User talk:Awien

---

Hi, thanks for fixing the apostrophe here. From your contribs I see that you do copyediting. I tagged Zinaida Serebriakova for copyediting on 11 May 2007, but no one has looked at it yet. --Jtir 09:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for copyediting the article. I never could have done that. Comments here.

Were you going to put anything on your user page? Your user name is red until you put something there, after which, you are blue. --Jtir 16:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are blue. I put another note here. Do you know about watchlists?

BTW, you could ask your question at User talk:Cboncenne, although she hasn't been active since 2007-02-23 (contribs).

--Jtir 12:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my answer to your question in the Urania sloanus discussion page. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 23:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, and for pointing out my error. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 15:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have a question. Is "[1]" right? How should the word pupa be used? (You may not know, but I think you're one of the best people to help me on the subject). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 14:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my question is (should have been): Are both "Pupa of Cockchafer" and "Cockchafer pupa" correct? Is one better? Would "Pupa of the Cockchafer" also be correct? Thank you for the last answer. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 19:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on my misspelling of forebears in The Chrysalids article. It went quite a while uncorrected and I was none the wiser. Kudos. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind remarks about the Moissac page on paradoxplace - I see that the link has been removed from the Wikipedia page as "spam" by someone less mindful than you - oh that the spam we get was this interesting. That, I am afraid, is Wikipedia for you ! Adrian 15 March 2008

Je te remercie, Awien. I don't know how I could misspell it as consistently as that: it's probably because I typed the name by hand, with the diacritics at the bottom of the screen, in the Tzara article and didn't realize it the first time around (because I was simply copy-pasting it so as not to type it over and over again). But that I hadn't figured it out as I was starting the article... Dahn (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the "oe"-"œ" thing - I wanted to use the latter, but I didn't know if it was regulated here. I mean, the French themselves seem to use it less and less often, and, back when I took French in school, they didn't even tell us about that character. But, yes, better to stick with the classical forms. Dahn (talk) 04:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent copy edits on the article Jacques Brel is Alive and Well and Living in Paris (film). Your input is greatly appreciated. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! Have you ever seen the film? It is one of my favourites. I also liked your work in the Ne me quitte pas editing, too! Ecoleetage (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some of the Blau-Shuman translations were inane, particularly for "Last Supper." I will keep my eyes peeled for more Brel-related articles to add to Wikipedia. Merci! Ecoleetage (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your copyedits to the article. I wonder what else do you suggest as a copyeditor for this article? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I fixed the wording. If you're still seeing the problem, it might be your browser showing you a cached version of the page. Try holding shift or ctrl as you refresh the page. :) - Mark 13:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping with the translation. Much appreciated, JNW (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Awien (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we start a church? :-) --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 05:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have had a chance to look into that fact, I realize I was not the editor who had added it. I apologize for the delay, but after reviewing all of the derm texts I own, and PubMed, I am unable to verify the fact in question; therefore, completely support your deletion! Thanks again for your help! ---kilbad (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello awien :)

thanks for the note you left on my talk page. funnily enough, i once had a wikipedia account that i abandoned shortly after clocking up just over 24-thousand edits or so. this is when it had occurred to me that i really didn't like exposing a full history of every edit and/or tidbit of discussion i contributed to the project. i think of myself as a reliable editor who likes to do everything by the manual (whether i agree with various portions of the manual or not), so there was no discomfort with such data being available to administrators and whatnot, but it was also available to vandalous and disruptive editors who often enjoy latching onto targeted users edit-histories and greenhorning the bulk of their major efforts. there's also something that feels a bit communist about having to carry all the baggage of user-to-user discussion, exposing it to the world, and not being allowed to delete old discussion in the same way we often delete old and no-longer-useful email. perhaps i'm a bit paranoid of being scrutinised and evaluated on the basis of my interests, articles and subject matter i edit, my unrelated opinions, and age-old discussions to which the evaluator was not involved. at least editing via ip (a dynamic ip) allows me to drop the number and acquire a new address (a clean slate) whenever i please, or whenever i feel i've accumulated enough discardable baggage as such... which in turn, offers me a much greater sense of privacy. my ip address frequently changes on it's own, or during storms, or can be induced simply by disrupting (unplugging) power-flow to my modem. aliant simply assigns a new ip whenever it's powered back up. i kinda like that option ;)

on another note, i'll mention that i've been watching the commons article and talk page for quite some time (since well before it was renamed from commons to common), and have been quite impressed by "your" continuous efforts to keep it real. good stuff! have yourself a great day awien... catch ya at the commons! 142.177.77.2 (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

May I call you sevensevensevenseventwo for short? ^_-

Yes, I thought you probably had your reasons for being just an IP number - but I learnt a few things as a result of asking the question, which is always good. But what is "greenhorning", btw?

Thanks for the kind words about the Common(s) article. The classic descriptive vs. prescriptive grammarian conflict, I guess. But I wonder whether it's all right any more to go for a walk at the Dingle, or hang out at the Horsefields, or drop in at Dal to use the library . . .

I'm the one cutting across the Commons diagonally to get downtown. See you!

Awien (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for late response. The images were taken in Keauhou Bay. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, seems I had things backwards :). I had never heard of this debate, but you're right, the OED advises against it, and that's good enough for me. -Elmer Clark (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well said! ^_^ Awien (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Awien, Can you help me with a little niggling doubt. I have just 'completed' an article about Les Frères Robert which involved lots of scrabbling for references via Google, but I am concerned that the younger brother, Marie-Noël Nicolas-Louis Robert (Robert le Jeune) has got too many names and identities. I am concerned that he may be two people, a flyer and a paper maker, but that would mean that both Larousse and Britannica are wrong, which is surely unthinkable. One source, Today in Science, describes a different person, a timid clerk called Louis who got ripped off, but it is so florid, waffly, badly translated and so focussed on the Fourdrinier machine rather than Louis, that I can't use it to contradict L & B.

Unfortunately English sources start with a disadvantage, he was one of a pair of brothers, an artesan, who had a christian name as a surname, who was half of a construction team, and half of a different flying team, in partnership with a professor who also had a christian name as a surname. Ergo La Charlière piloted by 'Charles Robert' seems perfectly feasible ... but wrong. Thus I took the liberty of agglomerating the names, Marie-Noël, Noël, Nicolas-Louis, and Louis in order to focus on the article build. Can you shed any light? Regards Chienlit (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Chienlit! I'll have a quick look and see what I can find out, but no promises - I can't devote too much time to it. Cheers, Awien (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm back . . . and not much farther forward.

The physicist in charge of the experiment (hydrogen balloon) was Jacques Charles, (per Petit Robert 2 and Petit Larousse illustré, recent paper editions). Neither dictionary has an entry for the frères Robert.

The frères Robert who constructed the balloon are referred to as Anne-Jean and Nicolas-Louis in two trustworthy-looking on-line sources:

http://www.universalis.fr/encyclopedie/C930691/BALLONS.htm

http://www.hydroretro.net/etudegh/les_apports_scientifiques_du_18e_siecle.pdf

(the author of the latter asks to be asked and credited for any use made of the material).

In both of these, Nicolas-Louis Robert is named as having made the flight with Jacques Charles.

Other documents have Marie-Noël Robert as one of the brothers and/or the one who flew, for example this local history blog: http://beuvry.unblog.fr/2009/09/01/histoire-du-quartier-du-ballon-a-beuvry/

Gotta go - maybe more later. Awien (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks, list so far...

• http://www.universalis.fr/encyclopedie/C930691/BALLONS.htm Universalis .fr Ballons, Anne-Jean and Nicolas-Louis

• http://beuvry.unblog.fr/2009/09/01/histoire-du-quartier-du-ballon-a-beuvry/ History of Beuvry Anne-Jean Robert et Marie-Noël Robert

• http://www.hydroretro.net/etudegh/les_apports_scientifiques_du_18e_siecle.pdf Les apports scientifiques du XVIIIe siècle Par Gérard Hartmann - Anne-Jean et Nicolas-Louis Robert,

• http://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/groupe-homonymes/Robert/141174 Larousse .fr Anne-Jean (1758-1820) et Nicolas Louis, (Paris 1761-Dreux 1828)

• https://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/Aircraft/Balloon-Charles.html Fidlers Green Marie-Noel Robert

• http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10447673 Anne-Jean and Marie-Noel Robert,

• http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/505373/Nicolas-Louis-Robert Britannica Nicolas-Louis Robert —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chienlit (talk • contribs) 18:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more refs. The online Larousse has the Robert brothers as Anne-Jean and Nicolas Louis (called the younger Robert), with Nicolas Louis having made the flight with Charles. The 1976 paper Britannica also has "physicist J.-A.-C. Charles accompanied by Nicolas-Louis Robert" as having made the flight.

So there's no doubt about Jacques Alexandre César Charles, physicist and principal investigator. It also looks to me virtually certain that the Robert brothers were Anne-Jean Robert and Nicolas-Louis Robert, and that it was Nicolas-Louis Robert who flew. The sites that talk about Marie-Noël Robert are on the face of it much less authoritative, so if it were me, I would relegate this name to a footnote at most, although ideally of course, someone would go and look at the dusty old papers somewhere. Hope this helps.

