This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ruhrfisch. 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.
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 usually have the time to do copyedits (sorry). Thanks for stopping by and happy editing! Ruhrfisch><>°°03:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Saw the composite image on my talk page—it looks fantastic! Wasn't sure whether it was ready to go on the article page but went ahead and placed it there anyway. If it's not ready, go ahead and remove it. Thanks again. You really do excellent work. Jonyungk (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Talk about going the extra mile ... Thanks so much for doing the image search on Tchaikovsky and the Five. This was something I did not expect at all. As I'm practically helpless when it comes to searching for information on images, I am really grateful for what you have done. Jonyungk (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the pictured. I hope the picture is included, but there's some other nominated pictures that are good too. Dincher (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
LH log raft
Thanks a lot for responding to Julian and Jappalang, preparing and uploading the new image, and writing the fair-use rationale. I was away from my computer most of the day. I hope we are nearing the end of the FAC. Finetooth (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
It's the Jay Street Bridge. The original bridge at this site was a covered bridge, 800 feet long. The Wagner book, which is full of photos, includes a photo of the covered bridge. Most impressive. The photo (and most of the others in the book) were taken by John W.C. Floyd, who worked as a photographer in Lock Haven between 1882 and 1898. There's a photo by Floyd of log rafts as seen from this bridge. I tried unsuccessfully to make a scan of this raft picture that looked halfway decent. Your Pine Creek raft image was much better, and your replacement image is also better. I'm not sure when the covered bridge was replaced by a steel bridge, but I'll keep looking. I added the name of the bridge to the caption and tweaked the alt text just slightly. Finetooth (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Here it is. The Miller book says, "An iron bridge crosses the river at Jay St. in Lock Haven, near the site of the old wooden covered bridge, which was one of the longest on the West Branch until it was destroyed by fire, under circumstances suggesting arson, in 1919." I wonder if the log raft depicted in the replacement image was ceremonial rather than "real". Finetooth (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I wondered about the Last Raft possibility too. Here are more photos of the Last Raft. I'm not sure the raft under the Jay Street Bridge has a little cabin on it like the Last Raft. On the other hand, it looks like a lot of people are standing on the Jay Street Bridge looking at the raft. That many people on the raft and that many people watching from the bridge would not be business-as-usual rafting from the old days. Finetooth (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Just got back after being away from the Internet all afternoon and early evening. I saw your woo hoo and knew instantly what that must mean. I'm going to prepare a fancy thank-you to send to all of the PR reviewers, but I want to say thanks especially to you for the photos, the Big Runaway map, and all of your other hard work and support during the process. Finetooth (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd love to think the LH article could serve as a model for small cities. Is it OK if I add Ruhrfisch to the thank-you to make it a co-thank-you like the ones you and Dincher have used? Finetooth (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
<outdent>An excellent suggestion. I've now sent thank-yous featuring your courthouse and carillon images to Mitch32 (image and support), Brianboulton (PR and support), Niagara (PR and edits), Dincher (PR, edits, and support), Juliancolton (image review), an odd name (technical review), Parrot of Doom (FAC review), RB88 (source review), Jappalang (image review), doncram (PR), and Ealdgyth (advice on sources). Can you think of anyone I might have missed? You don't send these to Sandy, do you? I'd feel a little strange about sending her this particular kind of thing, and of course the promotion would not be news to her. Finetooth (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Opinion
I wonder if I might get your opinion on whether a section in PRR GG1 (which I was going to expand for a GA) can be salvaged or should just be removed. I'm concerned with the "In the movies" section. I think a general pop culture good be created, but I feel it might end up being original research. By the way I just noticed the Ricketts Glen waterfall list had made DYK, congrats belatedly! NiagaraDon't give up the ship18:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I left a note with a Choess. No worry about being slow to respond, I really wasn't around between being out, clearing lake-effect from the driveway, and preparing article on Pennsylvania's state electric locomotive. I did happen to watch one of the movies in the list the other night, The Manchurian Candidate, and played "spot the GG1" ;-) NiagaraDon't give up the ship05:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Happy New Year to you, too !
Fisch, thank you so much for the seasons greetings; I was traveling, so I'm just now returning with wishes for a happy and healthful New Year and decade. And thanks to you trio of PR-folk for making my task at FAC lighter; you're all the best! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Well done again
I'm glad (but not surprised) that Lock Haven made it; I always look forward to those articles, congratulations to you both. If you have a moment, perhaps you could help ginger up Peter Heywood's FAC, which seems to have hibernated after very brief attention. It's not really in trouble, just needs to keep going. Brianboulton (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks like I found another map that's not co-ordinated. I've been struggling with Antelope Island State Park on User:Dincher/Pet. Then I remembered the problem I had with Vermont. Could you check and see if Utah's locator map template is set up? If not I could try to co-ordinate it, unless you want to. No hurry. I just can't do it right now. Dincher (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I was having problems with GNIS too, I was using the coordinates for Syracuse, Utah as a test. Thanks for calibrating it. I tried, but didn't get it done. As for the falls, I think that moving the details around as you suggest sounds like a pretty good idea. I am looking forward to working on Antelope Island State Park. It sounds like a neat place to visit. Dincher (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I found some really nice pics on flickr. They're on the commons, Category:Antelope Island State Park. Which one do you think is best to nominate on the main page. It's too hard for me to decide. Dincher (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The pic with the sunflower is the one I had in mind at first, then I thought, "it is Antelope Island." But I do think the sunflower pic is better. Still not sure. Dincher (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I saw that map and automatically assumed that it was a copyright vio. Like somebody swiped it from National Geographic. I didn't even take the time to look at the words at the bottom of the page. It really is very good and I have added it to the article on my user space. I understand alt. text now. The title is confusing. Descriptive text or very descriptive text would be better. I thought that alt. text was some technical detail like a convert template.--Dincher (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the map coordinates for the Utah locator map are off. The dot currently puts the park about too far north in the lake. It should be at the southern end of the lake. I have checked the coordinates in the infobox agains the info at GNIS and it looks like I have them correct. Could you double check this for me? (No hurry) Dincher (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
This Antelope Island State Park project of mine is starting to rival the waterfalls project in size and amount of work done. There is just so much information to read, digest and write about. There could be an article on the herd of bison alone. Do you anticpate sending the Watefalls to FAC soon? Dincher (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi I guess you deleted this article on IDiscoveri Education. I agree that the content on it is against WIkipedia's Rules G11 and G12. But the user who created the page had verbal confirmation from the external site owner and the article was written to spread word about IDiscoveri in an encyclopedic sense rather than in a promotional sense. If you could bring that article into live space I shall re-work on it and bring in a neutral point of view. I could as well start a new article but I hope to keep in touch with you so as to bring a neutral view article on this company's work. Look forward to hear from you. WithdrawnVTJS (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Reply:
Thanks. I verified WP:NN and I guess the rewritten article would meet the notability requirements. If i were to obtain written permission for the content to avoid copyright infringement, should i post it to commons or if i send the details to you or any other wikipedia administrators would that be enough? I shall actually re-write about the company and its work in my own words but the details about their work are really best captured in their own words. Advise. Once again thanks a lot. WithdrawnVTJS (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Level 2:
Hey thanks for that edit. As I am not familiar with wikitext i didnt know that, that kinda syntax can be used. Will try and use it wherever necessary. Now I request you to explain to me at ur own convenience what is the true difference between footnotes and references. And in many wikipages be it references or footnotes are displayed in very small font which makes it look kinda cute. how to do that?? And I know its a pretty long article (for a guy like me it is), so if u can review it then it would be wonderful. If you think the references are good and the tags for cleanup can be removed then I'd really appreciate it. Thanks a lot mate. Really. :) WithdrawnVTJS (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for your valuable feedback. Guess I am a bad writer. I sincerely appreciate your patience and time and I am working on it to be rewritten as per your advice. Failed to see your feedback before shifting the draft into article space, but anyways will do the needful. WithdrawnVTJS (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
REQUEST:
I am really embarrassed to miss out on the neutrality point of view in such a big way. Is it possible to move the article back into my draft space again so that I dont have to worry much about it getting deleted till I dont write a good article? WithdrawnVTJS (talk) 04:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I like the explanations of the glens and the images that you've added. I think a map is a good idea, but I don't know how workable it is. It seems like a map of all the falls would have to be quite large to be readable. I think it's worth trying. Can't hurt to try. Maybe three maps, one for each glen? Dincher (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The base map looks pretty good. I am looking forward to seeing it's completion. Thanks for the DYK medal! I like the fact that you've added the dried up lakes and of course Route 118. Dincher (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I definetly like this best. Do you think that the names of the falls could be links to a photo of the waterfall in question? Dincher (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Another thought. Why not include the other park details on this map as well, picnic ares, park office, beach (if there is one) as well?--Dincher (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
It can't hurt to transfer both maps. I understand about the park map. Another idea. Is it possible to make the map so that a thumbnail of the fall will show when you hover over the link? For example if you hover over "Dincher" a little box that says User:Dincher appears on the screen. Dincher (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter to me what color the park is, but others may want the colors to be consistent across the parks. Dincher (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
My first guess was correct. And no I don't think anybody will notice that the map at PISP was updated. I don't think anybody noticed the addition of 120 pics to the List of Pennsylvania state parks. Dincher (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, my ears are burning (although that might have to do with just finishing with shoveling the driveway) ;-) The ivory-colored map is nice, the new color makes it more consistent with other maps (like the locator maps) that use a lighter color for the highlighted area. NiagaraDon't give up the ship19:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
There was a two hour delay today in NC for forecasted snow that didn't happen. Thought that might get a chuckle. I am glad the pics list got noticed and Niagra was paying attention. I think that the white Pennsylvania map in the municipality infoboxes should be replaced by an ivory box. That would be a pretty big project to undertake and one I couldn't do. I can never find ivory on windows paint and sure don't know how else to do it. Dincher (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I will see what I can do with the eye dropper. I never knew what that tool was for. Glad we're ready for PR. I will look at that next. Dincher (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I noticed quiet some time ago that it was looking more like an article than a list. I think it may get by as FAC, we may need to change the title to Named waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park.
