User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flag of Singapore

I addressed your concerns, just to let you know. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Revisited. Awadewit (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

And I issued responses. About the naval flags, I included the laws on how they are constructed. I am not certain about the minor details, but I am not sure when I can have someone visit the National Library to make scans of the Construction sheets. I also removed the British flag, since I am not certain on where this information was obtained from. Brittanica has an article where it mentions the one crown flag, but doesn't cite a book. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The ISBN number for the Singapore flag kit is 8880968010. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I decided to remove the problem images, since I cannot obtain official construction sheets. This MINDEF lists what colors are used on what flag, but I am not certain about exact shades and things like that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

FAC is over, but you are still welcome to talk with me on my user talk page to discuss the issue. Honestly, this new FAC 3 requirement is going to change on how I work on flag related articles. But honestly, I think whatever insight that you have on this flag images issue would help improve all flag articles honestly. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for Copy Edit

Hello!

I'd like to thank you for the time you have taken to comment on the Article Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II). I will certainly respond to each on the FAC review page. I had requested a copy edit from an independent editor on Milhist Copy Edit. Yet there are comments from several reviewers on the prose. So Can I politely ask for a Copy Edit on this article for prose ? I am making this request only because you have mentioned on your page that you may take specific Copy-Edit Requests. Please let me know if that's not the case. I'd really appreciate if you could spare the time. Thanks once again. Perseus71 (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The Beautiful Singing of Caged Birds

Hey there, A. Long time no talk. Hope you're well. I've been working with Figureskatingfan on the article for I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. (I think you were contacted about it awhile back.) We're getting close to FACland, I think, and we'd be honored to have your thoughts on it. The structure and research are really solid, so the main things now are checking for consistency (especially with names, which I can explain later) and prose refinement. If you're able, just lemme know and we'll get to it. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 01:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. I thought of you when I read this cartoon about Ada Lovelace. (You still planning to work on her?) Scartol • Tok 12:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Frankenstein

Hi there. I am back on WP but I'm no longer sure I can devote the time to working on Frankenstein. It sure would be nice to get done, though. --Laser brain (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Awadewit (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Jack Kemp

Sandy wants an image review at the Jack Kemp FAC. Can you take a look please?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I see someone else has. Awadewit (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Mea maxima culpa

I'm so sorry to make a stupid error after all the careful work you've put in. I've tried to fix it, but not sure if I've got it right. Let me know, and if necessary I'll withdraw from FAC for a while to fix this jimfbleak (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Some stuff is still missing. I suppose I can start over on the copyediting, but not for a few days. Awadewit (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 2	10 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: December themed Main Page	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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 18:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

BF and CB

Hey there, A. I know you're MegaBusy, but I've done some work (and replied) pursuant to your image concerns at the Barton Fink FAC. When you have a minute, you can have a look. Also, do you think you'll have some time at any point to look at Caged Bird? (If not, we understand; we'll drag someone else in. But it would be best to have the best.) Cheers! Scartol • Tok 17:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. I'm willing to consider re-adding the disputed screenshots from Barton Fink, pursuant to the discussion (if it ever happens) at the FAC and/or article talk page. However, given that the images in question have been removed from the article for now, does your objection to the FAC still stand? (I'm getting nervous about what Sandy sees when she checks in on it.) Scartol • Tok 12:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Image check

I don't THINK I already asked you this, but could you double check the images on Nigel (Bishop of Ely)? I think he's just about ready for FAC. If I already asked, whap me with a trout... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Awadewit (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I fixed it. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly the smallest copyedit request you'll ever get.

