User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 38

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Wadewitz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

So, I wanted to take you up on your offer to go through line-by-line through United States Academic Decathlon. If you could do that, it would be much appreciated. It doesn't have to be urgent; if you could do it whenever you think you have enough free time, that would be great. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 14:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Done and I've left a note at your userpage. Awadewit (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, A! Would you peek in at this discussion? Getting MRG's new article submitted to DYK, so that it's running simultaneously with the Dispatch, could result in double coverage of the Plagiarism issues. Since you've become a regular there, I'm wondering if you can be helpful in getting it through DYK (or encouraging it to run when the Dispatch launches, which should be early on the 13th, but one never knows)? I'm also guessing that you're still interested in putting out blurbs about the Dispatch at DYK, FAC, etc. once it moves to an "official" Signpost page? Signpost publication can be somewhat irregular; I just wait for the temp page to go live (when Ragesoss moves it). Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And, I should add what a fine piece of this work this Dispatch is ! Congratulations!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Responded and thanks! Awadewit (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, A; that was a very nice touch ! Now, we batten down the hatches and hope for a good reception :) Great work, and a fun collaboration (I wish all Dispatches could be so interesting). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your review at Talk:Harvard Girl/GA1. I have left some comments and responses there; I will continue to update the review page as I go. Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I wonder if you could help me out, I am about to start translating an article about Oslo and the article is about the differences between the eastern part (working class, lower living standards etc) and the western part of the city.

In Norwegian it is Østkant og vestkant i Oslo which directly would be "Eastside and Westside in Oslo". But when I checked with a dictionary it seems that "Eastend and Westend in Oslo" also would be possible. What do you think? Are there other options that may be better? Best regards, Ulflarsen (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think "Eastside and westside of Oslo". "Eastside and westside" are used generally to mean the east and west sections of a city, so I would go with your first translation. Awadewit (talk) 05:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I am responding to your comment about Bride and Prejudice on the Jane Austen page. I see that my contribution has been swiftly deleted, which absolutely amazes me. Frankly, Bride and Prejudice merits a mention on the main page because of its unique quality of demonstrating world wide (intercontinental) interest in Jane, which is different than Amy Heckerling's Clueless, which interpreted Jane in a modern way. I was quite careful to introduce this smidgen of information on the main Jane Austen page and thought about it carefully.

I also left a message about the A&E Pride and Prejudice adaptation. Strictly speaking, it was broadcast before Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility hit the theatres and should at least be mentioned on the main page as having ushered in a series of television adaptations that continue to this day.Vsanborn (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've responded at Talk:Jane Austen#Bride and Prejudice in 20th Century. Awadewit (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You can add the article to feminism's portal! Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Done and thanks again for writing the article! Awadewit (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

On April 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dictionary of Literary Biography, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, now create a page for their Twentieth Century Literary Criticism. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Awadewit,

The image in question was taken in the United States. I have read the freedom of panorama guidelines you mentioned, and am now under the impression that the image constitutes a derivative work, something of which I had not been aware at the time of initial upload. Would the appropriate course of action be to reduce the size of the image or to remove it from Wikipedia?

Neelix (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

PS - Out of curiosity, what is the significance of your username?

Yes, you have created a derivative work. You could try to get permission from the original copyright holder and have them send it to OTRS (see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission). Otherwise, it will have to be deleted. Awadewit (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Awadewit,

The Walt Disney Company is probably the original copyright holder, and I have no idea what channels would be appropriate to go through. Perhaps it would be best to simply have it deleted.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 15:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thought on the plagiarism dispatch: what is that trying to say to the many DANFS-copied ship articles? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you show me how this is being done? Then I will give you my thoughts. Awadewit (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

First thing that you've got to know: as a work of the government, the text of DANFS is in the public domain. Second: copying DANFS articles was done mainly in the infancy of Wikipedia. It's not something that is commonly done today (though I'm sure it happens occasionally).

Something for a "see also": Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/DANFS conversions, a page written mainly in 2004 to help convert DANFS articles.

(@ how): it is/was done by copying in the entry and wikifying it, and the {{DANFS}} tag attributes the source. If you want examples of articles, try USS Birmingham (CL-2) and [1] or USS Michigan (BB-27) and [2].

I think that the dispatch probably should have mentioned something about DANFS, but I didn't know that it was being written. :-)

You probably don't like this (although this is also half the reason I came to you, as I desired a total outside opinion to hopefully end this once and for all), but please see some of the debates that have happened before, like at DYK, WT:SHIPS, or MILHIST. As far as I know, this has been deemed as alright as long as {{DANFS}} is used. Also, for the record: I'm not arguing that a copy of DANFS be used to get a FA, GA or DYK (as I'm sure could be done on USS Tennessee (BB-43), for example); but I want end the debates that crop up every so often about the use of DANFS text to populate what would otherwise be redlinks.