I am finding tons of information on Antelope Island State Park. I am sure it could be FA if I want to put forth the effort. Dincher (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I think a Lakes of Ricketts Glen article would be best since we aren't individualizing the waterfalls, I don't think that the lakes should get seperate articles either. There's been some discussion at Hanging Rock State Park about whether or not a falls should have it's own article or not. I think I will go for FA on Antelope Island. It's going to take some time to get it to the main space let alone FAC, I'll keep you posted. I know I'll need help with "alt text" I don't even know or understand what "alt text" is. Dincher (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I tried writing an alt text for the picture of Waters Meet. What do you think? I wasn't aware of the alt. text tool either. How does is work? Dincher (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I did two more alt. texts, one for the bridge in the section before the overview section and one for Kitchen Creek in the Overview section. Do they look good? I am going to wait for feedback before proceding with anymore alt texts. Dincher (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I did all of Ganoga Glen except for the wide image at the bottom. It looks to me like there is some sort of overlook about halfway up the stairs on the right, but since it's been years and years since I was actually there I am going to leave the alt. text for this one for you. I am taking an alt. text break for now. Might do more later tonight, will do more tomorrow, unless you get to them first. Dincher (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Doing these alt texts and describing the falls has pointed out a source of trouble for me. It's really hard to judge the scale of some of the falls. What do you think? Dincher (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I will change hemlocks to conifers. That seems better than evergreens. I have a huge magnolia in my yard that's evergreen, but not conifer. Dincher (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I am glad that the consensus was for moving it and that it's been moved. I think it will be ready for FAC soon. Do you have online resources for the redlinks? Dincher (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
wAIT and see is right. This one might not be as easy as the others. I hope that nobody has a problem with it being a listy article or and articlely list. Two hour delay today. Dincher (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the extreme delay but I finally got around to doing it. You can crop this version if you'd like to fit the new one you've uploaded. Thank you for the Merry Christmas; I appreciate it! May your 2010 be filled with the best of luck! -- penubag (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you very much for your peer review comments for "Like a Rolling Stone." Very appreciated. As you suggested, I hope to find time to do my own part and peer review an article on the list in the near future. Moisejp (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Sigh I don't know how much more I can take, but here we go again. There's been a discussion about the Meth Capital of Ohio section on the Akron, Ohio article because most of the sourced info and the text itself deals with the county rather than the city (including the very title of the section). So far I've held off moving it, but that same editor is the lone opposer of such a move. He recently moved the article Crime in Akron, Ohio to Crime history of the city of Akron. I moved it back citing basic naming conventions and lack of discussion only to have it moved back to the "new" title sans discussion beyond comments in the move summary. Would appreciate any help/insight/assistance in the matter. I'm tired of edit wars period, but especially these. It seems the move was made to eliminate Crime in Akron, Ohio so the Crime section in the Akron article could be expanded/or so the large amount of info there could be easier to justify (I had stated in the article talk page and a recent edit summary that the Crime section shouldn't be expanded anymore since a Crime in Akron, Ohio article existed. But this is a pretty normal chain of events. Mostly User: Beirne and I will take the time to carefully explain our edits and thoughts on the talk page and maybe eventually Threeblur will join the conversation; some quicker than others, some never at all beyond edit summary comments (which sometimes are personally directed at myself or Beirne like here and here, not to mention the discussion that followed on his talk page, which he subsequently erased). Most of my comments at Talk:Akron, Ohio#Meth Capital of Ohio were made in response to edits I made to Threeblur's changes. Thanks as always! --JonRidinger (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thanks for all your help. Yes, I hesitate to say go because his edits aren't vandalism, but it seems the vast majority are undo's or are just poor choices in grammar, matching info with sources, including any sources period, or just trivia. I made a remark today how I edit tons of pages (over 700 in my watchlist) yet the Akron article seems to be taking all of my time as it's one thing after another. Letting it go for awhile just allowed cruft to pile up. It was one thing when he was a new editor a year ago, but what's the excuse now? Anything I can do in writing such a thing up? User:Beirne would also have much to say I'm sure. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, I was writing a reply at the same time. Threeblur0 writes lots of content, which should be commendable, but much of it is incorrect or not up to Wikipedia standards. He talks more on the discussion page than he used to but conversations do not go long without threeblur0 making personal attacks against me or Jon. And that is on top of snide references to the last editor by name in the edit comments, which do not afford a place to reply. We need to do something different. I'm up for any new ideas. --Beirne (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
BTW, I looked at the WP:AN/I page and the category that best describes the current situation is "To report impolite or uncivil communications with other editors, see wikiquette alerts". There has been no end of impolite and uncivil communications from threeblur0. --Beirne (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Changed my mind. All out go for it. Now he's making edits to the Kent, Ohio article which only occurs when he has disagreements with me, since Kent is an article I edit a lot and am connected to. His edits are never constructive there; always disruptive. And I seem to recall in his agreement with User:Versageek that he pledged to not get into edit wars. He's done that quite a bit on the Akron article just these past few days and now seems to be starting one at the Kent article. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
R, thanks for your very helpful peer review of this article. I've finally responded, even though it was after it closed. There are some issues that I feel still need to be discussed, so please do so on the article's talk page, if you feel so moved. --Christine (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Belated thanks for the New Years Greeting, and 2 1/2 bridge photos
File:Black Rock Bridge.JPG has now been added in the List of NRHP Bridges in Pennsylvania (and in Eastern Chester and Montgomery County lists), but on the way there I crossed a covered bridge in Valley Forge National Historical Park which is probably in Montgomery County, maybe crossing over into Chester - see File:Valley Forge Bridge.JPG and File:Valley Forge Bridge 2.JPG. I was very surprised to see a covered bridge in Valley Forge that's NOT on the NRHP. Perhaps it is a contributing structure, which perhaps means it should be on a list or 3. Any help would be appreciated.
