User talk:PRRfan/Archive 1

Links versus references

Regarding your question, Do you find links under "References" to be a widespread problem?, I wouldn't say it's widespread, but it seems to be spreading. I've seen references introduced in three or four articles that are on my watchlist in the past few weeks, and don't really remember seeing this happen previously, at all, in the prior months.

I've been putting off a possible editing battle (basically, converting references back to links, where appropriate, and seeing what happens) until I have more time, and until I've researched this, to make sure that wikipedia policy is at least not directly opposed to what I want to do. John Broughton 21:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Photos

It is relevant, however it is not relevant to add these pictures on the main site of the Iran military. The link to these pictures is already on the operation page. If extra links and pictures of everything is added the page would look very different. If people are interested about the operation, they will go to that link and check the pictures, but not on Iran's military page. User:ArmanJan

Yes, you keep saying that. But a) the page is not very long, so any more information would seem to be useful at this point; and b) you yourself have included a link (Operation Eagle Claw) with less apparent relevance than photos of an action that actually involved the Iranian military. Why do you think that the Military of Iran page needs less information than presently presented? PRRfan 17:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If you go back in the history of that page you will see that the page was very long, with a lot of information. However, it was then divided in many pages, and the Iranian military page links to them all. This is how we would like to keep it (those who attend to the iranian military pages). I added Operation Eagle Claw because I see it as just as irrelevant as the other operations. Someone feld it was needed to also add the small battles, so here you go. User:ArmanJan

Well, if the battle has already been fought to slim the page down, then I won't try to bulk it back up. (Not sure about your reasoning on the last point, tho.) Cheers. PRRfan 21:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. User:ArmanJan

Iowa class battleship

Please be careful when tightening the competion section in the article, as this was the cause of a major, two-month long edit war on the page. I would really rather not relive that experience. On a related note, I like your tighteneing of the article as a whole. Keep up the good work. TomStar81 20:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Linking dates

But that does specifically say to link complete dates (month-day-year) so that the users' date configurations apply.

"Not every year listed in an article needs to be wikilinked. Ask yourself: will clicking on the year bring any useful information to the reader?

"Do, however, wikilink years, using the As of XXXX form, when they refer to information that was current at the time of writing; this allows other editors to ensure that articles are kept up to date as time passes. Dates including a month and day should also be linked in order for user preferences on date formatting to work properly." (italics mine)

Rbraunwa 23:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I think you have a point. But I think this bit of Wikistyle would bear more discussion to bring clarity to this question: should one link dates simply to allow user prefs to work, even when those linked pages bring the user no relevant information? I would argue no. PRRfan 02:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi PRRfan, I agree with you that making clickable links to dates is rather useless for the reader. Rarely would going to either the day of the year or the year article add anything of importance. But I do think putting dates in the format chosen by the reader is more important. I think of these two things as separate functions that share a common syntax.

I have probably unique concerns about dates and date formats. You can check out my user page if you're interested. But I think the formatting is of at least some importance to many users. I generally link complete dates whenever I find them, but I'll leave the decision on this article up to you.

Nice article by the way. It answered all the questions I had.

Cheers, Rbraunwa 05:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the food for thought. Cheers. PRRfan 13:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Info removal

It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed content from 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. -- Avi 20:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the edit summary, which explained that the deleted text was the only such detail included in the intro, that it cited an unnamed source, and that it referenced "the two Hezbollah officials" as if they had been already mentioned? The sentence belongs further down -- or at least needs to make sense. PRRfan 21:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Daily Pennsylvanian

I'm a reporter from Penn's student newspaper, The Daily Pennsylvanian, and I'm working on a story about the school's wikipedia page. Since I know you're a frequent contributor to its upkeep, i was wondering if it would be possible for me to ask you a few questions. Please get back to me. Thanks, JasonJasonDP 19:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Buckethead

Hi. Is there any reason why you removed the Buckethead trivia on Jordan's page? (unsigned comment by User: Astral Connection.)