In the meantime, in doing this research I made the interesting discovery that it was Jacques Charles' wife Julie who was the Julie Charles who inspired one of the most famous poems in French literature, Lamartine's Le Lac (that I had to memorise when I was at school). Live and learn! Ciao! Awien (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts, and I'm pleased to be of service... I both triggered your interest and twas I who added the stuff about Julie and de Lamartine to the Jacques Charles page. Like a treasure hunt or a masquerade. :) Regards Chienlit (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done ye for adding the cultural reference - though I actually hadn't looked at the WP Charles article till now, I found out about Mme Charles being Elvire on one of the French sites. On the other hand, WP has just taught me a LOT about balloons and bicycles. Such a fun way of wasting time, n'est-ce pas? Awien (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many mercis

I will caveat the article and standardise on Nicolas-Louis. Larousse, Britannica and Awien are an awesome triumvirate. But, for my own interest, Could a humble artisan engineer have had four names? Could the change of emphasis be anything to do with the Revolution? or Is there one rogue source out there which the interweb has duplicated 'lapinesque'? Chienlit (talk) 09:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ps. You may be interested to glance at other dusty old French stuff that I have recently worked on are Hubert Latham, Ernest Archdeacon, Pierre Giffard and Le Vélo. As I never trust my French why should wiki? ... and where did Archdeacon come from? where did he go? I only found a few middle years. Don't feel obliged, I just grab at every passing straw when I am out of my depth. Regards. )

It was rien! And flattery will get you ev... I mean nowhere ^_-

As for a potential "Marie-Noel Nicolas-Louis Robert", I had a pretty good look via Google.fr and didn't find anything à propos. And although I don't have much of a feel for the naming conventions of the day, it certainly doesn't sound too plausible. I do indeed suspect lapinesque multiplication of an initial mistake, but it's also a very weird mistake if so. Filed in the back of my mind in case further info comes my way . . .

I glanced at a couple of the other articles this morning and saw no obvious problems. Au contraire, they looked interesting and well-written. Now I have a few minutes to myself, I'm off to read them properly. (Btw, long, long ago I once did a paper on the terminology of the early days of aviation (=behaving like a bird) in a French linguistics class - that was fun too). And DYK that on the White Cliffs of Dover you can see (or used to be able to) the exact spot where Blériot landed marked out in paving stones?

Bonsoir! Awien (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done,

I have renamed and caveated the article, it looks much better now that Nicolas-Louis Robert is primary, and I have 'damned with feint praise' those other sources for marie-noel.

b But... I have also standardised Nicolas-Louis across Wiki. History of balloons etc.

b b But.... Thanks for looking at the other articles. Giffard is not 'mine', I found it in a mess, added some details, was preparing a snippet/section on 'the world's first motor race', then got distracted to ballooning (can't remember why) and have not yet done the reorg it needs.

b b b But... Yesterday I was emboldened by my new back-up team (Awien) to translate a bit of Diderot and Rousseau for my favourite French expression L'esprit de l'escalier. The translation is bad because it's bad, it's short because I couldn't understand the middle bit.

b b b b But... Regards Chienlit (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

b b b b b But... I just couldn't get over the original niggling doubt about two people. Voila...

The good citizens of Vernouillet, Eure-et-Loir have built a statue in front of the eglise, and named a school after him, the boy that almost made a machine that almost made wallpaper badly, and yet they saw no reason to mention that he invented flying. They cannot be wrong. They have proudly put him in the Wiki page for their ville, [2], and written a wiki article about him [3]. the paperboy, and they see no reason to mention that he invented flying. They cannot be wrong. No references because fr.wiki rarely seems to feel obliged to meet the conventions and sate the constraints of the 'doubting thomases' that run en.wiki, but the townspeople know their man.

I'm convinced(ish)

• that 'our flyer' is correctly named and caveated as Nicolas-Louis Robert,
• that Louis-Nicolas Robert was a paperboy, and ....aaaargh..
• Britannica and Larousse are wrong. They have conflated 2 men. Or one has conflated and the other has shared the knowledge with a wider audience.

Although I had no prior interest, I now feel obliged to create a Louis-Nicolas article, whenever I can manage the translation. Regards Chienlit (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Awien, I'm on the scrounge. If you need a break from grouting it would be wonderful if you would add a drizzle of your expertise to Louis-Nicolas Robert. I presume it to be littered with érrěurès... Regards. Chienlit (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I had never heard of a sett. Now Paris-Roubaix is on my 'to do' list. :) Chienlit (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get lost, Chienlit!!!! I'm supposed to be tiling the kitchen floor, not indulging in all this fascinating research, and giving free rein to my perfectionism in trying to fix the whole of WP!!!!! That is, after I tidy up L'Esprit de l'escalier, and see what can be done for that poor Pierre Giffard, and . . . ^_- Awien (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, OK, I understood just fine, but had to work, cook and watch University Challenge. I also did lots of background referencing and disambiguating for Louis-Nicolas Robert, which should make writing it easier. I usually lose track of refs, but now they are already buried in the article.

This is wiki, so your tiny note about Bleriot triggered me to find it, you to correct it, and now Egghead uploads his own photo (plus handlebars). Butterfly, wings NewYork, Typhoon, Tokyo? Regards. Chienlit (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know - isn't it fun? Although I don't know about those handlebars . . .

As for that manicured lawn, and development that has apparently come to within feet of the monument, how time does pass! When I saw it, it was in the middle of nowhere, just those setts on rough ground and pretty overgrown. Oh well. Awien (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fablon is available in many good shops. It comes in a wide variety of colours and patterns, and can look very attractive... from a distance... for a short while ... in a badly focussed photograph. Chienlit (talk) 07:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC) (Or when Carole Smiley is gushing and Llewelyn Bowen is skulking)[reply]

Salutes! I have no idea what the problem is: all the computers I'm using, I'm getting the full map when I click. But I'm not the person to ask. I didn't draw the map, I only gave instructions on its content to the mapmaker, who is User:Andrei Nacu. I suggest you ask him Vale! EraNavigator (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy your trip. Alas, it was two kinds of skin cancer and lack of decent health care that sent us back to the mainland. Hope we can come back to visit. Winters are great, just the summers are too intense for haoles. If you can sneak a digital camera into your luggage, we sure could use more pics. I have some of the Kona and Hilo areas left to upload, but Kohala is lacking. E.g. Anna Ranch, Bond District, Lapakahi Complex, and probably many sites on Maui. Aloha.

I can work on Hawaii today. Just need to merge in the aceptable changes since before the 'okina removal, not too many. As for your pics, I cannot legally upload them under my name, claiming they were mine of course. But might be able to help you do the uploads somehow. I can also do some simple Photoshop, e.g. crop out unwanted parts, adjust contrast, etc. we can try to connect via email. W Nowicki (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonne année, Awien, et plein de bonnes choses tout au long de ces trois mois merveilleux... où ça ? Let me try an educated guess... Hawai, perhaps? Will you be scuba diving? If so, that would make me real envious! --Azurfrog (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonne et heureuse année à toi aussi, Azurfrog! And wow, you must be psychic - or was it by any chance the fingerprints I have left all over the Hawai'i articles? But you're right, Hawai'i it is. I don't actually scuba dive, but I am an avid snorkeller and don't feel I'm missing anything given that it's less intrusive and lower-impact, and I meet the turtles and dolphins, and eels and manta rays, and all the wondrous fish, anyway. I'm also a keen hiker, and hike in whenever possible to see the lava flowing, not to mention all the other beautiful hikes the islands offer.

Your trail isn't so easy to read - but if you're in Japan, I'm the one who'll be jealous! Japan's been on my list for a long time, and I've never made it yet. As for France, I'm there fairly regularly and love it too. Paris or province, tout est bon chez elle!

Meanwhile, looking up the "whether Fanny is out" quote has me re-reading Mansfield Park with the greatest possible pleasure. Just finished the outing to Sotherton, in the midst of the amateur theatricals. See what you started . . . Awien (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Awien, Happy new year, I kinda thought you were in Hawaii with slightly better things to do, but I am shameless when it comes to scrounging. I have spent many days scrabbling to piece together the tiniest facts about Adolphe Clément, most of them Google clones, lazy simplifications and contradictions. Yesterday I was convinced I could do no more, then at lunchtime today I discovered Hydro Retro, Clement-Bayard, pdf (French) Clément-Bayard, sans peur et sans reproche par Gérard Hartmann where Gérard Hartmann has done a fantastic job in French. If you feel inclined to read it and correct my efforts I will be delighted, as most/all of his subtleties elude me. Regards Chienlit (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving Thursday - yay! So the chances of my doing anything with the Clément article are VERY slim, I'm afraid, although you never can tell. Aloha! Awien (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour. Hope you are back from your trip and did not encounter any Tsunamis etc. In case you have time to help, one area that could use help would be Louis de Freycinet and his "Voyage autour du monde". It seems Jacques Arago left an accout in English (not sure why, or if that was a translation?) but of course Freycinet's are in French. I found an interesting pic, but the text needs to be beefed up quite a bit. If nothing else, a chronology of where he went when would be very useful. His wife Rose seems to have been on this voyage too. Merci. W Nowicki (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salut, PFHLai! I'm wondering why you removed the stub tag from the Giono article when it basically only covers his first three books, makes it sound as though his career was over by the nineteen-thirties, says nothing about his pacifism and consequent problems during and after WWII, doesn't even mention his change of manner and second period . . . it looks like a stub to me. What do you think? Awien (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salut, Awien!

I was only stub-sorting. While I removed {{Stub}} from the top of the wikipage, I posted {{France-writer-stub}} at the bottom (the usual place for a stub tag) in the same edit. The article is indeed quite short and incomplete, but it seems longer than most articles I've seen tagged as stubs (those with scant/basic info). I hope that with stub-sorting, the wikibio will get expanded by Wikipedians familiar with the subject soon. I hope this helps explain things a bit.

Happy editing. --PFHLai (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Awien. I hope the article gets expanded soon, too. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done, Awien. Your good work expanding the article should get the spotlight on MainPage as a DYK soon. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaargh! What was I thinking?!? Me, such a shy wikignome! But thanks for the pat on the back . . . Awien (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am afraid the source you used was a bit terse and additional information from elsewhere makes it appear that your proposed hook isn't quite correct. Sorry for the trouble. Hans Adler 09:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, it's good that you're being careful. I've addressed your concerns on the nomination page, but the bottom line is that G. truly was no nazi sympathiser, and I'm not aware of any controversy today regarding the fact that he was treated very unfairly. Best, Awien (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"References", to my way of thinking, and from what I understand of the Wikipedia guidelines, should be external sources that are referenced in the article. None of the references I deleted seem to be referenced in the article here, but are rather a list of "books/material about the Dinka". Considering what a poorly-researched disaster this article is (in its current state at least), it seems unlikely any of these scholarly works were consulted in any meaningful way.

