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 do not have the time to do copyedits (sorry). Thanks for stopping by and happy editing! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK is due for another update, from queue 5. Shubinator (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Credits are my job :) Shubinator (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. If the hooks from Next Next Update are up to scratch can you promote them to queue 5? Shubinator (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing (sorry for taking up your time). There are a few previous DYK commons-uploaded images that I think should be deleted: 1, 2, 3, 4. Shubinator (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, an issue came up in RL I had to take care of. Thank you yet again for your help! Shubinator (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Update time again. Should be from queue 3. I'll do credits. Shubinator (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got to run. Shubinator (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Shubinator (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Another update needed, from queue 5. I can do credits. Shubinator (talk) 03:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, friendly competition always helps DYK! There are some pictures that need to be deleted...after this update is clear maybe I can give them to you? Shubinator (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I had just remembered that I was planning to check to make sure this update got done. I remembered about a 1/2 hour late. I like to periodically check Category:Uploaded from Commons main page images to see what needs to be deleted. Just be careful to be sure that an image has already left the main page! Royalbroil 03:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are some for starters, that I found over the weekend...I'll dig out some more. Previous DYK images that haven't been deleted from En: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. These three pictures are previous Main Page Featured Article images. And these are previous On This Day images: 1, 2, 3, 4. Shubinator (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

More previous DYK images: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Shubinator (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Strike 3, it's not on Commons. Shubinator (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

And 7 is a crop, don't know if it should be deleted. It is in the category "Temporary cropped" though. Shubinator (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

More previous OTD images: 1, 2. Shubinator (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

And this is a previous cropped FA pic, and this is a Commons uploaded previous FA pic. Shubinator (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Scratch the last one, its protection is already gone. Shubinator (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ack, the last one does need to be deleted. Sorry for the confusion! Shubinator (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

One more, a DYK image all the way from Feb 28. Shubinator (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Shubinator (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the hooks you just put into queue 5 is for Pirate Party (United States), an article that has been slapped with a notability tag. I'm not sure if the tag was there when it was initially promoted but it's not a great idea to feature articles at DYK with outstanding notability concerns. Just thought I'd mention it here so see if you could resolve the tag or replace the hook before it goes "live" in about 22 hours. Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 05:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support Maen. K. A. (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The cool tool is pretty cool. I am going to look at the results more closely soon. I fixed the issues. I think I just assumed that the old tavern was torn down, it bit the dust at some point. Not sure where the 1950 information came from. It may been an old cut and paste job. Dincher (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

We got a teaspoonful of snow today. Enough to cause a two hour delay. The cool tool is really cool. Thanks for sending that. Dincher (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

We had two inches last month. 2 inches = 2 days off plus a two hour delay on the third day. I too forgot some of my creations. Dincher (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I am finally down to 2,000 1999 pages on my watchlist. Yee-Ha! I am "working" on Sat. night. Will look at CSSP then. Dincher (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC) I like the pics that you took at CSSP. The latrine appear to be haunted =)Dincher (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the pavilion pics. It sure is big. Went to Falcon today as well as Wade and Godwin. The Falcon Tabernacle is very interesting. Dincher (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure where I got that bit of info from, but I do know that I read it. It made an impression. Fixing light pollution would be so easy if the current lights were reworked. We have new lights near Hope Mills Lake that have special coverings on them. It may have come from the Morey history? Don't have time to hunt it down now. Dincher (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with the owl pic. My GA Pettigrew State Park has some pics of plants and animals not from the park and I had to add the pics to make GA. I may have read it from materials that my parents gave me on their trip to the park, but I just don't remember. Dincher (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I always check on NicholasT's photos on flickr. I agree they are great, especially the Cook Forest one. Perhaps I found that info in the Coudersport or Potter County newspaper. Like I said, I know I read it. Somewhere. Should've been more careful then. Oh, well, if you can't find it, I guess we'll just have to cut it. Dincher (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Searched for lighting ordinanaces in Potter County. Some look like they might be what we need, but I can't open them up at "work". If you don't get to them, I might be able to later. Have a good one. Dincher (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC) This one mentions local ordinances. Dincher (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Have a good night. Off to bed for me. Dincher (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That design guide is pretty neat. The plans sound good to me. Spring break has sprung. We'll see how much more time I have. Dincher (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the astronomical section is pretty long and would benefit from being divided as you suggested. Things look really good so far. The plans sound good too. Dincher (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you nominating the airport for DYK? It looks pretty good? Dincher (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I think you might was well go for GA. Can't hurt. Dincher (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi can you please teach me how did you create an image with wikilinks in it?? Maen. K. A. (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