Hey Awadewit, after a long discussion at Talk:Noah's Ark a new introduction is being worked on. For now the focus is on the first couple of sentences, but I'd like to get a pro copyeditor to take a quick look at just the first sentence. Is this

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel featuring in the mythologies of Abrahamic religions, as related in the Hebrew Bible (Book of Genesis chapters 6 through 9) and the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71).

ok? I'm hopeless at English, but I get the feeling the comma is in the wrong place. If you need to get a feel for what will (likely) come after that sentence, you can check the very last section of the talk page I mentioned above. Cheers, Ben (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at the talk page. It seems that this is one of the instances in which collaboration may actually harm the writing. To me, this sentence sounds hopelessly convoluted. But that is why I stay away from controversial articles. The prose grates on me. :) Awadewit (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Little, Big

• It occurred to me that if you liked Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, you might like Little, Big: or, The Fairies' Parliament by John Crowley as well.
• Best regards Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've added it to my amazon.com wish list. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Janet Jackson & Justin Timberlake's wardrobe malfunction.jpg

Hi, I am not certain over the purpose of use for this image (for Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy). It seems to be primarily a description of the picture with a claim to notability ("The incident is of notability as the most searched for news item in internet history." does not appear in the Super Bowl article as well)... I understand that this image is to identify the incident, but am curious why should it be this particular media image, why not others like the one taken at the instant Jackson's breast was exposed with the nipple shield (this), or the one directly after her exposure (this or this) in which the reactions seems more relevant to the moment? Would that not be of more direct relevance? I would like to hear your opinion on this rationale and any suggestions to improve it. Jappalang (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've weighed in - it seems like focusing on the sources might be the best way to go here. Awadewit (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Prose review

It seems that most of your review work is now images-related, a noble, necssary and usually thankless task. Are you doing general reviewing at all? The reason I ask is that I have just sent Mozart in Italy to peer review. It is an article that is crying out for the sort of review you gave a few months ago to its companion-piece Mozart family Grand Tour. If it is possible for you to find time to look at this, it would be much appreciated (the images probably need checking out, too). Brianboulton (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Awadewit (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Governors of Bombay

Someone told me to contact you for Image issues. Kensplanet^T_C 07:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I see someone has already done this. Awadewit (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 3	17 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology
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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Images - Dreadnought

Hi Awadewit, would you mind checking over the images on Dreadnought (currently on an A-class review and will soon be coming to FAC). I'm pretty confident that all the images are OK in copyright terms, but I'm not sure all of them have the right information on their images pages, and don't really understand what they need. Many thanks, The Land (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Awadewit (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Have mainly responded at Talk:Dreadnought. Re the Japanese ships, the original uploader has pointed out that Japanese copyright law says that anything published before 1956, or created before 1946 and not published for 10 years, is PD. Both ships were at the bottom of the sea by 1946, so presumably if either photo was ever covered by Japanese copyright law, we can be sure they are PD? The Land (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Image question

I was thinking of bringing back this image now that a blockquote has been removed. The original date is unknown, but would the fact that it is attributed to the Flemish school be sufficient to use PD-old? Many thanks, by the way, with your copyedit. I just wish I can write better the *first* time. I guess I have to keep practising. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I have added "15th and 16th centuries" to the section that says "Flemish school". Awadewit (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

review of Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos

Hi Awadewit, I noticed your name on Wikipedia:Peer_review/volunteers#History. Would you mind to have a look over the history part (or more) of Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos and let me know what you think. I am trying to get it up to good article quality but would need some feedback. cheers! bamse (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have time for this at the moment - sorry! Awadewit (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. bamse (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings

Awadewit, thanks for your recent copyedit of this article, I really appreciate it. Scartol has also worked on it with me. It's almost time to submit it for FAC; my goal is for it to pass in time for the 40th anniversary of the publication of the book, which is this year. So we're on track, thanks to you guys' help. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I was planning to finish the copyedit this weekend and drop a review on the talk page. Awadewit (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 4	24 January 2009	About the Signpost

Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions	Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more	Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates	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.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by 03:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC) at §hepBot (Disable)

Thanks for the feedback

...on this. I believe all of your concerns have been addressed. If there is anything we missed, please let us know! Thanks! — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Responded. Awadewit (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

