User talk:Finetooth: Difference between revisions

Archives

1) July 2007 – January 2008 2) January 2008 – April 2008 3) April 2008 – July 2008 4) July 2008 – October 2008 5) October 2008 – March 2009 6) March 2009 – June 2009 7) June 2009 – November 2009 8) November 2009 – February 2010 9) February 2010 – June 2010 10) June 2010 – October 2010 11) October 2010 – February 2011 12) February 2011 – July 2011

I regret that I no longer have time to copyedit entire articles or to do as much reviewing as I used to. For copyediting, try WP:GOCE/REQ. For peer reviews, nominate at WP:PR, or ask editors working in your area of interest, or try asking someone in the lists at WP:PRV. Finetooth (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I have closed the peer review and nominated at FAC. Here's hoping for a not-too-bumpy ride. Brianboulton (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed, in the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument article, that File:PaintedHillsPano4.jpg was interfering with the geobox when the pixel width of the window was reduced. I used {{wide image}}, but that is not a perfect solution. If it were moved lower on the page I think it might be OK. To duplicate the problem, view your last version of the article in a browser window that is not maximized, then drag a vertical edge to increase or decrease the window width. My version causes the image to jump before the geobox is overwritten, which is not ideal. –droll [chat] 04:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I changed a parameter so the image is centered, for now. –droll [chat] 18:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work you've been doing on that article, Finetooth! Maybe we can nominate it for GA review sometime. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I plan to take it to PR soon and then straight to FAC in September. Finetooth (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet. I'll help out when I can. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my response on my talk page. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see the FAC has been withdrawn. Wish I could help with paleontology, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope you feel like contributing featured content again somtime in the future. I never watch the FAC talk page - too much drama. while I understand somone's opinion on your nursing skills may be POV, I would bet that it is still verifiable. if I ever get more free time I may check out a few books on paleontology... Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear you are still assuming good faith ;-) I have taken on several additional responsibilities in real life over the past year or so which I am finding are combining in such a way as to reduce the time I used to have to spend editing. I keep hoping that I will have more free time soon. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments on List of colleges and universities in Alabama. I hope this can guide me to a successful FLC. —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 22:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the top contributors by number of edits, I thought you might want to comment on an RfC on how to describe the nationality of Shackleton in the lead sentence. Please seeTalk:Ernest_Shackleton#Nationality Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the PR of James Tod. You have picked up some howlers on the mistake front!

Just FYI, I have not been able to find a freely available copy of his map(s), nor is there any more info available regarding his education. I think that much of the rest which you suggest certainly is worth me spending some time digging around. It is much appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this list know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on August 22, 2011. You can view the TFL blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/August 22, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) or Giants2008 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seventy-six rivers and creeks at least 50 miles (80 km) long are the longest streams in the U.S. state of Oregon. All of these streams originate in the U.S. except the longest, the Columbia, which begins in the Canadian province of British Columbia and flows 1,249 miles (2,010 km) to the sea near Astoria. The Snake River—second-longest at 1,040 miles (1,670 km)—is the only other stream of more than 1,000 miles on the list; the Snake begins in Wyoming and flows through parts of Idaho and Washington, as well as Oregon. Some of the other streams also cross the borders between Oregon and California, Nevada, Idaho, and Washington, but most flow entirely within Oregon.

