Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
if you look on http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/wyrick/debclass/achcon.htm and look at paragraph 37 it states that Achebe orignally used the word "Bloody" but it was changeds in the book to "thoroughgoing." just felt that i should tell you scince you asked about my source earlier
XOXO Demonman5 00:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
if you look on http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/wyrick/debclass/achcon.htm and look at paragraph 37 it states that Achebe orignally used the word "Bloody" but it was changeds in the book to "thoroughgoing." just felt that i should tell you scince you asked about my source earlier
XOXO Demonman5 00:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Scartol. Awadewit referred me to you. I have been working on an article, John Knox, and I was wondering if you could take a look either through a reviewer's or a copyeditor's eyes. One word of warning though: I am a neophyte so the article probably cannot be compared to Awadewit's or qp10qp's masterly output! I am neither historian, writer, theologian, nor even anglophone. I'm just someone who wants to give something back to the encyclopaedia. --RelHistBuff 10:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Eric, Looking at your user page, it would be truly an honor and a priveledge to be mentored by a user as experienced and interesting as you. I plan to work in as many sections as I can, ammeding grammar and adding to the baseball section. Thanks! Dave --Daveroo69 23:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for giving me this opportunity once again. Firstly, I'd love to get specific assignments as this would really "show me the ropes" of Wikipedia editing. Secondly, regarding the article I created, John McIntyre (copy editor), I thought his blog and his work as an editor were perhaps noteworthy enough for an article. If there is a notability issue, however, the article should be deleted. Thanks again! Daveroo69 00:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Hello Again. I am wondering about Wikipedia's policy on copying from a source verbatim. Specifically, in my quest for citations for sabermetrics, I came across a source to define sabermetrics (as the first sentence in the Wikipedia entry). I would also replace "records" with "statistics" simply to paint a clearer picture. Would it be acceptable to copy this word-for-word under fair use laws? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveroo69 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Great copy editing cartoon. --JayHenry 17:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I've been busy, and I'm starting to get my sea legs a little bit. But it still seems over whelming at times, particularly with the one article that I am working on Forensic Social Work. It is such an important topic, but right now the article is almost unreadable. I thought about trying to go through it line by line, but I think that approach won't work, so I settled for rewriting the lead paragraph, and seeing if anyone else can start to fix it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwthemoose (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
See Talk:Joseph Priestley#British English?. Part the second. Awadewit | talk 02:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no chance the photo is copyright under U.S. law. The New York Times can claim copyright all they want, but any image from before 1923 is public domain and she died in 1913. This is a bit of a no-brainer, and I wouldn't have uploaded it if it wasn't PD, so help yourself. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there scartol. I'm really interested in being adopted (noticed that you put a message on my page). What I most need to learn about is talk pages (only managed to post on this one on the off chance that there was a talk link on it). I also want to understand references and such like. I've already got the cheatsheet and the main help page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents/Editing_Wikipedia). Please post back (however that is done).
Nibinaear 11:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's quite true that he might respond quite negatively. Some academics have a visceral negative reaction to just about anything done by non-academics. Some people have a visceral negative reaction to just about anything that appears on Wikipedia. Combine those two forces and the mere letter inviting a look at the article would send some into conniptions. Maybe Achebe is one of those people. I mean, of all the things to relinquish to the internet — the story of one's own life the way one wants it told. Imagine! Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world!
But on the other hand, many of us who toil at Featured Articles believe that Wikipedia is a worthwhile endeavor (Oh the humanity! We are talking about Achebe: I meant endeavour! Dear children of Nigeria, I apologize for my misspelling, but you can never accept my apology — can you? — because you know if I were sincere I would have said apologise.) and if we take our work seriously shouldn't we invite Achebe to share what he thinks? Well, he might hate it. And that would certainly be disappointing for those of us involved. But how many angry letters do you think the editors of Britannica got over the years from subjects who wanted this-or-that changed? I'd wager that a good portion of biographers have received angry letters from their subjects upon publication. But is any of that a reason not to ask? Is any of that a reason to even doubt the quality of our work? And truly, what do we gain by not asking? --JayHenry 23:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
(undent) Actually, I thought about it. The E-O bio has a number of photos from his own collection, and I'd just need permission to scan them. Then I thought about asking him about the BrEng/AmEng thing. Then I decided to stick to business. (If he responds with deferential praise, I'll push my luck with the photos.)
