User talk:Ruhrfisch/Archive 33

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). If you want me to review an article, please open a peer review on it. Thanks for stopping by and happy editing! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks again for the input Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for Peer Review

I appreciate the peer review over at The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. Your suggestions will help me improve the article.Astrocog (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

G.I. Joe peer review

Hi, Ruhrfisch, hope you're well. Re: the peer review you performed for us last week, I'm not aware of any rule that requires the peer reviewer to come back and check on things, but just in case you're interested, we're pretty much done addressing the points you left us. A few more tweaks and a thorough copy edit, and then we're planning to take it to FAC. Thanks again! -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Tom Driberg: the disappearing peer review

Sorry to bother you, but the link from the talk page to the peer review has gone red again. You put this right this a week or so ago, but it's now within the "Article Milestones" and I've no idea how to fix it! Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Delicate situation

Please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3APeer_review%2FNetball_in_the_Cook_Islands%2Farchive1&action=historysubmit&diff=422226903&oldid=422224414 . I am horrified by the edit summary, because I have repeatedly told her that I never made "accusations of plagiarism" and I know of no "attempts to get me reprimanded at my job". It seems to me that a person requesting a peer review can suspect a peer reviewer of bias, which is understandable. In that case, the person can say "I have read the above comments and disagree with the approach suggested because the comments show a bias in favor or against X view point." Or, "The above comments are very similar to the ones left in the Good Article Review for this article. I disagreed with them at the time and still do not view them as valid" But, I cannot understand how the comments can simply be deleted from the peer review page.

I do not wish LauraHale harm, and I hope that every article she writes reaches GA and/or FA. But I have real differences with her approach toward encyclopedia writing. WP:BOOSTERISM Could you please take a look at the edit. If you believe the concerns outlined are invalid, just drop it, but if there is some reason for these to be considered in the future development of the article, could you please reinstate them with an explanatory note saying they were permissible. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that you misinterpreted my deletion. I was trying to keep all discussion on this talk page and or the PR talk page. Please proceed as you had discussed. Thank you for your assistance. Racepacket (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I did misunderstand your deletion. I will look into this and post something on the PR talk page within the next 24 hours. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

NK Maribor peer review

Hello. Just wanted to express my gratitude for your extensive peer review of the article. I will try to follow your suggestions and improve the article in the future. Thank you Ratipok (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey. I have found lots of new references and added them where it was needed (every single one of them has URL, title, author-if known, publisher, date access and so on) and I also made other changes that you have recommended. I still have to do the lead and I have a question. I pretty much know what to do with it and how to write it, but I am wondering if the lead has to be heavily referenced just like the body or is it ok to just write the lead and leave the references for the rest of the article, which explain things better. Ty Ratipok (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I will then just write the whole lead without references as everything mentioned in the lead, will be included (with references) in the body anyway. If later someone will demand references in the lead as well, then I can just add them without problems later on. Ratipok (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, good news;). I think I have changed everything that you have requested/demanded/suggested in your first peer review of the article and now I am wondering what to do next. Do I make a request for another peer review or do I nominate the article (and if yes, how do I do that)? Thanks again, Ratipok (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Very well, thank you. I will include Italics where it is needed and then try to look into the article once more and 'cleaned up the language' in any way that I know how (will check some of the GA and FA articles of the clubs in English speaking World). I am, however, limited somehow as English is not my first language, so sometimes I have problems with figuring out what exactly I want to include in a sentence (those 'fancy' words:). I usually have to use Google Translate so I dont misspell some words. Anyway, I will nominate the article probably tomorrow or during the weekend. Thanks for your help, much appreciated. Ratipok (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer review help needed

I don't know what it is about me and PR but I never manage to transclude the page properly. I've listed The Sun Also Rises and have the peer review page, but it's not showing up as listed and I think not showing up on the talkpage. Was wondering if you can tell me I've done wrong and how to fix? Btw - just as I was about to give up hope, the daffodils somehow recovered, the grass turned green, and spring might actually happen. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

SAQ talk page...

I am requesting some guidance as I see your are an admin who said they would be watching the SAQ page and talk page.

I have watched the SAQ page for months anonymously, and have read the entire history file...which took a LONG time. In an effort to educate myself so as to start contributing to this topic:

1) I read and then completely re-read James Shapiro's book in the course of a week, 2) To better understand the anti-Stratfordian viewpoint, I recently joined several websites dedicated to anti-Strat theories and tried to absorb as much as possible, and 3) I even bought and read a relatively new book proposing that the author was a heretofore unknown candidate named Sir Henry Neville, so as to absorb the most current info on the topic.

I wrote to Tom Reedy (one of the principal SAQ editors) to ask for his guidance last week and to let him know I would eventually be suggesting a re-org to the page to focus much MORE on the topics covered in a) the separate "History of the SAQ article" which already exists and b) sections 4 and 5 of the current SAQ. I suggested much less focus (or even eliminating) the material in section 2 and 3 of the current SAQ article, which might not be of true encyclopedic value (and which was the source of most of the troubled history of that page culminating in its arb case). Tom Reedy basically let me politely know he was not interested in hearing about it before the FAC process which was pending and that he thought my idea would violate basic WP guidelines. I respected that and did not introduce any of this on the FAC page.

Now the FA is over, and I am trying to contribute. I noticed a sourcing error related to a definition, and tried to suggest several new wordings which would eliminate the problem (including just using the definition in the current source itself as a quotation), but the reception has been very frosty.

For a person who has never even attempted one edit on the SAQ page, I feel I am taking some real pokes-in-the-eye for the past offenses of others. See here under he final topic "Loose Ends":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question

I am not naive, and considering, the battles which were fought over the past six months+, I did NOT expect a big warm welcome. That being said, it is worse that I imagined on a point which is basically prima facie and could be resolved with simply quoting the source in question.