3 of the 4 remaining pictures have been replaced. The remaining picture's concerns have been addressed. Your strikethrough/further comment/support would be greatly appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Your concerns have been addressed. Please strike/continue discussion as you see fit. Thanks for the feedback. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Image check

Hey, I know you're prolly busy with FACs and other stuff and whatnot, but before I take Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country to FAC after we've eliminated the backlog I'd like your opinion on the images. If you could review them and leave a note on the talk page, that would be great; if you can't I understand. Thanks, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Awadewit (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've responded on the talk page, and offered up some alternative links to photos which might be used to swap out or make an aspect clear (if for whatever reason clicking the link doesn't work you might have to cut and paste into the browser.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

One final clarification, did you prefer the currently uploaded Klingon blood shot or the one I linked to? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The uploaded Klingon blood shot. Awadewit (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Okey dokey, thanks very much for your counsel. If you need any help on something you're working on, just give me a call. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Swimming

Hi Awadewit, I'd be pleased if you gave it another look. I don't speak for Raul or JNW but we seem to be slowing down over there, I know that I have. Thanks..Modernist (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked Tony1 to respond to her comment. (Presumably he's finished.) Raul654 (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears to have been promoted already. Awadewit (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Recordings of episodes of "Flywheel"

Hi Awadewit. The three known recordings of Flywheel, Shyster, and Flywheel, a five-minute excerpt of Episode 24, a fifteen-minute recording of Episode 25, and a full 30 minute Episode 26. Are these the ones you're referring to are at the Marx Brother website in Real Audio format. I simply haven't gotten around to streaming and recording them yet. Also, http://www.archive.org/details/otr_flywheelshysterflywheel has the BBC versions, but as these are from 1991, I am unsure if they are PD or not. The material is PD, as the copyrights were never renewed, but the recordings are probably still owned by the BBC. If that is true, I just can't understand why they allow them at The Internet Archive. Do you think they might be PD as well? Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh - The Internet Archive page has the 3 original clips, too. I am downloading and converting to .ogg right now. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Awadewit (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've uploaded both files to File:Flywheel, episode 25, second half.ogg and File:Flywheel episode 26.ogg and added them to the article. I haven't done the transcribing yet. What do you think of the quality? Would they still have a chance at FSC? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the quality is less important for historical recordings and these would certainly count as historical. Awadewit (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The Swimming Hole

Well done; I enjoyed reading it! Tony (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Request

Could you do me a favor and possible "borrow" and upload the frontispieces and title pages to Henry Fielding's plays (from the Eighteenth Century website, you know which one :) )? The originals of those were just a -tad- out of my price range as were some other editions before the 19th century, so all I have are facsimiles of later editions for "educational" use. :) This lists the ones that I am aiming for right now. If you don't have the time, I will go and fork over the money to renew my access. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. You can watch them come in here. There don't seem to be frontispieces per se. The title pages are followed directly by prefaces, dramatis personnae, or the text of the play, nor are they preceded by anything. Awadewit (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's fine. Hogarth created a few Frontispieces (including The Tragedy of Tragedies 1731 first edition). However, -they- are the really hard to find editions. :) If you want, I can add you to the inevitable 15 part DYK nom along with the two others I am working with on this. I am about 60% done with the bulk information, then I am working with others to create leads for each page and summaries for the early plays page. I am forgoing detailed play summaries for now. Thanks so much for the help. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I may be able to scan the frontispiece to The Tragedy of Tragedies (Hogarth's design) though I suspect it will be awkward to do without damaging the book. I'll have a go tomorrow. Offhand, I can't think of any others that Hogarth did, but it's late so I may not be firing on all cylinders. Yomangani^talk 01:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I found that frontispiece, but no others. Awadewit (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Found it and copied it, or just saw it? I didn't get to it today anyway. Yomangani^talk 18:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Found it and copied it. Awadewit (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Awadewit (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

