User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 32

Univeristy of London

Hi, you may not remember this, but we had a conversation a few weeks back about which university it was that Dionysius Lardner taught at when he produced his Cabinet Cyclopedia. I have now discovered (from a book I found in a waterlogged basement under the university entitled "The World of UCL 1828-1990" by Negley Harte and John North) that Lardner was chair of natural philosophy at University College London between 1828 and 1831. University College London was originally known as the "University of London" but was renamed in 1836 as part of a deal to secure a Royal Charter in the face of strong opposition from Oxford and Cambridge. The charter would allow UCL, King's College and various medical colleges to award full academic degrees, previously mainly the preserve of Oxford and Cambridge (who discriminated against those not of the Anglican faith) under the auspices of an overall body now called the Univeristy of London. I don't know if this is of any interest to you, but it does at least clear up the point in question. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome, anytime. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Gubar

If you can get a hold of Gubar about the topic, could you ask her what Shelley's resources on myth were? It would be nice to having the source to compare her reading of. Its easier for these kinds of works when an author is using a Biblical source, however, the Classical works tend to be more diverse. Besides the sources that I listed, Lempriere's ClassicalDictionary (which Mary would have had access to) lists these as the classical sources: Pausanias (8, 37, 9), Ovid Metamorphoses 5 fable 6, Fasti 4, v 417; Virgil Aeneid 4, v 698; Strabo 7; Diodorus 5; Cicero in Verr 4; Hyginus fable 146; Hesiod Theogyny; Apollodorus 1, c 3; Orpheus hymn 28; Claudian de rapt Proserpine. Spence cites Statius Theb 8 v 11 and Lib 5 Sylv 1 v 257. And my focus was on classics, not gender studies, so this tends to be more interesting to myself. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I will contact Susan at the end of the September, after I return from India. I will take your list of questions. Awadewit (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention - Betty Rizzo died. I don't know if you would have known about her, but I think Gubar would have. I was rather upsetted by this, seeing as how I rely on her quite a bit and I was meaning to ask her some questions about Smart. She had soem off the wall ideas, but some of her works were very compelling. I would recommend you tracking down a copy of her Companions Without Vows if you don't have it. It will give you some insight/content for your area. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I heard about Rizzo just a few days ago on the 18C listserv. Thanks for the book recommendation! Awadewit (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

LotR FAR comments

Thanks for the LotR FAR comments. I've replied here. I'm heartened by the comment that my assessment of the scale of the job is shared by others, but as I said, I don't think it should take quite that long. Some of the books and papers will not be that relevant and won't need a full analysis or summary. It helps that I've read some of them already, but it doesn't help that many are also ones I haven't got round to reading yet. Anyway, if you could take a brief look at this and its associated pages, here and here and suggest an appropriate way to tackle this, it would be much appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've started User talk:Astraflame/Tolkien Bibliography and put a list there. Again, any advice on the best place to start would be appreciated. Expanding the articles on the books that have articles? Using the books to add tidbits to various subsidiary articles such as List of Middle-earth plants and List of Middle-earth weapons and armour, adding stuff to "top level" articles such as Middle-earth, J. R. R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit and The Silmarillion? Carcharoth (talk) 08:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Might I make some comments on the bibliographies?