Can you advise ?Rogala (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch...I posted the below at my own talk page as well, so please feel free to delete it from yours after you read it. Thanks again.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I appreciate your advice as an admin regarding the SAQ article...definitely a "thorny area" even now. Here are my thoughts:

1) I am working right now on an article on Dr. Alister MacKenzie which is the primary focus of my current Wikipedia efforts and I am going to try to take it through GA and FA as you suggest. I would LOVE to get your help on that if you would be willing.

2) I clearly sensed Tom Reedy's irritation regarding my re-org suggestion right before the FA was complete, so I dropped it and decided to wait until after the FA status was given to even potentially chime in on the SAQ talk board. I completely recognize the work which went into it by the editors...most especially with regard to sourcing, hence my willingness to "back off" until the FA was settled. I am a "tread lightly" type of person.

3) It may not be immediately clear to you, but I only chimed in as a direct response to Tom Reedy's original post in the Loose Ends section, wherein he was soliciting feedback on that exact section of the SAQ. This was the first time I ever chimed in on any SAQ topic.

4) I admit to being EXTREMELY surprised by the length of the discussion on the relatively simple issue which I pointed out, and I think the point I was making is obscured by the length of those discussion. In one sentence, here is what I am suggesting: The first sentence of the SAQ Overview should use the definition of "anti-Stratfordian" as provided in the first sentence of the lead source which was cited - "The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms". That's it.

5) To me it is axiomatic that if one cites a dictionary as the source for a definition, one should use the definition printed in the source, not a new definition synthesized from several sources and possible WP:OR.

Conclusion: I am going to (temporarily) take about your advice to basically "stay away from the SAQ page", and after merely copying #5 above to the SAQ page to ensure my point is crystal clear. I am going to return to "lurking" for a little to allow the current editors to "cool down".

I do have one concern: This episode makes me wonder if ANY suggestions for change AT ALL are ever going to be truly welcome by the group of editors who helped the SAQ through FA. IMO, it is natural for all human beings to feel proprietary about their work, but Wikipedia is not a place where one can realistically do that, as we all know. Once the work is "out there" it is no longer ours but the community's.

I was thinking that after the FA was done, everyone would return to normal levels of WP:CIVILITY. Maybe it just is NOT possible for the people who lived through the whole SAQ experience to do so...I don't know.

Final thought: Change is inevitable in the Wiki process, therefore becoming too "protective" of one's past edits is unproductive in the long run.

Rogala (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Regarding your more general observations:

I am not ashamed to report to you that I am extremely familiar with how Wikipedia works as I have been a user since just about "day 1". I have always an early embracer of new technology and Wikipedia was no exception. I edited anonymously and intermittently from day 1 onwards, but only registered for my own account in 2009 as part of a planned collaboration on the technical aspects of heraldry (which is a hobby). Even after I had my own account, I have preferred to edit other articles anonymously as I am not really interested in "credit" for edits. I have been watching the SAQ for about a year, but have never commented before this week, as I dislike the type of ugliness which I saw going on there.

Regarding consensus - In the mid 1990s, I spent two years in a leadership role as part of the international consortium (a combination of government and business leaders) which established the joint specifications for the semiconductor industry's current manufacturing standards. Every individual company which participated was RUTHLESSLY tied to getting those industry standards written in a way which would benefit them. You can imagine how difficult it was to achieve consensus...yet we did so. Something like the SAQ should be "small beer" compared to that. :-)

I mention the above by way of simple introduction to my own background as it is relevant to your comments...not puffery. I am sure many editors have much more impressive resumes than my own in terms of Wiki "street cred". While I can DOUBTLESSLY "learn more about Wikipedia", I will modestly make the claim to have read and internalized every major section of the guidelines over the past several years. As a PRECAUTION, however, I have also spent about 20-30 hours re-reading key sections in the past two weeks before chiming in on the SAQ.Rogala (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I posted my point clearly one last time on the SAQ talk page, and also followed the advice of the editor Paul B to open a thread on this on the NOR notice board. I am now backing off the entire discussion, and will see how the NOR commentary from third parties sees the issue. This is just too contentious a topic to engage further on right now.Rogala (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

hanks

Thanks. Without you chaps we'd have never got there. Of course, if there's stuff you're interested in that I might at times be able to help out on, don't hesitate to drop me a note.Best Nishidani (talk) 07:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

FAC - Thomas Beecham

You kindly contributed to the recent peer review of Thomas Beecham, following which I have nominated the article at FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thomas Beecham/archive1). Any views you might perhaps wish to add there would be gratefully received. Tim riley (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Pithole, Main Page

Thanks, it's ready for the spotlight. Just had to fix some links and refs that got knocked around (much easier than the last one). ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 23:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The April 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

River FL

Thank you very much for your help with this one. I did not know until this very moment how it would fare. Finetooth (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thank you for showing the way through many a thorny thicket. Finetooth (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Norway maps

Hi Ruhr. I managed to do Template:Location map Norway Sør-Trøndelag successfully in Category:Norway location map templates but everyone I try to do now it keeps shrinking on the paint page when I insert the corner maps so the scale goes off and it isn't svg. I was wondering if, over the next few weeks you could create new versions of the county maps but with Norway county locator windows. As we don't have any svg type locators at present I was wondering if you could make county locator maps of Norway using norway location map and upload seperately. and then upload new version of the current country maps with these county locator windows in the corner? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Png is absolutely fine, the current maps are pngs anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Just those I think. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Secularism: Peer review

Thank you for you comment. Sadly, I am going to be super busy for a while and I am not sure when I will be able to work on it. The article is in really bad shape and needs some major work on it. I wish I can get some editors to work on it and maybe help me because I honestly dont think I can get to GA standards on my own. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood

Hello, I hope you're doing well. I recently ran Clint Eastwood through PR and received some helpful comments. We'd like to take the article to FAC, and I'm currently shopping for copyeditors. As you did an excellent job with the Oklahoma City bombing article, I was wondering if you'd be interested in taking a look over Eastwood's. The article is well-sourced but could use assistance in trimming some areas and rewording some sentences. I recognize you're busy, so if you don't have time, no worries. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for letting me know. The peer review of OCB was helpful and helped push it to FAC, so I appreciate the time you took on that. Keep up the good work with the peer reviews. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome

French Creek CCC Barracks

Always like to get feedback like that, especially from the most knowledgable editors. I couldn't let an 80 degree day go by without a little trip. One shot I thought of you on was the above, but unfortunately I couldn't find any masonry facilities. The photo File:French Creek Foundation.JPG was more along the usual lines. If you have an interest in early iron furnaces there's lots to write about in that area, e.g. Joanna Furnace Complex. Smallbones (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for re-review(if I may call it so)

Hey! Thank you very much for your PR of List of colleges affiliated to Visvesvaraya Technological University. I have addressed some of the concerns you have raised in Wikipedia:Peer review/List of colleges affiliated to Visvesvaraya Technological University/archive1. It is not complete yet, but could you have another look at the article, and tell me if the changes are OK? Thanks! Yes Michael? •^Talk 17:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Roger Rabbit concerns

I will see with what I can do with the peer review concerns sometimes because of it being a favorite movie of mine as well. I have also responded with a few of them. I was going to respond with all the addressed issues but then I got a little burned out noticing how much there are. I won't lie some of what you suggested aren't easy though. If you can help fix some of the concerns you had explained it would probably be easier. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the peer review!

To show appreciation of your peer review of the article United States Congress members killed or wounded in office, I present you with the Senate gavel... just don't tell the senate I gave it to you. --Found5dollar (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

GA reassessment for G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics)

Hi Ruhrfisch, I hope things are well. The G.I. Joe WikiProject editors have been working hard to address the results of the peer review you conducted in late March. However another editor (with whom we've been engaged in an ongoing content dispute) recently submitted the article to GAR for community reassessment, as he feels that the work we've done on the article since the GA listing, and including the work we've done to address the PR points, now disqualifies the article from the GA rating it earned. This despite the fact that the Community GAR guidelines explicitly state that "requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate: reviewers are rarely content experts, nor can they reassess a moving target. Wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment". I'm hoping that since you've been over the article in some detail, that you might have some insights to add to the current discussion. Thanks and regards. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

DYKs

Thanks. I had a lot of help from User:Little Mountain 5, who added material, chose the hooks, and made the nominations on both. Finetooth (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey bro, just wanna say thanks for the peer review on Wale discography article. I used pretty much everything you said and I was wondering, what would the next step be to make the article either a good article or a featured list? Michael Jester (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer reviews

Do you think it would be a good idea for us to add a message to the "Peer review process: Step 3" page, advising nominators that there is currently a significant backlog of articles waiting for peer reviews, and that delays are likely. They should of course be reminded that one way of reducing this delay is to review an article themselves. (At present there are 23 in the backlog; another 20 were added to the PR page in the period 13–16 April.) Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

My problem is, I don't know how to add text to that page, or how to remove it when the message is no longer required. Can you give me a link to the necessary edit window? Brianboulton (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

New photos coming

For the first time in a year, I'm in Pennsylvania; if you watch the National Register lists for the western part of the state, you'll see new images coming for Fayette, Greene, and Westmoreland counties. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No, not at all :-) All were taken on Friday, when it was mostly sunny; the only ones I got yesterday were the William H. McGuffey Boyhood Home Site and a few others near Youngstown, and even then it wasn't really raining at all. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Didn't know that you were a fisherman. I've tried going fishing several times, but I've never caught anything except pond weeds :-( On the other hand, I'm headed back to the state of Indiana tomorrow, so I'm hoping to make a detour to Bethany, West Virginia (see National Register of Historic Places listings in Brooke County, West Virginia) to get Wikipedia's first color images of the two National Historic Landmarks there. Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Plymouth, Pennsylvania

The Plymouth, Pennsylvania article is far too long, but there are many opportunities to make some sections into articles. Can you help?--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer review Wario

Hey thank you for the peer review. I haven't been on Wikipedia at the time to respond to you so quickly. I think the lead problem (the overlinking and the mentioning of other characters) is taking care of by Blake and I already supposedly had it summarize every section on the article a while back before your review. I will see what other problems there is and if I can do anything with them. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Lympne Airport

Thanks for taking on the review. You may be unaware, but I aslo asked at MILHIST for peer review, which can be seen here. Am aware of the issue re the air races, and will attend to that in due course. Mjroots (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

This is a bit late, but thanks very much for your peer review of Homicide: Life on the Street (season 1)! As always, your close attention to detail is appreciated. — Hunter Kahn 22:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Content removed?

The concept of the Talk page is new to me, so please forgive me if I'm putting this in the wrong section or appealing this incorrectly.

I received a notice from you that two of my additions were not appropriate, but I don't think that this is correct. The additions were to pages for specific counties, and while the additions WERE in reference to a company that I own, I added them under "Media" section, where my company is a popular media source for that county.

My understanding is that my addition was appropriate, per:

Links to be considered 4. Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links

Please let me know if this can be reconsidered. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoNC Network (talk • contribs) 06:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply, 4/25/11

Sorry, but I don't know how to reply back and forth.

I did receive your reply on my Talk page, and I wanted to let you know that you're correct in your guess on my IP. I've taken your advice and appealed to the Noticeboard.

If this reply here is inappropriate for your Talk page, feel free to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoNC Network (talk • contribs) 19:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply, 5/4/11

Can you tell me how long it might take before expecting a resolution? I don't mean to rush, it's just that I've been checking the page daily since last week with no updates.