Perhaps they should be mentioned in some kind of "further reading" section, with helpful links re: where to acquire them. Ideally, the entire article should be rewritten with real inline references where applicable.

Horstvonludwig (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're enough of an authority on the Dinka to be able to say that the article is poorly researched, maybe you could improve it? I keep thinking I should, but find it a more daunting prospect than simply writing an article myself.

But while it certainly needs work, it doesn't seem to me to be as deeply flawed as you think. The basic information about the traditional way of life of the Dinka is basically accurate, but with references to the books in the non-standard form of giving the author's name in brackets in the text. So as I said, that could be fixed by changing those to inline citations, and adding further citations as necessary. And inline citations can and frequently do refer to books, they do not have to be in the form of clickable links to material available on the internet - a scholarly book IS an external source, and usually a better one than most web pages. So if improving the citations is the goal, moving the books to a further reading section would be counter-productive. Maybe the websites, but not the books.

As for how to acquire the books, the full bibliographic information is in fact given. With that, you can buy any that are still in print, borrow them from any library that holds them, or have your library bring them in on document transfer if it doesn't hold them. That's all that's necessary.

Now, the sections of the article dealing with the current situation are a different problem, maybe insoluble for the moment. The wars and politics are ongoing, information is scarce or non-existent, with contradictory (of course) stories being put out by the different players. If you know how this can be dealt with, please do tell!

I hope this adequately addresses your concerns. Cheers, Awien (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on what's considered a "reference" then. Something like "Jok Madut Jok Published Material" can't, in my view, by a reference to this article, by definition, unless everything from that list of material has been referred to in the creation of the article (which I very much doubt). This is really just self-promotion for this person's works, as scholarly as they may be.

You're right, it's really only two sections that are really awful: the more "current events"-type sections. I would suggest "War with the north and status as refugees" be removed altogether, and "1991 Bor Massacre" should probably be its own separate article, especially since the Bor, Sudan article repeats much of this information.

However, I'll leave all this work for someone with more expertise. Horstvonludwig (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I may have given the wrong impression about the references, they certainly do need a lot of work. But all the information in the article is covered in those books (some of which I've read, but long ago) and almost certainly not available in any trustworthy form on the internet - what's needed is for somebody to get hold of the books, and add the appropriate page references to the article as inline citations. See this [4] recently featured article as an example of inline cites referring to books. Am I up for the job? Likely not any time soon. Are you?!?

And you're right, the Jok Madut Jok link isn't a ref as it stands. If anyone were to want to quote from that book, they would of course need to give the bibliographic info in the proper form, and provide real page references. What to do in the meantime? Leave it, since it's potentially useful and not too blatantly self-promotion? (I guess I tend to be at the pack-rat end of the inclusionist spectrum).

Anyway, you and me both as far as feeling inadequate to the task of making something of the article is concerned. My first-hand information is too dated, and constitutes "original research" anyway since it's first-hand experience not book (or internet)-learning, while reliable information on recent events is essentially unobtainable. But I will at least take another look at the war and massacre sections in light of your comments. Thank you for your interest, it's a pleasure to deal with a thoughtful and civil person. Awien (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see your point about flawed references being potentially useful, and I admit to being a rather ruthless exclusionist.

It's frustrating that some controversial, current-event topics get presented in Wikipedia in a reasonable manner, as an actual source of information, and for other topics this seems to be impossible. Much of this article reads like a badly-written personal blog ("This is ironic and self implicating...") but, as I say, I will leave further editing to someone with more knowledge on the subject. In fact I know virtually nothing about the Dinka: I came upon this article after reading the Valentino Deng/Dave Eggers book. An actual book! From a library!

All the best, Horstvonludwig (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

And I call myself a copy editor lmao

Anyway, in my defence, I was looking at it from the "for the unbiased approach it has"

That, for me anyway, contracted to the phrase you saw "for it's unbiased approach" - I can't think of an example of a phrase where it has would otherwise be contracted as per the examples Wiki provides as "it's can only be a contraction of 'it is' or 'it has'."

"it has spots" would still contract to it's spots...

Hmmm...I may have to rethink that one :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm . . . nice try ^_-

But anyway, glad I sent you to bed laughing.

Cheers, Awien (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert at Kaimū, Hawai'i and the reason for it doesn't make much sense to me. Can you clarify? --Travis Thurston+ 08:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! An edit summary doesn't give much scope for self-expression. Thanks to JGKlein, the Kaimū article now has pictures showing the old beach in 1959, before the area was inundated with lava from the current eruption of Kilauea, and recent pictures, showing the new black sand beach created by the lava flow and people's efforts in planting palm trees. So rather than consolidating the pix, I thought it would be useful to separate them at least onto two rows, or even into two sections, giving them explanatory headings such as "The beach that was destroyed" and "The beach that was created". (That's what I meant by "before" and "after"). All of which may now be moot since JGKlein has reduced the number of pictures so that they fit nicely in one row. Aloha! Awien (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've put up Onizuka Center for International Astronomy for DYK. Cheers, ResMar 04:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! We'll see if it gets the nod. Cheers, Awien (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It definetly will. But enough about that! I petition you to read Mauna Kea and tell me if I missed anything. ResMar 01:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There he is, back from Heaven (or from some other place with a name also beginning with "H", I expect!). Fact is, I realize only now you must have been back at least since May; my mistake!

Well then, I guess it's time I went back to work too... I have been so much involved in 18th century English litterature on French WP recently that I have been forgetting all my duties here. --Azurfrog (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smiles back to you too ^_^

Just to be clear, the place beginning with H was H****'*, not H***!

Then other Hs intervened too: Home maintenance (eats into one's WP time, but necessary), and Homework (learning Spanish). But I do have hopes of chipping away at [5] over the next little while. Best, Awien (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that H<place> was meant to be Hawaii, you're one * too short (or 2, if you use ʻ [ah, technicalities]). ResMar 01:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Slipped into French . . . that's my story and I'm sticking to it! Better now? Awien (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French, huh. You must have really stayed up late with that homework :) ResMar 01:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not in France, just bilingual and working on a translation [6]. Bonne nuit! Awien (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's "Hawaii" when I'm refering to the state, and Hawaiʻi when I'm refering to the island, right? ResMar 02:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awien: Where are all my references? I understand you restructured it, but why did you delete all the references? I am going to try and fix it, and if I can't I will revert. ResMar 02:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You actually orphaned several references like that. Not good. ResMar 03:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha Resident Mario. Yes, Hawaii state, Hawai'i island.

I'm in a hurry right now, so briefly . . . I didn't delete your refs on purpose, please don't revert. Hopefully there's a way to restore or re-add them to the current text, which is better balanced because it deals with the whole mountain. As for orphaning refs, sorry  ;^_^; I'll try to figure out what I did wrong and avoid doing it in future. More later if necessary. Best, Awien (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind my butting in, to clarify. The island vs. state is the policy in the Wikipedia style guide and sources may follow other policies. (For that matter some editors do not follow it either!) In particular, the University of Hawaii prefers to be consistent and always use the ʻokina in its name. Some state agencies do too. The Post Office never uses them nor other puncuation. USGS started around 2000, but alas after the 2000 census downloaded their database. W Nowicki (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - yes, I should have made it clear I was only talking about here on WP. Happily, in real life the trend is towards using the diacritics. More and more signage has them as signs are replaced, for example. But to be picky with myself, the kahakō is a diacritic, the 'okina is a consonant. Awien (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Awien!

Most of the original texts you should find on line looking up the corresponding sources in "Bibliography" (at least from the French article), as I've tried to draw on them as much as possible. Paper books I have been using are primarily Le Faye's Jane Austen: The World of Her Novels and Todd's Jane Austen in Context. Even then, most quotes you should be able to find on line.

As for "Female occupations and pursuits", I rather like either "occupations" or "pursuits", which does not convey the same thing as "lives", imho. Why not "Women's occupations" then? Now, I just checked, and Le Faye puts it as "Feminine occupations"; I also find "Male education and pursuits" ("pursuits" sounding more determined, more manly, I suppose). Up to you really.

Sorry I am not here more often really, but I have been desperately trying to bring off Emma for some time now, as I mean to present it to the Featured Article (Article de Qualité) procedure shortly. Never expected this one would absorb so much of my available time!

--Azurfrog (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonsoir Azurfrog!

Yes, I like "Women's occupations" much better. I'll make the change.

I dropped in on Emma, and I have to say you grenouilles do so much better at getting genuinely scholarly content into Wikipédia than we do here, at least in some fields. (Although in passing I did fix a few little coquilles for you till the edit window refused to load for a while). And now I know the rest of Kitty a fair but frozen maid, something that's been in the back of my mind to find out for more years than I care to say! Good luck with the AdQ. Awien (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Awien. Georgian society in Jane Austen's novels is still tagged as a translation in progress, but I see from the talk page that it's been going on since 2009. Is it finished? If it is, I'd be really interested to help with any other translation work in related topics. If it's not, what can I do to help? I'm a French-English translator with an interest in the area (Austen; non-military history; literature in general) and access to libraries. Also, amazing work on the article so far which is vast and masterfully done :). --Noiratsi (talk) 10:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Noiratsi. Thank you for the kind words! I guess "vast" is the problem, because as you note, energy ran out a long time ago. So yes please! If you feel the urge, do please pick up where I left off. Not that you need my permission: I don't own the article ^_-

You'll see where there are empty sections, and I think there are others that remain a little sketchy to. So go to it, and as for me, if I feel inspiration coming on again, I'll drop you a line first so that we're not duplicating the work.

