fundraiser, List Summary Service, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Nun with ruler

LOL ... you have to have been to Catholic school to appreciate that ! But I'm worried about how much you can do. We need your prose reviews, now we need your image reviews more than ever ... I hope the entire community will consider this issue, and that it won't fall to any given person. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• An FAC constable? Awadewit (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• You'll never pass RfA :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• But if you ever want to try, say the word. I'd be happy to nominate you, and I bet half a dozen others would be fighting over who gets to be the co-nominator :) Karanacs (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Friedrich

Hey Awadewit, long time no talk. I am happy now for you to revisit this article, and thanks to giveing it a look. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

O and by the way, would you mind if I asked you to to look at The Lucy poems when I am ready. I feel in some ways out of my dept on this one, so will need as much informed feedback as possible. I am extreamly fond of Wordsworth, but my knowledge is to be fair, relatively limited (I'm an accountant, and no scholar!). I think the page has potential, though it will be at least christmass before we realise anything like that. The reason I mention it in advance is because if I invest a lot of time in it, it would be good to know that strong and diligent reviews will follow. Ceoil (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And here is a very plesant song about Lucy while you consider. Best. Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to pour my reviewing soul into it. Awadewit (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, should I look at the Friedrich images now? Awadewit (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be great. Ceoil (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit, I'm not sure if you're done with Caspar David Friedrich? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven't rechecked the images or reread the article. I'll try to get to that today, but I have a publication deadline for something IRL, so it might not happen. Awadewit (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time; all completed now. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Images on major depressive disorder

I think we are good to go on images, I don't think the Lincoln one was there and if you have concerns please you are more than welcome to remove it. The circadian rhythm is the other new one AFAICT. I would have loved to put Freidreich's Monk by the Sea in but I really didn't want to add more controversy as it is not clinical/core material within the article. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Checked. Awadewit (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Pong

Just sent you a good news e-mail. Ceoil (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have no email. Awadewit (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No news is good news? –Outriggr § 03:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This is all very mysterious. Awadewit (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Eeek. Sorry Awadewit, I had several windows open at the time and that was meant for Sandy. <sigh> Ceoil (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Aww. Awadewit (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't feel too bad, I was only letting her know about a new oppurtunity some mysterious stranger had mailed me about earlier. Its quite exciting and can't fail, but probably not your thing. Ceoil (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy Wadewitz/Archive 34's Day!

User:Wadewitz/Archive 34 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Wadewitz/Archive 34's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Wadewitz/Archive 34! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Every day is Awadewit day. I'll have the podcast up tomorrow. Sorry for the delay! Scartol • Tok 02:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Fleance GA

I think we've about got this one licked. Have a look. Wrad (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Milton

I thought this was important - is his birthday (9 December) OS or NS? If it is OS, then his actual birthday would be 19 December 1608, which would give us 10 more days. I cannot find any mention of the date because his life was contained before the transition, so people rarely point it out. I will talk to my Miltonist friend about it. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to note that I added a set of books that I have access to dealing with the generalities. I only focused on a few issues to see what the response would be. However, I think my idea could be a compromise between two competing philosophies. If you can provide any of the competing "novel development" theory sources, i.e. books with a short summary of what they emphasize, then that could help filling out the Ian Watts section, which should be updated with at least a handful more critics. I decided that I wanted to stem off the FAR politics spats that are going on currently by actually working on one. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Image check request

When you have time, could you take a look at List of premiers of British Columbia and do an image check? I've cleaned it up as much as I can and I'd like an image check before the list goes to FLC, so that there's no rush with the images. There are seven images in total; I'd appreciate it if you could post the status of the images on the article's talk page. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

13th ABN

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for updating the article images on 13th Airborne Division (United States), very kind of you! Skinny87 (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"gang rape" dispute

