User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

A Vindication of the Rights of Woman

Hello! I see that you did not like a number of my edits (especially those trying to help out the less-informed reader by linking to the Wiktionary). Though I disagree with some of those (e.g., the reversion of the link to enervate on the grounds that it does not reflect C18 usage, when in fact examples from other writers of the time such as Gibbon show Wollstonecraft's usage and find their meaning in the Wiktionary entry), I will defer to you on those. After all, I can entirely understand some defensiveness, particularly when it concerns someone who is still a WP novice. Besides, the article is truly excellent and stands out even among FAs, which themselves woefully represent less than 0.001 of WP articles. That you have contributed five FAs is obvious to the point of stentorian testimony to your quest and achievement of excellence.

Nevertheless, one of your edits that I have just reverted to mine I will stand by. I feel strongly that the block quote in the "Historical Context" section of this article needed to be reformatted so that it does actually look like a block quote. Not only does this maintain the consistency of block quote presentation throughout the article, but it also conforms to style requirements as promulgated by Chicago, the MLA, et al. A visual comparison of the page with and without the block quote formatting shows no difference that I can see in the formatting for the whole page or even for the "Historical Context" section. With the visible indentation, the paragraph after the block quote is still clearly flush with the left margin as defined by the paragraphs preceding the block quote.

I hope that this reversion will not cause much consternation, especially since I would like to count on your exceptionally high standards and expertise in editing articles that are at least partially my babies.

Thank you very much for listening. I know I have much to learn about Wikipedia, and I aspire to your level of contribution. Scrawlspacer 13:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I checked the wikitionary links myself. Also, I am not fond of linking within quotations as it implies we can know for certain what exactly the author meant. Since there is often a great deal of ambiguity in texts and words can have shades of meaning even during one historical time period, I do not think it is a good idea to link words within a quotation unless absolutely necessary. When it comes to the blockquote, let me explain. There is a visible difference when you use <blockquote>. I'm sorry if you can't see it, but it does indent and it even slightly changes the font of the text. The problem with indenting the way you did is if anyone ever adds to the article, that quote would be shifted lower on the page and would suddenly be indented oddly and differently than the rest of the blockquotes due to the number of colons you added. All of the block quotes in the article have been formatted using the available wiki programming language. I am well-aware of the MLA requirements and would not want to violate them (although wikipedia follows different rules). I do not think that it is difficult to see that that quotation is a block quotation. I might mention as well that once an article has become an FA (at least recently), it has gone through a fairly rigorous review process and mistakes of this sort are generally not to be found. If you want to understand more about FAs and contribute to making wikipedia a better encyclopedia, which I am sure you do, I suggest that you survey the FA candidacy process and consider reviewing articles there as well as writing your own articles. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me. Awadewit ^Talk 20:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Awadewit,

Thanks so much for taking such good care of our mutual friend, Joseph. His portrait looks very dashing, although I worry about his thin fingers; maybe he's not eating enough at his own soirees? The tribulations of being a good host... ;)

My garden kept me busy all weekend, with planting and plowing and digging; I was too tired to work any more after sunset, sorry, otherwise I would've thanked you earlier. I'll try to get to the library this week and see what tidbits Dr. Tyson has to offer. I'm not allowed to take the book out, but I can peruse there for choice details. It's rather thrilling; I feel like a spy furtively photographing secret documents. ;D Is there a topic in particular that you'd like to see covered more fully?

Hoping all's well with you, Willow 00:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going to buy that book sometime anyway. If you want, I can buy it and send it to you at an anonymous P.O. Box. I hate reading in libraries, but then our university library resembles a Borg cube. Awadewit ^Talk 02:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I'm really moved; you're so generous. :) Please don't worry — I like going to libraries, which are warm and wrapped in warmer memories; my mother took me there every week when I was little. When I was writing the Britannica article, I went to the local "respectable" library all the time to find tabloid tidbits in Kogan's encyclopedic history of the EB. I love the atmosphere there, being surrounded by learned and learning people; it feels — sanctified.

