User talk:Auntieruth55

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by .

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Auntieruth55}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Class

My Article

This is Jaclyn from class. I was wondering if you can have a look at my article, Freaky Green Eyes before I ask someone to review it for me. Thank you Noeljack (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

This is Mike from class. can you look at my article please. It is the Model 1200 shotgun. Thanks!!Mzwhiz21 (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really Need Help with Article

Im working on the UMW page and I really need help, someone commented on my page but it wasnt very helpful and has me very worried about how im doing. Can you please get back to me and help me? Im really stuck. UMWA Megzie113 (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reply

Ok, do you have any suggestions? Im really stuck/ worried about this project now, and getting a bad grade. My other sources dont really help and Im having a really hard time with this.Megzie113 (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Okay I just really dont know where to start, what to add, or anything, I thought I was doing well with this, so Im kind of at a stand still now. Megzie113 (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

let me take a look through and see what's needed.

Do you have access to this book somewhere? At school, perhaps? Biographical Dictionary of American Labor

UMW-New article

In addition to the umw article, I decided to write about the Pittston strike since i cover it on the UMW page. I started it, can you see if its looking okay? Its just on my sandbox. User:Megzie113/sandbox1 Wikipedia.

I was thinking about also doing a section on the Pittston Company, its now known as Brinks Company, but there is no history of this change. Is that okay? Megzie113 (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point you should focus on one aspect of the project, and finish that, then you can branch out Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Pittston Coal strike

Sorry to bother you , but I moved my article out of my sandbox to Pittston Coal strike. I dont know if i should put it up for review yet? And because this is my second article, should I even worry about the UMWA page? Or should i just forget that one? Also, my page is only about 30,000 bytes, is that a problem? Megzie113 (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No the size isn't a problem. Don't worry about the other page, we'll deal with it. Or I will. Or they will. Make the current article all it can be. I'll go look now and leave some messages on the talk page for you. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neuroacanthocytosis

I was just wondering if you could look over my article on Neuroacanthocytosis. I have changed some things around and tried to explain things in terms that are easier to understand. I also stopped at the library last week and spoke to a librarian about the PubMed articles I was having trouble accessing. She also tried and could not seem to get all of the full text articles. However, I did use one other source that I was given from the user who did my peer review. The book that he listed for me to read is not in our library though so I just did my best without it. Let me know what you think! Thanks. Saralo16 (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

offer...

Are you running a class project here? if you or your students need help, drop me a line in my talk - I'm good with technical and policy issues, and I can point them to resources they might otherwise not find. --Ludwigs2 03:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about Saiga article

Hey there this is Brandon from class. I was looking at my article and was wondering if you could help me with the linking it to others. There is that orphan box at the top of the article and I am a little confused on how to link my article to others. Also could you take a look at the content and see if there is anything that is like a how to manual, or any other problems. My article is the Saiga semi-automatic rifle. Thanks a lot. Weepy89 (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GAN for Pittston Coal SStrike

Hi Auntieruth! I noticed that this was a student of yours, which is part of the reason I picked it up - as well as the fact that it looks like an interesting article. I am currently taking a first look through the article, and should have the full review up by sometime this evening. I look forward to thoroughly reading the article, and hope I can be of help to the student in her project. Does she plan to take it to FAC at some point? Dana boomer (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The immortal Battle of Dürenstein"

Is there a deadline? --Frania W. (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Auntie Ruth,

I read the whole piece & could not find anything wrong, except at the Orders of Battle where I changed a few numbers to letters. If you do not agree with it, please feel free to reverse me.

Battlefield section: beginning of first sentence reads: "To the east of Stein, 2 kilometers (1 mi) down an old roadads... "

Since 1.6 km = 1 mile, 2 km is closer to 1.25 miles, I think.

--Frania W. (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My computer is still acting up & I do not want to mess your beautiful text.

I used the convert template on that, and it rounds to the nearest. No one else has commented on that, so we'll leave it. I saw the changes on the numbers. We'll see what Sandy has to say. With those changed, the rest of the numbers are not consistent. So we'll see. Thanks for reading. Leave a comment on the FAC page if you can. Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dürenstein

How much time do I have? I will have a look later today or tomorrow. Is that okay? MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that works. It's looking pretty good. JN has been through it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quehanna question

Hi Auntieruth, if you get a chnace could you weigh in on the April 1 DYK or not question at Talk:Quehanna Wild Area? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please Read This Before Doing Anything Else!

