Talk:Joseph Priestley/Archive 1

message: I've removed this
*Joseph Priestley’s experiments URL accessed on March 4, 2006.
Anyone enthusiastic could trawl it for gleams to add to the article, but it doesn't offer much. JackyR 16:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low-value external lk 

message: I am slowly expanding this page section by section. If you add information, please cite it using inline citations as that is now the style that dominates on the page. See WP:CITE. Also, there is no need to edit "later" sections to match the earlier, expanded sections as I will be doing this myself in the coming days when I expand those sections (I will end up substantially rewriting much of what is there, anyway, I think). Awadewit Talk 16:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanding page

message: Low importance? Are we sure about this? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's between "The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of the history of science" and "the article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in the history of science." I would tend to go with low myself. The biography and philosophy rankings are both mid. I tend to agree with that. Priestley was perhaps more important outside of science than within it although he is oddly remembered for his "discovery" of oxygen. His contributions to theology, education and politics were probably more significant. At the time Priestley was considered a great scientist, but he is obviously no longer considered an integral part of the story of science. If one tells the story of theories that lost out, then one talks about Priestley. It just all depends on your point of view - are you telling a "Whiggish" history of science or not? Does a "broad understanding of the history of science" include the theories that were not correct? I have not often seen this kind of history although that would be a fascinating story. Scientific history tends to be told "by the winners," as they say. Priestley was not a winner in that sense. Awadewit Talk 23:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very interesting assessment. I was probably thrown off by the fact that the History of Science WikiProject apparently uses an "internal" importance rating scale—I can't imagine a print encyclopedia not having at least a paragraph on Joseph Priestley, and I'm not that familiar with his story myself. You make a fair point, though; thank you. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do the ratings matter that much? I was working on the article despite its "low" and "mid" rating because I happen to be interested in Priestley and reading a Priestley biography. Awadewit Talk 01:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In all sincerity, not to me, not much at least. I mostly edit pharmacology articles, most of which won't ever make it past "specialist knowledge". I like to regard importance ratings as a priority "flag"—articles which, in theory, are of interest and importance to a broad set of readers and editors, and are likely to be used as reference, etc. In a project like WP, though, the personal interests of editors will invariably trump general encyclopedic priority most of the time, and I personally don't think that's such a bad thing; just because an article has been assigned a "Low" importance rating, arbitrarily or otherwise, doesn't mean it should not be accurate, reliable, comprehensive... :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Most of the articles I edit would probably be given a "low" or "mid" rating. Frankly, I don't want to get involved in editing highly-trafficked articles; I have a feeling that might result in extensive edit negotiations with uninformed editors. :) Awadewit Talk 04:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance rating 

message: I think it would nice to have the "Leeds portrait" of Priestley in the "Leeds" section. I have not been able to find a copy online. If anyone finds one or is able to scan a good copy from a book, let me know. It is good portrait. Unfortunately, the artist and the specific date are unknown. Awadewit Talk 11:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it. Awadewit | talk 07:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Leeds portrait

