Jump to content

User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

Missed your comment

Hi Awadewit. Really sorry, but I missed your comment in the ToaT FAR. I just saw it now after someone answered your question. Dmoon1 recommended a book concerning the period of the Restoration, but I believe you were asking about genealogy of the various sects mentioned? Most stuff I learned from a History of Christianity course I took when I was in university. I'll try to find my notes and books. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

On another topic, I was going to ask you about this peer review, but seeing your note above, no problem, I will find someone else. I know you are going through a busy time now. In my case, the physics research and the thesis defence was easy. It was the part in between, the writing, that was the hard part! I hope you might be able to come back to reviewing other topics in the summer? --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I hope so, but I am not actually optimistic about that. I anticipate that I will only become more busy as the year progresses. I am going to try to go on the job market in the fall, which means that I will need to start putting my job materials together in the summer. I am also thinking about taking a trip to Egypt and Greece this summer (perhaps to Wikimania!). Awadewit | talk 14:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Candide

If you're not too busy, would you please (informally) review the progress I've made with Candide since your last GA review of it? What remains to be done with the article? Thanks. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You have it. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review of List of National Historic Landmarks in New York

Hi Awadewit -- I'm a long-time listener, first-time caller... :) I enjoyed watching development of Joseph Priestley House, and I now see also you are to be credited for the Mary Wollstonecraft featured article the other day, which was a nice change of pace as feature, I thought.  :)

Your input is invited. I've gone ahead and asked for peer review on the List of National Historic Landmarks in New York list, including the List of National Historic Landmarks in New York City (hopefully to be considered by the peer reviewers as well). Open at Wikipedia:Peer review#List of National Historic Landmarks in New York. By the way, Steepletop, aka Edna St. Vincent Millay House is one of 9 author homes on that list, not sure if she is among the women writers you have interest in. Sincerely, doncram (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I would love to help out, particularly as I used to live in NYC, but I'm afraid that I've had to restrict my reviewing activities as of late. Please see the banner above. I'm really very sorry! Awadewit | talk 14:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oliver Typewriter Company

I would certainly be greatly appreciative of any assistance – provided, of course, it does not impose upon you. I’d feel badly if the article were to draw your energies from pursuits more important to you. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 05:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Just give me a list of what you want and I'll be happy to get it for you. I go to the library quite often. :) Page numbers would be most appreciated, but if that is not possible, it would be helpful if you could provide the fact you want cited, so I could look up keywords in the index. Awadewit | talk 19:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I’m going to go through the article and minimize utilization of the sources about which Sandy is concerned. The curious thing is that the purportedly questionable sources are only needed in support of information regarding Oliver abroad (especially British Oliver). Frankly, I don’t think such information has ever been published, which is partly why the websites are so necessary. I can, unfortunately, only offer suggestions regarding books I suspect may have information.
  • Newcomen Society. Industrial Archaeology. (1966) Bratton Publishing Ltd (Great Britain)
  • Beeching, Wilfred A. Century of the Typewriter. (1990) British Typewriter Museum Publishing (Bournemouth, Dorset, England)
  • Rehr, Darryl: Antique Typewriters & Office Collectibles. (1997) Collector Books
Ultimately the facts that need citing are British Oliver production numbers, the date British Oliver became defunct and anything regarding models made for sale or licensed abroad. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I will be at the library in an hour, so I will look for these then. Awadewit | talk 21:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Barging in :-) Elcobbola, you can also consider Outriggr (talk · contribs), who may be able to cite anything Awadewit can't locate. Thanks, Awadewit, for the help when you're so busy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Ecce, quis custodiet ipsos custodes! ;) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I can’t thank you enough for looking up that information. I’m obviously out-classed by your research skills. Would you mind checking over the new information in the article to ensure I haven’t mischaracterized anything? (BTW: Wikipedia email routes to my German account, so I won't be able to get it until this evening.) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Literal-minded Helen ;)

Hey A,

Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this awakening of my partner-in-crime, this day when the Helleborus and Artic raspberries are emerging from the snow. He was very hard to wake up and motivate — so slothful! :( But now nothing shall stay our combined craft and guile from its appointed rounds, even if diametrically apposed. ;)

It was fun and didn't take long. I did it listening to a great album of Celtic jigs, which kept me smiling the whole time — well, that wasn't the only reason. ;) Willow (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your lovely letter, A, but can I change my wish? Instead, if you're inclined, please go the extra mile to help a promising young student who really wants to learn, but who might be a little shy and insecure? Surely you must have such a student, or will one of these days. Je le saurai, sans doute; je sentirai tes bontés comme si j'étais versé avec les pétales roses. I think that would make me happier instead. :) Willow (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fight Club

Hello, I hope you remember me from our conversation about films and themes. One of my primary contributions, Fight Club, has been nominated by someone else for the FAC process. However, there is a theme-related issue; I have a subpage of resources that I've hoped to develop into a sub-article about the unintended themes of the film, since the article only has intended themes. I'm not asking you to comment on the FAC process, though -- since you helped open my eyes a bit in terms of films and themes, I was hoping to get some advice about the "completeness" of this article. I have a couple of comments at the FAC process page in regard to this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • How can I resist such a request! (I was trying to restrict my reviewing, as I am trying to finish my dissertation - see banner at top of page.) If you don't mind waiting a few days, I'll take some time to read the article, write up some notes, and drop them off at your talk page. How does that sound? Awadewit | talk 03:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't want to burden you with non-theme considerations! :) You don't have to expend that much effort toward the article; I just wanted to seek advice about the handling of intended/unintended themes in this regard. I'm somewhat learning toward opposing it for the moment (after all, I've avoided nomination for this reason), but the quality of the article has been brought up a few times in the past. I suppose there is a bit of pride involved, to bring this article from the depths of hell, but I also keep thinking of the FA mantra -- the best Wikipedia has to offer. Please feel free to take whatever action you please! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for weighing in. :) I've decided to oppose the FAC process for now based on the amount of work available to do, and hopefully this nomination will instigate an effort on my part to take the subpage and do something with it. I don't want to burden you when you're preoccupied with your dissertation, but I appreciate you taking the time to share your $0.02. I'll have to see about digesting these studies now; do you have any general tips about how to read criticism with better ease? There's sentences like: Fight Club is constructed along a line of flight in the Deleuzian sense. Its lines of flight are attempts to escape segmentarity, be it molar or molecular, to disorganize the social bond. It's hard for me to tell if that's something to be figured out or something that's outside the encyclopedic intent of the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Sheesh. That sentence is referencing the works of Deleuze. I would not recommend rushing out and trying to read his works, however. They are quite confusing. Have you ever taken a literary theory class? If not, I recommend Terry Eagleton's Literary Theory: An Introduction. Any articles that look like the above, I will take off your hands. Some material we will simply not be able to explain concisely and, frankly, defies explanation of any kind. Once you become familiar with the jargon, it is easier to sort out what is useful for wikipedia articles from the rest. Why don't you make up a little list of the most difficult articles or the articles you don't have access to and post them here and I will work through them. I will post little summaries of them and quotations from them on your subpage. How does that sound? Awadewit | talk 14:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You have nothing Deleuze by ignoring his writing. Ha!
  • With regard to Boydell: I think it might be useful to condense the first section a bit (rather than having three sub-sections), but I don't think it's urgent. Maybe I'm biased though. I think in a sense, we in the 21st century are so used to seeing a ubiquitous and universally-revered Shakespeare that this background is crucial. But I wouldn't vote against paring it a bit. – Scartol • Tok 16:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
[pasting to Talk:Boydell Shakespeare Gallery. Awadewit | talk 19:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent for ease) I haven't taken a literary theory class before, unfortunately. I only have expertise with computers and business, which I don't pursue as a hobby on Wikipedia -- only film. I think that I should be able to access most, if not all, the resources on my subpage, and I'll try to tackle the ones that are for the faint of heart. :) I appreciate your offer to help, but I'm not going to rush into all this right away. (Too much going on this week to embark on a new wiki-endeavor.) I'm sure we'll be back on this topic sometime in the near future, though! :) I'll look into the book recommendation you gave. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Lisa Gerrard

I found today probably the finest vocal performance I've heard so far. I get a sence you would appreciate it, so here it is Ceoil (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Just thought you might be interested in this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Feminism Task Force --Grrrlriot (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fanny

Hi Awadewit - I took a quick look at Fanny Imlay and although I didn't see anything in the text specifically supporting the "Fanny Wollstonecraft" that you had in the first line as a name she used, I can see that it was her legal name and I see it in one of the references. You do make the point that she was known as Fanny Godwin after she was "unofficially" adopted, so I think the way I tweaked the first line is the best you can do. It's a tricky situation, and MOS doesn't cover every eventuality - I don't know if others will agree, but I think the best thing to do is to spell out that Wollstonecraft was her legal name and Godwin another name she was known as - assuming that Imlay is indeed the most commonly used name. Hope this helps. Tvoz |talk 06:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Offline question about MLA