• User:Astraflame/Tolkien Bibliography - These are all sources published in the last few years, so the list is unrepresentative of Tolkien scholarship. 2) There is no way of knowing from this list which of the sources are important in Tolkien scholarship. You need to read around for a bit and identify who the important Tolkien scholars are and begin with them. For example, after reading for the Mary Shelley article, I know who the important Shelley scholars are and therefore whose views are important to include in the article. Not every article published on Shelley is important and some can be discarded. However, it takes a little while to develop a sense for whose ideas are repeated and who is repeatedly quoted in the scholarship. Sometimes there are "introductions" for the public, as there is for Jane Austen and this can be helpful because such books will outline the important works of scholarship for you. Awadewit (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• User talk:Astraflame/Tolkien Bibliography - We should also aim to identify the key sources and concentrate on those. Any ideas for what criteria to use? I would suggest starting with the books and journals that we have articles on. - It is an excellent idea to come up with a key list of sources, but whether or not Wikipedia has an article on something is not really relevant to a piece of scholarship's importance. For criteria, I would again suggest using "what is important in Tolkien scholarship", which can be established by reading the scholarship. While working on Jane Austen, Simmaren and I split up the reading and put most of our notes online. We decided to work with about 30 books of literary criticism. We have more biographies and of course we have added some specialized books since then, but that is our core. I can tell you that just keeping these 30 straight is difficult. I would start with identifying 30 core Tolkien books. We spent months reading to find these 30. It may be, however, that you need a combination of books and articles, so you will need more than 30. Awadewit (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to which articles to work on and then summarize in the main Lord of the Rings article, that is tough. There are clearly a lot of possibilities and if you try to do everything, you will be bogged down forever. You need to make firm choices at the beginning--limit yourselves! For the Austen article, Simmaren and I have decided to work on: Timeline of Jane Austen, Reception history of Jane Austen, Styles and themes of Jane Austen - draft, Juvenilia (Jane Austen) - draft, and Family of Jane Austen - draft. This is our core set of Austen articles. We are not working on everything in the Jane Austen template, although we might work on the novel articles later. We decided that to effectively write the main article, what we needed to write were these five articles. That is the kind of decision you need to make for LoTR - what do you need to write about to effectively write the main article? I would, for example, suggest either working on the individual novel pages OR working on the general Themes of The Lord of the Rings kinds of articles. In that way, you will obtain some of the information that was missing from the main article. Subarticles such as Adaptations of The Lord of the Rings or Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien seem important as well. (From the template, it looks like some of the articles should be combined.) I see no need for working on any of the articles that detail the minutiae of Middle-Earth, unless you are just dying to do so. :) Awadewit (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Awadewit! As a new Wikipedian, it is reassuring for me to see a more veteran member of Wikipedia echo a few of the thoughts that I have been having regarding a) how un-definitive of a bibliography I posted and b) how to go from there to actually do the work towards getting an actual definitive account of Tolkien scholarship and improving the Wikipedia articles. I think your approach sounds great! Based on what you've said though, would it be correct for me to extrapolate that it sounds like you won't be actually joining us in the collaboration given your time being occupied with other projects? We would greatly appreciate your help, if you have the time and/or any Tolkien resources handy. So please feel free to pitch in if that is the case. However, I completely understand if you're busy with other things, and am already very grateful with the help that you have already provided. Many thanks, Astraflame (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I made the above comment after only taking a brief glance at your talk page and without reading through your user page to see the extent of your activities. Again, I reiterate my thanks and appreciation for any support that you or anyone else on the FA-team is willing to provide to the Middle-earth wikiproject, but as we're currently nearing the hunkering down and reading phase, I completely understand that you have other projects to work on, but may bother you when all of the reading is over (oh, a year from now, or something..) when we need copy-editing and more general Wikipedia help. Thanks again, Astraflame (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add my thanks for the helpful advice. Just a few brief responses. The reason some books and scholars have Wikipedia articles is precisely because these are the leading works and scholars. Articles on other books and scholars (though they do exist) should in the main be taken to AfD and booted out of the door (ahem, I mean merged carefully to the overview articles). :-) The history of Tolkien scholarship may seem unrepresentative, but one of the reasons is that for a long time Tolkien studies was "not respectable". Now, for various reasons, there has been an explosion (and that is not overstating it) in Tolkien scholarship. Of course, that means there has been an explosion in dross as well as the good stuff, but that is why there is so much from recent years. There is early stuff (from before 1984) that absolutely needs to be covered, but doing so requires digging out obscure sources (which I will be trying to do). The suggestion of working either on the books, or on the "themes" article is a good one. The AfD nomination ("patience exhausted" - following an AfD nomination a year ago) of the themes article might force that decision! Either the article gets deleted and we have to start from scratch, or it doesn't because we've started work on it. I should probably drop Astraflame a note not to get discouraged by the AfD nomination, as old-timers who are used to AfD nominations when no-one has got round to working on an article, might not appreciate the impact it has on relatively new editors. Anyway, getting back to Tolkien scholarship, the ones we have articles on are the major scholars of the past decade and sometimes more: Tom Shippey, Verlyn Flieger, Wayne Hammond, Christina Scull, Douglas A. Anderson, Michael D. C. Drout, and Christopher Tolkien himself. Slightly removed from this group, but interesting for other reasons, is Richard E. Blackwelder. There are a host of other "names", but pretty soon you reach a grey borderline area of people who don't work full-time on this, but are still considered "experts". For instance, two of the big "names" in the linguistic side of things are Carl F. Hostetter and David Salo. And then, of course, there are "up-and-coming" names who are currently establishing a reputation (I won't mention any names, as that would be a bit too subjective). I should probably mention Walking Tree Publishers though, as they are rather active in publishing things at the moment (see here for an example of their output), and John Rateliff (no article yet) for his work on The History of The Hobbit (that alone might be enough to "establish" him, but as that work is recent, only time will tell). As far as academic, peer-reviewed journals go, for years what there was was mostly fanzines and fan-produced journals of varying quality. In the UK and US you had (and still have) Mallorn (journal) (from The Tolkien Society) and Mythlore (from the Mythopoeic Society). Good scholarship was also found in some of the publications from other national and regional Tolkien societies, particuarly the one in Germany and Sweden (see Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien). The quality of these "society journals" has varied over time, but in general standards have increased (though quite how you demonstrate that subjective opinion is beyond me). The big player now, though, is Tolkien Studies, established in 2004, which claims to be the first scholarly journal published by an academic press in the area of Tolkien studies. Finally, you have the major conferences and the proceedings of those conferences. There was a major academic conference in 1992, the Tolkien Centenary Conference 1992 (see here). The only comparable ones in either size or prestige, I think, were the conferences held over the period 2004 to 2005 to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the publication of LotR. These include the Blackwelder memorial conference (see here - small, but the author list, for the most part, reads as a "who's who" of Tolkien studies at that time) and the forthcoming proceedings of the Tolkien 2005 conference (see here). There, a brief little history (with all too little on the early history) and an explanation of some of the major players, which I hope demonstrates both how nascent and how burgeoning the field is. Carcharoth (talk) 09:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A shorter, more practical reply. :-) "I would start with identifying 30 core Tolkien books. We spent months reading to find these 30. It may be, however, that you need a combination of books and articles, so you will need more than 30." - just noticed this - that is excellent advice, thanks. One more specific point, you said "From the template, it looks like some of the articles should be combined" - could I ask which ones you are referring to here? Carcharoth (talk) 09:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'll look at this again when I return from India. Awadewit (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A belated thank you