Have fun! Awien (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has been rewritten. Take a look! ResMar 02:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on the article's talk page. Awien (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I merged the first paragraph into the hiking one. So far so good? ResMar 02:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I haven't been holding out on you, I've been without power for ~36 hours due to hurricane). So . . . much, much, MUCH better. Still some work to be done, but we're on track now. I should be able to look at it over the next couple of days. Awien (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• me* must know what work needs to be done to do it. ResMar 21:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made my suggestions on the article's talk page Awien (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten a lot of positive feedback and it is now at FAC. Cheers, ResMar 02:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request For Acronym Expansion: as per Talk:Onizuka Center for International Astronomy sorry, I am acronym impaired. What does "sth." mean? and what are "interwebs"?

On perhaps the other subject, Template:cite web describes how to use a web source with full citation. If you include all the fields that are known, usually date, accessdate (I of course like to use the US format in articles on the USA) title, url, and either publisher or work, then it gives a reviewer an idea if the source is reliable, or just spam, etc. Look at my recently edited pages for many examples. Does than help at all? Merci. W Nowicki (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ATRFAE (Answer To Request For Acronym Expansion)

Doesn't everybody abbreviate "something" to "sth." when they're too lazy to type it out?!? As for interwebs, around here it's a jokey way of referring to the internet (a blend of internet, world-wide web, + a misplaced s like in the lolcats). Hope this helps ^_-

Thank you for the citation info. (oops, information), just what I needed to know.

Aloha, Awien (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a moot point, but a couple days ago I did some work on the Hamakua article as discussed. So far nobody seems to have noticed, but if you have the time, take a look. Merci. W Nowicki (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow failed to put it on my watchlist . . . looking good! Fixed a few typos while I was at it, a few diacritics still to go. Also, the Mauna Loa weather station/observatory isn't at the summit - didn't fix that because it's past bedtime here. Bonne nuit! Awien (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the thumbnail generation for Wikimedia commons is broken right now. If you go to the direct URL: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Onizuka_Center_for_International_Astronomy.jpg/220px-Onizuka_Center_for_International_Astronomy.jpg it gives an error message "Unable to forward this request at this time". My guess is someone is working on it. W Nowicki (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And is fixed by now. W Nowicki (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whew! Always a relief I didn't screw something up. Awien (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you look into Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mauna Kea/archive1? Cheers, ResMar 20:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep it in mind, but just now it doesn't look as though I'm going to be able to do it with the attention it deserves. Good luck! Awien (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, something is up with the coding with your request here. I would fix it, but it would use my sig then. You just need to remove the bolds and the nowikis. BOVINEBOY2008 08:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Fixed now. Awien (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! BOVINEBOY2008 14:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour! (Or bonsoir, possibly - my A-level French is now rather rusty). It looks as if you're right, which means that we will probably have to tweak the WP Opera Project's rules. I had a look at the Rossini Operas Template at it.wikipedia.org and was relieved to see that we won't have to alter many other Rossini titles - just Il turco in Italia, AFAICS - but I suppose we'd have to look through Category:Italian-language operas and Category:French-language operas for consistency. On the other hand, there have been a number of discussions (including some rather heated ones) about foreign-language capitalisation at the WP:WPO Talk page over the years and we currently use Grove Opera as our reference. The Rossini article there (by Rossini experts Richard Osborne and Philip Gossett) has "L'italiana" and "il turco", so there may be a consensus for reverting your page move. Urgh! Best wishes. --GuillaumeTell 17:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion at Talk:L'Italiana in Algeri and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera. This was not an "uncontroversial move" and should not have been described as such. Awien, when you requested the move,[7] you had already been reverted once for changing the capitalization in the article [8] and had been directed to WikiProject Opera Guidelines on orginal language titles. With no further discussion whatsoever, you put in a request for a page move two hours later as "uncontroversial". Voceditenore (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Capital letters are used in Italian as they are in English, except that small letters are used:

(a) With proper adjectives, unless used as nouns.

una grammatica italiana - an Italian grammar

But gl'Italiani - the Italians"

Practical Italian Grammar, Joseph Louis Russo, London, George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd., 1964

L'Italiana as used in the opera title is a noun as covered by this definition, not as an adjective modifying a noun as would be the case with for example La ragazza italiana. Awien (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. to Voceditenore: I have copied (and slightly expanded) my explanation above to the opera's talk page [9] as you suggest, and am watching there.

Also, as you see, Guillaume Tell has accepted my explanation of the grammar. And I did not act in bad faith. The supposed link (in the edit summary) to the discussion was red, leading me to believe that any discussion had been deleted, while the two brief unreferenced and unexplained comments on the talk page dating to 2005 and 2007 respectively hardly amount to a controversy - just something left up in the air by default. Awien (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Awien, I hope that you are still active on wiki, your skills are exceptional. I have recently done some work on Léon Lemartin, where the primary source was [10]. My French is not trustworthy and some bits of his life were complicated, so I would greatly appreciate any corrections that you may have the time to make. eg. il découvre une coquille sur son état civil - a mistake? a secret?

Regards Chienlit (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A mistake. But I´m travelling and virtually without Internet, so am dormant on WP. Try me again in April if you like. Hasta luego! (How do you type tildes on a mesoamerican keyboard?) Awien

You said you would keep watching for the low down on the reproductive strategies of fish. The long awaited revelations have finally arrived. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it must have been little me in the rain forest. But then, I am such a small critter I guess you just didn't see me, given the poor light ;-)... --Azurfrog (talk) 12:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At sometime in the 1970s, whilst "bull in a china shop"ing around France, using my smattered 1960's O-level French, I must have invented "d'ac, d'ac, je suis en d'accord" and thought that they were laughing with me not at me. It has been a frequently used part of my limited phrase-book ever since, but no more. From now on le postillion will be repeatedly struck by lightening, as will la plume de ma tante. Many thanks for the help. Yes Leonard has been dead for two or three years, but I didn't mean to convey that. I was improvising more along the lines of 'It was him' (not me), the common child's cry of passing the blame as if it was a buck. He was my son's dog, had ADHD, never did anything for more than 2 mins, was into every kind of game and mischief, was presumed to have fallen into a disused well (again) while roaming in rural Portugal. Regards, and best wishes, your page is still on my watchlist as well. Chienlit (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thank you for your message. I made the gallery because I think the images are not supposed to run further down than the foot of the text and any additional images should be provided in Commons (I have now given a link to this).--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely edit on gothic style, thanks.--Jarhed (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to intervening vandalism I may have stepped on your edit to this article. Please check it out and make any corrections you see fit. Regards Tiderolls 00:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I actually thought I'd forgotten to save the change. I think I've got the right language - would you know? Awien (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is I don't know. I'll checki into it, though. Thanks for your patience. Tiderolls 00:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for talking a look. Ceoil (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to expand this in the next week or so, any interest in giving a hand. Ceoil (talk) 08:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't spend too much time, and I'm no specialist, but with those limitations I'd be willing to help out. Btw, how is your name pronounced? Awien (talk) 11:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Awien,

I noticed your recent question at User talk:173.86.107.36‎, and thought I'd reply here - I didn't want to hijack his page by answering for him, but in my experience, IPs don't always respond to talk page queries, so you may not get an answer there. Anyway, the reason I support (that's a bit strong - "don't entirely disagree with" would be better) his removal of the Zen art and culture category is that Zen has little to do with judo, and almost nothing to do with aikido.

Jigoro Kano doesn't, from the historical record, appear to have been an especially religious man, but what adherence he had to Buddhism was to Shin Buddhism, a Pure Land sect, rather than Zen. Morihei Ueshiba, on the contrary, was massively religious, but it was Shinto (specifically Omoto-kyo) that floated his boat. Neither founder of the arts in question had any particular fondness for Zen, and neither art had anything Zen in its formation.

In practice, although the word dojo has Buddhist roots, most of the accouterments of a traditional judo or aikido practice hall are Shinto in origin. The kamidana is probably the most obvious example, but other aspects, such as the bowing and clapping routines performed at the start and close of classes, or the layout and alignment of the space, have Shinto concepts behind them. The samurai who many judo and aikido practitioners would like to believe are their spiritual predecessors were (despite popular perception) more likely to be followers of Shingon Buddhism (specifically mikkyo) than Zen. The modern connection of Zen and budo is largely due to the relationship between Takuan Soho and Yagyu Munenori, and the influential writings left by these two worthies, than to any inherent link.

Anyway, that's my two cents, very briefly - I dare say the IP may have completely different reasoning, but that's mine. Cheers, Yunshui 雲水 22:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I have dont go as far as the point you made on the talk, can you sort out pls. Ceoil (talk) 10:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did a couple of tweaks. Could use more to avoid repetition. Don't have time now, will take a look later if nobody else gets it in the meantime. Awien (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. I might try and put together a gallery. Ceoil (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so very much for the badly needed copyedits. Very much appreciated. Also just noticed the thread above - I'd intended to get back to the glue-size page but never did. Maybe take out the redundant sentence after all? Truthkeeper (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. But "badly needed" is a serious exaggeration, they were only minor tweaks and the occasional typo, things that can happen to anyone when they have been looking at a piece of writing for too long. And I learned a lot in the process, too, so it was fun. I had never realised how unlucky poor Hemingway was, both with illness and accidents. Those two plane crashes in the Congo for example were really excessively bad luck! Or how very far he was from being an angel, but in a sense that isn't unexpected. Anyway, I'm planning to take a look at the last couple of sections when I have time (unless I get beaten to the draw).

