User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 36

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Re: Justice

Give me a few days to think about it (and to wrap up my grading, etc.). Where do I show up in the Chronicle? (Oh, right. The blog post about length and featured articles.) Here are the two pieces of Wikipedia boosterism I wrote: "We Cannot Allow a Wikipedia Gap!" in Spontaneous Generations and "Wikipedia and the History of Science" in the January 2008 History of Science Society Newsletter.--ragesoss (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Granville Sharp

Hi Awadewit - I have been expanding the Granville Sharp page and was intrigued to see he wrote The Child's First Book improved, with a Preface addressed to Mothers and Teachers in 1801, in amongst all his anti-slavery and other reforming tracts. Do you know anything about this at all? He was prone to writing rambling tracts on prophecies and the perceived wickedness of the Catholic church, so I wonder whether it should get filed under 'loony' as with those and ignored, or whether it is worthy of further mention. Cheers Jasper33 (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Footnote Practice

I'd appreciate your advice. I have been working (at his/her request) on Rostra with Amadscientist, who seems to be active in the area of the culture of Ancient Rome. Other than brief prior contacts, I've not worked with him/her before although things seem to be going well. I did substantial research and largely rewrote the existing article (still not complete) over the New Years weekend using resources at hand at home. The text I wrote was heavily (and traditionally) footnoted. I noticed this morning that Amadscientist has been redoing my footnotes (without asking), replacing the page numbers with weblinks to snippets of text on Google Books. I'm uncomfortable with this change (my stick-in-the-mud instincts) although I can see certain advantages to readers of the article in being able to see the text to which a FN refers. As far as I can see, MOS does not deal with this (yet). This is probably a sign (new to me but probably familiar to you) that FN practice is evolving, reflecting a new research practice. My reaction is that the page reference should remain in addition to the weblink, at least, for curmudgeons who like to hold books in their hands and in case for any reason Google Books isn't accessible. What do you think? No rush for an answer. Simmaren (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sex variant Wollstonecraft

So I have been charged with (or have taken on, these distinctions are unnecessary) the improvement of a disaster, which I am attempting to do here (very much in draft form). I have a mountain of sources to read, but one of my core sources is Lillian Faderman's Surpassing the Love of Men from 1981. Faderman re-examines the legacy of romantic friendships and Boston marriages, in light of historic views and compares them to the formation of lesbian identity and 20th century broadened definitions. It's an ice covered slope that I seem to be navigating, but I am curious if you had read this book. Wollstonecraft, particularly her relationship with Fanny Blood, is discussed at some length. As well, another another relic of a different time does the same: Jeannette Howard Foster's 1953 work Sex Variant Women in Literature, that I am also using dedicates some space to Mary and Fanny. --Moni3 (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Which views do you want? My personal views? My scholarly views? My personal-scholarly views? My Wikipedia-editor views? So many different mes. :) Awadewit (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Mix them all up so I can't tell any of them apart. --Moni3 (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
If you have a chance, find: Rizzo, Betty. Companions Without Vows: Relationships Among Eighteenth-Century British Women. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1994. She goes over many of the same things and was a well-known feminist slanted literary scholar/literary biographer. That would be just another perspective on the same general idea, but I have not picked it up recently to see how much pertains to this specific incident. It does discuss female relationships among 18th century English feminists (or those with what could be considered "feminist leanings"). Just a little suggestion as a possible aid. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Betty Rizzo? Like from Grease? Who knew she would be a scholar? I have access to the book. I'll check it out. Thanks for the heads up. --Moni3 (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Article is posted, btw. The information is loose! --Moni3 (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Quote box2 Template

Hello Awadewit, just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that I have modified the {{Quote box2}} Template to more closely match your quotebox style (which you seem to usually build without a template). It now formats things more cleanly and includes the ability to override the font-size. If you take a look at Anne Dallas Dudley, you'll see an example of using the template that almost exactly matches your normal quotebox style. Hope you find it useful. BTW, did you ever have any luck tracking down that Alexander Berkman image? Just curious :) Kaldari (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking for a non-expert reviewer

Hi Awadewit,

thanks for contributing to the vector space FAC (and say Hi to your class!). The FAC recently failed, in part due a generally perceived lack of accessibility to the general audience. So, I'm looking for a reader that has no particular mathematical training to help me working on vector space and, since I remember your very thoughtful and in-depth work over at group (mathematics) FAC, I thought I could ask you? (It is an instance of noblesse oblige ;) ). Of course, I promise to pay back with carefully reviewing another article, and will give my best to match your level of scrutiny... At the moment, it is mainly about making the introduction section and the examples of v.sp. as accessible as reasonably possible, so not the whole article. Thanks, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to do this. I've also asked my class for suggestions as an extra credit assignment. Hopefully we will receive some good input from them as well. Is there a rush on this or can I ponder? Awadewit (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Books for you?