Lastly: This is assuming you have an issue with DANFS copies I'm really not up to or spoiling for a fight, alright? I could have just not said anything. :/ I would much rather have this settled here or on WT:MILHIST between you, a few copyright people, me and a few MILHIST or SHIPS people than go through an ANI (which would be a dramafest, like every other conversation that lands there)... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ed17, if I can weigh in on this: As you know, there are some problems with DANFS articles, including POV. (Cf. USS Franklin (CV-13) and recent edit history.) But really, there is no need to copy DANFS. Members of the ship project have demonstrated they can write fully-cited and well-written articles, and surely capable of using DANFS as a cited source, and where exact wording is preferred, to put it in quotes. In the long run that will save time, given the number of ship articles that will end up at FAC. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering more about the state of DANFS articles that are already here...they aren't copied in too much anymore, as most of them have already been imported. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• In my opinion, best practice is to enclose all copied words and phrases with quotation marks and accompany them by inline cites. All lesser known facts that are paraphrased or alluded to should also be accompanied by an inline cite. However, it is clear that some of the material from the DANFS articles is "common knowledge" related in non-creative language. As we explained in the dispatch, it is less important to quote such material since it is not expressing the view of a particular author. There are two caveats to this: 1) I do not think that one can copy an entire article while at the same time claiming "this is all common knowledge written in non-creative language". That is extending the idea a bit too far because someone constructed the article and chose what to put into it. It then becomes a judgment call about how much one can copy. 2) Since the DANFS is produced by the US Navy, I would expect there to be a pro-military bias or pro-US bias of some sort. Care should therefore be taken when relating particular claims about battles, for example, to say "according to the DANFS..." or somesuch. I noticed that the guidelines recommended "Tone down the POV. Particular things to watch out for are anti-Communist statements dating from the Cold War, and expressions such as "unfortunate sinking" (consider that to the Japanese side in WWII, the loss of an American ship was a good thing, not a bad thing). Some statements may need qualification and/or further research, such as references to US interventions - phrases such as "protection of American lives and property" are often official explanations of complicated political situations that should have a dedicated article." - In a sense, it is a misrepresentation of the DANFS to "tone down" the source, so that recommendation worries me a bit. The article's facts and narrative of events would have the same bias as its language - simply changing its language does not remove the POV. I would therefore recommended in-text attribution instead, as I suggested above. Awadewit (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• The suggestion to do additional research is a good one. However, particularly because the editor is encouraged to use additional sources, I think it is even more important to make it clear which material and what words/phrases are from the DANFS and which ones are from other sources. Awadewit (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Unlike the EB1911 template, at least some of the DANFS templates have a link to the original text. This, I think, is an excellent idea. Generally, articles do not remain identical copies of the PD source and if the attribution of particular ideas is unclear or if the article has been altered to suggest new ideas that perhaps the authors of the DANFS did not articulate, the inquisitive reader can at least compare the two versions. However, I do feel that this is placing a high burden on the reader. Proper citation and quotation would convey the same information without asking the reader to all of that extra work. Awadewit (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• For the articles that are now built out of a variety of sources, I would expect that all of the sources would be treated equally, that is, that they would all be quoted and cited in the same fashion. Is this not done? Awadewit (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Would it be productive to draft some plagiarism guidelines for the MILHIST project or will we just run into this PD drama all over again? :) Awadewit (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well as FAR goes, with the new 1c about "high quality sources" I expect a few folks to start citing 1c against articles that mainly copy/remould tertiary sources like DANFS. I can think of an article like Ziaur Rahman (currently in FAR) that was mainly built on paraphrasing Banglapedia and cutting and pasting bits from the CIA "Country Studies" briefing, which are both tertiary. RelHistBuff has opposed some articles for having a lot of #3 sources, disregarding whether the paraphrasing was too close. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's late, I'll reply in full tomorrow. @ the last though - it would be somewhat productive, but most of the DANFS articles are already here and established on WP, so probably not as much as you may think. :/ I think that any proposed plagiarism guidelines for any project would generate drama. :) Be back tomorrow. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Alright, here goes:
• My thoughts on this is that copying stuff in is not bad as long as it is cited and that is the only thing on the page. The obvious problem with this is that this is a wiki. Nothing will stay the same forever.
• As far as I know, POV language has been removed from many of the copies and replaced with the same info but phrased with less POV. The problem here is that DANFS articles are written from logbooks, so (see two bullets down for more) not everything is known ("fog of war" is the phrase?)
• It was copied in because it is PD. Technically, we can copy the entire thing, although I agree that we should be rewording.
• "relating particular claims about battles" - very good thought. The problem is that the DANFS entries were written from the logbooks of ships; so while positions are almost certainly accurate, versions that have not been updated can be wrong on, say, (hypothetical) "the ship sank two cruisers" when in reality the ship sank two destroyers (i.e. they misidentified the ships). Basically, care has to be taken anyway and (I think?) we all know that. Maybe it would be worth it to state this somewhere?
• (2nd bullet) - agreed. In an article like USS Nevada (BB-36), you wouldn't be able to tell it apart from the referenced stuff. FYI, there is no copied text in that article, I made sure.
• (3rd) - again, I agree, per my 2nd bullet response.
• (4th) - honestly, I have no idea. Of the top of my head, the only U.S. battleship articles that have been significantly expanded past DANFS copies are USS Connecticut (BB-18) (FA), USS Texas (BB-35) (A), USS Nevada (BB-36) (FA), USS North Carolina (BB-55) (B?), and the six articles on the Iowa-class battleships (all six FA's).^[1] I know that all wording has been changed in BB-18 and BB-36 (I wrote them) and am 99% sure of the Iowa articles. ^[2] The other two, BB-35 and BB-55, I'm not as sure about becuase I haven't read their DANFS articles, so if you wanted to look further into this, you might want to try those first.
• (5th) - actually, although we would run into PD drama for sure, it wouldn't be a bad idea to draft guidelines for the entire project on anything off of the U.S. government's/military's sites. There are a ton of articles, etc. on those; for example, [3] and all of the history stuff in the related pages.