As for glue size, your call. Awien (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still thinking about glue-size. Regarding Hemingway - thanks for mentioning the style section - it had degraded very badly. I've reverted it to the TFA version but still needs a lot of work. I'll pick at it as I have time. I also wanted to mention about his plane accidents: I've been shoving more detailed biographical information into sub-pages as I get them written, so a fair bit of detail regarding the 1954 accident in True at First Light. That he survived is a miracle; but he was never the same, unfortunately. And no, he was not a very nice man. But a good writer in my opinion, and important. Anyway, thanks for keeping me on my toes regarding the important stuff. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll keep my sticky little fingers off those sections till I can do something useful (if anything). Incidentally, since A la recherche du temps perdu is mentioned, I assume somebody reputable thinks it influenced Hemingway in some way, but on the face of it, it beats me how. Proust's interminable, convoluted sentences that meander from digression to digression could hardly be more different from Hemingway's laconic brevity. Presumably I'm going to learn something. Awien (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write that section, but he was in fact greatly influenced by Proust in his later years. Go figure. I have better sources to add to that section, but won't be immediately. I have to find the relevant sections, read, think and then write. And this is a busy month, so I don't know when I'll get to it. I'd like to finish it as soon as I can, but don't want to rush it. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of Proust, an amusing factoid you probably know already, but just in case you don't: Proust was so incorrigibly given to his digressions, not to mention digressions from the digressions, that even at the proofreading stage of preparing La Recherche, he was still adding more by means of long paper strips he called paperoles glued right onto the pages. Drove his publisher distracted! Awien (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is my first and maybe the last message here because I don't want to stay on English wikipedia. Here are some weird and unfriendly guys. And I feel pleasure to know you. So maybe we keep in touch on other wikipedia (Simple English wikipedia or any other you want)? Eventually, nice to meet you...and a lot of thanks. Good luck.--俠刀行 (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try and restart this old project, and your comments would be highly appreciated. Thanks =), ResMar 02:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chances very slim for the next couple of months. Good luck! Awien (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your GF edits, but note that the Bird project uses the IOC list as its standard for English names, and that list uses English rather than Spanish orthography. You need to be very careful about saying "should be", when introducing a non-standard spelling. Obviously you are welcome to raise this at the project page if you want to change the policy, but best not to make changes without checking there's a consensus to do so. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought that you would know that GF meant "good faith", I should have spelt it out. Birds of Costa Rica and Birds of Brazil don't use the cedilla, Birds of Venezuela does, so it's certainly not standard. Talk pages messages on little-read pages may be overlooked, apologies that it wasn't picked up. Just changing two aracari species is inconsistent unless you were intending to do the rest if I hadn't interrupted. Words don't have to give a guide to their pronunciation, and if the cedilla isn't from Spanish, I don't know where it comes from, or how it can be justifed, since its use in English is invariably in foreign words like façade.

Anyway, the main point is that there is a consensus already on this. Sorry you've taken this badly, but I can't see any other obvious way to resolve this. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to drag this out, or to be awkward, but what project box did you mean? The Birds project box is yellow and non-cedillaed, and the country projects don't normally repeat the article name. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a purple box at the bottom of the Aracari (sic), Fiery-billed Aracari (sic) and Collared Aracari (sic), pages, headed Toucans, Toucanets and Araçaris. Awien (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I've fixed the navbox so that we are now at least consistent. I notice that you have reinstated the talk page messages which I removed, apologies for that heavy-handedness. If your intention was just to reinstate the messages, that's fine, but if you really want to make progress, please raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds. We do have exceptions from the ioc names, like Common Raven, and I know that some of the US editors in particular are likely to be sympathetic to your preferred spelling. Sorry again for the inept way I've handled this. We sometimes get editors changing "coloured" to "colored" or vice versa be because "that's the correct spelling", so I'm afraid I acted with insufficient thought or sensitivity Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. I appreciate and accept your apology.

I wanted to make the change to the more useful spelling (of the existing variants) because recently in Costa Rica I felt sorry for the people who sounded ignorant because they were mispronouncing araçari, and/or didn't like it when guides corrected their pronunciation.

To that end I intend in any case to add the spelling with cedilla and the note "pronounced arasari" to the articles. I will also draft a proposal to the project when I have time.

I'm no birder, but wow! does Central America ever have amazing, gorgeous, impressive, amusing birds! (Never did I think I would ever find myself living in the middle of a flock of a hundred red-lored parrots, for example. Or be "meeting" toucans, motmots, hummingbirds, scarlet macaws and on and on, up close and personal).

Awien (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Awien. I might drop a line to Frank Gill about the use of the cedilla. I knew about it, and about the correct pronunciation because I live in Europe and am familiar with most romanic languages. As for people getting their knickers in a twist if corrected, well, most intelligent people welcome being corrected and have an acute awareness of their own ignorance, some however are too anal-retentive! However, there are a lot of diacritics that have been elided by the IOC, not just the cedilla.Steve Pryor (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "elided" is probably the wrong word here, since an elision is where a sound in a word is omitted. It seems to me that for the English word "aracari" a sound has been changed; however, a sound has not been omitted. Snowman (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Steve. Sorry not to have responded for so long. For what it's worth, my advice as a linguist would be for your organisations to transliterate foreign names so as to preserve the pronunciation, rather than transcribe letters with diacritics but omitting the diacritics, which as we've seen changes the pronunciation. For some reason, I fear such an idea might encounter inertia. Awien (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Awien, I hope that you are well. I fear that the anglophone world needs needs you because I may have disturbed a hornets' nest. I have created Paris–Rouen (motor race) about the 1894 Concours du 'Petit Journal' Les Voitures sans Chevaux because there are so many different snippets and venom all over the web and wiki, but no definitive article. It is also a DYK candidate.

Q. Should it be described as a race, a rally, a trial, a trail, a reliability trial, a contest, a competition, a competitive 'city to city' event? ... I suspect that the page should be moved to whatever you think is best. The whole thing was a giant publicity stunt so the prize awards appear to be somewhat arbitrary (advertising revenue?) - shared equally between the two major car manufacturers who finished second and fourth. But, the contestants were timed; the first home (de Dion) is lauded by the contemporary world but assumed ineligible; the second home (Lemaitre) was judged the winner; the main prize was split between Peugeot and Panhard et Levassor; contestants stopped for lunch in Mantes (90 mins); they variously carried 2, 3, 4, 8 and 10 people. Perhaps it should be called a jaunt.

I know that 1894 was a different age and does not fit neatly into the modern perspective, but the 1869 Paris–Rouen (cycle race) fits the modern ethos precisely - first man home was the winner, using the world's most hi-tech bike (ball bearings), which got nicked from outside a restaurant while draped in a Union Jack !

I have listed links to Gallica for the original editions of Le Petit Journal (and I will locate the original rules page plus the Illustre magazine immediately after writing this note.) I am away from wiki for a few days, travelling in Ireland, so am somewhat dumping this on you. Your help and judgement will as always be appreciated. Chienlit (talk) 07:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Awien, thank you for you note. No problem. Since I wrote the note above the realisation has dawned that the words chauffeur and pilot should probably be used. Le PJ never seems to write about Lemaitre - just Fils de Peugeot. It seems that although nobility was still craven to, but celebrity had to be earned over a number of years and repeated achievement. As I said above I think it was a massive exercise to publicise Petit Journal, Peugeot and Panhard et Levassor, not the drivers. Many thanks.Chienlit (talk) 08:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I think I may have been over-sensitive and under-francophoned and under-educated (or overly ignorant and over-gauche) when I slightly edited Peugeot Type 5 and criticised the claims of the Peugeot Museum curators. Did they claim that the actual display car (No. 27) or merely the model won in 1894? Or are they also implying that Lemaitre (No 65) was driving a different model and that Rigoulot was more material to the 5,000 franc prize? When I have more time and and knowledge I may try to improve Peugeot Type 5 - it should not contain untranslated French text.

p.p.s. All copies of Le Petit Journal are now linked at Paris–Rouen - Other sources Gallica.

Wow. Nine enterprising Frenchmen saw it as an opportunity to break the laws of physics and build gravity powered perpetual motion machines! :)

Very briefly re Paris–Rouen (motor race) . . . I can see arguments for all possible names, but Le Petit Journal calls it concours = competition throughout, and expressly denies in the announcement that it will be a race (Dec. 19, 1893: ce ne sera pas une course). Maybe this, i.e. competition, is best, esp. given the ways in which the event differed from what we typically think of as a race. But I certainly wouldn't get into a fight over it if someone felt strongly that it was a race after all.

Not sure what you mean about "the words chauffeur and pilot should probably be used".

Can't look at Peugeot Type 5 right now, real life calls.

Awien (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should have seen how long I tried to figure out what a "pizza hospital" was before it dawned on me that it might be a prank. Duh... --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Awien, I wonder if you can give a little morsel of help. The following sentence was written by Albert Lemaitre to his wife a few days before he murdered her and then attempted suicide. J'espére que tu ne me laisseras pas mettre à execution le funeste projet que j'ai en tête, et si, par malheur, j'en arrivais là, tu m'accorderas, avant de mourir, un dernier baiser. Is there any nuance to indicate whether the project was her murder or his suicide? Regards. Chienlit (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salut, Chienlit! Comment vas-tu?

Interesting: there's definitely a little ambiguity. But both from the excerpt above, and from the whole letter in the article, I would have very little doubt that he is talking about the possibility of committing suicide. "laisseras" supports that interpretation, whereas "avant de mourir" instead of "avant que je [ne] meure" goes against it, but that would be as common a misuse in French as a dangling participle is in English. Any help?

Awien (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I assumed it was clearly suicide because why would you read a threat in court, but my crude simplistic translation lost all subtlety and introduced ambiguity. Many thanks, again. Chienlit (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this edit and this edit do not serve to improve the encyclopedia. They thus violate WP:TALK, and should be removed. — goethean ॐ 20:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — goethean ॐ 20:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saint-Jean-de-Luz, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Orion, Basque and Pelota (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! You just made this [11] edit, which I agree with, to the Voltaire article, with the edit summary "Please read the help page on italics and quotation marks–in particular, both at the same time, are denegraded [deprecated].)". Could you give me the actual link to that policy? I'd like to check it out. Awien (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BADEMPHASIS It doesn't actually refer to titles but the principle is the same. Mike Hayes (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me, I like commas quite too much, ya know? But, that and other faults, then makes me look for weirdnesses even more, like around commas in sentences. So, this, read quite strangely, and indeed the comma is the problem.