am talking about the image on your user page under the title Map of Pennsylvania State Parks, about my picture, am still working on it, i ll show it to you once done, thank you for your time Maen. K. A. (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

here is the picture, i tried to use the way you did that picture, but it needs some work, because i dont know how to use all the parameters, can you please check it and put your magical touch, here is the picture Maen. K. A. (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

To suppress the label on Geoboxes, specify the parameter

category_hide = 1

in the Geobox. Brian Powell (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Could I get you to look at an article that was in Monday's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and see if parts of the "Aftermath" sections need to be changed? I think it does but can't quite figure out the best way to go about it. Thanks, --​​​​D.B.^{talk•contribs} 21:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I changed some of the wording and fixed some of punctuation, but really didn't change much. Also, after reading the above discussion, I decided to turn off the label in the geobox. --​​​​D.B.^{talk•contribs} 00:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Kinzua Bridge made FA!
	Thanks for reviewing, copyediting and then supporting Kinzua Bridge! --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 18:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

PS, guess where part of the inspiration for this came from. --​​​​D.B.^{talk•contribs} 18:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, clever trick. Thank you. I had been thinking the doubling was a little strange but got used to it. I'll change others, not sure how many at this point. I've lost count, but I have a list. Finetooth (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just listed Rhyolite, Nevada, at peer review, and I'd appreciate your input when you aren't swamped. Does that ever happen? The article sailed through a GA review three or four days ago, and I've added a geology section since then. I think the article meets the FA requirements, but I want to make sure before I plunge ahead. Finetooth (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll be happy to review Cherry Springs State Park when it's ready. Finetooth (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy of sourcing in Kannada literature KM FAC. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Peer_review/Madia_Gond/archive1 and leave your comments. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look at the Wikipedia:Peer_review/Madia_Gond/archive1#What_I_have_done section. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer_review/Madia_Gond/archive1#What_I_have_done section. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I sent messages to all three and to User:Aboutmovies, the main contributor. Aboutmovies had a good Oregon source for Hillsboro data that he used before my "improvements". It didn't have as much detail or fit into a colorful chart, but we can always revert to that if push comes to shove. I'm hoping to find a more general solution because I have used the dot.com source to make charts for at least a half-dozen other cities, and I see that other editors have done the same. Finetooth (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Nyttend, DtBohrer, and Ealdgyth agreed that The Weather Channel would be more reliable. The immediate problem is solved. Fixing all the others (sigh) has been added to the to-do pile massif. Finetooth (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Your source is mistaken and has confused the Northwest Territory's Wayne County (1796) with Ohio's Wayne County. The 1796 Wayne County became part of Indiana Territory, and is now the mother county of Michigan. On the other hand, Wayne County, Ohio was created by the Ohio legislature in 1808, but not organized until 1812. Mind if I fix this?LibertyHiller (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a Toth statue, and this is a good catch on your part. The acknowledgment made it into the main text but not the image license. I've sent a note to Aboutmovies and referred him to your notes on my talk page. I'm slightly vague still about fair use rationales, although I recognized the "no right of panorama" problem instantly once you pointed it out. It's time for me to review Elcobbola's essay about fair use again. Finetooth (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Aboutmovies assures me that the statue itself is in the public domain. To see his reasoning (if you like), you can visit User talk:Aboutmovies#Hillsboro. Finetooth (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I am knew to all of this. I want to update all of the magic bios one by one. Some of the problems is that most pictures from books don't have copyright because they are in multiple sources. How do I obtain the copyrights so I can add pictures?

