-
Version 1; no markers (looks clean but missing unlabelled locations)
-
Version 2; with pins (some text obscured but can be rearranged if necessary)
-
Version 3; dots instead of pins (less obtrusive?)
Hi Awadewit, if you have the time and inclination, I was wondering whether you wouldn't mind taking a look at Sholes and Glidden typewriter and commenting at the peer review. Thanks, Эlcobbola talk 14:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Since this is clearly your fault (note my gracious edit summary), whenever you have the time, a review would rock out.
What would be the awesomest ever would be uploading an ogg file of the music here, which is thankfully in the public domain. Please, please, please??? -- Moni3 ( talk) 14:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bale Out/archive1, I noted that I have had further communication with the image owner. Hopefully this is now satisfactory. :) Cheers, Cirt ( talk) 21:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Feeling wikistress? Wish you could have a vacation someplace with two dozen waterfalls? Well the next best thing is here!
If you want to, please come look at pictures of waterfalls and pick which ones you like best. You'll be helping make a better article too.
Thanks, Dincher ( talk) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
P.S. That wikilink again: User talk:Ruhrfisch/Waterfalls
Got any further plans for The Alienist? :) I did a bit of work on the Film section, but not sure I will be able to find anything else on that. Not sure where else to focus research on the article. Cirt ( talk) 02:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I am standardizing the articles as proposed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Books/Archive_3#Bibliography_title_format_standardization-- Marcus Brute ( talk) 18:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I see you have gotten round to editing this article. I'm terribly embarrassed by my inability to improve it—just out of curiosity, didn't you find the subject matter difficult to work with? I'm baffled. Maybe the sleepless nights are taking their toll on my cognitive functions... Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 23:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd be more than happy to :) It may take a while as I've got other stuff on, but as long as you're in no immediate hurry all should be well. Do you have any preferences/requirements for the end result? EyeSerene talk 12:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed a couple of requests at the graphics lab for conversions of non-free images into SVG. I asked "why" the requester wanted the conversion done, and they basically said "I don't know, they told me to do it at FAC". I tracked down 2 such FAC, and found that it was you giving this advice! So that is why I am contacting you. I feel strongly that non-free content should be sourced, if at all possible, to official sources. I do not believe that the process of "SVG conversion" is accurate enough for us to be able to make an SVG equivalent that would be representative of the brand. Companies spends thousands and thousands of dollars for creative professions to choose specific colors, and typefaces, and make original drawings, and spacing choices, and a number of other variables that could easily be messed up by someone creating an SVG. Therefore, when it comes to corporate logos, and the such, I would strongly urge you not to send individuals to the graphic lab, but instead ask them to find a higher quality raster image, or even a vector image from an official source. More often than not, I've been able to locate official vector logos in instances like this (often in PDFs). If the user needs help extracting an image from a PDF and saving it as an SVG, then the graphics lab should step in. I just don't think it should be our job to re-draw logos, as it is impossible to accurately, 100% recreate logos in that manner.- Andrew c [talk] 17:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey Awadewit. When you get a moment, would you mind taking a look at my response over at the Weight Gain 4000 FAC? I was hoping we could have some more discussion on two of your objections over there. I'm not sure if I articulated this well at the FAC or not, but basically I'm concerned with the idea of a full-blown removal of some of the items you are talking about (the first appearance of characters, cultural and pop cultural references, etc.) because I feel those items are consistent with other television episode articles and FACs, both inside and outside of South Park. Also, any information that is there presently is information that is cited by reliable sources. That being said, I'm willing to discuss this further and see if we can reach some sort of compromise. For instance, I'd be willing to part with some of the cultural references like Star Wars, Scooby-Doo, The Texas Book Depository, etc.; but I'd rather not lose stuff like the introduction of characters and Jesus and Pals, which I think is more relevant to the development of the series and whatnot. Anyway, I'm just hoping for more discussion on this if you don't mind... — Hunter Kahn ( c) 23:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding [1], I'm about ready to just dump the picture from the article. Personally, I feel like the article is less complete without the picture as there are no other pictures in the article depicting players on the team. On top of that, this picture depicts the most significant event of the team's short history. I've said all of that in the fair-use purpose, but I guess it's still lacking. Do you have any suggestions on exactly what I should be going for here? I'm about ready to give up on this and remove the picture rather than keep throwing darts at a problem I don't understand. -- SkotyWA Talk| Contribs 04:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Slimvirgin sickens me. Thanks to her we've now lost one of the few editors who was in a position to add content and the only one of that select few to have the inclination to do so. The arrogance of experience!