If it takes longer, I really don't mind; I'm just trying to determine whether I should continue to check daily, or weekly, or more. Jason W. Carlton (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletions needed

Girardville needs to have some nastiness deleted. Dincher (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Washburn, North Dakota needs to have some nastiness deleted. Dincher (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently somebody in Patton wants to nuke China. Definetly needs to be deleted. Dincher (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

He has so many wonderful pictures that it's hard to keep up with them all. Uploading them is kind of time consuming. I try to limit it to pics we need. Dincher (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Everett, Pennsylvania is in need of deletion. Gerry D (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for your comments on Warning from Space. I really appreciate your help.--Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 20:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Rfa for Catfish Jim and the Soapdish

There's an Rfa for Catfish Jim, one of the handful of editors who, like you, have consistently been a help and inspiration. I hope you'll take a look and vote if possible: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Catfish Jim and the soapdish Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The Sun Also Rises PR update

I've updated the page. Other than researching and adding something about the popularity of the Pamplona festival, I think I'm mostly done. I'm a bit worried about the stability of the article, it does get hit fairly hard at this time of year when students are writing term papers, so I'll probably let it sit for a little while. Don't be surprised to see a wiki-break message on my page soon - real life is busy and will continue to be so for some time. Once things calm down, I'll ping you and at that time it will probably go to FAC. I'm hoping to get it there at the end of May or early in June. Thanks so much for the in-depth review. When I'm back, I'll spend some time doing PRs. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Favour

Hello, thank you for your feedback on the article even if you're always breakin' my heart. I changed the organization of the article at your suggestions, I was wondering if you could just take a look here Scream (not read the whole thing, just view the structure) and tell me if that is more in line with what you were thinking. Thanks for reading Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Red Badge now at FAC

Hi Ruhrfisch, thanks again for your excellent comments regarding The Red Badge of Courage. Seeing as how I have a blissfully quiet May ahead of me, I've decided to go ahead and try for FAC. You said you wanted to know when it was open, so here it is. :) All the best, María (habla conmigo) 20:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Covered bridges

I've just been watching The Bridges of Madison County on TV (not seen it before). I don't know which Madison County this was set in (not Pennsylvania, I suspect) and I found the film a little slow and sentimental, but the bridges looked wonderful. I was really glad to have your articles as background knowledge, it made the whole thing much more interesting. I'm sure you must have seen it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

List of scientists whose names are used as SI units

Hi Ruhrfisch, I tried to improve the article List of scientists whose names are used as SI units. I posted my comments in Wikipedia:Peer review/List of scientists whose names are used as SI units/archive1. Thanks. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The May 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
. --Kumioko (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work you do!

		The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
		To Ruhrfisch for the important and time-consuming peer reviews that make such a difference when articles move forward in the review process, and for the incisive, detailed FAC reviews. Thanks in particular for the excellent peer review of The Sun Also Rises and the equally excellent FAC review of True at First Light. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

HW peer review

I've made changes based on your suggestions. -Red marquis (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The Percy Grainger peer review mystery

Forces are at work of which I have no understanding. Earlier today I nominated this for peer review, and it is duly listed on the PR page. However, the link on the talkpage has completely vanished. Furthermore, User:Tim riley tells me he has made some PR comments. They appear to have vanished, too. Can you work out what's happened? Many thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Update: mystery no longer - I managed to sort it out myself (that's a first!) Sorry to have bothered you. Brianboulton (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Sivaji Ganesan

Hi! Thanks for your suggestions. I'll try to fix all those issues pointed out by you. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 05:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You're losing it Rurhfisch

You already apologised weeks ago and pointed out Frankenstein instead ;P s'all good Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Grainger moves on

Percy Grainger, he of the elusive peer review per above, has now gone to FAC. If you can spare a moment or two from the PR chores, could you check out the images (image reviewers are at a premium these days). The images should be OK, as Jappalang was involved in the initial selections, but we need to be sure. I'd be most grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Montage

Hi. Can you make a montage of the following images for the article Grands Projets of François Mitterrand?

File:Louvre at night centered.jpg File:Paryż orsay.JPG File:La villette folly 8409.jpg File:GM Institut du monde arabe Paris 01.jpg File:Opéra und Place de la Bastille.JPG File:DefenseDusk.jpg File:Ministere-des-Finances-Berc.jpg File:Bibliothèque nationale de France, site Richelieu (salle ovale).jpg

♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes that would be fine, as long as you do!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Purrfect. Thanks!!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch, the Grands Projets of François Mitterrand montage looks GREAT! --Rosiestep (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you add on one more img to the Grands Projets of François Mitterrand montage? I just learned that the Jean-Marie Tjibaou Cultural Centre should be included in the Grands Projets of François Mitterrand article and I've added a few sentences about it. The Jean-Marie Tjibaou Cultural Centre article has 3 imgs; any of those will do. Thanks --Rosiestep (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Whenever you get to it is just fine. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Return of a prblematic IP

Hello Ruhrfisch. First those chinchillas are too cute for words. I just wanted to let you know that 173.95.153.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that you blocked last month has returned and is adding the same unsourced items that got them blocked in the first place. I posted here since you are already familiar with this situation but if you would prefer that I go to AIV I will be happy to do so. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 17:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your work :)

Just wanted to say thanks for your hard work in peer reviewing List of Minnesota state parks. Your comments will help to finally get it to FL status :) Theking17825 03:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

25 DYKs

Thanks. I passed the 25 mark quite some time ago, but shiny things are always welcome, so it was a nice surprise. I've been working more-or-less invisibly of late on NRHP articles, a revision of main stem, start-class stream articles, a tiny number of reviews, and a time-consuming but satisfying list of longest rivers of Canada. Finetooth (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Peer review

Hallöchen!. Me and the other article's nominator appreciate your work on Jennifer Connelly's peer review. Since the sign you put still claims doing, we are not sure whether you're finished with it or not. Regardless of that, we'd like you to read the FAC nomination, in which it was archived, in order to have a broader opinion about what's missing to reach the FA status. Many Thanks. --Gunt50 (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the help. We're gonna request a copy-edit evaluation for the c/e Guild and then gonna re-nominate the article. --190.105.3.39 (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm working along with Gunt50 in Jennifer Connelly's article. We recently failed to promote a new FAC, and because you previously helped us on a PR, if you have the time we would like to ask for your assistance again. You can find our last review here. Most negative remarks of the article were directed to close paraphrasing, but there are also some minor issues.--GDuwenTell me! 18:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was asking if you could check the article again to see if you can spot problems. I'll open a PR when the two-week time has passed, I just need another opinion to know what's missing. Thanks for the quick reply.--GDuwenTell me! 15:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I opened a new peer review, could you take a look when you have some free time? Thanks again!--GDuwenTell me! 22:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, take your time buddy.--GDuwenTell me! 18:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Sun Also Rises now at FAC

