User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 17

Harold Innis

Thanks for all your work on the Harold Innis page. I feel it is much improved because of your editing. Thanks again. Bwark 16:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• You're welcome. The article was a pleasure to read - I just really reformatted some things. (For future reference, new comments are usually added to the bottom of talk pages. It's just one of those conventions.) Awadewit | talk 18:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Reform Act

I've replied on the FAC page. I feel we've reached an "agree to disagree" point, and as I'm off/limited wiki for a few days I am unlikely to reply further. If you wish to further expand on your disagreement with my support then please go ahead, but I think I shall leave it there. If you want me to discuss it further with you, then perhaps we should take it to talk? J.Winklethorpe ^talk 23:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• I really do feel that this is an incredibly important point. When you return, drop me a line. Thanks for being so willing to discuss it in a calm and rational manner. :) Awadewit | talk 00:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine beauty

Hi Awadewit,

There's a understated beauty in a blank canvas, no? I feel as though I should add a Shelley quote to give your Talk page the right atmosphere. How about

“ A poet is a nightingale, who sits in darkness and sings to cheer her own solitude with sweet sounds. ”

or

“ Familiar acts are beautiful through love. ”

or perhaps more aptly ;)

“ The moon gazed on my midnight labours, while, with unrelaxed and breathless eagerness, I pursued nature to her hiding-places. ”

I'm mainly writing to take a break from my enzymatic labours and to let you know that I'll be travelling tomorrow until next week, to visit one of my sisters. I'll try to stay in contact here — she's not so Luddite as I am, and is bound to have a computer at home — but we always have lots of fun, so I may be lame about writing. :( I'm hoping all's well with you and that topic, and sorry for intruding upon an 18th-century space with 19th-century quotes, sacred though both may be ;) Willow 01:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Have a wonderful trip. I'm going to be working on my dissertation as well working up an article and teaching and studying French in the next few weeks, so you might not see me around as much. See my wikipedia weekly podcast. It should be airing sometime soon. I hope I don't sound silly. Awadewit | talk 04:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It has been a wonderful trip so far, and I'll be very sorry to leave again, although real life calls as always. I can't wait to hear your interview, and I would be astonished indeed if you said anything silly, although I might not be the best judge of that... ;) Right now, I'm delving into a great romance novel, one of the best I've read in a while, and I've also been scouring the pages of Marie Claire, so I'm feeling quite improper and unscholarly. ;) Bonne chance, a un de ces jours Willow 15:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

JP

I hacked away at two more sections. Hopefully I'll be able to do some more later today. Gotta take it Bird by Bird. – Scartol · Talk 15:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem

Awadewit, no problem at all. I think there will likely be a short period of reduced progress while we integrate Sandy's opinions, and I don't see any particular need for you to participate during that period anyway. I'll let you know when (and if!) we start making progress again, and if you feel like it you can rejoin the conversation at that point. Thanks for the effort you've put in so far -- it's been very useful having someone on board who has a really positive view of PR. Mike Christie (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Help

{{helpme}}

On the Lessons for Children page, the columns aren't formatting correctly. They are placed next to images and seem to run off of the page and into each other. Please advise. Awadewit | talk 04:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC) They're OK. Sometimes they are like that. Hope I helped! -Goodshoped 04:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• But you can't read the line numbers for the poems. Awadewit | talk 04:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Your table is not formatted correctly. You need to build a wikitable shown below:

{| class="wikitable" |- ! Poem 1 ! Poem 2 ! Poem 3 |- | Lorem Ipsum | Lorem Ipsum de something something | Lorem Ipsum poem input |- | row 2, cell 1 | row 2, cell 2 | row 2, cell 3 |}

When formatted, it looks like this:

Poem 1	Poem 2	Poem 3
Lorem Ipsum	Lorem Ipsum de something something	Lorem Ipsum poem input
row 2, cell 1	row 2, cell 2	row 2, cell 3