User:Macphysto made a flying visit to WP and made a extremely thoughtful contribution to the talk page on the subject of the lead. It seems to me that it would be helpful if you, knowledgeable yet objective, could add your thoughts to his
almost-
instinct
11:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, and thank you. I've been meaning to apologize to you for my reaction during the last FAC, so this is a good time to do it. I find these FACs very difficult to get through. It's the sheer amount of work involved in getting it there—polishing, polishing, polishing—so that once it's on the FAC page, the idea of having to do even one more thing feels like the last straw. But regardless, I'm sorry I behaved like a baby, and thank you for being so gracious about it. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I've tackled everything. Hopefully to your satisfaction m'lady. Fainites barley scribs 22:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I happened to be reading the FAC talk page just now, I wonder if you could have a look at the work I have been doing on the images in the Rolls-Royce R after your image review. I appreciate the work that you are doing and can understand that it might be a thankless task. I fear to review FACs as I have had my ears chewed after adding constructive comments in some, also appreciate the barnstar that you sent me as it has spurred me on to work at the higher quality end of the project's articles. Cheers and all the best. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
You are an extremely strong and valued contributor here. Thank you for all your hard work, and shouldered pain. Try not to forget that in addition to trouble-makers there are a great number of people here who admire and respect you. Best wishes, DrKiernan ( talk) 17:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm saddened to hear this, Awadewit. Thoughtful, judicious image reviewers, like yourself, are few and far between. You're owed a great deal of gratitude for the work you've done. Эlcobbola talk 17:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear this, A, but not surprised; I know it's among the hardest reviewer work, and all of your work has been much appreciated (including your maintenance of the Urgents)! Unless others kick in, promotions will just have to wait longer for reviews. Perhaps you'll come back to image reviewing after a well deserved break? Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten my promise to look at this for the PR. I've been thinking about the various things a PR does - and am sure that I, not having ever been to FAC, am not qualified to worry about some things. One thing I can do moderately well is be a pedantic reader. For example, looking through the article I notice the following seeming contradiction:
Would my doing a read-through looking out for that kind of thing be useful? Or would it be merely annoying? almost- instinct 22:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I think these are too pedantic for the page's talk page, so if you don't mind I'm going to put them here, where you can happily ignore as many as you wish :-)
Thanks so much - I've moved the comments to Wikipedia:Peer review/Rambles in Germany and Italy/archive1, which is the easiest place for me to work with them. Awadewit ( talk) 21:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you might want to look at my view of the images at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cavalera Conspiracy/archive1. Unless I'm mistaken, I think there's a problem. Black Kite 18:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm back after my short break, and I've nominated Poppea at FAC. I think I've done all I can - but every article can be made better. You may like to know that while I was in Rome I visited the house where Keats and Shelley lived, and where Keats died. Got to peek at their library, too. Wonderful. Brianboulton ( talk) 23:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello Awadewit,
I have just come across the strangest of all strange copyright issues I have seen so far:
While trying to check on the phrase about the Victorian expectation of "the egregious display of sound and colour" that should authenticate powerful emotions, I just came across this Googlebook answer to my request : all of these books are using your article, with exactly the same words, the same notes and sourcing! Moreover, one of these books was published in 1925 (complete with a photograph of the cover), and I rather think you were not around at the time... Were you and Simmaren (as a lawyer) aware of it?