Well, she's at it again. Collectonian has an "article" at WP:Peer Review which, after it is thoroughly copyedited and all the obvious little high school grammatical errors have been found by PR reviewers (this is something she should do herself), she intends to send to FA to get another Gold Star from the good faith reviewers that are not yet onto her "Look-at-Me-Everyone!!!" game. (Take a glance at her user page and tell me that Collectonian isn't a braggart.) Collectonian has found a mother lode of Gold Stars as the subject of this "article" proves. Like her recently-promoted-to-FA-status "article" The Fox and the Hound (novel), this new "article" by Collectonian describes yet another fifty year old animal novel for young adults that is overwhelmingly based on one source - the original novel and its author's afterword. Using one book to write an "article" is not FA scholarship nor is sitting at a computer dredging up every little book review. The article lacks comprehensiveness - read my lips - comprehensiveness. It does not have a Themes/Style/Analysis section which the WP NovelsProject describes as the "meat" of an article about novels and it's reason for being at Wikipedia. Because it lacks this important section, the "article" is not comprehensive and we all need to "man up" and admit this. FA articles are required to be comphrehensive - and this one isn't. Don't give Collectonian a "pity award" because she spent oh-so-much-precious-time mogging from one database after another at Collegeville Library, USA to write the "Reception" section of this "article". That means everyone who mogs from one database to another deserves an FA award. Take a good look at this article. It is essentially an original plot summary that is written in-universe. (Collectonian fancies herself a "novelist" and enjoys writing lengthy in-universe plot summaries.) Some of her plot summaries border on copyvio. Like the Fox and the Hound, Collectonian relies on an author's afterword or an author's note to write the "Development" section. (This is not a "Development" section anyway. It is a "background" or "sources" sort of thing.) Essentially what we have here is a condensed regurgitation of the primary source and we are being asked to grant it FA status. Gimme a break. There are thousands of such articles at WP and none of them should be awarded FA status. But Collectonian is getting away with it - because you and others like you let her. Be tough on this "article". It's not FA. It lacks comphrehensiveness. With all your copyediting on the thing, you'll feel like you've improved it 100% and it now deserves FA. You can spend the rest of you life correcting Collectonian's mistakes but she does not learn from them. She's making the same mistakes today she made five years ago and still expects good faith reviewers to clean things up and pass her articles" to GA or FA. She's using you for a sucker. Don't you have better things to do? Petition to Maintain FA Standards (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Battle of Dürenstein FAC

Sorry, I will take a look through again a few hours later (I was initially going through and preparing for Yamato before attending to your article). Jappalang (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NO problem. I appreciate all your help with this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for upsetting you, but I was simply trying to help. Jappalang (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know you were. And I do appreciate your help. I had worked a long time on the citations to get them the way I wanted them. And with all your contributions, it's a much better article now. I just like to do citations the way I do them. It makes verifying/reliability much easier. At least, I think it does. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it is okay; I am not hurt or anything (heh). As long as a system is approved, I have no problems with it, especially for areas out of my know (such as the cite/reference scheme). Jappalang (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you very much for your support on the coordinator elections. – Joe N 14:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes and citations

This discussion is interesting. I want to discuss this offline from the reviews and I assure you that I'm not making my approval dependant of the outcome of this excursion. According to definitions here on Wikipedia, a citation is a reference to a published or unpublished source, and a footnote is a note of text placed at the bottom of a page in a book or document. So my take is that they are two different things, are they not? What you like to do is to mix them syntactically together. Right? Now I hope you understand that I have no objections about how write you citations. The problem I have, is when you mix a footnote and a citation into one. Since I don't read books, newspapers backwards (well I did read what happened to Harry Potter first …) I tend not care about the citations unless I want to follow up on them, challenge them, or find them too much pushing a POV. However, I am interested in footnotes because my expectation is that they help me understand the topic. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, better here. This is a common practice in both Germany and the US, Canada, GB, etc. If you look at Hans Medick, Weber und Überleben in Laichingen 1650–1900, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997, ISBN 3525354436, you'll see that what you refer to as "notes", distinguished from "citations" and I refer to as "footnotes" (explanations and citations) are in page footers: hence the name footnotes. This is common practice in academic circles. Wikipedia varies to some extent from academic circles because it requires verifiability on articles through inline or parenthetical citations. Most encyclopediae do not do that: they rely instead upon a list of sources at the end. However, most encyclopediae are written by experts on the subject, not by the general public. So it's understandable how and why Wikipedia's requirements differ in this respect. So when I read a print encyclopedia, I generally look at the author and the sources first, and then read the article, relying to some extent upon the overall reputation of both, plus the publication itself.