The other thing I thought of whilst riding my stationary bike just now was this: Awad, you mentioned Bill Pullman visiting a listserv, and I can only imagine other perspectives about people lashing out online are informed by the fact that usually folks only inject themselves into these discussions if they have a gripe. But is that a fair way to look at it? I don't know that we're working with comprehensive data if we use those folks who edit (or try to have edited) their own articles as our starting point. – Scartol · Talk 23:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey there. I like the anti-vandalism template you used on User_talk:66.203.60.35, but I can't find it. Did you make it? – Scartol · Talk 00:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
About your comment at that peer review, have a look at the article talk page for a discussion about the Bourse de Commerce. There are two candidates at the moment, but it needs someone with local or better knowledge to work out what the original building was and the history of the buildings in that area of Paris. As bourse show, it was undoubtedly a financial centre, so would a parenthetical note saying that be enough? Carcharoth 02:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'd be happy to have you adopt me. Bdhook 20:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Please think about adding yourself to this list of peer reviewers.
I see Balzac is going to be on the mainpage in a few days! Congratulations! I'll watch it for a few hours. Awadewit | talk 19:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Its never really clear to me when the job is done to satisfaction, or the satisfaction of others, so I feel a bit reticent about removing the template, since that seems to give the impression that the job is done, when really its just started. But otherwise I feel a bit more comfortable moving around the site. Thanks for checking in.--Bwthemoose/Talk 01:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I've now responded to your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Catherine de' Medici's building projects/archive1.
As part of the process of ever decreasing circles in which we seem trapped like mice in a washing machine, I'll have a look at your responses at Honoré de B tomorrow. qp10qp 23:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the offer Scartol! Sorry I'm so long responding, I just started a new college program and pretty much all of my pastimes, luxuries, and hobbies (wikipedia included) have been thrown onto the back burner. I'm a touch more settled now, and I think I'll have enough spare time to work on the page I'd like to make.
My first question if your offer still stands, can I edit the site without publishing it until I feel my contribution is satisfactory?
Cheers, Ill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illsouljah (talk • contribs) 02:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's try some assignments first, and if I don't care much for that style we can switch to option 2. You should be able to determine many of my interests by looking at my userboxes, but if you need more let me know. Bdhook 19:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | ||
I award you this barnstar for your precision and professionalism in copyediting the Yasser Arafat article and bringing it to a higher level of reading. Cheers! --Al Ameer son 03:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC) |
Hello Scartol,
I'm a student at Charter, and have been a contributor to its article for at least two years. I believe I remember that the section you labeled as possible copyright infrigement was originally contributed/written on Wikipedia. In fact, the site http://www.publicschoolreview.com/school_ov/school_id/16376 has "Source: Wikipedia" written at the bottom. I removed the warning, but if you think it still needs to be modified, let me know.
CmaccompH89 06:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I noticed that Willow put in a request for Truth. Might I also make a suggestion? Kaldari has had a reward up for Emma Goldman for two years now, I think. I can't add to the pot, unfortunately, but I could add moral support and peer reviewing. She might extend the date, if she knows you're working on it. (I noticed your feminist userbox.) Awadewit | talk 09:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course I'll look in! As per usual my review will be roughly one-quarter to half as valuable as the others, but I suppose every little bit helps. --JayHenry 02:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
Turning the Harriet Tubman article from embarrassingly bad to amazingly good in two weeks was a spectacular feat of editing. Keep up the fantastic work! -- Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC) |
Hi Scartol,
Thanks for contacting me about the peer review. Sorry I didn't get back to you quickly enough—but I'm sure you've been better served by the other reviewers! ¶ I suspect you're the patient type, so, enjoy Balzac's front-page moment, regardless of the ballsacks and nutsacks (and their edits :). BTW, your "language genius is accepting requests" graphic is awesome. –Outriggr § 02:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Greetings Scartol, I apologize for my late responses and edits in the Yasser Arafat article and Peer review. My internet has been frustrating and I'm sure I have a virus. It has been better than the past week however. Al Ameer son 20:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi again Scartol. I wanted to inform you that I added some references to the article and I have a couple subjects to bring up. See the Arafat peer review --Al Ameer son 19:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I have renominated the Yasser Arafat article. Comments can be left here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yasser Arafat.