---

---

• —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thorough copyedit. I'm sorry if I threw you off or got in your way by making a couple edits while you were copyediting; I don't think we were editing at cross purposes or anything, but I might have accidentally given you that impression. Anyway, thanks again for all your help, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No edit conflicts on this side. It was my pleasure to copy edit the article. What a wonderful contribution! This is the type of article that I think should go on the main page immediately after promotion. :) Awadewit (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This article was just promoted, and I'm sure I wouldn't have been able to pull it off without your copyediting and editorial suggestions. Thank you for all the help, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It is an excellent article! Awadewit (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Awadewit, I have something else for you to do! Would you mind reviewing this article? Scartol has already given it a preliminary review, and I'd like you to have a go at it, too. I'd like to bring it to FAC; I think it certainly has the potential. I also intend to find someone who's knowledgeable about architecture to look at it, since I think the prose describing the building is probably one of the weakest thing about it. (I've already had an organ expert look at the Organ section.) The challenge for me regarding this article is that I know very little about architecture and some of the artistic elements in the church. Oh, and the fact that I've never even set foot on the Stanford campus, although a member of the MemChu choir has praised it. So I need lots of help in improving it, and I'd appreciate your assistance. It's certainly a change from the kind of articles you tend to work on. That's true for me, too, but MemChu is a truly special building and it just drew me in. --Christine (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to review the article. I was actually an art history major as well as an English major as an undergraduate, so perhaps I can help out a bit with the architecture sections. I'll try to do the review within the next week. Awadewit (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And if reviewing the church up there isn't enough for you, I've got another favor to ask. I just got done with the latest Balzac opus, and it's ready for some eagle eyes like yours and Christine's. Care to do a peer review? I'd be ever so grateful. Scartol • Tok 12:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, finally a Balzac novel that has been made into a film! :) I think I can get to it by this weekend. I'm starting to work less and less in wiki-time! Awadewit (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've made some final repairs to the article. If you have a minute, could you take a look? I think we're close to FACland.. Scartol • Tok 15:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Annoying reminder in case you missed my last note here. Scartol • Tok 12:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Awadewit, I hope I've started a discussion at Talk:English_grammar#Suggest_splitting? Would you like to weigh in there? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there! Please see my last post in the section Talk:English_grammar#Suggest_splitting. I've created a stub for the history page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Awadewit -- Brianboulton suggested that you would be a good person to talk to about some images. I've been working a lot on the Nancy Drew article, and just got it GA status. I would like to improve it further and take it the FAC. Brianboulton just pointed out as part of a peer review that most of the images in the article are non-free, and suggested you as someone to ask for advice. I'm not really sure what to change or delete, if anything, as I thought the images were okay, so I'm at a bit of a loss. I would be very grateful if you could take a quick look and let me know what you think. In case it is helpful, here are some relevant links: the article's peer review page, a discussion of two images on the Media Copyright Questions page, and a very brief discussion of the images from the GA review. --Again, I would really appreciate any advice you can give; I realize it's a lot to ask, and if you are too busy of course I understand. Thanks in any event, Ricardiana (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Awadewit (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Many, many thanks, Awadewit. I really appreciate your help! Ricardiana (talk) 04:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for both your excellent FAC copyedit and your thorough GA review. I'm definitely glad you pushed me to go looking for the Chinese sources, since I found some really interesting tidbits that I would not have known about otherwise. Best, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

On T:TDYK you said someone who knows about WP:BLP and minors should look at the article. If you take a look at the new articles (and especially the DYKs) I contributed, you'll find that writing about minors has become a sort of specialization of me and I have yet to come across any serious BLP problems. Is there anything I can do that could convince you to take a look at the entry yourself? Is there any particular content you thought might be a BLP violation? =- Mgm|^(talk) 08:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I expanded upon my concern at DYK. Awadewit (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• It was all an honest bit of harmless fun, but even if I cited and linked the original episode, it would require original research to get that. I could take out the explanation and have the reader guess the reason (in the article), or we could simply use a different hook (the song raised 1 million euros for charity). - Mgm|^(talk) 08:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been meaning to put the Drapier's Letters back up at FAC. Last time, I was a jerk to you about some of your grammar concerns. I was wondering if you could look through it sometime and make/point out any corrections that are needed. I will convert it over to British and add a little more criticism. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you fallen prey to wikitime yet or can you wait a week or so? If you can wait, I would be happy to help. (By the way, I think someone needs to write a BE-bot.) Awadewit (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It can wait a month, to be honest. I tend to think of projects about 20 pages in advance on my queue. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