Mtpascoe (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)]] (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2009 (PST)

I hestitate to ask for yet another favour, but at least this doesn't involve maps, or dodgy American sea-captains, or non-existent islands. A few days ago you peer-reviewed the Agrippina article. Since then I and Shoemaker's Holiday have done some major work on it, not only picking up the PR points but generally developing it towards a possible FAC. Would it be possible for you to take another look? I'm not asking for another detailed review, just a general opinion on how the article stands. There is a bit of a time constraint, because we are looking to it as a possible TFA for 14 April, the 250th anniversary of Handel's demise—but it's got to get featured first, and needs to be at FAC airly soon. Brianboulton (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

All of the pictures I downloaded was taken or created before 1923. Also, I have placed a link from where I got it. I can scan instead pictures and posters from the books where I got my info from and site copyright from the book itself. Whatever you think is best.

Also, is the Kellar info alright? I wrote new material that changed the offending stuff, but noticed that it was taken off. Am I still banded? How do I get off of it because I would love to update the bios on magicians because I think it really needs it. Let me know what I can do to change anything.

Mtpascoe (talk) 07:42, 6 March 2009 (PST)

Just to let you know I have nominated Benjamin Morrell as a FAC. I think the article is ready, though I keep fussing with it. Thanks for your help in getting it here. Brianboulton (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I never answered your question - but yes, I'd love to be pinged on occasion for a peer review. I don't get requests from the volunteer list any more, but then again I did narrow my focus. --Laser brain (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on the PR box for anything in my volunteer area, but you can ping me on the 13th of each month again to take something from the backlog. I can do more in the future, but I'm pretty bogged down right now. Thanks again for everything you do at PR! --Laser brain (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to recent edits on these articles. I have removed both, as neither is sourced, though not necessarily untrue. I have noted in my edit summary that "unsourced additions to the text should first be diacussed on te article's talkpage". I'm afraid that Shackleton and Scott articles are magnets for people who know a bit, and tend to add to the article what they know without considering context or reliablity. I'm sure a lot of it is good faith editing, but it's tiresome all the same. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Rhyolite, Nevada, has gone to FAC. Thanks again for the peer review. I used all of your suggestions save one to improve the article. I have not found a reliable source that identifies the caboose as the same one that used to be a gas station. It seems unlikely that it is a different one, but I dare not guess. Finetooth (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and for catching the access date and the "m". It's surprising that these things slip through even after many passes, but they always do. I have used your locator maps so many times now that I sometimes forget that you did them and that they were not always there like the sun and moon. They are extremely handy. Finetooth (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
March 15, 2009
Time: 3pm
Location: Drexel University

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

In the afternoon, we will hold a session at Drexel dedicated to discussing Wikimedia Pennsylvania activity and cooperation with the regional Wikimedia New York City chapter.

Are events like a Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia in our future?

In the evening, we'll share dinner and friendly wiki-chat at a local Italian restaurant.
This has been an automatic delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

He's at PR, and he's next up on the chopping block at FAC, can you take a quick gander and let me know what needs work? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions on how to improve the Gene Kelly filmography. I have updated it an also added some comments to the Peer review section. Check 'em out when you get a chance. Jimknut (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep Minority Report as a GA, and the GAR requested for copyediting - but didn't give examples to cleanup. Can you give me some input on what to rewrite? igordebraga ≠ 23:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

At least you gave me the input (I went mostly for suggestions, since you do lots of peer reviews). Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 04:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Hope this will finish that reassessment. igordebraga ≠ 23:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