message: I have the first volume of the Schofield biography and will receive the second later this week.  But as I go through, my first impression is that you've done a very good job with the natural philosophy sections.
:*That's very kind, but I feel that the sections are completely inadequate. Can you tell what Priestley's most important contributions were from that book? I found Schofield's writing a little laborious at times and he does not always distinguish between "amazing discovery," "intriguing find," and "boring experiment" (or some such scale). I am definitely missing some material on Priestley's work with plants and light, though; I should have mentioned that more. Awadewit | talk 03:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *A good job in terms of clarity, I meant.  I agree about the balance issue, but I'll have to spend some more time with sources before I can contribute much to improving that, without just shooting from the hip.--ragesoss 03:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. It is precisely "balance" that near impossible to achieve with this article, I fear. Awadewit | talk 05:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Do you mean that I shouldn't refer to pages by names other than what they have, such as Oxford or theory of mind? I am actually usually very careful about my links, so I can start justifying their names to you, if you want. Or do you mean I shouldn't do the apostrophe thing? I find adding the apostrophe to the link more aesthetically pleasing. It bugs me to see the "word" blue but not its possessive - it seems typographically wrong, to me anyway. Awadewit | talk 03:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I meant things like (in the first sentence) theologian and educator; theologian and educator already redirect to those articles.  I didn't actually check much beyond that... now that I do, I see uniformly good linking practices.--ragesoss 03:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oh, since I didn't link those, I didn't alter them. Will do so now and check for others. Awadewit | talk 05:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *I usually try to have no explanatory footnotes whatsoever (for that very reason), but I have been moving some information from the article to the notes as I try to cut down this ridiculously long article (I am not quite sure that forking is a possibility here). I have to cut at least 4,000 words. By the way, if you see any material that you think could be deleted, please either delete it yourself or alert me and I will attend to it. I have been trying to pare down the article, but I need to slash and burn. Awadewit | talk 03:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *I plan to merge the notes when I am "done." I find that doing it early on causes problems because sometimes templates are erased and sometimes the "ideal" combination is only clear later. Awadewit | talk 03:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *An excellent plan.  Nothing worse than having to track down page numbers when rearranging text.  About slash-and-burn, I'll see what I can do.--ragesoss 03:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Have you considered keeping a longer version as separate sub-articles, like for Isaac Newton and the various sub-articles beginning with Isaac Newton's early life and achievements?  Or alternatively, hive of some of the material about specific works into articles on those works?--ragesoss 04:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I was worried that the pages would be put up for deletion. People can make arguments for Newton, but it is harder for Priestley - no one has heard of him. On the works, there is so little written on each work itself that I am even skeptical of the redlinks I did create. I am not sure that creating a tiny stub page that cannot currently be expanded (meaning, there is either little or no published scholarship on that work) is a responsible thing to do. Someone did suggest an "Experiments of Joseph Priestley" page as a possible fork. What do you think of that idea? I think the major problem is that I am incapable of writing in summary style and I cannot decide what is most important to include in the article. I wrote Mary Wollstonecraft with no problem (and there is a lot more scholarship there), but I knew what was important because I think about Wollstonecraft all of the time (she is in my dissertation). I am going through the Priestley scholarship as I write. Awadewit | talk 05:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Probably best not to bother with it.  I don't think you would run into deletion problems (certainly not for short articles about any of his individual works), but it if it can't be done cleanly without a ton of extra work, it's not worth.  Just seems like a shame to cut 4000 words that at least some portion of readers probably would have found useful.--ragesoss 07:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: some issues

