User talk:Ruhrfisch/Archive 32

Welcome to my talk page. Please leave me a message below and I will generally reply on your talk page. Although my email address is enabled, it is not an address I check often (so I may be slow in replying to email and very much prefer to have conversations here). Please also note that while I am glad to do a peer review on just about any article, it will often take me a few days, and I do not usually have the time to do copyedits (sorry). Thanks for stopping by and happy editing! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

John J. Critteden

Per your note on my talk page, just wanted to let you know that I listed John J. Crittenden at FAC this morning. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the congratulations. This was one of the articles I thought would be most difficult to get through FAC. Look for Luke Pryor Blackburn to land at FAC soon if you are still interested in reading about Kentucky governors. He's a doozy! Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

At FAC now. Enjoy! Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Davenport, Iowa/archive3

Can you please take a look at and review this? It's been going on for 30+ days, and needs more input. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 18:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hyner View and Run

Are the external links added to the Hyners okay? I cannot see them here at work. I am still working on NC categories, then I might be game for a state park FA drive if you want and I am not too busy with school. Dincher (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds pretty good. As always, no hurries or worries. Dincher (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Cosmo Gordon Lang

Could I ask you to briefly visit the above article's talkpage, and leave a comment on the recently-added section about the portrayal of Lang in a recent film? Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Ruhrfisch/Archive 32! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the project. --Kumioko (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion question

Can you explain why my article on Body Rocka has been deleted when it is an informative article and has been written in the same format as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shake_Weight ????

Fitness Freak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitness Freak (talk • contribs) 15:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I moved this here from the top of the talk page and added the header, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on January 13, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 13, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch^Talk and C. 21:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The Forksville Covered Bridge is a Burr arch truss covered bridge over Loyalsock Creek in the borough of Forksville, Sullivan County, in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania. It was built in 1850 and is 152 feet 11 inches (46.61 m) in length. The bridge was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1980. The Forksville bridge is named for the borough it is in, which is named for its location at the confluence or "forks" of the Little Loyalsock and Loyalsock Creeks. The Forksville bridge is a Burr arch truss type, with a load-bearing arch sandwiching multiple vertical king posts, for strength and rigidity. The building of the Forksville bridge was supervised by the 18-year-old Sadler Rogers, who used his hand-carved model of the structure. It served as the site of a stream gauge from 1908 to 1913 and is still an official Pennsylvania state highway bridge. The United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration uses it as the model of a covered bridge "classic gable roof", and it serves as the logo of a Pennsylvania insurance company. The bridge was restored in 1970 and 2004 and is still in use, with average daily traffic of 217 vehicles in 2006. Despite the restorations, as of 2006 the bridge structure's sufficiency rating on the National Bridge Inventory was only 17.4 percent and its condition was deemed "basically intolerable requiring high priority of corrective action". (more...)

Bridge

Congratulations. Just noticed the above announcement. I will re-add it to my watch list. Finetooth (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Another one! I am watching it for the day. Dincher (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Great job on the Forksville Covered Bridge. I have photographed several covered bridges in Lancaster County and contributed them to Wikimedia Commons. I am especially interested in seeing the details on the Burr Truss.--DThomsen8 (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey...another place I've heard of! Congrats! It turns out we both have bridges on the Main Page ;-) ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

FA most likely; should be taking it to PR within a few days. I also have a bunch of photos from the Incline, but haven't decided which are most relevant/interesting to upload. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 20:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Neat! I wonder how many? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 23:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar you're welcome

What the hed says. Actually, there was once an award for 500 DYKs, the only one of the ones on my userpage that WP:RIBBONS doesn't list as deprecated (because it doesn't list it at all anymore). Daniel Case (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Inclined Plane PR

Ping! The PR for the Johnstown Inclined Plane is up. Glad to see an simple solution was found to the Forksville debacle. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 04:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Replied to your comments. Fixed most of issues brought up; left comments / questions for the rest. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Added the bit about having two stations to the intro. If I'm not forgetting anything, that should take care of it. I will probably close the PR sometime tomorrow. Thanks again for looking at the article, ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 22:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your peer review and support. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 05:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I flipped the sentence to active voice and also opened the FAC. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 17:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me know how I can support the Featured Article candidacy. I have never been involved in that process before, so I am learning about it.--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Whew...that was tough, but worth it ;-) Thanks for peer reviewing it and supporting it at FAC. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 05:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar

Thank you for the Barnstar. The great thing about barnstars is that they are almost always unexpected. You do great work yourself on Pennsylvania and other topics, but I do have a minor request. If you work on a Pennsylvania article, check the talk page, and add a class or importance as needed. I am nearly done with Pittsburgh templates (about 500 articles left), but there are thousands of Pennsylvania articles with no assessments, or no importance ratings. I need help if the goal of no unrated Pennsylvania articles is to be reached. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

C. R. M. F. Cruttwell

To let you know, I have sent this to FAC today. As I said at the peer review, one likely issue is the justification for the non-free image used to identify Cruttwell. I'd be glad if you would add your comment on this, should the issue become a point of contention. Thanks for your help on this. Brianboulton (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

C. D. Howe

Could you do an image review on this article? For some reason it has fallen through the cracks at FAC. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

PR discussion truncation

There use to be a time when long WP:PR reviews were truncated. A quick scan at PR today seems to show that this is no longer done. Please advise.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to comment at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#New_function_for_GA_bot regarding your knowledge of partial transclusion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ohio River Trail

Ohio River Trail

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_River_Trail

Please add the following additional references for the Ohio River Trail National Park Service grant:

http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/whatwedo/projects/PA.pdf

http://www.ohiorivertrail.org/attachments/124_ORTC_NPS%20Press%20Release%20January%2018,%202011.pdf

http://www.ohiorivertrail.org/attachments/161_ORTC_National%20Park%20Service%20RTCA%20Grant%202010.pdf

http://www.ohiorivertrail.org/attachments/124_Ohio%20River%20Trail%20Council%20gets%20assistance%20from%20feds.pdf

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_718766.html

Troiaeye (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Cruttwell FAC: an image comments

Sorry to trouble you, but as you did the image review on the Cruttwell FAC, could you respond to the image query lately raised? My undeerstanding is that a fair use rationale is required if an image is not free in the US, which this is not, having been published after 1923. Brianboulton (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for attending to this. After all this time and 40+ FACs, image policy is still confusing to me. Brianboulton (talk) 09:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sentence spacing advice

Hi Ruhrfisch.

