Jump to content

User talk:Wadewitz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mfreud (talk | contribs) at 23:11, 10 April 2008 (→‎Thanks (again!)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Awadewit is attempting to finish her dissertation this year, so she will be editing less actively.
Please be patient and she will respond to your post.

While the following decision pains her greatly, Awadewit will only be peer reviewing and copy editing articles in the following areas: the eighteenth century, major literary works, or major literary figures.
Archive
Archive

Archives

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26

Veropedia

Hey Awadewit. If you're an editor on Veropedia (which I think I remember reading somewhere), would you mind updating the Emma Goldman article with the current version from Wikipedia. The version on Veropedia right now has a factual error that has been fixed in the Wikipedia version. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 18:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm really sorry, but some obscure technical issues that I don't understand are preventing me from uploading the latest version. I will persevere eventually! I promise! Awadewit | talk 17:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's unfortunate. How can I trust Veropedia if it can't be updated ;) Thanks for trying though. Kaldari (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure

Drop me a line on Skype -- fuzheado.

Wikimania

I see you're planning to get wikimanic. If you'd like to bounce ideas in preparing your submission, do get in touch. Dsp13 (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo Awadewit, if it would help, I would also be happy to participate or assist any way that I can in your study. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Re: User:Jbmurray/Madness

(Copied over from talk page:) I'd be happy to chat, or even be interviewed about this, and to share whatever thoughts I may have. I'd be interested in your thoughts, too. I should say that I haven't really thought (perhaps better, got my head about) the collaborative writing aspects; and in lots of ways that's not my priority, though perhaps it should be. Anyhow, do get in touch. You can email me from my user page if you want. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 14:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied over from talk page:) Or wherever it is you email people from; I forget, but you'll know! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 14:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative Writing

I don't know if I'll have anything of substance to add, but if you're still in need of further interviewees, I'd be more than happy to participate. Carom (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Church

Dear Awadewit, I am considering renomination of this article for FA. I would like to know if you see any obvious problems with the article before I resubmit. I am contacting you on the advice of Karanacs who suggested I ask previous commentors to take a look and see if previous FAC issues have been sufficiently addressed. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm afraid you've caught me at a bad time. I am currently overwhelmed with work - grading papers, other wiki-promises, etc. I thought I might have time to look at the article in the next week, but I don't think I will. I'm really very sorry. As the end of the semester approaches, madness ensues. Awadewit (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Now you have mail :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And again now :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, me too? :) Willow (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And yet again :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 03:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LotR FARC

"The Lord of the Rings should really be taken to FARC, for many reasons (e.g. the last time I checked it didn't discuss the trilogy's contribution to the development of the fantasy genre), but I haven't had the stomach yet." - do you think you could warn a few people first? Try the talk page and so on. I could help out if needed, but haven't had the stomach yet either. Would take a long time for me to be satisfied with it. Carcharoth (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AmEng to BrEng copyeditors?

Do you happen to know someone who is good at doing American English to British English conversion? I'm pretty sure I've seen you work with someone for this on some of your pages but can't remember who it was. I ask because there's a comment at the Augustine of Canterbury FAC that the article should really be in British English, and I am not very good at this conversion myself (I didn't nominate the article but I've done a review on it so I'm just trying to help the nominator). If you can recommend anyone, that would be great. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New barnstar

I saw this and thought immediately of you ... --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Writer's Barnstar
For the incalculable benefits you have given to Wikipedia, please accept this Writer's barnstar. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Facundo

Thanks very much for your GA review! I've completed a first ce pass, but there's still a long way to go. I'm sure you've noticed, but some sentences don't actually make sense at the moment (I get the impression it wasn't written by a native English speaker). My next suggestion to the editors, before we tackle the prose again, is to pull it into some sort of order. We're grateful for your advice, and do jump in at any time; any input you have would be most welcome... ;) EyeSerenetalk 14:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel guilty; your contributions are already far more than anyone could have hoped for. Someone on the FA-team will pick it up; I may be able to get to it tonight or tomorrow. This is what teams are for. Mike Christie (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And if you need someone else on the team to take something on that you've promised, just ask. Mike Christie (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Awadewit - I should have been clearer. I wasn't asking you to take on yet another copyedit; you've contributed so much already! I'm more than happy to continue ce'ing in collaboration with the MMM. What I was really getting at was that there's a long way to go with the prose, and consequently it may take some time to sort out all your GA review issues. We may need to request an extension to the hold, but we'll see how things go. All the best, EyeSerenetalk 09:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes - I think it is a good idea to let an article remain on hold if editors are improving it. Awadewit (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! We've worked on improving Facundo and Eyeserene has kindly copy edited this article for us. I think we are ready for another GA review. Thanks! Bessiec (talk) 08:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I have to say im shocked by the award (in a good way!! :)) Thanks for the encouragement! With the long list of edits I sometimes wonder if I am really the person who can fix them but I really appreciate the award. Can I copy this sort of thing on to my user page? Thanks again,--Mfreud (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Award

