User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 29

• 1) Is it possible to link to the Japanese image description page?
• 2) Who released the image under the CC license? The uploader on the Japanese Wikipedia? If so, we have to have a statement to that effect, I think. Right now, it sort of looks like you are releasing it.

I'm just learning all of these image rules myself. I thought that it would be a good idea, since so few people know them. They are very complex, however. You might ask for some advice at Commons since I presume you will be moving this to Commons? (Note: Wikipedia and Commons have different rules regarding images.)

Thanks, I'll ask at commons,

I wonder if you have an opinion about

But still, there's beauty lurking in every corner of Wikipedia. I'm sorry that I haven't written lately, but you've never been far from my thoughts. I hope your sundry writing and preparations for Wikimania are going well! :) With abiding affection, Willow (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. The last glow of my strawberries is fading now, but it was a wonderful year. I know you don't have much room, but maybe you could consider growing them in a container? I promise you, you'll never taste anything as good, even from a farmer's market. :) My currants and blueberries are coming on now, with the grapes and raspberries waiting their turn patiently. :) Willow (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Willow! What a beautiful flower - I'm going to put it on my desktop. I'm working on the "how to collaborate on a controversial article" section of my paper. I have lots of "what goes wrong" data and the patterns are clear to me, but the solutions are not. Hopefully I will figure something out soon. By the way, I am going to read Zinsser's La Dame d'Esprit on the way to Egypt. It just arrived and I keep looking over at it longingly! And, I promise, when I move out of my box-like apartment, I will erect a little Willow-garden. Home-grown strawberries sound wonderful.

talk

) 22:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries – I can imagine the RCC stuff must have you drained.. I don't know how you've been so civil for so long. Hope you feel better soon! (Do you still want to do that Skypecast? I have some time this week and next, or else we can do it mid-July when I get back from my road trip.) Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 00:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I just read your user page. Check out our little article on Charity (play). It's an astonishing piece for a male (or any) Victorian playwright. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That is much appreciated and made my day! The sentiments are mutual, of course, but I'm waiting till the end of the FAC to give voice to them. (The chickens are still crossing the road, but we have been very lucky with our reviewers so far. (If we are discussing things like full stops in quotations, we can't complain.) qp10qp (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Holy schnikies!

I'm quite glad I've been working on this series of articles. I would have been mortified to see the news of the Big Sugar deal and that jump of hits when the article was in its former sad state. --Moni3 (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• This is so exciting for you! How many news reporters do you think will base the background of their stories on these articles!?
  talk
  ) 15:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Alberts is very good, both my parents and I used various editions of that in our respective times at university! Homeopathy is just an infuriating subject to discuss, since it is a point of contact of two entirely different cultures. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I just nominated the article on opera singer

• I'm sorry, but I am not doing any peer reviews right now. You might ask
  talk
  ) 15:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Awadewit, how goes it? As promised, I have begun work on the "Adaptations" section in my

Definitely willing, but it all depends on what I can ferret out of the stacks. We surprisingly have quite an extensive Austen section, but most of it is lit crit, of course. Let me know if you come across anything. María (habla conmigo) 15:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 15:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's good to have some non-geek eyes acting as a balance to my ability to spout technobabble. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Let me know if I can transform any other sections into stream-of-consciousness layspeak.
  talk
  ) 19:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You could comment on if the new section on membranes is any clearer, that would let us know if we're on the right track. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I finally got what you were trying to tell me. I've added some explanations of what effects these differences might have on the organisms to the article. I think that should cover the problem that we were focusing too much on the bacteria/archaea difference and what that told us about evolution, and not enough on the properties of the archaea themselves. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on Shelley! In case you missed the thread, see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#New references feature; it still makes me pretty nervous to use something that has that many disclaimers and isn't yet documented. If you want to switch them over to ref and label, I can do that for you (see Gettysburg Address). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

Thanks for all your help with the article! It was really important to its improvement to FA level. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you thought about it? I've seen you plenty of times at FA (and its clearly rubbing off on your impressive contributions). I can't recall any bad incidents you were involved in and you come across as civil. An administrator candidate description in itself. If you have had other nominations, please ignore this. :) Rudget (logs) 17:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

How kind of you! I don't really think that adminship is for me, however. I tend to focus on writing articles and I think that my strengths on Wikipedia lie in content creation and article reviewing. I fear becoming immersed in administrative tasks, which will take time away from what I love: researching and writing. Thanks for thinking of me, though!