message: *The reason I had the picture of the "electrical machine" later in the article (next to the information about Priestley and his brother trying to sell it) was because the picture doesn't appear in the first edition of the text, that is, it does not appear in the version I am talking about in that paragraph. I thought it was disingenuous to place the illustration there, then. What do you think? Awadewit | talk 05:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: Come on, folks. To be blunt, there is obviously some solid and very informative material in this article. I would like to read it. I do an extraordinary amount of reading. I love reading; it is my absolute favorite activity of them all. However, I will not read through this entire article. It seems that you can two things to convince someone like me to read it: expand and publish it as a book-length biography or cut back to the more typical length of an on-line encylcopedia entry. The basic point is this: if you can't get me to read it, you're in big trouble with the vast majority of human beings who might come across this article. Cut down on the bio/history please, and let's have more of the science, philosophy and other matters. --Francesco Franco 10:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a work in progress like much of wikipedia. If you had read the talk page or looked at the history, you would notice that indeed we are working on cutting the page down. I am aiming to cut at least one-third of the article. If you have some specific suggestions of what to cut, I would be grateful for them. I cannot cut the "biography" material as you suggest since this is a biography page and occasionally I have to explain some history to contextualize Priestley's actions. Ideally, the page will mix biography and a discussion of Priestley's written works and scientific experiments, which are, of course, part of his biography anyway. The page cannot have a detailed analysis of all of his works (there are over 150) or his experiments (they are too numerous). Awadewit | talk 15:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the answer is to split off sub-pages, rather than loosing content? Andy Mabbett 15:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have thought of that, but I'm not sure I can justify them (see above on the talk page where this discussion arose). What subpages were you thinking of? I would appreciate any help on this. Awadewit | talk 16:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The most straightforward would seem to be "JP in- "  for each of -Leeds, -Calne, -Birmingham, -Hackney, & -Pennsylvania; with dates per the current section heads. That's a chronological divide, with clear cut-off points. That would also allow tighter categorisation, such as "History of Birmingham", on each. Tehre is a template for linking such articles. I don't think you need to worry about notability concerns! Andy Mabbett 17:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be easier than the more logical "JP and science" or "JP and theology," but I am not sure what such a page would look like or what the summary would look like here. The entire problem is that the material here is already a summary and a drastic reduction of everything that could be included in each section. If you could suggest specific elements of the sections that you feel are too detailed, I would appreciate it. Then maybe I would have a better idea how to proceed with such a project. Thanks for the help. Awadewit | talk 17:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they're "too detailed"; just too long. Chronological sub-division is used, rightly, elsewhere (I'll try to dig out an example, later). Andy Mabbett 17:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Well, what material do you think is unnecessary? Awadewit | talk 18:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of it. Andy Mabbett 08:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Length update: I have cut 2,000 words. I need to cut around 2,000 more. Awadewit | talk 06:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're done great work on this article, but please re-read the above comments about breaking the article into several pages; and note that it is not you alone who has responsibility for maintaining the article. Andy Mabbett 08:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I may have to succumb to breaking the article up, but I don't want to do that yet. I want to try and cut it. As I mentioned above, I'm not really sure how I would summarize the forked pages. I already feel that the material here is a summary. I cannot summarize a page that does not yet exist and I am not excited about writing three to four more pages on Priestley. The problem with generalized criticisms such as "it is too long" is that, even if they are valid like this one is, it is often difficult to know how best to resolve the problem if you are unfamiliar with the subject matter. Also, please note that I mentioned my research is ongoing. I am hoping that more research will help me pare down the article because what is truly important to include will become clearer to me. (I am pretty sure that this is the problem because I have written pages on other figures who have much more extensive scholarship to read and I wrote those pages with ease, but that is because I was very familiar with the scholarship and have been for several years. That is not the case here. I am learning as I go.) I realize that I do not own the article. Unfortunately, I have written almost every word on the page. I have had to recruit other editors to help me out with sections that I feel I might have done an injustice to. I would love it if other editors who have researched Priestley could help me out, but they don't seem to wander over here on their own. Finally, this page is very much in flux. The fact that I am still researching, that ragesoss is going to help me clarify the science sections and that I haven't spent a lot of time perfecting the language means that its final form is far from clear. I have been cutting at this juncture because I have finished reading the Priestley biographies. I plan to read the more specialized literature now. I am sure that the article will expand again a bit after I do that and then I will endure the painful final revision stages. Please be patient. I do not anticipate this page being ready to submit to anything like GA or FA for months or maybe a year, unless some significant help is offered me. If you would like to read up on Priestley or already know about Priestley, I would welcome the help. Perhaps you could write one of the forked pages you are suggesting? My wikipedia editing experiences tend to me very isolated - I edit pages no one else edits and then obtain a peer review, a GA review and an FA review during which some copy editing might be done by others (oh, the excitement of someone fixing a dash). I would love, for once, not to have to cover everything myself. To have at least two editors, what luxury! Awadewit | talk 09:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too long!!