In reading books, I always read (first or second) table of contents; (second or first) citations (generally); (third) bibliography or sources cited and consulted; (fourth) the chapter which has the name closest to the title of the book; (fifth) enough of the first chapter and last chapter to get the gist of the argument; and (last) the book (if I have time and interest). Life is short. There are so many books and so little time. Before I invest several hours in a book (or 25-50+ dollars), I want to know if it will be worth the investment of time and money.

I bring the same scrutiny to an article. What are the sources of the article. Who wrote them, published, when, etc. How are the sources used to construct an argument or tell a story: this means using the citations, and that could also include reading the explanatory notes through which the editor/author/writer (whatever) tells me of problems with the source(s), controversies not worth mentioning in the article, but worth noting, and other stray pieces of information that enhance my understanding of the subject but may not be integral to the text itself, such as the information on Collini. Collini in and of himself is probably not going to have his own article, but he is worth mentioning because he enhances the readers' understanding of the subject, but he is not essential to the readers' understanding of the subject.

Another example might be using explanatory footnotes to remind the reader of something they read previously. In a publication, this wouldn't have its own section. It would be incorporated into the footers (the material relegated to the bottom of the page).

I understand that this is all changing now, with the development of linkable web-like applications. But a lot of people still print these things out or read them offline, and having two or three places to go to rather to find "notes", "citations", "explanations", etc., seems overly complicated to me. As you've probably gathered, I don't use citations lightly, so if I've put it in, it's important. I realize that you probably don't read citations, but you do read notes. You're probably more the rule than the exception. In the future, I might put the explanations right up front, so that as the cursor passes over the link, it pops up. It seems to me, though, that if one wants to be truly informed on the subject, one should read the whole article, not just the pieces that are easiest. IMO. ;) Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Army of the Danube Order of Battle

Hi there. I noticed that you had nominated Army of the Danube Order of Battle at GAN, and just wanted to point out that generally, Order of Battle articles such as this generally go to Featured List Candidates, not GAN. This makes sense, as the article is mostly a list of names. See this section of WP:FL for a list of Order of Battle FLs. Thanks, Mm40 (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Thanks for letting me know! Do you think that's where it should be? I was hoping for some more input during GA to improve it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that it belongs at FLC. In fact, an Order of Battle article was nominated there just yesterday. If you want input on how to improve it before going to FLC, you might consider nominating it at peer review. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Ruth, we take lists at ACR, so instead of GAN, take them there before FLC. I was also coming here to let you know about where the orders of battle usually go re Battle of Dürenstein order of battle) (have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Showcase#Featured_lists). -MBK₀₀₄ 23:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That one was already moved. I'll move the Army of the Danube order of battle]]. I'll do the ACR first, but want to tweak it a bit moreAuntieruth55 (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Auntieruth55. You have new messages at AustralianRupert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— AustralianRupert (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Austerlitz's citations and notes

Sorry to ask but what is your point here? If I had reviewed that article I would have said the same thing. I just happen to personally dislike, which I believe I'm entitled to, the mixing of footnotes and citations. I understand that this may be acceptable practice, which however does not influence my dislike of this mix. To me the difference between a book and a web-page is that the information in a book may be spread out over many pages and the number of footnotes/citations per page is limited. One wants to avoid flipping pages and all the reasons you have given me are valid. In a lengthy web-page article (one page only) the number of footnotes/citations may become significantly larger and I feel that a clearer separation of both is in benefit of the normal top down reader like me. Happy Easter (Is this okay to say?) MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that you don't like it. I was just noticing that I'm not the only one who does it this way. Happy Easter is fine to say. To me at least. ;) We have lovely spring weather here, and the 5 feet (1.5 m) of snow is finally gone! Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Just saw that Battle of Dürenstein earned its star! Well done! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And thanks very much for your help, also! It was an intriguing subject. Next one noinated will be War of the Bavarian Succession. A war with no battles. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need more wars like that (and fewer wars over all). I know the Toledo War had no real battles either. Not sure of any others. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Auntieruth55. You have new messages at MBK004's talk page.
Message added 02:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

-MBK₀₀₄ 02:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Auntieruth55. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Big Butte Creek/archive1.
Message added 14:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Little Mountain 5 14:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shortwave listening

Julie User:Wexlax20, Mark Garvey, and I are working on shortwave listening Shortwave listening. There is already an article on this topic, except we found many gaps that we are adding in. We just added a large section of Lisa Spahr's book, the use of the shortwave radio in America and Germany, as well as the use of it today. Our work can be found under this article's history. This is ok right? We can already work on an existing article? We are putting in a sufficient amount of information, basically an article itself. Nicocorn20 (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine (I added to Wexlax page), but it needs to have citations, and not just to Lisa's book. Link to other articles and back, push the boundaries of the present article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some big problems with what Wexlax20 has added; it is essentially a poorly-written book report containing unencyclopedic observations such as "Lisa Spahr’s "World War II Radio Heroes: Letters of Compassion" is a unique book that allows the reader to learn more about the major role of short wave radio listeners during World War II. In fact, it allows the reader to learn and appreciate..." etc. For what it is right now, it better belongs in Wexlax20's Userspace, and not in the shortwave listening article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are the new users students and their edits part of a class project? No harm no foul, but given their lack of experience here, I recommend they use an article's Talk page to discuss any major edits they wish to make to existing articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:LuckyLouie has been very helping reviewing our work and guiding us through this process. We have put up much research and we are also creating a book review that can be linked to that page. Also, we had a bibliography on our previous topic, but we do not have one up for the shortwave listeners. Do you still want us to create one? Nicocorn20 (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

where is this? You'll need to include a bibliography for your new article, ut it doesn't have to be separate. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:LuckyLouie has posted comments on his discussion page. We have added The use of the Shortwave Radio in Third World Countries and the Advantages/Disadvantages of the Shortwave Radio in the Classroom. The book review has not been linked yet. Would you be able to look at the information posted? Nicocorn20 (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World War II Radio Heroes: Letters of Compassion is now posted. Wexlax20 (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shortwave listeners

We had additional information to add but we just had not gotten there yet. I think a meeting with us would be very helpful. Clearly, we are struggling. Wexlax20 (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to met, we can meet before class on Tuesday. Before we schedule that definitely, though, go ahead and put up the additional information, and let's see where you stand with it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Auntieruth55, I tried to add a picture to my article but was having trouble. I uploaded it to Wikipedia and put a link to it in my article, but I cannot get it to actually appear in my article. Will you please help me get the picture in my article Mount St. Peter Church? Thanks Rudy4rachel (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Class project

Hello, I help User:Rudy4rachel with her article and you were kind enough to leave a note on my talk page with some supportive comments. Thank you for taking the time to do that. I noticed that you are leading a class project that requires students to create an article or expand a stub on WP. I think that is a fantastic idea! What is the ultimate aim of the project? If I can be of any assistance please drop me a line. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 22:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Auntieruth55. You have new messages at [[User talk:H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)|User talk:H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)]].[reply]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Frank McKetta

I do not know how to become a license holder to upload my own personal pictures to wiki commons?DukeSoccer11 (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bring your pictures on a thumb drive and we'll do it in class, as a demonstration. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a look at Frank McKetta. I am not sure what else to add or if it is ready for Good Article Nomination. Thank you.DukeSoccer11 (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Bavarian Succession

Bonjour Auntie Ruth:

Réponse à ma page. Mon ordinateur est toujours malade... --Frania W. (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Wellesley, 4th Duke of Wellington

Thanks for the comments. I have added information about Wellesley's time in the House of Lords, his Party, his military service, and I have made the information more understandible. If you will please assess it for B-Class, it would be very appreciated. If you have any more concerns, please contact me. Thanks and Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver ^{I Heard It Through The Olive Branch} 20:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shaping class wiki article

Hi professor, could you please take a look at my article and provide some feedback. Thanks Panzak7 (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See the talk page, and I've made a few tweaks in the article as examples. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a lot of trouble finding anyone to review my article. I posted comments on the talk pages of both of the projects I belong to and haven't received anything. Could you take a look at it and tell me what I could do to improve it? I feel like my organization of sections and headings are probably not what they should be and am not sure if I have enough information now or should try to add more. Thanks! Mitchel2 (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:War of the Bavarian Succession

You left a message for me concerning this article, but I am not sure what you meant by responded to the comments since I last saw this article at ACR and supported it. Was there something more you wanted me to look at, or was this a case of mistaken identity? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note code

Here's the code that I use for my ship articles: <ref group=Note>All dates used in this article are [[Old Style and New Style dates|New Style]]</ref> == Notes == {{reflist|group=Note}}

There's another style on HMAS Australia (1911) if you prefer another way of writing them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent Work.