I don't have any douts as to who is copying whom... But I have not seen any mention of Wikipedia in these books. Or would you be time travelling?
Regards. -- Azurfrog ( talk) 10:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiChevrons | |
I have the happy duty of presenting you with these WikiChevrons for contributing "
Plagiarism and how to avoid it" to the
Academy.
Thank you for participating in the 2009 Academy Content Drive. We appreciate your help in building this valuable resource! Maralia ( talk) 03:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC) |
I've been playing with your map, and present this for your approval (or otherwise). It's still a little rough around the edges and I'll be making some tweaks (such as the scale font), so anything you don't like can be changed easily enough :) It's also temporarily on WP at the moment, so difficult to scale without editing the width parameter in the image markup... hence the large size, though please feel free to edit my text to shrink it! I'll eventually move it to Commons when we're done. All the best, EyeSerene talk 23:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but what with 2 FACs and several GAs I forgot about this. I promise I will read through it tonight and offer my uneducated opinion. Parrot of Doom 00:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Excellent. Just a couple of questions:
Hello Awadewit, I was pointed towards you talkpage after passing the GA-nom in hopes of working Apolo Anton Ohno to FAC. I have the article up in a peer review. I was wondering if you could take a look at the article and because you have experience in FA-noms, if there's any areas that need more work or have advice on the content... Anything at all... I would appreciate it! Thank you for your time, on camera (t) 03:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Happy Thanksgiving! I am thankful for you and your contributions here! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm coming to take you up on your offer to help resolve the concerns you raised in the FA review for Seattle Sounders FC. I can see that you've made two edits already cleaning up the prose for which I am grateful. My English skills are far from professional, so this kind of help is (unfortunately for me) necessary. I'll get started on a "deplagiarization" effort in the article now based on the dispatch you provided (thanks!). Please add any requests, ideas, pointers, etc. that I can follow up on to either my talk page or the article talk page. Oh, and sorry for referring to you with "he". I hope I didn't offend you. I am ashamed. :) -- SkotyWA Talk| Contribs 05:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to remind you that I've taken a shot at addressing your review comments on Talk:Seattle Sounders FC a week ago. I need your sign off before I can submit the article for FA review. I apologize if I'm being a pest. Thank you for your help. -- SkotyWA Talk| Contribs 20:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
WikiProject Vancouver | |
You have been invited to participate in Operation Schadenfreude to restore the article Vancouver back to featured article status. |
- Dear FA Team member, we could use your help if you're available. Mkdw talk 06:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Made it! Many, many thanks for your detailed and skilful reviewing. Fainites barley scribs 17:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Frightfully Decent Chap Award |
For your erudite and selfless work on helping get Attachment theory to FAC. Fainites barley scribs 20:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC) |
I think the content issues you raised at the FAC (ie: non-image) are about as resolved as they're going to get. [3] [4] Regarding the prose, I've replied to all of your points on the talk page bar one, as the information about when boys came of age escapes me at the moment, and I'm struggling for a source. As for the images, thank you for your patience (and perseverence), I'm quite sure it's felt like you've been hanging your head against a wall as I seem to have developed a blind spot in that area during this FAC. Nev1 ( talk) 22:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Please make suggestions here! Thanks! Awadewit ( talk) 17:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