I thought I'd ask your advice on Sentence spacing. Geoffrey.landis made significant changes to the article. I hate to go in and just revert them (I'm not sure that is allowed in WP:BRD, although I haven't checked) because I'm sure that he's putting in what he thinks is needed to remove "POV violations". On the other hand, if I just go in and perform cleanup on what he's done, it's contrary to what I've strived for: major changes only from a consensus of editors at the article. Due to the article's contentious nature I believe that it's problematic to let any single editor make major changes. What do you recommend is the best course of action to proceed?

I think this is the last contentious article I write on Wikipedia. I'm running out of steam on watching this one since it's a significant drain on my time. I might have to cut Wikipedia off for a few months and see what happens to this article. Hopefully enough other editors out there are interested in keeping it an FA. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Boeing 767

Since nearly every comment of yours has been satisfied, I was wondering what else is needed to be improved before GA nomination. Thanks a lot for your time on those comments, they were really helpful :) Sp33dyphil ^{(Talk) (Contributions)(I love Wikipedia!)} 10:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Comfort Station No. 68

I know you get sidetracked on a lot of unimportant things, but I did run into a couple of important CCC NRHP articles: Comfort Station No. 68 and Comfort Station No. 72

Smallbones (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

PEFO image

Thanks. This image has certainly had an interesting life. Finetooth (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ruhrfisch. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John J. Crittenden/archive1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Just Life

getting in the way. Busy, busy, busy. But that keeps me out of trouble. Dincher (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

agreed. Dincher (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

More nastiness at Bladenboro, North Carolina that needs to be deleted. Names, incest, etc., Dincher (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, it's a nice little town. Dincher (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: photographers and copyright

Hi! Two main sources of photos are uploaded to Wikipedia Commons. One is if the photographers (or we) upload them directly to Commons. Or, thanks to User:Magnus Manske, there are a couple upload bots which would bring all the pics posted by photograhers from Flickr, and do it intact-Anything written on each photo page is transferred to Commons. (We can also upload manually, which I usually do.)

Either way, the photographer must relinquish their copyright, and choose from the 2 of the 6 Creative Commons licenses. We accept Attribution: (means we MUST give photographer's name and keep it connected to the image.) or, we accept Attribution- Share Alike (means same, but also a direct link to the photo's original site. (I always provide both either way.)

To make it more obvious who the photographer is:

When uploading a photo, change the file name to include his name. So, the file would look like [[File:DixieChicks_byRon_Baker.jpg]] Like that. And in the upload part of Commons, here: [1] Halfway down, you'll see, after Description, it says: "Other versions", where I place the photographer's commercial website. ALSO, if the pic is for an article ranked Stub, Start, etc., not anywhere near a GA review, what's the harm in putting the photographer's name in the caption on the page itself? It inspires trust with us, (but I don't promise anything though). It gives some sort of "bragging rights" to the photographer's family/friends. If the photographer wants to give us a whole bunch of photos, we can also make a whole new Category in Commons- like if you check the photo in Emily Robison's infobox to Commons, you see she's in a Catgory:KirkStauffer photo. Lastly, I remind those who are super worried about losing their "rights", I point out--- bad people steal. They don't give a damn WHAT kind of license it might have- they just take! So, in the long run.. you see? And there IS one good benefit to post pics on WP: by having images on WP, the photographer gains global exposure to far more prospective customers than they would otherwise, so the recognition is worth it.

WOW. I hope I didn't run on for too long! Best Regards, --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Plum Island

Hey Ruhr,

I could use a hand with a wily and pesky IP over at Plum Island Animal Disease Center. There has been an IP adding uncited material about some "monster" that washed up in New York supposedly connected to the center. I removed it a few times but I'm not going to edit war some IP so I then just tagged the material as citation needed and the section with undue weight, kind of as a compromise I guess. I have warned the IP several times. I'm thinking a page protection or maybe a block might be in order. I reported it as "vandalism" but it's not really and the turnaround on that page looks a bit slow, so I was hoping you could check out the recent history and maybe take some kind of action. Thanks, no one else seems to be paying attention to the page at all, and I cannot really change things without going 3RR. IvoShandor (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem. Someone else came along and helped out too so I didn't have to worry about 3RR. Thanks for adding the article to your watchlist, the IP has basically been trying to add the same unsourced information for months now, more eyes can only help. IvoShandor (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to bother you too much but one more thing. Do you know anything about talk pages? My section edit links aren't showing up and I'm not sure why. I was thinking it had something to do with the various templates I have at the top of the page but I played with those a bit yesterday and nothing changed. Maybe your eye, or someone you know, could figure it out? If not, no worries, I don't get that many messages anyway, so it shouldn't be a big deal as far as convenience for other users. IvoShandor (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ebert and the photos