Yes. It has nothing to do with Jordan; it belongs on the Buckethead article, if anywhere. BTW, these kinds of conversations are held on the article's talk page, or on a user's talk page, not the user's "own" page. PRRfan 13:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Persian military industry

Sorry about messing up your edit. Rv'd instead of editing as I should have. Please accept my apologies. Cheers. L0b0t 21:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Operation Praying Mantis

You do not "mine" ships. You "mine" the earth for ore or precious metals or gems. You "sow" or "lay" mines in the sea or earth and ship "strike" the mines as a result if they are unfortunate. I rewrote to correct that misstatement in the first place. HJ 14:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You can indeed mine ships, meaning "attack them with mines," or so say numerous U.S. Navy documents. But I'm hardly wedded to that usage. I'm satisfied that the caption is less wordy — no more "resulted in significant damage to..." PRRfan 19:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ship naming and launching

Hello. By this edit [1] you took out a sentence which I think should be included. I have seen and corrected many Wikipedia articles on ships with this incorrect usage; I have also seen it on at least one cruise ship website itself. I also thinks the sentence serves as a textual disambiguation and clarifies terminology-- and that clarification is needed. Therefore I plan on reinserting it. If you disagree let's go to the talk page for the article. Thanks. Kablammo 22:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC) I took a quick look at my edits-- I have corrected this error at least 60 times on Wikipedia ship pages. Kablammo 22:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

60 times? That does seem to point to a misperception of some ubiquity. I stand corrected. PRRfan 23:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It has seemed to be a task for Sisyphus and I'm happy to have another tool work with. Thanks for your cooperation, and your prior copyedit of my text which made it more concise. Kablammo 23:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My mistake

Sorry, it was my mistake, please go ahead and change it back. NodnarbLlad 20:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For trimming the material on the page Iowa class battleship to its current and much improved version I herby award you The Editor's Barnstar. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 09:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Fellowship

You recently re-added some misleading information to the "Fellowship article" that I had removed based on my research of the orgins of this oranization (including Vereide's biography) and personal contact with some you are associated with this group. Based on primary sources, that has also been summed up in their archives, Vereide organized breakfast groups "to pray about perceived IWW and Socialist subversion and corruption in Seattle, Washington's municipal government. Group began to meet regularly and expanded to include government officials, labor leaders, etc." To highlight socialism as a primary reason of gathering is misleading and affects the integrity of this article. In fact, just as the information at the archives suggest, labor leaders were also included. In fact, one of the biggest breakthroughs for this group (whose primary focus has been reconciliation) was gathering big business leaders and labor leaders together to pray...and to continue to meet in that spirit of reconciliation. You will also find in the archives evidence that socialist-leaning politicians also participated in some of these prayer groups. The huge success of this movement was because of the reconciliation that brought people together from different beliefs and backgrounds. If you do proper research, you will see that this is one of the biggest criticisms of the current National Prayer Breakfasts by many christian leaders; muslims, jews, buddhists, etc play key roles in the program among christians. I would ask that you remove these statements for the integrity of the article. Thank you Politico777 13:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Answered on the talk page. PRRfan 23:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Locations in the List of Virginia Tech victims

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_victims_of_the_Virginia_Tech_massacre&diff=127582744&oldid=127577497

I am going to have to revert some of that.

See, the reason why I added "in Norris 204" etc. is so that redirects of people involved point to the specific sections every time. This will NOT work if several sections have the same name. In order for the sections to work, each section must have a unique name.

For instance, Erin Peterson, a lady in 210, had her redirect as: List_of_victims_of_the_Virginia_Tech_massacre#'''Students_in_Norris_211'''

Such a redirect will not work if all of the student sections simply stated "students."

WhisperToMe 03:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Answered on talk page. PRRfan 04:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I do apreciate the tightening you have been doing to the Iowa class battleship article, however make sure that the tightening of the article doesn't include infomration inside the reference tabs, as was the case here. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Have another look at what I did:

Original:

The BGM-109 Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) entered U.S. service in 1983. A long-range, all-weather, subsonic cruise missile, the Tomahawk could hit targets more than 40 times farther away than the 16-inch guns.<ref>The maximum range for the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile is 1350 [[nautical mile]]s (nm), the maximum range for the Harpoon is 85 nm,[http://www.battleship.org/html/Articles/IowaClass/Missile.htm] and the maximum range for the 16 inch guns is roughly 24 nautical miles (nm).[http://www.factplace.com/mightymo.htm#Weps]</ref>

Edited:

The BGM-109 Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) entered U.S. service in 1983. A long-range, all-weather, subsonic cruise missile, the Tomahawk could hit targets 1,350 nautical miles away, more than 40 times farther than the 16-inch guns' 24-mile range.<ref>[http://www.battleship.org/html/Articles/IowaClass/Missile.htm], [http://www.factplace.com/mightymo.htm#Weps]</ref>

