This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives

1) 7/9/2005 – 8/27/2006   2) 8/31/2006 - 11/17/2006   3) 11/21/2006 - 1/13/2007   4) 1/13/2007 - 3/13/2007   5) 3/13/2007 - 5/10/2007   6) 5/16/2007 - 7/11/2007   7) 7/12/2007 - 9/25/2007   8) 9/25/2007 - 11/15/2007   9) 11/1512007 - 1/16/2008 10) 1/16/2008 - 2/20/2008 11) 2/21/2008 - 3/27/2008 12) 3/27/2008 - 4/30/2008 13) 5/1/2008 - 6/1/2008 14) 6/1/2008 - 7/1/2008 15) 7/1/2008 - 8/1/2008 16) 8/1/2008 - 8/31/2008 17) 8/11/2008 - 10/1/2008 18) 10/1/2008 - 11/1/2008 19) 11/1/2008 - 1/1/2009 20) 1/1/2009 - 2/28/2009 21) 3/1/2009 - 4/1/2009 22) 4/1/2009 - 5/1/2009 23) 5/1/2009 - 7/1/2009 24) 7/1/2009 - 9/2/2009 25) 9/2/2009 - 11/1/2009 26) 11/1/2009 - 12/31/2009 27) 1/1/2010 - 2/28/2010 28) 3/1/2010 - 4/30/2010 29) 5/1/2010 - 6/30/2010 30) 7/1/2010 - 930/2010 31) 10/1/2010 - 12/31/2010 32) 1/1/2011 - 3/31/2011 33) 4/1/2011 - 8/1/2011 34) 8/1/2011 - 9/30/2011 35) 10/1/2011 - 12/1/2011 36) 12/1/2011 - 2/29/2012 37) 3/1/2012 - 8/31/2012 38) 9/1/2012 - 2/28/2013 39) 2/28/2013 - 11/30/2013 40) 12/3/2013 - 9/23/2016 41) 9/24/2016 - 12/31-2019

Welcome to my talk page. Please leave me a message below and I will 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). Please also note that while I am glad to do a peer review on just about any article, I am limiting myself to three a week and do not have the time to do copyedits (sorry). Thanks for stopping by and happy editing! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much you are a positive force at WP:PR. Cirt (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to report user Emeraude for a personal attack directed towards me. Please see here.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

You reverted my edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stigand&diff=next&oldid=241270666

Could you explain why please?

I had another edit reverted as well, in this case with a vandalism accusation being made:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.1.106.178

I replied to the above @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ainlina aprox. 1 week ago. No reply and the article remains the same. Who is the decider? With whom, and where ought I address these situations? You seem to be an administrator, so I request your assistance in explaining this process.

Thank you, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.106.178 (talk • contribs) 20:20, October 1, 2008

I will respond at your talk page Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. As far as the word "ugly" on the Flossing article, I was removing it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flosser&diff=prev&oldid=234503315

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flosser&diff=240050379&oldid=234503315

Curiously, that was reverted with a vandalism accusation. I can understand why you might assume the opposite, it would make more sense, wouldn't it?

As far as forming an account, I had one once upon a time, but it seemed to make things worse, allowing misunderstandings such as these to become permanent stigma. Even now, if someone goes to my IP talk page they will see that I have been accused of vandalism, and will likely assume as you have that it was for good reason.

What can be done to make wikipedia a less discouraging social environment? How am I expected to respond to these confusions and differences of opinion?

Thanks. It would be good if processes were changed to make this a more welcoming and user-friendly social environment, and less a place of power-wielding by "old hands" and punishments for nubes. Best wishes,

Hello, Ruhrfisch. You have new messages at Ioeth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you about ready to nominate Colton Point for FA? It's looking pretty good. I will be busy watching football tomorrow afternoon, I'll let you guess who, but after that I should be ready to respond to any suggestions. Also I "work" on Sunday afternoon, will have lots of time then. We got a new member of the house today. It is currently at my feet. The smell musn't be too bad! Dincher (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

We got a mutt. Schatzie is the name. Waiting on Colton Point is fine with me. Have fun at the library.--Dincher (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and nominate it for FAC! Thanks. Dincher (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Pine Creek Gorge could be improved and made a "daughter" (I guess that's the work) article and reduce the gorge info to one or two paragraphs. That's all for me tonight, Good night! --Dincher (talk) 03:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The new map looks good. Nice work. Dincher (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am busy at work. Feel free to edit away on the suggestions. If you get busy IRL, let me know where to pick it up. Dincher (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've done what I am willing to do at this point. Having a PC smashing moment now. Will look later, much later. Dincher (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm done with CP for the night. Have at it. Good night. Dincher (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with the nom and have a good one. Dincher (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I noticed your change and have struck the "Turkey Path" concern and supported before you posted your change and question at the FAC.[1] Jappalang (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I just saw that we have reached FA status on this one too! Thanks for the work you did you get it up to FA, well done. Dincher (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

	<font=3> Here yuz go! - Colton Point State Park made featured article today! Dincher (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

My congratulations on the FA. Your considerable body of excellent work is of great help to the encyclopedia. Finetooth (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ruhr, I invented the same kludge when I sent Balch Creek to FAC. Toward the end of the FAC process, User:SandyGeorgia said, "Note, it looks like you struggled with delinking accessdates. What you did works, but another way to do it (for future reference) is to use the accessmonthday and accessyear parameters, instead of accessdate; that results in delinked retrieval dates... " It was no big deal to change them from the kludge to Sandy's proposed solution in that article, and I did. I didn't notice the problem with some of the other cite family members until I ran into them in the Columbia River article. Another kludge is to change the cite critter into a "cite web", but that doesn't work for, I forget what, "cite book" maybe. A side note: it's necessary to add the comma to the accessmonthday data because the template does not add it automatically. Finetooth (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thinking through this again, I see it would have been much easier for me to use the kludge when necessary for the few nonconforming cite-family templates in the Columbia River article. I could well have left the others as they were. It's my desire for complete internal consistency that makes me want the citation date format to conform to the main text date format. However, the latest version of MOSNUM does not require that the two parts (main text and citations) be consistent relative to one another. Finetooth (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a query here about Template:Cite book at WT:FAC. Others have been thinking about this problem, and perhaps it will soon be solved. Finetooth (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, comment I just posted. I really would like to make this feature live. Do you have any idea about who to talk to? Cool Hand Luke 18:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I see you take a very big interest in the subject of covered bridges. An article I started at Humpback Covered Bridge may be one you might be able to expand if you know better sources than the ones I was able to come up with...it's a unique structure and the only one like it still standing in the U.S. However, the Ponn Covered Bridge (notice redlined link) is another humpback bridge that still stands in Ohio apparently--MONGO 02:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. If you do have time, please peer review this article. thanks,Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Take your time. thanks,Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Your suggestions (along with the other peer reviewers) contributed to Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge quality. I am very much surprised that the article got in the TFA queue (I did not nominate it). It seems like Raul picked it up. Jappalang (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This time, you noticed before I did. I'm very pleased. This one took a lot longer than Balch and involved several interesting complications. Thank you so much for all your help. One of the best things about the PR process is that it really helps get things ship-shape before FAC begins. Finetooth (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you please take a look at this SMS school page. It seems the author has placed a protect tag on the page, possibly in response to my tagging it for a merge in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. Is that justified? Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action and reply. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you out ... anytime. Truthanado (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ruhrfisch. I don't think you remember me, but I asked for a peer review of Veronica Mars a while back, hoping to get it to GA status. Well, I stood by my comments and I achieved my goal. Now, the article is undergoing another peer review, and I was hoping you could leave some comments. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the reply. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch, it's great to have Johnbod & Modernist weighing in on the Louvre. Everyone appears to support more expansion (I've been operating under this paranoid fantasy that the article could never be promoted over 50kb. Seriously: in the past 2 weeks I cut out 12kb of pure prose). So, this means that it will be back to the books, then edits, then hauling in the C/E team. This will, at a minimum, take weeks/months. I like having the conversations occur on the PR page, everything is contained and its easy to reference. Our current discussion is illuminating.

So, my question is: can I put up another peer review in the future, or would this be taking advantage of the system (i.e. that would be Louvre's #3 PR)? Lazulilasher (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Ruhr. It's likely going to be longer than 2 weeks; I just wanted to be certain I wasn't "overusing" the system. Thanks for the clarification on the 50kb thing, also. I got that in my head and just ran with it. We can add this to my "Bad Ideas" column :) Lazulilasher (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey Ruhrfisch. Typically an unofficial lower limit of 10 items has been used before, but in most cases it's applied more strenuously to lists which have a significant chance of expanding (sports lists, like seasons, managers etc are good examples). I think that if you provided some good quality prose in the introduction, it'd stand a good chance at FLC, especially since a lower limit is not part of the criteria. Does that help? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to start on Oil Creek State Park whenever you want. Aren't you planning on working on a covered bridge next? Or maybe another featured list. Thanks for getting the other thanks. Dincher (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Real life has been very busy, so I don't know when I'll be able to do much work on anything. "Work" is getting busier too with Christmas coming up. I'll let you know what's going on, but I might not be ready for another FA push until next year. I guess I'll be following your efforts. Dincher (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

We could. The FAC for Colton Point was much more difficult than I had thought it would be. But sometimes going to GA seems pointless if we are planning on going for FA anyway. I don't know. Have a good night. Dincher (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I get it. Sounds good. Dincher (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi!, thanks for your feedback on the article!.

Here I have lisited the points you made with a query/statement to each one.

• "The lead does not follow WP:LEAD as I see it - it is too detailed and not an inviting summary and overview of the article. I also think the paragraphs are not balanced - the first is only two sentences, the second is too long - this may be seen as an issue under WP:WEIGHT too". I have copied and pasted the Wilco lead, and changed it accordingly with a few other statements added. It now looks equally weighted and not lengthy.

• "When I saw they were from "South Wales", I originally thought they were from "New South Wales", i.e. Australia. Perhaps this should say something about the UK / Britain?". Thanks! :-), have now added more detail :-).

• "The article needs a serious copyedit to polish the language - a few examples These consisted of a few bands they played in including a stint as sound engineers, before forming a rock band called 'Reel' and sacked their bass player before replacing him with Taka Hirose, who placed an advert in Loot." This is a run-on sentence and should probably be split into two sentences (or three?). The languiage makes false impressions or statements in places - it sounds like they were in a band of sound engineers or that the bass player placed the ad (the band did). Errors in Before the album[']s release, "We Are the People" charted at number twenty-five in the singles chart, making it their worse [worst] chart placing for a lead single since 1999's "Day in Day Out". I think "chart placing" is also awkward - chart position perhaps?". Could you give me a brief analysis on the other problems you noticed please? :-), I have addressed the ones you have mentioned.

• "I agree on the refs statements above". I have been cleaning up the references, and sent a message to the other peer reviewer asking which ones flagged up should stay, giving my reasons, as a few FA status pages have used them also and the feederanorak references are reliable.

• "Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower. There are three sound clips and at least one non-free image - how do these meet WP:NFCC?". A fair use rationale has been added for the non-free use picture, and have copied/pasted a rationale from a similar picture of The Smashing Pumpkins which is of FA status, and then changed the text accordingly. As for the sound clips, a fair use has been used on each one also similar to the ones used on the latter article's sound clips. I have also made the pictures smaller where it can be done without being too small (the portrait orientated pictures can be made smaller, but end up too small). Marcus Bowen (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ruhr, thank you for supporting my RfA, which just passed with no objection. Your and Finetooth's support meant much to me, because I frequently come to both of you for help. You both are well aware of my strengths and weaknesses, so it was heartening to see your support! Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Er...I do need your help. I tried to change the protection level on French Revolution to no protection. This is because I intend to work heavily on the article, have it on my watchlist, etc. I also placed a tag listing needed improvement. I thought it would discourage potential "new blood" editors if the page was protected while having the "article issues" template. Anyway, I can't tell if I set the protection level correctly. Could you check that protection was turned off? Thanks (yes, my face is red). Lazulilasher (talk) 04:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I just figured it out, nevermind. Thanks anwyway Lazulilasher (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ruhrfisch! Thanks for reviewing the article Arad, Israel. I have a few questions regarding the review:

1. Referencing: Are there any major unreferenced points other than the neighborhoods section? If so, I'll start working on that before tackling the neighborhoods. The problems with that particular section is that it can pretty much be verified by any Hebrew-speakers by looking at a map of Arad (such as the one I created for the article). However, the fact that these names were actually pre-planned cannot be verified in that method, and I sent an e-mail to the municiaplity to confirm what is already seen from a map - and it was confirmed that indeed these names were pre-planned. However, I have not been able to find a published source talking about this. I cannot imagine that this would warrant the deletion of the entire neighborhoods section, as again, all of them and their street names/meanings can be seen on any map. What do you suggest should be done?
2. Ref formatting: A while ago I spent some time properly formatting all the references, including all the known details about them. Are there are particular refs you are concerned about?
3. Merging paragraphs/sections: What exactly do you have in mind? I merged the music festival section, and another section heading before that (following initial GA review). However, everything else seems OK and while there are some short paragraphs/sections, it would be strange to merge healthcare and law enforcement, for example. Moreover, AFAIK FAs for cities require sections like that for comprehensiveness. Are there any specific examples you can give for certain merging?

Thanks again for the review!

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Many congratulations. I can't say much more at the moment since I am far from home, but this is one of your best. Brianboulton (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Great news! I'm happy for you. I know you've worked hard. Look me up if you need any more genealogical research support. Glad to help. --Pat (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Join the club. Selinsgrove Speedway failed for me. I was never given a reason. At least you got a reason. Some interesting findings on Cherry Springs State Park posted on it's talk page. Dincher (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree the Route 44 stuff is a gold mine. I think Prouty and Patterson are on or near 44. Back to the Dodgers. Dincher (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't get too bent out of shape about the Dodgers. I am amazed they made it this far. Thanks and have a good night off to be for me too. Dincher (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with the locator map for the state of Washington, and I can't see what's wrong. I've had no trouble with the Oregon or Idaho locators. Could you take a look at the Lewis River geobox in my sandbox and see if you can figure out what's wrong? Everything looks normal until I fill in the "map1_locator = Washington" parameter. The rest of the hodgepodge of text and notes in my sandbox, by the way, has nothing to do with the Lewis River. Finetooth (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

My sandbox is at User:Finetooth/Sandbox. Finetooth (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I thought it might be something like that, mysterious workings in the room(s) behind the green door. I'm not in a hurry, so don't drop what you are doing to mess with this problem. I'll simply forge ahead with other aspects of the geobox and go ahead and post it to the Lewis River page. The locator map can be added at any time. Thanks for your quick response, which saves me from further hunting for a typo or other self-generated error. Finetooth (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It's close but too low by much more than a few pixels. On my monitor the dot shows up in Oregon rather than Washington. We may be in luck, however. As it happens, the Lewis River forms the border between Clark County (the small one directly north of Portland) and Cowlitz County, the somewhat bigger one north of Clark. You can see the lower Lewis river course on the base map because it is the same as the county border. The Lewis angles into the Columbia from the northeast. If you can recalibrate so that the red dot moves up about a quarter of an inch (on my monitor), it should be right on the intersection of that county border (and the Lewis River) where the Lewis meets the Columbia. I might have helped you a bit by explaining this before, but I wasn't sure what calibration entailed. Finetooth (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for trying. I'm getting a better general idea of what's involved. After posting my last note here, I looked at the template with the four variables, but I haven't tried messing with them. It's tempting, though. The photo was uploaded from Flickr by User:Matthiasb. I followed the license links, and the photographer appears to be none other than User:Pfly. Finetooth (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>I didn't look at my sandbox again until a few moments ago, and I see that the red dot is positioned perfectly. I don't know when the fix occurred; perhaps you got it last night. In any case, thank you very much; this will be helpful on the Lewis River and many others in Washington. Finetooth (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have now installed the locator map on the Lewis River (Washington) page and deleted it from my sandbox. Finetooth (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The underside pic is quite nice. I really like the reflection of the trees. The abutment pic is good in that it shows great detail and why the bridge isn't exactly trustworthy. Looks like somebody with pick axe and lots of spare time could knock it down. It could go in the history section. Pic 3 with the fall colors and ducks is good too, but I don't like the powerlines. It looks like you had a nice day. Hope it was fun. Dincher (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am getting pretty deep into the history and have a Cherry question. Could you check on an online map that I can't check right now for me? Is Cherryville, Pennsylvania Zip code 18035 in Lehigh Township, Northampton County or in Lehigh Township, Carbon County? My guess is for Northampton, but I want to be sure. Don't worry if you can't check right away. I will be able to after work. Dincher (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That's were I thought it is. Dincher (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment or two on the Cherry Springs State Park page awhile back. Could you add your thoughts? In a wikifunk again. Dincher (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There is some back and forth going on with me and an unregistered user at Stillwater. They way it is now is better than how it was, but is still doesn't seem right. This fictional character Leroy Jethro Gibbs on a fictional show NCIS that I no nothing of is supposedly from Stillwater. First of all the name is not a likely Stillwater name, Jethro? Come on, but that's not really the issue. Does this fictional character belong on the Stillwater article? Dincher (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed it for now and asked for a reference. Dincher (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you offer your 2 cents on the Stillwater talk page? --Dincher (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Dincher (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it to your watchlist. I have most of the small burgs in the middle parts of the state on mine. I'll keep you posted if any other problems come up. Have a good evening, won't be on much tonight. Dincher (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you place the article in the peer review?