See replies. Simply south (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Responded. Awadewit (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there no limit to your polymath range? Queen of ogg, now, I'm speechless. Perhaps I can very humbly call on your expertise when I get down next month to my next opera project, Smetana's The Bartered Bride? (The images will want checking, too!) Brianboulton (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Pretty soon everyone will forget that I primarily like to read and review articles! :) I need to get back to my roots. Awadewit (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Awadewit (you may remember me from a brief exchange about Balzac a couple years back). I just thought you'd like to know that the Russian translation I made of Mary Wollstonecraft is now on the Russian Wikipedia's main page. It was a pleasure to translate such a fascinating article. Lesgles (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

How wonderful! Thanks for all of your hard work - I know how tough translation is! Awadewit (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Would it address your concerns if I removed the content about the meaning of the wallpaper idiom and just leave the bare facts of what happened in the article, or should I chose a different hook, either in addition of that removal or instead? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

green looks like it is within striking distance of FAC, and before hacking massaging the prose, I was musing on comprehensiveness - are there any glaring literary omissions you can see to be added? If so add a note here at Talk:Green#within-sight-of-the-finish-line_peer_review_notes_to_go_here... Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

For your amusement:

To G. P. R. James. 14 November 1849.

"Do you know, I took it into my head you were the author of Jane Eyre, but I have altered my opinion since I read a portion of Shirley. Currer Bell, whoever he or she may be, has certainly got some of your 'trick,' and I began to think you were coming upon us in fresh and more questionable shape. But Shirley has again perplexed me."

From W. Harrison Ainsworth.

Ottava Rima (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That is awesome! (By the way, I think I need to take more things into my head - it's such a wonderful phrase.) Awadewit (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you just have a TFA? Evidence of your hard work just keeps flowering around us. Kudos! Scartol • Tok 11:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

A Vindication of the Rights of Woman may come up to, in a few days, to celebrate Mary's birthday! What does one do to celebrate her birthday? Awadewit (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, check out this piece of vandalism. :) Awadewit (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Great vandalizing minds think alike! Hey by the way, have you heard about this? The artwork looks pretty good. Scartol • Tok 11:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better if they didn't use Austen's words - if they were more creative. Awadewit (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Like Wikipedia, I think your talk page needs more Byron. Don't you? =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

We need more Byron because we need more humor. :) Awadewit (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you please take a look at the "Emigrate vs immigrate" comment on the article's talk page. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Awadewit (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you see the French version of the article is now featured too? Plus now there is a Russian version (stub). Any feedback from the JPH folks? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on History of a Six Weeks' Tour.

♠TomasBat 18:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to try my hand at writing a literary article, and I thought I'd start with a book that impressed me quite profoundly when I first came across it more years ago than I care to remember, Herbert Read's The Green Child. I've just started work on it in my userspace here, and haven't got very far with it yet. I've been looking around at other literary articles to get some idea of what's expected, structure, and so on, but they seem to vary quite widely. Would it be possible for you to point me towards one or two articles that you consider might be good models to follow? --Malleus Fatuorum 12:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I responsed on your talk page. Awadewit (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bother you again so soon, but earlier today I managed to shepherd The Princess and the Pea through GAN after its original nominator was banned and the nomination removed. Is that a million miles from what you'd expect of such an article? I'm not asking you to look a it detail, and nor do I expect you to, just a first impression. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Like most literature articles I run across on Wikipedia, this article falls short in explaining the meaning of the story and the style of the writing. The "Commentaries" section, which should be one of the "meatiest" sections is loosely written and incomplete. Someone coming to this article will get a decent background on the history of the fairy tale in print, but they will not come to appreciate the depth of meaning in it nor the unique way Andersen wrote. Andersen's fairy tales are quite different from Grimm's, for example, almost a genre in and of themselves, but there is only a hint of this in the article in the "Composition" section. Awadewit (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, very helpful. As you say, Andersen's fairy tales are quite different from those of the Brothers Grimm, yet another article that needs some work. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If you need a list of some of the scholars in "fairy tale" theory, especially the early/mid 20th century Russian theorists, just drop me a line. It could help you differentiate between various collectors of stories and figure out what to add to the article. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ottava. My only intention with The Princess and the Pea was to get it through its GAN, after it was quickfailed because its nominator got himself banned; I know the article's far from perfect, but hopefully it's now worth its GA. I really want to focus on The Green Child, a novel that I think is long overdue a decent wikipedia article, so any help or advice you can offer with that would be most welcome. I know the plot summary is probably too long right now, but it's also temporarily a place-holder for a few things I didn't want to forget. Unusually for me I've started it in my user space, with one eye on a DYK. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Li Yong (Tang Dynasty), and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Nlu (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC) --Nlu (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Awadewit , regarding the article The Wanderer (novel) I couldn't stop my bot or another to put an inappropriate wikilink. But perhaps for your understanding, I should explain how a bot work :

a bot scan a page on his home wiki (for my bot it's french) then he follow the interwikis links found on the first page.

for all second pages found, he search if interwikis match with the ones on the first page.

he then check if all the page linked with interwikis exist. If it's right, he add all new interwiki link on all languages pages. If a link is broken, he removed it on all pages, and if a page have been renamed or a link change to point another article, the new link is modify on all wikis.