BTW - Russian Old New Year is next week (Julian calender) - maybe I'll motivate myself to send greetings for the Old New Year! Smallbones (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, I got your message and found similar info at http://www.tredyffrin.org/pdf/harb/sitesurvey.pdf at the same time. Apparently it's all in Tredyffrin Township, Chester County. So the question is whether to add it (or other Contributing structures in general) to the Eastern Chester County NRHP list and/or Bridges of Pennsylvania List. Is there an official keeper of the Wiki NRHP lists? but first to sleep... Thanks, Smallbones (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Now that I have your attention (and how often do I get the chance to invoke the title of an old exploitation picture like "Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia"?)... :) Thanks for your comments on the R-K article, which are very helpful. You wondered if a crop of R-K's head from one of the color portraits might not be a better lead image. It might be; what is there now looks like something you might find on an old box of cough drops. Since you already cropped the Repin head for Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle, how do you think that would look? Jonyungk (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Borodin wrote a ton of sketches for the opera Salome, but R-K ended up orchestrating it, and Glazunov filled in the missing parts. :) Thanks in advance for the head cropping—I really appreciate it. Jonyungk (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Not bad. I'm more partial to Serov but am having problems with copyright info over the portrait since all the information is in German and the folks in PR wantr it translated into English. Let me think on wht I might do. Thanks again. Jonyungk (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Bridge between East Manchester and Newberry Townships
Could you supply for me the "location" field and the UTM coords for the Bridge between East Manchester and Newberry Townships? I was going to add it to the York County list per your comment at WT:NRHP, but I'd really like to have more information than the Elkman generator gives before I add it, and at the moment I can't find it in the CRGIS. Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks; I just found it, however; the "location" bit that I wanted is found at the top of page 3, in the "Bridge name and address" field: "L.R. 250 over Conewago Creek". What I meant was "data that would go in the 'location' field in our table". Nyttend (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's there. I'm trying to download it, but the link won't bring up the PDF; however, I can try again if I think of it. Please remind me tomorrow if you think of it and I don't; I have to make a trip to Beaver County and back home again today, and the snow means that I might not be back until late. Nyttend (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the photos appear to be by an English-speaking individual; all captions are in English. Would you like me to import the page to your userspace? I'd import it into mainspace, but I have no knowledge of German. Nyttend (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so I just remembered that you can do anything I can do :-) Unlike Acroterion, I've never imported anything before, so this was really a "please let me do it so I can find out what it's like" request. Page is at User:Ruhrfisch/Penn's Cave. Nyttend (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Greetings. I see your name on the upload history of the subject, so maybe you can help or point me in the right direction. When used in NRHP infoboxes, (Template:Location map USA Louisiana) the map's base is off. I noticed it after creating New Canal Light, because the light is on the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain and the dot is placed on the north side. Other New Orleans sites end up in middle of the lake.
It's not a simple error -- I tested the NW corner of the state which Geolocator puts at 33.0192N,94.0430W, and the template puts the dot about 0.19 degree too far east. However the end of the E/W line that extends into Mississippi, which should be at 31.0017N 89.7282W, is placed about the same distance north of the correct location. The SW corner, at Sabine Pass, should be at 29.6910N, 93.8383W, but the dot is placed both north and east of the correct location. So, it looks to my admittedly naive eyes as a rotation and scale problem. Thanks . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC) (If you chose to reply, I'd just as soon have it here, thanks.)
You ought to try Firefox -- I'll never go back. The installation is easy and having multiple tabs makes going back and forth between sources and articles much easier, and, of course, there are the mysterious IE glitches which Firefox seems to avoid.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Millennium Park
I see we are going to need three more after this by March 2011 to keep this as an FT if this passes. As always, my research could be improved with your copyediting. If you get a chance try to take a stab at McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink. Then, we will need one more plus the main article, which would be easiest to work on after improving the supporting articles. For the one more I guess Harris Theater (Chicago) might be expandable. Lurie Garden might be interesting. Give me a thought on which other one you think has a shot.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Where there are an abundance of images I always think creating a montage gives a more balanced view and is much more informative than a single image. The quality looks better too...Dr. BlofeldWhite cat12:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Ernest Shackleton has been edited 34 times since the start of the year. Every one of these is either vandalism or a revert. This is continuing, at a heightened level, the pattern that prevailed throughout last year. Is it possible to give the article temporary protection, as I want to spend a bit of time on article maintainance and improvement which is hard to do when the text is constantly being disrupted. Brianboulton (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Marienlyst Castle
I've been working on an article Marienlyst Castle. It was recently changed to Marienlyst Palace but a palace is a property of the sovereign only and since Marienlyst is not owned by the Queen or the State it can not be called a palace. Could you please change it back to Marienlyst Castle. Sincerily (Ice Explorer (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC))
Pritzker Pavilion FAC
Thanks for driving. My WP time is limited these days due to my budding professional poker career. It does not take much time to bust out of a tournament, but when I get hot, it means I play deep in to tournaments and it eats into my WP time. I current continue to be hot. It looks like it is going well. Hopefully Dr. B will support soon. I don't know where Torsodog is on this one, but expected some commentary or support. I think we are in good shape on this one. We will need three more soon though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for moving Marienlist Castle back, sorry about all this. I had put a lot of research into it, but sadly anyone can just change it without regard at all. I have moved the article from my Sandbox. It's not complete but I would appreciate it greatly if you could give it a quality scale rating. Sincerily, (Ice Explorer (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC))
Signature Problem
thnx a lot about it. i didnt know this at all. thnx for lettin me noe.
oh btw can ya tell me how got dat small li'l fish in yur signature????
oh dats great...u've just used html coding for your signature.....dats really awesum...13:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinmay26r (talk • contribs)
Bedford County?
Do you have any experience with Bedford County or any sources that might help me? I've created Bedford Village Archeological Site and nominated it for DYK, but (in the odd chance you have experience with the other side of the state) I'd welcome improvements. Nyttend (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. I was told in peer review that there are three images with questionable licensing—File:Rimsky-Korsakov 1866.jpg, File:Nadezhda Purgold.jpg and File:Stpeteconservatory.jpg. The last is reportedly from a postcard printed in 1913. I have contacted the uploader of the first two images; the uploader of the third is no longer with English Wikipedia. So far, I have had no response. How would I go about tracking down these images down to prove PD? Thanks in advance for your help. Jonyungk (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll keep looking too, but the only book I have on-hand is My Musical Life. Here's a question for you, one that I just posted to the PR page: Is File:Franz Xaver Winterhalter Portrait of Madame Barbe de Rimsky-Korsakov.jpg a portrait of the composer's wife, as is claimed in a couple of websites? It's a wonderful portrait, but two things about it bother me. First, the portrait was painted in 1864, and Nadezhda Purgold did not become Madame Rimsky-Korsakov until 1872. Second, since Nadezhda Purgold was born in 1848, this must have been one very attractive 14-year-old sitting for the portrait. In short, as much as I'm tempted to replace File:Nadezhda Purgold.jpg with this one, the dates just don't add up. If I am wrong and this is actually Nadezhda Purgold in the portrait, I'll make the switch. Second opinions, please. Jonyungk (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the photo of Nadezhda Purgold is a safer bet; the problem is establishing fair use, since the date and author are not given in the file info. Jonyungk (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Thankis for bringing up File:Leonard Harrison2.jpg. There was a source for the Nadezhda Purgold photo, so I used that and the non-free rationale from Harrisin to create a similar rationale for Purgold, then changed the licensing accordingly. I think that might work. Jonyungk (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Than again, I may have messed things up. Could you please double-check what I did and let me know what I may have done wrong? Evidently, I put the wrong tag on the photo. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing thigs up. One of these days, maybe I'll actually know what I'm doing. :) As much as I can go for period charm, let's stick to the color photo of the Conservatory. It is a nice shot, and less work for you to look up. Jonyungk (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
BTW, I found this picture of the composer's brother, File:Voin Rimsky-Korsakov.jpg, who inspired R-K to join the navy in the firt place. Which do you like better—this or File:Rimsky-Korsakov 1866.jpg? Some problems with Voin are that, despite what the fine info says, I don't think this was published before 1923, and the website from which it was taken apparently no longer posts it. I'm looking in Google Books on Russian explorer to find something, but so far no luck. Jonyungk (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Let's go with the new image since it has the best source. BTW, great website you found. I'll have to go back and read more when I have more time. :) Jonyungk (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ruhrfisch. I'm a french user trying to create stub for national parks. I've seen on few ones like Leonard Harrison State Park or Black Moshannon State Park that the IUCN category is « III (Natural monument) » in the infobox. According to PAD-US it's category « V (Protected Landscape/Seascape) ». I don't know if it's a mistake or that the references aren't agree, but can you give me your advise on such thing ? (Sorry for my english) Like tears in rain (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Here's a question for you. When Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky was in FAC last year, there were three images, among others, that could not be used because they could not be proved to be PD. Would they qualitfy for use in the article as non-free historic images? I suspect they might but wanted to get your opinion. The two images in question are