So what did I do? I moved two facts from the citation -- the ranges of the two weapons described in the section -- and put them in the article itself. Then I deleted the info about Harpoon, which was irrelevant because the missile was not mentioned in the section and redundant because it's the topic of the very next section. PRRfan 22:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Sujata Keshavan

A tag has been placed on Sujata Keshavan, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jauerback 13:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So asserted. PRRfan 19:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I see someone has recreated the article; must've been notable after all. PRRfan (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Bots

I hate bots (except the ones I like). I fixed the problem. --evrik ^(talk) 19:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Can you emnail me? --evrik ^(talk) 15:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

SEPTA

Hi, I noticed your contributions to SEPTA Subway–Surface Trolley Lines. The Light rail in North America has a section dedicated to Philadelphia's light rail system but it is not written. What's needed is a 1-2 paragraph summary of the whole light rail system if you'd like to write it. Cheers.--Loodog (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Knitta

I'm not sure why you've found the need to cut the article in half when it was already short, but it just achieved GA and you're ripping it to shreds. Putting the whole history into one section is not necessary. Lara❤Love 20:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The article repeated itself, repeatedly. In a piece that's not even 700 words long, there is no need, for example, to have "The crew started in 2005 as two ladies tagging the Houston metropolitan area" and then "It began as two ladies anonymously tagging the Houston area with graffiti in the form of knit wool—as opposed to traditional aerosol spray paint." Tell you what: I'll make changes sequentially, and when you see something you don't agree with, we can go from there. PRRfan (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's called the WP:LEAD. Read over it. Lara❤Love 20:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

no need for subheads for two-sentence sections; also "Works" makes more sense than "International Exposure," when more U.S. than foreign stuff is cited

It wasn't two-sentence sections before you started removing all the information. This article just got GA, reviewed by two editors and passed, and you're removing information, killing headings and deleting references. This is not appropriate. Take it to the talk page. Lara❤Love 20:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the article more carefully. No information was removed, no references deleted by my edits — although you have done so, presumably inadvertantly, with your attempts at reversion. Let's head over to the Talk page.PRRfan (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Stability is one aspect and criteria that got this article to GA status by two distinct editors, on a very recently started project. While being bold is cherished, so is finding consensus when making major changes. You are creating instability within this article by the unilateral changes you are making, which can ultimately end up with delisting. I'm not quite sure how much you have familiarized yourself with the subject. When I end up at a party, my own persona is one that tries to start by making conversation before I start rearranging the furniture. the_undertow ^talk 01:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the rare "very recently started project" that should be judged on its stability. The Knitta article had some problems of structure, redundancy, and even grammar, which I strove to fix. Cheers. PRRfan (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Abu Musa and the Tunbs

PRRfan: I have seen you have been on this topics for long time. What you are doing is deleting valid information about this topic and adding false and fraudulent propaganda. Please be ethical otherwise I have to report your account. Thank you for your cooperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axamir (talk • contribs) 23:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Axamir. Please do report my account, and we will see who is judged to have deleted valid information. Or, as a more constructive alternative, please explain your proposed changes on the Talk pages for Abu Musa and Greater and Lesser Tunbs. You could start with explaining why you believe the Arabic-language names of the islands should be deleted. Then you could explain why you believe that the well-documented claim by the UAE should be deleted. PRRfan (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi PRRfan: Thank you for your interest in the topic. I have not reported your account yet however I would like to let you know that your insist in including fraudulent information has disciplinary consequences. Please note the followings in regards to your questions:

1- As for adding Arabic texts to the English page of an Iranian Island, it is not acceptable. Please keep the Arabic in the Arabic page.

2- As far as UAE's or any other country's claim, it has not yet been proven right. If there is any claim, it needs to be well referenced and placed in the claim part of the page.