FAC image question

I had some problems updating images in the 2008 ACC Championship Game FAC. The images are uploaded both on Wikipedia and on Wikimedia Commons under the same name ... how do I get the links on the page to connect to the Wikimedia images rather than the Wikipedia ones? JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a break from FAC and images for the moment. Awadewit (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Request regarding Napoleon article

Hi Awadewit, i noticed you've done a massive amount of good work including on biographies in the Napoleonic period. I'm trying to learn from past experiences and work more collaboratively, including discussion with editors working in this area. i've worked the article up since last June including more modern citations, better presentation and put it through peer review last September. Appreciate you're busy, but grateful for any suggestions on improvement Talk:Napoleon_I_of_France#What_do_we_have_to_do_to_get_this_to_featured_level.3F. Tom B (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have time for this right now - it is such an enormous task! Awadewit (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

On the literary treatment of spirits...

Dear Awadewit, I had a hankering to spruce up ghost in the manner of vampire, which occupied me for much of 2007. One thing I would really appreciate is some commentary of the use of ghosts in literature (eg in Shakespeare, Dickens, Wilde, as messengers/ etc.) Would you have anything to add? This is one of my weak points. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an enormous topic - I notice that you have only listed British authors. Is there a reason for that? Frankly, I would only be able to direct you to specific works or authors or styles like Gothic fiction. I don't know much about "ghosts in literature" as a topic. I would start with books like The Haunted Screen and work outward from there, relying on their bibliographies to guide you. However, there are going to be leaps you are going to have to make yourself, between centuries and cultures. It seems to me ghosts would be extremely important in African literature, for example, but I know next to nothing about that. Sorry I can't be more helpful. Have you just browsed through the library stacks yet in the relevant sections? That is going to help a lot for an article like this. Awadewit (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Fred Moosally image

The new image is in place [1]. Cla68 (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Revisited. Awadewit (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biology Request

Do you still copy-edit? My recent lurking expeditions reveal that you are doing more image reviews, but I'll ask anyway...

To be quite blunt about it, could you take a look at the Banker horse article? Your name has been recommended by 545397483979123 people (Trust me; I counted.)and your work on the Intro to Evolution article caught errors I didn't even know existed! The Banker horse article probably has errors that go unnoticed by me but would make an English teacher's eyes bleed. And we don't want that now do we?!?!?! Haha. No pressure. --Yohmom (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to look at it this weekend. Awadewit (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you haven't looked at it yet, don't worry about it; a few other editors took a look at it and I now have plenty to work on! I can see you are super busy and probably have bigger fish to fry. However, if you ever get bored (I doubt it!) then feel free to waltz on over. :) --Yohmom (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I finally got around to it today. Awadewit (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The Wanderer

I have both Doody's biography and the CC to Burney (plus some minor works referring to the novel) if you need any information to expand the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have those, too. I was just going to create a little article for now - you know, a placeholder stub. There should be something there. Awadewit (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same thing for a long time. I've been trying to fill in the blanks as much as possible. Its amazing to see how many major works by very famous writers are completely ignored. After I finish up the first set of Fielding plays, I will start filling in the information for Leigh Hunt and William Harrison Ainsworth, two who are almost non-existent here. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Indestructible (Disturbed album) song sample

I am continuing the discussion we started previously, as the FAC has been closed. Your last reply was: "If there is no "critical commentary" available to describe the differences, we cannot justify inclusion of the audio clips, especially since the differences are as minimal as you say. Note that WP:NFC states "Music clips may be used to identify a musical style, group, or iconic piece of music when accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary and attributed to the copyright holder." - We need commentary in the article if we are going to have the clips. Awadewit (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)"

Well, I may have some critical commentary to describe these two songs, stylistically. The band states in the "Making of Indestructible" DVD documentary that these two songs were made specifically for the fans, etc, etc. Up to there is already in the article. Well, since there is an entire chapter on the documentary devoted only to these two songs, this can obviously be expanded, especially for "Perfect Insanity", and only slightly for "Divide". I just had a question regarding the song "Divide" (I already know I have enough coverage for "Perfect Insanity", it being a single from the album). There's very little about it, specifically, on this DVD. The band members mention it in passing, but a few things specifically stood out to me. Regarding both of these two songs generally, the band members were stating how these songs forced themselves to look back and see the evolution of their sound. I'm describing kind of badly, but they're basically comparing the versions of the song then, to the modern versions, saying that it forced them to see how far they've advanced, musically. I was wondering if this is substantial commentary to justify the clips. --The Guy _complain ^edits 01:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like it might be - it is interesting to me, anyway, that it is the band members saying it. Do they say how they have advanced musically? That would be even better. Awadewit (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Mozart: thanks

Thank you for your support and help in getting Mozart in Italy to Featured status. I appreciate your help in the effort to expand the encyclopeadia's featured classical music content. My next music project, for later this year, is likely to be List of operas by Richard Wagner, including not only those we know all about, but his many aborted projects, too. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

West 8

Thanks for your work on DYK's and your comment on my DYK and notification on my page. I have modified the hook and the article to reflect that West 8 was part of the team that won the contest to carry out the project. It's still a big deal I think (A New York Sun article I just put on the talk page until I have time to add it says it is a $400 million dollar project) in New York City. I also added a couple alternate hooks and a creative common photo from Flikr if someone will upload it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Dickens DYK

Hi there. Actually, Dickens had an interest in the supernatural, hence the fact so many of his 'Christmas Books' were ghost stories, including A Christmas Carol, The Railway Man, etc. The strangeness of the 'prophesy' concerning Sydney's death was also commented on by Peter Ackroyd in his 1990 'Dickens' biography. However, if you want to put up an alternative DYK with mine please feel free to do so. Jack1956 (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

He did have an interest in the supernatural, but it was most often in debunking it. Awadewit (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to but in, but I would agree with Awadewit. If you look at novels like Bleakhouse, he clearly incorporates some of the psychological spectres of a work like Jane Eyre but removes all supernatural. Ghosts are used as a comic device or for fun, but nothing more. Also, "spectre" doesn't necessitate ghost or supernatural at all. It could be used as a way to hint at health concerns, at quietness, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The ghost in The Railway Man is not used for fun or as a comic device, or to hint at health or anything else. It is a terrifying and prophetic ghost which foretells the death of the railway man. The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come in A Christmas Carol is similarly portrayed as frightening and enigmatic. Jack1956 (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean "The Signalman" by chance? There is no "The Railway Man". There is a ghost in "The Signalman" but it is representative and metaphorical, just as in "A Christmas Carol". You can read about it here. It is one of his psychological portrayals. But he did not indulge in the super natural nor think it real. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Yes, I did mean The Signalman! I don't know where I got 'Railwayman' from. Jack1956 (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Messaline synopsis

Sorry about the copywright. I totally thought I had reworded it but I guess I got distracted. Give me a few minutes and I will substantially rewrite it. Thanks.Nrswanson (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a thing

Cheers for nomming HT for TFA. Much appreciated. And now I'll ask you one more time: Will you have a chance anytime soon to review I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings? If not, we'll find another person for the last pass. (But it would be best to have the best.) Scartol • Tok 11:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I knew it! I knew you were making all kinds of crazy long notes and when I asked if you had a chance to look you were thinking "Oh, but I'll have these notes done soon and it'll just be better to give the notes all together instead of some silly halfway report so I'll just not respond at all until I'm all done" and then it was like a month later and we hadn't heard anything and we assumed you were just too cool to work on Maya Angelou articles so we asked other people but then you were all "OH WAIT here ya go it's all done now!"