I uploaded two of these images back in 2007 and did not know what I was doing; the third was taken from Commons. If they would qualify, I could write up rationales for using these images without a problem. Also, since File:Tchaikovsky with wife Antonina Miliukova.jpg: was originally taken from Commons, would it have to be re-uploaded to Wikipedia since their use as non-free historic images would be covered only under US copyright law? Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly on this. After posting the above, I thought I might be pushing things a bit with the Cambridge photo, but I think the other two could be justified under fair use, especially after reading WP:NFCC. (I had argued for PD:OLD last year in FAC but was told that their qualifying under that rationale was iffy at best.) I asked Jappalang about the uploading issue, so we'll see what he says about that. Thanks again. Jonyungk (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
This seems to be an uphill battle. Jappalang has said that for the photos to qualify as fair use, there has to be properly sourced commentary that points out how the relationship between the people in the photographs is shown. I have been through three biographies and so far found no such commentary; other than a fourth biography at my local library, I don't know where else to look, or whether such commentary exists after all. With restrictions this stringent, it's a wonder that any images are allowed to be used. If you have a suggestion on how these images can be kept, I'm open to suggestions. I've also asked Jappalang but am not keeping my fingers crossed there. Jonyungk (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. All four of the biographies I looked through have the photos, but none of them discuss the photos (the closest I came was Tchaikovsky's wife commenting on the honeymoon photo in one biography, but nothing like what Jappalang was looking for). Also, a more recent biography (Holden) now has the honeymoon photo copyrighted under Novosti Press Agency, so contacting Warrack (if he's still alive) may not do any good. Unless Jappalang suggests another way, I'll probably pull the photos in the next couple of days. At least we tried, right? Jonyungk (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Good suggestion on PD-OLD for the honeymoon photo, but I alredy tried that with Jappalang back at FAC. (Just to make sure, I re-read his image salvation report on the Tchaikovsky article's talk page.) He said that the problem was not so much the death-plus-70-years part (which was iffy, he said) but proving the photo was first published before 1923. The bad part is, I suspect the photo of Nadezhda Purgold will also get shot down when R-K gets to FAC, as I don't think we can prove fair use to Jappalang's satisfaction. Jonyungk (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
(out)Thanks for checking out Life & Letters. Saw nothing on Google Books in Evans or Lee. I suspect the photos were not published until Warrack's biography, which would bring them under copyright. I'm surprised, though, that no one has written about them—you would think someone would have. Jonyungk (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Jappalang just sent me the following. What do you think? "There is the commons:Template:Anonymous-EU for European images that verifiably (as far as any sources that published it) has no authorship claims; the terms are 70 years since publication. Inevitably this means that the sources (over the years) that published it must have never credited the photo to its author, or explicitly state that it has no known copyright owner. For Bob and Piotr's photo, try investigating its French photographer Von Brosch in libraries (I could not find any useful information on the web). On fair use grounds to use these photos, I am a bit on the stricter side (the "contextual significance" criterion can be subjective). I am sorry I cannot be of greater help but my work calls for my attention for this period, reducing the time I can spend on this project." Jonyungk (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. First and foremost, many thanks indeed for volunteering to help out with the educational assignment Magical Realism Reconsidered. As always with such projects, it is of course the responsibility of the students to take the lead in editing the chosen articles, and above all to do the research and contribute reliable sources. But any help, however small, that established Wikipedians can provide, perhaps above all in guiding new users unfamiliar with the technicalities and protocols of the encyclopedia, as well (at a later stage) with copy-editing suggestions and the MOS, is very much appreciated. Please, however, feel no compunction to go above and beyond what I know is your usual generosity on the site. The project's success or failure must depend in the last analysis on the effort that the students put in. But I know that they will be extremely grateful for anything you are able to do, and indeed it is ideally part of the project that they also learn to work with people such as yourself: they are contributing to a public site, and their ability to negotiate with other editors and deal with feedback is an integral part of the exercise.
My only suggestion is that, in line with the discussion here, you might want to indicate on the project page an article or articles that you are particularly interested in watching and helping with. Again, you should not feel you have to do this; we are pleased for you to aid the project in any way that you see fit. But it does help if a particular group working on a specific article feel that they have an experienced editor or two to whom they can turn in the first instance.
<font=3>Thank you for your participation at Sacrifice's FAC. With your support, the article has made it as a featured article! Enjoy James's (the God of Earth) offering as he launches this cow into the earth too many times with multiple castings of Bovine Intervention! Jappalang (talk) 03:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
No, Ganoga is all yours. Thanks for the compliment on Antelope Island State Park. I never imagined I'd be working on it for as long as I have. I have an extensive article about Big Horn Sheep on the island to work through. I still haven't found much on the namesake Antelope. There's tons of information on the Bison, then you have the whole Mormon history. Lots and lots of stuff. Dincher (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I have a problem which may need admin assistance. For some unexplained reason the "Page size" tool has disappeared from my left-hand toolbox. It reappears as a deadlink when I am in edit mode, like now, but otherwise it has vanished. Can you advise me how to get it back? I find it a pretty essential tool. Sorry to trouble you. Brianboulton (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. If you have a chance, take another look at the FAC page; I added some well-deserved thanks. Apologies for not getting it there sooner. Jonyungk (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
You really did a lot of work on this article and I greatly appreciate it. Don't know whether you got the message above but if you have the chance, check out the FAC page once again. I should have added the special thanks sooner. Jonyungk (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks—we might end up using the caricature after all, but I'll wait and see what happens on FAC first. BTW, commons:Template:Anonymous-EU won't work for the Tchaikovsky images after all because the wording is 70 years after first publication, and the earliest I have seen those two images published has been the Warrack biography, which came out around 1969. So I pulled the two photos from the Tchaikovsky article, and we'll see what happens with R-K. Jonyungk (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I've wondered the same thing about this guy, especially since he says in the file info that he scannned them himself. I tried contacting him about Purgold and the Rimsky 1866 images, but he evidently hasn't been with Wikipedia for a while and has several images that have been questioned or pulled. Too bad. I would have liked to have used File:Mravina as Oksana 1895.jpg near the end of the R-K article, where Christmas Eve is mentioned, but the lack of file info just makes it too suspect for me. Jonyungk (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I was going to say that I found the image here until I read the article and found it was the one I wrote for Wikipedia just today. Some sites just work too fast. Jonyungk (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Thankyou for your help with my article on Pea galaxies. It has proved to be very useful. I'm going to delete
the peer review soon, but if you could give the article a read and leave an opinion on my talk page that would
be very welcome (Pea_galaxy). Cheers Richard Nowell (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
No need to upload more of the park or museum; I think the two you chose are very good, and I doubt that I would choose differently. And thank you very much for the canal photos. I especially like the one looking upstream (west). I plan to add it to the Pennsylvania Canal (West Branch Division) article, and it might come in handy elsewhere too. (The Flemington, Pennsylvania and Bald Eagle and Spring Creek Navigation articles comes to mind. I keep meaning to work some more on the canals. I've collected a little more information on some of them. Finetooth (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Just saw the new Piper Museum photo as well. Thank you again. The only think I can thing of that would make it better would be for the 19th century architects to return and re-do it as an Italianate factory. :-) Finetooth (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I've now added the canal image to the West Branch Canal and the Bald Eagle and Spring Creek articles. For it to make sense in the Flemington article, I'd have to add some text. Might be a while before that happens. After the main canals were abandoned, the little cross-cut canal still carried water from Bald Eagle Creek to the paper-mill basin. Because it was still useful, it survived longer than many other segments. I have no RS for these claims. Finetooth (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Message About the OSScamps Page Deletion Issue
Hello! I really don't understand wikis much and have a tough time editing them, so I am sorry if I mess something up here. I am the author of the OSScamp Page on Wikipedia and I don't want it to be deleted. Help me make it conform to all policies of Wikipedia. OSScamp is a community driven unconference that regularly happens in India - we have never focussed much on media exposure, it is simply a huge meet up of open source enthusiasts. There is no dedicated body of organizers, no organisation, no legal entity, so even if some media wanted to give coverage to it the only thing they could do would be to cover the event otherwise there is no one specific to talk to. Even then the fact that it has spread across multiple cities and has an active user base is for me testimony about its inclusion in the Wikipedia. I have nowhere boasted about the event and written everything as neutrally as possible. I did a Google News search and found press releases for the event. I don't understand how people's feedback about the event on their blogs is less valuable than the press releases. The event report published in the Linux For You Magazine was indeed written by me as I try my best to promote the community, but the fact that it was published in a credible magazine must attest the implicit idea that the report was credible enough. Similarly, Acquia sponsored and participated in the event and listed it in their official list of events (i refered to that link), NRCFOSS indexed the event in its calendar of events in India. I really don't udnerstand why these references are not valid. Please guide me how I can make that page neutral so that it is not deleted from the wiki. I dont want it to be deleted only because it was written by me.