Hi. The FAC talk page is already rather overheated (and bloated). Can I please request that if you want to continue discussing the "gang rape" comparison, you do it on user talk pages? Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Actually, I have been thinking of ways to go about this and I have not really made a decision yet. Sandy asked me to go over the opposes again to see what can be gleaned from them to improve the article and I think I have already done that as much as I can. But just in case I am blind to something, I was hoping to get help from others to look at those opposes and offer advice to me about what should be considered that I have not already incorporated. Would you be willing to do that? The opposes were summarized on the last FAC's talk page by Sandy. Most comments were answered and incorporated. We are also trying to make sure the wordings are in a form that is the most NPOV. Some of my wordings were noted as sounding too POVish and this was not clear to me, especially when I was trying to soften the way it was worded by the scholars whose versions would definitely have sounded POV to FAC reviewers. I placed a lot of quotes on the FAC talk page under Geometry Guys section so others could see how the various scholars worded the information and it is plain that I have made them less NPOV sounding in the article text - however, we were still asked to consider different wordings. Thanks for any help you can give. I know you are a busy person and I appreciate any amount of time you can offer this article. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 15:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The summaries are at Wikipedia:FAC/Roman Catholic Church/summary5 and User:Marskell/RCC. The summary is only meant to reflect what was not struck, no statement about validity or actionability, just a summary to help sort, since the page became so long. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Many of those unstruck were answered and incorporated into the article but were not struck by opposers. I was not sure if they were either unsatisfied with our attempts to incorporate their comments or just did not come back to see what we did. Some opposes we could not act upon because consensus of editors agreed on the talk page that the comments were not OK such as Soidi's oppose. NancyHeise ^talk 19:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Core contest

I know that it didn't work with the reward for the core contest and I'm willing to sponsor it by sending a package of quality lebkuchen. All I need is an adress. My email is kurt.scholz[at]gmx.de. In case you have reservations, sending me your adress User:Proteins has agreed to handle the distribution. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Awadewit: Are you interested enough in lebkuchen to follow up on this? Just curious. I guess it's nice to know that some people feel bad about the judges' inverse Solomonic decision - the baby remains whole, while the parent is split in two. ;) Simmaren (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• I usually don't accept food from strange people on the internet. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Kannada literature in the Western Chalukya Empire

Thank you for supporting this FAC.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Imaging issues for Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Croatia_national_football_team

I suppose I, at least, will have to learn the hard way, per this example. I'm asking for your assistance, however. I did the image review, and found one problem according to my own experience, which is limited. After reading this thread on SG's talk page, I got this list on mine of things I missed or didn't know to check for. I'm going to go ahead and post these, but think I may need some backup. --Moni3 (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

We are all learning together. Perhaps we should check each other's work? I sometimes wish I had another person's opinion on the images. :) Awadewit (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Priestley's gravesite

Regarding the comments you left on my page, I'm interested in graves, and I've never known Find-A-Grave to err. If you know of an example, please let me know. In this particular case, the Find-A-Grave site is 100% accurate and even includes a photo of Priestley's marker showing the epitaph. After Thanksgiving I can check for a printed source at work, although words alone won't do much for me since I've seen Priestley's grave in Northumberland for myself. I may even be able to dig out a picture I took. By the way, the marker shown at Find-A-Grave isn't the original one. I may have pictures of both the old and new ones. The old one is, as I recall, hard to read and almost hidden by the newer marker. - Astrochemist (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Just readded the gravesite material, but this time with two other references, each containing a picture. - Astrochemist (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Amitriptyline

I think about every second general textbook in psychiatry has a diagram of amitriptyline in it....I stuck two sources on the commons page. [1]Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: That thing called the dissertation

Hmm, I'm not terribly familiar with them, but I'll try take a closer look tonight. Thank you for pointing that out. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixing up image source info

Hi Awadewit. I need some advice on what to do about fixing up an image description page. The image of interest has no info whatsover (source, date, author, etc.). Previously when I had this problem with Cranmer, one would consult the NPG database (very useful for English portraits). Is there a comparable database of portraits of Continental characters? Oh, also I wanted to mention about the peer review, if you have some time to spare of course! --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The first place I would check would be the Calvin biographies you have. Do they have any information about this portrait? (I will try to get to the peer review this weekend.) Awadewit (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

There were none in the books I have currently checked out (I returned a few of them but I will be checking them out again). Yomangan gave me a starting point though. --RelHistBuff (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear that you are out of the hospital! Please ignore my request; I will look for help from others. Wishing you the best in your recovery. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Gobble gobble

Happy Thanksgiving from a Pennsylvania wild turkey (and Ruhrfisch _><>°^°)

And what better Thanksgiving gift could anyone ask for than a completed podcast posting? (Okay, I can think of several dozen. But the point is valid.) Yes, it's live. Thanks for all your work on it; when shall we aim for part two? (I'll need at least a week off, so hopefully we can wait til after the 5th?) Scartol • Tok 02:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Reception history of Jane Austen

Sorry for taking so long, but I formatted out what I wanted. My main issue with inline on the main FAC page is I can't easily strike out all my comments and it gets lost in the sea of text; I've added some italics and bolding so my comments stick out (for me at least) and pasted your comments in between them, I've gotten to a couple. I'm going to go through this weekend and get another set of comments, which I'll just add as another level heading. Sorry for being such a pain :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Images

