User talk:Wadewitz

Contribute to our efforts to improve the English Wikipedia's coverage of Spanish-language literature articles!

Archive Archives

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19

Una nota interesante

While looking over how marvelous Jane Austen now is compared to how it was a week ago, I noticed that (like Emily Dickinson, which I've finally begun to crack open) it is an FA en español. Where are these Spanish scholars that specialize in English literature and where have they been hiding? Ay, dios mio.  ;) María (habla conmigo) 18:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Ach! If only I could read Spanish. :) Indeed, that is very odd. I wonder how many Spanish/Mexican/Latin American writers are FA here? Probably not many. Awadewit | talk 18:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Austen FA is actually pretty recent (May), but the principal contributor seems to have a track record of writing quality articles for British and American authors. I'm caught between being utterly impressed and completely embarrassed. Oh, and I checked: not one Hispanic writer, or even work, listed at WP:FA. Wow, I wish I'd taken Spanish 6 in undergrad... María (habla conmigo) 19:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That's really embarrassing for en.wikipedia, isn't it? Awadewit | talk 19:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if we could round up $10 from five people or so to put up a request on the reward board for a Spanish-language-literature FA? $50 might motivate someone. Awadewit | talk 19:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with the reward board; are requests usually filled? How motivational is the incentive? There are some articles that have plenty of information, but formatting and citing is either sloppy or non-existent. Pablo Neruda or Miguel de Cervantes, for example, could easily become great articles if someone took the time to research properly. María (habla conmigo) 19:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the requests are usually filled, but I have a feeling that the higher the reward, the more likely it is that it would be. :) We could make a little list of articles or just choose one, like Cervantes (arguably one of the most important Spanish-language authors). (I think I know some people who would pony up $10, by the way.) Awadewit | talk 19:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, definitely Cervantes! I could see somebody taking that on over some of the more obscure figures that I'd suggest (mostly poets; I've such a soft spot for Reinaldo Arenas). I'd contribute a fiver or so to see something brought to FA. María (habla conmigo) 20:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll see what I can round up. Awadewit | talk 20:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. You'll have to tell me how/where to cough up, though. qp10qp 20:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Offering profit for knowledge whilst reconstructing Emma Goldman? Quick, while her ghost isn't looking – I'm in! – Scartol • Tok 20:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I currently have an empty PayPal account. We could use that. Otherwise, we will need to figure out how to set up some sort of PayPal account with an administrator. Does anyone know how to do that? Awadewit | talk 20:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Your PP is fine by me. Email me when you've got it sorted. qp10qp 22:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Aunque esté muda debo hablar:
yo la veré llegar aunque esté ciega.

Pablo Neruda's poem La muerta graced my User page for the día de los muertos, and I would be honored and happy to help send a friendly message to the good Spanish Wikipedians. I'll contribute $10 each for Pablo Neruda, Cervantes and (one of my favorites!) the eternally charming Lazarillo de Tormes — "you must be as sharp as the Devil himself, girl, if you would lead the blind!"  ;) Willow 23:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. $50 each into the pot for Cervantes and Lorca. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Ok. So my PayPal account (which is empty) is now set up to match the email address of this page (see link at left "email this user"). I will start a list on a separate page of the donations listed here for transparency. Awadewit | talk 12:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• This doesn't give the email address though so I'm not quite sure how this would work. Perhaps you could email us with the email address to Paypal the money to? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, how silly of me. Will email now. Awadewit | talk 12:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Here is donation page. I added who I could. Add yourself when you decide what to do. Thanks so much, guys! This is a truly noble endeavor. :) Awadewit | talk 12:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind if I just touched up the wording on your donation page ever so slightly? I think it maybe might help inspire others to join us. :) Willow 13:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all! You know I aspire towards Willow-levels of tact and never quite achieve them. :) I think I can only asymptotically approach them anyway. Awadewit | talk 13:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

