Hi. Just to let you know I've completed the copy edit you requesteed of the GOCE. It's a nice article, well put together, and I doubt it should have much difficulty at GAN. I'll keep it watchlisted in case any further copy editing is needed during the GAN review. Rgds, --Stfg (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very much appreciated, thanks a ton for the work you've done. Going through and looking at the changes, I don't see any problems. I have clarified a few things, though, to avoid some confusion:

• While the directional "northern" could apply to anywhere from the panhandle to East Texas, "North Texas" actually refers to just the northeastern portion of the state. So to clarify, I wikilinked it to North Texas.
• I changed "transport" to "transporation", but I think this is just a British/American difference.
• I fixed the dead link to the Rodriguez article (re:MCL Grand named best events venue).
• Finally, I admit I'm stumped on the issue of dashes. I can see you removed the uses of –. I don't really mind and I assume you know what you're doing, but for future reference, what's the policy on their use? I tried to refer to MOS:ENDASH, but is there a set policy somewhere else?

Otherwise, I'm good with all of the other changes. Thank you again for your generous help, and please let me know if I can assist in anything in the future. Runfellow (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. I'm cool with all your changes. The North Texas claus shoud either read "... to settle the North Texas area" or "... to settle North Texas" (period). I'll leave you to decide which. Yes, transport/transportation must be a cross-pondian thing; I didn't know that one. About the endashes, the ones you had were all fine, but some more were needed, especially in page ranges in the references, so I ran the User:GregU/dashes.js script to make sure to catch them all. It likes to replace the html ndash codes with ndash characters (the first one to the right if the "insert" dropdown if you use Wikipedia's standard edit window).

Oh, by the way, as – is an html code, putting it inside a nowiki tag doesn't work. The trick is to write the ampersand using its html code, thus: – --Stfg (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, got it, thanks. Runfellow (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lewisville, Texas 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:Lewisville, Texas for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.--SidP (talk) 08:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	Barbecue
	Thanks for the peer review! I hope you'll like the sausage and brisket I sent you, from Lockhart, Texas. TheAustinMan(Talk|Works) 14:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	A Treat For You
	Thank you for reviewing FMPU and also for the sources. Enjoy the freeze dried ice cream--the same kind Bowman & Poole had on Discovery ;-) – Lionel (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to thank you again for your peer review of this article. I have nominated it at FAC, so any further improvements or suggestions you have would be most appreciated! Cheers! Resolute 01:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. They look very helpful and I'll get to them soon. Will you be watching the review page if I have any questions? Jsayre64 (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for such a delay; I have now finished going through your suggestions. I only disagree with moving the part about Marie Baron Roussin to a different paragraph, because I can't see where else it could fit in well. But please tell me if I missed something or if you have any more ideas for improving the article. Thank you for such a thorough review! Jsayre64 (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also: What do you think of an FA nomination? Jsayre64 (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really feel qualified to tell whether something is up to FA standards, since those fellows are pretty picky in their process, but the worst thing that could happen is they turn it down and you get a few more suggestions on how to make it better. I'll look over the article again sometime tonight to see if anything sticks out. Runfellow (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have finally made up my mind: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Natchez Massacre/archive1. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Runfellow, I'm beginning the copy-edit you requested at the GOCE request page for the above article. Please feel free to contact me, or to correct or revert my edits if I'm doing something I shouldn't. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton. There were a couple of minor things I fixed just now, but most everything else will work fine, I think. Your work is greatly appreciated; please let me know if I can be of any assistance in the future. Runfellow (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and thanks for fixing my typos - oopsie! :-) Wishing you well for your FA nomination. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to start the peer review for the article? Kingjeff (talk) 05:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took so long, but I added a number of comments there today. Runfellow (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's been over a year since you did that review. You gave a bunch of helpful comments there, but sadly nobody ever acted on them. I have a mind of implemeting your suggestions, and just wanted to say thanks for your peer review. OdinFK (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work on Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews of Military history project articles for the period Jul–Sep 12, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste ((WPMILHIST Review alerts)) to your user space