Thanks for doing an image review of Bart Simpson. If you don't mind, could you please do an image review for List of Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine (which is a FLC) or List of Nobel Peace Prize Laureates (which will be heading to FLC soon)? I was much more careful when I was adding images for those lists, but I'm sure some bad ones slipped through (because I'm not really an image expert). Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• I am slowly going through the physiology and medicine list right now, but I can tell you that it is not looking good. I think that what happened was that you trusted the information added by uploaders rather than checking it yourself. Shockingly, people do not always know what they are doing when they attach license tags and whatnot! Awadewit (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for your review so far, I have removed or addressed every image listed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Milton Regained

This Friday, I will start producing a series of pages for DYK. I will try to get people to place them on his birthday and have as many possible displayed. This is a list of those I will work on: Milton's early life. Milton's religious views. Milton's political views. L'Allegro and Il Penseroso. Milton's epic style. Milton's legacy/reception history. Paradise Regained. All of the political works not yet there. The individual pages for the divorce tracts. Milton and Hobbes page. The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates. Eikonoklastes. and Milton's 1645 Poems (including pages for those not yet there). I hope to build five sets of DYK (based around politics, early life and early poems, his epics verse, his divorce tracts, and his religious views). I will return about 45 books this week and I will empty out the various libraries with Milton books. If you can help, try to find works by Stanley Fish and Thomas Corns on Milton. I plan on creating about 20 pages, expanding around 10. The idea will be to expand the pages to size, then double back and work on them. I figure that I was able to build 12 pages for Johnson in a day, so with help that this could be achieved over a weekend. Credit should be dispersed to everyone that contributes, even if its just editing and formatting. Perhaps we should start a list so people will know? Outside help (with formatting and editing) would probably be best Saturday, after the initial push. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Primate at FAC

Hello! As a previous reviewer of Primate at FAC it would be great if you could have another look at the article. The FAC has been restarted, and any comments would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Teeming masses

• How do you feel about "whom they saw as the teeming masses"? Simmaren (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Please take a look on the Talk page at my suggestion for an edit in response to Fuchs' point 22 and let me know what you think. Thanks. Simmaren (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey there...

Can you take a look at the sourcing queries on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ralph Bakshi and tell me if I'm out of line here? It appears that the editors are using citations to sources they did not actually consult, but that were sources for works they did consult. When questioned, I'm getting "I've done this before and it's fine", which I do not consider fine, but I'd like a second opinion. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that specifically prohibited by some guideline? (checking...) WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is pretty clear. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thank you David. I could not find that earlier... (Now why do I not have YOUR page on my watchlist? Maybe because I got tired of discussions of video games....) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There's stuff besides video games, it's just boring either way :) -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

FAR

I know it isn't your period, but as an expert on women writers could you cast an eye over H.D. and comment at Wikipedia:Featured article review/H.D.? Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I can't right now, as I have just gotten out of the hospital. Awadewit (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was unaware that you were ill. My best wishes for a speedy recovery, DrKiernan (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Reception History of JA

It appears that the article has been designated as a FA. Congratulations. It has been and continues to be a pleasure to work with you. Thanks for living with my limitations. Simmaren (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yay and congrats! You guys rock. I'm glad everything worked out in the end. What's next on the table? María (habla conmigo) 02:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Getting better is next on the table. Sorry to see that you are ill. Hope it passes quickly. Simmaren (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 66

Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 66: Searching High and Low has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 07:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Wishing you better

Sorry to hear you're not well. I hope it's not serious or long-lasting.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Garden/WikiCup

Ohai Awadewit, I see that you are listed towards the top of this page, which means you have experience with article writing and expanding articles -- getting them featured. I'd like you to check out the WikiCup, beginning in January for the fourth cup. ayematthew ✡ 23:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Reception history of Jane Austen

Delighted to see this is now a featured article. I hope to see it soon as Today's. I also hope you get well soon. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Picture Dispatch

Wikipedia:FCDW/TempFPreview was listed at the Newsroom for publication with no communication at WT:FCDW; it needs loads of attention in case you have time to pitch in. It needs to be a much clearer tutorial, it needs copyediting, it may repeat some of Elcobbola's Dispatches, and I can't follow a lot of it since I've never uploaded or worked on images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Harold Washington image

No idea where you could get an image description page on the .mil site, but the image description (including author = military employee) is in the EXIF data. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Milton project started

