User talk:Derek.cashman/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

GA reform redux

I've recently had a chat with a couple of the contributors, and we think it may be worth revisiting the GA reform proposal put together by the working party during the Summer. Since you contributed to the proposal's development, I was wondering if you'd care to comment? I've left a brief recap at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Reform#GA reform redux; your input would be much appreciated. Thank you, EyeSerene^talk 13:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Delisted

I have just been notified of your opinion at Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles/Archive_12#Wikipedia:Good_articles.2Frecent. I don't think it is in appropriate to show delistings. There is no where for people who want to see the latest changes in GA membership to look for delistings. The GA newsletter is not being published anymore and I don't know where the information could be consolidated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]]/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Delisting of Bacliff, Texas

I have raised some questions for you regarding your delisting of Bacliff, Texas, on the article's review page. I hope that you can respond to them there to keep the discussion in a relevant, central location. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And now, for Fvasconcellos' traditional nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this a combination of my Christmas greeting from 2006 and my New Year's greeting from last year? Why, it most certainly is! Hey, if it ain't broke...

Help on an article?

I was wondering if you would like to take a look at Port of Albany-Rensselaer and give any comments/critique that you can, should time allow. I have put it up for GA status after fixing errors found by a fellow wikipedian in a peer review and in an automated grammar review by another wikipedian's bot. I hope that your experience with GA review will give some new insights on problems, and if there are not too many problems possibly a passing grade on promoting to GA status. Thank you for your time.Camelbinky (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Pharmacologic categorization

I have started a discussion of categorizing pharmacology articles at WT:PHARM:CAT and would really appreciate your input. Also, could you please pass word of this discussion to any other editors you think might consider contribution to the conversation? kilbad (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have posted an updated draft at WT:PHARM:CAT, and, if avaliable, would appreciate your feedback. kilbad (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• I posted a response to you comment at WT:PHARM:CAT. I hope that provides some clarity on what the goals of WP:PHARM:CAT are? kilbad (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Pharmacology interview

Greetings, Derek! I've been conducting WikiProject Report interviews for the Signpost recently. I've decided that I'd like to do the next one on Wikiproject Pharmacology. The project page doesn't specify any lead coordinator or project manager or anything like that, but after some snooping, I've decided that you will be my next victim.

If you're interested, leave me a note here or on my talk page, and I'll walk you through the rest of the process. If you're not interested, would you mind pointing me in the direction of another project member whom you believe to be qualified? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Cash, good to see you around :) I'm sorry you weren't the one interviewed but I can certainly understand that RL concerns take precedence over Wikipedia... Thanks for the compliments, and I hope I did indeed represent the project well. I felt it was more important to respond to Cryptic's question of why none of our FAs were on illegal drugs (he was clearly aware of our recent FA/GA activity). I remember your participation in the Anabolic steroid FAC, but I had no recollection of any project members really working on the article's development before its FA push. As for a "lack of good reviewers with the scientific background" being an issue at FAC, that's certainly the case, and, sadly, not only with medicine-related candidates.

As I said in the interview, I agree that the collaboration really hasn't been working out, and I also found it discouraging. Paradoxically, informal processes do seem to attract more attention. Maybe we can continue our traditional practice (common to most WikiProjects) of simply using the project Talk page to coordinate improvement efforts and "emergencies"—leaving notes along the lines of "hey everybody, there seems to be an issue over at Article X. Could someone have a look and leave an opinion on the Talk page", etc., or "I've been working on XXX and hope to take it to FA soon, maybe other members would like to help out". The article alerts process seems very useful, although the cleanup listing doesn't seem to have generated a lot of interest; I hope we'll pay closer attention to this :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Icos

I've been working on the article of a biotech company, Icos, and I put it up for peer review to get fresh eyes on it. Can you take a look? I hope to take it to FA status after the peer review. Also, any help from Wikiproject Pharmacology is welcome! Thanks, Shubinator (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: interview

Right after I posted the interview request on your talk page, I saw that you had a notice at the top of the page about being out of town. *headdesk*

I notice that you have a PhD in medicinal chemistry. Do you have any colleagues who are currently teaching graduate-level chemistry? Perhaps you could send an SOS to them asking for curious young chemists to try participating in WP:PHARM. I would try it myself, but as a math major, I don't know any chem professors. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Lactarius subdulcis/GA1

I've done my best to expand the lead. Hope that is satisfactory :) J Milburn (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That's great, thanks very much. J Milburn (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wal-Mart (disambiguation)

What is wrong with the page Wal-Mart (disambiguation) that made you change it to a redirect? Tatterfly (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wal-Mart blacklisting

Dr. Cash, your arguments don't gain weight by yelling. We probably need to get some third person(s) to look at the Wal-Mart edit we're discussing, I don't think you and I will end up agreeing. One guy weighed in in favor of my view, but obviously that's not conclusive. Let some more people weigh in.--Anderssl (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO! Dr. Cash (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Peer review request for Home of Truth, Utah

I have requested a peer review for Home of Truth, Utah. If you get a chance, could you please review the article and leave any comments on the peer review discussion page? Thanks, Ntsimp (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Flatworm

You signed up to GA review Flatworm on 5 Feb. When do you expect to post comments? --Philcha (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder, it's currently the third-longest-held article on review at GAN. Gary King (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wal-Mart

Per WP:NPOVD:

It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.