In the case of a false link, a mystake made by a user that link with an incorrect page, the bot couldn't verify. He take it for a rename or an improvment not for a mystake. So he update all pages, also by error. The only solution to solve it is to remove all incorrrect link on all wikis. Sincerely --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 08:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Awadewit. Since you're participating in the South Park Drive, I wanted to bring this to your attention. Right now, the FAC for Damien (South Park) seems to be hung up solely on the image rationales for the infobox image and the Omen comparison image. If the Omen picture has to go, I can live with that, but I can't see justifying cutting the infobox image. I'd appreciate it if you could go to the FAC to voice your support if you think the images work, or to provide me with some feedback on how they can be fixed if they aren't. (Of everyone who has criticized so far, nobody has provided any helpful feedback yet). It's over here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Damien (South Park)/archive1. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 21:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

When I went, only the infobox image was left. I spruced up the fair use rationale (FUR) and commented on the image issues. Awadewit (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

In answer to your question about image selections for Inauguration of Barack Obama, image selections for this article have stabilized for the most part. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 00:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Everything looks fine now and I've said as much at the FAC. Awadewit (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know and thanks to you for all of your help. However, after you completed your image review, one of the sponsoring editors added back an image that and another editor and I thought would be more appropriate (and on topic) for a different article. This person seems intent on WP:POINT and WP:OWN and bordering on not WP:CIVIL since his "favorite" image was removed from the article.

I had already called out this behavior on an occasion when an edit war seemed underway (I happened to be online as watched the back-and forth exchanges going on for several minutes). I left the same message for both editors here and here to avoid being accusatory (this matter was continued on the article's Talk page). I had asked both of them to work toward consensus to resolve the issue, as you can see from the message. Could you weigh in on this this matter through the review of this new addition so that the matter can be resolved and closed once and for all (also, take a look at the postings about the parade image matter on the FA project page) - and so that we can move ahead with completing the work of elevating the article to FA status?

Many Thanks! →Lwalt ^♦ talk 17:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment and suggestion that you offered on the FAC project page for the article. However, the editor in question has rejected the compromise suggested by you. Instead, the editor seems to want to provoke an edit war by deleting the "For information" link from parade sub section and inserting a marked up version of the same map in the subsection about the inaugural train from Philadelphia to Washington - an image of a parade route that is unrelated to the content about the inaugural train ride.

By this action, I'd say that this situation represents a clear case of WP:ILIKEIT, WP:TE, WP:OWN, WP:DISRUPT (placing an image in a section contrary to the content covered by that section and consensus about the need for the image in the relevant subsection), and definitely WP:POINT. I'm basing my view on comments between the editor and you regarding the relevance of the image for the article, especially noting the complaints by the editor that most of that person's personal pictures were removed during the course of improving the article. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 20:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this an issue you want to draw a line in the sand about? How important is it to you? Considering the article is at FAC and this kind of instability is hurting it, perhaps the prudent course of action would be to just accept this image, if no better compromise can be found. It is not adding disinformation or POV material to the article, after all. Awadewit (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Awadewit,

I am sending you a brief non-Wikipedia-related email right now. If you have a moment, I hope you can share your thoughts... Thanks! Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Many apologies. RL intervened! I will definitely finish it this weekend. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Awadewit (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Li Yong (Tang Dynasty). For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 20:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

A request for comment has opened about promoting the proposal to guideline. As an author of the Signpost article cited in the discussion, you may wish to comment. Wikipedia_talk:Plagiarism#RfC Durova^Charge! 18:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've made one (minor) reversion to your changes to Bruce Castle for reasons of clarity; it's not a museum about the modern London Borough of Haringey (which was only created in 1965), but on the areas which now constitute it. Confusing, but because of the 1965 wholesale redrawing of boundaries in England, it ought to be made clear; the traditional boundaries prior to the 1965 changes cover a much smaller area. (Nitpicking, I know…) – iridescent 15:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I get that - I tried to make my conciser rewording convey that. I apologize if it didn't. Awadewit (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no problem at all, and thanks for the copyediting – the geography of the area is very confusing because of the way the formal boundaries keep changing. Regarding your broader point about the article's structure, I'll reply at the FAC so others can see it. – iridescent 16:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I've included many more sources (and I actually found a few people willing to say bad things about him); hopefully this will suffice. Ironholds (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You've got stuff at TFA Day and also in Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 27, congrats! Cirt (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think at this point we should just call it Awadewipedia. Kudos for your latest TFA! Scartol • Tok 12:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• The source for the "first female writer" bit is a publisher's advertisement, which is an unreliable source. There is another source for this fact, but it is in Turkish, which I cannot read. Awadewit (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Awadewit! If you don't mind, I wanna give you a hand as following:

At Google search page http://www.google.com.tr/search?hl=en&q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kimkimdir.gen.tr%2Fkimkimdir.php%3Fid%3D3588&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

when you click at the link "Translate this page" on Search Results
Kim Kimdir? Biyografi Bankası - FORSNET - [ Translate this page ]

you get
http://translate.google.com.tr/translate?hl=en&sl=tr&u=http://www.kimkimdir.gen.tr/kimkimdir.php%3Fid%3D3588&ei=HvT1ScThOc6O_Qab-ojYCQ&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.kimkimdir.gen.tr/kimkimdir.php%253Fid%253D3588%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

Its first paragraph reads as:
"Fatma Aliye Hanim Turkish literature is recognized as the first female novelist."
Exactly what is needed, maybe not in correct English, however, clear enough.