See my talk page for all of the pages I plan on working on. I worked on seven tonight. I didn't finish them. However, I will go through and rough out the other missing political works before working on expanding the 9 pages. This should end around 3ish, and I will spend the rest of the night working on the major "unity" and biographical pages. I want to have at least two sets of DYK (I need 6 sets total) by tomorrow night, and to get spacing for the rest. Hopefully, these 38 pages will mostly be finished along with the related Blake depictions of Milton's page by Sunday night/Monday morning so everything can go off starting Monday night. I didn't list articles on JStor, and I figured anyone who wanted to drop by and add content is welcome (and encouraged). The list is there, and my bibliographical list is there, so people will know what I am going to be adding to each of the pages. Its going to be fun! Ottava Rima (talk) 06:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I listed a group of pages that could use some copyedit and some other work. If you can look over any, the help would be appreciated. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I just got out of the hospital. I'm really sorry, but I can't do much of anything right now. Awadewit (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

25 pages so far without you. Think about what could have happened if you were around! Mwah ha ha ha! Ottava Rima (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

So, about 19 made it onto the main page during Milton's birthday, and it lasted about half of the day. The other two sets were derailed by someone wishing he was an admin and who doesn't have a clue about the DYK standards. But yeah, lots of attention on Milton from quite a few reviewers. Also, there will be a lot of stuff up to build the Milton page. I'll have to try and bring that to FA. Then back to Wordsworth and Byron. Then, hopefully, onto Keats. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Niobium

Thanks for your help to get the article featured. I never focused on the images I used for the article, but next time I will try to get all the points which are important. --Stone (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Who Would Have Thought It? GA review

Because this review has been placed on hold an abnormal length of time (+15 days), I was hoping you could finalize your judgement in order to help with the backlog at GAN. I understand the review process is time consuming and have noted your health codition, I appreciate your efforts in improving the encyclopedia, and have asked for a consensus on the talk page in lieu of an immediate response from you. Cheers :) -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

the same goes for Carmen Rodríguez (+13 days). -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Awadewit. I guess I don't need to advise you to ignore this! Geometry guy 20:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

isn't it up to Awadewit to decide what he does? you don't need to wikistalk my notes to prove your point... I supose then that a friendly reminder that William Blake has been up for review for 25 days is out of line? My only suggestion is that if you feel you don't have the time right now, to remove your name from the under the nomination so that others might be more inclined to adopt it. Again, these are only meant to be helpful notices for editors in order to expedite the GA review process. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been in the hospital. I will deal with this when I am able to - hopefully that will be next week. Awadewit (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

as i said before, i understand, and hope that you are doing better - i don't want to stress you over something that's supposed to be a voluntary effort -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Get well soon

Wish you a speedy recovery. --Aude (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw the note at the top of your talk page. I hope you are feeling better soon. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I second that. I just saw a note on a talk page saying you've just got out of hospital; I'm glad to hear you're getting out, not going in, and I hope that whatever it was your recovery is quick and comfortable. Mike Christie (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thirded. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Fourthed. We don't seem to have run into each other much recently, but I look at your work in mostly silent admiration. -- Hoary (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Fifthd? Get well soon, and take care of yourself! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Awadewit, I hope you are healing well and have good care during your recovery. Thank you for your offer to help with RCC. Since we are not in any great hurry, please know that you are always welcome to come give helpful comments. I hope you don't mind if I wish you God's blessings - I am a religious person so if you are not - just take it as an act of love. God bless you. NancyHeise ^talk 16:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, do get better with all speed. Take an extra day even when you're back to 100%. You deserve some time to relax and not have to review images or work on FAC stuff. Scartol • Tok 19:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

All the best for your recovery ,and the dissertation. Johnbod (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! Awadewit (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Take care and rest up! YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I echo everyone else's sentiment, Awadewit, and I'm so sorry to read you're unwell. It was nearly a year ago today that my first FA passed with some welcome support from you, if I remember correctly. How time has flown! Take very good care of yourself and return only when you're ready. María (habla conmigo) 18:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My best wishes for a speedy recovery too - please let me know if there is anything I can do to help. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Same here. I hope things are getting better already. My watchlist is quiet without you! qp10qp (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) hey, I'm very late here. Very very busy in RL. I just now ran across this thread kinda by accident.. I really hope you are doing well. You are definitely a bulwark of Wikipedia. Best wishes in all things!! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 06:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with all of the comments above. Get well soon. Remember (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom concerns