Finally there! [1] Letting you know. TK(88) 18:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and everything else. I'm taking a break for a while. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Miss Moppet

We'd have to take it to FAR. I don't know how much of this you've been following, but most of it is on Sandy's page. I'm fine with bringing in Moonriddengirl and having all of Suzanne/ILT's edits removed, if that's ok with you. Then it's up to the people at FAR. Let me know what you think. The red, btw is because ILT is now targetting my pages too. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I seem to having trouble articulating myself in any sort of coherent fashion. Can you follow this thread on Moonriddengirl's page and chime in if I'm being unclear. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I think Moonriddengirl's answer was fairly clear. For some reason I thought the article would collapse if those edits were removed, but clearly I haven't been thinking straight regarding this issue, or we simply managed a complete rewrite. At any rate, if you agree, I think we should forget taking it to FAR - it looks fine now and I certainly don't want to be accused again of doing this for a star. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Erie Bluffs State Park

NicholasT has uploaded some beautiful pictures of Erie Bluffs State Park. Could you transfer them to commons? I am at work and won't be able to do it until later and I don't want to lose them if he decides to take them off. Happy Memorial Day! Dincher (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Holy Wood, and the dreaded backlog

The Holy Wood article has been nominated at PR yet again. After your very thorough recent review, and Jappalang's a little earlier, will another trawl over the same material make any difference? We have here a very frustrated nominator (and I'm not surprised, when the article's last FAC was bounced after two days), but we seem to be going round in circles. I want to be helpful if possible, but I can see hours being spent on a line-by-line review, only for the article to hit the buffers again. Do you see any way forward here?

This week I am mainly devoting myself to reducing the PR backlog, but so many things keep intruding from outside the project that I've not made much impact yet. Worringly, after today there are 15 more noms to be added for 29–31 May; this could mean a backlog of 40+ before too long. I also notice, as I'm sure you have, the high preponderance of pop culture articles that are coming to PR. This is an area in which I find it difficult to provide thorough reviews, because my lack of knowledge is matched by a lack of empathy. Can the pop culture gurus be prevailed upon to review as well as nominate? Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Thank you for your excellent attention to detail and thoroughness when reviewing Rova of Antananarivo. The article is the better for it! Lemurbaby (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Peer review

I've been giving the English National Opera article a thorough overhaul, and have put it up for peer review. If you have time and inclination to take part in the peer review it will be esteemed a favour. Thoroughly understand if not, of course. Tim riley (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Wishology/archive1

I tried to address nearly all your concerns. Can you take a second look?

Oh, and just out of complete curiosity, since you said you saw Wishology, do you normally watch The Fairly OddParents series as well? :)

89119 (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

List of MN state parks

Hi! Would you be willing to take a quick look at List of Minnesota state parks one more time before FL nomination? I went through your peer review and changed what needed to be changed. Thanks so much! Theking17825 04:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm sure you're busy... I think I'm just gonna nominate it and see what happens :) Thanks! Theking17825 21:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No big deal at all, I figured you were probably busy. Thanks for taking a look anyway! Theking17825 03:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Hungarian Comics

Hi! Thank you very much for your help. I replied to your review here: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Hungarian_comics/archive1#Hungarian_comics Since you read the article, I'd like to ask about your opinion: if I go through your comments and correct it accordingly, do you think the article could meet GA requirements? Zoli79 (talk) 09:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

ENO image

Most grateful thanks for the Messiah picture. It will be a first rate addition if you load it to Commons. Thanks too for the PR comments, which it will be my pleasant task to address tomorrow morning. Best. Tim riley (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Following your help at PR, I have put the article forward for FAC here, if you are interested in looking in. Tim riley (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you for the barnstar, which I appreciate, though I haven't done much reviewing lately. I see that you have been doing a lot and that your world record is in no danger. :-) Finetooth (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned in discussion

You may wish to comment in a discussion in which you were mentioned at WT:NRHP#Comment on Straw Polls, "decisions" and consensus. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Kinzua Bridge

Thought you'd be interested in seeing the new panorama of the bridge. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 15:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

Thanks for doing the PR. Could you take a look at the artical now after I made some corrections. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay I foundd one review and this one I'm about to show you, but I need to know if youed consider itreliable, http://www.currentfilm.com/dvdreviews4/familyguys1dvd.html. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Worked on the reception. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 22:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you give the artical a look. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that I worked on the artical and I would like you to take a look at it. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Romances review

Hello Ruhrfisch! Thank you again for the review of the article for Romances. Since your comments on the review, here are the changes that I have done:

• I took your advice and noted that the covers date back to the 1940s.
• I've translated the songs mentioned in the article.
• I removed the sentence: "The following day, Manzero expressed interest in the production of the album.[8]"
• I'm not sure to reword the sentence, but I put "original intention" rather than just "intention" since the final work did not include songs performed in either Italian or Portuguese.
• I had a little trouble finding the name of the orchestra, because the article was written in Spanish, so I had look for the name in the Spanish Wikipedia a came across the name.
• I did my best to fit the commercial release in chronological order.
• I added a timestamp for both the total sales (as of 1999) and for Pollstar (1997)
• From Romances Tour article, Miguel did 79 concerts which I added. While that article also mentions the total gross of the tour, that statement is not sourced which I'm not sure whether I should include it or not. What I find was that Miguel's shows in the National Auditorium in Mexico was the highest grossing venue by a Latin artist of the year (sourced by Billboard).
• I removed the two audio samples from the article since those songs were not covered much in the article. Instead, I put a sample of the lead "Por Debajo de la Mesa" since it is mentioned numerous times.
• For comprehensiveness, I followed the article body from WikiProject Albums. After looking at it and some other FA-class Album articles, I'm still not sure what I'm missing (some FA-class Albums are just as long, some even a bit short than Romances).
• Hendecuple does not have an article, so I'm not sure what to do here.
• There is something else I would like to ask and it is about the review from the Los Angeles Times. See what I found was not a review of the album, but rather a response to a review of the album. The problem is, I could not find the original review mentioned in the response and the article itself does not mention why exactly he disagrees with it. I've only kept it still to maintain neutrality of the article, but I'm not sure if it is helpful.
• If nothing else needs to be done, then I will have the article copy-edited.