My pleasure, I keep putting stuff through GAN and FAC myself, so it's only fair to put something back, even if I lack the detailed copyediting skills of some other reviewers. I've just put two GAs through, so that spurred me to do some reviewing there and at FAC. The good news is that the two new GAs will be going no further, just needed for a GT (speaking of which, must be nearly time for a G&T) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the thanks. :) I'm in the same boat as Jimfbleak, it would seem. I had an article up at FAC, so I felt I owed the process some additional participation. I'll try to hold up as long as civility does. Эlcobbola talk 17:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
ww2censor ( talk) 18:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Awadewit, I've finally put this article up for peer review. I realize that it's probably a really bad time to ask, this being the end of your term and all, but I figured what the hey. So if you wouldn't mind, could you please take a look at it? Thanks. -- Christine ( talk) 19:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
As requested. Here's the FAC nomination. Since your review/copyedit there have been some minor changes throughout, mostly as a result of the expert review I received. I've rewritten the Modified Atkins Diet section so that will be worth a close look. I see that Maralia is already on the case. Colin° Talk 22:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Are you able to help me improve Davenport, Iowa so that you can support the FAC? CTJF83 chat 20:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Care to have a go? I think otherwise everything is Done. :)
Cirt (
talk)
13:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Introduction to evolution. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello there! As an editor who has posted a comment in one of the recent Peer Reviews, GANs or FACs of International Space Station, or who has contributed to the article recently, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting in the current Featured Article Candidacy with any suggestions you have for article improvements (and being bold and making those changes), whether or not you feel any issues you have previously raised have been dealt with, and, ultimately, if you believe the article meets the Featured Article guidelines. This is the fourth FAC for this article, and it'd be great to have it pass. Many thanks in advance, Colds7ream ( talk) 16:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Everyone's favourite lady is on the mainpage today. Just thought you'd want to know, as we couldn't have done it without you. :) Kafka Liz ( talk) 11:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Ϣere
SpielChequers is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Xmas,
Eid,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hannukah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.
PS Hope to be back on the Skype chats in the near future. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
G'day Awa :-) - I'm a bit dusty this morning (but don't worry - I'll make the next christmas bash this evening!) - but I think I've gotten to the bottom of the problem I inadvertently created yesterday - my apologies for publishing the file which contained the personal banter at the end - which is, I suspect, the reason you felt a quick deletion was a good idea. I'm minded to upload the correct file, with all the chat cut from the end, as soon as possible, so thought I'd drop a quick note in here. Once again, apologies for any stress - and a merry christmas too! cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 20:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
< thanks for getting it online :-) - I've updated the 'subscription' box, and re-added the ep. to the community portal, so the audience awaits :-) cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 02:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Awadewit, if you have the time and inclination, I was wondering whether you wouldn't mind taking a look at Sholes and Glidden typewriter and commenting at the peer review. Thanks, Эlcobbola talk 14:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Since this is clearly your fault (note my gracious edit summary), whenever you have the time, a review would rock out.
What would be the awesomest ever would be uploading an ogg file of the music here, which is thankfully in the public domain. Please, please, please??? -- Moni3 ( talk) 14:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bale Out/archive1, I noted that I have had further communication with the image owner. Hopefully this is now satisfactory. :) Cheers, Cirt ( talk) 21:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Feeling wikistress? Wish you could have a vacation someplace with two dozen waterfalls? Well the next best thing is here!
If you want to, please come look at pictures of waterfalls and pick which ones you like best. You'll be helping make a better article too.