We each of us fly with different wings but arrive together in happy places; I would not change you for the world, even if you would. :) siempre cariñosamente, Willow 14:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. Please feel free to tone it down as you see fit; it might be too, ummm, willowy. ;) Willow 14:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

How about we encourage everybody to add their own personal touch? That way it will be more communal, anyway? :) More wiki? Awadewit | talk 14:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now that this is set-up, I am going to go curl up with a good book and some soup. It is easier to cough and sneeze with a book than with a computer. Off to recover. Awadewit | talk 14:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Poor you. I picked the snuffles in blustery France last week so I sympathize. The remedy is strong smoky tea (made with two measures of Darjeeling Broken Orange Pekoe to one measure of Formosa Lapsong Souchong) with full cream milk, honey and a dash of Scotch whisky. A homemade chicken consommé (Jewish penicillin) is also efficacious. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

N'aww, I completely missed your banner at the top that says you're ill. I hope you feel better soon! btw, this is incredibly exciting for me; last night I pulled out my copy of Don Quixote de la Mancha and had a good (if a bit shaky) read. :) María (habla conmigo) 16:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll chip in $10. See WP:REWARD#Free-license_photo_of_Anne_Frank_Tree for an example of how to set up a pooled reward. Kaldari 15:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, it isn't necessary to physically pool the money beforehand, unless you really want to streamline the awarding process. Typically people just make separate award payments to whoever is deemed the winner of the award. That way if the award is never claimed everyone still gets to keep their money. Kaldari 15:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, ok. Well people can either send me their money and I'll hold it in trust or they can hang on to it. Awadewit | talk 14:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't trust Awadewit with my money. Just kidding. But what's with the French painting for the box up top? You couldn't use an artist from the spanish-speaking world? ←playful – Scartol • Tok 16:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please change away. I'm just kinda trying to keep things up to date here as I am still pretty sick. Awadewit | talk 16:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• (LOUD BUZZER) I'm sorry, that's the wrong answer. The correct answer is: "Shut up, Scartol. You're lucky I made the box in the first place, sick as I am. Can't you ever let someone create something artistic without being an obnoxious jerk with a criticism at the ready?" – Scartol • Tok 01:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• What is this filth? Naked ladies, kids with wings!? Is this Diego person on drugs or something? Just kidding. The first picture was lovely, and this one is too. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 00:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• By the way, how do I make a box without using the wikibreak box? :) Awadewit | talk 00:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well, the wikibreak box is built on the messagebox structure, so the following code will get you a basic box:

{| class="messagebox standard" style=background:{{{bgcol|#F8EABA}}}
|Your ad here
|}

• I assume (and hope) you're feeling better? – Scartol • Tok 21:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Mostly. Where does the image go? Awadewit | talk 22:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Wherever you want it to go. Now we get into the trickiness of WP table design. – Scartol • Tok 13:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have posted two of the rewards. Hopefully we can garner a few more donations before posting the others. :) Awadewit | talk 15:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Priestley House

I see you are not feeling well, and have final exams. I finally added some more material to Joseph Priestley House and was going to ask you about it, but it is no hurry - get well and through your exams.