Thanks so much! I'm very chuffed. But thanks above all to you, for all your patience and hard work on this project. It is very much appreciated. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 14 31 March 2008 About the Signpost
Wikimania 2009 to be held in Buenos Aires Sister Projects Interview: Wikisource 
WikiWorld: "Hammerspace" News and notes: 10M articles, $500k donation, milestones 
Dispatches: Featured content overview WikiProject Report: Australia 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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) 20:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful sources on collaborative learning and wikis

Public Interest Research, Collaboration, and the Promise of Wikis. This is an article about " the use of wiki technology to encourage active learning and collaborative problem solving in law teaching". Awadewit (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Nomination

Mike Christie has suggested that we are ready to put El Senor Presidente up for Feature Article Candidcy. Do you agree? If you do, would you be able to put it up for us? I am a little confused how to go about doing it, even after reading over the page with the steps on it. --Mfreud (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to hold off until we finish arguing over the "new" title. Yomanganitalk 19:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still composing my gushing nomination speech, but I've already clicked on "initiate the nomination". Sorry! (For what it is worth, I see the same questions arising at the FAC.) Awadewit (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh we're into another one about losing "(novel)" from the end now - check the end of this section. Yomanganitalk 19:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This won't last long though: WP:SNOW on losing the "(novel)," I think. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit, can you add a bolded "I am co-nominating this artilce ... " to the first sentence in the FAC, to make it easier on Rick Block when he runs his script post-closing? Also, I hard-wired the ext link checker to deal with the ñ, and I added the wording we use on all archived previous noms that works with Rick Block's scripts. Thx, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't passed yet so there's nothing to do. I actually look at the FAC nomination, so I expect I will successfully remember. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How FAC works

Thanks for putting the article put for nomination, I was a little confused to go about it all. We really could not have made it this far without your fabulous comprehensive review(s) of the article and experiance with Wikipedia. Just one question, having never done this before, I am wondering how long this process usually takes and how many supporting votes are needed to get a FA. Does it take weeks for a concensous to be reached or is there a minimum number of votes needed to establish a FA? Is it like GAN in that people post copyedit type questions or highlight needed improvements and once those are met FA is decided on? Thanks for your continued help and support.--Mfreud (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was happy to help out! It's wonderful to have such dedicated editors. FAC can take anywhere from five days to a month - it depends on the balance of support and opposes and the amount of discussion. I have rarely had an FAC last longer than a week or ten days - most literature articles don't attract a lot of controversy. The "supports" and "opposes" are not actually votes. Theoretically speaking, there could be ten supports and one oppose, and if it is a really solid oppose, the article could fail (I don't think that will happen to us - we have had a lot of people diligently checking everything). Ultimately, the FA director decides if an article passes or fails - that is Raul654 or his proxy SandyGeorgia. If you haven't already, you should watchlist Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/El Señor Presidente - people will post recommendations for improving the article there that will need to be addressed (and also praise!). Awadewit (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict, but I'll go ahead anyway:) Awadewit knows much more about this than I do. But my understanding is: the process is an attempt to achieve consensus, rather than a "vote." So one serious objection could in fact sink us. And it lasts a minimum of five days. People do indeed post questions and details they want to see fixed. I'm trying to fend off the easy ones at least. For a sense of how things go, you can take a look down Featured Article candidates. As far as I can see, the process can sometimes get contentious, but I do feel we are in the very best of hands. This is what the FA-Team were set up for! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are not supposed to be votes in any sense, but actionable suggestions for improvement based on the criteria (per the "Supporting and Objecting instructions at WP:FAC). If you pay attention to the comments and respond to them, then there should be no problem. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images facing text

Awadewit, I first became of aware of the issue of images facing text in articles from you; there have been some minor changes at MOS that I haven't fully followed, but you may want to check in on here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Priestley Riots

I've fixed this - see User talk:Marc Kupper#Priestley Riots Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 05:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a new comment to User talk:Marc Kupper#Priestley Riots. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 06:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pastries and people

Hey A!

Mother Earth is waking up again and it's glorious to see! :) I've been busy getting my garden cleared and ploughed; many things are beginning to come up and I don't want them to have to fight their way to the surface. ;)

I'm really happy that the pastry turned out well; I'd been shy about asking because I was worried something might've gone awry. I hope your two shy students are blossoming as well. :)

The {{explain}} template is fun, but probably not worth your attention for serious scholarly articles. The new method of introducing footnotes is illustrated in action potential; you'll see ~5 notes scattered throughout and grouped at the bottom in an automatically numbered way, as you and Qp had asked? I made a version that did the numbering by letters, but Steve's solution was basically done and much better anyway, so that was adopted here. The trick is to use the <ref> and <references> tags as usual, but with the argument "group=note", as you may see in the action potential. Steve also has some examples in this sandbox, which might be helpful.

