User talk:Orlandkurtenbach/Archive 2

Thanks!

I'll check them out and contribute a bit. Thanks! Canada Hky (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on Burrows article

Hey just wanted to thank you for the nice job you did reworking the burrows-auger section of the burrows article. It looked messy to me too and I was just about to take an amateur crack at cleaning it up when you went ahead and did it. Good job it needed it. Cheers Jozsefs (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Jonathon Blum

The article Jonathon Blum you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Jonathon Blum for things which need to be addressed. Thanks, -- Big Dom 18:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Kesler

Hi Orlandkurtenbach, With respect to this article, his style of play is not what I'm talking about. It's the extracurriculars such as telling a player's wife he says hi, or chirping to his NHL teammate after goals, or his stating that he hates a nation's hockey pride (all referenced in those two articles - can provide more if needed). Since not referring to his style of play, but his getting under the skin, and given how good he is at it, I thought uncanny was fitting. He's a top defensive player, and uses his chirping to get into other player's heads. I'm hard pressed to find articles that don't refer to these facets of his game. These repeated undo's don't serve much good, so I'll leave it to you. Fondly, --VAFeo (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

jordan eberle

Hi Orlandkurtenbach, you wanted me to include the articles but they are already part of the page they are http://www.calgaryherald.com/sports/Calgary+family+shares+Canadian+juniors+bitter+pill/2414992/story.html or number 45 and http://www.thestarphoenix.com/sports/Eberle+cooks/2191164/story.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellefell (talk • contribs) 11:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Orlandkurtenbach. You have new messages at LarRan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

W Mitchell

hi there, I've started proceedings YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 09:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Sedin

hahaha! As soon as I saw your request, I knew your objector was Tony1! I like when he does reviews though. He always forces one to become a better writer. I'll take a look and see what I can do, though I have to admit, this does kinda go against my "never write about teams I hate" rule. ;) Reso lute 01:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Filatov

I've been thinking of trying to get this article to FA status, ever since I started expanding it. Its been through a peer review, and I've addressed the issues raised there, but I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at it as someone who just recently ran a hockey article through the process. Thanks in advance for any help you might be able to offer. Canada Hky (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, I appreciate your time! I'll let you know if there is anything else. Canada Hky (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Hamhuis

Just finished off the GA review. Not too much, just a few minor thing. Canada Hky (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Sedin

I just saw that the Dan Hamhuis article passed GA and was wondering if your planing on taking the Daniel Sedin article back to FAC? I think that it fail last time due to lack of review much like the Hod Stuart page. The Stuart page went back to FAC and is now a FA and I think the same thing could happen to Daniel's page. Since it is so similar to Henrik's page I don't think there would be many issues to correct. I typically don't get involved in the discussions for FA but if you put it back up and it does not receive many reviews I would support it. Just something to think about--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey just wanted to give you the heads up on the article. There were some dead links that I replaced so potential reviewers wouldn't be put off and not do a review since it was the first comment on the page. The information in the new links looks like 90% of the same information, but you might want to check them for yourself. One of the reviewers asked a question regarding ref # 51, it was one of the dead links I changed and had accidentally deleted the link before saving it, I fixed it. So when you see that comment you can just ignore that concern.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant to respond sooner I've been using my free time to work on the Donald Brashear page and forgot. You welcome for the replacing the dead links, the whole thin only took like 10-15 min. so it was no big deal and I felt obligated since I encouraged you to put the article back up for FAC. The good news is that it looks like it's on it's way to passing, hopefully I won't jinx any thing by saying that.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on finally passing this to FA. Looks like you've had a busy couple of days with this and the GA promotions of Raffi Torres and Mason Raymond. Keep up the good work. Cheers--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Ballard GA review

I've reviewed the article and have only some very minor nitpicks. It's been placed on hold for the nonce. Ping me when you've addressed my concerns Great work as usual! I'm going to have to get more Flames' bio's up to snuff to keep up with you guys! Reso lute 02:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And passed. Grats! Reso lute 20:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bah. Another Canuck to review, eh? ;) I'll try to copyedit for you tomorrow... if I manage to forget, ping me again to remind me. Cheers, Reso lute 00:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Alexandre Burrows

The article Alexandre Burrows you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Alexandre Burrows for things which need to be addressed. Brad78 (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Everything is now in order. Brad78 (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarke MacArthur

Thanks for the review! I think I got everything, I am unable to replicate the problem with the link, however. Or I might have the wrong one. ;) Canada Hky (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jovanovski GA review

I went ahead and reviewed Ed Jovanovski for GA. Just a few minor issues to clear up and I'll pass it. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Brent Regner

The article Brent Regner has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Minor league hockey player who has not yet established himself to meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dolovis (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]