		FAC gratitude
		Awadewit, thank you for your solid contributions and gracious support on the Samuel Johnson article and FAC. Considering you've also taken on image review at FAC, I don't know how you find the time to cover so much! I appreciate your ongoing efforts to help assure only our best work is promoted FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit, I'm sorry I'm getting to this so late; travel after burn has hit me hard this time. I'm so pleased to see our 18th-century literary contributors come together to promote quality articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Félix Houphouët-Boigny

Hello there. Just want you to know Félix Houphouët-Boigny is up for PR again. Notifying you because you are significantly involved in it. (yes this is a serialized message :) --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 21:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Feminism/Selected anniversaries/September

I had to replace the image here because the prior image used had dubious licensing issues on its image page. Might want to think about coming up with a better image to use, but the United States Capitol seemed to do in a pinch. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 09:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• I changed it to the UN flag - a bit more international, but still rather lame. All I can do quickly from India. I'll work on it later. Awadewit (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Long time no speak...

Hi. Hope everything's groovy in your neck of the wikiverse. When you have time, I'm curious about how you got on with the responses to your interview. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC) (P.S. Enjoy your break, I'm sure you've earned it).

• Hey! Which interview, exactly? (By the way, hello from an internet cafe in India!) Awadewit (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Query

Awadewit, virtuoso of research, do you happen to have a ProQuest or, better yet, eLibrary account (I believe the latter is a subsidiary of the former) ? See here; Sandy and I are trying to determine the verifiability of some souring information. Эlcobbola _talk 16:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Responded on talk page. Awadewit (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

All the people say Yay for my TFA

Dude.. I totally missed Achebe on the front page. The start of the school year is such a crazy time. Well, thanks for letting me know. Now I can go find out how bad the vandalism was.. How's India? Scartol • Tok 17:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm in an internet cafe! I'm editing in an internet cafe! (BTW, Wikipedia really needs to adjust for these slow download times - it is agonizing.) I don't know if you saw, but there was a series of bomb blasts in Delhi two days ago. You can imagine how frantic my parents were! I'm ok, but it has increased security everywhere. I'm sort of overwhelmed by everything at the moment. I saw a Bollywood film at a local cinema last night - it was very interactive. The audience was hissing at the villain and cheering the hero - it made American movie-going seem very staid. Anyway, I'm off to the Jama Masjid mosque today. Awadewit (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to general relativity

Just so you don't wonder why I've started to re-write Introduction to general relativity instead of reviving the step-by-step re-writing with Willow and you: the article has been put up for FAR (here), so that everything is now somewhat more urgent than it was. Hope you're enjoying your holiday, Markus Poessel (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps we can work together on this when I return? I know Willow is taking a semi-extended wiki-break, but we can always work together anyway. Awadewit (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds good. In going through the whole article for the FAR, I've already tried to address whichever of your commented-out comments I came across. Markus Poessel (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 35	25 August 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "George P. Burdell"	News and notes: Arbitrator resigns, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Interview with Mav
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 36	8 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimedia UK disbands, but may form again	WikiWorld: "Helicopter parent"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured topics	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, August
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) 20:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria

In this week's signpost, it says Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria criteria 4 added Or publicly displayed. How does this affect public sculptures in the United States?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Was coming here to check another section and spotted this. Freedom of panorama I think, is the answer. Carcharoth (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the answer is that it doesn't. They're copyrighted. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is not really a FoP issue. See my reply to this same query or the precipitating discussions (first here, then here). Эlcobbola _talk 22:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, are you saying NFCC#4 was changed so that people wouldn't take the letter of "published" (as technically defined in US copyright law) and say that publically displayed statues have not been published and are therefore copyrighted? Or if they did, this would still be allowed under the new wording of NFCC#4? And to be even clearer, old buildings and statues are presumably public domain? All the way from ancient archaeological remains to 18th and 19th century stuff? And what tag should be used on pictures of such public statues? Will Commons carry out a purge? Will they all end up here with some non-free use tag? Carcharoth (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

publically displayed statues have not been published and are therefore copyrighted

The countdown to expiration of copyright term does not necessarily start with publication. In the US, the copyright term for unpublished works is 70 years after the death of the author. The change to NFCC#4 is not applicable to works in the public domain and has no relevance to the Commons. Эlcobbola _talk 02:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Buildings and statues are treated differently by US copyright law, as the link above explains. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Odd and perhaps out-of-your-league question :)

Can you recommend a good, relatively unbiased, readable book on U.S. history—perhaps one focusing on the development of American identity and thought? I know that's a pretty tall order, but a friend of mine recently asked me for a suggestion and I didn't know what to say. I thought of recommending he read Paul Johnson's A History of the American People and Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States back-to-back instead, but then I thought better of it :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Those sorts of books are hard to find. I would have to think about it and the only thing that pops immediately to mind is Zinn, but that has a very specific focus. I'll have to get back to you after I return from India next week. Awadewit (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you! There's no rush. I hope you're enjoying the trip. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

throw down the gauntlet

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject North of the Rio Grande: Thought you might get a kick out of this discussion thread (Best of Luck)... I guess my kiddies need to throw down the gauntlet --- but its all in the spirit of good fun!!!! --JimmyButler (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 62

Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 62 has been released. It's the first episode since Wikimania and it packs a lot of content! You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:04, 14 September 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.

Hey

Many thanks, have a safe and enjoyable time! Cirt (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Cloud Gate

Have you noticed Cloud Gate has returned to WP:FAC with imaging in line with your comments?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I don't have time to look at it at the moment. Awadewit (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

A possible favour

I have a sources problem for an article I am working on, Amazing Stories, and I was wondering if you might be able to help. I know from previous conversations that you've got at least some background in science fiction literary scholarship. I'm having trouble finding sources to cover two areas, and I thought you might either know where I should look or might even be aware of a source I could use.

The first area I'm having trouble with is anything that relates to the magazine after 1982. After that time it was a fairly minor and unimportant magazine, so I can probably get the article by with just some glancing references, but more details would be good if I can get them. The main historical work is by Mike Ashley, but his latest published volume only goes up to 1980; the next volume is still in preparation.

The other area is the question of what influence or impact on the field Amazing had. It was enormously influential in 1926, when it was launched, just by being the first sf magazine. It was overtaken by Astounding Stories in the mid-1930s, however, and was rarely, if ever, an important magazine thereafter. I'm having trouble finding any opinions about it at all, except the occasional passing references in book reviews from the 1950s. I do have Ashley's opinions (at least up to 1980) but of course I don't want to rely on one author.

If this is too far out of your area, no problem; but if you do happen to know somewhere I could look that would be great. Thanks.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 11:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• If the next volume of Ashley's work is still in preparation, you might consider writing to him and asking for help. Scholars generally like to help out people interested in their work. Sending links of already-featured articles might help! I'm afraid I don't have time right now to do too much digging. I'm swamped with work right now - I have lots to catch up on after my trip. I could probably help out in a month or so, but that is probably too late for you. Let me know. Awadewit (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'll think about contacting Ashley. I've been digging around for scraps and may have enough for GA, at least; I'll see how it goes. No worries on helping -- I know you're much in demand. Hope you had a great trip! Mike Christie (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

FA push for Ring-tailed Lemur

Since June 2008, I have been making a strong push to take Ring-tailed Lemur to FA status. Just recently, it was rated as GA. I am currently looking for support on my FA proposal, in case you're interested. I know I have a lot left to do, but this article is my top priority. Would you be willing to help out? - Visionholder (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I can't do much at the moment. Good luck, though! Awadewit (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 37	15 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikiquote checkuser found to be sockpuppeteer	WikiWorld: "Ubbi dubbi"
News and notes: Wikis Takes Manhattan, milestones	Dispatches: Interview with Ruhrfisch, master of Peer review
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) 05:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Byron

I would like some help with the George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron page. I started working on it to help with a problem Nandesuka was having with some other users who kept adding and changing things that were uncited. I decided to cite most of the article to remove any controversy over what should be included or not. I've already applied a few sources, and have 8 more to apply.