WOW, you never menioned that the person you wrote about was a celebrity! That makes a big difference. I've tried my best to ignore every Wikipedia rule about photos-- but I do know that if the photographer is in the group, we have a great reason to place their names in the photo credits as long as it's wikified to prevent newbies and annoying people from tampering with it. I do it for David Gans, who provided a bunch of 1970s photos for the Wikipedia including our best black and white pics of The Last Waltz by The Band, amongst other things. Funny about the Studs Terkel photo- I had it in my next Flickr "shopping list" to try to replace that horrible picture! Since Terkel is both a sociologist, and musician (that one surprised me!) Anyway if you are working on his biography, here's something of interest: James Taylor wrote a song based on Terkel's book: [2] After hearing his introduction to the song, I just thought that was kind of cool; (trivia maybe though)! Looks good. If you need to introduce me to help him, feel free anytime. OH, and believe me, I know how exciting it is to get a notable person to answer you personally. Between the responses from Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam response, and a couple others- how do you think I got childhood photos of Derek Trucks?! :). --Leahtwosaints (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

And not to butt in here Ruhr, but I stepped over to Leahtwosaints talk page, and this is just AWESOME!. Ebert is one of the best people ever. Ever. I love him like I love microbreweries. And that's an awful darn lot. Happy editing old pal. IvoShandor (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Frederick Delius

A user, User:Winstonsmith99, has been adding material to the Delius article, which is at present at peer review and likely to be nominated to FAC soon. Some of this editor's contributions are worthwhile, but others are trivia (including reposting of trivia previously removed) or are of little relevance. He does not communicate his suggestions, merely posts them with unhelpful edit summaries. I have dealt with his recent postings, as detailed on the article's talkpage. However, I have suspicions about this editor; there are several usernames remarkably similar to this one, all which seem to be problematic. For example User:WinstonSmit, a suspect sockpuppet; User:WinstonSmith an Esperanto expert, evidently; User:WinstonSmith147 (a blank userpage); User:Winstonsmith99/Chris hodges (apparently a lawyer); and User:Winstonsmith1984, a blocked sockpuppet. User:Winstonsmith99 follows the practice of all the above, providing a blank usepage and no replies to talkpage messages. Is there anything that can be done? For what it may be worth, I have left a note on Winstonsmith99's talkpage asking for cooperation. Brianboulton (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Update: no further interjections from the above, and I have nominated Delius at FAC. I am somewhat reluctant to begin the sockpuppet investigation at the moment; not only have I got to help pilot Delius through the FAC process, but I am working against the clock to try to get Handel's opera Rinaldo up to featured standard in time for it to be TFA on the tercentenary of its premiere, 24 February. So I don't have much timwe for anything else at present! Could I beg one more favour; I appear to be only active sources reviewer on FAC at present (and I'm not that active just now); would you mind doing the sources review for DeliuS? Many thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Your peer review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Hello, Ruhrfisch. I have taken note of your peer review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows ([3], [4], [5]), but there are two things I have questions about: what do you want me to remove from the epilogue section? There isn't many things that I can remove from that section that doesn't come up again in the next (a la Teddy Lupin and Victoire Weasley). The second thing is: What things don't flow with the article? Please reply. Thanks, Guy546^(Talk) 16:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Erie TFA

Thanks, I was a bit surprised it was picked. Considering it was my first FA ever, I had to do a quick cleanup of broken URLs, refs that probably would not pass WP:RS, outdated/irrelevant info and 4 years of accumulated cruft, but I think it came out rather well. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

New WikiProject United States Newsletter: February 2011 edition

Starting with the February 2011 issue WikiProject United States has established a newsletter to inform anyone interested in United States related topics of the latest changes. This newsletter will not only discuss issues relating to WikiProject United States but also:

1. Portal:United States
2. the United States Wikipedians Noticeboard
3. the United States Wikipedians collaboration of the Month - The collaboration article for February is Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
4. and changes to Wikipolicy, events and other things that may be of interest to you.

You may read or assist in writing the newsletter, subscribe, unsubscribe or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following this link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page or the Newsletters talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Abject grovel

To reinforce my note on Brianboulton's talk page, I crave pardon for my stupidity in getting two of WP's luminaries mixed up in what passes for my mind. Your indulgence is greatly appreciated! Tim riley (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Oddity

You might be interested in Sodom Schoolhouse (NRHP and PHMC marker). Smallbones (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That sounds great. I was corrected on the window - and you can see I was wrong on google streetview - it's 7 windows - one window per wall, less the wall with the door. Smallbones (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Australian Film Institute Award for Best Film

Thank you for reviewing the page, your tips were very helpful and I will definately implement these changes. I have not been able to find any reliable source to indicate that there were other nominees from 1958 to 1976. I will keep searching in case I do come across the additional nominees but if I'm unable to locate them what would I do? DonEd (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Treaty of Narva - Peer Review

Ruhrfisch,

Article: Treaty of Narva

I appreciate your comments on the "Peer Review" page of the Treaty of Narva that I've started (the Peer Review process). It is not one of my main interest or strong points, wanted to help clear up and get feedback from another person or people, who would give suggestions from their view point. Once you think the Peer Review has expired or had long enough to be replied to by other contributors, feel free to archive it on the "Discussion" page. Once again, I appreciate your time and comments. Anything in return, I'm willing to look at. Adamdaley (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Assistance with Chris-Craft

Hello,

Would you be able to assist with an issue at the above referenced page? I am having difficulty understanding the justification for listing the article in a parent category. The issue has been discussed at User talk:Srobak I am either having difficulty understanding that user's explanation, or the user is not providing an explanation. I'm not quite sure what to do and would appreciate any assistance. Thanks, Gjs238 (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks  :-) Gjs238 (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Delius thanks

Ruhrfisch

Please accept this star as a token of thanks for your help in getting Frederick Delius to FA standard. This was truly the work of many hands, and your particular contribution was much valued. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You may have noticed I have resumed per reviewing after two weeks of preoccupation not just with Delius but with my TFA project against the clock, Handel's opera Rinaldo, which has the tercentenary of its premiere on 24 February. I hope to get it to FAC later this week, and if it can clear that hurdle in say 10 days, it may be in with a chance - though there are other TFA requests for that date. Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Chemistry Star