West Pittston is another one that gets lots of vandalism. I've been bit by a flu bug. It's pretty lousy. Have a good one. Dincher (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The Cherry Springs plans sound good. Taking a sick day today. Dincher (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Rostraver Township another often vandalized article. Feeling better today! Dincher (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The pic of Jacks Hollow brings back great memories. I learned how to drive on that road! It looks pretty good to me and it illustrates a hollow in my mind. Dincher (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the shifty captain has made it to FA, one of the less troublesome FACs of my experience. I doubt the same will be true of Agrippina which has just entered the lists, but we shall see. Thank you once again for your mapping work and for your excellent support in general. Brianboulton (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I shortened the name based on this guideline from here "Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (that is: if this format of the name is not the commonly used one to refer to this person) is not advised." I checked if there was another Maurice Goddard and when no other existed, it seemed that the K. was added for decoration, as is very common. If I was incorrect and hasty in moving the article, feel free to revert it back to the more common name.--TM 02:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh my. I really forgot the rules, Ruhrfisch. What was in my mind was archive the other three so that I can request a PR for the newest two. Will not happen again and thanks for allowing the excess to stay in the PR page. --Efe (talk) 07:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that I know nothing about the blocking policy. I was just wondering that since the above user is apparently new, we should cut them some slack. I was trying to generate a dialogue on their userpage about the changes to Joseph Priestley but I fear that the block will alienate them from Wikipedia rather than welcome them. Perhaps you have more knowledge of the situation than I, however. Awadewit (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Stir-fish, how about taking a look at this article on a battle in England's medieval history. It has deaths, glory, and what-nots, thanks to friendly fire. The Kingmaker met his end at the hands of his protege, King Edward here. Your opinions at Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Barnet/archive1 is very much appreciated. Jappalang (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I made some more edits to the Kelly page. I took out almost all of the refs to the IMDb and replaced them with links to a Gene Kelly website. In referencing the Tony Thomas book I used a full reference the first time around (author's full name, full title of book, publisher's name, year of publication, ISBN #, and page number). For the remainder of the references, I put only the author's last name and the page number. This, I believe, is a standard way of citing references and, therefore, doesn't produce a redundancy of information. I can, of course, change this if the wise ones of Wikipedia think I should. Jimknut (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the all the help. I think your suggestion of listing how many films he starred in, directed, and choreographed has its merits, but I've decided to refrain from doing it. I like the list and the intro the way they are right now. Another reviewer has said that the people at the featured article candidate section might want to do away with the green "yes" sections on pages such as the Kelly filmography because viewers who are colorblind might not be able to see it. That's possible, but I guess we won't know until the article is submitted.

Now, then, how do I go about submitting it for "featured list review"? Jimknut (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Autoblock removed, so he should be able to edit now. Regards, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You're invited to sign up as a founding member, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject Historic Sites ! :) doncram (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic Sites is opened up. I took the liberty of assuming your support for the wikiproject meant you wanted to join as a member, and I copied your signature to the Members list on the main page. Please visit and add to, or remove, your listing there. It would be great to hear about what you're interested in the Wikiproject becoming, in your member comment and/or at the Talk page, shortcut wt:HSITES. Thanks for your support! doncram (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