Sorry to spoil your talk page again :) Thanks for the reassuring note. Now I have a query: since the community is not a listed/registered society at all, nor is it very structured (perhaps we took the Unconference ideology to quite an extreme), we never paid any attention to be covered by media - our only media coverage is in the various event reports (always written by one of the organisers), blog posts by particpants and event announcement published by various companies (sponsors and media partners) - will any of these constitute RS? if not, will this page be deleted even after being a much participated event in India for the last 3 years? In case there are not many worthwhile reliable sources, are participation records not enough to prove the topics worthiness for inclusion? We were also mentioned in the wikipedia articles FOSS.IN and Unconference, which I updated with an internal link to the OSScamp Page after adding the page on wikipedia. They are also not useful references? Kinshuk Sunil (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
My bad. I was under the impression that I am editing your talk page only. Thanks for the suggestions and help. I will continue discussing things on the proposed-deletion page. Thanks again. Kinshuk Sunil (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
River Parrett
Thanks for all your help with River Parrett & the offer to continue the review. I think this would be really helpful - either on the talk page, or I can open another Peer Review, so that we can work togther to improve the article & who knows maybe go for FAC again later.— Rodtalk08:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to need some map assistance on an expedition article I'm working on. I generally ask you about such things, but as it is a Canadian expedition, I thought I'd approach Finetooth this time. Don't think this in any way a reflection on your past help, which has been tremendous, but perhaps you'd welcome a break, and as I say, Finetooth might be interested in helping out. FYO the article is Voyage of the Karluk, which I hope to bring to peer review next week. Brianboulton (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello again. I'm wondering if you are interested in reviewing the above article for FAC? As usual, we need to get an outside perspective on the article during this process, and I thought about asking you because of what you have previously done on railway-related articles. Any assistance would be gratefully received, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
We now have thirteen months and change to get three more articles across the threshold. Most of my research could use your copy-editing skills. I think we had talked about McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink, Lurie Garden and Millennium Park. I would surely rather attack these sooner rather than later, but they will need your attention, except for the last one, which I may need to do more research on. What are your thoughts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Congrats on the promotion. Thanks for the thank-you message, but I really didn't do anything except for a dab check. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
ChildofMidnight and I have created Land of the Cross-Tipped Churches, which includes a list of the NRHP-listed sites in this region. Most of the buildings are churches, but there are a few other buildings (rectories, schools, etc.) in the group as well. Do you think it's better to include all of them in the same table, or is it better to have one table for the churches and another table for the other buildings? Nyttend (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
21st Massachusetts
Thank you very much for your extremely helpful and constructive peer review of the 21st Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry. I've made alterations according to your suggestions and I think the article is better for it. Now, I'm very much a newbie, so I'm looking for a bit of advice here. Originally, it had been my intention to submit this for GA, but your comment that it might possibly be a candidate for FA has emboldened me. What is the typical process here? Should it be submitted for GA first and FA later? Or can it be submitted for FA now? Thanks again. Historical Perspective (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
It sounds like you support this as a bot function. I could ask around, but PR is really your baby. I will follow up with Sandy and Gimmetrow, if you think it should be coming from me, but I think it should really be a request by you. You are the defacto-PR (if not infacto:) director.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Anthony Roll PR
Thank you very much for your helpful and encouraging comments. I've addressed pretty much all of your concerns. I'll let you know when I put it up for promotion. Judging by your reaction, it seems like FAC is the way to go.
Thanks for the comments. I have (I think) dealt with them all. When you have a moment perhaps you'd check out my responses & let me know if you think any problems remain. Brianboulton (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on the lead image for this article, which is way cool, and a heads-up that I've submitted the article for PR. Jonyungk (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Question: How were you able to pull the images of The Five from Elson in Google Books? Am trying to do the same with the picture of Arensky there but am having trouble figuring it out. Part of my problem might be my operating system. I'm using MS Internet Explorer 6 and Windows 98, so my system's pretty old. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. One more question (at least it started out as one). This looks like it is PD but am not totally sure, and this did not have any information, so I deleted it from the article. Just crossing my "t"s before someone says something about it in PR. Jonyungk (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
It's something to think about in case the other image doesn't show up. Thanks very much for finding it. BTW, is this a cleaner version of the image you found? Jonyungk (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
(out) Thanks for all the comments. (I think the guy who put together the lead image will like your compliment. :) ) I'm waiting for the rest of Brian's comments, but the consensus seems to be that the middle is good but the ends need a lot of work. I also didn't make your reading easier in that, after some of Brian's comments, I shuffled some sections of the article to try to improve the overall flow of the article. This may be one reason some facts seemed out of order. Thanks for sticking with reading it despite these complications. I appreciate all the time you put into this article, and again, thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, your comments were very useful, as were Brian's and Awadewit's. Everything was good—I really mean that. I just have a tendency to become depressed and beat myself up for my articles not being better than wnat they are, especially in lead sections and conclusions. I almost feel sometimes after a peer review like I have to apologize for not being a better or at least a more polished writer than what I am. But peer reviews are good and they're part of the learning curve in learning to write for Wikipedia. Other than wanting to talk to someone about all this, I wanted to thank you for all the effort you put into the image searches, image creations and review work. That is a lot of time you put in, all without question, and I really appreciate it. Jonyungk (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
That was a good laugh—thanks. I'm still getting some mileage out of it.
You know, I also like the fact that we don't work alone on Wikipedia, and that it's generally easy for people to work together. Thanks for putting things in perspective. It's easy to lose focus a little when you see one of Brian's articles, for example, and you see how much more polished it is, or when you go through PR and you don't have all the answers other people are asking for, but you're right in that nothing comes to PR or FAC perfect. Otherwise, what would be the point, right? Thanks for the advice and for being a good sounding board the last day or so. Jonyungk (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but...
You've got that all out of context: I wasn't talking about you regarding the referencing bit, but the person who did the GA review, who was hell-bent on getting his own way. But seeing as you have decided to rush in and insult me, then I see no reason to ask for your help again. And I shall be obliged if you don't use my talk page as a place for petty argument. After re-reading your comments on my talk page, I must say that I am sorry about the heavy-handed manner in which I treated you regarding the 2-6-4 bit, I suppose it was the usual FAC 'tunnel-vision' (pun intended). But I hope you do see my point, and that there are some things best left out of an article if they risk altering the flow of text. I asked you to help out because you've done it before (and I don't think you mentioned anything about the wheel arrangement on any of the other articles), and the fact that you have no obvious interest in railways, which gives a better outside perspective. Maybe I have a long way to go in being diplomatic about things that I don't agree with. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem. The problem is usually down to the medium of typing, as several internet forums demonstrate. There is absolutely no way of implying the tone of what is being said, which leads to things sounding a lot worse than they are intended. But again, I'm sorry that things seemed bad, and I hope we can draw a line under this incident. If you're interested, I'm in the process of revising the LSWR N15 class article, and my efforts are to be found in User:Bulleid Pacific/Sandbox 1. Feel free to make amendments to the prose, or add suggestions to my talk page. As I have said to other editors, the intention is to paste the revision into the main article. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your comments on the Clarke Carlisle peer review, some very helpful comments. You said it could do with a copy edit, any idea where I would find willing volunteers? Cheers, -- BigDom15:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi this is the artist formally known as Dr. Blofeld. LOL. This article is currently at FAC. I know it is off the Chicago radar but do you think you could create a montage of say 6 or so images to go in the main infobox? There are also some images on flickr of waterfalls etc and a handfull in the commons. Could you do me a favor?