Do you have any interest in this Austen biography or this book about sixteenth century English prose? Our school library's clearing its shelves and I thought maybe you'd want 'em. If so just email me your address and I'll chuck 'em in the post. Scartol • Tok 16:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

How could I not? I'll just have to slightly rearrange the tottering piles surrounding my computer at the moment. :) Awadewit (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

One of your articles, translated, on main page in Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmålwikipedia

Hi, just wanted to inform you that the translated version of Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark is on the front page of the Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmålwikipedia. Your articles are great and I hope to be able to translate more of them for our language version. Best regards from Norway! Ulflarsen (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What a wonderful surprise - thank you! I will be smiling all day now. Awadewit (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comments about DANFS text

Hey Awadewit, I just saw your comments at WT:DYK and it was good to see that someone else feels the way I do. For what it's worth, a few months ago I came across a ship article that was copied word-for-word from DANFS (and without an attribution template) and, not knowing about DANFS, blanked it as copyvio and tagged it as speedy deletion. An admin threatened to block me for vandalism, and another WP:SHIPS person gave me a stern slap on the wrist for making a fuss over PD text. Personally, I think that even if a source is PD then we should be obligated to use it the same as any other source—as a source of information, not as a source of text—and cite it, or use big block quotes if we do want to use its text...since, like you said, readers should know where we got it. And I think using PD text dirties the reputation of Wikipedia...most readers, like me a few months ago, don't know all the ins and outs of copyright law and public domain, and when they see text on Wikipedia that they've seen someone else they'll just think "Wikipedia, what a plagiarizing piece of junk" and possibly not come back. So I agree with you on how PD text ought to be used.... unfortunately, consensus seems to be against us, and people get upset when I attack PD text (for example, rejecting a DYK nomination that incorporates unattributed PD text) so for a while I've just been trying to ignore it as much as I can... rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)talk/contribs 14:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Jumping in to give an unsolicited opinion: I agree. Though we write public domain text, I don't think it should be used in articles here. --Moni3 (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to some points at the DYK discussion, there actually are copyright implications here. Wikipedia is published under GFDL (a free, but not PD license - see "copyright subsistence" here). To represent public domain text as GFDL is copyfraud, to say nothing of being disingenuous, unethical and profoundly lazy. Эlcobbola talk 16:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I'm with the lazy part. I don't like it when information is copied from one article on Wiki to another. --Moni3 (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I have already pointed out 5 sentences take from a copyrighted source and I have only checked two passages so far. This should add to the PD discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Star Wars: Rogue Squadron

Another user has opposed this nomination based on images. I was hoping you could chime in with some opinions of your own so I can get the image concerns fixed once and for all! Thanks. --TorsodogTalk 23:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking a break from FAC image reviewing right now. Awadewit (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks

The review on the Banker horse article is much appreciated! I think I have look at the article so many times that the words are now starting to swim around on the page. Having a new perspective really helped and I'll try and jump right on those fixes. :) --Yohmom (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Awadewit (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


I thought you'd like to know that I've been corresponding with the person behind BillDeanCarter (talk · contribs) and ManhattanSamurai (talk · contribs), trying to persuade him to apologize for his behavior and return to Wikipedia while abiding by our policies, and that he's asked that Dining Late with Claude La Badarian and List of works by William Monahan be deleted. He has acknowledged—or, rather, "revealed"—that both are largely based on original research and don't belong on Wikipedia. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually argued long ago that the list of works by William Monahan should not exist, since it is original bibliographic research, but was overruled by the community, and I have since tried to adhere to the community's wishes on this matter. Do realize that there are lots of lists like this on Wikipedia - lists that are not published as lists anywhere else. Editors compile them here. I'm worried that we are applying our policies inconsistently in this case. Editors in good standing are allowed to create such lists but editors in bad standing are not - that is what the situation looks like to me. Awadewit (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Journalism

Hi Awadewit, good hearing from you! Got your note on the talk page, and when I have time next week would like to respond at length. There have been others who have debated the same thing, and I owe them a response as well Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_.22Journalism.22_vs._.22First-hand_accounts.22. The brief version is that journalism is a greater endeavour than "news". News reporting (current events, first-hand intervieweing) is a subset of journalism. Another problem is that Wikipedia's article on journalism is frankly pretty bad, even the first sentence which seems to keep getting changed every few months and gets worse each time. Please do bug me again soon if you don't see something from me, but I have been wanting to do a long blog post about this because it comes up so often and has affected the direction of policy in Wikipedia. -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Memoirs of Modern Philosophers

Updated DYK query On February 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Memoirs of Modern Philosophers, 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) 20:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No, no, thank you!

A, thanks so much for the barnstar! What an honor, to receive a writing barnstar from the likes of you. I've come to the conclusion that improving articles is often a thankless task on Wikipedia, one that gets very little glory, at least compared to the edit count-enhancing vandal fighting that so many do. So I appreciate the encouragement. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Did you know...