Now, I have started working on it here User:Ottava Rima/Byron. To accommodate the size of his early life (as people prefer the biography pages to focus on career, themes, etc), I have created this page George Gordon Byron's early life based on the information that I posted in the userfied biography. I would need help creating an appropriate summary (I left the material in), but I don't know what information is "interesting" enough to leave in. I would like feed back. I am asking a few people about this. I would like to settle the first half of the biography before starting the more complicated second half. After that, I will post it to the Wikipedia main space and work on the career and relationship sections. If you could edit any, or mention something on the talk page in my user space, that would help a lot. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to note that I have begun an overhaul of Prometheus Unbound (Shelley). I am giving a lecture on it Monday, so I thought I would dump some notes onto Wikipedia. I have quite a lot to add, but I brought this up incase you wanted to add anything about Mary Shelley's participation in the background section, or if you had any points about plot summary that you would like to put in. A copy of the work is here and you can cite page numbers by putting it in [[s:Page:Prometheus Unbound - Shelley.djvu/15|15]] format if you want to quote the work. If you don't have time, or don't want to, that's all right. I just wanted to tell you, because it is an area where our interests overlap. I don't plan on finishing the work, or progressing to GA/FA level until after I am done with other pages, but I will move it to DYK level, and I wouldn't mind sharing if you want to put something on it. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to bother you, but I wanted to note that someone reminded me of a point you made about Austen. I put in a short mention of her here. It could be put in a better way (and feel free to do that). I just wanted you to know. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Image questions

If you have time, any input on these images in a current FAC candidate would be most appreciated. Regards, --HJensen, talk 14:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Legal disputes over Harry Potter

Hey. thanks for popping over. :-0 ) I was wondering, do you think you could have a look at the references? By my usual standards, there's nothing wrong with them, but standards seem to have risen in the last few days. I could use an impartial eye. Thanks. Serendi^podous 12:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Will do. Awadewit (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-free Dispatch

It's almost that time. Any copyediting, comments or questions here would, as always, be appreciated. Эlcobbola _talk 15:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

PR Dispatch

Thanks - it was SandyGerorgia's idea to use the pictures I took in the interview (had they used an image of me, it would have scared off all the PR reviewers). I originally thought it was going to be more of a piece on PR and less about me, but there have been a few new PR reviewers active, which is great (and a few more requests to me saying since you review, can you look at this too). Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:FAT rv

Hmm. I just put it there since uh, EyeSerene reviewed it, but that's not really contributing. I realize that now :). —Sunday | Speak 20:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible update?

Hi A, the local section of the American Chemical Society just celebrated their 50th Anniversary at the Priestley House - see this news story and the local section's own web site. Do you think this is notable enough to include (as a sentence or perhaps a phrase)? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think so, since it is just a local chapter. What do you think? Awadewit (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• I defer to your judgment and am fine with leavi ng it out. My only thought was that it is the local chapter for the house (i.e. the one that the house is in geographically). Hope you are soon feeling better, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Theatre

Thank you for your help with this portal, it is now up at portal peer review. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that! Those anniversaries are fun! Awadewit (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Legal disputes over Harry Potter

The citation issue is beginning to turn people against the article. I really need to sort it out, but I need your input as to what to do, since nothing I could do right now could possibly meet with your approval. Serendi^podous 06:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the citation issue is "turning people against the article". No one is "against the article". It is also false that "nothing" could "meet with my approval". I am applying Wikipedia's WP:V and WP:RS policies to this article, so once the article comes into compliance with those policies, you will have my approval. I have already said I will be happy to support it once it does and I have outlined several ways for this to happen at the FAC. Awadewit (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here [1]. Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA. NancyHeise ^talk 23:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Fever