Maybe you were thinking

During the Late Cretaceous exhumation, the Antarctic plate was extended east and west due to low-angle faulting.

but you put in

During the Late Cretaceous, exhumation the Antarctic plate was extended east and west due to low-angle faulting.

but I'd think the original

During the Late Cretaceous exhumation the Antarctic plate was extended east and west due to low-angle faulting.

would be okay as was.

That is, unless, you want to sprinkle the Transantarctic Mountains with tall commas to compete with the mountains?  :-)   Shenme (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, watch, who ya calling comma'ist, them's fightin' words, ya oughta be careful, how you throw them around, comma'ist indeed I categorically, deny the accusation.

Or in other words, it seems even a very longstanding gnome isn't immune from perpetrating a typo. I'm off to fix that one, but if you ever spot another, do feel free to do the necessary.

Awien (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that feedback, which made my day. I really appreciate it. And thank you for your careful review. With an accent-free keyboard, I am always afraid my shorthand forms like Ma-con are going to end up as Mácon when they should be Maçon. Thank you again. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How's that going for yah? :) ResMar 22:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If, as I suspect, you're plotting to try to rope me in on some time-consuming project, I'm afraid that's not looking very probable at the moment. Christmas and New Year's are coming, and in the new year I'm going to be away from home for several months with restricted computer access.

How about you? All well? And in the meantime, have a very happy holiday whichever one it is you celebrate. Awien (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I see the "but" as drawing a contrast between Scott's errors, and the misfortune which he had no control over. I can see it as "and" instead and am OK if you want to change it.

I just removed two of Commissioner Gordon's additions to the article (I left a third) per WP:BRD. I hope he can discuss them calmly, but his latest post on the Scott talk page does not make me very hopeful that this will be the case. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The chinchillas picture used to be en and was used in the very silly vandalism of her web page (if WP:BJAODN was still a huge collection, I would have posted it there). Since the image (not mine, by the way) was also on Commons, the en version was deleted. I just thought it was a very funny and cute image. I imagine it is hard to look at it and not smile (and if people are happier before they edit my talk page, so much the better). Alas, I know relatively little about Costa Rica or Doña Laura. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's dreadful, you could spend the rest of the year writing about this. In addition, most of our Afghanistan pages haven't been updated since 2011. No one cares. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For copy-editing of the Ghegs article. Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noted your comments at Talk:Dr. Hun Houses. First, the NYSOPRHP site uses JavaScript that doesn't always seem to work for everybody. You should check in to that. Second, it seems from your edit history you're British, so I assume you're not aware that in the U.S. it's entirely possible and legal for a building to be demolished before being delisted from the Register—in fact, there are many properties just here in New York that remain on the Register long after the last brick was broken. I can imagine it might be different with listed properties in Britain, but over here the National Historic Preservation Act only restricts what the federal government can do to the property (basically, it requires that any federal impact statement for anything the government does within a certain distance include its effect on the listed properties. While this doesn't necessarily prevent the government from demolishing the listed property, as a practical matter it makes it very difficult—during the heyday of urban renewal in the late '60s and '70s many buildings were saved by virtue of being listed, since it was federal Title I grants that made those programs possible). What another owner might do with or to the property is not limited otherwise, at least not federally.

So, nobody broke the law by demolishing it. And, in fact, if you get the chance to see the source, you'll see that the first page is a letter from the Keeper of the Register acknowledging that the buildings have been demolished and letting the state know they have been removed from the Register. Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Well! That certainly answers my question - and then some! Thanks.

This is one of the things that's so addictive about Wikipedia: from the most unlikely starting point, you can end up learning all sorts of fascinating things. So on the face of it, listing something doesn't seem to offer it much protection, except that in practice, it does anyway. Now I know!

Have a good day, neighbour south of the 49th. Awien (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Awien. Please see my response to your request at WP:RMTR. Do you want to attempt to create a merged article? Until this is done it may not be worthwhile to do the move. If you think the old content is not valuable and it can be dispensed with let me know. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for that.Hafspajen (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. I generally much prefer redirects to piped links, but the Midi seems very awkward. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits. Just noting that the MET calls it a linen warp (source). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it doesn't. It describes the medium, that is what it's made of, as "Linen warp; wool, silk, linen, cotton, and metallic wefts". Awien (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Aha, I see. Thanks — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And it is odd that they don't specify its category in that entry. Awien (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copy edit ..... but "saloon" in English (not American) does not mean a bar..... but a posh living room ... still your version removes the ambiguity. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for editing the Birth page! I especially appreciate changing it from American English to Commonwealth :-)

AslanEntropy (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aww! Thank you! I shall love him to pieces, and his whim shall be my command ^_-

(But I wasn't the one who made the WP:ENGVAR changes; I just tweaked the grammar and terminlogy).

Awien (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Awien, New Year Greetings. Thanks for being Awien, please don't retire. I have created an article about René Couzinet but there is a bit of French that needs more sensitive translation than I can do.

A pdf says "Ces nouvelles désillusions expliquent au moins en partie sa fin de vie tragique, quand, le dimanche 16 décembre 1956, il mit fin à ses jours, entraînant dans la mort son épouse, Gilberte, l’ancienne femme de Jean Mermoz. Terrible destin pour cet écorché vif qui rêvait de laisser une trace indélébile mais qui, finalement, ne laisse que le sentiment d’un immense gâchis, d’une carrière inachevée.

So - did Gilbert commit suicide, have a stroke, die of anguish, die of love, or die days / weeks later? I only know entraînant as resulting. Many thanks. Chienlit (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and happy new year to you too, Chienlit. And OK, flattery will get you everywhere (although I'm not actually retiring, just cutting way back).

It was a murder-suicide: he (Couzinet) killed himself, taking his wife Gilberte (feminine of Gilbert) with him. (G. was Mermoz's former wife). He had dreamed of leaving an indelible mark, but instead left the feeling of a terrible waste, and a failed career.

Hope that helps?

I've heard of Mermoz, but not of Couzinet - off to see who he was!

Awien (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, I am pleased that I asked - such a tragic end to two lives. What a tough life you endure, Hôtel du Grand Balcon, cocktails and iPad on the beach in Costa Rica! Chienlit (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Awien. If you care to look in at my talk page here I hope you will be satisfied about the question of given names - v- surnames. Thank you very much for your contributions on the matter. Tim riley talk 17:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment on the lead. Having just (mis?)remembered that you speak fluent French, I was wondering if you could possibly write a bit about the use of colour in the painting from Tr.L's entry? There's something about a delicate interaction of colours, but I can't understand it well enough to dare expand on what I've got in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You remembered right. Should be possible, maybe tonight , more likely tomorrow night AT. Awien (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merci beaucoup. Wish the other French sources from c. the Salon were easy to access, but I haven't found any. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what it says, not guaranteed to be in art critic speak because that's not my field:

". . . This is a new variation on the artist’s familiar theme: a simple naked woman bathing. This time she is bathing in a lake, Lake Annecy no doubt, whose hills form the most sober and harmonious background. The young woman is seen backlit, in such a way that her whole body is captured in a scale of grey in which play the most delicate violets and greens; just a few notes of light touch her shoulders and arms. All the rest of the canvas is a veritable symphony in grey, a cold September grey, which goes from the blue-greys of the water in the foreground to the pinky-greys of the hills to the greenish grey of the sky. There is no need to praise the principal component that consists of the bather in the attitude of someone feeling the cold: the drawing is, as always, of a rare purity, and the modelling of a remarkabe delicacy."

But I'd also like to add that I too have serious reservations about giving any prominence or legitimation to this picture. It's perfectly well known how much Art is (soft) porn for all tastes, all those Venuses rising from the foam, naked guys wrestling, tortured saints . . . which is fine by me if they concern people of the age of consent. But I think there is a line as far as the eroticisation of children is concerned, and the girl in this painting is depicted as pubescent, not an adult woman. Here endeth my preach. Bonne nuit, Awien (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• After the current FPC, I'm thinking that this will require an RFC before any proposed main page run. Thanks for the translation; I think I can work it in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Here. Let me know if you have it, so I can remove this from Dropbox. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have it. Thank you, I appreciate it. Awien (talk) 02:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Glad to help. Thanks for your suggestions on the talk page. I'm still pulling together a background section (what I've got already is in hidden text), then I'll expand the lead a bit, then copyedit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that it's discussion of Coat's behaviour, in which I mention you, and not taking issue with any of your edits. Indeed, I thank you for all of the discussion re: the article, which has improved considerably because of your comments. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kīlauea, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Puna and Kalapana. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed

No, an oxford comma is not an error. That was not an Oxford comma, though. The list was a series of two items, not three or more as is required to use that particular comma. "Molossia sells a variety of products in person and online, including photographs signed by the Baughs, and homemade soap." The two items in this case are "photographs" and "soap." Uberstadt (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re the Oxford comma on Grammar Monster:

"With two items in a list, don’t use a comma to separate the list items (unless it helps your reader)."

"Above all, remember this: Clarity trumps both conventions."

Awien (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I'm saying - that a comma should not be used to separate the list items. The quote I pulled was the original - sorry I didn't specify. Uberstadt (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Daguerreotype#Duden_-_German_dictionary_confirms_correct_Latin_plural_of_camera_obscura_is_camerae_obscurae RPSM (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely fail to see why you moved this article: early avioation does not seem to be a subject in which you are interested, and I really think that you should have waited longer before making the change & possible, as suggested, raised the issue at wikiproject: aviation. No matter: I've moved it back & reverted your edits.TheLongTone (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, seeWP:COMMONNAME & google the two terms.TheLongTone (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is also instructive, I think.TheLongTone (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To shorten the potential three-year time frame to effect a change, obviously.