I just wanted to make you aware that I have clarified my position regarding devolution at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Vassyana#Devolution. The second point is particularly relevant to your concerns. Please look it over and let me know if there are any points that can be further clarified. If you still have remaining concerns, be aware that I appreciate your opinion and reasonable opposition. I understand you are not feeling well and may not be able to respond quickly. I hope you feel better soon. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 04:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I did look over your points, but I'm afraid that my concern still stands. Awadewit (talk) 08:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Image review for List of monarchs of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty

Hi, Awadewit! The List of monarchs of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty, which I worked on a lot, is currently a featured list candidate. Dabomb87 has requested that I ask you to check that all images are properly tagged/licensed. As I'm sure you receive many such requests, I took the time to do the checking myself. I updated the main license tag used by these images after doing some research on copyright laws in Egypt, and replaced images with dubious information with new versions. I did this so as to facilitate your task. If you can just take a quick look at the images now (there are only 19 of them), I'd be tremendously grateful as this would help the list in its FLC. It shouldn't take you much time, since I really made sure that all the images are properly licensed/tagged. BomBom (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not doing any image reviews right now because I am unwell (see banner at the top of my userpage). Awadewit (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Photon, Acid dissociation constant

Thanks for your messages. I did manage to add some references to Photon (and am still hoping to get to a library over the next few days to get something suitable for the Einstein constants – all my books that go into detail about this are in German), but didn't find time to contribute to the Acid dissociation constant. Get well soon! Markus Poessel (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sure they greatly appreciate your help! Awadewit (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I help?

It's good to see that you're around a bit, if not fully in harness, and I hope your recovery continues. If it would help you, I will be happy to finish off the GA (NRG) reviews in your name which are presently on hold. Just say the word. Brianboulton (talk) 09:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the offer. I'm feeling a bit better and trying to focus my Wikipedia work on those reviews. Awadewit (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

ASCB update

Hi Awadewit,

You were interested in welcoming and helping the newbie scientists at the ASCB workshop this coming Tuesday, weren't you? I haven't thought through what the online volunteers should do beyond giving them a hearty welcome and offer of help on their Talk pages, plus minor fixes, categorization, etc. to their articles as they develop them. Can you think of other ways?

The workshop will be from 12:30-2:30pm local San Francisco time. Tim and I will be speaking up to about 1pm, so they might not start their user page until perhaps 12:45pm. I'm going to ask them to put the template {{ASCB workshop}} to their user page, which will add them to the Category:ASCB 2008 Wikipedia workshop participants category. Then you'll be able to see who's participating. By scanning Recent changes with a script, I might be able to create a list of them on my user page, too, although I just thought of that. If you know of anyone else who might want to help out online, please feel free to invite them.

I've been developing a set of follow-up tutorials, which are listed on my user page (second section). The scripts are on hold at the moment, although I managed to write a MOSHEAD-checking script a few weeks ago. Dank55 volunteered to look it over and give suggestions.

I'm leaving in a few hours for the flight to SF, so I might not be able to reply quickly. If you can't help out, that's fine, too. Happy holidays! Proteins (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added a bit more to the tutorial on collaborative writing - I hope you don't mind. I will be around at that time to welcome new users and offer editing help. Awadewit (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Augustan lit

I wanted to note that my comment on the FAR about the usage was in response to how critics use it. I haven't see many female authored romans (romance, novels, etc) described as "Augustan" in the sense that the page uses it (i.e Satire). The Female Quixote may be one such work, just as Jane Collier's work. However, I don't have enough access to books on either to find if any critic ever uses the term for them. There may be some others that I don't know about. I would love to add Collier and Lennox for obvious reasons (Richardson's camp vs Fielding's). I would just need more basis to do so than what I have from personal knowledge. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 67

Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 67: Fundraising Interview has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 07:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

ASCB workshop recap

The workshop went well, I think. We couldn't have asked for a more supportive academic society, and the poarticipants learned to edit, even the nitty-gritty of wikimarkup. There was too much material to cover, and with the questions, we needed all the alloted time and more (>2 hours). I was heartened that much of the audience remained past the official closing time. The slides are linked on my user page, along with some online tutorials. Thanks very much for your help with the main ASCB tutorial! Proteins (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lockdown (2008)

The above review has been restarted. Since you commented on it before the restart, I thought to inform you.--WillC 07:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I've rereviewed the images. Awadewit (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Children in content review processes

A, if you have time, pls weigh in at User talk:SandyGeorgia#NYC meet-up video. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons greetings

A merry Christmas and a happy and healthy new year to you. I hope you get what you wish this next year, which I know is an important one for you. I will remember this last wiki-year as the year we did Mary Shelley! qp10qp (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

	<font=3> Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 06:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