I'm sorry to hear you're ill -- best wishes for a speedy recovery. While I'm here, I also wanted to ask how you feel about being called by your real name? I know you're "out" to Wikimania, but you don't have your real name on your user page. Let me know if you have a preference. And get well soon! Mike Christie (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! So far, I've avoided putting my real name on my userpage so that when I go on the academic job market the first google hit for my name isn't my Wikipedia userpage. :) I'm sticking with my username for now. Awadewit (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

  OK, now I know what to avoid. Do you also want to me avoid use of your first name? I just feel a little odd saying "Hi, Awadewit" when I know what your first name is! I have the same problem with jbmurray, but I feel like I need to ask him if it's OK to call him "Jon", as we have not been introduced .... Must be my British upbringing. Mike Christie (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

  And you can certainly call me Jon if you wish... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

  I suppose you could use my first name or just "A". Since we haven't been formally introduced, though, shouldn't you really call me "Ms. W" ? :) Awadewit (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

  I think "ma'am" will do nicely! :o) Mike Christie (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

  Now I sound so old! :) Awadewit (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

  We can't have that. Grad students aren't old; they just feel that way. How about "Young lady"? As in: "Young lady, would you mind taking another look at that review of my FAC?" Or just "young 'un" if I'm feeling less formal? Mike Christie (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

  Doesn't that have a ring of "young missy" about it? Just joshin' ya. Awadewit (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

  I guess it would lay me open to "oldster" or something similar, so probably too risky .... Mike Christie (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

A, worried about that fever; why not take a well deserved day off and give yourself a break? The FACs that have input pending will wait. Feel better soon !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Awadewit, heard you were ill. Do get well soon. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, take care of yourself (cancel a class or two if necessary) and get better soon! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Johnson at Oxford

W. Jackson Bate has three stories about Johnson's supposed indolence at Oxford. Before I arrived at Samuel Johnson and checked the source, the article garbled two of them in the relevant section. Ottava Rima has been revert warring over this, and has now plumped for no story at all, on the grounds on your objection to too much biography and not enough of Johnson's writings.

Do you have an opinion on which, if any, should be included? the following text summarizes all three:

Johnson enjoyed Pembroke, learned much, and made friends; years later, he was to tell Boswell and Mrs. Thrale stories of his idleness, but his standards were high; he said he had never seen any man study hard: He did not know he was required to go to lectures, and spent the time "sliding in Christ-Church meadow"; he neglected to write mandatory Latin verses on the Fifth of November, and wrote a poem instead, called Somnium, about the Muse telling him not to dare to write on so high a theme as politics. He wrote a Latin oration the morning it was due, and when he had to recite it from memory, he improvised what he had forgotten; he said he astounded those who knew how little he had studied.

I think it worth the space to include one of these, rather than just the bare generalization, but I certainly don't insist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that I just don't feel like getting involved in all of this again. I saw that you suggested all of the footnotes should be checked. I believe that all FACs should go through a fact check like that, but we don't have the resources at the present time, I'm afraid. Awadewit (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Mrs. Pankhurst

Hello there, Original Mentor and – now – Queen of Image Legality! I have just today finished the first round of research and writing on the article for prominent women's suffrage activist Emmeline Pankhurst, and I'd be honored if you'd take a look, official peer review-style or not. I've tried to make sure all the images are legit, but perhaps you could make sure? PS. I haven't forgotten about that email I owe you; I may have some time this weekend. Thanks in advance. Scartol • Tok 19:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Done! Images looked good for the most part - just a few loose ends. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 63

Hello! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 63, an interview with Florence Devouard, 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 06:56, 3 October 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.

comments

I'm sorry if I upset you somehow by leaving comments instead of supports/opposes on my sourcing stuff, but I don't feel that a source check should be considered a full review. A full review, with a support/oppose, means I have not only looked at what sources are used, but I look at how they are used, and the prose, and the images, and the balance of the article in totality. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• What? Awadewit (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I guess This wasn't referring to my habit of leaving comments on FACs about the sourcing. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No, not at all. I was referring to the little lists of comments that some reviewers leave and then never return to support or oppose the article. I was not impugning the work of our hardest-working reviewer! Awadewit (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I just wanted to make sure you weren't prodding me to be more proactive or something, I'm always open to feedback! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The return of the boy genius