Raj2004 (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Raj2004 (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have time to look at the above, on peer review? I am helping this article on towards possible FAC - I did not initiate it, but it is sort of under my wing; there isn't much point in my reviewing it. It needs a neutral eye over the prose, and no doubt some further polishing, but in my opinion it is good work. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The article Rhinemaidens (Wagner) is about to go to FAC. During its peer review a consensus developed that the name of the article should be changed to Rhinemaidens, which is at present its redirect name. There is some history in this; the name was changed to its present form during the article's GAN phase last April, for reasons which I've pretty well forgotten but which don't seem relevant now. Anyway, to change the name back to Rhinemaidens apparently requires admin action, so I wonder if you could do this? It doesn't matter if this happens while the article is on FAC. Please let me know if there are problems. Brianboulton (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this - I'm sorry it caused problems. I have fixed the four dablinks in the article. Brianboulton (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ruhrfisch, I understand that you are an active member in the peer review process. I listed this article for peer review 10 days ago, with the aim of getting it to FL status, and I have received no feedback as yet. Could you give this one a go? "Wikipedia:Peer review/Mark of the Year/archive2" Thanks, --Flewis^(talk) 13:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice photo. I haven't been out with my camera since snagging some Columbia Slough photos a couple of weeks ago. I just posted a new batch of history material to the slough article, which I've been working on fairly intensely for a few days. Now it's time to work on something else for a while. I have a long way to go before the slough even remotely resembles comprehensive. Finetooth (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I like both pics! The twin cities of Clinton County! Hah. Thanks for the Renovo pic. It looks like a good time was had by all. Soon I will be posting pic of the new lake in Hope Mills. Might even do a Hope Mills Lake article. There is lots of history and lots of new controversy for something that is little more than a mill pond. Dincher (talk) 02:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't look at the pics just now, gotta run. Haven't looked at the State Park histories on DCNR's pages either, but I will. Thanks for letting me know. I did see the new Hyners. Dincher (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've got four peer reviews up right now, with one that I opened today already (at least, that's the case in my timezone; I opened another yesterday). I respond regularly to my PRs. I'd like to open two more, for List of universities in New Brunswick and List of universities in Saskatchewan. I already find my own reviewers instead of waiting around; both article talk pages already have comments from people that I asked reviews from. I'd like to move those comments to a formal peer review, for future reference, etc. Could I please do so? Gary King (talk) 06:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch, from what I can see, you seem to be the peer review king! I was wondering if you could help with a peer review of the List of Pi Kappa Phi chapters. I would like to see this article reach featured list status, and any advice that you can give me to help in this process will be greatly appreciated. If you can help, please message me on my talk page. Thanks. — ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 06:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! — ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 04:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! I will be addressing the issues you have listed in the next few days. — ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 21:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed most of the issues that you've posted on the peer review page, however I have a couple of questions about a few of them. If you have some free time, would you mind taking a look at them? Thanks. — ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 00:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! — ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 03:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch, you might be interested in my comment at the Bernville discussion page. I note that on 16 Oct 2007, you added a "Historic Buildings" section consisting of: "The most historic building is the Conrad House on N. Main street close to Penn National Bank (201 N. Main Street)." On 3 November 2007, someone moved this text to the "Geography" section and changed it to: "One of the more historic buildings is the Conrad House at 201 N. Main street." More importantly, on 9 April 2008, someone changed this information to: "One of the more historic buildings is the Hunsicker House at 431 N. Main street." As I help maintain any entry for Hunziker House, I was interested in the entry, but, upon contacting the local historic society, understand that no building named Hunsicker House exists in Bernville. Hence, your original entry may have been vandalized. I just thought you might want to know.--Rpclod (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ruhrfisch, I am not talking anymore about math problems, for which I indeed am the author - I accepted the ruling in that regard. At this point I am talking re obvious inadequacy of the review process for the articles having to do with science. Please read the "Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles" section on my page above discussing this proposal. Apovolot (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way I just noticed the following statement you have made on your page, which proves my point: "... while I am glad to do a peer review on just about any article ..." That is a very bold statement - are you indeed the expert in all areas ? Apovolot (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ruhrfisch - I am not denying that the practical details are to be addressed but I am optimistic re expert review feasibility and therefore do believe this should be attempted at least as an optional (by the special request) feature. In my view the experts should be willing (at least temporarily during the review) verifiably reveal their true identity and credentials, which should be at least at the PhD level in the corresponding area of science (or higher). Cheers, Apovolot (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I was wondering if you could find the time to check an article I wrote about an album by a Mexican band named Camila, Todo Cambió. I wrote it because it peaked at number-one on the Billboard Top Latin Albums and I'm making articles for every album that hit the top spot on that chart. This album is special because is the one with more info.