Your removal of the tag was inappropriate. I've identified eleven separate shortcomings of the article, none of which have been addressed. Please restore the NPOV tag immediately. THF (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You now have removed a tag placed by two different editors a total of three times in 25 hours, without once substantively addressing the critique on the talk page of the serious NPOV violation of the article. Please self-revert your violation of WP:NPOVD and please stop edit-warring. You're an experienced editor, so I shouldn't have to give you a formal 3RR warning. THF (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, if you stop being such a jack-ass and placing stupid tags in an article and just complaining about them, I might be willing to cooperate a bit more and help you out. But with you treating me like a jerk and a vandal and demanding that your useless tags be added back, doesn't make me want to help you. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've never called you a vandal. I said you are not supposed to remove the tag when there is an NPOV dispute. Which is correct.

You on the other hand, just called me a jack-ass and called my legitimate tagging "useless." So in addition to failing to maintain the fundamental principle of civility, you are now acknowledging that you're violating the edit-warring rules in order to violate WP:POINT. Please self-revert your inappropriate deletion of the tag, discuss the issues I've raised on the talk-page so we can collaboratively fix the article, and stop with the personal attacks. And please don't make me escalate this to an administrator. It's really tiresome when editors prefer to engage in wikidrama and edit-warring instead of actually addressing the eleven different substantive issues I've raised that could bring a very unbalanced article into compliance with Wikipedia rules. THF (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacks.

Comment on the edit, not the editor. My employer is irrelevant to my talk-page discussion. Read the COI policy. THF (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Derek - please knock off the derogatory comments on THF. this edit violates WP:NPA at least a little bit. THF's employer and politicial views are open and out there for others to review - and they are doing so. I don't think you're being objective on him right now, and you are crossing the line into personal attacks.

If you can back off and stop engaging each other it would avoid further conflict. However, whatever you do, please do not continue the personal attacks. Repeated or severe personal attacks will result in blocks from myself or other admins.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Flatworm

I am totally dissatisfied with your performance as a reviewer. You signed up to review this artcile on 5 Feb 2009, and on 23 Feb I had to ask when you would produce some comments - although that reminder is absent from both your current Talk page and its most recent archive. Then after doing nothing for 2 weeks you quick-failed the article. I'm taking this to WP:GAR. --Philcha (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Your "I thought about putting it on-hold, but thought that given the time delay already, it was better to just fail it and let it be renominated" does not make sense. --Philcha (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Linnean-style classification is in a total state of flux at present - if a source came out and said that as bluntly, I'd quote it. As it is, the paper that suggested a redefined and monophyletic Platyhelminthes (excluding acoels and Xenoturbella) only came out in 2008. That doesn't mean it's a novel idea - the first proposal to exclude the acoels was in 2005 (pre mol phylo). At present I see nothing firm enough to be regarded as a consensus view on the Linnean-style classification at the phylum level. The situation is even worse for the "Turbellaria", which traditionally contain both the "oddballs" (acoels and Xenoturbella) and which turn out to be the containing group for all the syncitial parasitic forms, although these have traditionally been assigned to separate classes. Right now the traditional classification is worthless, except to note that many books present it and it's a mess. The biggest problem is finding sources that are forthright about the mess.

If you can present concrete suggestions about how to structure the article better I'd be interested. But Linnean-style classification is not a suitablee framework as the article would build it up and then, in the following section, tear it apart.

Re the lead:

• Both when editing and when reviwing, I leave it until last, when the content is settled.
• The conventional idea of what a lead should be does not work well at the phylum level because there are so many aspects to cover: general characteristics and exceptions to these (of which Platyhelminthes has significant ones); ecological role(s) (often wide-ranging at the phylum level, as in this case); reproduction and lifecycle (vary so much in Platyhelminthes that they are best deal with by sub-group); impact on humans (serious in this case); place in art and culture (thankfully nothing to worry about here). Look at the other phylum-level GAs and you'll see that the leads are longer than usual. Some reviewers just accepted it, some looked hard and decided there was nothing that could be removed without harm, at least one asked for a 2nd opinion. --Philcha (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You may have realised that I was not favourably impressed by your earlier "administrative removal" without informing me or posting it at wp:GAR - the effect of your actions has been to delay the re-review by about 2 weeks. That's once you actually list the article, which you have not yet done. --Philcha (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Flatworm still does not appear at WP:GAR, which suggests either that the bots is not working or that you have got the procedure wrong. In addition WP:GAR says, "If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, read the review first. If you can fix the concerns, find them unreasonable, or the review inadequate, it is usually best to renominate the article at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, rather than requesting a community reassessment: there is no minimum time limit between nominations!"