		The Chemistry Star
		For your helpful and insightful comments at the rhodocene FAC, plus going above and beyond supporting in providing translation work to resolve the "protonated" issue, I award you this Chemistry Star! Well Done and Thank you. EdChem (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If you prefer to display ribbons rather than barnstars, you might be interested to know that a Chemistry Star Ribbon is available, File:Chemistry Star Ribbon.png, as shown at right. EdChem (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Rinaldo FAC

I thought I'd let you know that Rinaldo has now gone to FAC. At the moment TFA for 24 February is still open, but Rinaldo won't get there on points - a music article is scheduled for 12 February, so we have to trust to luck. Anyway, if you can check out the sources, that will be a start - many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

As it happens, another reviewer has stepped in and done the sources. Obviously, I'd be pleased if you would do a general review. Brianboulton (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you. Much appreciated. I didn't actually know I had done so many in one month. Finetooth (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Lycoming County, Pennsylvania

The edit warring is still going on. I have weighed in on Nyttend's talk page as there has been no discussion of the matter on the Template talk page. I favor excluding all the "communities." There are far too many and many are ambiguous as to their location and name. For example, Faxon, it's an exit, but most people just call it Loyalsock. What is and what isn't Nisbet is another interesting discussion. Dincher (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Herbie Hewett at Featured Article

Hi, the article Herbie Hewett, for which you kindly conducted a peer review, is currently listed as a Featured article candidate, and I wondered if you might be interested in participating in the review: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Herbie Hewett/archive1. Thanks, Harrias ^talk 22:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Kent State

Hey, when you get a chance, take a look at the edit history of Kent State University and see if you could offer some insight. I posted a comment at Talk:Kent State University#Enrollment as well. There is question because Kent State releases separate Fall and Spring enrollment numbers and a well-meaning editor really wants to change the phrase that says Kent State is "second-largest" in Ohio to "third-largest" since the KSU Spring enrollment number is now lower than what the University of Cincinnati has listed for Fall (the source simply lists enrollment as "2010-2011"). At the KSU article, the "second-largest" has an actual source from September that states in its title and subtitles "KSU now No. 2 in state: Surpasses Cincinnati enrollment by eight students; now second in size only to The Ohio State University". I don't want an edit war and have already changed it twice today and left comments at the talk page and the other user's talk page. Thanks --JonRidinger (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Christchurch, Dorset

Sometime ago, you carried out a peer review of the article Christchurch, Dorset so I thought you might like to know that it was made a 'Good article' yesterday.--Ykraps (talk) 07:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing requirements for images at FAC

Hi Rührfisch,

Bugging you because, I think, you do a lot of image reviews at FAC (or maybe I'm just imagining that?). I was going to ask Durova, but she just threatened to shoot, roast, and eat me; and since she didn't specify in what order I figured it was best not to chance it. Anyways…

We're bringing an article to FAC in the near future and have run into a bit of an issue regarding what the actual expectations at FAC will be concerning sourcing for images (WP:IUP isn't being helpful). The images are all 16–18th-century paintings and drawings, and as such are quite obviously out of copyright. However the various uploaders (some as far back as 2006) have mostly tagged them with information on where the, say, drawing was first published and who drew/painted it; and has not specified where they found it reproduced (i.e. it could be snarfed off the web somewhere, or it could have been scanned from a modern book, etc.). So we're in the situation where the images are quite clearly fine legally speaking, and properly tagged etc., but we're unsure what additional sourcing information will be required at FAC.

Any chance you could shed some light? Has this sort of issue popped up before? Alternatively, could you suggest someone else I could bug about this? --Xover (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at this; your comments have confirmed that there's reason to be concerned about the images we're currently using. As you might have seen on the article's talk page I remade one of the illustrations as a possible way to address this. If you have the time and am willing to do a proper review that would be most helpful, and much appreciated! And, yes, the article's talk page would probably be the best place for that. Thank you again (and in advance)! --Xover (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Esperanza Spalding

Thanks for mentioning Esperanza Spalding's photo that I uploaded. It's wonderful to know that it went anywhere, but since the article was about how lax we are to patrol our own BLPs, it was depressing. I really want to see the Wikipedia flourish. I did note that the commentator did credit Wikipedia for the photo and lead of the article, at least. Spaulding's page isn't mine, really. I mean, I've uploaded 850 or so photos used on at least 20 Wikipedias-- but when I do score some good pics, I always have to go in and do some really serious copyediting, just so when I do add the photo(s) the photographer can see a half-decent result. It's really important to do that; since half of what I do for the Wikipedia is email and convince people to give up most of their rights to their own work, I want them to be pleased and return to us! Not glamorous to be a Wikignome.. most people don't know we exist. My thanks to you though! Leahtwosaints (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Photos, vendalism, a request or two

I forgot to mention my appreciation for your time and how valuable your work is here. The little cookie dish kinds of gestures are (sort of) corny, but honestly, not many Admins. take the time to discuss things the way you do. If I was better with graphics here, I'd send you a whole virtual case of Häagen-Dazs ice cream! Have you heard back from Roger Ebert? If not, I can A) look for a better photo of Studs Terkel, and B) email him myself-- I approch each request with a lot of delicacy. It's your call. And finally, thanks for helping with the many faces of garbage people dump on the Wikipedia. Here is a proposal-- if I find any articles have violated copyright laws, or vandalism I'll surely contact you, especially BLPs. But I also know that 'Admins. have the ability to bestow rollbacker rights. I'm asking you as an Admin., here to allow me that privilege. It is time saving, etc. I am very careful with all my work involving the en.Wikipedia, in particular. Will you please bestow that ability to me? I'll appreciate any answer! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Burger King

Could you take one last look at this before I nominate it for FA? Anything that needs tweaking? anything that stands out as needing some more work? As always you have been a great help with your reviews. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look that over, again. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of a copy edit, I would gladly take up your offer! Thanks again. BTW, your proposed change to the lead is fine. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Photo plans