Please consider this the last warning. No more correspondence will be entertained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axamir (talk • contribs) 18:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Axamir. As I said before, please do report my account, and we will see who is judged to have deleted valid information. Thank you, though, for beginning a discussion of your proposed changes. Let us continue this discussion in the appropriate place: the Talk pages for Abu Musa and Greater and Lesser Tunbs. PRRfan (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ref: [2]

Ignoring repeated warnings about proper Wikibehavior:

• Posting unfree images: [3][4]
• Making contentious edits without discussion or even summaries [5][6][7]
• Leveling charges against other editors without presenting evidence, a violation at least of WP:Assume good faith
• Making false statements [8]
• Edit warring: Has been warned [9] and blocked [10]
• Attempting to delete record of numerous warnings and block: [11][12]

John Burroughs School

You removed the improper reference to self-published sources tag from the John Burroughs School page, but did not add any additional sources. As it stands, the only reference on that WP page is to a fact page on the school site, which can only be described as a self-published reference. Are you planning on adding any additional citations, or did you deem the additional citations needed tag that was also in place sufficient? I believe that having both tags in place is proper, as the page needs both additional sources and improperly references self-published materials, and so I put the tag back in place. Thanks! Roscoestl (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree; answered on Talk:John Burroughs School. PRRfan (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed after more thought on the subject that the additional sources tag is sufficient. Thanks for the courteous well-formulated reply.  :) Roscoestl (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wells Station Clock

Thank you for adding a link to the newspaper article about the train station clock in Wells, Maine. That will be helpful for readers who want to know more about the clock. —BMRR (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

University Avenue Bridge

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of University Avenue Bridge, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://uchs.net/HistoricDistricts/uavebridge.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, bot, but the similarity is due to material that is properly cited. PRRfan (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

2006 Atlantic hurricane season

Hi, Is there any particular reason you once again reverted my change to the lead in 2006 Atlantic hurricane season? The way I organized it is used in every season FA to my knowledge, and passed FAC that way. It would be helpful if you would give me a chance to explain my reasons for changing it, rather than immediately reverting.

Cheers, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Answered at Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season. PRRfan (talk) 03:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

National Capital Trolley Museum

I'm not sure I agree with all of your tweaks, but still extend thanks for your improvements to my improvements for the page! I think I'm done for now. Wespmcad (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)wespmcad

pruning to Meal, Ready-to-Eat

An anon IP came about and undid most of the tightening you did to Meal, Ready-to-Eat. I'm sure it was a good-faith edit, and most of it seems OK, but I feel we could use your demonstrated talent in cutting out excessive prose. bahamut0013♠♣ 20:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why, what a pleasant invitation! I'll have a look when I get the chance. PRRfan (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank You!

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your assistance with copyeditting USS New Jersey (BB-62) while the article was up on the mainpage I herby award you The Editor’s Barnstar. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 00:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Khafji Lead

Hey, I undid your edit of the lead of the article Battle of Khafji, because I felt it was a bit radical and didn't really improve it (it just reworded it). I'd be happy to discuss further copyedits on the talk page, but such dramatic changes like those I don't feel actually improve the article (there was nothing wrong with the existing lead, except perhaps minor copyedit requirements). Thanks. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Answered at Talk:Battle of Khafji. PRRfan (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm sorry that I replied violently to your last series of edits. But, can you please discuss them on the talk page? You are making very dramatic changes to the page... changes that I don't really see necessary (you are changing a structure which didn't need to be changed)... and as the main contributor to the article (and the person with all the stated sources and references), I'd like to argue about how the article looks and how it's written (since, again, I wrote all of it and will probably make the most important changes to it through the process to FAC). Thanks. JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

:Answered at Talk:Battle of Khafji. PRRfan (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Lansdowne (SEPTA station)

You've done a lot of editing on SEPTA/Pennsylvania RR and related topics. What evidence is there that Lansdowne (SEPTA station) is the "most photographed" SEPTA station? ----DanTD (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

None that I know of -- don't know where that came from. Tip of the hat to you for your edits as well.PRRfan (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Persian Gulf

Perhaps some attention to BRD might be in order. You made a bold move, removing some items, they were reverted. Now would seem the appropriate time to discuss the matter, don't you think? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Answered on Talk page. PRRfan (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

SEPTA Route 11-Philadelphia Subdivision grade crossing

I don't know if Darby, Pennsylvania is the only place in America where a trolley crosses regular railroad tracks, but I found out that the crossing exists through Google Maps. It's a shame that in this case, there's no street view function. Do you know of any other place where trolleys and railroads cross? Now that you mentioned it, I'd like a cite for that myself. ----DanTD (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for involvement

According to the history of the Iran-Iraq War article, you are a significant contributor to it. Therefore, I was wondering if you would like to get involved in a discussion I have started concerning a proposal to trim some sections, and move some text back into the article. The discussion can be found here: [13]. Thank you very much if you do get involved. Cheers for reading. Terrakyte (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Strivers' Section