Your "administrative removals" have cost the article its place in the WP:GAN queue - articles submitted 4 Mar are now being reviewed. If you remove it again or intefere in any way with my explanation of the re-nom, I shall refer your conduct to WP:ANI without further notice. --Philcha (talk)

Scrap the GAR as a new GA review is in progress. I have reverted your redir as it disrupts that. In addition under the GAR rules the final decision is up to the person intitiating the GAR. In this case that is you. Since I was totally dissatisfied with all aspects of your performance with the first GA review, having you make the final decision is unacceptable. I have also reverted your removal of the new GA review from WP:GAN. You can terminate GA2 yourself. Do not interfere in any way with the GA review that is now proceeding. --Philcha (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Flatworm

My objection to your initiating a GAR was that according to the GAR banner on the article's Talk page the final decision would have been yours. In addition your repeated removal to-day of my most recent renom destroyed the information that a review is now in progress, and therefore would have caused confusion at WP:GAN. I have therefore reverted your changes.

My comments there were not slanderous. Since the renoms for this review have, thanks to your actions, repeatedly disappeared from WP:GAN and been reinstated by me, I think some explanation was required. That I was dissatisfied with your performace is not slanderous, it is a statement about my feelings. "Tardy" is not slanderous, it is a fair description of the nearly 3 weeks' delay between your signing up to review Flatworm and your posting of comments - if you had withdrawn a couple of days after signing up, someone else might have reviewed it and we might not have had all this trouble. Since you initiated the GAR, it was appropriate to point out why this was not a satisfactory resolution. If this comes down to a formal dispute process, a blow-by-blow account will put your conduct since 5 Feb 2009 in a less favourable light than my comments at WP:GAN ever could. --Philcha (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Somecreepyoldguy

As is mentioned on my user page, I periodically copy the contents of the "what links here" page for Alpha Phi Omega onto the page so that I can look at the differences and then check to see what pages APO has been added to or dropped. When he added his screwed up version of your page (not sure how you can actually tell that), it meant he had a link for APO on it. I actually don't look at the user pages usually. I have no idea who he is and have no more information than you do from looking at the history of that user page.Naraht (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the GA review on York and for the advice and corrections.The tips will be useful in the future.--Harkey (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request

Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Water fluoridation

Thanks for your comments on Water fluoridation. I attempted to fix the three concerns you reported, and followed up with a comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Water fluoridation. Further comments there are welcome. Eubulides (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

re:Akron

Hello, Derek.cashman. You have new messages at Talk:Akron, Ohio.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

§hep^Talk 03:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Webster Springs, West Virginia

Hey, thanks for your help in improving Webster Springs, West Virginia. Do you think you could take another look now and tell me what you think? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, Crash Underride 22:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

How to start an A class-review

Hey, Derek. I was wondering how to start an A-class review. The page that describes the process confuses me: "Add A-Class=current to the WikiProject banner at the top of the article's talk page, click on the "currently undergoing" link that appears then write up your nomination."

Im confused and have no clue where to put the text...if you help by doing it yourself or telling me how to do it, that would be awesome. Thanks! Anon134 (talk) 05:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, we figured it out. Thanks anyway. Anon134 (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting an objective assessment of Welsh cities

Hi Dr. Cash, I saw your name as the 'any questions' contact at Wikiproject Cities, and I wonder if you'd provide an objective view on the WP Cities priority assessments for Cardiff, Swansea and Newport. I've been discussing these with Welshleprechaun - here and here. Thanks for your help. Pondle (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Winthrop, Massachusetts

Hi. In the discussion page when offering imporevent ideas, you say "The first four sections in the article should be history, geography, demographics, and economy." Would you recommend them going in that order? Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Why so few FAC reviewers?

Miracles will never cease - we agree on something! Your comment was exactly what I had in mind when I suggested the FAC group should look to mitigate disincentives. --Philcha (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:PHARM:CAT: Editors are moving forward...

In response to several comments, the re/categorization of pharmacology articles is going to begin. Ongoing refinement of the proposed categorization scheme will continue at WT:PHARM:CAT and via CfD's; however, I wanted to let you know about this categorization effort so that you (1) are aware and (2) might consider participating. kilbad (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

A-class review

How many reviewers do we need to approve of a quality-scale upgrade? Anon134 (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Unconstructive edit has been reverted

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Wikipedia:1000 things not to write your article about, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. R.A.T.Baseball.M. (Pen name of Mydoctor93) 22:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Anon134

Hey, if you've noticed, User:Anon134 has left Wikipedia. He is now editing a few times a day under an IP address, one of whom's edits you reverted on Spokane, WA. Go through the histories of the FAC and his talk page if you'd like to see the events surrounding it. Killiondude (talk) 06:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

1000 list

Hello, why did you revert my edits? The project page allows maintenance and pruning, specifically saying so in the introduction. If no rejection, would you please revert my edits? ZooFari 23:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: 1000 list: Thanks for clarifying, but most of my edits were merging, which should be acceptable because it reduces the page size (and the list, which the page was only created for 1000 items). For example:

Why Jesse McCartney is hot. Why Jesse McCartney is not hot.