A completely unexpected surprise. Thanks for choosing our list. Finetooth (talk) 05:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My congratualtions too! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go! LittleMountain5 00:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the timely reminder. I had not thought about it today. So far, so good. Finetooth (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Oddly, more people clicked on the image (5,300) than the actual list (5,100), and the Columbia River saw the biggest jump in views (up to 9,600 from an average of about 1,000). Interesting. LittleMountain5 14:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I expected a wave of vandalism, but I didn't see any. I didn't think to look at the stats. Interesting indeed. Everybody liked your photo, not surprising. Finetooth (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be glad to take a look at it, though it may take me several days. I have peeked at it already and thought the photos were very lovely. Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. My favorite pen is a Waterman. Thanks for your continued excellent coverage of Eastern Oregon. P.S. If I don't get around to dealing with the Povey pics in the next few days ping me about it. I'm discombobulated lately--is it spring, summer, or fall? Valfontis (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in love with Wheeler County. No worries about the Povey pix. Since you've done so much work on the article, I figure you're the best one to pick and arrange the images. Finetooth (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work! Ill get to it, and thank you so much!--Cerejota (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I have brought forward this article's FAC and have just nominated it. I had intended this to be for September, but a delay in another project makes it feasible to progress the "lady" now. Brianboulton (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took your advice and notified the GA reviewer and the PR reviewer about the FAC listing. Around the same time, though, an editor added many new comments about the article. I've been working to address the easiest ones, and I invite you to help. There's also a complaint about the possible redundancy of Willamette River, Willamette Valley, Willamette Floodplain, etc., and I'm not quite sure what to say. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. The nominator of an article at FAC is not required to fix problems in other articles in order to meet the FA criteria. That's what I meant by "not actionable". Finetooth (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the FAC was closed and archived without input from those editors. Take a look at the article's talk page, though. I'm wondering what would be the best approach after this. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks very, very much for your peer review of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. I'm working on the changes you suggested. One point possibly worth noting is that the {{Cite court}} template does not support the accessdate= parameter — so it is in fact not possible to include an access date in the court case citations where you suggested this should be done. I can add the access dates, but I believe the info will simply be ignored until/unless the template workers can be convinced to add support for this item to {{Cite court}}. Also, it turns out that the abbreviation "H.R." in a bill number in Congress does not stand for "House Resolution" — it stands for "House of Representatives". I'm doing what I can to make the meaning of "H.R. 1868" clearer. Richwales (talk · contribs) 22:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you missed what I put on my own talk page: Now that I've added the accessdate= info to each of the cites, using your workaround would result in sudden duplication of material in the event that the problem with the template ever gets fixed. (I did, BTW, report the problem at Template talk:Cite court several weeks ago, but there was never any response or action.) Do you consider this a showstopper point which (in your opinion) would or should cause an article to be rejected as a Featured Article candidate unless the template bug were either fixed or worked around?

As far as I'm aware, nothing in the article would fall under the copyvio / plagiarism / close-paraphrase umbrella.

You asked if any ethnic groups other than Native Americans and Chinese had ever been denied birthright US citizenship since the coming into force of the 14th Amendment. No, as far as I'm aware, this has never happened to any other group. There was, at one time, a law prohibiting Indians (i.e., people from India) from becoming naturalized US citizens; see United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind — but AFAIK, no one of East Indian ancestry who was born in the US ever had their citizenship challenged, so I don't really see this question as relevant to the Wong Kim Ark article.

As for the legal status of Japanese-Americans during WWII, many interned Japanese-Americans were drafted into the US armed forces (and some of these were sent to prison for refusing induction in protest against the internment policy). Additionally, one Japanese-American who was stuck in Japan when the war broke out was later convicted of treason for his actions during the war (see Kawakita v. United States). As far as I know, there was never any attempt to strip these people of their US citizenship — and, indeed, the Kawakita case dealt with the government's insistence that the man was still a US citizen even though he claimed to have lost or given up his citizenship.

I think I've incorporated all your suggestions into the article now (with the possible exception of the issue of access dates in court decisions). Would it be appropriate for me to ask if you would take another look at the article now? Or should I just submit it at this point as a Featured Article candidate? Richwales (talk · contribs) 00:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I think I'll go ahead and nominate now. Do I need to wait for you to formally close the peer review before I do that? Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching you improvements to the Oregon Caves National Monument article. I just wanted to say that your doing a great job. I wish I had the talent and tenacity to do what your doing. –droll [chat] 08:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your peer review. I plan to get to work on your suggestions this weekend. I am sure my inexperience with Wikipedia shows, but hopefully I can learn from my mistakes. You mentioned that you are willing to create a version of the courthouse picture that had the stoplights removed. If you can do that, I would definitely use the stoplight-free version. "Fixing" photos is currently beyond my abilities. We have available some other photos from the Blackford County Courthouse category and the Blackford County, Indiana category, but the current photo has the best lighting. Thanks again, TwoScars (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo looks great. Thanks! About Paul McKee (Notable People): I have no problem dropping Paul McKee from the Notable People section. The Blackford County Historical Society says in "A History of Blackford County, Indiana" that "First All-Night Prom Party Originated in Hartford City". This was Paul McKee's idea, and he organized it in 1951. Although I have not been able to find any information that contradicts this claim, I believe it is hard to prove that no after-prom parties ever happened before 1951. Thus, the weasel words. Do you think it is better to make the claim without the weasel words, or best to drop McKee?

Finetooth, I have been experimenting with your suggested order of sections for the Blackford County page in my Sandbox2. To keep the article from looking "jumbled", I have had to delete some of the maps and photos. Are the photos and maps considered important to an article? Do I still have enough? Any thoughts? I still have a lot of editing to do, especially the em and en dashes.TwoScars (talk) 03:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really like File:12 vertical panels pano painted hills.jpg - I think it is your next FP! Assume that the fact that Crater Lake is on the Oregon state quarter is mentioned in (or worth mentioning in) the Crater Lake article. More random thoughts to follow at a random interval ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a very interesting place. I figure for some things it is worth having more images than needed - people on other language Wikipedia's may use them or interested people may look at them too. There are now over 100 images for Black Mo, so perhaps it can be overdone ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most but not all Black MO pix are mine - got some more over the summer. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much reviewing you are doing these days, or if you are at the stage where the lovely sport of cricket sends you into a horrible, screaming frenzy. If not, George Hirst is at FAC here and is slightly starved of attention. If you have the time or inclination, I would appreciate any comments or suggestions. If not, don't worry, and feel free to tell me, none too politely, to go away! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry if you don't get a chance, it sounds like you are snowed under; but thanks if you do! --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, thank you. I've replied to your queries and fixed most of them. Thanks for your kind words and please don't hesitate to let me know if I can repay the favour as you have now slogged through several cricket articles! --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and thanks again for your help. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured article reviews for the period Jul-Sept 2011, the Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Buggie111 (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that I did enough to deserve this, but I thank you. Finetooth (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Finetooth,

Thanks for helping to review the article Snow Prince. I have implemented most of your suggestions for this article. Can you take another look at it and highlight areas that might still be insufficient? And thanks also for telling me about the use of images templates for peer review pages. This is the first article that I have nominated for peer review, so I am still unfamiliar with most of the procedures.

Furthermore, regarding the copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing problems you mentioned, is there any tools that I can use for checking? And are translations also subjected to such problems (because I think that it is quite unlikely that translations will be 100% similar to the actual source)? Lastly, is there anything I can do about the dead link. All the archive websites that Wikipedia cited have not achieved the page before it was taken down. Thanks again for your help!--Lionratz (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt reply. I have replaced the dead link. Can you help me check if there are any other outstanding issues? And regarding your link to Copyscape, I cannot use it because it says that Wikipedia has already used up its monthly limit. Is there are other tools that you know of? Lastly, is the article good for a GA nomination? Thanks!--Lionratz (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you a lot for your big help in helping to improve this article. Sorry for disrupting your busy schedule. And not to worry, I will be asking other film editors to take a look at this page again. In future, if you need any help, please feel free to look for me (not that I very good or experienced in editing though...). A big thank you once again.--Lionratz (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping this note of appreciation for living up to your username with your peer review of Brisco. I have implemented all the suggested fixes and changes, and I'm feeling very good about the article's prospects for GA review and, hopefully, FA review. Also, thank you for the kind and encouraging words about the article. After working on the article for about a year, it's nice to hear from someone that reading the article makes them want to see the show :-) Cheers,AstroCog (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major thanks for the Katharine Hepburn review! I'll make all the changes tomorrow (all your suggestions make sense and will be improvements, so good to have a fresh set of eyes because you just don't realise problems yourself sometimes) and work on expanding the sources I've used. Although, I can't imagine it's a requirement to reference every biography of her ever written? I basically just listed them all (that isn't even all of them) to be of use to the reader, but there's not going to be much variation in information..? Also, do you mind if I ask, was the prose generally okay? Thank you again, it truly is appreciated. --Lobo512 (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to find this FAC archived, with six supports against a single registered oppose. The opposer's view that the article should have more paleontology content is reasonable, but so is the counter-argument that it is pitched to a general rather than a scientific readership, and the consensus clearly supported this latter argument. It is dispiriting, too, to see your efforts to find a compromise solution rebuffed. Some discussion on the precise powers of individual reviewers might be in order; meanwhile I will be happy to lend my support again, should you choose to resubmit. With all good wishes Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you greatly for the peer review. I am mostly done with addressing your points but here are three things relating to quotes I am unsure about:

• From an article that said "rife with gross -- and even cruel -- distortions" of a provision that "would not only help people make the best decisions for themselves, but also better ensure that their wishes are followed." I produced at death panel the following:

  the AARP said her claimsand the AARP said her claims were "'rife with gross—and even cruel—distortions' of a provision that 'would not only help people make the best decisions for themselves, but also better ensure that their wishes are followed'".[15]

  Is something wrong the quotations?

It's the punctuation. The AARP said the things set off in quotation marks in the source document. The four words, "of a provision that" are not something AARP said; they are words added by the reporter, Joel Connelly. What you are doing is quoting SeattlePI, which is quoting AARP. For the sake of clarity and to simplify the punctuation, I'd recommend something like, The AARP, as quoted in SeattlePI, said her claims were "rife with gross—and even cruel—distortions" of a provision that "would not only help people make the best decisions for themselves, but also better ensure that their wishes are followed".[15] Finetooth (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• At the peer review you said

  "Email and blogs were also conduits of the death panel myth. The Washington Post reported on August 1 that on "religious e-mail lists and Internet blogs, the proposal has been described as 'guiding you in how to die,' 'an ORDER from the Government to end your life,' promoting 'death care' and, in the words of antiabortion leader Randall Terry, an attempt to 'kill Granny'". - The quotation marks make no sense here either. What are the single quotation marks doing? Where is the partner of the double quotation mark at the end?

  The original WaPo story goes as follows:

  But on right-leaning radio programs, religious e-mail lists and Internet blogs, the proposal has been described as "guiding you in how to die," "an ORDER from the Government to end your life," promoting "death care" and, in the words of antiabortion leader Randall Terry, an attempt to "kill Granny."

  I think I am following MOS:QUOTATION_MARK#Quotations_within_quotations but let me know if I did something wrong.

Wikipedia uses what's called logical punctuation or British-style punctuation; the source you are citing uses American-style punctuation. This seems awfully nitpicky, I know, but I think this is how the quote should appear: The Washington Post reported on August 1 that "on right-leaning radio programs, religious e-mail lists and Internet blogs, the proposal has been described as 'guiding you in how to die', 'an ORDER from the Government to end your life', promoting 'death care' and, in the words of antiabortion leader Randall Terry, an attempt to 'kill Granny'." A side benefit here is that the single quotes are visually separated from one another, and the single quote at the end is separated from the double quote. In other contexts, it is sometimes necessary to separate single and double quotes with an nbsp, explained at WP:NBSP. Finetooth (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. It seems odd though to put the quote mark outside of the period when logical punctuation normally does otherwise. Would it be OK to use the nbsb throughout the article, on sentences that appear like this now: ...Emanuel was a "'deadly doctor' who believes health care should be 'reserved for the nondisabled'".? I want the article to become a FA, if that changes anything. Thanks again. Jesanj (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logical punctuation guidelines put the period inside if it was part of the original. Even if that were not so, the need for clarity is a sufficient argument for keeping the single and double quotation marks distinct from one another. So, yes, I think you should use nbsp in the kinds of situations you note in the "Emanuel" sentence above. Finetooth (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You asked

  "He remarked that "the bill's 1000 pages"[34] and "it has all sorts of panels".[35] - Are some words missing after "pages"?

  Yes, there are words between pages. Here's the primary source:

  GINGRICH: But the bill's -- the bill's 1,000 pages of setting up mechanisms. It sets up 45 different agencies. It has all sorts of panels. You're asking us to trust turning power over to the government, when there clearly are people in America who believe in -- in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards

  I was trying to cite the secondary sources. Should I do something different?