Hi Runfellow. I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you don't want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, i'm very happy with your in-depth analysis. Secondly, i'm just letting you know you have replies here (if you didn't notice). Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could do with a bit more assistance on my last few. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 18:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Muhammad Ali Jinnah is now at FAC, here]; as you recall you did a most thorough peer review. I was hopeful you might be able to opine on whether the article meets the FA criteria. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added some brief comments in support of promotion. Best of luck. – Runfellow (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. Your work was so good I may impose again!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry it has taken me this long to get to it, but I have finally gotten down to implementing your many very helpful suggestions. I've taken the liberty of checking ((done)) on the many where you were hands-down right; here are some where I had some further explanations:

• Additionally, the highway isn't mentioned in the rest of the article. Per WP:LEAD, the section needs to summarize the rest of the article. Generally speaking, something so specific as the highway information is fine in the lead, but it should definitely be part of the rest of the article.: It is ... its closure every winter is noted, and there's a section about CDOT's maintenance issues with the road (bow many other public highway in this country have had a private foundation step in to pay for some badly-needed remediation (Of course, how many are so fortunately located?). Put it this way, if it's seen as important enough to assign a line to in the infobox, it can be in the lead.

• You have "tree-line" hyphenated here, but elsewhere in the article (and in Wikipedia's own article) it's two separate words: See here. I had hyphenated it because I had thought the article still spelled it that way; I am increasingly convinced that it's perfectly acceptable in American usage to make it one word even when it's not in a prepositional phrase.

• Comma after "Since 2011".: As far as I've always been taught it is fine in American usage for an introductory adverbial phrase not to be set off by a comma if it precedes an otherwise simple sentence (whereas, if it came before a compound or complex sentence, it should be so set off (and in British usage it never is)).

• "abandoned and neglected" - To sound more chronological, "neglected and abandoned" might work a bit better here.: I used "abandoned" in the somewhat legalistic sense of meaning the entity responsible for maintaining and operating it ceased to do so. Neglect tends to follow from that, although in the case at least of a road or path people still could use it, although not at previous levels of efficiency.

More as I continue. Daniel Case (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries on the time gap. A few responses:

• Regarding the highway: You're right, it is clearly mentioned. I'm not sure what wavelength I was on when I wrote that, makes me think I meant to say something else. Either way, wouldn't worry about it.
• Regarding "tree line/treeline/tree-line", I'm not terribly worried about it. So long as you're consistent within the article, things usually end up okay. Since Merriam-Webster's definition points to "Timberline" by default, you could potentially use that, but it would have to wikilink to Tree line anyway, since timberline is just a disambiguation page.

The treeline article suggests that there's a difference in meaning between the two words—"treeline" is the point above which trees do not/cannot grow above shrub height, or at all, and "timberline" is the point above which nothing of commercial value can be logged. Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not going to bother me if you with that philosophy on commas after date phrases, but I think it involves more than adverbial phrases. WP:DATESNO doesn't really address the issue directly (I think), and the CMOS is a bit confusing. In the 16th ed., 6.36 states that a comma isn't necessary after an adverbial phrase (though not required either), 6.45 says no comma after date if there's a month mentioned, but doesn't really mention the year alone), but 9.32 contains an example that uses a comma after an introductory phrase in a very simple sentence. So just go with whatever works for you, I suppose.

Our own MOS is silent on this subject. I couldn't find my CMOS, so I went to look at my AP Stylebook (which shaped a lot of my writing). Their take is that commas aren't needed following a non-essential introductory phrase unless it's necessary to avoid confusion over the meaning of the sentence. I think the same thing stands for phrases at the end. As far as the comma after that one "and", I didn't put one in because it wasn't being used as a conjunctive, and there were only two items in the list. Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Either order is okay for "abandoned and neglected".

I'll keep track of the PR as you update. – Runfellow (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second set of expanded responses

OK, some further expanded responses:

• "in modern dollars" - I think the proper term is "in 2012 dollars", but since we're talking about inflation from a period from a long time ago, I think it might be better to add an "approximately" in there.: In about six weeks it won't be 2012 anymore. It will probably still be accurate, but I don't think it will be in 2022, much less 2112. But it will need to be accurate all the same.

  My understanding is that the ((inflation)) template's algorithm is periodically updated to account for this (assuming you don't set a specific target year, which I usually don't). I suppose I could and should use "approximately" since I usually set the template to round off to two or three decimal places to produce a round number.