If you know how to create a map similar to this one, the borders of Strivers' Section can be found here. APK ain't the baby daddy 20:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw the Dupont Circle map, and was impressed. I've never made one, but maybe I'll put it on my to-do list. PRRfan (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried making one. Sadly, I'm not technologically gifted. I'll ask Aude about the map if you don't feel up for it. APK ain't the baby daddy 20:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

My bad. --Kurdo777 (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

North Philadelphia station help

Can you find the time to do some work on North Philadelphia station? Some anonymous IP's have been tagging the hell out of that article claiming that it has no sources and other problems, despite evidence to the contrary. ----DanTD (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Franklin Schneider

He's one of my favorite architects; a name I constantly see while researching properties. I'm thinking about expanding it for DYK. Wanna help? APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 19:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As a former resident of one of his 1700-block-of-Q houses, I should be leaping at this, but I'm feeling so stretched these days that I just can't commit to anything else. Let's put it this way: let's see what I can scratch up time to do...PRRfan (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll be working on it this week. BTW, that block is one of my Dupont favs. Too bad it's been popular with uh, roof people. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 20:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Desi Williamson

I declined speedy just to be cautious, but feel free to nominate on AFD. It seems rather spammy, but not spammy enough for speedy (IMO). Thanks. Plastikspork (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I meant WP:PROD or WP:AFD by prod/nominate. As per WP:AUTO, it's not a reason for deletion, but a guideline of a practice to avoid. Let me know if I can be of any more help. I am by no means endorsing the article as being notable, just being cautious with speedy deletion. Thanks. Plastikspork (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you should check out Twinkle. If you add it to your monobook.js, it gives you a little 'xfd' tab, which automates the process of nominating pages for deletion on AFD. It also gives you a 'csd' tab which automates adding db templates. Plastikspork (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The Fellowship

Hello, I have started re-working the article on the Fellowship, pairing it down, streamlining citations ect. EricLeFevre (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please Express Your Views on Mention of Membership in the Family on WIkipedia

It would be beneficial if you chimed in asap at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_4#Category:Members_of_the_Family_also_known_as_the_Fellowship, which discusses the possible deletion of the valid (IMO) category Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

iPad

Thanks for your help over with the lead, which I'm sure will see a lot of attention over the next few weeks. My only concern is that it's weird to mention the availability of Wi-Fi and 3G models before we've said that it was those capabilities. Just something to keep in mind as the article evolves. Cheers, HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I'll put the availability sentence after the description sentences; that makes at least as much sense as [description][price & availability][description]. PRRfan (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

WSPA & IUPUI Public Art Collection

I noticed your edits on these two articles and am curious to know of your interest in them. In particular, I'm interested to know if you have any feedback relative to the GPS work we've done with these project. It seems from your user page that you've some experience/interest in geo location. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedia_Saves_Public_Art/Style_Guide

Thanks --Richard McCoy (talk) 09:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Streetcars in Washington, D.C.

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Streetcars in Washington, D.C./GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Hugo Teufel III

I have nominated Hugo Teufel III, 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/Hugo Teufel III. 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. THF (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I see someone has recreated the article; must've been notable after all. PRRfan (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

iPad thanks

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thanks for the relentless copyediting on the iPad article, its definitely been useful in making the article good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

iPad intro

Thanks for cleaning up my intro, its gotten much better by leaving out things, as an engineer I can appreciate that <grin>. Mahjongg (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ray Allen

Hey. My formatting was simply following the same formatting standard I've been using on all basketball pages, so it makes sense to me to keep it consistent.Hoops gza (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Answered at Talk:Ray Allen. PRRfan (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Lambert-St. Louis International Airport - Thanks

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For exceptional skill in editing, especially your significant reorganization and copyediting of Lambert-St. Louis International Airport Dan Dassow (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! PRRfan (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

AppleTV

Thanks for the hard work there. Nice chopping down. Mattnad (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship

The A-Class review for Iowa class battleship is now open, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!