Thanks, Dincher ( talk) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
P.S. That wikilink again: User talk:Ruhrfisch/Waterfalls
Got any further plans for The Alienist? :) I did a bit of work on the Film section, but not sure I will be able to find anything else on that. Not sure where else to focus research on the article. Cirt ( talk) 02:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I am standardizing the articles as proposed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Books/Archive_3#Bibliography_title_format_standardization-- Marcus Brute ( talk) 18:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I see you have gotten round to editing this article. I'm terribly embarrassed by my inability to improve it—just out of curiosity, didn't you find the subject matter difficult to work with? I'm baffled. Maybe the sleepless nights are taking their toll on my cognitive functions... Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 23:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd be more than happy to :) It may take a while as I've got other stuff on, but as long as you're in no immediate hurry all should be well. Do you have any preferences/requirements for the end result? EyeSerene talk 12:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed a couple of requests at the graphics lab for conversions of non-free images into SVG. I asked "why" the requester wanted the conversion done, and they basically said "I don't know, they told me to do it at FAC". I tracked down 2 such FAC, and found that it was you giving this advice! So that is why I am contacting you. I feel strongly that non-free content should be sourced, if at all possible, to official sources. I do not believe that the process of "SVG conversion" is accurate enough for us to be able to make an SVG equivalent that would be representative of the brand. Companies spends thousands and thousands of dollars for creative professions to choose specific colors, and typefaces, and make original drawings, and spacing choices, and a number of other variables that could easily be messed up by someone creating an SVG. Therefore, when it comes to corporate logos, and the such, I would strongly urge you not to send individuals to the graphic lab, but instead ask them to find a higher quality raster image, or even a vector image from an official source. More often than not, I've been able to locate official vector logos in instances like this (often in PDFs). If the user needs help extracting an image from a PDF and saving it as an SVG, then the graphics lab should step in. I just don't think it should be our job to re-draw logos, as it is impossible to accurately, 100% recreate logos in that manner.- Andrew c [talk] 17:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey Awadewit. When you get a moment, would you mind taking a look at my response over at the Weight Gain 4000 FAC? I was hoping we could have some more discussion on two of your objections over there. I'm not sure if I articulated this well at the FAC or not, but basically I'm concerned with the idea of a full-blown removal of some of the items you are talking about (the first appearance of characters, cultural and pop cultural references, etc.) because I feel those items are consistent with other television episode articles and FACs, both inside and outside of South Park. Also, any information that is there presently is information that is cited by reliable sources. That being said, I'm willing to discuss this further and see if we can reach some sort of compromise. For instance, I'd be willing to part with some of the cultural references like Star Wars, Scooby-Doo, The Texas Book Depository, etc.; but I'd rather not lose stuff like the introduction of characters and Jesus and Pals, which I think is more relevant to the development of the series and whatnot. Anyway, I'm just hoping for more discussion on this if you don't mind... — Hunter Kahn ( c) 23:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding [1], I'm about ready to just dump the picture from the article. Personally, I feel like the article is less complete without the picture as there are no other pictures in the article depicting players on the team. On top of that, this picture depicts the most significant event of the team's short history. I've said all of that in the fair-use purpose, but I guess it's still lacking. Do you have any suggestions on exactly what I should be going for here? I'm about ready to give up on this and remove the picture rather than keep throwing darts at a problem I don't understand. -- SkotyWA Talk| Contribs 04:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Slimvirgin sickens me. Thanks to her we've now lost one of the few editors who was in a position to add content and the only one of that select few to have the inclination to do so. The arrogance of experience!
User:Macphysto made a flying visit to WP and made a extremely thoughtful contribution to the talk page on the subject of the lead. It seems to me that it would be helpful if you, knowledgeable yet objective, could add your thoughts to his
almost-
instinct
11:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, and thank you. I've been meaning to apologize to you for my reaction during the last FAC, so this is a good time to do it. I find these FACs very difficult to get through. It's the sheer amount of work involved in getting it there—polishing, polishing, polishing—so that once it's on the FAC page, the idea of having to do even one more thing feels like the last straw. But regardless, I'm sorry I behaved like a baby, and thank you for being so gracious about it. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I've tackled everything. Hopefully to your satisfaction m'lady. Fainites barley scribs 22:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I happened to be reading the FAC talk page just now, I wonder if you could have a look at the work I have been doing on the images in the Rolls-Royce R after your image review. I appreciate the work that you are doing and can understand that it might be a thankless task. I fear to review FACs as I have had my ears chewed after adding constructive comments in some, also appreciate the barnstar that you sent me as it has spurred me on to work at the higher quality end of the project's articles. Cheers and all the best. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