Why waste a whole sentence when you can say: Why Jesse McCartney is/isn't hot. like many other items?

Also, just because it is the original list doesn't mean the second one is the only one that should be edited. They both have the same topics to me.

I may agree some of my other edits went off a little, but merging should atleast be allowed to reduce the list of unneeded extra things. ZooFari 22:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to thank you for fixing up the Edmonton article. Cheers Kyle1278 16:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Spokane

sure i will help out with Spokane. CallMeAndrew (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

i am creating the 8 way surrounding cities thing for spokane sice i didnt see one on there. i have been using google maps to find the surrounding cities. im not sure which are important enough to be on the 8 way but i put a few on there. i dont know what cities to put n which directions. im more familiar with western washington than eastern. so im asking your help since u are more experience than i in this type of stuff. could u help add some of just tell me what to should do.user:CallMeAndrew/Sandbox http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&output=html&q=spokane,wa&safe=active&source=s_q&zoom=3&zp=OOOOODDDUUU CallMeAndrew (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Spokane related removals

Hey, I felt like this edit and this edit should be undone. I would have done it, but I wanted to get a second opinion. Just because he left doesn't mean he can take his comments with him... it'd be nice to keep them for future reference (without having to dig through edit histories). Anyways, what's your opinion? Killiondude (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I undid the edits. Killiondude (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Virginia

A while back, during a peer review, User:Ruhrfisch recommended that I contact a user who has listed themselves on the peer review volunteers site, under Geography. You seem to be the most relevant to get in touch with. I'm the main editor over on the Virginia article, and have put the article up for FAC twice last year, getting rejected twice, mostly on minute issues. I've struggled to get a good peer review over the years, and half of the times I've had the page up for one, it went without comment. I'm hoping that you can help me in the near future in any way you can. Perhaps a detailed review, perhaps a copyedit, perhaps just some thoughts or reflections. If there's a way I can help, such as by putting the article up for another peer review or with any avidice regarding it, please don't hesitate to ask. Thanks for your help!--Patrick «» 23:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Walmart GAR

Hi, just wanted to make sure you had noticed that Walmart has been nominated for a good article status review. Is work continuing to address the tags? I hope so, as it would be a shame for an article with so much work put into it to not be recognized, but I would have to !vote to delist is it is just going to sit there as is. Thanks!YobMod 09:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Richmond, Virginia#Music

Hi, I notice you removed the anchor + comment I placed citing WP:MOS. I'm a bit surprised since I thought I was following the letter of MOS:SECTIONS, would you mind pointing out what I misunderstood so I don't make the same mistake again? Thanks in advance. --MLauba (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, your reverting of the mergeback from the Music of Richmond, Virginia appears a bit vigorous (including the removal of bands which were present before my action) even in light of your comment in the merge proposition. I'd have thought that any bands having their own articles would have to be considered notable as long as the linked article isn't being challenged for notability? Again, thanks for clarifing. MLauba (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am contacting you because you have contributed or expressed interest in the GA sweeps process. Last month, only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process with 163 articles reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

All exempt articles that have reached FA status have now been moved to a separate section at the end of the running total page. I went through all of the members' running totals and updated the results to reflect the move. As a result your reviewed article total may have decreased a bit. After removing duplicate articles and these FAs, the running total leaves us at ~1,400 out of 2,808 articles reviewed.

If you currently have any articles on hold or at GAR, please consider concluding those reviews and updating your results. I'm hoping that this new list and increased efforts can help us to increase the number of reviews. We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you know of anybody that can assist please direct them to the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, will get an award when they reach that mark. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: reviewing old GA may be seen as being aggressive by people who originally wrote much of the article. Maybe GA's could be good for 2 years then automatically expire. The authors can then reapply. If some GA's are selected for review but some are not, then the people who wrote the selected ones may feel upset. Or maybe review them in sequencial order so only the oldest one gets reviewed then then next oldest. User F203 (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Citations, how?

I can't figure out how to do template citations (per your suggestion), except manually cutting and pasting, which is very time consuming. Can you show me how? How about an example?

My way now is

1. Type "the sky is blue."

2. After the . , type < r e f >

3. Then add the http, followed by < / r e f>

User F203 (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I can't find it. To the right of bold and italics square buttons is "Ab" which says internal link. I don't see "cite".User F203 (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Pittsburgh photo

Hi there,

Please see my comments and requests on your image's talk page here.