Hope I helped! -Goodshoped 05:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I was using columns. I will use a table instead. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 05:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm. Take a look. Awadewit | talk 05:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• How about the box I worked up in my sandbox? I made each column 50% width and used some CSS wizardry to reverse-indent the left column lines. The code is messy but the finished product is decent, IMO. – Scartol · Talk 11:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• It would be best if the table didn't have to take up so much room (so I don't think we will have 50 and 50), as I really wanted the two primer images to be stacked on top of each other for the sake of comparison. (Some seems to have moved them now.) Awadewit | talk 15:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• That was me. I assumed the plan was to stack the two primer images, but I figured as the comparison wasn't line for line a bit more space didn't do any much harm since the contrast between the two is still glaringly obvious (though a page from Lessons bigging up the Pope would have been a better choice), and moving it prevented the huge disconnect between the colon and the table. Obviously you need more text and less images ;). Andplus 16:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm glad you think the comparison is glaringly obvious - that was the idea. Perhaps there is no need to move them, then (the Lessons does not attack the Pope, by the way - one reason it is called "secular".). I'm still unhappy with the layout of the page, though. Is there a way to make the table headings and lines disappear? They just seem obtrusive. That is why I had used the column code initially. Awadewit | talk 16:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Line breaks and cut-and-paste are about the limit of my capabilities unfortunately. The comment about the Pope was meant as a joke, what with the Protestant Tutor being so ecumenical. Andplus 16:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, sorry. Tone is so hard with only the written word! Awadewit | talk 16:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On October 26, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lessons for Children, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Well done again Awadewit. A pitcured slot! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Stephenson GA review

Thanks for the amazingly fast review. I have made some initial comments, mostly about the problem with footnote 7 at Talk:James W. Stephenson, I will note when the other stuff is all done. Thanks again. IvoShandor 02:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It is ready, btw. The reference problem is discussed on the talk page, let me know what you think, I can still view the site this morning. IvoShandor 08:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, and comments, I also went ahead and fixed that redundancy, not sure how I miss such things, they are quite obvious. Like many, I have troubles catching small stuff in pieces I write, I am voracious editing the work of others though, go figure. IvoShandor 09:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It is the same for everybody - we can't see our own flaws. It is all about distance. Hence, one should never procrastinate on a paper. :) Awadewit | talk 09:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Pfft, the flawless haven't flaws to see. ;) Distance is certainly key, This is why I usually let some time pass before I give good copy edits and GA noms for my own pieces, time is needed.IvoShandor 09:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I usually do the same. Awadewit | talk 10:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Help 2

I have noticed that the footnotes are not numbering themselves correctly in the list under "Notes" on the pages I am editing, although they are numbered correctly in the article itself. What is up with that? See The Guardian of Education and Lessons for Children. The numbers repeat themselves on the top of the third columns. Awadewit | talk 05:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't help, but I've often noticed this on other articles, including !my !own, and chalked it up to something beyond my control. :) –Outriggr § 06:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[Sidenote: What do the little exclamation points mean next to "my own"? Awadewit | talk 06:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)]

Well, first off the little exclamation marks sort of mean "I'm saying this, but I'm not", if you see what I'm saying :\ like, !vote means "I'm casting a "vote", but it's not really a vote". I'm sorry that's so confusing, but I can't really explain it better :) Secondly, I've never actually found a way of fixing those numbers; although it looks a little noticeable when you're authoring an article, when you're reading it you don't notice ;) so don't worry! Anthøny 07:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought the exclamation marks probably meant something like that - best to be sure before I start using them, though!

It would be nice if the numbers worked properly, wouldn't it? It would make wikipedia look more professional. Awadewit | talk 08:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[Oh, don't start using those exclamation marks! Mine were in jest. The way they dismiss the dynamic tension between some of wikipedia's in-group zeal and reality is a bit disturbing. ("I've written the whole article so far, but if I refer to it with a possessive because that's the way, um, practical language works, I'll be considered ignorant. This ironic exclamation mark will solve the problem without requiring a position on the matter.") If you don't follow this, I admit to idiosyncratic interpretations of stuff. –Outriggr § 08:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)]

[Also, the origin of "!" is computer programming, where it can mean logical NOT. –Outriggr § 08:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)]

(undent) The exclamation marks, in the syntax of some programming languages e.g. Visual Basic, are logical symbols that mean "not." They are often pronounced as "bang" e.g. !ProcessCompleted could be spoken as "Bang Process Completed" or "Not Process Completed". --Ling.Nut 08:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This is just the most fascinating little conversation! Notice my use of "the pages I am editing" to avoid any appearance of ownership. :) Awadewit | talk 08:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You're safe for now... but in the future there will be a migration toward "pages that myself is editing". ;-) (Orwell's Politics and the English Language (and Ulysses) stuck with me most from college English.) –Outriggr § 09:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 33

Great news! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 33 has been released!