studio34yoga.com

In my cleanup of spam in Yoga, I found that two years ago you had been adding studio34yoga.com links to articles related to yoga and Philadelphia. I've removed all of them except the profile link in James Peniston and the trolley links, which I assume you added as well. Do the trolley links need trimming as well? --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with your deletions at James Peniston (think I added that before in-text external links were thoroughly deprecated) nor Yoga (guess the studio has changed their site since I added a link to what was then a copy of the Sutras). But elsewhere, I think you might have been a bit too quick to delete what you see as spam. At Kaseman Beckman Advanced Strategies, you have removed fully half (well, one of two) of the firm's completed projects. At University City, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, you have removed one link among several to local commercial arts spaces. I'll restore those unless you can argue for their deletion. PRRfan (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I think this would best be dealt with at WP:RSN, especially if you added all the trolley links as well.

re Kaseman Beckman: It was promotional and a self-published source.

re University City: Note I tagged the entire section as a linkfarm in need of cleanup per WP:ELNO. Again, a case of WP:SOAP. --Ronz (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

KBAS: it was another example of the firm's completed work, and therefore worthy of inclusion. Re: University City: Ah, that's consistent, then, and worthy of continued discussion. You have not, however, explained why the link to Studio 34 is less worthy of inclusion than the other West Philly art spaces you did not delete. BTW, at James Peniston, I have readded the link to the Villanova photo of the sculpture, this time as an External Link instead of an inline link. PRRfan (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we're talking past each other here. Let me see if I can be clearer: I don't believe studio34yoga.com is a reliable source for anything other than information about itself, as in the case of James Peniston. --Ronz (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

But surely "information about itself" includes the identity of the architect the firm used. It's neither promotional nor unreliable to cite it as a completed project on the architect's page. BTW, I've restored (as External Links) two inline links you deleted in University City. I'm all for wikification; I do a lot of it myself. But kindly be careful not to remove information as you wikify. PRRfan (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no further argument, I've restored the project at Kaseman Beckman Advanced Strategies, but have deleted the inline link. Cheers. PRRfan (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Sill Clark, Sr.

Would you object to movie n the article to "Joseph Sill Clark, Sr." and having the old name as a redirect. His obit uses the full name and that way he can be easily distinguished from his son. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. By the way, I'm delighted to see someone else take an interest in the Clarks of Philadelphia; I only learned about them through Wikipedia, but they seem to have had quite a prominent role in various ways. I'm wrestling now with the family tree; among other things, various bits of information are duplicated across the various articles about family members: Enoch White Clark, Edward Walter Clark, Clarence Howard Clark, Joseph Clark (tennis), Joseph Sill Clark, Jr.. I guess the best place to consolidate the info is under Enoch White Clark, allowing the other family members' articles to be more simply about them. What do you think? PRRfan (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've made the move -- thanks for the suggestion.PRRfan (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I originally had the article as Edward White Clark then moved it to "Walter" and asked for "White" to be deleted. I am sure we will figure out why the naming change occurred. I was hoping his passport application would clear it up. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered Category:Clark banking family?

Thanks

Thanks for your rewording of the transportation section at Albany, New York. One thing. You changed "Despite Albany's important historical impact on railroads," to "Albany's railroad ties have dwindled." Unfortunately, this is easily misread as "Albany's railroad ties have dwindled [presumably in number]." I couldn't come up with much better phrasing, but I think it should be changed somewhat. Mind taking another stab at it? Feel free to go thru the rest of the article; your knack for prose is impressive. upstateNYer 21:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh -- good point. I'm sure the number of ties have in fact dwindled, but that's not what we're trying to say here. And thanks for the kind words. PRRfan (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Gateway Arch

I'd like to second UpstateNYer's sentiments above. Thank you for your exceptional organizational skills and your copyediting on Gateway Arch. Goodvac (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Just wanted to say thanks. You've reverted quite a bit of vandalism recently on pages I track. And your reversions are much appreciated! Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Wade Dump cleanup

Good work with a continuing Wade Dump article cleanup. I can take a photo of the site now, if that would be helpful. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. A photo sounds like a great idea. PRRfan (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Steamtown

Hi, I like what you have done with the Steamtown NHS article. I worked hard on it and I would love to see it finished some day. Anyway, I was wondering if you would take a peek at the Steamtown, USA page. I wrote it from scratch, using some photos that I took when I was a kid. It has been on DYK and through GA review. I want very much to have it reviewed for Feature Article, but apparently, I don't have all my t's crossed with permissions for the photos of the bridges, and I could not bear to have them removed. Anyway, I was wondering if you would do some editing of that article. I don't want a complete overhaul, but I would not mind if you made my verbosity a bit more concise as you did on the NHS article. BTW, I did change one edit you made because I felt "under the guise" was a bit opinionated. For all we know, they really did think that it was a good idea for urban renewal. Thanks, --Ishtar456 (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll see what I can do. And I agree about "under the guise"; should have thought a bit harder about that one.PRRfan (talk) 04:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the Philadelphia Wiknic!