I just wondered where you were planning to go with the article - I think it is nearly GA now, not sure if you agreed and had your sights on GA or even FA? I also have a nice ref on Priestley and Unitarianism in Pennsylvania if you need / want it. Anyway, take care and hope you are feeling better and finished with exams soon, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• I will be able to look at the article in a couple of weeks. I think it is close to GA, don't you? I'm not sure FA is a possibility - there is just so little written on it, but if you think so, I'll work up a larger JP in America section. I still have my notes on that. The JP House emailed me back about the photos, so I am working on that as well. Awadewit | talk 19:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• I am sure it can be GA, but am also not sure there is enough there for FA. Take your time. I made fairly detailed comments about my latest edits on the talk page, so they are there if you have questions. As mentioned I can try to get there for photos if needed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hope you are feeling better. I looked at all the current FAs on "Houses", and now wonder if this could not be a FA too. Joseph Priestley House is already at 19,715 bytes with 33 references from 12 sources. This is bigger than current FAs Xanadu House (17,486 bytes, 10 notes and 4 refs, 7 sources), Baden-Powell House (16,893 bytes, 14 refs), and has more refs and is close in size to Shotgun House (21,115 bytes, 17 refs) and House with Chimaeras (23,675 bytes, 28 notes). Only Belton House (41,899 bytes, 37 notes and 11 refs) is way above where this could be with adding a few kilobytes of text on Priestley in America. Some of these are older FAs, but Chimaeras was on the Main Page not too long ago. It is your call, but thought you might want more info before the final expansion, yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, I don't think anyone would oppose based on the comprehensiveness or anything. I just don't like encouraging this sort of thing. :) I think this article is perfect for what GA was originally created for and I think we should embrace that idea - the small, carefully-sourced article. However, if you want to go for FA, we can do so. I agree that it would need a bit more on Priestley. I'm still trying to figure out what to add on that front. I feel like I could go way overboard - there are two whole books on Priestley in America. I want to make sure that the page stays focused on the house, though, since that is its topic. See more on the talk page. Awadewit | talk 15:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree the focus should be on the house, and that some more material on Priestley in America is needed. I would mention his trips to Philadelphia (offered Chemistry professorship at U Penn, involved in founding the first Unitarian congregation there), not sure what else. I defer to your judgement on FA. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

First try at family tree

Take a look at Image:Family tree of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley.gif. This is just a draft so feel free to ask for changes in layout, font, and so on. Some things that you may have opinions on:

• I've laid it out more horizontally than the web page you gave me as a source. It wasn't possible to preserve the relationship of generations to height on the page, but I tried to do so to some extent. If this makes it unacceptably wide, I can switch to a layout more like the web page. The layout I've used does crush the people in the top left a bit close together, and I might be able to add a little white space up there if you think it needs it.
• I've copied the web page text fairly faithfully except that I did not attribute Mary Shelley's authorship of Frankenstein, thinking that might be a little too obvious for the article. I can put that back in if you like, and if you have other annotations let me know.
• I switched to italics and shrank the font from 12 point to 10 point for the notes.
• There's no title -- I can put one in, with or without a box, if you like. The only wide-open space is on the right, and I can't put a very big title there without having it crowd the tree. Still, it could be done. Alternatively I can run a title along the top or bottom.
• I can make the whole thing bigger or smaller very easily if it's not readable as is.