You are an extremely strong and valued contributor here. Thank you for all your hard work, and shouldered pain. Try not to forget that in addition to trouble-makers there are a great number of people here who admire and respect you. Best wishes, DrKiernan ( talk) 17:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm saddened to hear this, Awadewit. Thoughtful, judicious image reviewers, like yourself, are few and far between. You're owed a great deal of gratitude for the work you've done. Эlcobbola talk 17:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear this, A, but not surprised; I know it's among the hardest reviewer work, and all of your work has been much appreciated (including your maintenance of the Urgents)! Unless others kick in, promotions will just have to wait longer for reviews. Perhaps you'll come back to image reviewing after a well deserved break? Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten my promise to look at this for the PR. I've been thinking about the various things a PR does - and am sure that I, not having ever been to FAC, am not qualified to worry about some things. One thing I can do moderately well is be a pedantic reader. For example, looking through the article I notice the following seeming contradiction:
Would my doing a read-through looking out for that kind of thing be useful? Or would it be merely annoying? almost- instinct 22:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I think these are too pedantic for the page's talk page, so if you don't mind I'm going to put them here, where you can happily ignore as many as you wish :-)
Thanks so much - I've moved the comments to Wikipedia:Peer review/Rambles in Germany and Italy/archive1, which is the easiest place for me to work with them. Awadewit ( talk) 21:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you might want to look at my view of the images at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cavalera Conspiracy/archive1. Unless I'm mistaken, I think there's a problem. Black Kite 18:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm back after my short break, and I've nominated Poppea at FAC. I think I've done all I can - but every article can be made better. You may like to know that while I was in Rome I visited the house where Keats and Shelley lived, and where Keats died. Got to peek at their library, too. Wonderful. Brianboulton ( talk) 23:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello Awadewit,
I have just come across the strangest of all strange copyright issues I have seen so far:
While trying to check on the phrase about the Victorian expectation of "the egregious display of sound and colour" that should authenticate powerful emotions, I just came across this Googlebook answer to my request : all of these books are using your article, with exactly the same words, the same notes and sourcing! Moreover, one of these books was published in 1925 (complete with a photograph of the cover), and I rather think you were not around at the time... Were you and Simmaren (as a lawyer) aware of it?
I don't have any douts as to who is copying whom... But I have not seen any mention of Wikipedia in these books. Or would you be time travelling?
Regards. -- Azurfrog ( talk) 10:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiChevrons | |
I have the happy duty of presenting you with these WikiChevrons for contributing "
Plagiarism and how to avoid it" to the
Academy.
Thank you for participating in the 2009 Academy Content Drive. We appreciate your help in building this valuable resource! Maralia ( talk) 03:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC) |
I've been playing with your map, and present this for your approval (or otherwise). It's still a little rough around the edges and I'll be making some tweaks (such as the scale font), so anything you don't like can be changed easily enough :) It's also temporarily on WP at the moment, so difficult to scale without editing the width parameter in the image markup... hence the large size, though please feel free to edit my text to shrink it! I'll eventually move it to Commons when we're done. All the best, EyeSerene talk 23:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but what with 2 FACs and several GAs I forgot about this. I promise I will read through it tonight and offer my uneducated opinion. Parrot of Doom 00:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Excellent. Just a couple of questions:
Hello Awadewit, I was pointed towards you talkpage after passing the GA-nom in hopes of working Apolo Anton Ohno to FAC. I have the article up in a peer review. I was wondering if you could take a look at the article and because you have experience in FA-noms, if there's any areas that need more work or have advice on the content... Anything at all... I would appreciate it! Thank you for your time, on camera (t) 03:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Happy Thanksgiving! I am thankful for you and your contributions here! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm coming to take you up on your offer to help resolve the concerns you raised in the FA review for Seattle Sounders FC. I can see that you've made two edits already cleaning up the prose for which I am grateful. My English skills are far from professional, so this kind of help is (unfortunately for me) necessary. I'll get started on a "deplagiarization" effort in the article now based on the dispatch you provided (thanks!). Please add any requests, ideas, pointers, etc. that I can follow up on to either my talk page or the article talk page. Oh, and sorry for referring to you with "he". I hope I didn't offend you. I am ashamed. :) -- SkotyWA Talk| Contribs 05:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to remind you that I've taken a shot at addressing your review comments on Talk:Seattle Sounders FC a week ago. I need your sign off before I can submit the article for FA review. I apologize if I'm being a pest. Thank you for your help. -- SkotyWA Talk| Contribs 20:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