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/10/26/wikipedia-weeekly-30/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP ^(?) 07:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Imaginarily Smiled Upon

Hi Awadewit,

OK, so I'm a grouch. Those goofy wiki-cookies and wiki-smiles make my head hurt. And... I haven't really been following recent events closely at all; I barely skim Wikipedia from time to time. To be honest, I actually have almost no idea what's going on. ;-) But I think I read something along the lines that you were tired etc etc etc. So close your eyes and mentally picture either a cookie or a smile or even a daisy (yukk..) here, whichever you prefer. :-) You have been Imaginarily Smiled Upon. --Ling.Nut 08:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks! I was sick and tired. :) I lost my voice completely and had to find a substitute teacher. I briefly considered using a text-to-speech program. I hope you are doing well. I've taken a break from the PR, GAC, FAC, etc. workshop. Perhaps I will return when I have completed some of my more pressing concerns - such as my dissertation chapter! Awadewit | talk 08:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Mary Wollstonecraft

We seem to have been editing at the same time which led to confusion! I am putting in some links which relate to her period in Beverley, so please leave the Arden links.

You linked Jane Arden, a woman who lived in the eighteenth century, to a comic book page, perhaps unwittingly as well. A suitable page cannot be written on Arden, Blood, or the Clares, which is why I removed the redlinks. There is simply not enough scholarship and they are not notable on their own - they did nothing but know Wollstonecraft. Awadewit | talk 09:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, you seem to have duplicated the first paragraph - presumably unwittingly.

• Fixed that. Thanks! Awadewit | talk 09:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaving it to you for now!

Johnbibby 09:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have come between you and Johnbibby. Please inspect the text, as I reverted the change by Johnbibby, only later to notice that you have been between Johnbibby and me. --BF 09:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

GA

Hey can you help out with the promotion of Unnale Unnale to a GA? Cheers Universal Hero 12:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'd really like to, but I'm afraid that I am too busy at the moment. Come December, I will have more free time to dedicate to extra projects. Sorry! Awadewit | talk 22:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Jason Priestley

Man, that joke never gets old! Anyway, I did some more red pen-ing of Joseph Priestley. I'm up to the end of Discovery of O₂. – Scartol · Talk 23:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks so much. Your editing will surely help its chances at FAC! Awadewit | talk 04:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• In that case, you can send my payment in bundles of US$20 bills. =) – Scartol · Talk 12:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Did the next section. Up to the end of the riots. Found less and less stuff to cut toward the end. – Scartol · Talk 14:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Then I went nuts and just finished it all. Huzzah! Good luck with it; sorry I couldn't be more help sorting out all the issues, but I did what I could. (Can't wait to hear ya on the podcast, BTW.) – Scartol · Talk 15:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you kindly for the lovely red pen award. =) – Scartol · Talk 02:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• You're welcome. I kinda have a feeling you will rack up a lot of copy editing barnstars, so I wanted to give you something a little special. (I don't know when the wikipedia weekly podcast is airing - it has been recorded already.) Awadewit | talk 23:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• What is this "life" you speak of? And no, I don't have multiple arms like you! Smile. I'm also busy biting my nails about Chinua Achebe. Every time I log in to find new messages, I get a thrill and think: "This is it! It's passed!" and every time I get no news. Sigh! =) Fortunately I'm not too busy to send French emails or jabber on talk pages. – Scartol · Talk 19:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thich Quang Duc

I think I have found a way to overcome the suboptimal phrasing and structural issues. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have looked at it again and supported. I hope you don't think I'm being too picky! Awadewit | talk 04:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Tact

I'm interested in tact. Know of any sites on the web you have stumbled upon by any chance? Please provide. I would appreciate it. Leranedo 10:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Side note

"The unexamined life is not worth living," on your user page.

I have concluded a long time ago that I completely disagree with this opinion, and while I can understand many POVs, I know with great certainty that my opinion and belief does not permit me to agree with this statement, which is supported with extensive reasoning. I'm sorry. I just don't. Is that so wrong? Leranedo 10:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ulysses

Hi Awadewit. I think I've responded to all your recent comments on talk:Ulysses (poem) (except poem source and line numbers, easy enough to complete), and many of your older comments have been addressed or superceded. I really feel like the article has a much better flow now. Another issue might be the elucidation of some of the ironic perspectives that have been glossed. I am at a loss for sources that would provide additional detail on those—and perhaps given that this is an encyclopedia article, a gloss is good enough, considering that there is an endless intepretative literature out there. The major points of view are represented. I would prefer to have your implicit "support" for this article before it might be nominated as a FAC again, so if you have any further comments I'd appreciate them. I know you're not very available right now... –Outriggr § 08:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• I will gladly reread it. However I am quite busy right now. Can you give me about two weeks? I want to read carefully! Thanks. Awadewit | talk 21:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever works for you. Ulysses doesn't want to reach the Happy Isles without you. –Outriggr § 22:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad you would lean. These ironic perspectives on Ulysses are going to be tough to expand without a uni library, yet to remove the less-explained perspectives (Milton, Byronic hero) would take away what really needs expanding or rewriting instead.