Please let me know if this does not satify you. CeeGee (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't usually use Google translator as it is rather unreliable. I see from your userpage that you speak Turkish, so you can verify this information much better than I can. Can you tell me a little about site? Why does it meet our reliable source policy? The problem with the other source was that it was not a reliable source and facts such as "first female novelists" tend to be highly disputed. Awadewit (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again! I added a reference in Turkish already existing in the article to the lead section, which is related to the DYK hook. This reference is from Hürriyet. a mainstream newspaper in Turkey. I hope you will no objection to this reference. As for your a.m. question of the reliability of the source http://www.kimkimdir.gen.tr I can give you no answer yet. However, for my own curiosity, I'm gonna check it later.CeeGee (talk) 09:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

A mainstream newspaper sounds fine to me. (By the way, you should remove any reliable sources and any information taken from them.) Awadewit (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I couldn't understand your advise (BTW, you should remove ...). Can you clarify for me please?CeeGee (talk) 06:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I meant unreliable sources and any information taken from them. Awadewit (talk) 06:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done CeeGee (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I pointed a new user to your Dispatch on plagiarism, after this "fix" of copyright violations. I figure you see stuff like this all the time, but it still made me smile. Thanks for the Dispatch, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• sigh* We all need to work a lot more on Wikipedia:Plagiarism, so that it is more comprehensive. (Note the RFC on whether or not it should be a guideline or not.) Awadewit (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just dropping by to say a long overdue 'thank you very much' for your many reviews of my DYK noms and the great work you do at DYK generally. My impression is that you would have to be close to the most active reviewer we have - and boy do we need reviewers right now. I also appreciate the quality of your reviews, I find myself agreeing with your assessments nearly all the time. That's what made your recent review of Abbot Hall Brisbane a little puzzling. I came across this new article while doing some maintenance work and was very impressed with the quality of the article (definitely not like most of our new articles!). The author has been around en-wiki for years but doesn't nominate her own work, so I nominated it for her. I know you have high standards, which I think is a positive, but this seems like excellent DYK material to me - a great example of our newest articles. I checked out the sources in the article more closely after your review. I agree absolutely that at least one has to go. Ref 7 is not acceptable as it is a wiki and Ref 2 is fairly doubtful, it looks self published, as you pointed out. The other eight sources look like a reasonable mix of primary and secondary sources to me. Nevertheless, I'm sure a note to Lisa, pointing out these sourcing problems would see them quickly corrected and neither source is vital for the article overall. It looks like an attempt to add as many sources as possible, without considering the quality of them carefully - something I've been guilty of myself. The actual source used for the DYK hook (which I picked and checked) looks to be a decent secondary source on Brisbane from a Catholic magazine. I've removed the offending wiki reference myself and will leave a note for the author about replacing ref 2 with a better source. In light of these changes, is there any chance you could revisit your review? Either way, hope you are having a great day and look forward to seeing you around the encyclopedia! Cheers, Paxse (talk) 07:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words - they are much appreciated. Thanks for removing the wiki - that obviously cannot be used. Here are a list of potentially problematic sources in my view:

• This source appears self-published to me. Note that it appears to have been collected by family members and other people whose reliability does not make them established experts per WP:SPS.
• This source appears self-published to me. Note that it is one relative writing about another.
• DeLorme, Rita H. Railroads Drew Irish Catholics To The South in The Southern Cross, March 28. 2002 - This article notes at the bottom that it was written by a "volunteer". I'm not sure what kind of editorial oversight The Southern Cross has, are you?
• This source is a bit difficult to find out information about. Note that the "About us" function does not work, so we cannot see who is writing this material and what kind of publication it really is. That does not inspire me with confidence.

