Wadewitz

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello!

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

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Mix them all up so I can't tell any of them apart. --Moni3 (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 18:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The photograph that has been in the article for some months was mine, taken at Winchester in May 2007. It appears that the copyright problem is due to my difficulty in understanding how to set up the image page. If my photo of the grave is of interest, any help in correcting the copyright problem would be appreciate. My e-mail address can be found on my website, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj EMJALSJ (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply