User talk:Dthomsen8/Archive 6

Girard Point Bridge

Thanks! I travel on the Girard Point Bridge yearly when I go down to the Jersey Shore. Looks like big construction going on! Happy editing! Pa mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pa mike (talk • contribs) 20:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements to La Stazione

Hi, you recently rated La Stazione at C class, and I was wondering what kind of improvements still need to be made to the article. I've nominated it for a GA review, and I'd like to get it into as good a shape as I can before then.
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article had an importance rating, but not a class rating, and I put a class=C rating on it, just as you say. No, I do not see anything more to do to improve this article. Can you find any small train stations, or former train stations, ranked higher than class=B? --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what bearing the quality of other station articles has on this one, but I've put a list of station articles at GA or higher at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stations#Featured content. I believe all the featured articles there are about small, defunct stations.
--Gyrobo (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind reclassifying it then, if it's not too much trouble? If it meets the B-Class criteria, I see no reason not to give it that class while it awaits a GA review.
--Gyrobo (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Gyrobo (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge and a barnstar

Thanks for your kind words. I see your edits adding WikiProjects and doing assessments on talk pages across several US states on my watchlist all the time, and I've meant to give you this before, but here it is (finally). Thanks for all you do! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar moved to user page.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. I will try to check for Projects and assessments. I am sure there are tasks each of us feel more and less competent to do, and assessing articles is one of those I am not very good at. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I have had complaints about my ratings, part of the learning process, so to be thanked is important. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WIKINYC10

Great meeting you. Good luck with the NY mansions project.----James R (talk) 15 January 2011

Hi, we met at the convention last week. I had been creating articles of noteworthy churches not on the NHRP that are now up for deletion. The discussion was primarily based on an abundance of New England church article stubs but seems to be deciding that architecture stubs outside of the NHRP are not notable and should deleted in mass, as opposed to those articles on the NHRP. Wondering if you would like to weigh in on the discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut)--James R (talk) 24 January 2011

NRHP quality assesment

Hi, Dthomsen8. I've noticed you adding {{WikiProject National Register of Historic Places}} to the talk page of many articles. While this is very helpful, I don't agree with your importance ratings all of the time. You seem to be just copying the importance rating from one project on a talk page to every other project on the talk page. According to the general importance guidelines, importance ratings are not necessarily the same for all wikiprojects. Granted, just copying importance assessments usually suffices because many wikiprojects have pretty subjective importance scales. WP:NRHP, on the other hand, has a somewhat more strict one. If a site is a National Historic Landmark, it automatically receives a high importance rating. If a site is a local landmark as well as being listed on the NRHP, it may receive a Mid importance rating or may be low importance. The whole criteria list is at the above link, but I think it will suffice to say that copying other projects' assessments doesn't really work when it comes to the NRHP project.

We have recently begun going through the 30K+ articles in our project's scope to check/update their assessment ratings based on our new scale, and rating importances incorrectly is not helpful to this effort. I don't mean to reprimand you, but it would actually be more helpful to leave NRHP articles unassessed so that someone in our project can attend to them. If, though, you'd like to assess articles based on our importance scale and not just copy other ratings, that would be fine as well. I've seen your name come up on the history of many talk pages as I have gone through them, so I was just bringing this to your attention. Thanks for understanding.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful suggestions. I will read over the material you have mentioned. I know I have made NHRP importance entries on a number of New York City houses recently, so I can review those in the light of the material and the suggestions you are making to me. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing it again... and again... and again... and AGAIN. Importance in the NRHP project is not the same as for other projects. All four of these examples were categorized incorrectly. In general, no two projects will necessarily have the same importance rating for a given article. When you rate NRHP articles with the wrong importance, it makes me have to go through and check to make sure everything is rated correctly, which gets old after going through 30,000 articles. I ask you again, please don't rate the importance of any articles in the NRHP project. We'll handle it. Thank you.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project templates

Thank you for the kind words and the heads-up. When I created Leiper Canal, I had no understanding of talk-page templates or ratings. I understand more now, but I hadn't thought to revisit all the articles I've worked on. I tend to be conservative about adding templates and assigning ratings, leaving rating above the "stub" and "start class" to others who know more about particular projects than I. I have no strong opinions about the ratings and have had no disagreements with anyone about any of my ratings (or their ratings). The two exceptions would be GA, and FA, and I have often expressed opinions about those ratings at WP:GAN and WP:FAC. Your suggestion that I check the project templates on the canal and other Pennsylvania articles that I've worked on is a good one, and I'll do it. Finetooth (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at a few Pennsylvania canal articles, I think that the Pennsylvania project template makes sense, but I'm not sure about adding other templates, the civil engineering template, for example. WP:CE#Scope says in part, "This project generally considers any article on civil engineering topics—including the topics of its various sub-disciplines—to be within its scope. This, however, does not include specific engineering projects like particular bridges or buildings (we would be happy to provide consultation on these articles)." I'd be inclined to let the CE people decide whether or not to add their project template to individual canal articles. I routinely add templates for projects (Rivers and Oregon) that I'm part of, but I'm hesitant to add templates for other projects. Finetooth (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked about canals being included on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transport page. Suez has their template, Erie does not. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samho Jewelry

[position=16 This website] should give enough info to make a start on the infobox. IMO and MMSI numbers can be useful search terms. Mjroots2 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnstown Inclined Plane

If you want to support the FAC you should read the article carefully and also read the featured article criteria, then comment at the FAC. At FAC you can support, oppose, or just comment. If you want, you can look at some other FACs listed at WP:FAC for a model of how FACs go. I already supported the FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I noticed, thanks! Unless you spotted something I didn't, it doesn't appear it has been promoted yet (no big notice on the FAC with the result, it's talk page hasn't been updated by a bot, etc.). Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 19:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the discussion page archived? That is what I spotted. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you mean the "/archive1" in the name of page. That's SOP for FACs and PRs to distinguish between one or more nominations / reviews, and to lessen the workload for when they are "officially" closed / archived (no need to move the page into an archive). Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 22:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for peer reviewing, support at FAC and continued encouragement; the incline was finally promoted to FA. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 05:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually, perhaps on June 1, 2011 (the 120th anniversary of its opening). Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 14:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject American football

Dthomsen8, I saw you've recently tagged some articles such as Jeremy Kapinos, Matt Bahr, and Penn State Nittany Lions football under Joe Paterno (as an Independent) for WikiProject American football. WikiProject American football is intended to cover core concepts of the sport like basic terminology, formations, and strategy, and lesser-known leagues that don't have their own project. Kapinos and Bahr belong under WikiProject College football and WikiProject National Football League, not also WikiProject American football. The Penn State article belongs under WikiProject College football, not also WikiProject American football. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project ratings for churches

Hellow Dthomsen8! I've rated approximately 6000 articles for Wikiproject Connecticut, so I know a thing or two about ratings. :-) Recently, I've reverted several of your edits because stubs were being upgraded to starts that were not fitting in the wp:assess ratings for start class articles. If you'd like to see the ruler I've been using, please check out wp:WikiProject Connecticut/Assessment, which is basically the wp:assess page but is "boiled down" for rating CT articles and decent "rules of thumb". Just having a citation or two doesn't qualify an article for Start status, it needs development as well. I'm happy to discuss this if you like. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have rated thousands of articles for Wikiproject Pennsylvania, Wikiproject Philadelphia, WikiProject Pittsburgh, WikiProject Erie and Wikiproject Lehigh Valley, and I have read the guidelines for Pennsylvania again, along with the Connecticut page you provided to me. It is clear to me that the Connecticut guidelines are stricter than the PA/Philly/Pittsburgh ones, and that I was going by the more liberal ones. I would appreciate it if you would give me some particulars, though, since I have many of those churches on my watchlist and I do not see changes on the talk pages being made. I added a set of templates before I read your message today, and I will go back and change that one after my lunch. I am puzzled by the fact that the Connecticut table does not show any unrated articles, but Pennsylvania has over a thousand completely unrated, and many more thousands without an importance shown. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, not a problem. I just didn't want you to get caught up re-rating the entire project! Here are the ones that I found: Talk:St. Anthony of Padua Parish, Fairfield‎, Talk:Saint James Parish (Connecticut)‎, Talk:Saint James Parish (Connecticut)‎, Talk:St. Benedict's Church (Stamford, Connecticut)‎, & Talk:St. Pius X Church‎. Oh, I also reverted Talk:North Haven/Hamden (CDOT station)‎, Talk:Hartford Botanical Garden‎, Talk:New Britain–Hartford Busway‎ as things that do not exist have an NA importance rating. I confess that's a conceit of my own – but I just can't say that something which does not exist can be equally important to something that does exist. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I started the CT project was defunct and we had ~1500 articles. A bit over a year later and we're pushing ~7400... so that's why you don't find many unrateds: little tagging by anyone besides myself prior to the project "coming back to life", and I spend way too much time tagging stuff. (lol). I'm not really done either – I figure that the number of CT related articles that aren't tagged must be at least 1500–3000, and I've barely scratched things like Firelands & things related to the Western Reserve (which I'd someday like to make into a task-force/sub-project). Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index about no unrated CT articles in the summary table. Short version: none in the table because there are none in existence. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Because I rated them all, and rate the ones I tag as I find new ones. ;-) Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is my practice with Philadelphia, and less often with Erie and Lehigh Valley categories. Still quite a way to go with Pennsylvania and Pittsburgh ratings. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Green Bay

Could you kindly explain this edit? It would seem to me that, if the article is relevant to WikiProject Wisconsin, that it's equally relevant to WikiProject Michigan. Having zero experience with WikiProjects, I readily admit that I could be wrong, but I would like to understand. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the explanation is that I made a mistake. The town of Green Bay, Wisconsin is indisputably in Wisconsin, and famous for the Green Bay Packers, but Green Bay is in both states. Although all of them are in the United States, having a United States template for this article is irrelevant, and I removed it. I restored the Michigan template to the talk page. Thank you for catching my mistake. As 10 PM approaches in Philadelphia, I should retire.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted

Whack!
You've been whacked with a wet trout.
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

~~You have been trouted for: Thinking that Green Bay is not in Michigan~~

I unslap thee. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erie–Western Pennsylvania Port Authory; barnstar

So far the only thing I know about the port authority is that was created in 1962, which means I can't do an easy search of the PA General Assembly's digitized copies of bills, nor can I use the Erie Times-News' electronic newspaper archive. So the next time I'm back in Erie, it will be do some old-school research ;-)

Thanks for the barnstar! It is somewhat ironic that Erie was actually my first article ever promoted to FA. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 02:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old-school research? Looking in books, or even microfilm? Sources not on the Internet to cite? I certainly have done that, and I am geographically able to do it, too. (Oh, not in Erie!) There are other options to consider, the most obvious being to ask the port authority for at least some of what is needed for an article, and if they don't help, then there is always the possibility of right to know filings. I would want them to not only help, but to add the information to their web site. Most public authorities want to be open about things like their history, and what law authorized their creation. Let me give it a try, unless you are keen to follow up on it yourself. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the means and the motivation, then go for it! I'll try to help out where I can. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 19:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Today I found that the "Third Class City Port Authorization Act" Dated December 6, 1972, Public Law 1392, Number 298, authorized third class cities to establish port authorities. Erie is a third class city by population. It would seem that the EWPPA was created by Erie later than 1972. An attempt to send an email to the Authority bounced back. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good find. When I'm able to, now I have a date to start at in the newspaper microfilms (I imagine this becoming law would have been newsworthy). Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 19:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

Could you explain to me how this doesn't violate WP:CANVASS? Thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Please look at User talk:Colonel Warden#AfD for Battles in Vermont to see how Colonel Warden did just what I hoped he would do, he contributed information to the article, with an inline citation. I invited him to look at the article because he often contributes to military history articles. I see that he voted in the AfD discussion, but I was not canvassing for a vote, I was seeking improvement to the article text. Perhaps I should have worded my invitation differently, and I will be more cautious in the future. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, no worries, it's no big deal.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

I thank you for the message you left on my page. I was really pleased to read it. =) I totally agree with your point of view about women.

And I'd like to note that the reason why I became a user of Wikipedia is that I wanted to participate in developing its Russian version. =)

And I thank you for the information you recommended me to consider (it is about Stephen Girard and Thomas Willing). If there is no article in Russian about Stephen Girard, I will create it and add a link to English version as I did it in an article about Robert Morris.

Best regards, Aiym Ime-Ventures (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave a message right here if you want to know anything more about Stephen Girard, Thomas Willing, or Nicholas Biddle, three important early Philadelphia bankers. Also, take advantage of images at Wikimedia Commons. --DThomsen8 (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add more images of T.Willing and N.Biddle but scripts that are used in Russian version are really different. So i decided that it would be ok if there was at least one image. And I highly appreciate your readiness to help me. =)

Ime-Ventures (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania School for the Deaf

Yeah this needs some work. As I understand it, the current campus is the previously NRHP listed Germantown Academy, the previous campus is also NRHP listed, and their former 1826 building is probably also listed. Straightening everything out building vs. institution-wise may take a while. Smallbones (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! I know the article needs some work, and maybe there should be a link to their earlier location on Broad Street, but for now, just provide importance=??? on the talk page. Thank you for the prompt response, and don't work too hard on this article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing automated, I just copy something like *[[National Register of Historic Places listings in Alachua County, Florida]] change the county name, then back up to the List of counties in Florida and start again. If I concentrate maybe I could do 60 counties (approx. 1 big state) in an hour, but it's actually quite interesting to follow some of the link and see what they need. If you know how to automate this, please let me know – there are about 40 states to go. Smallbones (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) for my attempt to find someone who knows about such things. I know it can be done. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sign me up to me in Philly (Feb 27, 28?) if you'll be there. Smallbones (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing definite arranged, up to us in Philly to get something set up.--DThomsen8 (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emborne?

Hi, why is this a typo? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Philly

Hey, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philadelphia a user is considering tagging the project as inactive

Please make sure that your fellow Philly Wikipedians look at the talk page and constantly respond to queries there

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philadelphia for a reply.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) WhisperToMe (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikimedia Commons

To the best of my knowledge, all Wikipedias are compatible with Commons, and pl Wikipeida certainly is as compatible as the en one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject tags at AfD

I noticed you have started regularly posting comments at AfD's alerting editors that you have tagged the article with Wikiproject templates. Surely that is a useful task, but is it really necessary to notify the AfD discussion every time you do it? I don't understand why that information is relevant to the deletion discussion. SnottyWong ^talk 15:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I want the editors who participate in in AfDs to do likewise and provide Wikipedia project templates on articles where I am not aware of the AfD. You raise a good point, I should say that more directly when I post in the AfD discussion. I have added or updated with importance or class hundreds of articles for the Erie, Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh projects, so there are zero or close to zero unassessed articles in those projects, except for Pennsylvania, which is the hardest one to do. While doing so, I learn a lot, and I do some tagging and do some improvements as I go along. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Philadelphia Meetup

Both dates would work fine. Saturday may give us more time to prepare... and I have no problem going further to find a reasonably priced food place. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go with Saturday, 6 PM, meet in the lobby of the Society Hill Sheraton. I will post on the Philadelphia project page. If we eat at a place without WiFi, we can adjourn to a Starbucks or other place with free WiFi. I will try to do some more scouting. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. If you email me, I'll send you my phone information, so we can coordinate that way as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking in. Will be there tomorrow, if it doesn't rain hard (not supposed to). In fact I'll probably be in center city early, snapping Historic Districts. Smallbones (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stub