  A note on the phrasing: I used to use "in contemporary dollars" until someone pointed out that the original figure was already in contemporary dollars; what I wanted was, indeed, "modern dollars".

Addendum: It seems that the MOS says "Large round numbers are generally assumed to be approximations; only where the approximation could be misleading is it necessary to qualify with words such as about." Open question, though, as to whether it's necessary to qualify with a smaller monetary amount. Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, I think the citation there goes outside of the parentheses.: Not according to MOS:REFPUNC: "... where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis.". Daniel Case (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Three years later, in 1876" - You only really need one or the other. I would go with "In 1876,".: I do that belt-and-suspenders thing because very often I've seen people change an arithmetical formulation to the year, at the cost of turning the entire paragraph into a string of sentences that begin "In YEAR," Some people have also expressed confusion over the "three years later" thing because they're not sure which year it's supposed to be later than.

  And yet at the same time I think grafs full of numbers, years or not, deter people from reading them deeply. So ... as a way of idiotproofing them against the sort of well-meaning yet superficial editor who thinks they're making a reader's life easier but sometimes creates more confusion than they thought they were resolving, I deliberately use this redundancy. I also find it creates more chronological unity in a narrative when a series of events are being described and recounted in prose. Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third set of expanded responses

• You've already wikilinked "Fourteeners" earlier, no need to do it here too.: I know WP:OVERLINK says this, but in practice I think one link a section in a longer article is fine. We forget that the in-community audience at PR, GA and FA is not the primary audience of our articles. A lot of people who read them won't necessarily be reading them all the way through. After a search engine gets them here, they'll look at the intro, then look to the table of contents for the section that they believe will have the info they're looking for, and click the deeplink (The increasing amount of readers on mobile devices, where browers or apps sometimes default to the mobile-specific mirrors of the site like wapedia, are probably even more likely to do this as the interface more strongly encourages that way of reading).

  They certainly would be justified in expecting an unfamiliar term to be linked so they could learn more about it. After all, there's nothing telling them to go look through the rest of the article for the first reference to "fourteeners" or whatever else it is that they might be curious about. Especially in a long article with hundreds upon hundreds of words, where you aren't constantly using the term.

• "the village whose establishment on July 4 led to the pass's current name" - This seems redundant since this information is covered in the history section.: Again, see above. Further, it's relevant to mention it there as the historicity of the site is where its interest to visitors lies. Daniel Case (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Described as "nipple-deep" - by whom?": That's in the cited source, footnoted a sentence or two later, I think. As long as the wording is clear that it's not our description, do I need more than that? Daniel Case (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now to the structural stuff:

• I'm not sure if there's a template out there that says otherwise, but I would highly recommend moving the history section above the geography and making the environment section a subsection of geography. In fact, you may even be able to completely eliminate the "Environment" heading altogether.: I know that for some things, like settlements, we put history first and then do geography. I feel, however, that reading about how a place came to be is easier when you know where it is and how big it is. A lot of our other mountain and mountain pass articles, I think, do this.

  As for the environment, again a lot of our other articles have this section separate from the geography. This is, actually, the section of the article I see as most in need of expansion. I'm going to be emailing a link to it to the IPF to see if they're interested in doing some external peer review on it, and whether they can help me get a copy of a book about the pass's ecology that they reference on their website (seems like it would be a good source). Daniel Case (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That said, I'd also move the section on the IPF to a subsection in the history section above.: I had thought of doing that originally, but there was enough to add and enough parallel non-IPF history that constantly changing the frame of reference seemed confusing.
• The block quote from the book seems like a good inclusion, but it might be better suited to the geography section, since it describes the landscape more than the actual history of the area.. Two reasons for this. First, it's not encyclopedic. Second, it makes the point that the pass was beginning to be seen as a scenic attraction, worth visiting in and of itself, rather than something to get over. Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It might be a bit of a bear, but some time, you'll want to go through and rephrase a lot of your "had", "have", and other similar phrases. Do a ctrl+f search on all of the "had" on the page. Some of them are fine, others could be changed into clearer phrases.: Will do, but I tend to do this because, as a result of having studied Russian so extensively, I've gotten very sensitive to aspect (it's a big enough deal in the Slavic languages that we have a separate article about it, and in Russian you have to learn almost every verb in perfective–imperfective infinitive pairs). So, when I write that "Aspen, too, had begun to fall on hard times .." it's because that was a process already underway, rather than beginning at that point in time. The "haves", though, might be a different story.