message: Pigsonthewing, can you explain why you are replacing the image sizes with "upright"? I have never seen that before. I have always used image sizes before and I haven't run into any problems. What am I missing? Awadewit | talk 21:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The manual of style says that thumbnail images should not be sized, allowing users to apply their own preferred size, "upright" is used to indicate portrait (as opposed to landscape) format images. Andy Mabbett 21:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But now some of them look ridiculously dumb in relation to the text and some are unreadable. Also note that the MOS says "However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width to enhance the readability or layout of an article." - Perhaps we can find a compromise on some of them, for example the images with text? Awadewit | talk 21:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "some of them look ridiculously dumb" - you don't know how they look on my, or other people's systems. Andy Mabbett 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to look at the images on a lot of different set-ups so that I can judge how they are doing - what happened on yours? I would really like users to be able to read the title pages, though - there is no reason to have them there otherwise. Could we at least increase the size of those so that they are not so tiny? (I will take out the italics. I was just following a style I have seen elsewhere and responding to complaints at other articles that I edit that the block quotes are indistinguishable from the regular text.) Awadewit | talk 21:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone wants to read the text in the image, they can click on it and find a large version. Note the disclaimer at the head of the section of the MoS you quoted, above. Andy Mabbett 22:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If someone has a computer (or connection) that slow, then serving them larger images by default would be harmful to them. If the text in the images is that important, transcribe it (not least as it doesn't currently appear in their alt attributes). Andy Mabbett 22:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I just wait it out. What do you mean "alt attributes"? Awadewit | talk 22:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Alt attribute. Andy Mabbett 22:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I was not totally sure that images from ECCO were free, but they seem to be free under wikipedia's policy. Recently,  I have started uploading my ECCO images to the Commons, but I am still concerned. I know that digitizing something is supposed to give a company rights over it. Are we sure they really are free? Awadewit | talk 06:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's printed, as opposed to a digitization of a painting or other unpublished work, then public domain is public domain is public domain; any image you find online from a printed work whose copyright has expired (in the country of publication and in the U.S.) is fair game.  If it's a painting, etc., it depends: in the U.S., Bridgeman v. Corel has established that faithful recreations of 2D artwork in the public domain are not copyrightable, but the U.K. has no equivalent law or precedent.--ragesoss 07:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That just goes against everything I've read and heard, though (for example, I am being forced by my university to obtain permission to put the very same images in my dissertation that wikipedia says are fair use). It does not seem logical to me that companies would not collate databases of public domain works if they didn't think they had a copyright over them in some way because then anyone could copy the entire database and put it online, claiming that the works are in the public domain. I don't think, for example, that you can copy every image of every page of every book in ECCO and place them on a website, although all of the books are in the public domain. Which leads me to wonder what exactly you can copy and if it is fair use or free. That was why I was reticent to place the images in the Commons. One day I spent a long time reading wikipedia's policy and it seemed that I was ok to put them up on the Commons, but I still believe that I may be missing something. All I know is that I followed wikipedia's policy as carefully as I could. You are free to move all of my Priestley images over to the Commons, if you wish, if you know some fast and easy way to do that. Awadewit | talk 07:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use is totally different than public domain and free images; fair use is what you can do with copyrighted works (use a little bit, in the right contexts).  And universities (and academic publishers) have much stricter image permissions policies than they strictly have to, and often assert copyright control over public domain images (despite the illegitimacy of such claims).  The Berne Convention makes the distinction between published and unpublished works, and for published works that fall into the public domain, new copies (digital or otherwise) do not create a new copyright.  Many countries have weird and complex laws that modify that in various ways... I haven't heard anything suggesting that in the U.K. digitisation is somehow different than other sorts of copying of PD material, but I wouldn't put it past them.  However, for ECCO, which is a U.S. company, hosted in the U.S. and claiming its work falls under U.S. copyright law, it's pretty unambiguous that they have no copyright authority when it comes to digital images of PD works.  On the other hand, using material you get from them as the unrestricted PD material it is seems to violate their terms of use: not a crime, but maybe something you don't want to do nonetheless.  (Google Books does the same sort of thing; despite not controlling the actual copyright, they have extremely restrictive terms of use that prevents some of the uses of the material that are legally fine.  That's why much of the library community is starting to think they got the short end of the stick with the Google deals.)--ragesoss 08:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: Should we say "phlogiston theory" or "the phlogiston theory"? I can't decide. Awadewit | talk 03:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Theory" is here countable, so if singular it needs a determiner, for example "the". -- Hoary 04:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest "phlogiston theory", as "the phlogiston theory" implies that there was only one phlogiston theory, which is not the case.--ragesoss 05:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Language

message: The introduction quotes Tapper saying that Priestley was "the most thorough British exponent of a Providentialist account of progress" during his day".
I rather tentatively linked Providentialist (a word unfamiliar to me) to Providentialism. I wasn't at all offended when Awadewit removed the link, but commented: "Perhaps there's a good reason not to link that to Providentialism, but many readers will wonder what the word means. I for one am unfamiliar with it."
Awadewit's response: "The reason is that it is dangerous to assume we know what the writer meant by Providentialist. Only proper nouns, for which there is no ambiguity, should really be linked inside a quotation."
As "Providentialist" is capitalized, I thought it was at least halfway to being a proper noun. But that's a minor point that I don't want to pursue. Do we know what Tapper meant by Providentialist; and if we don't, why on earth does the article quote this? (Why insert quotes that we don't understand?) -- Hoary 03:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that "providentialist" can mean many different things to many different people (by the way, it is not usually capitalized). Since the sentence that comes before it lists some of the ideas relevant to Priestley, I do not feel that it is necessary to link the word. Notice that the article on providentialism does not even discuss 18th century meanings of the word. I might be more inclined to link to it if it did so. Also, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links): "Words in quotations should not be linked for context. The text should remain in the same form and with the same emphasis as it did in the source." Awadewit | talk 03:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You make some good points. Well, I hope Tapper explains what he or she means by it. If so, why not add this, whether via "[sc. blah blah]" or in a footnote indexed at the end? -- Hoary 03:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tapper doesn't explain because he assumes his readers already know what he is talking about (he is writing in a journal about the history of Unitarianism). I feel like the quote is sufficient since, as I said before, there are references to the ideas Priestley attached to providentialism already in the lead. Moreover, we cannot explain everything in the lead - that is what the article is for. Awadewit | talk 04:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: He argued for extensive civil rights, believing that individuals would bring about progress and eventually the Millennium; he was "the most thorough British exponent of a Providentialist account of progress" during his day. - "bring about progress and eventually the Millennium" is part of Priestley's idea of providentialism. Perhaps we should revise the sentence to make this clearer? Awadewit | talk 04:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think so. -- Hoary 05:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Providentialism, and what quotations are for