Fazen - charming (by).jpg

Hello! I noticed that you've been reviewing a lot of nominations at the DYK suggestions page. Thank you for your help, and I hope you will continue to contribute! As you know, you don't need to be an administrator to review hooks or to move hooks to Next update, so your help is more than welcome.

You may already be familiar with the DYK rules by now, but in case you aren't, you can check out the official rules and the Additional Rules. You may also want to look into some useful tools that can allow you to review nominations more quickly: the Cut & Paste character counter is a helpful JavaScript to calculate the length of hooks, and User:Dr pda/prosesizebytes.js is a script you can install on your own Wikipedia account for more heavy-duty article length calculating.

The best way to learn is by doing, but here is also a quick reference of the things to check for each hook you review:

Quick Reference

Useful Links

Thanks again for your help! I look forward to continuing to work with you at DYK, and if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me or anyone else at DYK. Now get to reviewing some noms! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Parc naturel régional d'Armorique

Hi Awadewit. Thank you for your comment on my DYK nomination. I've changed the hook and provided two alternates. May I please ask you to take another look? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. May I please ask you to take one more look? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Charlotte Turner Smith

Updated DYK query On February 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charlotte Turner Smith, 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.

Nice article! Gatoclass (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

New thread at WT:WIAFA

Hi, I've started a new thread at WT:WIAFA. Your input is hereby solicited. Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you think we need a substantial rewrite of 1(c), or the addition of a 1(f)? Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 05:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

The Signpost
Volume 5, Issue 7
Weekly Delivery
From the editorA new leaf
Commons Picture of the Year
Picture of the Year 2008 begins voting
WikiProject report
WikiProject Gaelic games
Features and admins
Approved this week
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.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Writing advice

To a very nice teacher. Fuji is my absolute favourite variety.

Much thanks for the very helpful advice! I will definitely use your points on the next article. I would also appreciate your recommendation for a writing handbook. The only book I ever had was a copy of Strunk and White but at the time I was too much into electromagnetism and astrophysics to even crack it open. I will probably buy a copy on my next trip to the UK or US. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, the advice in this book sounds a lot like the advice dispensed by a certain very-well-known Wikipedian (not one of us three). Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 12:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Funny, Ling.Nut! The apples made my day, RelHistBuff. I'm commenting on student papers (for which I rarely receive shiny fruit), so it is nice to know my talents are appreciated. Awadewit (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Lucy poems

According to Women in Romanticism (By Meena Alexander), The Lucy poems served as an influence for how Mary Shelley viewed the male Romantic poets' understanding of the feminine. Alexander discusses The Last Man. I will be making a small mention at the bottom of the page, but I did not summarize her argument on how Shelley comments on the male Romantic use of feminine in The Last Man. This is your specialty and I believe that you would be able to do it greater justice than I can accomplish. If you could possibly find the book and summarize in 3-4 lines, that would be a great help. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I think I asked you back in um, September / October if you wouldn't minding helping to review this once its ready. Well it took a lot of time, but I think we are ready now. If the timing is inconvienent, dont worry, I see you get a lot of requests, and the intention is to take this through GA before FAC. Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Frankenstein, redux

I feel like a heel for agreeing to work on Frankenstein before and then backing out. Can we cut a deal? I'd like to get something I'm working on right now to FA, and then I will work on our favorite creature. My old gothic lit professor has been on my case about it as well. --Laser brain (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I proposed a working outline here. Your comments appreciated. --Laser brain (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Reminded me of an event long ago

While pondering on Ealdgyth’s comments on a GAN that I recently nominated, I realised that the GAN had the same problem that you noted about the Calvin article, i.e., sexist language. It’s funny, but in speaking I never use “man” or “mankind”, so I guess the cause must be the sources (perhaps the topic as well, “fall of man” for example). Anyway this reminded me of a funny thing that happened when I was nearly finishing my Ph.D thesis. On the cover page, I put down my thesis advisor’s name and I titled her as “Chairperson” of my defense committee. When I got her corrections, she had changed it to “Chairman”. I was a bit mystified by this so when I incorporated her corrections for the next draft, I wrote “Chair” instead. For some reason, she would not accept this compromise and insisted to use “Chairman”. I never did ask her why she preferred this; as a student I was too much in awe of her to talk about anything other than physics. Just wanted to share a little reminiscence... --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Emmeline

Updated DYK query On February 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Emmeline, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

1 (f)

DYK for Thomas Cadell

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Thomas Cadell at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BuddingJournalist 17:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Torikaebaya DYK nom