—Notyourbroom (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Grindcore

Hi, thanks very much for agreeing to review the grindcore GA nomination. I've improved and expanded the lead, and I think it's looking better now. It's an interesting idea to put an image in the infobox, but I think it's in some way non-standard; music subgenre FAs like punk rock and Grunge music don't do it, for example, and I've tried to use them as models. best, Aryder779 (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the article still on hold? I believe I'm responded to all comments, as well as from the additional reviewer. The article is very well-referenced, and I believe clearly written and logically organized. At this point, I feel it deserves GA status. Thank you for your help with this. Aryder779 (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Akureyri/GA2

Hi, and thanks for your input at the above GA reassessment. Could I get you to revisit it? I'm leaning toward delisting soon, as it's still a ways from GA, but input from a WP:CITIES regular would be much appreciated. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps June update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 396 articles were swept in May! That more than doubles our most successful month of 163 swept articles in September 2007 (and the 2 articles swept in April)! I plan to be sending out updates at the beginning of each month detailing any changes, updates, or other news until Sweeps are completed. So if you get sick of me, keep reviewing articles so we can be done (and then maybe you'll just occasionally bump into me). We are currently over 60% done with Sweeps, with just over a 1,000 articles left to review. With over 40 members, that averages out to about 24 articles per person. If each member reviews an article a day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. I know that may be asking for a lot, but it would allow us to complete Sweeps and allow you to spend more time writing GAs, reviewing GANs, or focusing on other GARs (or whatever else it is you do to improve Wikipedia) as well as finish ahead of the two-year mark coming up in August. I recognize that this can be a difficult process at times and appreciate your tenacity in spending time in ensuring the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus sought

There is a new consensus question posted at WT:PHARM:CAT, and, if available, your comments would be greatly appreciated! ---kilbad (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's health and appearance

The above article you reviewed is currently under GA reassessment. Thus far no strong arguments have been put forward as to why it should be delisted, but you might like to take a look. — R² 02:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Magnificent Mile GAC

Let me know if you have further concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for the help with the copyedit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

NOV-205

I simply thought that since the page is quite abandoned, tagging it with multiple issues might bring it to someone's attention and result in a complete rewrite. IMO it is a very poorly written page that has problems on almost every front. I did not realize that the somewhat incomplete tagging could be perceived as being less helpful than not tagging it at all. I will try to do something about the article as soon as I get the time. DiamonDie (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps July update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 290 articles were swept in June! Last month was our second most successful month in reviewing articles (after May). We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. This may sound difficult, but if everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when we first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Wal-Mart (disambiguation)

I have nominated Wal-Mart (disambiguation), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation) (3rd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Winnipeg

I've responded to most of your concerns about Winnipeg on the talk page Talk:Winnipeg#GA Review. Feel free to take a look and let me know if you have any further concerns. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wal-Mart (disambiguation) at DR

Just letting you know that the discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation) (3rd nomination) has been listed for deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 15. You may be interested in commenting.Tatterfly (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Walmart page grammar issue

On the Walmart page, the following sentence is ungrammatical:

"A Loyola University Chicago study which suggested that impact a Wal-Mart store has on a local business is correlated to its distance from that store."

It's semi-protected so I'm posting this here, hope that's okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.113.116.42 (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Mentor

I saw your name on the list of GA Mentors, with experience in Natural Sciences. As a first-time GA reviewer, may I ask you to look over my review of Squatina squatina at Talk:Squatina squatina/GA1 if you have time, please? I was impressed with the article and the few comments I made have been mostly addressed by the nominator. I am therefore about ready to pass the article. Nevertheless, I'd appreciate your experience in checking over my review, if you were able, and I'd doubly appreciate any constructive advice you could offer to me on my reviewing. Thanks. --RexxS (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps August update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 215 articles were swept in July! We are currently nearly 80% done with Sweeps, with under 600 articles left to review. With 50 members, that averages out to about 12 articles per person. Once the remaining articles drop to 100, I'll help in reviewing the last articles (I'm currently taking a break). If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy tag

I have removed the speedy tag you placed on the article Rodney Scott Webb. I have done this under guidelines provided in WP:Notability (people), which states "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards... People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges." Cheers! Scapler (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Great power

Thanks for your note. I have had interchanges with the two key editors on this article. I had agreed with one of them that this would be determined at the end of August when they are back from summer leave. I expect that to be about 10-14 days from now. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The main editor has been pinged. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, don't worry about it. I was hoping I would be able to get it to GA level with the extended time, but there's no way that's possible now. Thanks for reminding me. Deavenger (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Top-importance Chicago articles

For the rest of this month we are looking for more candidates to be promoted to Category:Top-importance Chicago articles. We are hoping to bring the list of category members to a total of 50. Either you have participated in past votes and discussions or you have recently signed up to be a part of WP:CHICAGO. In either case, please come visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago/Assessment where we are determining who to add to the September 1st ballot. Some candidate debates have lingered, but there are many new ones from the project's top 50 according to the Wikipedia:Release Version 0.7. Help us determine which pages to add to the ballot.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Omega (Philippines)

