User talk:Auntieruth55

***Alamogordo

Is it deserving of a GA yet? I've tried to address all four areas. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at the GA criteria and this ( I'm not sure if you need a bibliography and a set of footnotes ) is not required. Of course, that's something I could work on to make it a FA, which is far more work, something for 2010, not 2009. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're planning to go to FA, you'll need a bibliography according to WP:FACR,specifically 1c, and I suggest the style similar to that used in Inner German Border, which works well for resources that include a lot of newspaper/periodical articles. Otherwise, apparently for GA you don't need one, according to my understanding of WP:GACR. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

For Alamogordo, I don't plan to go for FA because Uncia, the other editor, probably would disagree with my ideas. For this article, I would like to get a GA and with the things that I learned, to make another article FA (maybe even one from scratch!). Since you reviewed Alamogordo, many will think that you have a big say in the GA process. Please let me know if it is pass the minimum GA requirements. Next time, I'll try to exceed them more. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and nominate for GA. I'll get to it later in the next 7 days. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. I saved it for you to do (comments to that effect added). Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll get to it in the next few days. We'll see if anyone comments first. It looks good, though. You've done a lot of good work on it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion about the chart, which I have fixed. Any chance the gray neutral can now be a pass? The numerical average of all the criteria is a green pass mark. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what the numerical average of all the criteria is a green pass mark, but certainly it passes now. It's listed, and taken care of. Nice work. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Dan Povenmire

I've fixed/responded to all of your comments at the FAC for the article. I'd appreciate if you can respond back. Thanks. :) The Flash ^{talk} 21:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Responded more to the existing comments/concerns. The Flash ^{talk} 03:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, can you please recomment on the article? The entire FAC was restarted in order to clear some space at the FAC hub, which means any and all comments beforehand don't count. Thanks, The Flash ^{talk} 22:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

I would have supported now, but it seems I am too late. ;) [1] Well done, and sorry I couldn't help as much as I would have wanted. --JN466 22:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[2] but more importantly: [3] --JN466 22:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see! I didn't realize s/he had acted on everything already. Usually it happens on weekends, but maybe the backlog is piling up. Now if I could get someone to act on the GA articles I have in the backlog I'd be a happy girl. :) Thanks for your help with sorting this out. I think what happened is that the copy of Hennes had copy page numbers typed in, because the other ones were omitted from the photocopies, and I used them, rather than the book page numbers. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As it happens, I owe the system a GA review. I'll take on the Godesberg one for you. --JN466 23:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

is the Godesberg siege article okay now? Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(0d) Take a "look-see" at Siege of Godesberg (1583)> Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added the translations to the Godesberg picture: [4]. Best, --JN466 20:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

J, here is the nomination -- if you care to support or oppose? [Featured picture nominee] Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations from me too on getting Cologne War to FA! It's an impressive piece of work (but I hope my hordes of comments have contributed a little to improve its quality ;-) ). Ucucha 17:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• yes, they did, and I was just going to drop you a note to thank you. Unlike some editors, I welcome comments and suggestions.  ;) I have no illusions that my writing, citations, translations, etc. are the end all authority on any given subject (unlike some who will remain un-named but who are now causing contention on the FA project talk page). I may take you up on your offer to check on something at Harvard for me, if that is still open, and if it applies to a non-wiki project (at least what is presently a non-wiki project, but will be one eventually). Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think our review system does quite a decent job at things like improving readability, catching awkward prose, and the like (as here in one of my articles, for example). It may be frustrating at times, but it does really improve an article (and even the unnamed editor you are referring to recognizes that, I think, as I saw at another FAC).

But to return to a more concrete subject: I'd be happy to help out on a non-wiki project too; I'll have to dig fairly deeply in the Harvard library system myself shortly to get Noronhomys and rodents of the Caribbean a little more comprehensive. (And thanks for the barnstar :-) ) Ucucha 03:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured Picture nominee

I've added the translations to the Godesberg picture: [5]. Best, --JN466 20:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

J, here is the Featured picture nominee -- if you care to support or oppose? Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to transclude the page to WP:FPC. I've done that now and supported (I was wondering why it didn't show on WP:FPC.) Some reviewers may fault the resolution of the scan, but here's hoping that the educational value, the historical relevance and the original quality of the artwork make up for that. --JN466 00:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Study & Wikipedia