And please do leave your opinions on the article( ; --Al Ameer son 23:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe so, unfortunately. However I will go over the article again (I've already trimmed some unnecessary info) and renominate it once more in perhaps a week or so. Thank you again for all your efforts in editing the article and keep on doing so if you see any problems in it. --Al Ameer son 20:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully it passes this time. Cheers! --Al Ameer son 04:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S. If you have time could you overlook the Aftermath section. I'm a little bit wary of my recent edits there. --Al Ameer son 04:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for my late response. I removed two images whose fates have not been addressed too well. I kept the one with Ahmad Yassin because I think the discussion will be over soon in favor of keeping it. Also, I just created a new section per FAC talk, Establishing authority in the territories that I'm sure needs to be copyedited. The subsection is very short so I don't think it will be too bothersome ;). Once again thanks for all your help. --Al Ameer son 16:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you think I should remove the article from nomination or wait how this one turns out. --Al Ameer son 16:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh ok. Thanks for your advice. --Al Ameer son 17:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes!!!!!. I'm very happy right now and surprised because I didn't know it would be decided so soon. This is by far my best accomplishment on the wiki and I can't thank you enough for all of your help. I must say this article was very frustrating but we as the wikicommuntiy have managed to pull it off. Don't be a stranger! Once again, thanks! --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that the Balzac vandalism was kind of getting to you. I nearly died when Mary Wollstonecraft was on the main page (my first experience with that level of vandalism), but millions of people are actually reading your article (really, it could be millions!). Stand firm, o vandal fighter! (And be glad that you don't have to fight vandals every day - be glad that someone else does that for us!) Awadewit | talk 22:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I just tried using GAList3 on Talk:Oil shale extraction, but it didn't work. please help! VanTucky Talk 23:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the link to the NMA on the Mozart Symphony No. 31 page. I plan on expanding this page with history behind the work, more on the form, and a brief explanation of the mystery behind the applause during the first movement in the premiere. Please feel free to help if you have time. Parkerjl (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there Scartol. The famous Andplus (talk · contribs) has copyedited it and modifications have been made as you suggested. Best regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I've done a sortable list of common words requiring transmogrification into other English spelling variants. It covers about 80% of the variants I've encountered so far. It's here. Could you please take a look and add, delete or comment? Many thanks, --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Well some of that is professional experience, but also I wasnt in the Citation Mode at that point. I was cleaning up the text for readability and style and figured I would search for citations. later.--Bwthemoose/Talk 15:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
To Kill a Mockingbird has come up for FAC. You might want to look at it. I assume you are familiar with it? :) Awadewit | talk 04:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I have responded to your comments as best I could. As they were not comments on the article, but on the topic, it has become something of a digression. Thank you for your time! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I was urged by Awadewit to have a go at Ms. Goldman, now that I'm done with Harriet Tubman. I'm intrigued, but improving an article about such an important anarchist for the sake of profit? =) Seems wrong somehow. What if I did it and then asked you to make the payment to the East Timor Action Network instead? – Scartol · Talk 15:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S. - The peer review suggested a complete reorganization of the article, which I would tend to agree with. The question is, how do you organize an article about someone as complex as Goldman? -- Kaldari (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I've put Joseph Johnson (publisher) up for peer review. If you have a chance in the next few weeks, would you review it? I would greatly appreciate it. (I promise to resume the French soon!) Awadewit | talk 07:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Great work on Harriet Tubman. I never found the time to review, but it didn't seem like you really needed the help anyway. This is a much needed achievement for WP, so thanks for upgrading the article. Time to add the barnstar! Cheers, Melty girl (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Your Imperial Majesty, a featured article on Harriet Tubman! As a female war veteran I say well done. Cheers, and thank you. DurovaCharge! 02:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Oops! I didn't see your comments about J. D. Salinger until after I'd done my reviews. Hope I didn't bollocks everything up too bad. – Scartol • Tok 14:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Featured Article Medal | |
In recognition of your troika of transcendence: Honoré de Balzac, Chinua Achebe and Harriet Tubman. Oh my, the rest of us need to pick up the pace! --JayHenry (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC) |
Hello! Yes, actually, help would be awesome. I put J. D. Salinger up as a good article candidate about a month ago, though no one has reviewed it yet. If you're eligible (I don't know if you have worked on the article in the past?) and willing, it would be great if you could review it. Eventually, JayHenry and I are hoping to get it to FA status, so if you have any advice to that end, that would be great too. (It was a FA candidate this summer, but had trouble getting passed because it doesn't have much about academic analysis of Salinger's writing.) Thanks, -- Hobbesy3 (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
So, this just appeared in the edit history of A Vindication of the Rights of Men: Protected A Vindication of the Rights of Men: appearing on Main Page as Today's Featured Article - 29 November 2007 [move=sysop] (expires 00:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC). But I thought TFAs weren't protected? Je n'y comprends rien. Awadewit | talk 15:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
ome == Wiki newbies together ==
I have started trying to collect information on the ArbCom elections from people I know who have been here longer than I have and who have more experience. You might be interested in reading in what is accumulating on my userpage. You seem like the type that wants to be a good wiki-citizen and vote. :) Awadewit | talk 15:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Left a response to your September 2007 post about articles with issues beyond copy-edit. Hope to see you participating when you can, with the articles that truly are ready for c/e. Unimaginative Username (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Scartol, I've continued the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#Moving images below leve-three titles? Best regards, —surueña 08:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.