Ta-ta and back to the garden, Willow (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Vargas Llosa

Hi there. I'm one of the students working on the Mario Vargas Llosa article for the MMM assignment. I read your comments on the project discussion page regarding how to discuss his works and definitely agree; there is quite a bit of repetition. From what I've gathered during this project, you seem to be the King of literature articles... Now I understand that you're extremely busy with your own commitments, as well as the other articles for this project that are currently receiving your attention; but, if you do have some time I'd greatly appreciate a brief review of what still needs to be done for FAC, or perhaps you could suggest another article that I could refer to for improving the discussion of his works. If you can point me in the right direction, I have the time to improve this article. However, don't feel obligated; if you don't have the time to do it, don't worry about it. Thanks :) Lincolnchan98 (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the comprehensive review. We're going to get started on these suggestions today. For your awesomeness, I award you with this homemade barnstar.
Enjoy! Lincolnchan98 (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third batch

on its way back.--Filll (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for peer review

Hi! I was wondering if you'd be able to look over this peer review (article). It's got a long way to go, and any input would be greatly appreciated. :) This spam message brought to you on behalf of the current Tzatziki Squad collaboration. Thanks, Keilana|Parlez ici 22:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great, we'll not have time to fix whatever you find until then. ;) Keilana|Parlez ici 03:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of 19th century source

Hi Awadewit. If you have a bit of time free in your busy schedule, could I ask you to comment on the Thomas Cranmer talk page on the reliability aspect of 19th century sources? Thanks. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Films

Hello, I thought that you would like to know that I've been in discussion with an editor who came by User talk:Erik/Interpretations of the film Fight Club (the talk page of my sub-article still in development hell). We're discussing literary theory when it comes to films, and I've tried to explain about intentional fallacy as you once did for me. I was wondering if you could review the editor's points and my counterpoints and see if there is anything that needs to be clarified? I have a decent understanding of these film studies, but perhaps not to the degree where I can explain it clearly to another person. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. :) Perhaps we can change a mind here -- that'd be nice for a change. I still need to get around to reading that recommended Literary Theory. I have the printout of the record, so I know I can check it out. Just need to find the time. Appreciate your weighing in! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (again!)

Thanks so much for helping to try and sort out the issues that have been raised on the El Senor Presidente FAC page. I really appreciate the support from yourself and other FA members. I have to say this "fight" about images seems rather absrurd to me... I did not realize I was so biased! Anyways, I just wanted to say thank-you again because I really don't know how to layout an argument with a rationale that the editor in opposition will find rational or good enough. I also wanted to note that our project actually ends in about two weeks, at which time I think I will be stepping down from editing on wikipedia and return once more to being the "general populace"... and a general populace that likes pictures, even though the article you have helped us work on for so long may not. In either case, I appreciate your continued support and help with both continuous copyediting, suggestions and support through this entire process. Thanks!--Mfreud (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I will! I don't think I have renounced all editorial roles completly. After spending so many hours a day working on the El Senor Presidente page it will be odd to just "quit cold turkey" but we shall see what the future holds for mfreud the editor! :) I have to say I have learned a lot, especially from you extensive copyedits- about what is considered vague, the types of sentences generally needing a more full explanation... important aspects of writing that are often overlooked when as an undergraduate when I hand in an essay. Usually returned papers have few comprehensive remarks and I actually learn quite little about what made my paper a B+ or A-, what the extra something that was needed to make it an overall well written paper with engaging prose. Actually, the last two term papers I have done have actually gotten better feedback than usual. That said, I know my spelling still needs work- I have been praised for my "phonetic spelling" since grade school! If I knew how to bestow an award on you I would, I have really truely appreciated and learned a lot from your comprehensive constructive copyediting notes. I can't say thank-you enough. :)--Mfreud (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • I will also be keeping an eye on the page for vandalism but I appreciate that you will keep an eye on it! I don't think Icould bear letting this page fall into the hands of vandals! After so much work!! Thanks again, --Mfreud (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peterloo Massacre

As might be obvious, this is a subject close to my heart. Pass or fail its current FAC, I've got no doubt that you've significantly improved it with your constructive comments and helpful copyedits, for which I really want to thank you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've done very little - it is a very good article. I see no reason why it won't pass. I'm so happy you and the other project members worked on it. I was so excited to a see an event from the "long eighteenth century" up for FAC! Awadewit (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and congrats!

First, thank you again so much for all your work mentoring and editing and helping out with El Señor Presidente. You really did a marvellous job!

And let me also congratulate you, amid the hullaballoo, also for the excellent Priestley Riots, which I very much enjoyed reading and learning about. Congratulations! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks! With regards to Priestley Riots, I know that you had substantial concerns about its coherence. Would you mind rereading it and seeing if it has improved yet? We didn't get to finish improving it. This sometimes happens with FAC. I am more interested in quality articles than the star, so I keep working on articles even after the FAC process is over. If you could leave any further comments on the talk page, I would appreciate it. Your comments were very helpful. Awadewit (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for April 7th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 15 7 April 2008 About the Signpost
April Fools' pranks result in temporary blocks for six admins WikiWorld: "Apples and oranges" 
News and notes: 100 x 5,000, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Reviewers achieving excellence Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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) 15:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response of sorts

Sounds intriguing. Count me in. I take it this will be done in slow time? Work (and various work on the flat) does tend to intrude otherwise. 4u1e (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your message at the Simpsons project page. I'd be happy to participate. Zagalejo^^^ 19:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wadewitz&oldid=204803314"