And now, for Fvasconcellos' traditional nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this a combination of my Christmas greeting from 2006 and my New Year's greeting from last year? Why, it most certainly is! Hey, if it ain't broke...

unitarian greetings

• a fine Xmas message for all of us to be mindful of.... hehehe. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I used the wrong adjective, and meant meant global pan-religious not unitarian (i.e. uniting church), now for alot of reversions/amendations...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Have a good break. Hopefully you will be well rested and ready to take on the world again, or, at least, the important literature pages. You know the Pedia needs you. Enjoy your holiday. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Greetings

Merry Christmas and best wishes for the coming new year!Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Images

Welcome back ! Are you sure these are solid reviews? [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I checked them over - they were solid license reviews. You can see the other issues I raised, such as sourcing for diagrams and image descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

OK (thanks :-) No hurry on the children in content review on my talk, I won't archive it at month end. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Please forgive my stalking, but I'm curious as to your thoughts on File:Evstafiev-Chechnya-BURNED.jpg in Arena Active Protection System. The image appears here (fifth from the bottom), among other sites. The original uploader's other images have inconsistent camera models (images from 1995 and 1988, appropriately, do not have metadata) and other peculiarities. Does it seem off to you? (Welcome back, indeed, by the way!) Эlcobbola _talk 14:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

We (all) love it when the great Ec stalks :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That does look suspicious. I have raised it at the FAC. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vithoba

Added some new images and replied to your comments. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

FP Dispatch

A, thanks for digging in to Wikipedia:FCDW/TempFPreview‎; I was caught completely unaware when it was posted at the Newsroom, and am not satisfied that it's anywhere near ready to run. It needs a lot of work. Basic definitions aren't laid out, it's much too long, Ral315 wants the image of the girl replaced (can't remember why or even where he posted that), the examples are confusing, and I'm unsure if it unnecessarily overlaps Elcobbola's Free and Non-free image dispatches, or could just link to them instead. Anything you can do to bring it into shape is great. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree - I have started laying out the definitions and reorganizing the first half. I think this should be broken into two dispatches: one on basic FP reviewing and one on technical reviewing. What do you think? Awadewit (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure on the distinction ? I had a very hard time following what is there now (partly because I'm still mostly in the dark on image issues). Whatever you think best? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm just concerned because I keep adding material myself - basic stuff about how FPC works and whatnot. It is just making the whole thing longer. I'll see if I can keep it to one, but I think there is a natural break at "Quality of the image". Awadewit (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem I had is in the way the page is laid out. If you compare it to some other Dispatches, it's just really hard to follow (definitions, concepts, examples, etc.). Not sure whether splitting it, or just reworking it all, is the way to go. I couldn't figure out how to address it, since I really know next to nothing about image review. Bottom line: whatever you think best. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I don't like how all of the examples are bunched at the bottom. I'm slowly trying to restructure the entire thing. How much time do I have? Awadewit (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what's up with the Signpost; it hasn't run for about a month (likely, December and holiday busy-ness). I left a query at User talk:Ral315, and we do have another Dispatch ready to go (the Featured list interview); it can run first if this one isn't ready. So, whatever time is needed. The past Dispatches have been so well written, that I'd not like to put one out that isn't quite there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

A, is there any chance of having Wikipedia:FCDW/TempFPreview for January 10? Or the following week? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

SG, I guess you missed my comment over at Wikipedia talk:Featured content dispatch workshop#Help needed on FP Dispatch, which was "We really need someone from FP over here. I'm reaching the end of what I can do as someone who has never participated in the process." - This is also a terribly busy time for me. The semester starts in less than one week. Awadewit (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, yes, I did miss that; I'll dig around at FP and see if I can come up with someone. Thanks for all you did already there! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:William Blake/GA1

Hi. When I selected this I wasn't aware you had already started a review as your name wasn't against the article on the GA Nom page. I've joined you in an assessment, and will give my views, but as you have already started, I will leave it up to you to make the decision as to pass, fail or hold. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 23:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There are concerns with the article, and there doesn't appear to be anyone available to address them. I have left this on hold for 7 days and notified the nominator. Unless you object, if I hear nothing from User:Jacjohncoles by 10 Jan I will withdraw it from review. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 19:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI. Concerns have not been addressed. I have withdrawn the article. SilkTork *^YES! 21:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Iowa turret explosion

I believe I've answered your concerns here. I appreciate the feedback on the article. Cla68 (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I've responded further about the images. Cla68 (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've responded further. Cla68 (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: New strategy on image reviews

A, I apologize if I misunderstood your image review strategy. Elcobbola used to list his concerns, but only enter an oppose if his concerns passed a certain threshold, recognizing that some areas of image review are less clearcut than others; I mistakenly thought you followed a similar pattern when you don't enter an oppose. Yes, if the concerns are enough that you think promotion should be held up, an oppose will let me know that. Your image reviews are invaluable, so I hope you don't feel that I overlooked your work. Wishing you a healthful and joyful New Year, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Welcome to FAC!