Hey there. First of all, thanks for your extremely valuable input at the Randall Flagg FAC. I have a question about MLA searches I thought you might answer since you seem knowledgeable in the subject. I have been searching by filling the "Author Subject" parameter with "Stephen King" and then narrowing the search to articles that mention "Flagg" in the text anywhere. Does this seems like a good strategy? I guess it's not, since I keep coming up with just the one article. I could remove the Flagg search, but then it seems like I would get articles that don't mention him. Maybe I need to talk to my librarian, but they are a surly lot at my location. --Laser brain (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Sadly, the MLA search function is terrible. That strategy will not help you much unless you are searching for two very popular things (e.g. "Charles Dickens" and "A Tale of Two Cities"). Also, it will only retrieve records that have those words in the record somewhere (e.g. in the title, subject, keyword, etc.) Since "Randall Flagg" is not a keyword, such a targeted search will not bring much up. You are going to have search the old-fashioned way - you are going to have to look through all 200+ articles about "Stephen King" and guess which ones might be relevant to Randall Flagg, get them from the library, and skim them. It is extremely tedious but will ultimately provide you with more information. You will pick up little bits and pieces about Flagg here and there. I might also mention that if you do this long enough, you develop a knack for figuring out which articles and books will probably be helpful. Awadewit | talk 15:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On February 14, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henry Howard (artist), 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.

Great work again Awadewit and another pictured slot. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On 14 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Julius Caesar Ibbetson , 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.

--Well done ... I see you got the credit for the pictured slot above :) (It was me who added the pic and put it in the no 1 slot!) Victuallers (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 7 11 February 2008 About the Signpost
Petition seeks to remove images of Muhammad Foundation's FY2007 audit released 
Vatican claims out-of-context Wikipedia quote was used to attack Pope Best of WikiWorld: "W" 
News and notes: Working group, Wik-iPhone, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Tutorial: Basic dispute resolution Dispatches: Great saves at Featured article review 
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) 08:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for peerreview: Nahuatl

Hello Hi Awadewit, if you have the time I think the article on Nahuatl which I have nominated for a pre-FA peerreview might be right up your ballpark. I would certainly appreciate any comments and suggestions you have that might lead me to improve the content, style and grammar of the article. Thanks beforehand. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I am sorry to have bothered you. I didn't notice your banners. Good luck with the dissertation!·Maunus· ·ƛ· 20:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

2000 mockingbirds

So, there's this novel that might make a nice Featured Article? I know you're super-busy, I wouldn't want you to get into any trouble over it, I realize that you've already reviewed it, and I've yet to absorb your comments there......but maybe I could engage you for another review in a week or so? I'm sure that your comments would mercifully prevent an acute attack of coulrophobia and bring everyone's labours to a happy ending. :)

Oh, I'm given to understand that a tasty pastry should be arriving at your doorstep tomorrow or on Monday. It's kind of blueberry — you know, like Violet Beauregarde? The skin is a little puckered, but I'm afraid there's no hope for that; I did the best I could. :( Bon appetit et bonne chance! :) Willow (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • TKaM falls under "major literary works", I think! I have to do Candide first, but after that I will review it. Should I put my comments on the talk page? (Thanks so much for helping me out, by the way!) Awadewit | talk 23:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Cheers to both of you for helping out with TKaM. It's coming along nicely but of course I've been so close to it for a while now that it needs fresh eyes. Thanks. – Scartol • Tok 03:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

FTF

Hello, Awadewit! :) Thanks for joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Feminism Task Force. Are you good at making templates or userboxes? I need someone on the force to make some templates and userboxes for the task force's use. If you are good at this sort of thing, Please let me know on my talk page or on the FTF talk page. Thanks!--Grrrlriot (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Award

The Barnstar of Diligence
For braving the respective dangers of paper cuts and utmost tedium to uncover obscure and esoteric information on the Oliver Typewriter Company, I award you, somewhat ironically, with something pointy. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Duets

Hi A,

I think we are already playing duets, although the prospect of teaching you to knit is dearer still. :) I'll miss you awfully while you're gone, but as all your friends have said before, we want you to leave, to go where you're needed and do what will make you happy. :) My little stowaway didn't take flight this time, but I think he's biding his time to wing his way thither on another, happier day. :)

I'm a little melancholy today, because I buried a dear friend — my Christmas tree. :( I chose him from the forest, and wept as I cut him down, since I hate to take life. But I brought him home to share my life for a few months, garlanded him beautifully, tended to him and sat with him every day. But even I couldn't keep him alive indefinitely, and today I had to realize that his spirit had fled. I gently disrobed him of his glories, stripped him of his needles, and laid his remains in my garden, his needles wreathing my blueberry bushes. That way, we'll always be together and I'll taste him next June; but I wept again, thinking how brief every life is. I go through this every February. :P It's sad but also comforting to know that all of us will sleep together in the sweet earth.