• You refer to one critic in particular to connects Satan to Ulysses - surely you read that work and can summarize it? I'm not really asking for a big expansion here - just an explanation of what is already in the article. Awadewit | talk 06:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• No, that work is referenced in another work; the latter work supports the idea that "after the first work connected Ulysses to Milton, the ironic approach became dominant". But it doesn't go into detail, and of course if I didn't have to rely on (online) journal articles and could instead consult some of their dusty hard-copy sources, it would be easier to reconstruct the interpretations that they always mention in passing before presenting their own theories... –Outriggr § 06:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Can you give me the reference and I'll go look up the dusty copy? That might help. Awadewit | talk 06:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• That would be swell. It's Baum, Paull F. (1948). Tennyson sixty years after. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press. I expect there must be a chapter devoted to Ulysses.

I was just reading your dissertation summary, in which you refer to "subjectivity" twice. I don't really understand the context in which you're using this term—can you explain or point me to an article that would do so? Thanks. –Outriggr § 06:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, "subjectivity". It is a fancy way of saying "selfhood", except it has other connotations. How much post-1960 literary theory are you familiar with? Awadewit | talk 06:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, not too much. :) Do you have a journal article, book chapter, web page that might explain? Or would I like, have to go to graduate school? –Outriggr § 06:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, there are whole books, but they rely on a knowledge of literary theory, that is why I was asking. :) When scholars use the word "subjectivity" they are often trying to distinguish the concept they are discussing from "selfhood", a concept that has been tied to the works of philosophers like John Locke in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding and Immanuel Kant. Often these emphasize individualism and empiricism (to a point). That idea of selfhood has often also been tied to particular political philosophies (note Locke again), such as contract theory. "Subjectivity" tends to look at the development of "the subject" from different angles - from outside the physical person. Locke and other philosophers spend a lot of time dwelling on mind/body problems, for example, but people interested in "subjectivity" are more interested in what might be called the social construction of the self by outside forces (this is where theory by people such as Michel Foucault, feminist theorists, and others comes in). They are interested in "subject positions" - I am a graduate student, I am a woman, I am wikipedia editor, etc. - Who defines these terms? How am I defined by them, if I don't define them? What does this say about me? This is a different idea of selfhood - it is a set of overlapping categories, in a way. I must emphasize, however, that not everyone really uses "subjectivity" in the same way and sometimes authors don't alert you to their definitions. Whenever you see "subjectivity" in literary criticism, however, think "I am supposed to be connecting this literary theory", usually of the ideology-critique variety. It is a difficult concept to explain - does any of this make any sense? Here is a book that tries to differentiate between "self" and "subjectivity". It is a good beginning because it provides excerpts from primary material as well as explanatory secondary material. Awadewit | talk 06:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Interesting. I think I am a naive social constructivist—I can get lost in imaginings (without having read any such literature) of how people seem constructed by their environments: then I construct respect for those who attempt, by force of self-reflection and individuality, to mitigate their own social construction. (I don't think I've met many, come to think of it. :) I shall have to start with Foucault on my next trip to the library (famous last words). –Outriggr § 07:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Maybe I've discovered my interpretation of "Ulysses": he is my hypothetical "transcender" of social construction. :) –Outriggr § 07:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

(I am happy to tell you that should you ever need Mr. Rodin's services again, you will no longer be distracted by your telephone!) –Outriggr § 00:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured topic congratulations

Enjoy!

Not that it's a surprise, but congratulations on the MW featured topic, which I see just got promoted. A well-deserved feather in your cap. Mike Christie (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Resplendent congratulations to a radiant person; you deserve more than we can bestow. :) Willow 16:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

One more. Very well done; I'm only sorry I didn't participate in the candidacy discussion. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. What an achievement! I'm so pleased for you that you garnered all those superlatives at the FT page. There's so little reward for what you do, but I hope what people said made it all seem worthwhile. Of course, I know that if you were the last person in the world, with no hope of appreciation or review of any sort, you would be diligently documenting human history and making sure you got everything right. (I expect the first thing you'd do is set up home in the biggest library you could find!) Fist of respect. qp10qp 16:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It would have to have a tower. Awadewit | talk 00:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, countless huzzahs for Awadewit and her splendidly prodigious intellectual output. Or something. I'd give you another barnstar if you didn't already have 700 of them. – Scartol · Talk 17:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to you too, Scartol. I hear you have adopted triplets. qp10qp 17:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on the Featured Topic! I'm proud to say that I knew you back when you were still a newbie :) Little did I realize you would soon become one of the most respected contributors in all of Wikiland! Kaldari 17:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) You guys are wonderful. That candidacy page was overwhelming. I felt quite flattered. To receive such high praise from so many respected editors - I was really touched. Perhaps we could establish chains of influence like they used to do with philosophers: Kaldari to Awadewit to Scartol. Kaldari helped me out with my first FAC and I helped out Scartol with his first FAC. :) Perhaps networks would be better? I can't draw a web, unfortunately (I am not proficient in ASCII art) - that way everyone could be included. Awadewit | talk 22:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that Chinua Achebe is an FA, in light of the above comment, I can say: "There if I grow, / The harvest is your own." – Scartol · Talk 08:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Six degrees of FAC-aration? – Scartol · Talk 01:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Exactly. The Kevin Bacon game. Who is the Kevin Bacon of wikipedia? Is it Jimbo? Awadewit | talk 03:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Great work! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me add my congratulations too - glad to see you made it despite my efforts ;) EyeSerene^TALK 17:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet

This article is undergoing a pre-FAC peer review. Could you take a look? Wrad 15:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• I saw that go up for peer review. Unfortunately, I am just much too busy at the moment to give it the attention it deserves. I have had a sudden inspiration regarding my dissertation - one night I saw it all glimmering before me - I saw the whole argument. I need to write down as much of that vision as I can remember. :) Awadewit | talk 22:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, visions kind of trump everything. Wrad 22:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

James II

Thank you for your constructive remarks and for your support on this FAC. I think the article has been much improved by the process. Coemgenus 23:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• You're welcome. I'm glad you didn't view them as intrusive or picky. Good to work with you. Awadewit | talk 00:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

More JP

Thank you, you didn't have to add anything :) I'm sorry, but I'm still too busy to devote it the attention it deserves (same with a FAC I'd like to review), and am only around doing mindless menial stuff. I hope you don't mind; I don't want to end up saying something idiotic just because I didn't read thoroughly enough. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Not a problem. I hope you'll come around to the FAC and see the "final" product in a few weeks. :) Awadewit | talk 01:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your patience with me during PR :) Please leave me a note when you nominate it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hi there again, just reminding you that the review must be archived over at WP:Biography as well, not only marked as such in the article Talk page. Do you think Markus's last concern was addressed to his satisfaction? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, I thought I had archived everything properly. I think all of Markus's concerns have been addressed. I don't think articles can be as "self-contained" as he wishes. I have tried as much as possible here, but at a certain point other articles have to take over. Awadewit | talk 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

and more

I think I've taken care of those peer review issues (at least, the one ones my name was re-called), though I'm not happy with my verbosity. The more I read of Shofield, the less satisfied I am by the way he places Priestley within the context of 18th century chymistry (or rather, fails to). But I don't think that's a simple problem to overcome, as the relevant work is only beginning to make it's way into history of chemistry literature. Let me know if there is more you want me to do.--ragesoss 01:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Lol. And I just pasted our copy edits right over you! I will go back and fix that. So sorry. One reason I was so desperate to find someone else to read about Priestley's science was because I thought I was misreading Schofield - I found it difficult to follow on that front. Perhaps I was not wrong. I read this 80-page article on Priestley's philosophy/theology and I still can't summarize it. I see an area where we can publish in. Perhaps a joint venture? Far in the future, when we both have tenure? :) Awadewit | talk 01:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Do you think you could add a few sentences explaining phlogiston theory at some relevant point in the article? That's been difficult for me to formulate well. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 01:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Biography peer review

Hi Awadewit. You have helpfully volunteered some time on the John Knox article, but I know you are very busy with your article. I would like to come back to you for some advice after some more work when I am nearer to FAC. What I would like to do now is to submit it to the general peer review so that other eyes can take a look. However, since the biography peer review is still open, some people might object that the article is being perused under several forums simultaneously. Could you close the biography peer review? I will submit it to WP:PR following your action. Also, I have "applied" for a copy-editor through WP:LoCE, but they might take a while. Could you suggest someone that I could contact just in case LoCE doesn't work out? --RelHistBuff 09:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• You can close the PR yourself. Just follow the instructions here.
• Also, there is no need to list the article separately at WP:PR. All PR requests from the Biography project are also listed at WP:PR. That is how I found yours. :)
• WP:LoCE takes a very long time. User:Qp10qp, User:AnonEMouse or User:Scartol might be able to help out with copy editing, although User:Scartol is busy with another copy editing request at the moment. Awadewit | talk 21:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know the Biography PRs appear automatically on the general PR page. And I see the PR people has already archived it on their page. OK, I will close it on the Biography page. Hmm, I've run out of forums to get feedback. I will have to find the another pair of eyes somewhere, someone who is interested in the topic. Thanks for the suggestions on copy-editors. Hopefully someone might have some time. --RelHistBuff 22:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Those copy editors are good reviewers, too. :) There is also a list of good reviewers on my userpage (some are more active than others). You might also try contacting participants in WikiProject Calvinism. You can look at their list of members or put a note on a talk page there. Awadewit | talk 23:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

