== Awadewit == 

 Of all the terrible things Wikipedia has introduced me to over the years, this is by far the absolute worst. Fuck you once more, Wikipedia. So hard. I do not have words sufficient to describe how awful this news is, and this stupid fucking site for making it so awful. Fuck you, Wikipedia. 

 Better I direct it to the site in general than to Awadewit, to whom I directed a good share of swearing while I was active here. I was a proficient writer when I wrote my first article here, Ann Bannon. Awadewit reviewed it, encouraged me to make it a Featured Article, then proceeded to block me at every turn so the article eventually became the most informative, authoritative account of Bannon's life available anywhere, in print or online. Awadewit blocked my first attempt to get To Kill A Mockingbird to FA status because the article just was not good enough. Harper Lee outlived Awadewit. Who could wrap their mind around such a thing?  

 Because of Awadewit, Wikipedia got an extraordinarily thorough account of the issues surrounding the Everglades. She led the FA team effort to review these articles. I was the primary writer. Her enthusiasm propelled these articles from nonexistent to FA status in eight weeks. A discussion about her dissertation led me to write the article for "Amazing Grace". She encouraged me to write articles related to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. If anyone reading just snorted in derision, she suggested I rewrite them for your scorn, so that I could add serious critique to them, invalidating your snort. So fuck you too. 

 It is somehow fitting that since I left Wikipedia some of these articles have devolved into the kind of mediocrity she rejected. She became Wikipedia's champion, while I do not have a vocabulary filthy enough to impart to this site to do it the cursed justice it deserves. I logged in for the first time in more than a year to leave this message. To whom?   

 Awadewit was active in promoting women's participation here. A repeated theme in criticism directed toward Wikipedia is its collective apathy toward women's issues, both in how topics are handled in article space and how female editors are treated. Awadewit chose to focus on this when she wrote articles, and when she wrote about Wikipedia offsite. The claim that women were treated poorer than editors who identified themselves as male always mystified me. Some of the strongest editors here are womenor were when I was active. Awadewit and SandyGeorgia on their own seemed to invalidate the claim that female editors are maligned and their opinions not taken seriously. Awadewit did more to raise expectations on Wikipedia perhaps than anyone else. My writing changed because of her. I know my reading did too. 

 Goddamit.