It's possible to read "bill's" as a possessive rather than a truncation of "bill is". That's what I did, and that meant that your sentence was incomplete. I would paraphrase to avoid the problem; i.e., He said that the bill was a thousand pages long, set up "45 different agencies" and created "all sorts of panels". Finetooth (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Jesanj (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fourth paragraph in the lead is now correct. The words politicized and preferences do not come at the end of sentences. However, the word revisited does (full quote in article). Thus, the last sentence is the only one with the quotation mark outside of the sentence. Am I right? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Finetooth (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have delayed nominating anything to PR for the past couple of weeks, as it seemed rather pointless with the distended backlog. Well, that's going down slowly, being now merely huge rather than Brobdingnagian. So I have nominated George Bizet in the hope that, in a relatively quiet period, it can get some needed reviewer attention. If you get the chance and feel inclined, any comment will be much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you care anymore, but I finally figured out how to calculate NHD stream lengths using ArcGIS Explorer, with a little help from Esri:

1. Download the summing add-in here.
2. Download the file for the specific region you need from the list here (descriptions here). It may take a while.
3. Open ArcGIS Explorer and click "Add Content", then "Geodatabase Data..." in the drop down menu.
4. Add the geodatabase you downloaded by following the instructions (you only need NHDFlowline).
5. Expand "Hydrography" which should appear on the left sidebar, then click "NHDFlowline".
6. Under the "Tools" tab at the top, click "Query".
7. Select "GNIS_Name - String" under "Fields", the equals button under "Operators", then type the name of the stream under "Value" and click "Use".
8. Click "Test", then "OK".
9. Make sure the new queried segment looks okay (no gaps or loops).
10. Click the "Add-Ins" tab at the top, then "Column Statistics".
11. From the drop down menu, select "LengthKM", and there you go! The total length is in the "Sum" row.

Sincerely, a very relieved LittleMountain5 01:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, I just happened upon this--congratulations! It is not exactly easy. One thing I might add to your list--unless I've misunderstood your method, it is worth doubling checking the highlighted segments--sometimes there are gaps and/or loops with braided streams. Pfly (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pfly, I added your suggestion to the list. No, not exactly easy, but it works. :)

No problem Finetooth. I know you were just as frustrated with the NHD as I was. I knew all the information was right in front of my nose, but I couldn't find a reasonable way to add it together. I asked around, and eureka! Someone wrote an add-in for another purpose that does exactly what I needed! Cheers, LittleMountain5 14:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much - I may actually try this now ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I copied this over to WT:RIVERS as well. LittleMountain5 18:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful. The more of us who learn how to do this the better. Finetooth (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your concerns at Wikipedia:Peer review/Argo Tea/archive1. Could you please strike resolved issues. Also, can you consider the talk page images of the Flatiron building.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've stopped doing re-reviews or strikes for PRs. GAN and FAC are formal, and striking helps the other reviewers and delegates see what remains unsettled. PR, on the other hand, is much less formal. You might disagree with me on various points, but that's OK. On the other hand, if something I've said in the review is puzzling, I'd be glad to try to make it clear. Finetooth (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any opinion on the picture candidates for the first location outside of Chicago in the Flatiron Building.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on the Argo Tea talk page. Finetooth (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Finetooth, I hope you're well. My name is Aaron and I'm one of the Storytellers working on the 2011 fundraiser here at the Wikimedia Foundation. For this year's campaign we're seeking out and interviewing active Wikipedians like yourself, in order to produce a broader and more representative range of "personal appeals" to run come November. If you'd like to participate in this project, please email me at amuszalskiwikimedia.org. Interviews are typically conducted by phone or Skype and take between 30-90 minutes. (Note: This invitation is open to any interested Wikipedian — If you're reading this, and would like to be interviewed as well, please contact me.) Thanks! Aaron (WMF) (talk) 04:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got your talk page reply. Understood - Thanks for all that you do for Wikipedia! Aaron (WMF) (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you answer my question please? Thanks, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 18:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]