CdM's BPs

I wasn't going to ask you, because I can see how swamped you are, and not in the best of health, either, by the sounds of it. The last thing you need right now is to trawl through an obscure architecture article. A peer review from you, though—even one of those highly critical ones that make one shrink under the desk—is received as gold dust in this quarter, I assure you. I am really in no hurry at all (I'm almost ashamed at how long this puny article has taken me to compile).qp10qp 14:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have another article to review before CdM's BPs, but I hope I get to it in the next week or two. Your sources are quite eclectic! Awadewit | talk 21:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

WWPC ep34 summary

morning! I've put up a description of the interview which should go live in 5 days or so - Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/Episode34. Are you happy with that summary? I know it's sensationalist but that's more likely to get people to listen. I worried that you might think it will encourage people to "find" you once the ep goes live and that becomes the template on the community bulletin board? I'm trying to find the line between privacy, public interest and publicity. What do you think?

Best, Witty Lama 01:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• The more accurate, but still sensationalistic statement would be: "has to hide her activities here for fear of jeopardizing her academic career". I hope no one decides to hunt me down and post my name. I guess this is a test of wikipedia trust. Awadewit | talk 02:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiglaf

Hi -- just thought I'd let you know that I responded to one more of your comments on the FAC: here's the diff. I thought you might miss it because there were some subsequent edits. I also asked qp10qp to take a look at the other paragraph you still had a question about, and he posted a suggested rewrite to my talk page. I've used a version of that -- let me know if that resolves the concerns about that paragraph. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• See responses at FAC. Awadewit | talk 00:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

over 1000 edits to joseph priestly !!!

This is amazing. It could be a small book or a long article. Incredible. I am stunned and impressed.--Filll 23:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's crazy, I know. And now there are all of those subpages.... (see my userpage for a list) Awadewit | talk 00:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And now you are being interviewed and famous? Wow...---Filll 00:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's weird. I didn't know I was so famous! Apparently the interview will be up in two weeks or so. It has already been recorded. Awadewit | talk 03:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Cup

I've been kinda semi-active lately, and I've gotten around to making the fixes you talked about. I also created a page, User:Maxim/Articles, which is sort of a to-do list for the article, although you don't have to use the page, it's something you might be interested in seeing. Is the article ready for FAC, writing-wise? Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 13:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm terribly sorry, but I just don't have time to look over it right now. (See banner above.) I really need to work on my dissertation right now. See, I had this vision of exactly how to write it.... :) It's rare. I must get it all on paper before that vision disappears. Awadewit | talk 08:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As a heads up, I've nominated it at FAC. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiglaf FAC

Wiglaf's been promoted, but I wanted to let you know that I've copied the remaining points of yours that had not been addressed to Talk:Wiglaf of Mercia. I think I'll let it sit for a couple of weeks and then go back to it -- I often find that helps when trying to rewrite for clarity. Anyway, I didn't want you to think I'd quit working on those points just because the FA passed. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good idea. I often do that myself. Awadewit | talk 19:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Literature proposal

Just wondering if you could supply me with any of your many wikifriends who may be interested in joining the proposed Literature WikiProject here. I'm trying to find people interested in the field, and I'm sure you know many. Also, feel free to join yourself, since you'll probably end up reviewing a lot of our work anyway. This project is badly needed and we would love your support. Wrad 17:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have time to engage in one of those long discussions about process right now - :) - but I did join as anything related to literature peaks my interest. Other possible editors: Scartol, WillowW, Qp10qp, Outriggr, Mike Christie, Lquilter, scribblingwoman, and Peter cohen. For what it's worth, I think Literature should be the umbrella category for every other wikiproject related to texts - books, short stories, poetry, etc.

• By the way, I noticed Hamlet still hasn't garnered a review. If you still don't have a good one after the 15th, let me know. Awadewit | talk 22:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Priestley

Dear Awadewit:

Forgive me for being blunt. I understand that you put in an enormous amount of work on Joseph Priestley, that the article is primarily your creation, and that all of your very extensive contributions to WP are superb and WP:FA quality (I mean this sincerely; I am not being sarcastic or patronizing). I can also sympathize with your statement, "I am just absolutely paranoid about scientific mistakes creeping into the article." Part of your feeling is because science and its history are not among your primary areas of study. However, you are not solely and personally responsible for the accuracy of every statement that another Wikipedian contributes. Also, there are others making modest contributions to the article who do know more of the science and science history than you do. You can rely on them, and the peer reviews, and the FA review (well, maybe not the FA review; I just looked at it) to correct science errors, rather than taking the whole burden on yourself.