Let me know what you think; and any other suggestions or requests are fine too. Mike Christie (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• This looks good to me, but let's ask Qp10qp. What do you think about making several copies, just with different names bolded? Some articles like Mary Wollstonecraft can just link to the tree, but articles like Fanny Imlay need the tree in it and I think it would be nice to bold her name, then. Awadewit | talk 19:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That's very easy to do. I'm at the office and will be for at least a couple of hours, so I can reply to comments but won't have time to update the tree for a bit. I'll wait till you and Qp10qp have had a chance to look it over and then make any updates you like. Mike Christie (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm just thinking through this. Is it a good idea to list who was married to whom? I think people will generally assume that the people who had children together were married, but many of the couples in this tree were not. That might be important to include. Hmm. Tricky. Awadewit | talk 19:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I can think of a couple of different ways to do this. One would be to include a marriage date where they were married. That would most naturally annotate the line joining each couple, which is small, so that would expand the tree horizontally -- probably a bad thing. Another approach would be to annotate the line coming down to the child with "out of wedlock" or something similar. The lines themselves could indicate marital status: a dashed line might connect two people who were not married. That would require a legend, which is possible. Mike Christie (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it is judgmental to label people "born out of wedlock"? It has such a moralistic ring to me (perhaps I just read too much eighteenth-century literature). I just want the tree to be objective, but still factual. Sorry to be so picky. :) Awadewit | talk 19:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't feel that condemnatory to me, but I do think it's worth finding the most neutral possible terms for this sort of thing. (I guess we can't just put a little "bastard" tag on the kids, can we?) You're the boss on this one; just let me know what it should say. Maybe the dotted line option for unmarried parents is the best way to avoid the issue. Mike Christie (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That's funny. :) I'm thinking the dotted line is the best option as well. However, let's see what Qp thinks. Awadewit | talk 20:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Poking my nose in on this since I'm here on the talk page: "Marriage" is often indicated on trees like this with a "m." or a "m.(year)" in the horizontal line. This nicely avoids the issue of having to characterize offspring as legitimate or illegitimate, instead simply characterizing the relationship between people. ... Relatedly, when I look at family trees I find it very helpful to indicate offspring or lack thereof. A dotted vertical line can indicate more descendants and a parenthetical after someone's name that indicates ("died without offspring") indicates otherwise. --Lquilter (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• But doesn't the tree make it obvious that they died without offspring? Do we have to emphasize their utter failure to pass on their DNA? :) Awadewit | talk 20:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a failure; it's a legitimate lifestyle choice! Anyway, the lack of descendant lines might be interpreted as "no offspring", but it might also be interpreted as "this chart only goes to X generation". That's why I (as someone who piddles around with user interface issues here & there) prefer unambiguous styling. YMMV! --Lquilter (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems excellent to me: well done Mike, and thanks. It's actually quite amusing to look at: one moment Godwin is a bachelor, the next he has five children, all by different sets of parents! And it's startlingly modern, because families today (where I live, anyway) are so complex. I don't think the issue of who was actually married is very important; the articles will explain all that anyway.qp10qp (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I should have also said it looks beautiful -- an beautiful demonstration of why graphical depictions are sometimes much better than text to synthesize information. One additional suggestion: I love the italicized death notes under most of the main players' & their children's names; might be nice to just apply it consistently to everyone. --Lquilter (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you both for the compliments. I owe Awadewit for several thoughtful reviews of my own articles and it's nice to be able to make a partial repayment. (Qp, I owe you several favours too; let me know if I can help on anything.) For the notes -- sure, just tell me what they need to say. I need to do at least one more version anyway; Mary Shelley's death date has an ugly line break so I'll be fixing that. Mike Christie (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I am sending Mike more information to add to the tree. Let's see what it looks like with married dates and more death notes. Awadewit | talk 08:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Fanny Imlay/names & refs

Hi Awadewit - good luck with the Fanny Imlay article -- I think it's a challenging project. I started to respond on my talk page and then decided to move my response to Talk:Fanny Imlay because there might be some back & forth. cheers! Lquilter (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

'In-Universe' writing

Hi Awadewit, I wondered if you could give an idea on 'in-universeness' of Vampire, which is my first effort at collaborating on an FA outside of biology. Up till now all FAs have been about 'real' things and I wanted to get someone outside's opinion that this read ok as is (i.e. didn't come across like they were real or anything). Don't worry about copyediting etc. i was just interested in dispelling a nagging worry that this baby was too...you know.

All input much appreciated...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• I would be happy to help, especially as I am in the middle of a Buffy the Vampire Slayer marathon right now, so I am in a vampire mood. :) However, I have two other promised reviews to finish up. Can it wait until the end of the week? Awadewit | talk 22:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, we'll be at least 10 days copyediting etc. It is a teensy bit long.... :[ (note vampire face - User:Firsfron taught me) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... for encouraging Midnightdreary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Doing my best. Awadewit | talk 22:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Hello, Awadewit. I was wondering if you would copyedit Louis Slotin? The article is currently at FAC, and a number of people have stated that there are some 1(a) issues that need to be fixed. The article is not that long, so I don't think copyediting will take that long. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sure. I'll see what I can do. Do you use something like WikEd? When I copy edit, I usually leave little queries as hidden comments and larger queries on the talk page. The hidden comments only show up well when everything is color-coded. If you don't use anything like that, I'll just put everything on the talk page. Awadewit | talk 05:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I just recently removed WikiEd from my monobook. I can add it back, but I think using Ctrl + F for "<!--" works fine as well. Thanks in advance, Nishkid64 (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll just put them on the talk page, then. Easier, I think. Awadewit | talk 06:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, either way is fine for me. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have responded to all your comments Talk:Louis Slotin. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 37 and 38