I've attempted to address your concern with the Torikaebaya DYK nom by adding some discussion of the "happy" part of the ending to the reception section in the article. "The ending has been called "surprisingly dark" by The Princeton Companion to Classical Japanese Literature, although it does not expand on this line of thought. Gatten describes the ending as being happy, and The Companion notes that the former Chūnagon achieves great things as Empress, as the Yoshino Prince predicted. The many children of the siblings at the tale's close, noted in the Mumyōzōshi, is seen as a sign that all is as it should be." The untitled reviews are available on JSTOR. I've been wondering about an alternate DYK hook based on the ambiguity of the author's sex, (I find it funny that both the author and the character's sex and gender is ambiguous) but I've not managed to think of anything sufficiently snappy. I'm expecting to do a lot of typing this week, so I won't be "vocal" on WP much.. my hands will be too sore! :( Thanks for having a look at the article. :) --Malkinann (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the reception material is sufficient. Being a graduate student in literary studies, I'm familiar with the thoughts expressed. I find this story fascinating and am anxious to read it now. Awadewit (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad I've passed on the Torikaebaya bug. ;) The story is quite un-put-downable. Willig's translation is not mentioned on the publisher's website, which leads me to think it's out of print. You may be able to get it via an online second-hand book shop or through a university library. Hayao Kawai also wrote a version of the tale in his 1995 Dreams, Myths and Fairy Tales in Japan, which you may have more luck with finding. (though I haven't. :( ) --Malkinann (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Linguists

Thanks for checking that hook. Shameless plug—it will be on PBS this Thursday evening (around 10:30 for me, but I think it varies by station). Of course, I couldn't put that in the article...but if you have a TV, it might be interesting to check out. (I really want to see it, too.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Will it be available on the internet somewhere? I don't have TV. :) Awadewit (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I dunno...I tried snooping around the PBS website but couldn't find my way around. And, unfortunately, it's classified as an "educational" film so they're only selling it for a whopping $300...since you're a student, there's a chance your university might have a copy (my linguistics department just bought it recently) that you could borrow. (That's what I'm planning on doing, as I don't have a TV either and didn't remember to make plans with anyone who does.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK hook for 1967 Kayseri Atatürk Stadium disaster

Maybe your question should start with "whether" rather than with "why". I really don't know whether the foundation is an expert on football or not, but its aim is declared as to contribute to peace in general. The article I created deals primarly with violence, even in relation with sports.

And about the writing: Sorry for my not first-class English. Hoping a linguist wikipedian finds time to copyedit sometime. Cheers.CeeGee (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  • (Copied to DYK). Awadewit (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Cadell (publisher)

Updated DYK query On February 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Cadell (publisher), 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.

thx Victuallers (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings

Hi Awadewit,
Now that all comments have been addressed on this article, is there anything else that needs to be done? Or do you think that it's ready for FAC? If so, I will be happy to bring it there. Or, if you think it's better, you or one of the other reviewers can do it. I'm putting a similar note on the their talk pages, too. Again, thanks for all your help and generosity. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've left a little "final checklist" on the article talk page. Awadewit (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Would appreciate your input on recent rewrite

Hey there. I recently posted a rewrite of Lesbian, and there are a couple sections I would love to have your feedback on beginning with Early Modern Europe (originally named Renaissance Europe, but changed by someone else for a reason I don't quite understand), the next two sections, and the Literature section. Whenever you can get to it. Thanks in advance. --Moni3 (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request

Hi A, thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK: Joseph Ferguson Peacocke

You were right that there was a problem, but I see Xn4 has now had a go at it. Perhaps you could look at it again? Strawless (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Awadewit (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


Hurricane Kate (2003)- Good pic.jpg Please accept this invitation to join the Tropical cyclones WikiProject (WPTC), a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with tropical cyclones. WPTC hosts some of Wikipedia's highest-viewed articles, and needs your help for the upcoming cyclone season. Simply click here to accept! Hurricane Isabel 18 sept 2003 1555Z.jpg

Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Walter Landor Dickens

Thanks you for the citation for the above article. However, the 1928 edition of Forster's 'Life of Dickens' pg 698 clearly says "... and on his own birthday in the following February he had tidings of the death of his second son Walter...." Jack1956 (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I checked the earlier edition and not seeing it there was concerned. Kaplan is a much more reliable biography anyway - it is more scholarly than a biography written by a friend. Awadewit (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. I just wanted to set the record straight in case you thought I was making the reference up. I don't have Kaplan. Recently waded my way through Ackroyd though. Best wishes Jack1956 (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I have all three if you guys need a third party on any of the matters. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The passage can be found here (midway down the page), by the way. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, there are over ten entries in Ackroyd. I can info from them if Awadewit doesn't want to or doesn't have the time. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Mozart in Italy sound clip

We now have a sound clip of Exsultate, Jubilate, thanks to Shoemaker's Holiday. I thought you'd like to know. Brianboulton (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


In response to Dravecky's disrespecting of your concerns and promoting yet another clearly problematic page, I am pushing for his being banned from promoting hooks. It seems obvious that he has a problem respecting reviewers: last month, he promoted Doug's 16 part hook even though Wehwalt, myself, and Gatoclass were discussing them and some were even put up for AfD. Then, he promoted a hook a few weeks ago that had obvious copyright problems (copyrighted text, not just the PD text). Now, he is ignoring concerns again and doing things unilaterally. It is not fair for the reviewers to have an admin running around and doing these things. The backbone of DYK are those who write them and those who review them. We have more than enough admin right now, so we definitely don't need one who will treat the process with such disdain. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