We may be designing a better approach to this topic. Our previous discussion of Uploading pics, with file names, adding the photographer's name in the actual file, as we discussed, [[File:DixieChicks_byRon_Baker.jpg]] making a Category in Wikimedia Commons for certain people's photos? Helps on Commons! But en.Wiki has some photo policy not to place a photographer's name on the main page with the captions. I sometimes get by it b/c 95% of the time, I'm adding photos to pages that haven't yet gone beyond C-Status. I look up the most active editor in the article history, and request leaving the attribution until it reaches GA review. An article with only 2 refs obviously won't be harmed in those cases! Sometimes it works. Until recently, even FA-ranked Bob Dylan still had my attributiions with my uploaded photos but it but is now down. What's the harm? Some editors only agree to leave the attribution there IF the photographer is notable, as with David Gans, and still they get pulled down at some point. We need new, actual policy changes! This is where your connections come in. Being computer illiterate, I never have even looked at the Village Pump, but you do. Maybe you can bring this photo attribution thing up for discussion, and find a happy middle ground. Also you can reach Ebert via Facebook, and I'm not involved in ANY social networking group thing like that. We really need to tighten the understanding of what is and isn't OK in captions altogether!

• Where are Ebert's contribs? His talk page is a combo of Welcome and people begging for autographs! (?!) Perhaps you can remove the POV section there? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Email

Hi Ruhrfisch... FYI, you have email. EdChem (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Help with explaining NOTNEWS?

Could you help me at Hanover Township, Columbiana County, Ohio‎? An editor keeps restoring an unsourced bit about a recent gas explosion — as it turns out, it's because it happened on his family's property. Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

RAF Uxbridge peer review

Thanks for your peer review of RAF Uxbridge. I've been on an extended break from Wikipedia and have only just seen your comments. With some effort and a bit of luck thrown in it can be a good article. Harrison49 (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I've put a lot of new content into the article. Would you be able to cast your eye over it once more and see where it stands now? Harrison49 (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. There's no rush. Harrison49 (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

On the article talk page would be best. Thank you. Harrison49 (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

New list

I finally finished work on List of longest main-stem rivers in the United States, asked for a PR, and posted a note on the rivers project page. I pursued the north-flowing idea for a while longer after asking for advice, then abandoned it when the data did not seem to reveal anything interesting. The list I ended up with was kind of a surprise and full of its own complications. I was happy to find the Ruth Patrick quote, which should make it clear to readers that there is no precise official list or any way to make one. I'm hoping that this one is a reasonably close approximation. Finetooth (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much. No hurry. Having taken a vacation from it, I'm back to working on Willamette River this evening. It's pretty well-developed but still incomplete and bumpy in places. I had noticed your two PR comments earlier today. I'd love to add images in a column, but I was afraid that would make the table too wide to be seen on small screens without scrolling. Should I boldly do it anyway? I'm not really opposed to galleries, but I had an eeek moment when the Oregon streams gallery went temporarily wonky. The moment has passed and all is well. So, another column or a gallery. Which do you think would be best? Finetooth (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to say thank you for adding the missing template to the talk page. I'm not sure how I missed that. Finetooth (talk) 06:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's possible to install (but not save) the PR template on an article talk page, to view it in preview mode, and to click through and fill in the rest of the form without remembering to save on the article talk page. I think that's what I must have done, and I think that's the process that accounts for similar glitches that we see from time-to-time at PR. This is a form of operator error rather than a flaw in the template design, but maybe a guru could make a doofus-proof template that would not work unless saved first. Finetooth (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

CSI effect

Hey mate, I brought CSI effect to FAC, and after incorporating some very useful feedback on a variety of issues, the consensus was that the article should be reviewed for wordiness/clunkiness/etc by an uninvolved editor. Any chance you would like to be that lucky person? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you want to do is fine by me. If you'd prefer to just leave comments on the talk page and let me sort it out, that would be tasty. If you find little things that embolden you to take immediate action, that would also be tasty. Thanks! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, looking back, I see that my phrasing was somewhat misleading. Anywho, the changes you're making look very solid! I can't believe how obvious the new phrasings seem despite having stared at the old phrasings so many time. One concern that I have: Regarding the list of shows associated with the CSI effect, I had intentionally left it ambiguous whether they were all inspired by CSI or not, as some of the shows actually existed before CSI debuted. Although the new phrasing is clearer, it incorrectly implies that they all came after CSI. Thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Poor old Susquehanna

I've added the Susquehanna to the also-ran list in the lead. I had hoped originally to include it in the main list. I thought it might make it since according to Rivers of North America it is 721 kilometres (448 mi) long. Then I realized that to be consistent I could only count the part from Sunbury downstream. If forks are tributaries, then the Susquehanna is only 200 kilometres (120 mi) long. Sigh. Finetooth (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Messiah (Handel)

During the recent Rinaldo FAC you suggested to me that I might tackle Handel's Messiah. I've been looking at the article, and it certainly doesn't do the required justice to this masterpiece. So I've decided to take up your suggestion - though I won't be able to start for a while, due to prior commitments. Also, I am slowing down on my content work to avoid possible burnout; I find FACs particularly stressful at the moment, and struggle to keep my temper sometimes. How are your own plans? Not much recent evidence of the famous bridges; I hope to see that series, or something similar, resume soon. Brianboulton (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be a wonderful project for you guys to handle (smirk).--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hallelujah! Brian's going to work on Messiah. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Strike outs

I've been informed that I am not to strike out tasks as I complete them. Mea culpa. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. If we could get a colour image that would be great. Let me know when and I'll put together an image to replace the other one. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think photo 1 would work until I get another image this coming September. Photo 4 is a photograph of a printed image and as such is a copyright violation in itself. Also would you point me to the appropriate instructions on how to use Flickr photos? Tom Reedy (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Blackburn photos