Thank you for you time. DJ Magician Man (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I copied your comments to the PR page and will take a second look in a day or two. I would link hendecuple to wiktionary which has an entry for hendeca- so hendecuple. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Protection for article

Hey there! Long time no talk! Anyway, I have a page that likely needs some limited protection. I'm sure I mentioned this before, but it's the 2009 Little Caesars Pizza Bowl article. You can see in the history that anonymous editors (likely one individual operating at different computers based on the edit histories of each IP) keeps reverting the pre-game odds. It was already decided that because no consensus could be achieved on how to display the odds, that whatever was the first way would be the default way for the specific article. The editor was warned and blocked for repeated edits and he or someone who feels similarly has simply resorted to reverting it every few days. This has been going on for months even after an admin dealt with the problem back in August (see Talk:2009 Little Caesars Pizza Bowl#Point spreads on college football games, about 2/3 of the way down). A block for registered users here would be most helpful as the anonymous editor's changes have only been in regards to the point spread. Thanks! --JonRidinger (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ruhrfisch. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Peer review/Oblation Run/archive1.
Message added 14:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Moray An Par (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Re. Moray An Par (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

File deletion template?

I forgot to have File:InOurTime.JPG deleted (funny, as though I know how to do that!) and have been digging through deletion templates, but I've decided I overthink these things because I can't decide which template to use to request deletion - hoped you could help. I want to upload the "flat" image you left on my page. Also, on another subject, did you happen to see this from this weekend? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Nationalbridges

I don't know if you noticed, but Nationalbridges.com updated its website. The URLs used in the various bridge articles do not work anymore. I'm also not sure how persistent the new links will be. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 19:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I have to go and update a bunch of bridges, though the new links do appear to remain stable over time. I may have to order a new map also, as I can't remember what happened to my old map; according to the website you provided, a 2007A map ;-) Doesn't look like the Flagship Niagara has yet to be on the front, maybe next year. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

US National Archives collaboration

United States National Archives WikiProject

Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts. There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic·t 15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the Philadelphia Wiknic!

Just in case you are in the area -

In the Azalea Garden, just behind the Philadelphia Museum of Art, near the Fairmount Water Works Sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philadelphia/Wiknic#Interested_Wikipedians.

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area this Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 5 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together in the Azalea Garden, just behind the Philadelphia Museum of Art 39.96801°N 75.183156°W / 39.96801; -75.183156

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

Smallbones (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ted Bundy Peer Review

Thank you so much for being the first editor willing to rate the article! I'm the most active editor pushing for the rating advancement of this article (much to the chagrin of some) and I found your opinions to be very well considered. I have a question though: since most of the suggestions were to get it to FAC (and they've been being implemented and had advice sought after for discussion), don't you feel it's already at GA status? Part of the reason I submitted it for peer review was per the suggestion of a trusted admin who recommended I do so during my continued frustration at the article sitting at WP:GAN. 270+ refs when many GA's have a dozen, and this article gets hit 200,000+ times a month.[2] Kill two birds with one stone and pass it for GA, please? I want it at FA and will certainly seek that goal, but I know it's already a GA without question. Whaddya say? Cheers :> Doc talk 03:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Ruhrfisch, for tackling this difficult but important article. Your peer review advice is very helpful and the article will soon be FA. --Diannaa (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

1952 Winter Olympics FAC

I believe Malleus has completed his copy edit. Your comments/suggestions/review would be appreciated. Thanks! H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 03:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate it have a great night! H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 04:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Re:License Template idea

Yeah, that would be a great idea, as long as we could work out why they were public domain. That's the thing; they're listed as PD, but it's not clear why they are. J Milburn (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Messiah: advice request

I wonder if you could advise me? I am working with Tim riley on Handel's Messiah. The existing article has a Wikisource link to here, which is a treasure trove of soundfiles and also provides the oratorio's complete text. However, I have a few uncertainties:-

• Is it OK to link to wikisource pages within the body of the article, or does this count as an external link?
• Can we assume that soundfiles included in a wikisource page are free of copyright restrictions?
• Does the fact that the wikisource pages carries a "wikify" banner present a problem? I don't know what is the standard format for wikisource pages.

Any help you can give with the above will be much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Lurie Garden

I saw you editing some Millennium Park articles. Any chance work on Lurie Garden is in the horizon?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Question

Do you think that Family Guy (season 1) is ready for FLC after the PR you made? Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the CP Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

PR as a form of currency

I was just wondering, could I possibly exchange my five recent PR backlog reviews for a quickly from yours truly on Mount Cleveland (Alaska)? I'm going on vacation for 2 weeks soon, but I would first like to make positively sure that it's ready for another run at FAC. If yes, thanks greatly, you can put the comments on talk page (or if you'd like I'll create an actual PR for it). Cheers, ;) ResMar 02:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've created the page. It's fine if you don't get to it over the weekend, when I come back I fully intend to tackle this first, Military history of the Russian Empire second. And I think I'll add PR to my "things to do when between articles" mental list. I was thinking though, if you did a short marathon and recruited a few users to clear up all the current "old" PRs, and then have 3 editors work the list 1 article daily, couldn't you eliminate it altogether, practically...? ResMar 04:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm off and away for two weeks tomorrow, but the reviewees haven't started addressing comments yet; not sure whether to hand that off to another editor, or let the reviewees close them themselves, or come back to it in 2 weeks and check on the statuses. ResMar 02:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

What I mean is that the reviewer is generally tasked with closing his own comments, and since I won't be there for 2 weeks I can't review their revisions. ResMar 03:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at Cuisine of Madagascar FAC?