In the Azalea Garden, just behind the Philadelphia Museum of Art, near the Fairmount Water Works Sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philadelphia/Wiknic#Interested_Wikipedians.

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area this Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 5 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together in the Azalea Garden, just behind the Philadelphia Museum of Art 39.96801°N 75.183156°W / 39.96801; -75.183156

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

Smallbones (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for Thanks -- Fracking (or not) & 8-11 Earthquake

Thanks for the supportative comment ... since fracking has been suggested (& debunked) as a cause of our recent earthquake, I feel something minimal does need to be in there.

And a few days ago I rode the former PRR tracks from Washington to Baltimore and back, as I often do; I've been across between Philly (or Harrisburg) and Ohio a number of times too, including a great dawn ride down the Susquehanna to Perryville when a night train was much delayed. One of the NEC RR bridges here in D.C. (at Minnesota Avenue) still has "Pennsylvania Railroad" faintly on its shady north side.--LarryMorseDCOhio (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

debureaucratize? great word :)

Hi... On 2011 Virginia earthquake I'm just having problems with subject/verb agreement in the sentence... Chimneys, damage or damages, buildings, was or were.. I teach school but not grammar. :) Wikipelli ^Talk 17:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I think the sentence is correct now: "Fallen chimneys and other structural damage to buildings were reported..." "Damages" is plural when talking about redress via lawsuit, but not when we're talking about various types of injury to buildings. And "...were reported..." properly follows the plural subject "Fallen chimneys and other structural damage". PRRfan (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Great point... never thought of the word damages in the legal sense, but you're right. So, good with were and not was, sticking with singular damage. Thanks! Wikipelli ^Talk 17:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

National Rifle Association history

I'm a bit curious why you deleted the section of the NRA history relating to the difference between rifles and smooth-bore muskets. NRA began as an organization focused on rifles rather than all types of firearms; and has evolved to a larger sphere of interest. When NRA was founded, in the days before machine-guns, the rifle was transitioning from a long range sniper's weapon into the primary infantry weapon. That was a fairly significant change to infantry tactics; because individual effective range with smooth-bores was so short that melee combat with sabers and bayonets frequently ensued prior to opportunity to reload. The longer range accuracy of rifles gave infantry fire long-range superiority to artillery grape and cannister until the machine-gun was introduced. That difference is fairly significant to the military basis of NRA origins; and your deletion of explanation obscures that fact.Thewellman (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I deleted it because "...to maximize potential accuracy improvement of the transition from..." doesn't make sense. Moreover, the next paragraph talks more specificially about the NRA's role in proving the obsolescence of smoothbore weapons. But I certainly wouldn't be against you or anyone else re-adding a clear mention of the shift in standard infantry weapons. PRRfan (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I see from your user page

that you have a pretty good grasp on citations, so perhaps you could add one to this recent edit of yours at Henry Hobson Richardson ?

" He was only the second U.S. citizen to attend the École— Richard Morris Hunt was the first "

I believe that to be true, but, for all those who might not, how about a footnote? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It could certainly use one. I didn't add that assertion, by the way; I was just cleaning up grammar and structure. PRRfan (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thomas W. Hyde

I appreciate your thanks about the additions to the Thomas W. Hyde page. This prompted me to review the page again. I noticed that I had not changed the infobox to show major general as Hyde's highest brevet grade, which continued the error from the previous version which showed brigadier general. I had been adding some exact dates and details about general officer and brevet general promotions to Civil War officer articles recently edited by another editor and came in turn upon this page. I saw that some details were missing, especially date of death and place of burial, so I added those elementary facts as well. I did not pay attention to the prior Civil War service because, although brief, it seemed to be reasonably stated. Apparently the information on that came from an obituary and it was incomplete. I now have added the full information on his service from a reliable source. I have added two books that he wrote about his service and experience. I think this has produced a better page than we would have had if you had not noted it and I had not gone back to look at it more closely. Donner60 (talk) 01:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Skillful copyediting

		The Writer's Barnstar
		For recognition of your skill as a writer, seen in your improvements to Summit, New Jersey.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Why, thanks! PRRfan (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)