I went to Columbia for my undergrad and they have a beautiful library - Butler Library. It is old and has lots of wooden shelves (I like old wooden bookshelves, for some reason). I would go there and just feel like I was surrounded by knowledge and erudition. The New York Public Library was lovely as well; I interned in their print collection for a year - it was so amazing to see all of those old prints and maps!. Unfortunately, like I said, my current university library is not so pleasant.

My mom bought me books - this has resulted in a terrible addiction on my part. She always told me that she would buy me whatever book I wanted because books are educational (usually I wanted novels or history books). Now, I use the same justification (but it's a book! it's for my dissertation!) when I really can't afford it. Ah, the life of a graduate student.

My favorite play is the The Caucasian Chalk Circle, whose message is that things should go to those who will use them best. I know that you will be able to use the book better and more wisely than me, that it will hold more insights and new connections for you. I'll make a little thumbnail sketch of JJ, and you can paint his portrait in colors richer and deeper. Working with you will be the best gift and learning from you the best momento, Willow 10:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm so happy we've become wiki-buddies (is there a word for that?). I'm not sure I have favorite books anymore. Studying literature does that to you. Growing up, my favorite novel was Jane Eyre, so I have still have nostalgic ties to that one. Have you read Jasper Fforde's The Eyre Affair (don't click if you haven't read it - it is only a plot summary)? I was impressed with its seamless mixing of genres. The literal bookworms were fabulous as well. Awadewit ^Talk 11:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's wonderful how often I want to write "Me too, me too, me too!". :) I loved Jane Eyre as well, although I still have to shudder when thinking of the Red Room; short though it is, the passage really scared me. I grew up reading and re-reading Jane Austen, especially the slightly bitter-sweet Persuasion; however, Middlemarch was transforming for me. I can't wait to delve into The Eyre Affair, which I haven't read or clicked, but which is giving me terrible suspense. ;) Willow 12:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I was more intimated by Mr. Brocklehurst and his threats of damnation, but that's another story entirely. Fforde is excellent. Awadewit ^Talk 13:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for taking the time to review Garrett A. Morgan. You provided great input, as I knew you would. Hopefully, it will sort itself out in time. Also, please never hesitate to ask for any service I'm able to provide, such as image modification, etc. I am more than happy to help. - Jeeny ^Talk 01:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Awadewit ^Talk 02:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Notes on Sarah Trimmer

Hi Awadewit,

Tyson's book turned out to be smaller than I imagined, so I photocopied a few choice passages that I'll try to digest and upload as I can. He does seem to have been a warm-hearted but rather impractical person, so I feel a natural affinity for him. ;)

Incidentally, Sarah Trimmer is discussed on page 84 of Tyson's book, but his account differs slightly and I thought I'd better write you, since it might be helpful for your thesis. Tyson cites the following work

• St. John, Judith (1958). The Osborne Collection of Early Children's Books, 1566-1910. Toronto: Toronto Public Library.

as saying that Trimmer's first publication was Little Spelling Book, followed by its sequel, Easy Lessons, the latter being published by Johnson by 1787. Also, he gives a slightly different reference for Sarah Trimmer's (auto?-)biography

• Anonymous (1814). Account of the Life and Writings of Mrs. Sarah Trimmer (2 vols. ed.). F. C. and J. Rivington, J. Johnson & Co.

I'm guessing that this is a different edition from the one cited in Sarah Trimmer article, since the page numbers Tyson cites for Trimmer's discussion of Johnson don't match up? Anyway, hoping that this helps, Willow 18:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that when the 1958 book was written, even less was known about what Trimmer wrote than today, causing mistakes to be made in the list of works. Like I've said in Trimmer FAC, I'm in contact with a scholar trying to sort out the list of works, but with eighteenth-century children's writers it is often difficult. They were often published without authors and first editions rarely survive (children are so destructive!). Also, there seemed to be a semi-accepted practice of plagiarizing from other people's works. So, for example, "Richard Johnson's" Juvenile Rambles is almost entirely (but not totally) Trimmer An Introduction to Knowledge. For the page as it currently stands, I have simply listed what has been solidly identified as Trimmer's (but that can change! Daniel Defoe is a notorious case).