Hi, noticed you were online (watchlist). Could you check out 1930 Salmas earthquake (under February 25)? Thanks. Ceranthor 11:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Awadewit (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


I emailed you. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Assembling DYK hooks

Hi there. You're doing a good job with assembling hooks, but the content should be a little more varied. The set currently in queue 3 is a bit Europe-heavy and has two track-and-field hooks. Also, hooks on the same subject should not be next to each other (i.e. shouldn't be two US related hooks in a row). There are some pointers for assembling hooks on this page. Keep up the good work! Shubinator (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for at least explaining how you came to this conclusion. However, I am perfectly familar with the idea of paraphrasing and therefore this doesn't really help at all. I have always omitted unnecessary words and used multiple sources where they are available. The section which you questioned is extremely short. The content of the sources used is extremely long. Two other editors have since indicated that they are happy with my contributions. Mathematics would not be my strongest field of study but I still know that this does not add up. I don't know what else to say. I cannot tolerate false accusations of such an extreme nature and I cannot tolerate pointless, disruptive, demoralising arguments. --Candlewicke ST # :) 16:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, just to try and help you prevent this problem in the future, none of what you have said above actually addresses the matter. For example, omitting unnecessary words from a source does not help prevent plagiarism - you need to change the entire style of writing. Using multiple sources can help one avoid plagiarism, but it is not a guarantee; you can use ten sources and still plagiarize from one of them. Finally, you can plagiarize a short section from a long source - this is still plagiarism. Plagiarism does not constitute copying an entire text, it is copying any part of a source without quotation marks and proper attribution. Awadewit (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


Did you miss my clarification request?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Please, have some patience. Yours is one of many hooks I've commented on. Awadewit (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 07:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi, Awadewit! Feel free to say no if you're busy, but I have a bit of a rush FA job: Agrippina (opera). I wanted to have Handel on the mainpage for the 250th annversary of his death, and this was the only Handel-related opera that was anywhere near FA. I've been given about 5 more weeks (by Raul) to get this from its former GA up to FA if I want to get it on the main page for the 250th anniversary of Handel's death.

I've done a lot of the gross copyediting - major rearrangements, throwing in some more sources, that sort of thing, but I really could use a dispassionate and non-ill copyeditor to go through and pull it into shape before launching it at FA. Can you have a look, or recommend someone who could help? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Priestley House

Hi A, a new ref (the French version of Cooper's book) has been added to Joseph Priestley House. I tried to fix the ref and make the bibliographic information match the format of the others, but would appreciate it if you could double check it. Have you seen there is now a nice French version of the article. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 71

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 71: We have no shame has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode page, and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes and subscribe to the RSS feed at WODUPbot 05:25, 5 March 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 for Celestina (novel)

Updated DYK query On March 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Celestina (novel), 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) 08:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Core Contest Award

Core Contest Award.jpg 2008 Core Contest Winner Award
Let it be known that Simmaren and Awadewit were awarded Best Overall and Best Collaborative Effort in the first Wikipedia Core Contest. This award is based on their outstanding work in improving Jane Austen. Thanks for your hard work in making Wikipedia's core articles better. -Earthdirt (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikisource wikilink code

I saw you place a manual link to wikisource. For an easier method without the arrow, try [[s: like s:User talk:Awadewit. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I fixed that. Awadewit (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Frankenstein reading list

I took about half the entries from Undecided. I wasn't sure if you wanted to evenly split those. If you will be re-reading some of the items already in your list, I will take more into my list. I've begun finding PDFs of some of the items that are from journals but I will probably have to get physical copies of some from the library. --Laser brain (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've selected some more books - can you read the rest? Awadewit (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure thing. I'm excited. When I have a minute, I'm going to send you an article that's not in your bibliography but I think it might interest you. It is "Coming Unstrung" by Susan Winnet. --Laser brain (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Awesome. I've started a "notes" page so we can have something to work from when we write. Awadewit (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK review

I noticed that you are actively editing and made a very recent verification comment on the DYK suggestions. Perhaps this is too late, but would you take a look at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Richard C. Mangrum? It was created on March 1, and erroneously assessed to have ~600 characters — but, in actuality, that is the word count, not the character count. — ERcheck (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I did leave a note on the assessor talk page and on the DYK suggestion page. — ERcheck (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Done. Awadewit (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Both sources verify "first" Marine aviator — Who's Who in Marine Corps History which says it directly in the prose and the Naval Historical Center PDF in which MC=Marine Corps. — ERcheck (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK comments