I noticed elsewhere in a comment that you're studying, Wikipedia is a pest for giving the immediate feeling of having engaged in review / writing, but without giving any academic benefit. Watch me stress and wiki instead of writing during the yearly review period. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm working on my dissertation right now, and wp offers immediate distraction, plus the feeling of writing something that is useful. My students all use it, and I started writing wiki articles when they were pulling information off it that was completely bogus.  :) I appreciate your comments on bibliographies and citations. Now that I'm done with current FA articles that I had submitted, I can get back to it. The Cologne War was just approved yesterday or the day before, and I'm not going to submit another until this chapter is done. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

A worthy reward for getting the chapter done! Warm wishes for your writing. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Siege of Godesberg

Ruth, you know, there is a potentially useful source here. Apparently Ferdinand's soldiers stormed from the opposite side when the explosion happened, and some even went up the toilet chutes (I remember reading that somewhere else before). (Cf. the German text on the etching -- that must be the "Gemach" they meant). According to Weyden, the explosion was on the 15th, and the defenders held out for another two days afterwards. Interesting? --JN466 03:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You may have read a portion of Benedickte Naubert's book, the Astrological Archbiship. (written c 1791). I've added this citation, and some additional text. Thanks for finding this! Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ode on a Grecian Urn

I have tried to address your concerns on the criticism section of the article, but I feel that I might be missing some tense issues and would ask that you take a look at the article and let me know if I am going wrong in any of my edits. I fear I might be too mixed up in discussions of criticism to be able to use the correct tenses in a historical analysis of criticism. Mrathel (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A-Class

Question: Did you take the article "Unification of Germany" to A-Class? If so you may be eligible for the Military History A-Class medal, skipping A-Class may be an issue. It requires three articles of A-Class or higher and Cologne War and Hermann Detzner would qualify you for this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't. When I asked "generally" about A class, unfortunately, I asked at the Germany Project, not MH. I was a newbie. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

quick opinion requested

I have fixed Nokian Tyres from a very stubby stub to an article. It took a lot of work. Can you glance at it and let me know if it is possible for the article to be a GA in its current form? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I made a couple of grammatic tweaks, and noted a place where you need a citation. I'm not sure it's a GA article yet. I suggest contacting someone in the business/corporation project for some advice. I was quite confused, reading it, about the differences with the companies, the merger, and why it was done. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reading over it. I suppose I work on it so it can be a NA (nice article, an honor not yet created) instead of a GA. The corporate history IS confusing. Essentially, the Nokia name is that of a very old failed business where a younger, stronger business in an unrelated industry took it over, discontinued the line of work that Nokia did, but kept the Nokia name. Later, that company split up and Nokian Tyre is one of the businesses that was separated. The original Nokia company had nothing to do with tires or mobile phones. Both the tire company and phone company bought the Nokia name and ended the businesses (eventually) that Nokia set up.

Almost like a soap opera on TV! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Rather than make it a NA (nice article), I may try for GA. This is after I see that there are very, very few Good Articles on companies. One that I may model after (and make the Nokian Tyre article even better than) is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Westminster_Bank Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:KlenauIVCorpsLeipzig1813.svg

A tag has been placed on File:KlenauIVCorpsLeipzig1813.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

nomination

I see in the WP:RFA board that there are no nominations for administrator promotion. You are very nice and a very good Wikipedian. Although I have not done a full scale investigation, I think you have the temperment to become an administrator. Do you want me to nominate you? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I have no idea what an administrator does. I'll look into it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much Suomi. I probably do have the temperament, but I definitely don't have the time to do a good job. I appreciate the thought, however.  :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ernouf

I have reviewed the article and placed it on hold, good work there though. While we are on the subject, Battle of the Îles Saint-Marcouf has been on the list for a while and could use some attention.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• DARN, I thought I had got all yours a week or so ago. I missed this one. I'll get to it in a bit. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the list, made for interesting reading.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
		By order of the cooordinators of the Military history Project, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of your excellent work on three featured articles (Unification of Germany, Cologne War and Hermann Detzner), detailed A-Class reviews, high levels of participation, and for always helping other contributors. Keep up the good work. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)