As for the commas, we've already discussed that. And thanks very much for the compliments! Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	I just want to say you've done a fantastic job editing North Texas articles! It's refreshing to see major improvements to articles like Denton, Lewisville, and Dallas. As a fellow North Texan, I'm proud to present you with this Barnstar. --Mahanga (Talk) 17:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton, much appreciated. Still quite a bit to do in a lot of articles, but there's plenty of time to do it, too. – Runfellow (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Runfellow. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for 2007 Navy vs. North Texas football game at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Just linked a couple terms in the scoring summary. Good luck with GAN and all the best, Miniapolis (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since you give comments on music-related articles that are listed at WP:PR, I was wondering if you could give some helpful comments to Wikipedia:Peer review/Cher/archive1? Thanks, Lordelliott (talk) 05:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Runfellow, I wanted to let you know I think you made good edits on the Dick Armey page. I made a few edits recently, and the page was in need of major work. I think you were right to delete the chunk you did--it looked like WP:Coatrack to me, not to mention WP:Undue. Thanks for being bold! Safehaven86 (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Once I sort of filter a few things and get things in the right place (shouldn't be too much of that left to do) I do hope to add a few relevant bits of information, along with good sources. This is, I think, just something that happens on occasion when you have a subject with a lot of attention during Wikipedia's "early years", then not much for a while, and then a sudden burst of attention (in this case, leaving FreedomWorks). Runfellow (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where to find one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the GA nomination of this article and placed it on hold pending resolution of some small prose concerns. Cheers! Resolute 02:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And passed, congrats! Resolute 17:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current Texan Collaboration of the Year is Lizzie Velásquez. Every year, a different Texas-related topic, stub or non-existent article is picked. Please read the nomination text and improve the article any way you can.