Hi, Awadewit, I hope you're feel better. End-of-summer colds are the worse, aren't they? Well, after battling with Stephen Crane, I believe it's closer to FAC than every before. Because you were so helpful in the last PR, I was hoping you would perhaps be able to take a look whenever you get a chance. The shiny new "Fiction and poetry" section is waiting for perusal, as are a few more images. I believe all of your previous concerns have been addressed, but new ones are more than welcome! María (habla conmigo) 19:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've just done a PR for Emmeline Pankhurst for Scartol, so now I will do this. I'll need a few days, though, since I'm deep in the semester now, with papers to grade and whatnot. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• No rush, I'm not in any -- I myself have two twenty-page papers to plan and procrastinate on. :) Thanks a bunch. María (habla conmigo) 14:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's only fair for me to do you a PR in response, A, so consider it done eventually. Thanks for the extensive comments on EP; I'll fix 'em and respond soon. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 15:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel like I'm going crazy. I've read this article before, haven't I? Why does it seem so familiar? Why would I have read it before? Scartol • Tok 18:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know - did you skim Tour at GA or something? Awadewit (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know either. Why would I have done that? Oh wait. I'm a moron. I'm confused. Sorry to bother you. Are you sure you want such a moron reviewing your article? =) Scartol • Tok 11:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've made a bunch of responses and repairs to the EPPR. I know you often like to go through and verify/respond to changes. Whenever you have time – no rush. Thanks again for your time; you rock. Scartol • Tok 18:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a dispute on the talk page, about the claim (currently removed from the lead) about how historians disagree on her value to the movement. Care to comment? Thanks as always for your feedback. Scartol • Tok 01:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like there was just some minor confusion. I don't think you need to bother yourself with it. (Although your thoughts are always welcome, I'm sure you've got 16,042 other things to do.) =D Scartol • Tok 11:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

RS question

Awadewit, if you have any thoughts and had the time to have a look at this query about sources for Carmen Rodriguez, I'd be most grateful. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Logic

What an amazing conversation you guys are having over on SG's talk page. Feel quite out of my depth, which is why I'm asking you to look at something for me. One of our policy pages is discussing the addition of a section "No original logic". See WT:NOR#Proposed New Section : No Original Logic, WT:NOR#No Original Logic Leads into SYNTH and WT:NOR#Logic. I've commented but might as well be talking to myself. Perhaps I'm totally misunderstanding the point being made. Any Awadewit-talk-page-lurkers are invited too. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 19:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• A fascinating discussion, but I just don't have the time necessary to devote to it. I'm so sorry! :( Awadewit (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Quarks and World Science Festival

Thanks for the pointer to the Quark FA candidacy. I've just put up one of my articles for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer_review/World_Science_Festival/archive1 – if you can find the time to comment on it (it's rather short), I'd greatly appreciate that. Markus Poessel (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• My roommate went to that festival - he thought it was a great idea! I'll do a PR in a day or so. Awadewit (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Mont Blanc

I updated Mont Blanc with two readings and a general analysis of themes. Although it is not complete, it contains all of the major views of the poem. The rest are just details that can be addressed later. Could you copy edit it quickly? Also, I will make "The Cloud" and "Hymn to Intellectual Beauty" soon and submit all of them for one large DYK. I will put your name for "Mont Blanc" and I would have no problem listing you for the other two if you copy edit them after I finish. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• I will copyedit them later today or tomorrow. You should take credit for the DYKs - they are your work! :) Awadewit (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• DYK are more of whoever was important for pushing them, and its an acknowledgment of that. I have no problem sharing the listing with anyone who puts effort and shows an interest in a subject, and this is one that we definitely share. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I just created Hymn to Intellectual Beauty. If you could copy edit. Its incomplete, but enough that it and "Mont Blanc" can go for DYK. I was thinking about having the two united based on being discovered in a 1976 manuscript. You might appreciate "Mont Blanc" for being part of the Tour, but may not have known that the 1976 version of the "Hymn" was transcribed by Mary Shelley and contains many differences. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Will do. Have just worked a bit on MB - added some material and whatnot. I will check some articles on the Tour and see if any of the reviews mention the poem. Awadewit (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• As I stated before, co nom'ed here. If you can think of an alternate nom that includes Mary Shelley (i.e. mention that it took pace during the tour, etc) feel free, and you can feel free to put it up as the primary nom and bump mine back (or I can do the same). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Looks good to me - I just added the image of PBS as an option. Awadewit (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a gift, curteousy of Jayvdb. I can fill in the transcriptions along with others. With this, you can create links to the text like Prometheus Unbound (Shelley) if you are interested. If you need anything else to help with this, drop me a line. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Selection for schools

FYI, Mary Shelley and Mary Wollstonecraft have both been added to the 2008/9 Wikipedia Selection for schools DVD. Congratulations. Kaldari (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Awesome! Awadewit (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Feminism

Thanks so much for all your help! Cirt (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness

(Posting here to avoid thread proliferation) I agree that a better definition of "comprehensive" would help draw the distinction you want to make. At the moment I don't see how to do that, and the wording I proposed reflects my inability. If you can find a way to draw that line, I'd be glad to support it.