I think we need the article under the original name. There are a number of things on the main Alpha Phi Omega page that should be copied over including the APO-Phil presidents template, the structure of the fraternity in the Philippines, the links to the APO-Phil chapters, the information on APO-Phil going co-ed and so on. The main Alpha Phi Omega article should deal only lightly with the Philippines.Naraht (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Also the majority of the text for the history of APO in the Philippines is a Copyvio from http://www.apo.org.ph/?mode=default&cmd=get&id=83Naraht (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree. We are separate Organizations, it is only with the creation of ICAPO that there is co-ordination. Legally there is no tie of the corporation, for example, Alpha Phi Omega of the USA is not liable for a lawsuit against a hazing institute at Far Eastern University any more than APO-Phil would be liable for one at University of Maryland. By that logic, it would seem that BSA and Scouts Nederlands should be in the same article.Naraht (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

For the relationship between the two organizations, see the ICAPO policies, particularly section II. The Wikipedia article is considerably more than just the Histories of the organization, for example there should be separate infoboxes for the National Organizations, for example, as far as I can tell, the Golden Eagle is *not* a symbol of APO-Phil (and I'm not sure about the oak tree). While the Publications have the same name, they certainly are not linked to the same place. The requirements of open membership section really needs to be changed to show that it is specific to the USA if the article remains together. NSW doesn't exist for the Philippines, etc. etc.Naraht (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Last page of Wikipedia

I was truly shocked to see that you were the author of that page. May I ask what the purpose was? If you are getting discouraged with the project, or anything like that, I'd be very happy to discuss it with you, either here or privately. Sincerely, decltype (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Is he a sock of User:Gavin Henson? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Gavin Henson. I was kidding actually. I know the guy. It is a play on User:Gavin.collins who seems to have been giving Ser Amantio a bit of unwanted attention. Don't worry, though I have no idea why a veteran wikipedia would create an article like that though... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Something of a comic break eh? Yes we all need them from time to time. Sometimes I feel like creating an essay on those at ANI who take this site too seriously and just to take to mickey out of wannabe policemen. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know - but I have to do my WikiDuty and tag such things as I see fit, you know. To be honest, once I saw who it was behind it I got just a teensy bit worried myself. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

GAN Nitrogen narcosis

Just a quick ping to see if you've found time to address my responses at Talk:Nitrogen narcosis/GA1? Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I swear...

I have to admit that I fully expected this, but still... you deletionists just grate on my nerves. I've promised myself that I won't become angry over this, though. And, like I said, I've had time to prepare... Based on your original "numb-nut" comment, I think that you were just waiting to AfD this article anyway, I just wish that you had actually taken a look at what was there before doing so.
— V = I * R (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Strange. I have to admit I expected a response from you to. Not that I really consider myself a true "deletionist"; I rarely take stuff to AFD. But in this case, there's really no reason for an article on this. And that's said even AS a huge fan of Colbert. The article itself is unlikely to even grow; it's a single event; it's done; build a bridge; get over it. Also, my "numbnuts" comment was not directed at you, or anyone, specifically; it's more "tongue-in-cheek" (that should be obvious, as I said it several months ago). Dr. Cash (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at the article, though? The Colbert aspect to it, while famous, is only one aspect. It's only one section of the article (and a paragraph in the lead, but that's appropriate IAW WP:LEAD). That's partially why I'm kind of angry about the AfD, because this seems like a knee-jerk reaction to "some numb-nut actually created the page!!!". There was the naming event, but the article is primarily about the equipment and, by association, exercise and life in space. Why do you think NASA itself is continuing to talk about the naming story? It provides a platform to actually discuss science and space operations.
— V = I * R (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have looked at it. And it's inaccurate to boot! The main image at the top isn't even of the actual named treadmill, but of an astronaut using the older one! The new one hasn't even been launched yet! This is misleading! For the love of God, you could of at least put the logo as the main image of the article! But I still don't see why you can't just be happy with a brief mention in the ISS article; that ought to suffice, IMHO. Sure, we'll probably get a few more news articles after the shuttle launches it; but those will eventually die down, and then this thing will be forgotten, and it'll disappear in a fiery ball of flame once the ISS disintegrates upon re-entry in the next decade,... Seriously. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to address your personal opinions on the appropriateness of any articles. I know that you think there should be fewer, for some reason, and you have a right to that opinion, but... well, whatever. As for the article content, that's an editorial issue. You're obviously welcome to edit the article yourself, or at least start a discussion on the talk page. Do you really view AfD as some sort of tool to correct content and editorial issues? Anyway, you answered my question about reading it. Obviously you have, but you're not understanding what is being said. Se la vie
— V = I * R (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Funny how somebody that keeps calling me a deletionist keeps deleting my comments from their user page,... Anyway, as I've stated before, I rarely use AFD. I would've tagged this with a 'speedy delete', since I think it's fruitless, trivial, and meaningless, and better covered in the main articles. But given the recent editing history, I figured the deletion might be more controversial. So I went to AFD. I'm really not a true "deletionist", per se; I just wish Wikipedia overall would get over it's addiction with useless pop culture articles and cover some more important things. But whatever. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, if you're not even willing to respect my desire not to have talk page conversations fractured across two user pages (which is plastered in that big red with white text notice on my user page), then I'm not sure what else there is for you and I to continue to talk about.
— V = I * R (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I continue to respond on YOUR talk page because if I respond on my talk page, you don't see that I've responded to what you wrote. It's not me. It's how Wikipedia works. I don't read special instructions on user pages for users that want to buck the system. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has this wonderful tool called "watchlists". You should try them out sometime! If you so egocentric that you really need to ping me immediately every time you reply, there's always {{Talkback}} and similar templated to use, as well. You're being un-civil currently, just so you know. There's some policy about this...
— V = I * R (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, who really cares. You do your thing, I'll do mine. I don't think I'm being uncivil, so please don't accuse me of violating WP:CIVILITY. I just don't feel like watchlisting everybody's talk page every time -- most editors I deal with, write their responses back on my talk page -- that's the way I'm accustomed to. You do things your way, but I'm doing things my way out of habit. Habits are hard to break.