Hi Ruhrfisch, I saw you've been doing FAC reviews for a few other articles. Since you've reviewed my GA work before, would you mind taking a look at the Malagasy Cuisine nomination and add your comments or support? This will be the second time through for the article, which was removed the first time for "lack of consensus" (i.e. not enough people wanted to review it, although it met all criteria). I'd hate to have it happen a second time since Madagascar deserves to have at least one cultural article at FA status (and hopefully more before long... the [Rova of Antananarivo] is my next goal). Thank you! Your help would be much appreciated. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"Comments or supports" —indeed, the best kind! ResMar 02:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

A favor...

Hi there Ruhrfisch! You probably don't remember me but you've left lots of helpful comments on my peer reviews (and thank you for that!). If you can, could you review and leave some feedback on my current FLC: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grammy Award for Best Traditional R&B Vocal Performance/archive1? Your input would be very appreciated!

Also, I love the chinchilla picture on your pagenotice. Crystal Clear x3 02:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Crystal Clear x3 23:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Ruhrfisch. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grammy Award for Best Traditional R&B Vocal Performance/archive1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Barnstar

Thank you very much! Very generous! Bradley0110 (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Question to an admin

What do you make of this set of edits? I've contributed to A.E. Hotchner and obviously to EH. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:Commons sock

How irritating. Your best bet would probably be to submit a request at Commons:Commons:Requests for checkuser, but my experience has been that that kind of thing is pretty slow on Commons. That said, you'll probably have a few months before before the discussions are closed anyway. J Milburn (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Little Pine State Park and Union County

I like your new pano of Little Pine. It sounds like you had a nice visit. I got pics of Hartleton and Limestone Township in Union County. All of the municipalities of Union County now have pics. Are you game in creating a List of municipalities in Union County, Pennsylvania with an eye towards FL? I don't really know if I'll really be able to participate with the writing, etc. Life is just incredibly busy for me and I really can't take time away from more important things to do heavy work on wiki. I am enjoying the what I guess is called "gnome" or "elf" work. I can't remember which little creature that would be. I did see an interesting Gremlin in Hartleton. Dincher (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Dincher (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

On a whim, I added an ecology and climate section to Little Pine. It's very simlar, as I am sure you already know, to Upper Pine Bottom. Dincher (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. I just didn't want one of the top hits for a google search of Dincher to be me. thanks for the welcome! Dincher (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess I had to change my signature. Gerry D (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I am going to have to make changes here and there too. I might get started on LPSP too. Have a good one. Gerry D (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't suprise me that hunters at a hunting camp wouldn't know that the lake was being flooded. Most hunting camps I have been to are "drinking camps with a hunting problem." to revise a popular t-shirt. Gerry D (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for updating all of those other pages and Happy Birthday! Gerry D (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I have an uncle who fell out of his tree stand, broke his neck, and walked three miles out of the woods. He was hungover and of course, very, very lucky. The hunting camp deal sounds like a pretty good deal for the hunters. I bet they've made some great improvements to their camp. I have cousins with a hunting camp near the turkey ranch off 15. I haven't heard if they have leases land or not. Gerry D (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Protection request

Would you please fully protect Buford Highway Corridor and Buford Highway after ensuring that they're redirects to Georgia State Route 13, fully protect the state highway article after ensuring that it has a substantial section on the corridor, and fully protect {{DeKalb County, Georgia}}? I've got two SPAs who keep recreating the corridor portion as a separate article (despite sources such as the Atlanta Journal-Constitution disagreeing with them) and insisting against all outside intervention that it's the type of topic we link on county templates. When I protected one of the titles they were using, Buford Highway International Community, they took me to ANI for thinking that I was improperly editing while involved, even though any reasonable admin would have probably come to the same conclusion. Nyttend (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch, my side of the story is that me (and another user from Atlanta) are trying to incorporate and keep articles on unincorporated communities in Metro Atlanta. We continuously have user Nyttend removing the articles for East Cobb and Buford Highway Corridor as well as their listings in the respective county templates. I have attempted to engage in a discussion whereby we all assess those communities against criteria for what an unincorporated community is.

I also by the way care a great deal about the accurate documentation of Metro Atlanta as my contributions will attest.

According to the article about unincorporated areas,

An unincorporated community…[has] a common social identity without …[incorporation]…There are two main types of unincorporated communities: a neighborhood or other community existing within one or across multiple existing incorporated areas…[and]…a neighborhood or other community existing outside of an incorporated municipal government.

Unfortunately this does not provide much of a definition of what is a "community" versus what is simply an area of land, except the stipulation that there be a common social identity. This common social identity includes a number of factors - 1) adjacent apartment complexes in which reside mainly immigrants - distinct from the housing and population in neighboring communities; 2) the adjacent communities (e.g. Brookhaven) - which themselves are not defined by any official agency (!) - do not consider the Corridor an integral part of their community; 3) the width of the corridor is 1 mile at many points - this is NOT simply the road; 4) public transportation unique to and connecting the corridor. I have established this common social identity for Buford Highway Corridor from multiple sources including 1) Creative Loafing, Atlanta's #1 non-traditional print/online news medium; 2) the Buford Highway Project (probably the best description of how this is a community not just a road); 3) National Institutes of Health, 4) other government sources

Nyttend by contrast does nothing other than quote sources that say "Buford Highway is a highway". Yes that's true. But that says nothing about the community which exists around the Corridor.