WikiProject Vancouver | |
You have been invited to participate in Operation Schadenfreude to restore the article Vancouver back to featured article status. |
- Dear FA Team member, we could use your help if you're available. Mkdw talk 06:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Made it! Many, many thanks for your detailed and skilful reviewing. Fainites barley scribs 17:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Frightfully Decent Chap Award |
For your erudite and selfless work on helping get Attachment theory to FAC. Fainites barley scribs 20:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC) |
I think the content issues you raised at the FAC (ie: non-image) are about as resolved as they're going to get. [3] [4] Regarding the prose, I've replied to all of your points on the talk page bar one, as the information about when boys came of age escapes me at the moment, and I'm struggling for a source. As for the images, thank you for your patience (and perseverence), I'm quite sure it's felt like you've been hanging your head against a wall as I seem to have developed a blind spot in that area during this FAC. Nev1 ( talk) 22:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Please make suggestions here! Thanks! Awadewit ( talk) 17:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
My pleasure, I keep putting stuff through GAN and FAC myself, so it's only fair to put something back, even if I lack the detailed copyediting skills of some other reviewers. I've just put two GAs through, so that spurred me to do some reviewing there and at FAC. The good news is that the two new GAs will be going no further, just needed for a GT (speaking of which, must be nearly time for a G&T) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the thanks. :) I'm in the same boat as Jimfbleak, it would seem. I had an article up at FAC, so I felt I owed the process some additional participation. I'll try to hold up as long as civility does. Эlcobbola talk 17:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
ww2censor ( talk) 18:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Awadewit, I've finally put this article up for peer review. I realize that it's probably a really bad time to ask, this being the end of your term and all, but I figured what the hey. So if you wouldn't mind, could you please take a look at it? Thanks. -- Christine ( talk) 19:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
As requested. Here's the FAC nomination. Since your review/copyedit there have been some minor changes throughout, mostly as a result of the expert review I received. I've rewritten the Modified Atkins Diet section so that will be worth a close look. I see that Maralia is already on the case. Colin° Talk 22:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Are you able to help me improve Davenport, Iowa so that you can support the FAC? CTJF83 chat 20:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Care to have a go? I think otherwise everything is Done. :)
Cirt (
talk)
13:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Introduction to evolution. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello there! As an editor who has posted a comment in one of the recent Peer Reviews, GANs or FACs of International Space Station, or who has contributed to the article recently, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting in the current Featured Article Candidacy with any suggestions you have for article improvements (and being bold and making those changes), whether or not you feel any issues you have previously raised have been dealt with, and, ultimately, if you believe the article meets the Featured Article guidelines. This is the fourth FAC for this article, and it'd be great to have it pass. Many thanks in advance, Colds7ream ( talk) 16:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Everyone's favourite lady is on the mainpage today. Just thought you'd want to know, as we couldn't have done it without you. :) Kafka Liz ( talk) 11:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Ϣere
SpielChequers is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Xmas,
Eid,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hannukah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.
PS Hope to be back on the Skype chats in the near future. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
G'day Awa :-) - I'm a bit dusty this morning (but don't worry - I'll make the next christmas bash this evening!) - but I think I've gotten to the bottom of the problem I inadvertently created yesterday - my apologies for publishing the file which contained the personal banter at the end - which is, I suspect, the reason you felt a quick deletion was a good idea. I'm minded to upload the correct file, with all the chat cut from the end, as soon as possible, so thought I'd drop a quick note in here. Once again, apologies for any stress - and a merry christmas too! cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 20:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
< thanks for getting it online :-) - I've updated the 'subscription' box, and re-added the ep. to the community portal, so the audience awaits :-) cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 02:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)