This remark is prompted by your questioning of Willow's small but important substantive additions to the article, followed by your continuing to argue with her after she patiently explained herself to you more fully than she should have had to do. Science and science history obviously are within Willow's expertise, despite her modest disclaimer of the latter. Yet you continued to argue with her about Lavoisier and conservation of mass, even after she pointed you to Conservation of mass, which includes the following: "The law of conservation of mass was first clearly formulated by Antoine Lavoisier; in 1789, who is often for this reason (see below) referred to as the father of modern chemistry. However, Mikhail Lomonosov (1748) had previously expressed similar ideas and proved them in experiments." To your credit, you did not revert her contributions.

You did revert one of my edits (among several others that you reverted) on the same basis several days ago, which may have sensitized me to your treatment of Willow; I made no issue of the specific point because it was unimportant to the Priestley article and therefore not worth confronting you. In copy editing a parenthetical sentence about phlogiston, I inserted "or fluid" after "essence". I did this reflexively because descriptions of phlogiston as a fluid are common in the literature. You reverted the edit with this inline comment (emphasis added): "It is not clear to me that people thought that phlogiston was a fluid." If you had simply Googled "phlogiston fluid" before deleting my edit, you would have found these results, which include several reliable references to phlogiston as a fluid, amid some less reliable ones and irrelevant hits. It is one thing to change another editor's statement that you know to be incorrect or dubious. It is something else, and not justifiable, to excise another's statement because you do not personally know whether it is true or not.

In fact, both Roger Davies and I, in the reverse order, copy edited the same parenthetical sentence on phlogiston (mine was the one that introduced "or fluid"), but you reverted both of us. It now reads: "(In the 18th century it was believed that flammable substances burned because they contained an essence called phlogiston.)." [You added the erroneous period after the close parenthesis, by the way.] Both of our edits aimed at eliminating the anonymous passive voice "it was believed", a construction that many careful writers and editors avoid because it is vague and weak (although Wikipedians generally write a gentler edit summary when we fix one). Roger's attempt was this: "(An 18th century theory held that flammable substances burned because they contained an essence called phlogiston.)" You reverted Roger with the edit comment "fixing fragment"; Roger's version in fact is a grammatically complete sentence. My previous effort, which also eliminated the parentheses, was this: "In the eighteenth century, scientists believed that flammable substances could burn because they contained an essence or fluid called phlogiston." Since you have rejected two attempts to repair this sentence, please try to improve it yourself.

As I have said before, and sincerely mean, Joseph Priestley will be a featured article, and that will be almost entirely because of the quality of your work. Nevertheless, please consider showing more respect, and having more respect, for the work of other Wikipedians. And please give us more benefit of the doubt. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 05:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Let me address your address your points one by one.

• "Part of your feeling is because science and its history are not among your primary areas of study" - This is true to an extent, however the history of the eighteenth century is a specialty of mine. I do not really know what Willow's academic training is. Willow seems to know a lot about science - that is not always consonant with knowing the history of science, however.
• I do realize that I am not responsible for everyone else's contributions, but when I have nominated an article for FAC, I feel that I am saying "I think this article is well-researched and accurate". If things are added, I feel a responsibility to check them. I'm sure you would feel the same way.
• Willow and I have a very good relationship and our discussions have usually been fruitful in the past. I am sure that if Willow felt I said something that was out of line, she would have let me know. Willow and I like to explain things and hash them out, which is why I posted the questions to her talk page. I don't think I was arguing with her in a negative way - I was honestly trying to figure out what was the most accurate information. (Also, don't point me to Conservation of mass - the statement you quote is unreferenced.)
• My revert on phlogiston and explanation in an internal comment was quite specific: I actually have read rather widely now on phlogiston because of Priestley. There were several different phlogiston theories in the eighteenth century and it is unclear to me that they all accepted the idea that phlogiston was a fluid. Including that fact would be misleading, in my estimation. This is indeed my opinion, but, actually, so is practically every other decision about what to include in the article. I based my opinion on a careful reading of the secondary materials listed in the bibliography (along with a few others). [Which sources do you consider reliable in that google list? I wasn't sure.]
• I am sorry if I fixed a grammatically correct sentence and introduced an extra period - we all make mistakes. Surely, I can be allowed errors? However, I do believe that the passive voice is the best construction in this instance. Rules such as "never use the passive" are not particularly helpful. The passive is indeed weak - when used repetitively. It is useful here because it was not only "scientists" (who may or may not have existed at this time) who accepted phlogiston theory. Listing all of the groups of people who accepted the theory is unnecessary - the most important part of the sentence is the information regarding phlogiston. That is why it is foregrounded - if we need to use the passive to do that, so be it.
• I think that I have showed enormous respect for the work of other wikipedians (see the nominating statement for Joseph Priestley). I'm not quite sure why you think that engaging in a rational discussion of the evidence of whether or not a particular claim is valid is disrespectful. From my point of view, that shows great respect: I am willing to listen the editors' reasoning and engage in a discussion with them. As I am with you. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 06:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear, good Finell,