While patrolling the new pages being made i ran across the Jana Skinny Water article, which subsequently pointed me to the educational assignment you are leading. And i must say that i deem the results to be quite impressive, especially since editing Wikipedia can be quite complex at first if one has never worked with it. Compliments to yourself, and compliments to your students.

One thing that i notice however, is that quite a few of the article's don't use named references for duplicate references. Simply running the article trough reflinks should be sufficient to solve that issue, though in sometimes manual operations might be needed. It might also be worth mentioning this tool to the students as it has proven to be quite practical at times.

With kind regards, (and hoping there will be a 2011 version of this project) Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! We're working hard on editing the articles we've selected or created, but it's been a challenge. I'll check out the reflinks...I suppose it is a bot? I've done some of them by hand, but it's been a challenge to get the students to format anything wikiwise. I think they're doing very well--some better than others. Feel free to offer them comments on any of the article syou happen to read! Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O yes, i can certainly understand that this has been quite a challenge! Writing a quality article for a classroom assignment can be tough on its own, but having to do so while remembering an entire set of guidelines that are specific to wikipedia makes it even harder. And of course teaching a large group of people to do so while also having to use wikisyntax is ever more complex. Still, i hope that they enjoyed it and that you had a pleasant time here as well. As said before, i really hope there will be another edition of this project.

As for Reflinks: It is indeed a bot - or to be more precise a script (as it isn't fully automated) which is run on the toolserver (Which is a mediawiki foundation controlled server user to run community created scripts) It has several purposes. First it can "Fill in" barebone references trough the use of the {{cite}} template. This automatically adds information such as the last access date to the article, the title of the article and so on. A second function is that it checks for duplicate references which it will then convert into named references which only show up once. I ran it against the earlier mentioned Jana Skinny Water article. Here you can see how it looked before i did, and here is how it looks afterwards. The entire reflinks process just takes a minute at most and is mostly automatic, while doing it by hand could take much longer. It may not always work equally well (It may refuse to work on some article's stating it cannot improve them) but it will at the very least save some time.

I see that the project is due in just four days, so i think i can offer little assistance with this project. Still, i might have a few extra suggestions in case there will be a new project:

The first suggestion is that the new beta interface may make it easier to teach students wikisyntax, as it is designed to be more user-friendly then the current one. For example it uses dialog boxes to guide users trough certain actions, instead of simply pasting down wikisyntax in the edit window.
I can see you have received a lot of communication on-wiki requesting help with writing the article's, and i can only imagine how much work went into this activity out-of-wikipedia. It may be worth to note that wikipedia itself has several sections to help new contributers get on their feet, and i really believe that "Give and ye shall receive" applies here. Your doing an excellent job contributing content, so other editors will happily assist with answering questions. I think there are two methods that qualify best for your student to request help. The {{helpme}} template is the first one - A user can add this to his or her talk page along with a question, and a friendly editor will respond with an answer as soon as possible, which may be very fast as the category is monitored and reported by bots at near-real time speeds. The template link itself provides a little more documentation on how to add it. A second option is using an IRC channel specifically meant for assistance. All the user has to do is follow this link with Javascript enabled, and he or she will enter the wikipedia-en-help channel on the IRC server. The advantage of this method is that it is a chat system which allows for real-time communication, though due to network policies present at colleges it may not always work. Again, everyone working on these help channels is more then happy to lend a hand, and no question is stupid. It may just take a bit of the teaching load involved with this project. (The only downside is that some editors may get a bit enthusiastic causing them to start helping with the article itself which may make grading a result a tad more difficult - but the history should shows if someone was involved with a decent amount of the work)
A third and final advice before is that besides WP:FA there are two more area's where students might nominate their article's. WP:GA is a light version of the FA criteria and thus it requires less quality to be successfully promoted. Several of the article's i have skimmed across might be good candidates to try for this criteria, though some additional changes might be required. Last there is WP:DYK. All a DYK requires is that: A) An article has been recently created (within 5 days), that it is well sources, and that it contains at least 1.500 characters. The recently created part might also be read as "Expanded in size at least 5x", so expanded sub article's may be nominated as well. If an article meets these criteria it may be suggested at Template talk:Did you know along with an interesting hook, after which it may be shown in the "Did you know..." section on the mainpage for several hours. This may be interesting for the students as DYK article's tend to attracts several thousand viewers due to the placement at the front page (the record, as far as recorded history goes, is currently 71,300 views). I always say that knowing someone actually reads your work makes it more worthwhile to create it. :). Note that these view statistics can easily be checked for every article. The link i added shows the view count for the Yellowstone National Park this month.