Thank you for that detailed analysis of my inadequate copyedit of that paragraph in Pelorus Sound. I did not sufficiently appreciate that retaining phrases and not reordering the material was a copy violation. And I accept that I was guilty, through ignorance, of an incomplete copyedit. However I thought your use of the word "plagiarism" was rather heavy, given that I clearly gave the source including an online link. Is not plagiarism is a dishonest attempt to pass the work of someone else off as your own, which necessarily involves hiding the source? Anyway, that link you gave me on how to paraphrase properly is very useful, and I appreciate it. I've edited the offending paragraph which should pass muster now. I've exhaustively checked the rest of the article for other inadequate copyedits, apart from the section on tides and current, not entered by me, which has off-line references. I understand also, that your public accusation is a punishment because I opposed the RfA for Orlady, particularly since she was nominated by your mentor Kaldari. However, this is not a particularly clean way to go about it. --Geronimo20 (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Your stance is not aligned with Wikipedia:Plagiarism, which says: "Direct copying of copyrighted works may be a copyright violation. Doing so without attribution is also plagiarism." If you read the section How to respond to plagiarism, you will find your position characterised as incivility. I am guilty of an inadequate copyedit. It was not blatant, and it was certainly not plagiarism. --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
You did, in fact, directly copy phrases without quotation marks - that is plagiarism. You had an inline citation, but that is not enough. Those words are owned by the author and you did not make that clear. Plagiarism is not necessarily devious or dishonest - it also sometimes ignorance of what constitutes correct attribution. I have no idea what you mean by a "public accusation" - I never watch the RFA pages nor vote there, so I am mystified by that comment. Awadewit (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, Orlady was pure coincidence. However, your position is not aligned with Wikipedia:Plagiarism, which I presume you didn't read. I notice further up the page, you express again your own strict position - in a tone perhaps appropriate to an academic institute, but severe, I think, for Wikipedia. There are no compensating academic salaries and rewards involved here. When I was a (physics) researcher, we were so familiar with our topic that it would never occur to us that we might copy edit text written by someone else. We already knew what to say in our own words, and would refer to text written by someone else only to quote it. But on Wikipedia, I usually pick topics where I am not expert, but am interested and want to know more. So I feel a need to stick close to my sources, and this can make copy editing a challenge. I have now adopted the no compromise position you offer, concerning what a good copy edit is, and I am grateful to you for confronting me with this. I have also located "plagiarism detector" software, very useful, which I can run on anything I'm not sure of (perhaps you use this yourself). What I would like to see is a plagiarism detector, or more accurately a copy violation detector, developed for Wikipedia, since Wikipedia has some specialised requirements, and made available to all editors. I would like to see a climate where good faith editors are given tools and encouraged to improve their copyedit skills, as they would be in an academic institute, instead of peremptorily attacked. --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... I see a lot of these resources are listed in Wikipedia:Plagiarism. This process has been really good – thank you! --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I have read Wikipedia's plagiarism policy, which is not as clear as it could be, but, in all reality, that policy is irrelevant. Plagiarism is a legal issue that goes beyond the academy - copying someone's exact words (which are copywritten) is a copyright violation, whatever Wikipedia chooses to say on the matter. The Foundation could be sued by the owner of the text - I am trying to protect them from that. Furthermore, please note that I don't do what most editors do, which is simply remove the plagiarized text from the article. I explain the problem on the talk page, giving editors a chance a learn from their mistakes and reword the article themselves. I also don't call out editors by name on the talk page. Never once did I say who did the plagiarizing. I simply mentioned that there was plagiarized text in the article, carefully explaining the problem. This does not constitute an attack. Awadewit (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

NRHP nom reading difficulties

Thanks for verifying, even on AGF grounds. For future reference, NRHP noms archived at the state's Office of Historic Preservation are in a format that requires JavaScript, not PDF (my guess is they began a long project to scan them and put them online before PDFs became common, and didn't feel like undoing what they'd done midway through). If you really want to see it, I can convert it to PDF and send it to you in email. Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Better yet, do you happen to know how I can install the Java script on my Firefox (which is Linux-based)? Awadewit (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Lucy CE at FAC

If there are any sources that you need, I can provide them to you. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Frankenstein reading

I'll probably start reading in earnest within the next two weeks. I'm in a busy period, teaching four classes. Thanks for taking the initiative and getting things rolling; a well-organized person clearly makes a huge difference in any project. --Laser brain (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

When is plagiarism plagiarism?

You are correct, this is not a copy violation; it is, according to your own criteria, plagiarism. You stated above that if one were to "copy phrases without quotation marks - that is plagiarism". And further above, with another user you have also accused of plagiarism, you asserted that plagiarism "does not constitute copying an entire text, it is copying any part of a source without quotation marks".

You say you did not add the plagiarised text to Observations on Man. However, the edit history says you did.

You also suggested that I read this website to understand plagiarism. According to the website, the fact that you have committed plagiarism means you have committed "an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward."