message: In this edit, Awadewit restored the "infobox" junk that I'd just deleted, with the comment that it would be needed for GA or FA.
GA is a bit farcical, in my experience. The last time I looked, a single person with the attention span of a typical fourteen-year-old could damn your careful article on the silliest grounds. Unless it has changed, forget GA.
This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. (I sometimes wonder, but anyway, it has encyclopedic aspirations.) It's not USA Today.
W. B. Yeats is an FA without an infobox. I deleted it (one of my good deeds for WP). When I did so, I was told that some fool other user would put it back in. That hasn't happened, as far as I know. Nobody has argued (let alone argued lucidly and persuasively) for its readdition.
Infoboxes be stuffed. -- Hoary 03:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am no fan of infoboxes myself, but after doing a few FAs and having FAC reviewers demand them, I just started adding them in. It was not a debate I wanted to engage in. You can delete it again, but 10 to 1, I'll have to add it back in. (Yeats is currently at FARC - I would not be surprised if it ended up with an infobox at the end of that process.) Awadewit | talk 04:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm rather curious about the debate (perhaps only because I haven't been in it). "We're writing an encyclopedia for people who can't extract simple (if sometimes relatively unimportant) information from a small number of sentences appearing within sentences of this 'infobox'. Well, farc the infobox. If some dimwit, sorry, somebody who disagrees with you and me, wants one, he [I picture the person as male] can put it in. -- Hoary 05:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok - I just warn you that I am not going to fight it. I have other battles to win. Geogre seems to have been involved in a lot of these disputes. See his essay on boxes and tags. Awadewit | talk 06:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: schminfobox

message: A lot of notes reference "Priestley, Autobiography". I see no such book. I'm 80% sure of what this refers to, but amn't sure and therefore don't want to "fix" anything. -- Hoary 04:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lindsay, Jack, ed. Autobiography of Joseph Priestly. Teaneck: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1970. . - This reference is under "Primary materials." Awadewit | talk 04:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Oddly, I missed that. (Small point: Should "Priestly" really lack the second "e"?) What's the relationship between JP's "memoir" (or "memoirs", I forget), as mentioned in that same sentence, and his "autobiography"? -- Hoary 05:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a typo - sorry. I have not yet gone over the article and fixed the language problems and typos because the content is still in flux (note I just removed several paragraphs and transferred several others to a different section). The Memoirs is the Autobiography. Priestley calls it a memoir but the title of the book it is published in that is most accessible is Autobiography. Isn't that useful? Awadewit | talk 06:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Priestley, ''Autobiography''

message: Stylistically, I find these curiously disturbing:
#"The Institutes, published as part of his series on religious education, was..."
#"The Institutes shocked and appalled many readers primarily because it challenged basic Christian orthodoxies ..."
I imagine that, within the title of this singular book, Institutes is plural. If so, I'd prefer either
#"Institutes, published as part of his series on religious education, was..."
#"Institutes shocked and appalled many readers primarily because it challenged basic Christian orthodoxies ..."
or conceivably something like
#"The Institutes of the title, published as part of his series on religious education, were..."
#"The Institutes of the title shocked and appalled many readers primarily because their description challenged basic Christian orthodoxies ..."
but perhaps I misunderstand. -- Hoary 07:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it is one text, it is referred to in the singular, just like "the book." It is common in the scholarly literature to refer to it as "The Institutes," so I did that. The second set of options is unnecessarily wordy. I would be fine with the first set, but they sound funny to me. P.S. I hope that you are not poring over this article too much since whole sections of it are going to have to be deleted and rewritten to reduce the size. Awadewit | talk 08:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. I just want it to actually get to FA. Awadewit | talk 09:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any suggestions for paragraphs or sentences that can be deleted? That would be so helpful. Awadewit | talk 22:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm smiling. Awadewit | talk 00:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The ''Institutes''

message: What happened to the picture of Priestley's electrical machine? Awadewit | talk 08:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody was overzealous about spelling. -- Hoary 10:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image should be spelled correctly in its name - do you know how to change the name without reloading? Awadewit | talk 10:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't seem to be possible, no. I suggest leaving it as it is. -- Hoary 10:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Electrical machine