I would guess that the autobiography is another edition as well, although I hadn't seen one earlier than 1816; the google books text is from 1825 - 3rd edition.

Let me know if you find out why they broke off their publishing relationship - someone at my Trimmer peer review wanted me to put that into the page, but none of my Trimmer sources say anything about it.

276 pages aren't enough? If only I had had that for Trimmer! :) (Currently, I am overwhelmed on Joseph Priestley as you can see, trying to condense a detailed two-volume intellectual biography into one article.) Awadewit ^Talk 19:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you blushing yet?

FAC going rather well, I notice. Have one of these:

For your invaluable articles. qp10qp 22:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Your invaluable reviewing certainly contributed to that! Awadewit ^Talk 01:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

ISBN

What about [1], or [2], or [3] (the last one being from Oxford)? Lupo 11:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't tell which of those the book was. I no longer have it and I read it awhile ago. If you really feel the need to put in an ISBN number, replace the year of publication and everything along with it as well as the first footnote that it appears in. I only hope to God that my page numbers line up with that edition as well. Do you think they printed two? Awadewit ^Talk 11:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Dunno if there were two editions. I doubt it. This is a small printing house, so I don't think they would have re-layouted the book. But maybe there were several printings (small print runs?). ISBNs help people find the book. So at the very least I'd add "A 1971 printing has the ISBN 0-903254-00-X." Lupo 12:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I award the Barnstar of Diligence to Awadewit for his dedicated work to improving articles throughout Wikipedia. You've done great work with your 5 FAs and 1 GA, and you've also taken the time to help many other users out with copyediting and reviewing requests. I appreciate all the comments you made on the Samuel Adams FAC a while back, and thanks to you, the article looks much more professional now. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 01:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Ha ha; it looks like barnstars time at the moment. When I joined Wikipedia, I immediately thought how silly they were. But when I got my first one, I was surprised to find myself quietly thrilled. The only difficulty with people like you is that it would become repetitive to give one every time you deserve it, so don't be surprised to find me moving on to humorous or home-made badges in the future.

I had the same feelings exactly.

I'm slightly reluctant to get any further involved in Plymouth Colony, I must say. The editor there has his/her own way of looking at the article, and I think one perhaps has to make the suggestions and withdraw. qp10qp 12:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That is fine. The editor just wanted other opinions and I'm happy that s/he now has some more. Not every debate is worth fighting to the death. Awadewit ^Talk 05:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikiproject banners and the condensing thereof...

Where can I find instructions on condensing Wikiproject banners? After seeing you do so on the William Blake talk page, I have been thinking of doing that on the talk pages of a number of other articles on watch list. Any assistance you can offer will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. ---Cathal 01:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any instructions anywhere. I just saw the code on a page once and started using it myself. Awadewit ^Talk 02:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Well, I'll give it a shot. If I make a mistake, that's what the undo button is for... Thanks. ---Cathal 04:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional comment needed...

Hey, you've been fantastic on the Plymouth Colony article; do you think you could help out with another issue? I was wondering if you could comment on the Anaximander entry at WP:GA/R (near the bottom of the page). It's a discussion that could use a fresh perspective; and I think you could add something to it. Thanks in advance! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I will do so. Awadewit ^Talk 20:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

copyright

Hi Awadewit - sorry for the delays; i've been traveling. I responded to your question about copyright on my talk page. The short answer is copying a bibliography is almost always going to be a-okay. Only if the bibliography is some very strange and particular and unique selection and organization of works would copying it possibly pose a problem. --lquilter 14:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ta ta, and thanks :)