When you have a chance, could you check File:TheAkronGoodyerAirdock.jpg on the Commons? It is currently listed as a PD image as a work of the US Federal Government. I changed it to missing license because there is no evidence that it comes from the US government based on the source ("Scanning from goodyear museum library") but I may be wrong. The user changed it back to PD-USGov anonymously as they have been blocked on the Commons. Thanks for your help! --JonRidinger (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --JonRidinger (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am wondering if you could review this for me. I saw your name on Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers#Geography. If you are not interested, please reply me anyway so that I know you are uninterested. Thanks in advance for all your help and time for reading this.—Chris! _ct 00:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the latest help with the images in the Bates method article. It does look much better. I am feeling really good now about getting the article's status promoted, but with the lingering disputes it may still take a while. What are your thoughts on labeling it as pseudoscience per the infobox? See Talk:Bates_method#Infobox_Pseudoscience and the section below it. My impression is that this is the clear mainstream view of it (regardless of my personal feelings) whether or not we have a valid source referring to it by that exact terminology, and as such the label is appropriate and probably required. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A week or so ago you drew my attention to some vandalistic editing on Ernest Shackleton. The situation on the Scott article is much worse. It is subject to daily attacks - 22 this month so far - all from IPs. Not all the vandalism is reverted immediately; I removed some rubbish today that had been on the page for several hours before I noticed it. This is quite a popular article generally, so several hundred readers may have seen the article in its corrupted form.

The number of constructive edits to the article from IPs is very small, two or three a year perhaps. The nature of the vandalism suggests it is mainly the work of silly children with nothing better to do; why Scott and Shackleton should be such regular targets I don't know. Can I request a semi-protection on the Scott article, for say three months? That should drive the vandals away, probably to Shackleton, but if so, that can be protected likewise. I am not as a rule in favour of editorial censorship, but you will see from the edit history of the Scott article that the problem as been with us a while now, and is clearly not going to go away of its own accord. I hope you don't mind my asking. Brianboulton (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Was posted to you user page. Wasn't sure if you had seen it, but if you did, I just saved you some work :-). --​​​​D.B.^{talk•contribs} 04:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I posted to the wrong place. Meanwhile the vandalism problem on the Scott article continues - six more hits since my original requests. Some is sly vandalism, like altering a key date which not everyone would immediately know was wrong, but mostly it's infantile stuff. Brianboulton (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the action. I'll keep a close eye on Shackleton! Brianboulton (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I recently archived the discussions for the article Vanilla Ice, but I mistakenly created the first archive as "Archive02". The current version of the second archive page is a redirect to Archive01. Could you delete the mistakenly-created redirect? Thank you very much for taking the time to look into this. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

	<font=3> Thank you so much for your help with Rhyolite, Nevada, which made featured article today. Finetooth (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the new canal map. It's a good deal better than my earlier versions. I already have a list of a half-dozen changes I need to make to it, and looking at the canal articles afresh makes me want to make all sorts of other additions and changes to the prose. I'd be happy to look at the Cherry Springs State Park article later this evening. Finetooth (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I meant "map" but wrote "article". The map looks fine to me. Everything is clear, and it's not crowded. I don't think arrows would be better. I have still not tried making those nice scales you always add to your maps. Or picnic tables, for that matter. I hope you noticed that I used your Pennsylvania locator map for my canal base map. I've used your maps for articles about places in Oregon, Idaho, Washington, Nevada, and, most recently, California, for Amargosa River, and Utah, for Provo River. Maybe I can find a way to use the complete set eventually. I'd be happy to do a close reading of the Cherry Springs State Park article when it's ready. Finetooth (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I had not thought of counting the pixels. That should do it. Thanks. I realized today that the Pennsylvania canals would make more sense in the context of a larger region. If I ever run out of other things to do, I might be able to make canal maps for Ohio, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland. By the way, if you notice anything odd, missing, or incorrect on the Pennsylvania map, please let me know. I'm already planning to add arrows showing the location of the Bald Eagle Cut and the Conewago Canal, and I might be able to find room to squeeze in the Pennsylvania and Ohio Canal. Also, Bellefonte needs to be snugged up against its canal. I'm thinking of acquiring some more canal books because some of the articles seem so stub-like as I look them over again. Finetooth (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello! I am sorry about creating multiple peer review requests, I was not aware the first one went through. Could you please tell me how to go about fixing the peer review as you requested so that my article can be considered? Thanks! amahajan17 (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all your help! amahajan17 (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Ruhrfisch. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

—Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support in getting it there. For me, I'm afraid, it's goodbye for the moment to the world of theatre, and back to the men with beards, frozen fingers and doomed dogs (don't tell Ealdgyth). The next instalment from the icy south will be arriving shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This article shouldn't be at PR; it has two major banners referring to its lack of citations (30 in an article 7000+ words long, whole sections uncited). I have asked the nominator to withdraw and resubmit when the citation problem as been addressed. As he has not responded, should the article be archived? I don't think it should take up reviewers' time in its present form.Brianboulton (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'll do my best. Regards, Jd027 (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I'd drop by and say hello. Hope all is well. I was just about the last couple days doing some work here and there. --IvoShandor (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's Maralia's fault. Blame her. I'm working on Rosewood massacre, thinking it might be FA once I get my sources in a row. I'm turrible interested in a map that shows the relation of Rosewood to the also-mentioned towns of Cedar Key, Sumner, Gainesville, Chiefland, and Bronson - and their relative positions in the state. Maralia said you make maps for the needy. Of course, I can try, which will benefit everyone because my first attempts will be hilarious and they will entertain everyone... However, for the sake of accuracy, I wanted to ask you first. If you're busy, it's cool. The article won't be ready for some weeks anyway. Let me know though. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

HI- You've been a great help to me in Wikipedia work done earlier this year. I'm writing to ask your help in how to properly handle new references at USS Mizpah, where I've been struggling to incorporate newly-discovered information about the ship's wreckage. Any assistance (direct editing or suggestions) much appreciated. Thanks!! Etnier (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! At the end of "Final Years" there are two hyperlinks. They also appear as last two items in the reference section. Perhaps I put them in OK, but it doesn't seem right to me. Seems like the hyperlinks at the end of "Final Years" should just be numbers pointing to the References section? ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etnier (talk • contribs) 16:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ruhr, was good to hear from you. :-) Keep up the awesome work.

Anyway, I have a good DYK article, but don't really want to do a self-nom, for various reasons. But thought you might like to suggest it. See White House Christmas tree. There's probably quite a bit to chose a hook from but I would be happy to make some suggestions if you feel like nominating it for DYK. If not, no big deal. --IvoShandor (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a pretty good hook to me. The only downside is, that section isn't really complete, there are significant gaps, meaning that the fact that there was no White House Christmas tree has been more common in history than the article would lead one to believe, currently. Part of the problem is the sources necessary to verify other years are behind pay-walls. At least online, anyway. I'm not saying don't use it though. Let me think for a minute, I'll see if I can present some alternates.--IvoShandor (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

ALT1:...that there is no evidence that Abraham Lincoln ever displayed a White House Christmas tree?

ALT2:... that in 1929 Lou Hoover began the tradition of the First Lady of the United States decorating the White House Christmas tree?

Another could be about Jackie Kennedy beginning the tradition of a themed tree. I just didn't want to write it out. :-)--IvoShandor (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I liked the Lincoln one too, I mean, who doesn't like Lincoln? Pfft . . . only socialist neo-hip liberal hippies I guess. But I figured, Lincoln would get a lot of clicks, but you make a good point about Kennedy, I hadn't added that photo yet when I proposed the alternates. You still leaning Lincoln? I don't care either way but an illustrated hook is nice, especially with a photograph so perfectly suited for it.--IvoShandor (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Roger that. Ivo, out.--IvoShandor (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ruhr! Hope your April Fools one gets in, what is it? Also, I found some pretty great photos for that tree article, there a 1962 image of the Kennedy's in the commons category, and some good shots of the tree through the years, a lot of those are, frustratingly, of lower-resolution. But I found some pretty great free images of other presidential stuff out there, they're just floating around in many of the presidential library collections, many are online, just FYI.--IvoShandor (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not put this on the backlog, because it has some comment. However, it definitely needs more. If when the backlog is down a bit you could look at it, I'd much appreciate it. I'm asking the same of Finetooth, whose excellent map graces the article. Brianboulton (talk) 08:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)