Anyway, at this point, we'll see what the community has to say about the AFD. I still think it's useless and should be deleted, and the community at large may or may not agree with me. If the article does stay, you can bet your sweet ass that I'll be taking a few sweeps of it to insure that it meets certain standards and is accurately represented. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Either way, look at the bright side. One of us may get a "tip of the hat", while the other gets a "wag of the finger",... Wonder who will get what? ;-) Dr. Cash (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm more or less agreeing with the idea of breaking off somewhat. I didn't intend for this to become some confrontational pissing contest; we disagree is all. We talked about it some, and it's clear that we're not really going to see eye to eye. We'll see how the AfD goes. *shrug*
— V = I * R (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO voting for Top-importance Chicago articles

Your status has been changed to inactive at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members since you did not respond to our confirmation of active status request. If this is an error please come update your status. Also feel free to come vote at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago/Assessment#Current_Top-importance_Candidates for our next Category:Top-importance Chicago articles. Voting continues until September 10 and nominations/discussions are ongoing for future ballot candidates at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago/Assessment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Boxmasters GA review

Hi, have you finished your comments here?--Cannibaloki 14:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I passed the article, ok. Thanks for your comments.--Cannibaloki 16:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Copy Edit

Hi, I was wondering if you have time to do a copy edit on Davenport, Iowa. I'm almost ready to renominate it for FA, and need some good copy editing. Thank you! CTJF83Talk 20:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to help with GAN reviews

Hi Derek,

I came across your profile via Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Mentors. My reason for contact is that I've noticed a huge backlog in GAN's, and was wondering if anyone was permitted to help out in the reviewing process. I'm willing to offer my services, and see if I can get the backlog down a little bit more. Would I be doing the wrong thing if I were to help out with GAN's? I look forward to your reply. (Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)).

Edit summaries

Please stop using abusive edit summaries like these [1], [2]. And FYI, "Bot Generated Title" is just that - generated by a bot, not an editor. Grsz¹¹ 22:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I understand it wasn't directed at anybody specific, just to everybody in general. We got each other's points, so all is well. :) Grsz¹¹ 14:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hey Derek, are you in Pittsburgh currently? Grsz¹¹ 17:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

How are these versions very different? My goal was to remove "violent" which is not accurate nor sourced, but it required some syntax work. I don't see a difference between the two versions as far as portraying what happened, my the edited version reads a lot better. Grsz¹¹ 18:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

How about:

Later in the evening, another crowd gathered in Schenley Plaza, as world leaders met that evening at the Phipps Conservatory nearby for a working dinner. Shortly after 9:00 pm EDT, police attempted to disperse the gathered group, including a handful of protesters and 500 curious students from the nearby University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University. An estimated 300 riot police lined the sidewalk behind the William Pitt Union, with 200 more officers blocking Forbes Avenue nearby to contain the crowd. Police also shot several rounds of pepper spray into the crowd to contain them as well. The crowd actually was a mix of self-proclaimed anarchists, as well as college students, evident by shouts of, "Let's Go Pitt!" heard from time to time. Nearby businesses along Forbes Avenue and Craig Street were vandalized, mostly with smashed windows

I think using the term "violent" is an exaggeration. I mean, it makes people think that it was back and forth when it reality it was just simple crowd control, besides the few that got knocked down. Grsz¹¹ 19:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Minnesota Meetup

---

2009

Details under discussion.

Please share this with anyone who may be interested.