Tramadul (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Runfellow, thanks for starting your peer review of Bolton. I note that at the bottom you say you would add more comments on the rest of the article in the near future, would you mind doing so? Thanks very much Johnnaylor (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a heads-up that Jürgen Ehlers, to whose peer review you kindly contributed, is now an FA candidate here. Markus Pössel (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your detailed review of the article. I have finally finished responding to all of your suggestions. I apologize for taking as long as I did to get back to you on them. When you have a spare moment, please review my responses to ensure you are satisfied with the outcome. In most cases I did exactly what you suggested, but there were a few where I did something different. Thank you again for taking the time to help improve this article. --SkotyWA^T_C 08:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Looks good. The article looks quite a bit cleaner. There are a few very minor discrepancies, but I'm sure those can be sorted out during the FAC process. Best of luck on getting the article promoted. – Runfellow (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have reviewed the 2007 Navy vs. North Texas football game article you nominated for good article status and have pointed out some issues on the review page. The issues are mainly regarding references (the prose is very good). The article will be on hold for 7 days. If you have any questions feel free to leave them on the review page.--Dom497 (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just wanted to note that I have addressed all concerns you made on the article. Thanks for giving such a comprehensive review; it really helps the process go faster. :) Toa Nidhiki05 02:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Best of luck on improving the article. – Runfellow (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Runfellow. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for 2012 Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Miniapolis 14:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello; I'm not sure if you remember me, but I am the nominator of Carolina Panthers, an article which you peer reviewed. I have nominated it for featured article and, despite being open for well over a month, it has not received many comments. I was wondering if you could give some input to help get discussion going, but please don't feel obligated to. Thanks! Toa Nidhiki05 02:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flower Mound, Texas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Riverwalk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I've started an FAC review for 2011 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final. As you may remember, you were nice enough to help with the peer review of the article back in May. Unfortunately it has taken me a while to dedicate enough time to this article to feel comfortable nominating it for FAC. If you have time, would you mind reading the article again and providing additional feedback for it's improvement (or support for it's promotion). Thank you. --SkotyWA^T_C 00:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The FAC review is complete and the article has been promoted! --SkotyWA^T_C 07:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Seattle Sounders FC Barnstar
		For your detailed help reviewing 2011 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final, an important part of the process which ultimately let to its promotion to featured article, I award you this Seattle Sounders FC Taskforce barnstar. Thank you for your help at peer review. SkotyWATC 07:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice I have deleted the Kraft from the 2013 Fight Hunger Bowl again. There is a reason for this. During the postgame festivities last night, Fight Hunger Bowl President Gary Cavalli announced that Kraft had not renewed the title sponsorship for the 2013 season. At this time the bowl is just being called the Fight Hunger Bowl. A new title sponsor is expected to be announced in the next few weeks, but for now the bowl game is just the Fight Hunger Bowl. You'll notice on every news release done yesterday (CBS, ESPN, College Football Talk, and the official bowl website) that Kraft is no longer listed. The 2013 logo doesn't feature Kraft on it either. Bigddan11 (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, my bad. I hadn't noticed that they were doing that now, but I'll pay better attention in the future. Thanks for fixing it. – Runfellow (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have recently nominated 2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game for featured article for a third time. You were the reviewer at peer review so I figured I would inform you of this. The previous attempts have failed due to lack of discussion, so if you have the time you input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Toa Nidhiki05 00:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:University of North Texas seal.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Corkythehornetfan^Talk 19:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Robot Jox screenshot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	Devon cream tea
	Thank your for your comprehensive and thorough peer review at Adam Stansfield. For your work, I reward you with the afternoon meal of the county he called home. '''tAD''' (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely. You're quite welcome. Best of luck on getting the article through the FA process. Runfellow (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I have opened a peer review for actress Kalki Koechlin after making some significant improvements to the page. You seem to be familiar with reviewing articles so if you have some suggestions come up with them here. Thank You! Numerounovedant (talk) 04:49 , 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I reviewed Apogee Stadium for you, as seen here. Elisfkc (talk) 06:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Robot Jox you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Robot Jox 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 needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Robot Jox for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 05:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are being pinged at the review page, and need to respond very soon. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Robot Jox you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Robot Jox for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Runfellow. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Runfellow. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Runfellow - Thank you so much for your peer review of the Battle of White Sulphur Springs. It is one of the best Peer Reviews I've had. As you know, this battle is a part of an expedition with multiple objectives, and I have problems deciding how much coverage to give to the expedition. I will try to incorporate all of your suggestions over the next week. As info, James Martinus Schoonmaker was the young (20 years old) colonel of the 14th Pennsylvania Cavalry, and during 1864 he commanded a brigade. Perhaps that and the info about Patton's future grandson should be footnotes. I may have questions next week. Thanks again TwoScars (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First question: You wrote: "one of the best–trained and best–disciplined" should have an attribution in text, if you're quoting directly from a source. The quote was written by a source author, Eric Wittenberg. He was not quoting anybody else, and the end of the sentence cites Wittenberg and page 20. Are you saying that I should say Author Eric Wittenberg called Averell's regiment "one of the best–trained and best–disciplined" volunteer cavalry regiments in the Army of the Potomac. ? (Also, when Googling Wittenberg one will see he is often called a "historian"—but you are saying I should not use the term "historian"??) Your thoughts? TwoScars (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I totally understand the coverage question. Obviously, what often draws us to articles is our expertise on the subject. Naturally, we want to share that expertise. Happily, I can say that the coverage you've given it is correct in its scope. I see so many articles that want to branch off into other topics, but yours stays close to home. To your questions:

Regarding the first question, I mention the direct quotes because it is always a good idea to avoid naked quotes. It's not as if you've done something wrong by putting that source in the references, but I'd like to know who expressed something that is being quoted directly. See also WP:INTEXT, which reads that "In-text attribution should be used with direct speech."

Regarding the term historian, I think it's a perfectly acceptable word (after all, I teach history!) I just get a little nervous about the term since it's so broad. Given the controversy around Civil War history, I always like to be as specific as possible.

I will also go through your notes on the peer review and answer questions as I see them. Great work so far! Runfellow (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Runfellow: - I think I have gone through everything. If you have anything else, please let me know. I definitely appreciate all the work you have done on a small battle important mostly to West Virginians. TwoScars (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Runfellow: - I think I have gone through your 2nd round of comments. Thank you for all your work. Best Peer Review ever! TwoScars (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Apogee Stadium logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]