Well, gee whiz! I don't check WP:WEEKLY for a few days and look what happens: I miss two new episodes. Nonetheless, Wikipedia Weekly Episode 37 and Episode 38 have been released!

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/12/10/wikipedia-weekly-37-rundown/ and http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/12/14/episode-38-interview-wbrianna-laugher/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 02:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.

Emma on Mary

Hey Awadewit - I was digging around for some of the stuff on Emma Goldman regarding influence on anarchism & the arts and found this Alice Wexler edit / reprint of Goldman's essay on Mary Wollstonecraft -- Feminist Studies v.7, n.1, p.113 (1981) - you must have seen this already? --Lquilter (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• I haven't seen the reprint, but I have heard of it. See the obscure allusion at Mary Wollstonecraft#Legacy. Why don't you add the reference to that section? Awadewit | talk 06:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 39

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 39 has been released!

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/12/18/episode-39-knol-pointer/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 06:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.

User page

Hi Awadewit. Would it be fine if I will copy the way your page was formated and styled? --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Phaedriel designed it, so best to ask her. Awadewit | talk 06:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Western Chalukya architecture

Hi Awadewit. I am the author of this FAC article. User:Blnguyen recommended that I request you for a copy edit of the article, which has run into grammar and presentation concerns on the FAC review. I request you to find time to copy edit this article and point out how I can improve it. Hope you find time to help me out. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. The article is a good piece of work and a lot of effort has been put into it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't have time at the moment. I have two reviews to do and am going on vacation tomorrow. I'm really very sorry - I would love to help out on such a worthwhile article, but I fear that my time will be too limited in the coming weeks to give the article the attention it deserves. Awadewit | talk 06:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet

I'm currently fussing with the intro. It should be ready for you as promised in a couple of hours. I don't know what the weather's like at your end, but it's like Elsinore here: ) All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• I was actually just about to start reading it. Perhaps I'll skip the introduction and read that last, in the manner of Tristram Shandy? (Well, I hope you are curled up in the front of a fire with your laptop, all cozy.) Awadewit | talk 08:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just finished, sustained by a large bowl of gruel (well, porridge actually) and a large pot of coffee :) (I adore Tristram Shandy.) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps someday you could write the article. It's rather shabby right now. :) Awadewit | talk 08:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Analytical Review

I read it twice now, and its very strong. I'm not a great reviewer, so the only help I can offer is to turn the red links blue. Ceoil (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"the first journals dedicated to reviewing books in Britain". My sources tell me that the Monthly Review was the first sucessful journal. Ceoil (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not a big fan of creating stubby articles. I prefer to create articles when I have something substantive to add to them. Awadewit | talk 23:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Which sources are you referring to? The Butler essay I quote charts the rise of journals in Britain, beginning with Philosophical Transactions, the journal of the Royal Society, and The Tatler and The Spectator, which were general-subject magazines. The Gentleman's Magazine was the next important miscellaneous periodical. According to Butler, the Monthly Review and The Critical Review filled a gap left by the Gentleman's Magazine and other periodicals—the reviewing of books. Awadewit | talk 23:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar. I've found there's a lot to take away personally from writing at Wikipedia. It's a great learning experience.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Jane Austen portrait

I thought the universal standard was that the top image in an article should be right-aligned. I was unaware that there was a provision which applied specifically to the direction a person in a portrait was facing. Sorry for the error. -Severa (!!!) 01:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)