Hehe, cheers. I'll pop round if theres anything I need help on, I take it you'll be in the skypecast tonight. Sunderland06 (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the FAC is going well - well done, you! I will be on the skypecast - see you then. Awadewit (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	<font=3> Happy New Year 2009, and may all your articles get promoted! Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for ce

You were kind enough to help me out with a long and difficult FAC last year. I wonder if you would be be prepared to have a look at Northern Bald Ibis? It's simpler in principle, and had a very thorough GA review from an experienced editor as well as input from the bird project people, so any gross defects, image issues and referencing should have been fixed. It's really a matter of checking whether the prose is up to FA standard. Happy New Year, thanks jimfbleak (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I did an image review at FAC and a copyedit. I left some questions at Talk:Northern Bald Ibis. Awadewit (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Awadewit, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2009 brings further success and happiness! ~ YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again Awadewit for all off your hard work helping me at FAC. Here is some fuel from my tree to keep you firing in the new year! All the best! YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Image request for FLC

I would appreciate it if you could take a look at the images of List of Pittsburgh Pirates managers and owners and left a note about ithere. Just wanted to make sure everything was in good shape for the FL. Thank you! blackngold29 17:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Awadewit (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've either replaced or removed all the pictures that you commented about. Thanks! By the way, I like The Bookworm picture you have there. blackngold29 05:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Userpage design

I'm new to Wikipedia and was wondering if you would mind too much if I used some of the design elements on your userpage as a starting point for my own? I'm not into clutter and yours seems to manage quite a lot of information successfully. I'm not really sure if I'll even end up using it, but I thought I'd do the polite thing and ask you instead of just copying it. Hope you are having a Happy New Year! SMSpivey (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to use elements of this userpage, but I didn't create it myself - Phaedriel did. Awadewit (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 45	24 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: 200th issue
ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles	News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 46	1 December 2008	About the Signpost

ArbCom elections: Elections open	Wikipedia in the news
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 5, Issue 1	3 January 2009	About the Signpost

From the editor: Getting back on track
ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed	Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK
Editing statistics show decline in participation	Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting
News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments	Dispatches: Featured list writers
Wikipedia in the news	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Lockdown passed

I want to say thank you for any comments you left regarding Lockdown (2008) during its FAC review. It recently passed and you helped get it there by taking the time out to review the images within the article.--WillC 01:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Mayer-Vietoris sequence FAC (picture issue)

I am not completely familiar with the FA criteria, especially for pictures. Criterion 3 does not talk about references for images. However, perhaps criterion 1c does. Could you clarify what you need to know about these images? Also, I do not understand this sentence: "Since they are not always associated with this article, all necessary sourcing information needs to be on the image description page." Should not all necessary sourcing information be on the images' description page regardless of whether they are always associated with the article? GeometryGirl (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:IUP is a more complete listing of image policies. Again, I am unsure if these images need a source because I do not know what they are. :) Let me give an example, this map made of Mary Shelley's 1814 and 1816 trips across Europe requires a source. This information is not "common knowledge" among the lay reader or even the expert studying Shelley, nor is it deducible from the image itself. This kind of mathematical image does not technically require a source because its information is "common knowledge" in mathematics. There are, of course, lots of gray areas and determining "common knowledge" is, of course, not really possible. In my opinion, it is always best to include a source, because Wikipedia's reputation rests on sourcing. Any user who doubts the veracity of a diagram, can then check that diagram against a reliable source.

Your second point is absolutely correct, however I often have to convince people to add sources to images by pointing out that the images they create and host on Commons have the potential to be used across 273 Wikipedias. This is generally a more persuasive way of putting that argument. I should have known not to attempt to use rhetoric with a mathematician! :) I hope that these answers help you. I'm sorry I cannot better assess the images, but I know when I am out of my depth. Awadewit (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, your answer is very helpful. GeometryGirl (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Commons questions

Hi A, if it's easier, you can ask questions here on WP; it's a somewhat silly exercise to make folks trek over to the Commons when I'm still reading WP.