talk

) 19:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I totally understand. No problem. :) Rudget (logs) 20:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, I am getting ready to start working on Frankenstein. It's a mess (I'm sure you've looked at it) so I'm just going to tackle it section by section. It does not currently have a "Themes" section, so I thought I'd start there. I'll ask for your comments throughout since I've not written an article about a novel here. I was thinking about writing about homosocial vs. homoerotic desire, mourning vs. melancholy, gothic themes, frame story, epistolary fiction, sci-fi, and bibliogenesis. I don't know, perhaps these are too much for one section? --Laser brain (talk) 03:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• That sounds like two sections to me: "Styles and genres" and "Themes". The frame story, the gothic, sci-fi, and epistolarity would all fit very nicely under a "Styles and genres" heading, I think. I'm wondering about the "birth myth" stuff from feminist critics, the postcolonial reading of Frankenstein that emphasizes the novel's oblique references to slavery, and the Marxist readings of the novel. Those are important as well, I think.
  talk
  ) 16:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Have you read the Spivak criticism? I recall having a bit of a hard time parsing it, so I might ask for help on that one. :) --Laser brain (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• I haven't read Spivak yet, but I would be happy to in order to help out with the article.
  talk
  ) 03:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please check out

No hurry ... Tony has July 7 for monthly updates, not sure if we'll use this for July 14 or July 21. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added some material. If you think it is too advanced or specific, please cut it out.

talk

) 17:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(Who would win in a fight between Shelley and Dickinson?) Hard to call, that is. Both led very unconventional lives for women during the 19th century, so obviously they were tough. On the small chance that Dickinson would want to meet Shelley face to face, wouldn't they rather have a good chat over a cup of tea? Shelley can talk about her travels and Dickinson can talk about her... uh, baking? In true Celebrity Deathmatch style, however, I have to vote for Shelley. Sitting around in one's bedroom for thirty years like Dickinson did would not help as far as strength or physical training goes, I should think. :) María (habla conmigo) 19:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw that question and wondered, win at what? A poetry slam? Foxy boxing? Scrabble? Oh, that's a game I would not want to play with these ladies. I'd keep score, though. How about an "Eccentric-off"? Mad letter-writing? --Moni3 (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"Foxy boxing" made me rotfl my waffles, but only after I read the article to find out what it meant. How about a talking smack contest? It could start with some basic "Yo mama" jokes and go downhill from there; Dickinson saying "at least I'm not a one hit wonder" and Shelley countering with "at least my writing can't be sung to the theme of 'Gilligan's Island'". Oh, snap! María (habla conmigo) 20:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I laughed at "foxy boxing", too. Surely that deserves more than a stub? I also love the idea of an eccentric-off. Would it involve deciding whether wearing a white dress and staying hidden away from all society is stranger than having sex on your mother's grave?

talk

) 21:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

Hey. Episode 51. Go. Listen. Comment. Enjoy. WODUPbot 04:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't want these notifications anymore? Remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.

I do not have a huge amount of time, but should be able to do something over the next 2 or 3 days - is this timeline is OK? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• That would be wonderful and, of course, I would owe you one!
  talk
  ) 20:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well I just sat down and read the article carefully, then went to the FAC to see what the problem was (as I frankly did not see much to change). I was very pleased, but not really surprised to see that it had already passed and is FA. I enjoyed it and learned several things, and assume I am off the hook. Congratualtions! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I can say I sought out a copyeditor, if anyone asks! :) I'm glad you learned something! It was a fun article to write.
  talk
  ) 04:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• The one thing that struck me most as I read it was this Mary Shelley wrote all of the biographies in this volume except that of Ercilla, whose author is unknown. She, therefore, wrote: Boscan, Garcilaso de la Vega, Diego Hurtado de Mendoza, Luis de Leon, Herrera, Saa de Miranda, Jorge de Montemayor, Castillejo, Cervantes, Lope de Vega, Vicente Espinel, Estaban de Villegas, Góngora, Quevedo, Calderón, Ribeyro, Gil Vicente, Ferreira, and Camoens. I wondered if it might not flow better as something like Except for the biography of Ercilla, whose author is unknown, Mary Shelley wrote all of this volume, on: Boscan, Garcilaso de la Vega, Diego Hurtado de Mendoza, Luis de Leon, Herrera, Saa de Miranda, Jorge de Montemayor, Castillejo, Cervantes, Lope de Vega, Vicente Espinel, Estaban de Villegas, Góngora, Quevedo, Calderón, Ribeyro, Gil Vicente, Ferreira, and Camoens. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• That is better - changed.
  talk
  ) 15:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the heads-up. I'll definitely leave some comments at the FAC for "Intro to Virus".