Thanks anyway. Yeah I think the one I found looks quite good actually although I would have tried to add more panoramas of the land if I could have but looking at flickr and in the commons I think she's done a good job with it with whats currently available. Not to worry. Oh I may return as the evil Blofeld sometime, I need to plot the next evil act of world domination somewhere eh?‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery21:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Arthur PR
Hello, Ruhrfisch - I've responded to some of the issues you pointed out, and would appreciate any comments you have in reply. Thanks very much for the PR! - I.M.S. (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
River Parrett (again)
Hi, It's now a couple of weeks since River Parrett was not promoted at FAC & you kindly offered to add some further review comments. Would it be best to put it up at Peer Review again?— Rodtalk10:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The talk page would be good - then we can always put it up for PR again if needed once we've dealt with any further issues. Thanks.— Rodtalk15:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The "thank spam" (as you so modestly call it) is amazing too. Like Brian, I'm going to keep it someplace more visible than an archive. Finetooth (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The thank spam is really good. I am glad you included it with the article on the park. Congrats on another job well done! Dincher (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow to both the article and the thank you -- I particularly like how the latter has very even brightness across all the images -- pleasing, and, I know, very hard to achieve. Thanks. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations! That's quite an impressive image; it definitely helps the article. Quite a good example of how Wikipedia can do better than printed encyclopedias — the scrolling really-wide image wouldn't exactly fit :-) Nyttend (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations! Just discovered this article a couple of days ago, and it is gorgeous. The pictures are wonderful; the text is incredibly clear. The article is definitely a joy to see and read, and it really sets a standard for what Wiki articles can be when all the pieces come together just right. Excellent! It shows you really have a touch for Americana. I'm looking forward to seeing more articles like it in the future. Jonyungk (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
If you wouldn't mind. This exercise has been a fascinating and revealing adventure into the more dysfunctional aspects of our beloved organ, about which I am now a more knowledgeable, if sadder contributor. All the best, BenMacDui08:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
This will be revisited - for you both. I simply wasn't contacted until my work had completely gone. The only way people like you will learn how to behave is to have other admin tell you in no uncertain terms that you are breaking the rules. I have had automatic 'ABF' here from two pally admin, and it is just not good enough. Some simple politeness and I would have let the rfc/u go. Being treated distainfully? I'll keep you both posted. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I hesitate to make suggestions to editors who have far more experience than I, but occasionally I stumble across useful things that don't seem to be widely known.
Have you thought about adding a user category to each of your images? It makes it easy to get an ordinary Commons gallery -- 200 thumbs to the page, in alpha order, rather than the toolserver gallery, which is in date order and displays all the metadata. They're hidden categories -- so unless only users who have "show hidden categories" turned on will see them.
Have you encountered Altairisfar or Ammodramus at WP:NRHP? Both of them use this system, as does Mvincec in western Pennsylvania. I've found it quite helpful, although admittedly it did take a while to put on all of my images, and that was when I'd not yet uploaded too many photos. Nyttend (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, definitely best to consider it first :-) I've done a two-part scheme: one group of categories for images I've created, and the other group for free images I've uploaded from other sources. I've ended up with the following categories:
Aerial pictures by User:Nyttend
Building-centered pictures by User:Nyttend
Community pictures by User:Nyttend
Highway pictures by User:Nyttend
Maps by User:Nyttend
Miscellaneous images by User:Nyttend
Other people's maps by User:Nyttend
Other people's pictures by User:Nyttend
Portraits by User:Nyttend
Scenery pictures by User:Nyttend
Hope you find this helpful, either because you think that it will be useful or because you think it's a horrid idea :-) Nyttend (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Peer review maintenance
My computer is in intensive care, and I am temporarily using local library facilities, or whatever I can beg, borrow or steal. The situation may not be resolved before next week, so I'm afraid I won't be able to maintain the backlog for the time being. It's a great nuisance when computers fall sick - especially in mid-FAC, but I've dropped a note to Sandy about that. Hope to be back in full harness soon. Brianboulton (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm back in business with a borrowed computer, so looks like I'll be able to do the backlog after all. The computer is ancient and wheezy, but unlike my own slick expensive model it appears to work, albeit slooooowly. Brianboulton (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
You have an ORTIS account, right?
I have permission to use photos by email for two articles: one is from a photographer who has a photo of Bobby Seale but who seems unable to grasp how to change the photo from it's copyright in Flickr. I gave her the link explaining the licenses, and asked her to give it one more try. Can I email the entire discussion we have had-- with her complete permission to you to upload the photo for her using your ORTIS account? Or am I confusing you with someone else who has such an account?
Also, one of the press guys who I have had an ongoing chat with about Cat Stevens, because I have had next to no luck in finding a good photo of him from his earlier years-- and even his later ones. I was sent one of him young, and one much more recent. What can be done about obtaining permission to post these? They are for the Wikipedia to use. I can also email their email AND the photos intended for the Wikipedia too. They are important, b/c we just lost one photo of him (one of the other language Wikipedias had been using it-- possibly still are--(I need to check) and we had begun using it too. Bad judgement. I found an article with the exact photo credited to UPI, and pulled the photo immediately. However nobody knows of that gaffe but myself and another editor I mentioned it to, User:Tvoz. Cat Stevens lost it's GA-ranking recently and I'm trying to do what I can to address some of the problems. You CAN email me if you wish. If you can not help me with these issues, can you please recommend someone who might? Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I was hoping if not you with the ORTIS account, then, maybe you'd have a suggestion of someone who might. I'd hate to ask someone I don't know at all out of the blue from the list. If not, don't bother replying, I know it's a hassle to get interrupted by these messages like this. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I think so. This guy from the Yusuf Islam camp doesn't seem to "get" the idea of Creative Commons. Someone needs to take this email he sent me, complete with two attached photos, and talk to him besides me, since I only have experience in telling people how to switch from a Flickrcopyright to Flickr Creative Commons CC-BY-SA licences, but not photos from other sources. You wanna take a look at the email(s) and my response to him first? If not, feel free to tell him, cause the way things are, the photos will just rot unused in my email bin instead. No need to respond to me unless you want me to email it to you. Otherwise either just tell him or leave it be I guess. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I am taking a wiki-break right now. I am just not feeling it these days. I will probably get Antelope Island State Park ready to be on the mainspace, but put my little FA drive on hold. As far as Quehanna goes, I will help with it, but don't know how much. No real reason for the break and I have no problems with wikipedia. I just am not all that interested in editing. Hope all is well and that you're enjoying the weather. We may be getting some snow this weekend. This winter has been very, very cold and very expensive regarding the home heating bill. 4 tanks of propane as compared to the normal 2 or maybe 3. Dincher (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Have you seen the recent National Geographic with the article that features a study of a cubic foot of an environment and all the amazing detail that's in that one cubic foot. It reminds me and the details that you find on tiny places, bridges and streams. And the quote you once shared about a leaf. Dincher (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Nah, I'm not done with the break. I think I may take the rest of the month "off". Of course I'll be monitoring my watchlist. I'll fix some redirects here and there too and give some input on DYK and FAC. But nothing major. At least for now. Did you see the reference tool that Bender235 added to the Antelope Island State Park link? Looks like a good tool. Have we used it on some of our lengthier reference sections? Dincher (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I am looking at IE here at work and it's just one column. I think 2, 3 or 4 columns would look better than 1. One is just too long and too listy. Dincher (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Boy, you're thorough—that's good. :) Thaks for the comments and the new image, which I inserted in the Legacy section near the end of the article. Am open to alternative placements but couldn't think of any off-hand. Glad making the composite image for this article came in handy with the waterfall composites. I'd say that was time well spent. BTW, you have such a good and positive attitude. It really helps on this end. Jonyungk (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
(out) One more question. I wrote the latter part of the last paragraph in the Glazunov section as a transition to the section on the Belyayev circle, but does it seem overly POV to stay in? Here's the paragraph:
Glazunov adds that his relationship with Tchaikovsky changed from the elder composer being "not ... one of our own" to a close friendship that would last until Tchaikovsky's death.[31] "I met Tchaikovsky quite often both at Balakirev's and at my own home", Glazunov remembered. "We usually met over music. He always appeared in our social circle as one of the most welcome guests; besides myself and Lyadov, Rimsky-Korsakov and Balakirev were also constant members of our circle".[32] This circle, with which Tchaikovsky would spend an increasing amount of time in the last couple of years of his life, would come to be known as the Belyayev circle, named after its patron, Mitrofan Belyayev. Though his financial influence, Belyayev would shape Russian music more greatly and lastingly than either Balakirev or Stasov were able to do, and achieve the unification of Russian classical music along nationalistic lines that they had sought.[33]
I'm not comfortable with the last part of the paragraph but am not sure whether it's just me or whether it really needs to go and could use a second opinion. Jonyungk (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
That might work. I've made the change in the article and am going to live with it a while, but it looks lie a good solution. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks; I must have gone right past it. I agree with you; it's definitely vandalism, but at least it's not the kind that sneaks in and doesn't get caught for years. You might find this edit interesting; I caught it when I was really new on Wikipedia, and I've always remembered it since then, since it's both really obvious and really long-lived: it was on there for over two weeks. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the compliments! It's only my second picture at DYK; my first was the image for the Merrill Lock No. 6 in Beaver County, back last April. And I like it how you've added the diff of the vandalism to the editnotice :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
PSR B1937+21
Your comments are very useful, thank you! I addressed some of your first points already, and will address the rest in the next few days. I have one question though. I think the only web citation is to the ATNF database, which does have an accessdate. All of the rest of the references are journal articles. I'll keep your comment regarding peer review in mind. The PSR B1937+21 article is my first attempt at a good article, so I do not feel particularly competent yet at assessing the quality of articles. James McBride (talk) 07:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Would you happen to know what the proper course of action is for adding access dates after the fact? That is, should I make reasonable guesses for the date at which I first accessed most of the online journal articles, or is there a different policy? James McBride (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
New old photo
Yes, I think we should use it. Thanks for tracking this down. I recognized the photo as the one I tried to scan from page 22 of Historic Lock Haven: An Architectural Survey. I wasn't satisfied with any of my scan attempts, and I wasn't dead certain that the photo had been published before 1979, although I thought it highly likely that it had been published in the late 19th century. The author is John W.C. Floyd, who worked as a photographer in Lock Haven c. 1882–98. "He advertized [sic] 367 views available to the public of which 173 were of Lock Haven scenes." This quote comes from a biographical sketch of Floyd on p. 6 of Historic Lock Haven. The image is labeled "Floyd Photograph No. 107" in the book. Would you like me to swap out the photos and write the new caption and alt text, or would you enjoy doing it? Would it be good to add John W.C. Floyd and maybe a bit of biography to the image license? By the way, I like the chinchillas. Finetooth (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
All done. I swapped out the images, rewrote the caption and alt text, and slightly amended the image description page. This image shows the real rafts rather than an honorary raft, and for that reason alone it is better. I may have to add a chinchilla equivalent to my talk page, although it is likely to be a cat without a funny hat. Finetooth (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I could have described the log raft photo based on original research, but I stuck to what the caption in Historic Lock Haven said. It might be fun to create a Jay Street Bridge stub. The Historic Lock Haven book includes Floyd Photograph 264, the Jay Street Bridge when it was a covered bridge. I could try scanning this and uploading it. I wonder if I can assume that "views available to the public" is equivalent to saying that the photo was technically published in the 1880s or 1890s. I often find copyright law to be as mystifying as tax law, and I tend to avoid old photos about which any doubt exists. Finetooth (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
It'll probably take me a while to get to it, but I've put the Jay Street Bridge on my to-do list. I have a bit more information about it somewhere; the bridge was destroyed by fire. Maybe I can find more. Finetooth (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Just saw your excellent words of support, which are quite a morale booster, and answeered regarding both your points on the FAC page. Thank you very, very much. Jonyungk (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Here's a question that Brian brought up, and I'm asking because I could use a second opinion. (He also suggested that I ask you since you are also supporting the article's promotion to FA.) He mentioned that the Legacy section should ideally be about the legacy of Tchaikovsky's association with the circle, which covers the first paragraph of that section. The rest of the section talks about the legacy of the circle itself, which is getting off-target. I'm thinking abut cutting the rest of that section, which would leave the section itself pretty short but considerably more tightly focused. Let me know what you think. Jonyungk (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for some really good suggestions. I've incorporated them into the article, rewriting the Legacy section with whatever attribution I could find. The section looks better to me now; please let me know what you think. Jonyungk (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Got your suggestions on the talk page and incorporated them into the article. I also left a message for Brian on his talk page, saying that you and I were both too close to the material to se how effective the changes were and asking him to take another look. Hopefully he will. Jonyungk (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Brian left a message on the FAC page, saying that the focus is much more as it should be. Thanks again for the suggestions—they really helped a lot. Jonyungk (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
There are two cool composite photos on this page. The guy who wrote it said he got the idea from what you did for the Tchaikovsky articles. Since the article is in PR, you'll probably get a chance to see it, but just thought you'd like to know your influence is rubbing off, and in more than chinchillas. :) Jonyungk (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Nice lead image for Jay Pritzker Pavilion—I really like that. Don't know whether I'd do a color lead composite image for Tchaikovsky and the Five either since we use the same images of Tchaikovsky and Rimsky-Korsakov in Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle and I really likie the design of the image that is in Tchaikovsky and the Five now. Besides (and I didn't realize this until I'd already posted the image to the page), the image of balakirev and Glinka mainly shows the back of Balakirev's head (he's the image on the left, not the center as the caption would have had you think), so we still don't have a good color image of him. Jonyungk (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Ganoga Lake
On February 16, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ganoga Lake, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Congrats on the DYK for Ganoga Lake. I spent much of yesterday adding alt text to Columbia Slough to avoid chagrin on Feb. 23. This led somehow to replacing the stubby lead for Bull Run River (Oregon) with a complete lead. Both things made me think of images. I can't finish the Bull Run article until I can include myself on a guided tour to the protected zone next summer and get some decent photos; Rogue River (Oregon) also needs a few more images, and that will require a longer trip or trips. Meanwhile, I'm going to try photographing the published image of the Jay Street Bridge to see what happens. I've done that once before, with File:Igloos.jpg, and I liked the result better than the scans I tried. It's a bit of a nuisance to get the book positioned correctly on an easel and to mount the camera on a tripod and fuss with the lighting. Nonetheless... Finetooth (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the non-reflective glass idea. That might work better than props and clamps, which don't always cooperate. I'm also glad to see Aliso Creek much improved, and I was glad to see you weigh in. I hope Shannon can follow through before the sand runs out this time. I agree about alt text being a real chore; it's not just you. Describing the essence of an image in a succinct but accurate way without mentioning facts not apparent from the image itself ain't usually easy. The only really easy one I keep running into is your locator map, which is pretty much covered by the formula "X is in Y quadrant of Z". Finetooth (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
This article, up for peer review, looks suspicious. Can you check it for notability? Even if Smallen is deemed notable, the article is far from ready for PR (cleanup banners etc). Brianboulton (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks! (I must say your talk page directions are more humorous than mine—perhaps I should change them.) Ucucha13:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
A Naturalists Eye
Hi. I have been working on The Avery Coonley School for sometime, with hopes of an eventual FA. User:Moni3 was kind enough to copyedit what I have, and suggested I ask you to cast your expert eye on the descriptions of the natural features, particularly the Forest Preserve descriptions here. The sources on the preserve are pretty sparse, but I have done what I could. Moni3 had some excellent suggestions, but thought you might help me describe things in a more accurate and compelling way. If you have any comments on how those passages (or anything else) might be improved, I would be glad to hear them. Thanks.