On a more cheerful note, I can tell that Spring is coming. Something in the air has changed. Admittedly, I first noticed it as I broke the ice from atop one of my compost bins, but it was the way that the ice broke away that told me the world is waking up again.

Oh, if my ambassador doesn't show up by Tuesday, please let me know. You'll want a stick to deal with him, but be gentle as you beat the stuffing into him. ;) Thanks so much for volunteering again for TKaM, we'll try to make it as perfect as we can before calling you in from Mt. Parnassus. :) Willow (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I will try to get to TKaM as soon as possible, but it would seem that there is a flu outbreak here and I have caught it. I spent all weekend eating/drinking soup and attempting to sleep. It has not been a pleasant past few days. However, I did get to have a Star Trek: DS9 marathon. :) What about Dax as your heroine? Awadewit | talk 18:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Poor you! :P I hope someone is treating you right, that you're sleeping well and on the mend. When I have the flu, I drink lots of tea with honey? Ordinarily, Darjeeling is my favorite tea when drunk alone; but with that much honey, any tea except Lapsang souchong will taste as good. :) I keep thinking of taking up bee-keeping, because I love honey and could use the wax, not to mention the extra pollination for the garden. There's also a really nice woman in the next village who offered to help me get started as well. But I've been slow about it; it would take time, I get lots of bees in my garden anyway, and I'm a little worried that I wouldn't be able to keep them alive. I'm not sure if you know, but the recent years haven't been kind to honey-bees, at least from what I'm given to understand, and hives can be fragile.

Please don't worry about TKaM! I haven't worked on it lately, but Moni and friends have been busy. I'll probably drop in tonight and see if I can help somehow. I'll confess, I'd feel a little anxious if you dropped in before the article was ready.

I'm so glad that you're still thinking of my heroine! :) Dax would indeed be excellent, although I was kind of hoping for someone more human, more earthy. I thought of another, who just might be the person I was trying to think of, the super-competent character I thought I had seen in a book or a movie: Pippi Longstocking! :) Admittedly, she's not a suave fashion model with genius-caliber scientific/engineering training and she's not even an adult, really. But consider: she's incredible strong and clever, good-hearted and loyal, and it's probably not a coincidence that things always turn out as she wants them to. :) A good person to have on a team, don't you think? I at least hope that I made you laugh in your sickbed. :) Get well again soon, and reassure me on my little bird when you're recovered, Willow (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. Catullus 2 and 3 were discussed on NPR for Valentine's Day! :) WillowW (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The thing with feathers, redux

The nun of Amherst is finally up for FAC, and I thanked you in my Oscar speech. :) If you can tear yourself away from your busy bee-ness, a look-in would be much appreciated. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 17:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This FAC has made me feel incredibly dense and slow, so I'm glad I have Roger -- you know, to decipher all the big words and stuff. I wrote a short, very rough intro to the Publication section, trying to keep the major points in mind so as to give a brief overview for what is to come. Is that kind of what you had in mind? If not, please feel free to write something up yourself if you have the time or inclination, or we could always wait until later to discuss it; there's no rush and it looks like the article will pass FAC soon. :) I hope you feel better! There's a stomach bug going around our library and I'm trying so hard not to get it. Universities are nasty that way. María (habla conmigo) 17:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The article is wonderful - don't worry! The introduction is exactly what I was thinking of. I tweaked it a bit - hope you don't mind. Awadewit | talk 02:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course I don't mind! Thanks so much for the tweaking, your extensive reviewing and your support, of course; Emily is now Featured. :) María (habla conmigo) 02:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the barnstar and pome :) You were right about the themes: it was at the back of my mind for ages but remained Something To Do Later Insh' Allah (which means "mañana" but without the sense of urgency). --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I felt so guilty even mentioning it since the rest of the article was so excellent. I hope neither of you are offended! Awadewit | talk 03:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Speaking for both Roger and myself, absolutely not! We both knew that that section in particular was the weakest point, and although we had considered writing something prior to the FAC, we ultimately put it on the back burner. That both you and qp10qp suggested further coverage was what was needed gave the article a much needed nudge in the right direction. So thanks. :) María (habla conmigo) 00:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I know its hard to bring things forward to the front burner, so thanks for doing it! Awadewit | talk 00:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