You claim to know what I'm interested in? A bit presumptuous, that. Some time ago I collaborated on a number of articles on the pioneering days of ballooning, where people appreciated my help with French-language sources.

I am very highly qualfied to recognise and correct errors that occur in translation between English and French.

Taking your expressed concerns about original language into account, I boldly replaced the incorrect Hydravion with what contemporary French sources were calling it.

The Musée de l'Air website is indeed instructive. The word "hydravion" recurs throughout the references to Fabre's machine, because it means float plane/seaplane, which is what Fabre's machine is. By the same token, we find references to l'hydravion Short Sandringham Bermuda, l'hydravion Latécoère Croix du Sud, l'hydravion Sunderland, les hydravions, etc. It does not say Fabre's machine gave its name to the type of craft.

Awien (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like--Mark Miller (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Five years ago, you were recipient no. 1207 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beer! Hafspajen (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your Main Page edit request, I'd like to point out that "catalyst" doesn't actually imply desired change. While Wiktionary does use "progress" in its non-chemistry definition of "catalyst" [12], it's "progress or change" (emphasis added) and one of the example quotations it uses is "catalyst for war". Wiktionary's definition of "catalyze" [13] is the neutral "To accelerate a process". Merriam Webster's definition [14] for "catalyst" is neutral on what sort of change is being promoted, and also uses "catalyst for war" as an example sentence. The OED only gives a chemical definition for "catalyse", but also has the following alternative definition for "catalysis" [15]: "Dissolution, destruction, ruin. Obs. rare." (Quotes are from the 1600s and predate the chemical meaning.) That said, "precipitated" also works in context. -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...by changing Portolà to Portolá. I prefer it your way (Spanish), but there are one or more Catalàn crusaders out there who insist on the other accent (we'll see - maybe they've gone away). There are pages of argument on this in the Talk page archives. If it was up to me, I'd get rid of all diacritical marks - this is the English Wikipedia. WCCasey (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It occurred to me just too late that it wasn't merely a typo, given how much time I spend fixing French accents. (In French, the choice of accent is probably never political, and mistakes on WP are virtually always due to simple carelessness). So if I get reverted, so be it - I won't be going to war. But thanks for the warning!

As for eliminating diacritics, as a linguist (both senses), I would be fine with that if we were also to adopt the principle of transliterating rather than simply omitting the accents. Omitting the accents is actually substituting a different letter/sound, which makes no sense. So we would transliterate café as cafay not cafe, fiancé(e) as fiansay, araçari as arasari not aracari, and so on ... in other words, preserve the pronunciation rather than the letter which actually isn't the same letter shorn of the diacritics. Ain't gonna happen any time soon, but a person can dream.

Cheers! Awien (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed too much to hope that English spelling will ever correspond perfectly with English pronunciation. Since there are no unbreakable rules in English regarding pronunciation of letters and letter combinations, I'm OK with removing diacritical marks and trusting readers to figure out the etymology and proper pronunciation. BTW - aside from the accent issue, your edits are incomplete and have now created inconsistencies. There are numerous instances of the name within the article, as well as at least two other articles having "Portolà" in the title. WCCasey (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't create the inconsistency, the spelling fluctuates throughout the article. Either spelling in the title matches some instances in the body of the text but not others. Do revert me if you wish, though. Awien (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a moment would you mind looking at my talk page? I'm having an interaction with another editor that seems strange to me but I don't have much experience and I don't know if I'm acting out of line or not. I would appreciate another perspective. Thanks! kanoa (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that that person is way out of line, has their own conflict of interest, and is wrong in warning you off editing astronomy topics as long as you don't edit war, give proper refs, etc. (though I'm no wikilawyer). Bullying might not even be too strong a word for what you're being subjected to, though I don't know what recourse you might have. Sorry not to be more help. Cheers, Awien (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a little while back, I reverted an edit of yours in the Black Swan (film) article and you left me a nasty message in response. I don't know what being 'intellectually dishonest' means in this context; I just care about what's right. It's unfortunate that this is such a strong issue for you that you've held on to it for years, yet in all of those years you've never able to get your hands on a DVD and see for yourself what the dialogue is. Lucky for you, I own the disc, so I literally took a photo of my TV playing the movie with the subtitles on, here: [16] See, the forces of Wikipedia are not out to silence you :) --SubSeven (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 SubSeven:

I am not paranoid. What I am is committed to intellectual honesty and critical thinking. At the time of the dispute in question, subtitles were either not available or were never brought forward (and in any case this constitutes original research). What we had then were sources that differed, and no way of proving which interpretation was correct. In those circumstances, the only intellectually honest choice was to acknowledge that there was doubt/ambiguity. To refuse to do that on absurd and spurious grounds such as that it would be "airing Wikipedia's dirty linen in public" is intellectually dishonest. It is intellectually indefensible to state something as a certainty when in fact there is no certainty. Are you serious in affirming that this is a concept you are incapable of grasping?

A disputed word in a rather mediocre film ceased to be the issue very early on, and which interpretation turned out to be correct is irrelevant to the much more fundamental issue of critical thinking. Awien (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

100% certainty is not really something you get with plot summaries, as they are not sourced like normal article content - they are effectively all original research! (using subtitles to source dialogue is no more WP:OR than us watching the movie to 'source' the plot summary) Editors have to be reasonable with each other. In this case, there was a dispute over dialogue, and a script was found which verified the wording of "it". You refused to accept this, and surmised that the script must have been changed in later revisions, but you had nothing to support this - just some random stuff showing that some writers on the web casually misheard the word. You made your perspective clear on talk pages and nobody supported your 'multiple interpretations' edit. Surely you can understand that if Wikipedia had to account for dual interpretations in these situations, based on a lone editor's objections with nothing to back it up, that would make Wikipedia quite a mess-- well, more than it is already. --SubSeven (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 SubSeven:

I "surmised" nothing about the pirated, unauthorised, unpublished "script" you produced whose publication, reproduction, etc. were expressly forbidden. It says right on it that white, the one you produced, was a draft, and mentioned no fewer than five sets of revisions (blue, pink, yellow, green, goldenrod) that we didn't have. How can you not see that this invalidates this document as proof of anything that actually got onto film? Not to mention that it's nowhere near qualifying as an acceptable source per WP's guidelines [17]

Awien (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your fine edit summary here. As I wrote on my user page, I apologise if my contributions need corrections by native speakers… --Cyfal (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your willingness to learn (I guess I'll always be a teacher at heart). Awien (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, IMO there was no criticism at all from Hijiri88. The implication you mention is only relevant if Sagaciousphil had expected that people understood that she is a woman. But Sagaciousphil has made no such statement. Sagaciousphil doesn't say that she is female, but also did not even correct me, or expressed any dismay of me making my incorrect assumption. She instead directly and completely unfairly attacked Hijiri88, who did nothing wrong. If she actually expects to be recognized at female, she would have been angry with *me*, as I was the one who made the completely unnecessary and incorrect assumption about her gender.

And then, for absolutely no reason, Cassianto, who btw has no history with this article, and was not a part of the discussion in any way, came in and insulted me out of the blue to escalate it further. Both escalations has not been because of misunderstandings, but have been intentional. Just FYI. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, OpenFuture, but you seem to need to re-read those first exchanges, and my analysis, more carefully. You are not catching the implications of Hijiri's comment. Awien (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am, but I disagree, but that's OK I guess. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, the reason I got involved was because I don't like seeing two people who have took the time, trouble, and cost, be dicked about by any people or persons who have contributed little or nothing in making the article good. In terms of the article's progression to FA, yes, that might include me, but that also goes for you to. Cassianto^Talk 14:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody was being dicked around (unless you count those who were insulted by Eric Corbett, but I don't think you do). --OpenFuture (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would somebody knows how please move this conversation to the Nuckelavee talk page where it belongs? I would appreciate it. Awien (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A good photo. sans handlebars, would indeed be a blessing. I lived in Dover for a time but never even visited it...and now I live at the other end of the country. Dover is such a horrible place I'm npt making a special journey....TheLongTone (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was a nice enough little town when I lived there late fifties to early sixties, but I hardly recognised it when I visited last year. Sad. But maybe there's an actual Dovorian who'll help out. Let's hope. Awien (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lonely Planet described it as a glorified onramp for the ferries... the little town is in effect situated on the middle of a roundabout!TheLongTone (talk) 11:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, making the High Street and Maison Dieu Road one way was the beginning of the rot, and turning Townwall Street into a motorway sealed the deal. Very sad. Awien (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to User:Colonel Wilhelm Klink, did not appear constructive and has been or will be undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please see WP:TPO regarding editing the talk pages and userpages of other editors. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Winkelvi: I have no idea what you're talking about. I started an article,  Colonel Wilhelm Klink: tweaked it, and intrigued by his name I dropped in to have a look at his user page (also intriguing). While I was there, I fixed a typo, and for that he thanked me.