I hope this makes my concerns clearer. Perhaps we can work together to resolve them? Awadewit (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your reasonable reply and very sorry for my own delay in replying. I've had limited wiki-time and I had another expiring nom to take care of. I actually didn't realise that ref 3 was to the same family website as ref 2 (good catch) - that's not good, it's used extensively. I'm a little unwilling to personally take out all the ref 2 and 3 mentions. Only because I think Lisa could probably replace them with better refs rather than just deleting the ones there. We may disagree slightly on the old Southern Cross. I definitely take your general point about reliable sources. I think we both agree that peer reviewed publications, major newspapers and books from 'reliable publishing houses' are the best sources we can use. But they're not the only sources we can use, and smaller publications are not 'unreliable sources' for WP purposes. I write mostly about Cambodia and so I come up against this problem all the time. Major publishers, newspapers (and most journals) don't really give a fig for my beautiful tragic little country - except for the Khmer Rouge of course. This makes smaller publications, magazine articles and other lesser sources essential to write anything else about the country! I see something similar with our friend Abbot. He is an interesting albeit minor character in Carolina history. Probably only an online encyclopaedia like ours would ever be able to have an article on him. There will probably only ever be primary sources and some smaller secondary sources available. Only enthusiastic local historians and descendants (and our own Lisa Small) will ever write about him. However, I don't think this should deprive the old chap of his 4/5 hours of fame on the front page :) In short, (and sorry for waffling) I really think the Southern Cross meets WP:RS and the hook should stand. Two last important things. 1. sorry for clogging up your page with DYK stuff - I wanted to pass on some compliments as well as discuss sourcing, so I thought it was better to do it here than under the nom and 2. No hard feelings either way with this nomination, pass or fail. I really appreciate the discussion we've had here and definitely see your point - I'm looking forward to working with you at DYK some more in any case. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone else agreed with me about the sourcing, so this will not be a DYK. I think that Cambodia and Abbot are different issues. Facts about Cambodia can be unearthed in dusty books, for example. :) Some facts about Abbot will never be published or will only be published by unreliable sources. I guess I am more of the opinion that we should keep unreliable material out of Wikipedia. People can publish their family histories elsewhere on the web - if we want to be a reputable encyclopedia some day, we can't use that kind of material as a source. Perhaps that is just my idealism that someday we will be a respectable encyclopedia! Perhaps next time we should discuss such questions on the article talk page? That way, any issues related to the article will be "near" the article, rather than "far". Awadewit (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Awadewit, could you check on the article one more time for the DYK nom? Another editor copy-and edited it. Thanks in advance.--Caspian blue 23:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... this indirect answer of yours[4] does not encourage anything.--Caspian blue 00:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This was not an answer to you directly. I usually revisit my DYK comments after a day or so. I have that page watchlisted. Awadewit (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As I stated on the talk page, I reworded parts of the Early life section and part of Murders section. The first half of the Murder section which does seem too close to the source is due to the fact that it is mostly quotes. But the second half of the Murder section, as well as the rest of the article, such as the Attempted murder, Arrest and trial, and Aftermath sections are written in my own words (with the exception of some quotes). I had to recall a lot of this from the 20/20 special I watched. Those words are mine, not the narrator's words.

I take plagiarism very seriously, and I'm sure that part of my not further tweaking the Early life and Murder sections away from the original wording of the sources is due to my hurrying to put this article together so that I could nominate it for DYK. I assure, you, though, that most of this article is in my own words and would appreciate it if you would reconsider this article for DYK. I am open to any suggestions you have about further bettering this wording.

I will tweak the article further, but I do not see an underlying problem or how my tweaks are superficial. This is the order of events Castor went in before killing. There is only one source that tells the "whole story," and that is the 20/20 source. Other sources only talk partly about what happened before the murder, but say the same thing.

Using mainly one source for one part is not a problem, as long as that source is valid and is worded in my own words.

Most of the article really is in my own words. The Attempted murder section, for example? All me. The Arrest and trial section? Mostly me, with a few exceptions, and I will go tweak some of that now. The Aftermath section? All me. Flyer22 (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I responded at the talk page. Awadewit (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I just did as well, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you think now? Flyer22 (talk) 02:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I see Moonriddengirl is doing a lot of work here. Awadewit (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Poll/discussion: How should "What Wikipedia is not" treat plot summaries? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Done (split 50/50 right now - too bad). Awadewit (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to check out the Linguistics talk page. Apparently, literary theory, even though it is testified as the major field of applied Linguistics and is the origin of modern linguistics, means nothing and has no need to be discussed. Also, Derrida is apparently unknown and worthless, having never been mentioned in any textbook, even though I quickly found many and linked dozens so far. I really hate the lack of expertise around here sometime. Looking back at the texts I used, I found Derrida quite often (in a historical linguistic text, in a dictionary of linguistics, in an introduction to applied linguistics, and in a history of linguistics development). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There are cranky (but not crackpot) linguists who barely tolerate the idea of calling "Applied linguistics" a branch of linguistics. Take it from someone whose PhD is in linguistics (mostly, the "Applied" variety, though I have my fingers crossed for a more "hardcore" article I've submitted to a journal...). Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the secret is that grammatology, lexicography, philology, structuralism, syntax analysis, and even, gasp, pragmatics, are all part of the same field regardless if they want to admit it or not. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I know too little about linguistics to be of much assistance. Awadewit (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Gee, your user talk page is hot stuff tonight. Durova^Charge! 02:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Awadewit, I am just letting you know, as you asked, that I have nominated Nancy Drew for featured article status. I hope I was not premature ... but I assume that if I was, you and others will let me know. In any case, I wanted to thank you again for all your help, not just in taking the time to do a peer review, but also in explaining abbreviations like FUR and helping me with how to deal with images. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Awadewit, I just wanted to say thank you for your supportive remarks (esp. re: images) on FAC, and to thank you for the barnstar you left on my page. It was really a bright spot on my day and made me feel better about an article which I have started to feel discouraged about. So, thank you! Ricardiana (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Awadewit, I have yet another request for you. Ealdgylth requested your expertise over at the Nancy Drew FAC regarding some sources. Your input would be much appreciated. I'm sorry to keep imposing on you like this. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem at all - I've enjoyed helping out enormously. I hope you feel that, in the end, FAC is worth it. You are probably unaware that there are "factions" on Wikipedia who feel very strongly that there should be next to no or no fair use images on Wikipedia. Don't let that long-running war get in the way of your wonderful article. I plan on improving Portal:Children and Young Adult Literature in the next few weeks. Let me know if you would be interested in helping out. Awadewit (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have left a reply and question for you here. Thank you for your review; it's much appreciated! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Responded. Awadewit (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested to know that I just added USAD to the FAC list. Please feel free to comment at the candidacy. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I have commented there. Awadewit (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I now appreciate that including that link was very ill-judged, and I apologise. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Let us now proceed with the RFC. I have set it up at Talk:The Age of Reason#RFC on Michael Moore sentence. Awadewit (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: "In her autobiography about her search for God, Lonnie Lane explained how she became disenchanted and began to doubt that Maharaj Ji held all the answers." But I think it was her brother she refers to in her memoir. Pergamino (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't tell from the convoluted sentence in the article. If that is the case, just replace "she" with "her brother". Awadewit (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Done. Pergamino (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC).