Uhh, what I mean is: Thanks for the review. We'll get to work on it directly. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 02:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope it was worth the wait. :) Awadewit (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but I was all worried when we didn't hear from you, like maybe you were thinking "Dude that Scartol kid is getting real annoying lately. Maybe if I ignore him he'll go away. He's not even working on literature articles anymore. Now he's doing weird movie pages. Next he'll be copyediting Simpsons articles." Scartol • Tok 12:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've moved into popular fiction with Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell (gasp). :) Awadewit (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for two of the plays in Tonight at 8:30

Hello. You questioned the source for the fact that four of the plays in Tonight at 8:30 were written and added to the play cycle afer its opening. I had cited this article from the Shaw Festival website that says "Compiled and written by Shaw Festival Corresponding Scholar Leonard Conolly". The Shaw Festival is a well-respected organization, known for its dramaturgy, and this source would have the same level of reliability as their program notes. There were contemporary reviews that noted this fact, but I don't think any of them are online. The Manchester Guardian 16 October, 1935, p. 11 shows that the play was not one of the original six performed. The NODANW summary of the plays shows that the two mentioned in the DYK hook were added later. Is there a better way to use these sources? Should I change the hook? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

See discussion at DYK. (In my opinion, it is best to use the most reliable source, whether it is online or not.) Awadewit (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

USMA FAC

Howdy. I believe that all of your WP:IUP concerns have been addressed on USMA's FAC page. Could I ask you to verify and strike concerns if that is the case? Thanks!  Ahodges7   ^talk 00:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A, I have no idea where Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States Military Academy stands; the FAC is a mess and may need a restart. Can you summarize the images anywhere ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I would prefer it if someone else finished up that image review. I have decided to take a break from FAC reviewing, partially because of that review. Awadewit (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(Un-indent) Awadewit, please accept my apologies for large number of WP:IUP issues and the resulting confrontational and exhausting back and forth that resulted. I'm terribly sorry for any stress that reviewing this article has caused you. I can only offer you the condolence that I am far more educated in IUP as a result. Thanks for your input and good luck in the future.  Ahodges7   ^talk 16:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to hear that, A :( I will read through to see what went wrong; when I peeked, it was such a jumble that I didn't try. Be well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I read some of the exchange based on this thread. I noticed that more than once the nominator invited Awadewit to find sourcing on the images herself. Certainly this would be fairly ballsy if these were questions about sources. I didn't see that Awadewit made the point that the article should be somewhat ready to go before it gets to FAC and it's the job of the nominator to overcome objections, not for the nominator to work to overcome her own objections. Maybe I didn't read down far enough (it really is a complex FAC). I realize since I've been a bit lost in writing my own article that I've been away from FAC recently, but why is this acceptable? Images, like sources and prose, should be of the highest quality before the article gets to FAC. --Moni3 (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I missed the rest of the FAC also, most of my sourcing concerns were addressed and I de-watched. I have to say I think this FAC was more than unusually stressful, and shows up the recent trend of treating FAC more like PR than FAC. I strive hard to bring my FACs to the page ready to go, and I wish more folks would do the same. I understand folks who are coming to FAC for the first time may not have a clear idea of what they need to do, but folks who have been at FAC a few times should have a better idea of what's needed and strive to show up ready. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally, I don't mind helping nominators out with images a bit - some of the policies are confusing. However, I felt that one of the two responders at USMA was not really trying to resolve the issues that I brought up but instead stonewalling. Because image reviewing often involves explaining the problem twice or three times, it is tiring. On the other end of the spectrum, I have noticed that many nominators just remove images with problems - they don't even attempt to fix them. This leaves the images for someone else to fix and reveals that the image choices made for the article were not carefully thought out. Each image should matter to the article and should be necessary. It should not be so easy to dispense with them. The entire situation has been dispiriting. Anyway, I needed to take a break before my frustration started to bleed into my reviews. :) Awadewit (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Images are hard. I know I find them frustrating, and I have more background in image copyright than most folks. I think there is just more frustration with images on Wikipedia than there are with sources, although I'll admit I've had my share of fun with source checks. There is just more of a culture on Wiki that fair use should be free form and that image policies don't matter much. Hopefully, I didn't tire you out too much (and hopefully I can keep pestering you for image issues?) But certainly, take a long break, and get back to writing (either for your RL stuff or just plain articles). I've certainly been happier since I cut back some of the source stuff I was doing and did more article writing. It's very easy to get sucked into doing way too much and neglecting the main point of the whole exercise, the writing of articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been worried that one or both of you would get a little fried ever since I noticed you were becoming the primary reviewers for images and sources respectively. FAC standards have risen, and you two are part of the reason for that, but unfortunately as standards rise the demands on reviewers increase without any necessary increase in the number of reviewers. That's a recipe for burnout. Anyway, Awadewit, I hope you enjoy your break. Mike Christie (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my concern as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm doing fine enough. Getting back to writing is helping a lot, as well as dropping FLC. I plan to pick PR back up, it's pretty easy and it makes FAC easier, but FLC was too much. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I'm (selfishly) relieved that you came to that realization :) And, we need Awadewit on prose as much as on images; there's just too much to do, and image reviewing burns people out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree we need Awadewit on prose (we certainly can't call me a prose expert!) but if they need a break, they need a break. The thing I find most entertaining is that when I'm gone for a short while, no one seems to step up to plate and cover most of the sourcing stuff... Ealdgyth - Talk 04:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that, too :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