I'm really touched by your letter. :) I'm a bit of the shrinking violet in real life, and hardly anyone ever sticks up for me as you have; I certainly don't. And although you call your own letter "blunt", I find it spirited yet courteously and beautifully worded; you have nothing to reproach yourself for.

I realize that your letter is not only about me, but I wanted to express my feelings of gratitude to you and to relieve two misapprehensions that, being resolved, might pour oil on troubled waters. First, I like and respect Awadewit very much; I think worlds will move before my faith in her is shaken. I don't think she has it within her to offend me, although she might someday rise to the challenge. ;) Knitters are famously gabby and you should not mistake our patient to-and-fro for prickly disputations. :) Secondly, you should not give me more credit than I deserve. :( I'm no historian of science and a poor chemist, and I've never read Lavoisier in the original. Unfortunately, I'm very good at making things sound plausible; that's a helpful skill in real life, but exceedingly dangerous in scholarship. Awadewit is wise to be skeptical and I think we agree that the "conservation of mass" matter warrants further study, which I'll try to do today.

It may come down to finding a more refined and more accurate wording, such as "Lavoisier assumed that mass was conserved in chemical reactions, a key quantitative principle that was borne out experimentally and which allowed the science of chemistry to progress. By contrast, Priestley..." There are so many ways of wording it (words are a truly fluid essence ;) that I'm sure we can find one that suits us and the facts.

(warning:wild speculations ahead) My sense is that people can become frustrated with Awadewit because she doesn't concede defeat when others would, but continues to argue her position until it's been rigorously shown to be untenable. The feeling may be that she prevails by attrition, by simply outlasting her discussion partners despite having weaker arguments. If so, gentlemen, you should count your blessings in having a worthy and honorable partner whose mettle and nettle will draw the best from you; there's no cure but to practice patience and good will and the scrupulous amassing of scholarly evidence. I believe we are all sincerely working for the good of the encyclopedia, don't you? :) Willow 12:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Willow: You've never read Lavoisier in the original? You're a moron.</sarcasm> (I said it before but I'd like to say it again here: Pass the Lavoisier!) Also, Willow, you failed to close your parentheses which began with "I'm no historian of science…". For shame, Willow. For shame. – Scartol · Talk 16:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You're so cute! :) But I'm not ashamed to be a moron, when Erasmus and St. Francis praise it so sweetly. And just for clarification, ":(" is an emoticon meaning "meah - I'm bummed", as in "I'm worried that Scartol doesn't like me anymore. :(" A laughing and affectionate Willow 12:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I have an actual question: When you made the change, Finell, did you provide an edit summary? Was the change discussed on a talk page? I know that when I'm doing a lot of work on a big complicated big article, changes made by folks I haven't been interacting with are alarming, and my instinct is to revert them unless I know where the editor is coming from. (This is not a rhetorical question; I'm trying to understand the situation, and I can't find the edit in question. Maybe someone can help me find a diff?)

I agree with Willow that Awadewit is direct and firm, as the best vanguards of language always are. I don't suppose my big nose is needed in this situation, but I will serve as a character witness if anyone wants. – Scartol · Talk 16:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 34

zOMG! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 34 has been released, and it's the biggest panel in quite a while!

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/11/03/wikipedia-weekly-34-aka-fundraiser/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 05:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

DYK

On November 7, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joseph Priestley House, 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.

Howdy Awadewit, well done again, this article was kindly nominated by Ruhrfisch and you have earned yourself the pictured slot. I eagerly await listening to your dulcet tones :) Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

copyedit request

James Milner. I'm trying to get this to FA status but at the moment the prose of the article is holding it back. Buc 06:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry that I can't help, but I'm really busy with my dissertation at the moment (see banner at top of page). Sorry! Awadewit | talk 07:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

LOTD proposal

You either voted on the original list of the day proposal or the revised version. A more modest experimental proposal is now at issue at WP:LOTDP. Feel free to voice your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)