Thanks so much for the terrific review. Your comments were very helpful, especially the references for Maple Grove and the Brookside Kindergarten. Good stuff. I really appreciate the help.
Thanks for adding the second photo. The HAER stuff includes images, and so I now have new possibilities for at least one more image for the West Branch Canal. Also, having discovered that the bad scans I was getting stemmed from the scanner defaulting to 200 dpi without me noticing, I'm thinking of doing some more scans from the Wagner book at 600 dpi. There's a good one by Floyd of the dam, for example, and I see that the dam is another of the redlinked crossings on the list. Finetooth (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Colt Tallent speedy decline
Hey. Where in the CSD or AFD policies does it say that you can't have both at the same time? I've seen this plenty of times, usually as the result of someone too generously nominating something for AFD when in fact in qualifies for speedy. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Las Vegas
Hi. I was wondering if you could do a composite of say 6 images like Chicago for a main image for Vegas? The current one is pretty bland. Try to cram in the tackiest casinos and glitz at night you can find LOL!
OK thanks. The following I think should be included. The other three I think should be casinos at night/hotels.
The panorama along the top and then three and three underneath. If some are the wrong size they can be cropped in alignment I suppose.. Actually I'll find three casinos shortly and you won't have to look then! ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery20:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I've put them in order as to how I think they'd look good. So panorama along top, fremont (left) and strip view right) on second row, Caeser's (left), Tropicana intersection (right) on third row, Golden Nugget (left) and Venetian (right) on bottom row. What do you think? Sound OK?‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery20:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Awesome job! Much appreciate it! Looks great! Thanks!‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 12:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah it didn't go down to well as it is too Las Vegas Strip and not a fair balance of the city apparently. I've asked the reverter to select some images, I think maybe two of the strip images should be replaced with those of the general city.... He also removed it from the Las Vegas Strip article claiming that the two hotels are not on the strip so was inaccurate!! Grrrr. Hopefully we can sort something to 'everybody's liking. No rush though.‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery11:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah that's best, don't want to be reverted. Id say the current one take out the hotels and add two strip images and it can be used for the Las Vegas Strip article and then another one of the city with a fair balance. Ill need Vegas wikipedian and the other guy to comment on this. Sorry they didn't accept the other one!‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 17:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Just awaiting confirmation/consensu now. It would seem that Fremont and Golden Nugget are not on the strip so I've proposed to just simply replace them with File:LasVegasSign06212005.jpg and File:Las Vegas Strip (view North from Tropicana intersection).jpg and keep the rest of the montage intact...‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery20:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, the Vegas wikipedian who reverted me for the strip article has said he is fine with swapping the Fremont and Golden nugget images with the two images of the strip given above....‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery20:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Purrfect thanks! This should be OK for the Las Vegas Strip article. It would seem as if some Vegians are embarrassed about the strip as they keep asserting that it is not part of their city!!‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery11:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Christ myth theory
After my bid to get the Christ myth theory article FA status went down in flames, SandyGeorgia told me to put the article through a peer review. But the peer review page says I have to wait a couple weeks now. I toldSandy and she told me to tell you what was up. She said you might be able to help me here. Eugene (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I was asked to removed my monination by Wehwalt since there were already five article nominations on the page and R-K did not have more points than any of the others. Hopefully I'll be able to replace it sometime in the next coupls of days. Jonyungk (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ruhrfisch, would you mind taking a look at the changes to the "Rings Around the World is "very cinematic"..." sentence I've made and letting me know what you think? Also, do you know which two links were dead? Thanks for your review. Cavie78 (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Waterfall pic's FP possibilities
I could see the FPC reviewers possibly objecting to some of the blurring in the upper left corner, a bit of noise in the waterfall, and some chromatic aberration in the waterfall as well. But ... wht not start with a QI nom at Commons and see where you go from there? Remember a lot of waterfall images get nominated (For the record, here's my best waterfall pic, and I think yours is better) Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. Looking at mine in closeup, it would fail QI because of the way the detail looks at hi-res. But I like your point about avoiding the bridal-veil effect (although it's a neat trick to master once you get an SLR and you can make the necessary exposure adjustment (you usually need about 1/10 of a second, and you have to be mindful of what aperture setting the camera will want as compensation).
Speaking of Ricketts Glen, my son has been interested in going to see waterfalls (since we live across the street from this), and I have promised him a trip to Ricketts Glen in warm weather. Maybe you'd like to come along if you could? Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
NRHP in Centre County?
I have to say, I laugh every time I make a comment on your talk page; the chinchillas are great :-)
Do you ever get down to Centre County? I've just written two articles on NRHP-listed archaeological sites — Fisher Farm in Unionville and Houserville between Houserville and State College; I'm hoping tomorrow to write about the Tudek Site near Houserville — but they're all lacking pictures. Do you know if you'd have a chance to remedy this situation? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't know if I'll ever visit Centre County again (only been there once, when I was twelve), so I guess it will have to wait :-) I've nominated Houserville for DYK, but it's not as if articles need photos for that; three of my seven archaeological DYKs (including the one that got the most views) have lacked pictures. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding your excellent comments on The Avery Coonley School, you suggest to watch for overlinking. What is the standard for linking in the lead? Does one link a term in the lead and again in the body, or is it sufficient to link it once in the lead? I get the feeling it is done both ways. What is the preference? Many thanks.
Thanks for the comments on the Burger King products page, I used them to complete the article and will be taking it to a GAN in a few weeks after a little more copy edits. I have another favor, I recently split off yet another BK article of the main BK page, History of Burger King. I am still working on a section of it but would like a initial review to see what else the article will need as it grows. Right now it is a C-class article and needs a B-Class check list performed on it, Would you mind? I really value your opinion as a reviewer and would greatly appreciate your input.
Sorry to bother you, but I am currently peer-reviewing this. I have suggested a couple of format changes in the table, requiring a reduction in the number of columns. The nominator agrees, but there is a problem, as explained in paragraph 12 on my talkpage, because the table has been prepared within a template, as part of a series. Do you have any advice as to how the problem might be overcome? The nominator thinks that the columns can be made optional. Brianboulton (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I was able to get those columns to be suppressed in certain instances, while not affecting the templates use elsewhere; details are on the PR page.
You're welcome. I had no idea I'd wind up doing all that when I started expanding it after I put that pic in (again, you're welcome, although I know better pics of the stream are possible). I really thought I'd wind up expanding it only as much as I had expanded Beaver Kill. But there just turned out to be so much out there in source information in addition to those sources I already had and can use, and it just kept going. It needs more pictures, some of which I'll have to wait till warm weather to get, but now I have another potential GA or FA. Sort of like my own White Deer Hole Creek ... an excellent example to follow (but, to be fair, the Esopus is of even more importance in the Hudson watershed than the WHDC is to the Susquehanna's). Daniel Case (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I should have known, actually ... I thought of putting a book proposal together (if the Beaver Kill can have a book devoted to it, and it should, certainly the Esopus can as well) and calling it Big River of the Catskills. It's so important to the region, as the article should make clear (But I could say the same about Rondout Creek, for which there isn't half as much in the way of sources).
Great! Go for it. I have no vested interest in it, other than it's a fascinating thing. I had read a few things at the library on it, but there were only a couple of paragraphs or so. Let me know if you need or want help. Should I remove the material I had added? I have no problem with that either. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I made a few minor changes. I am still not planning on getting involved in this article as main contributer. Ganoga Lake is looking really good. Next I am going to see if you've put it up for PR yet. Dincher (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I see it's up as a GAN. I'd review it, but I think there may be a COI since we've worked together on so many. I will give it a close look now and let you know what I see/think. Dincher (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