Replied on the FAC, but it's degenerating into such a mess of threaded conversations that my reply may get lost in the mess – while individual points may still change, the current structure should (touch wood) now be stable. – iridescent 13:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've reread and supported. Awadewit (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You can actually download the commentary track yourself for free here. This site also has trivia and other info about the episode that is helpful; although you obviously can't use this site as a source, it's a good starting point and you can look for the info it lists at other legitimate sources. Great job on this article, by the way! — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 14:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your evaluation of the DYK nom for Calling (religious); however, I ask that you please reconsider. Wikipedia:Dyk#DYK_rules state that only the hook needs to have a direct citation. Parenthetically, I've also attended to a couple of inline citations that were there but not properly formatted. —Eustress ^talk 15:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please join the arbitration against me. All negative comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration under my name. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you glance at the pics in Gilbert Foliot and make sure they are kosher? (what a mixed metaphor there!) He's getting his final polish from Malleus and then he's off to the big leagues... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Gilbert Foliot#Image review. Awadewit (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied and updated most of them. I'm not sure the alabasters are salvagable... dang it! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it could do with more hands, and if you would like to help raise standards that would be great. I estimate that FAR has a lag of about 18-24 months on the average FAC in terms of difficulty. At the moment most FARs are of 2005/06 and earlier articles or aritlces from early 2007 that were lucky to pass and most are just kept if they are moved to mid/late-2007 standard. That's how I rate them anyway. There is hardly any 1a checking in there for one thing. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Awadewit (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Old Bethpage Village Restoration has an additional pointer to the ref for 1970, thanks for taking a look dm (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've left some comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Time Traveler's Wife/archive1. It's mostly just style/copyediting sort of comments, questions about minor tweaks here and there, etc.; the only major thing I noted was that there seem to be more quotations than necessary in the later sections. Anyway, I will keep an eye on the review page for further developments. Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Awadewit, you were so kind to help us with a peer review of Trial by Jury prior to its FAC. Would you do the same for Pinafore? I know that you are dreadfully busy and in demand :-) , and I have tried not to bother you until now. This is a vitally important article for the entire G&S project, because it is the first full-length "standard" opera that we are bringing to FA (and one of the "Big 3" most famous G&S operas), and it will set the standard for the other 11. At the GA review, the main issue was the order of the sections/subsections, and so I would value your input on that issue. You can compare Trial and Thespis (opera), but really, Pinafore should set the standard for what we think is the ideal order of presentation of the information. Your comments are always extremely helpful, and your input would help me roar into FAC with confidence! Note that the peer review so far is here: Wikipedia:Peer review/H.M.S. Pinafore/archive1 Thanks, and all the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to review the article. I'll try to do so in the next few days. Awadewit (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance in the review of the Brian Keith review at the DYK! The user has cited the Internet Movie Database before? CarpetCrawler^{message me} 00:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've left messages on his userpage before. See, for example, User talk:Billy Hathorn#IMDB. Awadewit (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Oy. Yeah, I applaud the user as well, since classic television is a guilty pleasure of mine, and I think it's great someone is working on the obscure stuff. I just wish they'd stop using IMDB, now! CarpetCrawler^{message me} 00:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You deserve this...

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		Because it's not just taking the pictures that is important, it's important that we get the paperwork right too. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I may scream and moan and groan, but I know it's important. Thanks. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

For you:

So appropriate to the period I study. :) Awadewit (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Not my wig though. I'm not a blonde (thank goodness!) Give me a nice medieval snood any day... (No hennins though, blech!) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)