• File:Orval Grove.jpg - Jappalang seems to have done a good job articulating some of the issues inherent to this tag. As you may recall from the movie trailer discussion with Moni on the Commons, proper verification of publication, whether that publication had a notice and, if so, whether the notice was renewed is something that is quite costly and time-consuming to obtain (frankly, after the PD-USGov tag, the "no renewal/notice" tags are the most abused). I'd certainly be willing to look into the PD claim, but I might need something more than "George Burke Archives" (not at all verifiable per WP:IUP: Is this an online site? Is it a physical location? Where is it? Is there a call number?)
• File:Leafs v Red Wings 1942.jpg - do you have a diff for the background on the tagging issues? I can nominate it for deletion, but I'd like like to be able to provide the history for the request. Эlcobbola _talk 22:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've responded on your Commons page and I see you and Jappalang are dealing with this. Thanks again. Awadewit (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

re: Tempting article collaboration

Ping! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Image Check Request

Hello Awadewit! Ealdgyth has been assisting me in my quest to get Suffolk Punch to FA status. She has suggested that I ask you to complete an image check before nominating the article. If you would do so, it would be greatly appreciated! Thank you in advance for your time. Dana boomer (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

They looked good to me, all Commons images from Flickr, but I'm not an expert, I admit! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Awadewit (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review! Dana boomer (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Governors of Bombay

Hello Awadewit. I notice that you are very much interested in 16th, 17th, and 18th century British history. I wish to nominate List of Governors of Bombay for FLC. Can you copyedit the prose of this list. Actually, there is hardly any prose since this is a List. Help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Kensplanet^T_C 11:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for your excellent Copyedits. I have answered all your concerns on Talk:List of Governors of Bombay. Thanks, Kensplanet^T_C 07:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 68

W00t w00t! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 68: Wikipedia's Nicotine High has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes and even subscribe to the RSS feed at wikipediaweekly.org. – wodupbot – 12:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York State Route 311

Just wanted to let you know that the issues with the image you pointed out at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York State Route 311 have been addressed. Thank you for the comments (and for the tireless work you've been doing at FAC lately). Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I've revisited and struck the oppose. Awadewit (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meshuggah

Hallo! I fixed the problems you mentioned on the nomination. Have a nice day :) --  LYKANTROP  ✉ 00:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I've revisited and struck the oppose. Awadewit (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about the errors. Cheers!--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 15:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Orval Grove

A, I can't tell where Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Orval Grove stands, and if any remaining issues are enough to hold up promotion. (BTW, the FP Dispatch is looking much better now after several others went through.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've responded regarding the image. I'm glad the FP dispatch is improving. Let me know if you need a copyedit. Awadewit (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll let you know when it's closer to publication date, so you don't have to take time out for it unnecessarily. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Bakshi

I've responded to your comments on the article's images. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

• I've responded to your latest commentary. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC))
  • All copyright issues with the images should be taken care of. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC))

Boyce recap

I've gone through Karanac's listed concerns with William D. Boyce. Thanks for your ce. Would you like to give it a final look before FAC? — Rlevse • Talk • 17:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I am doing so now. Awadewit (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Feedback

This is a good approach; maybe it will address a source of frustration for me (Supports lodged in spite of non-reliable sources and unclear image licensing). We'll see how it goes ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Those "supports" bother me, too. I almost left a message on the FAC talk page today asking people to make their supports a bit clearer. :) Awadewit (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've never been able to decipher why reviewers lodge a Support when issues on sourcing are raised. I'm not sure if those who do so read WT:FAC, so I've never figured out how to address the issue globally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Now my ears hurt. Mike Christie (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

They do? (I hadn't noticed :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I was going to stay away from that FAC, mostly because the nominator kept asking me for comments and I was buried in work so I blew him off, but I'll take another look tomorrow when able—as I remember I had issues with the sound samples too. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Your statements at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Brevity

I thought items that are only PD-US items are supposed to be on Wikipedia. Commons is global, so images there need to be PD in both US and country of origin. Wikipedia is based in US, and hence as long as the items are PD-US, they are okay (ignoring all those "fair-use" images). This would be why Popeye's image would be PD at the French Wikipeida but still fair use over here. Jappalang (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That is what I meant. Since a couple of those images are hosted at Commons, they need to explain their PD claims for the country of origin (Britain) and the US. I thought that is what I said. Sorry for the confusion. Awadewit (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Children in content review processes

A, are you still planning to comment at User talk:SandyGeorgia#NYC meet-up video? If not, I'll likely archive it on the 15th; let me know if you want me to keep it active. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell

On January 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)