I also think that the debate over 1b is a proxy for the debate over whether the purpose of FA is to select the best work (its original intent, I gather) or to recognize maximum quality. I suspect either wording would trigger further changes: "even if" might prompt WP:FSA to get going; "unless" might prompt limitations on TFA, or possibly bring in a word count limit to divide FAs from FSAs within the existing FAC framework. We'll see. Good luck on finding a wording for "comprehensive". Mike Christie (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Mission 4

Hi Awadewit,

Am I right in thinking that the FA Team Mission in the Everglades has done its work, or is it really still ongoing? Can I move it to Past Missions and detail its many successes? Geometry guy 18:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. Have you heard anything from Willow since 1 October? She disappeared unexpectedly mid-FAC and quite a few editors are worried about her.

• We did everything but Everglades. :) I think we are done, yes. I don't know what happened to our friend, except that times have been rough for her recently. Hopefully I will hear something over email. Awadewit (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks. Lets hope we hear something soon. Geometry guy 19:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible gloss

Would it be useful to add this below your preferred option:

The intention of this wording is to allow for articles such as Plato, for which a date of birth is missing but where no future source can be reasonably expected to fill the gap. Future scholarship is always possible in areas where primary sources exist which are not covered by existing secondary sources.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd add "...for which a date of birth is missing but where no future primary source can reasonably be expected ..." to cover the specifics. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Richard pic

Thanks, but it's better to upload as a different image, especially as one is a detail. I get odd results when I follow through to Commons. Johnbod (talk) 12:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't think we wanted to keep the washed out image. What odd results? (We can make a detail of this better image now, if you want.) Awadewit (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

When you click on the new image you get the old image, or I do. Plus for example the image might be used elsewhere, with "(detail)" in the caption, which is now wrong. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The Commons cache just hasn't caught up. I'm not sure where the "detail" information would come from - it is not in the image description or the name of the file or the caption on the Richard II of England article. I'm planning on uploading cropped versions of the file once the Commons database is unlocked. Awadewit (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I mean that when using the old image one should really add "(detail)" in the caption, as it is one. But obviously the new pic is not, so if anyone had done that it would now be inappropriate. I expect it is the cache giving the odd results. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've now uploaded Image:RichardIIWestminsterDetail.JPG and Image:RichardIIWestminsterHead.JPG. Awadewit (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - much better than before. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Barngem

		You are a Gem
		Thanks for the encouragement you continually give to me and to all of us. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear. You don't get 1/487th the recognition you deserve for all you do for the project. I'll look at the Jane dealie, but it'll be a week or so. I still gotta do that travelogue dealie first. Geez, so many dealies! =) Scartol • Tok 02:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I third that! (And secretly covet the shiny, shiny barnstar.) You've been a gracious and crucial help with some of my most difficult projects, and I appreciate your great insight and attention to detail -- even if it makes me go "AHHH nooo". So thanks! I'll be going over Crane the next couple days and hopefully it will be ready to battle it out with the roads, hurricanes and Lost episodes in due time! :) María (habla conmigo) 12:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Panic

Hey Awad, I think we revisited all your points at the FAC, and me and some of the others have done some smoothing of the prose in general. Also, I want to apologize for my surliness about the sourcing thing. It was a bad week at work for me, and I think a bit of stress oozed out at what's normally my weekend retreat. Sorry for the rudeness. --JayHenry (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• No need - it's hard to take an article to FAC at any time and remain totally calm, much less when one is losing all of one's net worth. :) I'll reread the article tonight. Awadewit (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Milk and Austen

Hey. I'd be happy to take a look at Reception history of Jane Austen. Sorry I haven't responded sooner. Dan and I have been tweaking the Milk article over the past day and a half. I'd appreciate your taking another look at it. Let me know what I can do to change the oppose to support. --Moni3 (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• I second that; I've run out of things to tweak, awaiting instructions. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Mont Blanc (poem)

On 15 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mont Blanc (poem), 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Hymn to Intellectual Beauty

On 15 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hymn to Intellectual Beauty, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Library

I'm afraid the University of Glasgow were distinctly unhelpful, to the point of wanting me to sign a contract saying I wouldn't use a photocopy of the all-text title page of Valperga for any reason whatsoever as a requirement of getting it.

...I also felt like I was being sneered at by the librarians, something I've never felt before. Maybe I was just having low self-confidence today, and they weren't really being unfriendly, but I'm afraid that I'm not going back there without someone having set things up for me in advance.

I'm happy to try my own University, however. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)