---

Jonathunder (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello

In regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2009_G-20_Pittsburgh_summit&curid=22334662&diff=316148116&oldid=316147561 , my objections was that from the article: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/09/24/us.g.twenty.summit/ "Others chanted pro-marijuana slogans behind the riot police, and another group took up the stadium chant of "Let's go Steelers."" says nothing about it being a 'counter protest' but just a protest. rkmlai (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Peer Reviewage

Hello. I noticed your name on the list of peer review volunteers. You were one of the only people on the list under medicine that didn't focus on bacteria and viruses. I was wondering, if you have the time and are willing, if you could help me with an article that I'm hoping to promote to featured article soon, Rumination syndrome. Most of the problems deal with citations not directly supporting sentences they accompany.

So, if you'd enjoy reading up and reviewing a disorder that I'm certain you haven't heard of before (nobody has on Wikipedia), it would be an awesome help to me. Thanks in advance! Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Something totally different..

I'm doing the GA review for Suwałki Agreement. When I started the review, the article was fairly stable, no signs of edit warring, just the normal editing, etc. Since I've posted the review, an edit war has sprung up. I'd like your advice on when it hits the point where it fails the stable criteria of GA. I've posted a note on the review page pointing out that the edit war isn't helping it's nomination, but it's being ignored, near as I can tell. I'm not really in the mood to get attacked for quick failing the article, but this is getting kinda silly.... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Dana Delany GA

Hiya... in your comments about the Dana Delany GA, you mentioned that the citation format needs work. Is that strictly because the date of retrieval is missing on some cites, or are there other issues?? I'm about to roll up my sleeves and redo all the cites to use the new list-defined references style - which ain't gonna be fun considering there's 115 references that need to be moved - and I might as well see if I can fix any other ref issues at the same time. Tabercil (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

Hello, Derek.cashman. You have new messages at Ceranthor's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ceranthor 19:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

GA

Thanks you for reviewing 2007 Groundhog Day tornado outbreak. Richard (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice!

Really liked your rotating star behind Wikipedia logo. Very creative! --Vishnu2011 (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for peer review of SENSOR-Pesticides article

Howdy, Derek.cashman! I've been working on the SENSOR-Pesticides article for some time now, and I've finally submitted it for peer review. I saw you listed on the peer review volunteers page, so I thought I'd ask you to take a look and the page and offer your edits, comments, and suggestions. Thank you! Mmagdalene722 (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've actually closed this PR after getting good comments from several users. MMagdalene722^{talk to me} 13:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Quick advice on GA

I saw you on the list of GA mentors and was hoping you might answer a quick question.

Another user and I have each submitted articles for GA related to histories of particular communities in Texas. Lacking a particularly good place to put them we put them in the "World History" topic. I notice, though, that it appears reviewers are deliberate skipping the articles seeming to pick articles related to histories of older civilizations (I know there is a backlog but it is frustrating to see articles processed out of order).

Question: Are we placing our articles in the wrong bin? Should we be placing these history articles in the Geography bin instead?

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth City, North Carolina

Hi! For some forgotten reason, I looked at this article and saw that you rated it "B". It certainly has plenty material, BUT citations are hardly present and the WPCities quality criteria implies that adequate (not necessarily complete) citations are necessary to promotion beyond "start". Or have I misread something? BTW, the need for citations is a common criteria at this stage. I apply it as a make or break criterion for promotion beyond "start". Folks at 137 (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of Pittsburgh skyline image

I did not change the skyline image in the infobox, but I found your reversion comment about deficient quality a bit odd, because the technical issues with the present image are well documented. To be honest, I thought that the replacement image looked better, at least at the low-resolution size displayed in the infobox. I would encourage you to review the image talkpage and upload the higher-quality copy of the file you have. Best, —Notyourbroom (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Elizabeth City, North Carolina

Thanks for your reply - good to know that I'm not (completely) out of step. On articles such as these (reasonable amount of content, but deficient in some respect) I often add a "todo" list. I'll add one to Elizabeth City. Folks at 137 (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Your cities reverts were uncalled for

...per my reasons on the talk page. When I get a consensus, I will put them back Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Man, Nice List

That list (you know the one) is possibly the funniest thing ever written. Having discovered your talk, I have a few compliments/comments:

1. Before, I thought the category on the bottom was pointless and cluttering. I did until you approved it. Everyone else put it and I deleted it (sorry), but since you rule the list (the user who created the list hasn't edited it since forever), it's up 2 U and only U.

2. You are the chief maintainer of the list, and judging by the links on your userpage, you have added quite a few humorous entries. I know you're probably busy doing real stuff, but you should seriously consider returning and adding a few funny things (that weird symphony could be funny under a piped link).

3. On that topic, it'd be nice for you to give your opinion on how the list has done since 1000 (yeah, we all jumped the shark, but 10000 is better than 1000). Have we succeeded in informing the populace?

4. One last compliment, you dealt with the useless vandalism and misplacement well. I won't bite the newcomers again (excepting vandals).

Sincerely, 2J Bäkkvire Maestro ^{RQQ et al} _{favorite haunts} 21:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(PS: Sorry for all the parenthetical remarks :) I won't do that many again)