I've incorporated the image you uploaded in the article. I'd love to use the image of the pardon, too, but I don't know how to get both that one and the penitentiary into the relevant section. Nevertheless, it probably merits an upload to Commons. There isn't currently a category for Blackburn there, but there should be. I don't work on Commons much, but I might take a stab at creating one later. Thanks for tracking these down. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please upload the pardon image to Commons. We can try a vertical stack and see if it works. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Just added the pardon image. Looks good to me! Thanks again. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Donald Duck and the Mummy's Ring/archive1

Hi Ruhrfisch! It looks like You are one of the top peer-reviewers, and interested in literature. So I was wondering if You would be able to take a look at the above mentioned PR and make some comments. It really needs another look by someone who knows more about the "rules" on WP than myself, and You seems to be the perfect one to do that. My comments were not so well received but I really think the article (and the other articles that User:SingToMePlease are creating) needs to be better researched and expanded to be GA, there are much more information out there. It would also be very useful, I think, if a more experienced user could do a review now before he/she creates more articles, to avoid unnecessary cleanup in the future. If You don't have time, I understand. Thanks! Iusethis (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Iusethis (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons issue

So you've got me doing some work at Commons now, and I've run up on an issue. This image is incorrectly identified as Charles Augustus Murray. As you can see here, it is actually a portrait of Kentucky Governor J. Proctor Knott. Not sure how moves and whatnot work on Commons. Can you help? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Davenport, Iowa

Hi, do you have time at all to look over this article, and tell me what needs to be fixed before I renominate it for FA? Thanks, CTJF83 19:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I have promised to copyedit one article and review another - these will take me several days and may be up to a week (or more). If you can wait that long, I will be glad to look at it. If you want to go to FAC sooner than that, I understand. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, that is fine. I don't want a 4th failed FAC, so in no rush...I'll ping you in a few weeks if you forget :) CTJF83 23:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Russia

Hey! I was wondering if you could add a window of the locator of Khabarovsk Krai in the corner of File:Location map Khabarovsk Krai.png?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Top left corner?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to override the current map with the updated locator window. So long as you update the sourcing and credit the creator of the state locator!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, oo I've discovered how to paste from in paint now so should be OK to do them myself now.

Don't be silly!

If you ever offend me I won't be shy in telling you. That type of thing gets me into a bit of trouble here now and then, but I'm bad at hiding disagreements. And I'm also surprised when I see that great minds don't always think alike! :-) Smallbones (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Tom Driberg

I've been working on this for a while - not at all my usual stuff. I have just nominated it for peer review; for reasons briefly indicated in the nom statement, I am anxious to get some heavyweight reviews in on this. No urgency, but I wonder if at some time you would cast an eye over it? I am making a similar request to Finetooth and to some other well-known hard cases; because of Driberg's controversial and indeed scandalous life, I am expecting attacks on the article, and would thus like to have identified the weaker areas well in advance of any possible FAC. This is not a request for hasty action; the article is going nowhere for a while, but I would be pleased if, when convenient, you could look at it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Farthest South

Trouble brewing on the talkpage, I fear. Against my own judgement I have added a little material on the 1819-21 Russian expedition, only to receive a curt rejection and restatement of that editor's original views. He wants to impose inappropriate material, and must not be allowed to do so. Brianboulton (talk) 11:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your comments on the Peer Review for Falkland Islands, we'll get on it. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hors de combat

The curse of the broadband connection has struck again, and I am currently out of action as far as significant online activity is concerned. Can you please update the backlog? I also have two current PRs in the backlog, which I am working on but unable to continue. They should be OK for a couple more days, but if my problem persists I may have to withdraw from them. What a nuisance. Brianboulton (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Latest news: unfortunately, no end yet in sight. There's a serious telecoms problem, apparently, which is taking a while to sort out. I'll let you know when we're back to normal. Brianboulton (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm back in harness, I'm glad to say, and will resume PR backlog duties tonight. I'll also do my two outstanding backlog reviews in the next 24 hours or so. Thanks for holding the fort, also for your comments on the Driberg PR which I will tackle shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for List of U.S. state horses

Hi Ruhrfisch, and thank you for your comments at WP:Peer review/List of U.S. state horses/archive1. I have a few questions, however. The horse list is based mainly upon U.S. official state dogs, which passed FLC recently. This list does not have the Notes or Comments column that you request, and it also includes information in the lead that is not present in the body (I thought this was common for FLs? I know it was present in List of Olympic medalists in equestrian, which I took to FL last year), and the map is also based off of that list. I've left more minor comments on the review page, but the differences you were requesting from the list that was already FL (and which this one was based off of) was my main concern. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added a good bit of description to the article. Would you mind taking another look to see if what I did was approximately what you had in mind? I know you're quite busy with other articles, so I'm not asking for a detailed runthrough, just a quick look to see if what I did was visually what you were thinking of. Dana boomer (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism deletions needed

Someone has requested that edits to Lackawanna State Forest be redacted. I am pretty sure that redacted is a fancy word for deleted. "They" are watching the internet at "work" and I am very busy IRL, hence the big drop off in my wiki-edits lately. What have you been up to in wikiworld? Dincher (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. Another article. that may need attention is Sayre. It's not vulgar, but certainly silly and pointless and uses real names. Dincher (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Nastiness on the Monaca page. Slander, etc. Dincher (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Dallas, Pennsylvania has somebody's phone number, etc. Dincher (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

List at FLC

I nominated List of longest main-stem rivers in the United States this morning. Your advice was, as usual, most helpful. Finetooth (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Importunate request

Hi, Ruhrfisch! If you have time and inclination I'd be most grateful for any thoughts you might like to add the peer review of the Thomas Beecham article. I'm hoping to get it to FA standard at some stage (no urgency) and any suggestions will be gladly received. Tim riley (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania

It's getting too big to edit. I'd guess there are over 300 items on the list. I did add File:Marshal Bridge Chesco.JPG but with some difficulty. In particular if I use the control-F search feature, the article crashes and I'm kicked off Wikipedia (presumably for technical reasons only!) I'll suggest splitting PA in half for the purposes of the list. Say Franklin, Juniata, Mifflin, Union, Lycoming and Tioga counties and everything to the east being in eastern PA. Smallbones (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like I talked myself into something. I will do it within 2 weeks, given what's on my plate. The covered bridge vs. other split looks good. I'd guess about 40% of the listing are CBs, but I'm worried that some of the unphotographed ones might not be identifiable as CB or other. There are only about 4 tunnels, so I'd leave them with the non-covered bridges.