Is there anything we can do to legitimately document our communities in Metro Atlanta without this kind of back and forth where one party refuses to provide adequate reasoning behind the deletion of articles and links?Keizers (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Actually no need to work on it in a sandbox, the fully fledged article was available, so you can look at the preserved historic version. You are right there is no record of an unincorporated community here on the geographical survey. However is that really the primary definition of an unincoporated community? It seems the government has long stopped registering new communities in today's suburban/exurban environment, and metro Atlanta communities are often not traditional ones with a CDP and a post office. And in metro Atlanta, for various reasons, many of these communities are still not incorporating, which would be the only way of becoming "official" in terms of having a govt. agency recognize them. Our new exurban communities are defined by their sense of identity.Keizers (talk)

Ernie Fletcher

Thanks for your extensive peer review of Ernie Fletcher. There are a few points where I'd like some more clarification from you. Please check back at your convenience. Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Per your request, I just wanted to let you know that this article is now at FAC. Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Handel's Messiah

You may remember this, from several months ago. Well, the "Messiah" project has now reached peer review, after considerable efforts by Tim riley, Gerda Arendt and myself. As we consider you a kind of godfather to the project, we hope that you will be able to find time to review it at PR, and we look forward to your comments. Brianboulton (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Boron group peer review

Hello, first i would like to tell you thank you for doing a peer review for the article, boron group. The second thing is that I would like to ask you if it is good enough to become a B-class article -- I fixed the mistakes you pointed out on the peer review,(spelling, British and American spelling differences, some refs, lead...) but the references I am a bit slow on, even though I have gotten more refs for the page. I want your opinion on it and if it dosen't qualify, what is keeping it back from being qualified for B-class and how can I check again after Ihave adressed the mistakes. It seems that you're busy, but if you could check it out anytime soon, that would be great. Thank you :)--Geo7777 (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Name change/Drake

No problem, I'm still fixing instances of the old username. I hope Dincher Gerry D enjoys his new username.

You mentioned you owned some books on the history of the PA state parks. Do you think you could furnish a bit about the status of Drake Well as state park? Doesn't have to be too extensive (one of the books, I believe, is at the library). ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that the way it is...as soon as you need something, you can never find it ;-) Thanks for the info, don't worry to much about finding them (if you do thats great). The Cupper book is at the library, so I can take a look at that one myself. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 19:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Peer reviews

		The Guidance Barnstar
		I admire the extremely helpful, detailed and high-quality peer reviews that you do. They guide editors toward improving all their contributions (not just in the articles that you comment on, but by educating them to be better editors), focusing on the most important points as well as style and technical details, helping the project to generate a wealth of better content. Your skill, diligence and generosity are much appreciated! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Peer review question

I thought I'd try to give back and do a few peer reviews myself after your helpful PR but am a neophyte at it. I have a question, I've done a PR for Kokoro, the primary editor reworked the page and submitted to a second PR. I suggested finding a copyeditor, which was done and copyedits initiated before I finished the review. The page has now changed quite a bit, and I'm at a quandary. I would have preferred to review the material before it was removed; and now see new problems that didn't exist earlier. Is this best dealt with on the article talk page or at the peer review, here? And also, how long is a peer review kept open? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin help requested

During this summer I intend to take a break from the heavyweight articles (Messiah, Percy Grainger etc) that have occupied my time recently, and am going to do a fairly lightweight literary piece on Brunette Coleman. This was a nom de plume used by Philip Larkin in his youth, under which he wrote a series of risqué stories set in girls' schools. Now, as you can see, "Brunette Coleman" redirects to the Larkin article. I need it to be separated; I will then write a short holding stub prior to further article development later this summer. I think it needs admin action to break the redirect to Larkin; can you help here? Brianboulton (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Virginia Locator Map.PNG

Hi Ruhrfisch, would you mind telling me what modifications you made on File:Virginia Locator Map.PNG? I'm just asking this because I'm trying to find out if the image involved sufficient creative work to allow you to license it CC-by-SA 2.5/3.0, especially since a derivative work has been made off it. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Handel's Messiah: NYT article

Per your request, I emailed you back so that you could send me the two NYT articles you talked about on the peer review page. I've not had the articles, so I wonder if you got my email? I'll send again if necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've added info from both NYT articles to Messiah - sparingly, because the article is getting rather long. I think it's in its final review stages now and we are likely to nom it soon. Thank you for all your help with Messiah. Brianboulton (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Jacques Offenbach

If I can interest you in Offenbach, I have his article up for peer review. As always, grateful for any comments you may like to make. (Not sure of Mahler's views about Offenbach, but Mahler's protégé Klemperer was a great fan. Tim riley (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

FAC for Rova of Antananarivo

Hi Ruhrfisch, I just listed Rova of Antananarivo at FAC (which you peer reviewed). NikkiMaria is already opposing for "prose issues" that I find minor. Hopefully she will realize this too. But if you do have time to have a look and weigh in I would appreciate your perspective. The FAC is here. Thank you, Lemurbaby (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Update - she struck the Oppose. No other issues have been identified and the article will most likely pass with three supporting votes. Would you be willing to have a look and offer your support if you feel the article deserves it? Many thanks! -- Lemurbaby (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Messiah (Handel) FAC

Just to let you know I have now nominated Messiah at FAC. I hope it does well, it's been quite a journey. Brianboulton (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at the article about Eric Harland

Sometimes I keep a short list in my sandbox of musicians who have photos but no infobox, and I return to create them. This time, I found this article, began to wikify it, and noticed that while possibly every word comes from another jazz website, when I looked into the official website for Eric Harland and found word-for-word the same text as in the article. I'm coming to you as an Admin., since it smacks of copyright violation and little else but a photo. Please respond on my talk page? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Calgary Stampede FAC

As requested, I wanted to let you know that I've put the article up at FAC here. I've also made some fairly significant additions since your peer review, and if you are so inclined, a further check would be most appreciated. Thanks again for your help! Resolute 00:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)