I'm currently working on

• 
  Mary Wollstonecraft
• 
  Mary Shelley

Kaldari (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm in portrait heaven.
  talk
  ) 18:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Awadewit,
Thank you for your CE, it's getting late here in the UK, I'll catch up with the article and it's FAC in the morning. You are a treasure. Best wishes, Graham.

Hi Awadewit, I can see that you have had a lot on your mind today, but do you have time to revisit this FAC. I hope I've addressed all of your helpful comments. Graham.

^Talk

16:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am doing so at this very moment.

talk

) 16:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This is really freaking me out. Are we that impersonal now? Are numbers and statistics all that matter? I don't want to be just another number. :( Wrad (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm just worried that the real experts will get squeezed out by people changing "a" to "an". :)
  talk
  ) 03:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, it's a great skill and I hope I can develop it! But still... Wrad (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I have finished the themes and style section in P&P, including copyediting to an IMO acceptable level. It will however take some days (at least) to iron away all the prose wrinkles. Would you give the section a pass to speed up improvements? – sgeureka ^t•c 17:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• I did a quick once-over.
  talk
  ) 22:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget User:Cuchullain. He's from the King Arthur project and has been working on the article for ages, including this last FA push. Wrad (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, yes, thanks!
  talk
  ) 20:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Awadewit, hope all is well. I'm still shlogging through my dissertation.. saw your dustup over at FAC. I added what I hope is a cleaner solution.. cleaner from FAC's perspective; though perhaps not from an omniscient one. :-) Later!

Pardon me for inserting myself into this, but I respect both you and SandyGeorgia a great deal and hate to see this type of incident. It seems that the two of you are talking past each other, and the discussion has had so many tangents.... I can clearly see why you think that the nomination removal was a mistake. I can also clearly see why Sandy thought it was the right action -

WP:MMM, the FA-team made the recommendation of when the articles were ready to be nominated, and it looks like that was what Sandy was looking for on this article as well. You may very well be right that the rules for withdrawing nominations should be firmed up, butSandy was operating within the parameters the community set up. I hope you will reconsider your characterization of this incident as an "abuse of power" - to me, that seems an unfair assessment. Karanacs (talk

) 21:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Good luck at Wikimania. I hope your paper will be easily accessible afterwards so that I can read it. Karanacs (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that SandyGeorgia and I have a different idea of what a "significant contributor" is. Considering the FAC nomination page offers no real illumination on this point and SG has still not explained what her definition is, I consider the ongoing discussion important, much more so than the particular incident.

talk

) 21:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That means a lot to me.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed your concerns [1] [2]. I appreciate your review of the article and the constructive feedback. Sorry for taking so long to respond. Cla68 (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Have a great time! (I'd write this in green if I knew how.) qp10qp (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you are interested or not, but I was informed that you might wish to know about http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Be happy to talk about copyediting. Btw, I'm about to move that content from Uriel Sebree's FAC talk to my userpage, because the userbox I was planning on using identifies "significant contributor" and co-nom, and that's not what I'm after. As much as I hate to try to drum up interest in a brand-new userbox and designation, I just think the concept of "significant contributor" is already taken, and it doesn't mean "copyeditor". - Dan

• What about "brilliant contributor"? :)
  talk
  ) 23:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but there are only so many articles you can copyedit, Awadewit! - Dan

talk)(mistakes

) 23:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, darn it, now I think the "copyeditor userbox" sucks, too. It's just not likely that Wikipedians would find that a source of egoboo. I'll keep working on the idea at

talk)(mistakes

) 01:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads-up to let you know that I'm pulling my name from the FA-Team list. I've got so many things going on, and I don't think it's fair to pretend like I can help out with much of that group's activities. I'm still happy to help with individual projects from time to time, but for now I think it's best if I don't pretend to be a member in active standing. Enjoy Egypt! – Scartol • Tok 15:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit, thanks for your critical review, edits, and suggestions. I enjoyed answering your questions. The FA status could have not been achieved without you. Best wishes , Graham.

It's great to see that we've had another success. Also, I'll try to take a look at that FAC when I get a chance. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

(copied over from my talk page:) I see that this has been featured in the meantime... but am open to any other copy-editing you think needs doing. Oh, and meantime I hope you're enjoying Egypt! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)