Speaking of what's on my plate, have you seen the Seth Kinman article? Probably the weirdest bio on Wikipedia, born in Gregg Township, Union County, Pennsylvania. I wrote 90% of it and it squeaked by on GA. I've been telling myself, ever since, that if I only had his autobiography I'd get it up to FA. Well the autobio has finally been published by a local Ferndale, California museum, but in the intro they say something along the lines of "Of course he was a professional story-teller, so all facts presented here should not be taken at face value." BTW, I've been told second hand that the publication of the bio was inspired by the Wikipedia article. It more-or-less confirms the article as it now stands, but makes it pretty clear that what I though were RS's came straight from the unreliable horse's mouth. And there are some serious issues dealt with, e.g. slaughtering Indians and wildlife. I guess my question is - how much of the autobio could I use as if it was an RS. Any help appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. Perhaps I'm thinking about this too much and just need to sit down and write it up. Some info on the autobiography - he dictated it in 1876 and tried to publish it then but failed. 2010 is the first time it was published. The original manuscript was lost in the 1920s(?) when it was sent to a potential publisher/agent who then died. But another handwritten copy had been made, which is what was in the Humboldt U library. My concern having read the autobio is that it is backwoods-storyteller's literary work, and a primary source, rather than a sober statement of facts. Further, many of the the "reliable sources" that I gathered seem to have relied on the autobio or the same stories from Kinman that are in the autobio. Citing the NY Times is great, but the 19th century NY Times is not today's NY Times, and it's clear that they relied on his stories and probably didn't have the ability or desire to check them out. I do trust the general outlines of the autobio, but there are things that just can't be taken at face value (e.g. his rifle "Cottonblossum" was used to kill a British general during the Battle of New Orleans in 1814.) And there are several cases where the details change with repeated tellings. I could probably increase the length of the article by 20-30% with relevant material from the autobio, but I'm really more concerned with the material that's already in there. How do I say in the article "The NY Times wrote ... but you shouldn't take that at face value." May I ask you to look at it again after I get the article into a more reasonable shape? Smallbones (talk) 04:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I forgot that Seth is addictive - once I saw his pic on the LOC site, I just couldn't stop. But that makes my writer's block now even more frustrating. In short, don't let Seth suck you in, at least not until I put up something worth reading again! The short answer on the "Lost Manuscript of Seth Kinman" is that it is lost. It was the first modern retelling of the Kinman story, many sources refer to it, but I could only find something like a half page review or "books received" notice. Perhaps the museum folks have a copy. When I geet something solid down, I'll get back to you. Thanks. Smallbones (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you have a look at this?

I took a look at the page for Doyle Bramhall II, and was surprised to say the least! It was a poorly written article, but look at the history! It seems a new editor with only 4 edits reverted everything that was there. Maybe it's for the best? Who knows. You might have an opinion on it. Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think "contentious" material is the stuff that could make the subject in the article look bad in some way, which I do not think was the case. The obvious way to handle it was to post a request for help and tag it for a rewrite, but brand new editor reverting the entire article wouldn't know that, still, I think s/he went too far. And since their only edits are the four after wiping out the previous crappy work it also makes me wonder if it's Bramhall himself, or maybe an A&R rep. doing it- I've run into them at least a half dozen times. Well, perhaps it'll help if we both watchlist it? You feel alright with that? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Tudek Site

Nice to see your image from Tudek. I'm curious — since Tudek and Houserville are less than a mile away, were you able to get any photos there that you've not yet uploaded? On a related note, I'm hoping to get some Pennsylvania photos before long: I'm planning a trip back to the far western part of the state in a few weeks, and I'm looking to illustrate a few of the articles at {{Monongahela villages}}. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the details! Just one question — did you mean to have "MIll" in the filename, or did you want it to be "Mill"? If you wanted "Mill", I have filemover rights at Commons, so I can correct it, but of course I won't change it if you want it as "MIll". Nyttend (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Moved. FYI, you're better off than I — I'd totally forgotten about both Penns Cave and the library :-) Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Asturias

Hello amigo. I wondered if you could do something. Can you shade in Asturias on File:Spain location map.svg and add it to the bottom right hand corner of File:Asturias location map.svg, but retain it as a svg? I can't for some reason keep it as an svg.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Dynamic Map

I noticed that you created the article Template:State parks of Pennsylvania map. I would like to do the same thing for Louisiana, but I was wondering if you used a tool to help you or manually added the dots? Thanks. Michael miceli (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Michael miceli (talk) 03:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You can see the Louisiana map here: Template:State parks of Louisiana map I will add historic sites and others as I grow the list List of Louisiana state parks. It's been a lot of work! Thanks Michael miceli (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Check this out!