John Calvin

Could you again give us your two cents over at Talk:John_Calvin#Caps_etc.? Grazie! --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Awadewit (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for archiving

Hi A, Thanks for archiving Talk:Joseph Priestley House. I had left a link in to one of my sandboxes, and then found the draft a large list of 135 bridges transcluded in the middle of the talk page. Whoops! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem - the page just seemed messy for an article that was no longer "under construction" in any real way. Awadewit (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Awadewit, thanks for your review of I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. I will attack your great comments as I have the time. I'm sure that after I'm done, the article will be greatly improved, so I appreciate your input. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to keep watching the page, so we can discuss the article. I really am so impressed with the work you have put into it. Awadewit (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ravenloft (module)

Hello! I am notifying you that a article you previously reviewed for FAC has been nominated again. Please, if you can, take the time to see if the article has been improved enough to consider supporting, and if not, let us know what needs improving. :) BOZ (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking a break from FAC right now. Awadewit (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Rambles in Germany and Italy

On February 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rambles in Germany and Italy, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Le Constitutionnel

On February 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Le Constitutionnel, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Cinderella

Please see my response at the article talk page. I hope I have addressed your concerns. --Thomprod (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh

I am obviously unable to make it clear to this user here that a 150 year old biography written by an associate without any sense of objectivity is not an appropriate basis for a Wikipedia article. Can you try to talk to them? I give up. I would rather bang my head into a wall than continue trying, and I think I might just do that now. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Expiring DYK nom

Could you look over WP:TDYK#CAP computer again? I believe I have addressed the issue that was raised. Thanks–OrangeDog (talk • edits) 00:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 69 and 70

Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 69: Sixth Sense and 70: Under the Microscope have been released. You can listen and comment at their pages (69, 70) and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes and subscribe to the RSS feed at wikipediaweekly.org. – wodupbot – 06:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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

DYK submission The Wanderer

Please check this submission as it's been challenged, thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just withdraw it. Awadewit (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, we are just asking you for a couple of words of clarification, that's all. Gatoclass (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, I would have do additional research to make the article any clearer. If all it really requires to two words, surely anyone else could add them. Awadewit (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want, I can provide information from Doody's biography of Burney that would help clarify. I can add it here or on the page. Just make a note on what you would prefer. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have the book - I just can't add the info in one day. :) I want to take the time to do it right. I hate wiki-pressure. Awadewit (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have slightly amended from Doodey; if anything the episode could be added to her bio rather than the Wanderer. Seeley says the reason the US ship was impounded or whatever was the outbreak of the War of 1812 btw. Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As do I. Academic publishing progresses so slowly, so I get stuck in that cycle. The Fielding pages are taking forever. However, I am always willing to jump in when needed, especially when it would mean Burney on the main page. : ) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 6	8 February 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more	Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs"
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)