Hi Awadewit,

I'm leaving early tomorrow, but I couldn't leave without taking leave. ;) Thanks for the new book recommendation, which bodes well for my summer reading! I probably won't get to JJ before I leave, or to the discussion about lists of works, but hopefully those will move slowly enough not to notice my absence. ;) If you'd like any extra help with Joseph Priestley, I'll help out as I can when I return. All the best with Mary and the others, Willow 22:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Have a fun trip! If you want to help out with Priestley, that would be fantastic. I had asked you for so many favors that I didn't want to ask for another one. Priestley is another one of those fascinating eighteenth-century figures like Johnson, though. Awadewit ^Talk 00:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Apology

Hi Awadewit. I think I snagged your comment accidently when I was editng the talk page. Please feel free to edit it. Regards, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 17:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not resistance...

It's really more of a familiarity with sources. My finding is that there are really very few accurate books about Masonry not written by Masons (or vehement opponents thereof), and the main article isn't just about history, rendering much of the available material more suitable to the History of Freemasonry article. The only places one will find info on officers, duties, supported charities, types of lodges, etc., is from Masonic sources; we don't advertise what we do because we don't seek recognition for it (for better or for worse). So I'm just not sure where else to find the information in the article. You say outside sources, and that's fine, but I'm simply not convinced that they exist, because you have a very broad view of what is usable and what is not. MSJapan 18:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but somehow you have to prove that this is the case - not just for me, but for the readers of the page. That is why I asked if any of the editors had read any academic sources at all. I'm not referring to just the history here. You can say that the sources don't exist, but I am not convinced that the editors have looked for them simply because the search results I found on google scholar lead me to believe that much more is published on the Masons than just their history. I believe that this disagreement is not one of fact (there are no reliable sources) but one of philosophy. The editors of the page want to use primary sources because they believe that those sources more adequately reflect Masonry. I'm afraid that this is not wikipolicy and for a very good reason - self-representations have to be verified and analyzed. We cannot rely on organizations of any kind to tell us the truth about themselves. Awadewit ^Talk 18:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on the Talk page, and I was more or less justified in my assumption. There are a few things there that might be worth looking at, but much of it is not "outside verification" - 90% of that stuff (which is what I can verify offhand) is written by Masons. MSJapan 19:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

GA hold (E. Espejo)

Hi there. Thank you for your comments. I will work on the lead of the article later on. I had just created a "Historical Backgroud" section, written in Spanish (for some reasons), which might fill some of the problems regarding contextualization. Sooner or later I will get it translated. There is not much information about his Early life.

Well, if there isn't much information, there isn't much you can do. I was just wondering. Awadewit ^Talk 21:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

About the prose of the article, I will also work on that, but please tell me what do you mean with strange "but," "thus," etc. claims. There are not any sources written in English about Eugenio Espejo (I only included one in the article). I personally believe that Philip Astuto's biography is the most impartial and complete one (as he is a foreign author); but I jus added more citations from Carlos Freile. My regards, Dalobuca 21:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer (I thought I could just refer to the previous GA review). I meant illogical; the clauses following some of the conjunctions like "but" don't actually logically follow the first clause of the sentence. The first reviewer gave some examples of these. Awadewit ^Talk 21:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If there are no English sources, then there aren't. Perhaps you could put a note in the article somewhere to that effect? Awadewit ^Talk 21:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive!

WikiProject Biography is holding a three month long assessment drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unassessed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2007 – September 1, 2007.

Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the WikiCookie to the great Golden Wiki Award.
There are over 110,000 articles to assess so please visit the drive's page and help out!

This drive was conceived of and organized by Psychless with the help of Ozgod. Regards, Psychless ^{Type words!}.

Freemasonry

I just wanted to thank you again for your comments. I may not agree with all of them (obviously), but I do respect them and will seriously consider what you have said. It is clear that you have the best interest of the article and Wikipedia in mind. We will continue to work on the article... pop in from time to time and tell us how we are doing. Thanks again. Blueboar 22:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. You are right that I am just trying to make wikipedia better. Awadewit ^Talk 09:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)