You recall our discussion of Roger Ebert and his lovely photos. Is there something I can do about facilitating that? Now for my shocker- my good friend (and outstanding photographer, here in Ballyshannon, Ireland), named Rik Walton has (on his website) great photos, and has allowed us some to use here. I saw a photo of who I thought was Mark Knopfler and Hal Lindes, from one of his Dire Straits concert photos-- bur he said it was David Knopfler, not Hal, so I uploaded it as he said. Heavy duty disussion on the talk pages, ensued re: who it was, and then I said, "speak to the camera guy". Someone must have done so, b/c Rik emails me with an apology and correction, after having been contacted by David Knopfler himself. Mind you, all of this was only last week!! So this AM I wake to find an email to me by David Knopfler of course. Now I have to respond, somehow. How will I answer him, without sounding like a blathering idiot fan, I'll never know. Seems turnabout is fair play, ed?!! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

St. Louis

Hi. I noticed you created the insert I used to create Template:Location map United States Missouri St. Louis. I created the Buckingham Hotel that's all. Feel free to add it to other landmarks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 00:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Date Founded

For the List of Pennsylvania state parks there is a column called "date founded". I was wondering what this is exactly, because for louisiana, many parks had been acquired and constructed, but funds didn't allow the parks to be open until years later. So, is date founded the year acquired, completed, or opened to the public? Thanks again 68.227.130.189 (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't logged in. That post was by me Michael miceli (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Tom Driberg peer review closure

I have closed the above peer review. Unfortunately, I can't link from the talkpage to the archive in the normal way. Something to do with the article's name moving from Tom Driberg, Baron Bradwell during the peer review, I think. Could you possibly fix this? Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this. I look forward to your FAC comments presently. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: As a result of someone's hamfistedness, Driberg has been accidentally deleted from the FAC page. I hope it will be back soon! Brianboulton (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

State horses FLC

Hi Ruhrfisch - Per your request, I am notifying you that List of U.S. state horses is now at FLC. The link for the review is Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of U.S. state horses/archive1. Thanks you again for your comments at the peer review! Dana boomer (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Who's the Vandal?

You have just removed accurate information from the Robert Falcon Scott article, without explanation. Do please explain! (204.112.57.130 (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

Whoaa!! Now my reinstated accurate text has been deleted, together with the history record, without explanation! This goes higher. Vandalism!! (204.112.57.130 (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

Any talk page stalkers who are admins, this is a clear 3RR violation. I would block but am reluctant to as an involved party. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question FAC

Thanks for your help with the review at WP:Featured article candidates/Shakespeare authorship question/archive1. In your comment "19:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)" (currently at the bottom) you respond to Sandy. I may be confused, but I think you may want to reconsider your response. My understanding of what Sandy said ("Allrighty then, instead I'll have to go back...") is that she agrees to not restart the FAC. Also, while you are much more familiar with FA procedures than me, my gut feeling is that we shouldn't agonize over what "restart" means, and whether it is documented somewhere—that's not going to assist this review. Sandy makes the reasonable point that we cannot dismiss objections based on assumptions about who made them: we need to check each objection and consider any actionable points. Such consideration may lead to a decision that no action is required, or it may lead to an improvement of the article. While it's a shame that more work is required after all the enormous efforts so far, that's the nature of article development, and I'm sure that a couple of days focusing on the issues raised will deal with all outstanding issues. No need to reply, but if you agree with any of my thoughts here, you might like to refactor your comment? I'm not sure how best to do it, but someone needs to look for actionable items in any comments that have not been addressed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

KMFDM peer review

First of all, thanks for your very large set of comments. I really appreciate all the effort you put into them. I just wanted to let you know about a few particulars.

• I fixed all dead links at the FAC, but the ReGen magazine site seems to have recently crashed or been hacked or something, and they've lost all their content, I think less than a week ago! Hopefully, that will all be restored soon.
• As for your comment: "I also notice that the article relies pretty heavily on kmfdm.net and the band's official web site - again I am not sure what makes kmfdm.net reliable as it looks like a fan site. As far as the band's own website, it is OK to use it, but wherever possible it is better to use independent third-party reliable sources." KMFDM.net is the band's website, not a fansite. What I'm thinking your confusion on that means is that the references must be labeled inconsistently, such that they appear to be from different sources. Which brings me to the next point.
• REFERENCES! Clearly, I need to really go over all the references with a fine toothed comb to ensure that they are all complete, accurate, and consistent, and of course I need to dig up a more sources for the unreferenced text.
• Looks like I need to do a solid round of copy editing as well. Re: inconsistent verb usage for the band, I imagine it's an artifact of it being by different editors in stages, who had varying preferences for singular versus plural usage.
• As for the fair use, I didn't get any problematic comments on the two album covers during the FAC, so I thought they were okay. The first one is used to demonstrate the art style of their covers, and the one with text is to definitively show what the original band name was before it was turned into an acronym.
• On the music samples, I really have no idea how to go about creating and uploading them to Wikipedia. Do you know where a guide to that sort of thing might be?

Again, thanks for the very detailed and comprehensive remarks; they will definitely be useful is moving this article along! —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

review request

In favor of this user peer reviewing one of the articles I nominated. I am asking you to peer review this article here. I know you're good at it and I don't feel like I would be. Thanks. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This user that nomimated the certain article that I linked to reviewed the article The Chronicles of Narnia article and helped clean it up too for me. So I am doing him a favor by finding a reviewer for that article. (Because I feel that I am not good at it) If you still don't understand just go to his talk page and I will think you can make heads or tails of it then. :} Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch, sorry for the confusion. I was the one who posted the original request to review Wikipedia:Peer review/G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics)/archive1. I did another review for Jhenderson777 (The Chronicles of Narnia) and ended up editing it as well, and he's helping me out by finding a reviewer for mine. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. Points well taken, and I'm going through them. Cheers. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your input on List of Scream characters. Your notes all struck a chord and are useful items for me. You're right that merchandise wise there is only really Ghostface though. For sorting, I tried it before on the Saw characters article but people would point out that protagonist/antagonist/minor/etc was somewhat up for debate per character and difficult to manage. I agree on the Concept section but unfortunately few details exist about pretty much anything related to the background of the film, I've spent two weeks scouring for info and still have very little. If you don't mind I'm going to copy your notes onto the articles talk page to make sure its easily accessible.

Thanks for all the input, it's going to help me a lot Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)