So that is the end of the story, as far as your own stance goes, and is also the position you take with other people.

However, this is not my stance, and I am certainly not accusing you of something as serious as plagiarism. My own view is that you are guilty of nothing more than an inadequate copy edit. If I were concerned about it, I would do a further copy edit myself and leave a polite note on your talk page. But your approach has been to make a public accusation of plagiarism and wreck a DYK. You appear to be accusing other people in a like way, and I suggest you might consider softening your stance, aligning yourself more with Wikipedia:Plagiarism, and perhaps offering some apologies. The alternative is that you should accept being labelled as a plagiarist yourself. --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the history of that article: I copied someone else's prose into a new article, creating a fork. I did not check the new article for plagiarism, which perhaps I should have. I will fix the article forthwith. I will not apologize for carefully pointing out the plagiarism and copyright violation in the article you worked on and giving you an opportunity to fix it. I did not "wreck" a DYK - I was a responsible editor who carefully checked an article before it appeared on the main page, a very public part of Wikipedia's site. Awadewit (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Lets establish a little objectivity here. Unless people are calling for another person to be blocked over the matter, then there is no need for hostility surrounding any copyrighted data. If it is found, it is found. If something is too similar or copied, then change it. Mistakes happen. Slip ups happen. Lack of careful checking happens. Mention it, allow for change, and don't judge. Geronimo, your comments were far too aggressive, especially with one item found from 2007. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Ottava Rima, I'm not judging. I thought I made that clear. Or did you not read what was said carefully? I'm simply reflecting Awadewit's aggressive judgements back to her, in an apparently doomed attempt to soften her stance. The item from 2007 is just a talking point. --Geronimo20 (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I suspect that this sort of activity, motivated in this way, is not likely to produce a positive result. My suggestion would be, Geronimo20, that it would be best for you to find something more productive to do with your time.--Filll (talk | wpc) 01:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Awadewit, you copied the article from someone else's prose? From where? You give no indication of that in your edit summary. Instead, you claimed authorship for yourself. Does this mean you plagiarised the entire article? --Geronimo20 (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The article is copied from David Hartley (philosopher), which was written by someone else. Copying Wikipedia articles to new articles is allowed under the GFDL license. I apologize that the edit summary was not clearer. Awadewit (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
My understanding is that there is no need to describe such matters in an edit summary, and in fact this is even inadvisable.--Filll (talk | wpc) 01:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
So technically, by your own standards, since you claimed authorship, you are a plagiarist? --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Geronimo20, you might want to consider rephrasing this post or you might find that it will reflect negatively on you.--Filll (talk | wpc) 01:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh for goodness sake Filll, I'm not claiming she is a plagiarist! Read what I actually wrote. I'm trying to establish what her own standards for plagiarism are. It's clear they are very severe, and if generally applied would catch every productive editor out. I don't think what she has done remotely approaches "plagiarism", and said so at the outset. I don't think it even warrant a rap over the knuckles. A charge of "plagiarist" is a very serious charge, and should never be made lightly. But Awadewit has very different standards, and makes the charge very easily. The issue is does she apply her own standards to herself?
Anyway, before wrathful protectors arise all round, I'd better recognise that nothing sensible is also going to arise, and depart. --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to point out that she copied it from another page on Wikipedia and kept it on Wikipedia. Under the links that are listed on Wikipedia, we are already given the legal status of material on Wikipedia and advised that material will be moved around and edited. This goes both ways. As long as its from Wikipedia, it isn't plagarism as this is not a new source. Make sense? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Geronimo, as one of the original drafters of the proposed plagiarism guideline, it comes as a surprise to see this discussion unfold. During the past several days since a recent admin board discussion I have been encouraging Awadewit to improve upon the proposal because it isn't worded well enough yet, and her knowledge of the subject could really be a benefit to that page. Wikipedia needs a formal guideline on the subject--preferably a policy--and to the extent that Awadewit's practice differs from the draft itself that points to the proposal's shortcomings, not hers. She is one of the most diligent and productive editors at this website. In the future please enclose a quoted paragraph in quotations marks. She very rightly pointed out that need because it is, in fact, necessary. DurovaCharge! 02:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I entirely accept the standard Awadewit wants for a proper copy edit. I have already said this, and also expressed my gratitude to Awadewit for clarifying that. There is no question Awadewit is a superb editor. I hold her contributions in high admiration and have have no beef with her at all, except for this one issue, which is the low bar she sets before she charges someone with "plagiarism". The immediate corollary of being accused of plagiarism, is, from Awadewit's own reference website, that you have committed "an act of fraud" which involves "both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward". I would have thought that would apply to someone who has deliberately set out to pass someone else's work off as their own, and without acknowledging the source.