SGGK again

I've finished going through all of your notes. Wrad (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I nominated Milton Friedman for a FAC and you were recommended as a notable article reviewer. If you have a chance, could you take a look at the article and make any comments at the FAC page at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Milton Friedman? Thanks! Gary King (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid that I don't have time at the moment to review Milton Friedman, although I wish I did - he is a very important figure. Have you asked Bwark? S/he has just written an article on Harold Innis which is also at FAC at the moment. Perhaps you two could help each other out, since you are both writing academic biography articles? Awadewit | talk 02:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Whilst

There is nothing archaic about "whilst", though it may not be AE. What is this "[a]s ..." stuff? Not standard surely? Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • "Whilst" is listed as archaic by the Oxford English Dictionary. The last quote they have is from around 1900. The word is frequently changed by editors, both BE-speakers and AE-speakers, to "while" in articles here.
  • "[a]s" represents a change to the quotation - there was a capital letter in the middle of the sentence and I changed it to a lowercase letter. Since the quotation was altered, I indicated that by the brackets, as you would any other change to a quotation. Awadewit | talk 20:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The last quote the OED has for almost everything is about 1900 or earlier. I can't be bothered to look up the online one, but a modern COD just says it is "esp. British", as does WSU, whoever they are [1]. I must say I feel the same way about you "as" change. Johnbod (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This may interest you

... and other belles-lettristes who visit these pages.

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Centuries and millennia

--ROGER DAVIES talk 09:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

English/British

Sorry, but before you make such edits and reverts you should understand the terminology you are trying to use. I have noted that you have changed most of these English descriptions to British and created articles describing English people as British, but articles on people from Scotland as Scottish. There is a major flaw there, which you don't appear to see. English, Scottish and Welsh people are all British - not just English. British isn't another word for English. To single out English people is wrong, and you are essentially removing information from the articles. Also, in regard to to the era most of these people are from, they wouldn't have even referred to themselves as British, regardless to the act of union in 1707. I also believe there is a conensus on wikipedia to use the English/Scots/Welsh descriptions if it is known if they were English/Scots/Welsh as they are far more informative. I would appreciate it if you would revert the edits back.

172.141.205.144 (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Against it. Leads to endless heir-splitting. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I only reverted the ones that are best described as "British" because they lived in several parts of the British empire (England and Scotland, for example) and therefore describing them as "English" is incorrect, etc. There was a reason for each change, I assure you. Thanks for your concern. Awadewit | talk 19:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. They are ALL unarguably English. You changed to British because you believe that to be the correct term for people from England. Describing them as English was completely correct - if there was any reference to Scottishness or Welshness, British would be fine - but this was not present in any of the articles. Roger Davies - it certainly doesn't lead to endless hair splitting. All the Scottish artists are described as such, and there are editors going around changing English descriptions to British because they don't understand the terminology. You are also ignoring wiki concensus. I would appreciate it if you would revert the edits back.

172.206.212.62 (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have used the terminology that I believe to be the most precise and I do indeed understand the distinctions. However, not everyone agrees on how the terms should be used. We should discuss this on the talk page of each article. To give two examples, Henry Howard (artist) was most active during the early nineteenth century, after the 1800 Act of Union, which is one reason why I think "British" is more appropriate for him. Julius Caesar Ibbetson's extensive travels to China, Wales, and the Isle of Wight, where he produced important artistic works, convinced me that "British" was the best appellation for him. It is not always easy to choose a nationality for artists and writers, particularly when they spent time abroad. If you want to change these, please discuss them on the talk pages of the articles - that is where consensus is built. Awadewit | talk 22:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I am alarmed to find I might cease to be English by visiting these places! The Isle of Wight is unequivocably part of England, btw. Johnbod (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod, did you also paint pictures that subsequently became part of a British national tradition? Let's not create strawmen. Awadewit | talk 03:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think you just did, didn't you? Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I was not representing your position, so I could not have been presenting a strawman argument. This discussion is not really going anywhere. We should just discuss individual cases on article talk pages. Awadewit | talk 04:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

oops

you're right i did have the wrong person, his user name is similar. mea culpla EraserGirl (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you must have the wrong person. I have no idea what you're talking about. Awadewit | talk 22:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wadewitz/Archive_24&oldid=1139042053"