Thank you in advance, Jaespinoza (talk) 06:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there,

I was wondering if you could Copy Edit London for me? I know it's a long article! :) I saw your name on WP:PR/V and was wondering if you had the time to copy edit it.

Many thanks,

The Helpful One ^Review 18:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks! :) The Helpful One ^Review 19:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It does seem like the histories of the parks have been expanded. I will look through at the other parks as I have time and interest. The interest level should be high, the time won't be. I like the pics you have up on the article page and will look at the rest on commons. Thanks for getting the pics. Maybe someday we'll have pics for all the parks! Dincher (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I really like the pic of the stone latrine. It's nice work. The leaves scattered about look pretty cool. Nice job. Dincher (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I would wait to add the stone latrine until the article is expanded. Save it for an April Fools DYK too. Have a good one. Dincher (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe use a synonym for latrine. Outhouse perhaps. Dincher (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice batch of photos. You caught the fall colors, which are often spectacular. I noticed that you continued with your three-a-day routine yesterday. I'd get depressed if I tried to do that every day. On the other hand, it is seductive. I find myself doing more than one a week and groaning when the backlog grows. I don't inhale, though; maybe I'm not addicted. Finetooth (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I especially like the fall panorama. Finetooth (talk) 03:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know that, now that the Rhinemaidens saga is done, I will be able to help tackle the PR backlog (I can't do Maxwell's equations, though). Thanks for supporting the maidens. Brianboulton (talk)

Cheers, and thanks for your response. I'll be bringing this article through peer review soon enough, so I'm sure you'll see it in depth there. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

When the PR backlog is conquered, could you look at Mozart family Grand Tour/archive 1? It's a brand new article, has had no review or assessment at all, so I'd be pleased to have some comments (no queue-jumping expected). Brianboulton (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)