Awadewit applies different criteria. An editor, editing in good faith, who clearly cites the source document, and then copy edits the text, is, according to Awadewit, guilty of plagiarism if the copy edit still includes "directly cop[ied] phrases without quotation marks". My contention is that, in the context of Wikipedia, that editor is guilty of an incomplete copy edit. They have either been sloppy, or, more likely, were not aware of what a full copy edit entails. Unless they persist with incomplete copy edits, the editor warrants a polite pointer to the relevant guidelines (when they are available). Why accuse them of fraud, theft and lying, which is what a charge of plagiarism amounts to? I don't understand why there is so much resistance to this point of view. I would have thought it was simple common sense.
The above discussion, from my side, was simply to illustrate that few editors, Awadewit included, are going to be free of this very serious charge if the "not one phrase" criteria of Awadewit is adopted. And finally, since I am repeatedly charged with accusing Awadewit of plagiarism, I have done no such thing. I have merely pointed out that Awadewit would have to charge herself with plagiarism if her criteria were to be adopted. --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Then I suggest you read WP:POINT and refactor the title of this thread. DurovaCharge! 04:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough --Geronimo20 (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Awadewit may be the only editor more vociferous against copying information even when it's free than I am. Even in my zeal, however, I recognize there are grey areas. When I decide to rewrite an article, sometimes I incorporate the information that is already in the article because I recognize this as a community project, and do not wish to marginalize the contributions of editors who added information to the article before I came along. I often don't check to see if information I'm "inheriting" is copied, though I should. I found it once when I decided to rewrite Mary McLeod Bethune.
I have issues with my own standards of copying information from one Wikipedia article to the next when I wrote four satellite articles just to expand Everglades. It's part of the reason I won't nominate it for FA, although one of the primary reasons I rewrote Everglades was to get rid of the Britannica 1911 text in it. There are also very few ways to say very basic things: when I wrote Stonewall riots, the lead was the last part I focused on. I realized two weeks after I wrote the lead that my first sentence and the first sentence in David Carter's book were almost identical. I had not even read the sentence until I saw that. Quite simply, there are only so many ways you can say something as directly as possible.
I'm coming late to this conversation, and please pardon me if I'm all up in the Kool-Aid, yet I do not know the flavor, but I am not sure what the purpose is of these questions. I dislike these chess move thought-plans; I know my comments, along with Ottava Rima's and Durova's, make it seem as if Awadewit has an all-powerful cabal to defend her perceived borderline unscrupulousness against criticism. That's not my intention, and Awadewit can defend herself without my assistance. Actually, I'm more concerned with the response to editors who speak out for higher standards of content. Those who push for the strictest content standards should not be silenced by accusations. I'm concerned that is what is happening here. --Moni3 (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Note: WP:Plagiarism is not Wikipedia's guideline for plagiarism. It is currently under construction and has no consensus. Wikipedia:Copyright violations is the current policy. As I have repeatedly stated, rather than removing swaths of copyvio text, I have tried to illustrate on talk pages what the problems with plagiarized text were and given editors the opportunity to fix it. I see, however, that this is causing more grief than it is worth (such as the above disputes). In the future, I will just remove text from the article. Awadewit (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
No, no, Awadewit. The above dispute has nothing to do with whether you remove text from articles. You seem totally resistant to hearing what has been said. The dispute arose because you, on the lightest pretext (using your "no phrases" criteria), charge people with being "plagiarists", that is, using your own definition, with being frauds, committing theft, and being liars. In short, you outrageously and unjustifiably charge Wikipedia editors with being criminals. And then, in some strange sleight of mind, you present your behaviour as protecting Wikipedia. New Wikipedia editors should be warned that they are now in a very vulnerable position, and that if they add content to Wikipedia they are in jeopardy of being labelled as criminals. However, the point is clearly lost on you, so lets be done with this miserable business. --Geronimo20 (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
There is unintentional plagiarism and intentional plagiarism, but in the eyes of the law, it doesn't matter. If the owner of the text that was copied sued Wikipedia because their text was copied directly onto the site without proper attribution AND quotation marks, the intention of the Wikipedia editor or their knowledge of plagiarism rules becomes irrelevant (ignorance of the law is no excuse). I am not outrageously doing anything. What is outrageous is that I, who have protected Wikipedia, am subject to this harassment. Awadewit (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
In the editing window, it says "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted." That is what I am going to do from now on, as I stated. Awadewit (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Scheduled Monuments in Cheshire (1066–1539)

Hi there. You gave the above item a "maybe" for DYK nom. It generated some discussion and I wasn't sure the discussants had understood why you were raising an issue on the article. I have attempted to "help" the discussion at the noms page - which may of course not help at all. But anyway, in the course of doing so I've suggested an alt hook that I think addresses your concerns and keeps the article (which looks to be a huge amount of work) alive as a DYK. Would you like to check it out and see if you think things have been resolved and/or want to tick of one of the hooks? Cheers. Oh and by the way, you're an amazing editor :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think your solution was an excellent one. Thanks for helping out. Awadewit (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)