I reverted your edit to Pittsburgh Coalfield presence of reference do not impact the category of being a stub, it is article content or size that defines it as a stub. If you beleive that the article content is sufficient to provide encyclopedic coverage (may still have room to expand) of the subject that would be good reason to remove the stub tag. Jeepday (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply re Huron Central Railway

Please see my reply at User talk:Peter Horn#Huron Central Railway Peter Horn User talk 01:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

The GA criteria is far less stringent than at FA. If it is not possible to place a photo now, it is not going to bar it from promotion, though, not required, I'd place an {{Image requested}} on its talk page because someone else might have some. Also, the editor of the article reviewed both of my current GAs, so I suspect they are familiar with the process. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 12:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the Book class

See the answer here. GregorB (talk) 10:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Participating in GA reviews

Hi Dthomsen8, thanks for your note on my talkpage. There is a backlog elimination drive (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/March 2011) starting on the 1 March if you want to jump in at the deep end.

I've not really participated in WP:FAC as a reviewer, but I've been a co-nominator of one article and I've helped sort out non-compliances on one article (now awarded FA) and one still under review. From this limited experience, I would say totally ignore any FAC experience when doing GANs. FAC tends to be a "group" thing – one editor checks for dead web links, another for disambigs, another for inconsistent date formats in web page accessdates, another for grammar – its more an exercise in sado-masochism, but it does produce a good article at the end. The GAN process is less strict than FAC on many things, but they are fairly consistent in respect of WP:Verifiable.

GAN is much more a one-editor thing, the reviewer has to check everything (some don't) and make a pass-fail decision at the end: some reviewers seem to find that difficult, especially failing one (I fail no more than 10% of nominations). Instructions can be found at WP:GAN and WP:WIAGA. Big articles, such as Étienne Marie Antoine Champion de Nansouty (but not my review) are quite easy to review in some respects: at the start its usually fairly clear that its going to pass, but it could take a day perhaps two to review it. Shorter ones, such as Ekebergbanen (company) can be more difficult: its not an obvious fail nor an obvious pass, so I've gone for a Hold and stated what needs doing. I then tend to fail them if no progress is made in fixing them.

If you want to try some joint reviews just to get started I have some reviews on the go at User:Pyrotec/GA reviews#Current reviews. There are some fairly poor reviews going on at present, so I welcome anyone who intends to carry out competent reviews. Pyrotec (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would like to try some joint reviews, and I will look at the list you have provided, but I must admit that I need to learn just what to look for, so for now I think I will read some of the GA reviews, and the two how-to pages. As for images, it seems to me that if they are not available online in a free status, then posting a request for images on the talk page should be the minimum. Perhaps I am influenced by the fact that I have added hundreds of photos to Wikimedia Commons with User:DavidT8.--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at Montpelier Hill article, and would ask whether there should be mention of the Montpelier disambiguation pages somewhere, perhaps in a hatnote. I also saw the approved article on Kinzie Street railroad bridge and added a See also for the Chicago Flood. I saw a TV show on the flood, and therefore happened upon the railroad bridge article some time ago.--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to comment on any active /GA1(2) pages of mine. Yes, I reviewed Kinzie Street railroad bridge not all that long ago (well nearly six months). I try not to add "trival" requests to the review pages, if its a simple typo, etc, I often fix it myself. The reviewer does not have to do that, but as the reviewer my its my choice or not. Pyrotec (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of links

Why are you removing links to Allentown, Pennsylvania (and maybe other places) from articles? (examples: [1], [2]) Seems like a good idea to point a town-name to the article about the town. DMacks (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:AWB reports multiple wikilinks within articles, and provides an option to remove one instance of multiple links. For example, in Allentown Parking Authority, there was more than one link to Allentown, Pennsylvania, and now there is only one. Somewhere there is a policy for this, but right now I am going to lunch. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REPEATLINK? You removed the first link in the article proper, I guess AWB doesn't know to ignore the infobox when looking for multiple links. DMacks (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi, I should thank you for helping me with articles ISIRI etc. Regards, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 03:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mentor