That is the sum total of my interaction with Colonel Klink. In the ten years I have been editing Wikipedia, I have made not one single test edit, and have made nothing but constructive, mostly gnomish, contributions to the encyclopedia. Is this perhaps a case of mistaken identity? Awien (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Adds)  Winkelvi: Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars Awien (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem here; Awien fixed a typo (I thanked him, since it was nice he cared) and Winkelvi reverted his edit (I thanked him as well, since it was also nice he cared), since it was to a userpage, which is typically only edited by said user. Let's just move on now. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 22:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DTTR is an essay, not policy, Awien. WP:TPO, however, is policy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Templating the regulars is rude, uncollegial, and unconstructive, policy or not policy. Awien (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. What's more, I believe it is often necessary and appropriate. There's a reason why it's never been made policy and is merely an essay. Even if it were policy, I think that WP:IAR would apply here. Good day,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Church of the Jacobins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dominican. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Church of the Jacobins at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Huldra (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's tae us 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha! Awien (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your edit summary was well said. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And I learned a quote. Awien (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats with your first DYK! And it had 2787 page-views; not bad! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to your help, Huldra. I really appreciate it. À la prochaine? Awien (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alwien, could I ask you to correct the new title you gave to the article on the 1925 Exhibit? It puts "Industrial" ahead of "Decorative", which was not the title of the event and doesn't reflect the content of the Exhibit. The term industrial was added to the original title to attract more exhibitors, but the great majority of the pavilions were purely about decoration. Many thanks for your good work! SiefkinDR (talk) 06:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, SiefkinDR. Actually, the only thing I changed in the title of the article was Exposition to Exhibition. Having "Industrial" ahead of "Decorative" was either the original title or happened long before my tweak. But in any case, it's clearly wrong, as I should have noticed, and I'll be happy to make the change. Meanwhile, thank you too for the great work you're doing on this and the Art Deco article. Best, Awien (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for responding so fast- I also should have noticed earlier that the words were out of order. l I'm using both terms Exposition and Exhibit in the article, because otherwise it will get repetitive using the same word over and over. The article gave me an excuse to really explore the Museum of Decorative Arts in Paris, and to look closely at everything. i don't agree at all with Coldcreation that it's all art cubism, it's a lot richer than that. Best wishes, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Pure chance that I happened to check in just after you made your request, but I'm happy to take the credit. ^_- Awien (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm SO jealous that you're living in Paris and can just pop in to whatever museum and have another good look! Paris me manque terriblement. Awien (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Are you interest in looking over Liliuokalani for light copyediting and maybe an opinion what more needs be added or areas of confusion the editors working on it can address? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kavebear. A light copyedit, probably. Anything more rigorous, not so sure. I'm entering a ridiculously busy few weeks right now, but I will take at least a look. Aloha, Awien (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a small suggestion for you. There are a lot of Hawaiian terms in this (and other) articles, and it would be good if you could give a one-word or very brief gloss at least at the first occurrence. As I understand it, hānai for example could be glossed like this: ". . . she was hānai (informally) adopted at birth . . . ". That would allow people to read and understand the essential without having to follow the link, or could choose to go for the fuller explanation. What do you think? Cheers, Awien (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...that was a true brain fart. It doesn't help that I was just reading a source that misspelled it.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happens to everyone at some time or other! Awien (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You said:

You're right that my addition to the Breadfruit article was unreferenced - I don't have access to the books that discuss the topic. A crappy ref should be possible which could tide us over till someone could come up with a better one. I still think the inclusion is valid, though. Culturally, in HI, both quilts and breadfruit are huge, so the mention is apt, and really not undue. Cheers, Awien (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Awien: thanks for this comment although I remain unmoved that it is important enough to include. WP:NOTEVERYTHING. --Zefr (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Awien

The value of 2/6 might be spoken as a half-crown or half a half a crown, but the coin was was always half-crown.

BTW How old are you? Have you ever actually held a half-crown in your hand? Or said the words in real life? If you are less than sixty, you are presumptious. If you are over sixty, I apologise, but I am afraid that your memory fails you. 10:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Nakashchit (talk)

That's an interesting position from which to start a discussion: I'm either too young to know, or too old to remember. Hmmm. And I would also remind you of the principle of arguing ad rem, not ad hominem.

That being said, I admit that saying the coin was always half a crown was an over-simplification; it was actually referred to both ways. So the version mentioning both should stand, while the question of coin vs. value is not sufficiently clear-cut to be worth trying to address in the article. Cheers, Awien (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please contribute to the "Female Assigned at Birth vs. Born Female" section on the talk page. Wikipedia rightly favours consensus over edit warring.--TedColes (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Awien! Re: the discussion on James Barry and pronouns, I have suggested another solution in the Talk page (one which you may remember, as I noticed you were involved in the discussion of similar issues in the Chevalier d'Éon article). As people will always see the ambiguous figure of Barry differently, I think the solution employed in that article is a good way to retain NPOV, circumvent editor disagreement about Barry's identity and resolve the ongoing issues with pronoun changes - it certainly seems to have worked in that case and it seems to me a good way to amicably resolve things here too. :) Wilderwill (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have indicated it's a blog, in reviewing the source again it does NOT seem to be a blog at all and then there is the number of pages per edition and the format. It's a publication, like a periodical. The most compelling factor is the information presented, Wikipedia is presenting information in error. Their statement is obvious in pointing at the earlier date for Art Deco, at the 1889 Universal Exposition and the Eiffel Tower. Perhaps you should copy the information to the Art Deco societies in NY and Paris and seek their opinion/statement on this matter?

This is just a little important and the 1925 date looks absolutely in error in light of the information from the quoted article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A8B5:5100:A9C3:7DA0:6EFC:BD46 (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Urbanoc. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, Andy Dingley, you are failing to distinguish between legitimate editorial comment on the value of content, and ad hominem attack. My comment on content does not constitute personal attack.

Also, you appear to be disregarding the injunction not to template the regulars. You've been around for long enough to know better.

Awien (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. His mother was born in 1698, his parents married in 1720, and a likely birth record from 1725 has been located. So...debunked. --2602:306:8381:7390:90A9:6243:1206:ED85 (talk) 09:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have previously participated in discussions about the use of gendered pronouns in the biography of Albert Cashier. An Rfc about this topic is taking place at Talk:Albert Cashier, and your comments are welcome. Mathglot (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,  Mathglot: already did. Cheers, Awien (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, mon ami! So we hit the French-English spelling crossroads once more. This one doesn't seem as clear cut since "Homage à la Patisserie" without the circumflex could be seen as aligning with valid English spelling (since "à la" is a French loanphrase) while "Hommage à la Pâtisserie" is obviously the correct French. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 03:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Salut, @RA0808: indeed! So ... "a/à la" as an English loanword has just one meaning, "in the manner/style of", cf Dave Brubeck's Blue Rondo à la Turk, "Blue Rondo in the Turkish style", not "Blue Rondo to Turk"; "patisserie" as an English loanword has the meanings "pastry shop" or "an item of fancy pastry", not "fancy pastry" in general. What Andrei meant, however, was that his piece was a homage to the art of French pastrymaking in general, not a homage in the French manner, and with that meaning, the name is in French not English, and needs to be spelt accordingly. Amicalement, Awien (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(adds) On the online video, the CBC has captioned Andrei's creation "Hommage à la Patisserie", correct French except for the missing circumflex on "Pâtisserie" which is presumably just a typo. Cheers, Awien (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In ref your confusion over wheel-driven (or not), I confess, I'm not clear what's unclear (if that's clear ;p ). Wheel-driven is just what it says: the powerplant drives the wheels, as in the case of Golden Arrow; non-wheel-driven, they don't, as in Spirit of America. The records on the page are correctly broken out on that basis. So? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Trekphiler: My initial confusion was that Spirit of America was the departure from traditional cars in not being wheel-driven, and that therefore *it* should have been the one for which a special class of non-wheel-driven was inaugurated. Instead of which I realised later that the jet-propelled tricycle was accepted as the overall winner, and traditional cars which became the special (under-)class of wheel-driven. Not sure if that's clear? Maybe I was just being dense, or maybe there's a way to modify the wording for the likes of me. Anyway, thanks for following up; appreciate it. Awien (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you've got it pretty well right. FIA always had an absolute record, & (so the rules say) a requirement for wheel-driven, but (until the likes of SoA & Green Monster) never bothered to enforce it. After these became so clearly dominant for the absolute record (as opposed to class records), there was a (mostly linguistic) division into wheel-driven & not; by then, nobody believed the absolute record would go to a wheel-driven car any more anyhow, so it was pretty moot. And I'm glad to clear up confusion; if the page really needs it (I can't tell, since I already understand it ;p ), do try & address it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Les Propheties → Les Prophéties (move · discuss) – We've kept the French word, so we need to use the correct French spelling Awien (talk) 06:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC) In case anyone is concerned about the lack of accent on the cover pictured in the article, it is because accents are often omitted from uppercase letters in French. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 07:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC) That's right, IP, and is probably the reason the accent got omitted in the title of the article. But to reiterate, the accent is needed when the word is in lowercase, cf. French WP. Awien (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

............ thank you for completing this, but I believe that the move has to be removed from list and recorded on article Talk page after completion. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 In ictu oculi: I'm afraid I understand neither what happened, nor what you mean by "recorded". My initial attempt to move the page was refused, so I requested assistance, then the move apparently went through anyway. Puzzled, Awien (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

.......Oh. Well whatever happened it was a good move 06:46, 14 March 2019‎ Awien (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (3,023 bytes) 0‎ . . (Awien moved page Les Propheties to Les Prophéties: We've kept the french word) (undo | thank) and it has now been removed as "done" from WP:RM listing, which is what I meant by recorded. So very good :) In ictu oculi (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And all's well that ends well ^_^ Awien (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Awien. After seeing this edit, I looked through archives to see if the issue has been discussed and if a decision has been taken. In the process, I found this. Do you know if there is any guidance on this in the MOS? Thanks. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Awien. I took a short wiki-break, saw your reply now. Thanks for that. Keep well, keep safe, keep healthy, wherever you are. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Awien! I'm looking for a proofreader for an article I created: Renaissance architecture of Toulouse, as well as for the Toulouse article for which I substantially modified the "History" and "Sights and architecture" chapters. As I know you have done some useful work on Toulouse monuments in the past, I thought you might be interested. But don't feel obliged to do anything, and besides, there's no rush. Cheers, --Frédéric Neupont (talk) 10:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salut, Frédéric. J'espère que vous avez passé un bon Noël, et vous souhaite une bonne et heureuse année 2022. Yes, I should be able to help out with that. I enjoyed my time in Toulouse, a long time ago now, and working on Toulouse articles is both nostalgic and fun. Cheers! Awien (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:42, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]