She hasn't asked me anything, but I think I will take a look at her edits and leave some comments, proactively. Thanks for the heads-up! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

stub on the article page

When they leave the "stub" tag on the article page, it's always a safe bet that it's a stub – in fact I really have to be convinced otherwise in most of these cases. Smallbones (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree with that, but I was suggesting importance=low. Sorry to not be specific. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Greeting

Thanks for the welcome and the comments. I'm not exactly new to Wikipedia, having been here since about 2005. I've written a variety of articles and it's unclear what templates should go on what pages. I'm currently in the process of going back through the composers and trying to add some appropriate templates. Are you suggesting I should access the articles as well? I thought they should be rated by someone other than the writer. Pkeets (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have learned what to do with templates mainly by watching what others do. Some projects are very strict about classes and importance, but many are not. Military history and NRHP can be touchy; I sometimes add a template for one of those, but without any ratings.

For the composer articles you have done, I would say to have a biography template with the appropriate group shown, just like on Maura Bosch, and to add all the relevant geographical templates. I have rated my own articles, based mainly on the number of inline citations from reliable sources. I tend to be conservative, i.e. lower, on importance. If you add templates, it is more likely that another editor will come along and add more information or categories or inline citations to your work. As I go along rating Pennsylvania and Philadelphia and Pittsburgh articles, I sometimes add links or do other improvements on articles that catch my eye. Sometimes I use wp:Twinkle to add orphan or inline citation or copyedit tags. Sometimes I run AWB on a category to check on spelling and Wikipedia syntax and to reduce link repetition. Anyway, that is what I am doing, but I hope you will do more with templates. Feel free to mention any article you would like me to look at, make small improvements, or add/rate templates. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

This permission does not give you any special status or authority
Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 17:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This shows unsolicited confidence in my work. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE / Mid-drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2011 backlog elimination drive

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2011 Backlog elimination drive! Here is your mid-drive newsletter.

Participation

So far, 79 people have signed up for this drive. Of these, 64 have participated. Interest is high due to a link to our event from the Watchlist page, and many new and first-time copy editors have joined us for the drive. If you signed up for the drive but haven't participated yet, it's not too late! Try to copy edit at least a few articles. Remember, if you have rollover words from the last drive, you will lose them if you do not participate in this drive. If you haven't signed up for the drive yet, you can sign up now. Many thanks to those editors who have been helping out at the Requests page. We have assisted in the promotion of seven articles to Good article status so far this month.

Progress report

We have already achieved our target of reducing the overall backlog by 10%; however, we have more work to do with the 2009 backlog. We have almost eliminated May 2009 and we only have some 700 articles left from 2009. It is excellent progress, so let's concentrate our fire power on the remaining months from 2009. Thank you for participating in the March 2011 drive. We anticipate it will be another big success!

Utahraptor resigns

The Utahraptor ^{Talk to me} has decided to step down from his position as project coordinator due to real-life issues.

Your drive coordinators – S Masters (talk), Diannaa ^(Talk) and Tea with toast (Talk)

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 04:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Operation Deadstick

I have finished now just adding details to the info box.Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Infoboxes

I just noticed you were placing infoboxes on several of the projects and although I think that its largely a good Idea and quite beneficial I noticed that you were using a generic Portal:United States for all of them. I recommend, at the very least, adding the state portal as well. As I have found over the last couple months the state projects are easily offended and will begin spinning up at a pretty high RPM if they feel that WPUS is being thrust upon them. --Kumioko (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took the infobox from Pennsylvania, and have extended it to some other states. I realized the possibility that some states would be pleased to have the improved infobox, but others might be offended somehow. I now see what you mean by my using the generic Portal:United States. It should be the particular state, not the generic. Ah, the problems of copy, edit, and paste! Sometimes something unintended gets a ride. Oh, well, I can go back to my contributions list and fix it. Thank you for calling my attention to this small detail. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem I;m still licking my wounds from my last encounter so when I saw what you were doing I though I would shield you from friendly fire. --Kumioko (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and please reply to my questions. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If your referring to the comments on my talk page I replied. If I missed something please let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]