I realize that i have been excessively verbose, and that i might have mentioned many things you may already know a long time. Still, i feel obliged to do so simply because of the magnitude of quality being unleashed here (And no, im definitely not exaggerating - one of my main activities around here is patrolling new pages and it is quite rare to see such large contributions of such quality). Again i know that the project is nearly over but if you would need any assistance my own talk page is always open. I am mostly involved in the maintenance departments, but i may be able to assist with low to mid-level content contributions as well. And of course, don't shy away from the help channels or wikipedia - everyone is more then glad to help out a bit. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insight. They have a few articles at GAN right now, and a few more going into the works in the next few days. I've taken a few DYKs FAs, GAN etc through the process. It's very time consuming. They are doing well, though, and I'd appreciate any assistance I can get in reviewing the articles and helping with wikisyntax etc. their articles must be posted by the 20th, but we have another 3 weeks or so to get them into shape, before I have to submit grades.Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good job indeed (wish I learned about it earlier so I could offer assistance!). That makes it two people in Pittsburgh area that I know that are teaching with wikis :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Help

Ruth, I have been conducting a preliminary read through the articles on the list, and while working on Coalition for Christian Outreach I've made a discover that will mean bad news for the student(s) working on the article: most of this material is taken nearly verbatim from the organization's website. This is very bad news for the article, as it now meets the criteria for deletion from Wikipedia on grounds that its what we call a copyright violation: an article that takes all or nearly all of its material from an unfree source. Unless the article is completely rewritten, it will end up on death row as soon as its principle editor(s) move to take the article to GA-class. If the article is to pass a GA review, it must be rewritten completely from scratch asap. I've left some initial comments on certain talk pages for articles I think need some extra help, made a few edits to article name spaces to call attention to things that will need to be addressed before B-class and then GA-class, and will look at wikilinking and other fine tooth details in the morning. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I waited 48 hours and saw no activity for the Coalition article; by the rule of the site, I have been left with no other choice than to list it at WP:COPYVIO and allow for a review of the article. My guess is that this will end with the deletion of the article in question, and while that may not be a GA I did want to intercede on behalf of the student(s) who worked on the article and point out that while the article may end up deleted your students are to be commended for having brought the article to the attention of the site administrators; without their intervention, we may have had a major incident on our hands. Is there any way that the student(s) working on the article could receive some credit for this discovery? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll talk to him, but I'm not sure who put what up there. It looks like he added the list of schools that are involved and some of the financial information, but he hadn't gotten much more in detail. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Effect of WWI on children in the US

Hi Ruth. Sorry for responding so late. I have started the review. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching tool

I ran across your use of Wikipedia as a teaching tool at Human hair growth's talk page. It's an interesting idea with some impressive results. I applaud your efforts. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 14:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Bavarian Succession

Hm, that comes close to an insult. I am from Nordrhein-Westfalen and we normally don't want to get involved with anything that smells Bavarian. I will see what I can do MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol. It's really all about Prussia and Austria, though. Even more of an insult? Malleus doesn't like my footnoting system (you'll see I've done something different here), and he doesn't like my captions. And he doesn't like my prose. I'm willing to change the prose, but the captions: they describe the action not the picture. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We maybe got off on the wrong foot with this, probably my fault; I'm not renowned for my diplomacy. It's true I don't like your citation style, nor your use of captions, but your citation style is at least consistent, and wp:captions remains a guideline, not yet a part of the MoS. My problem with your captions is primarily that they don't identify the subject of the image. Anyway, I'm not sure that anything productive will come from me further criticising the article at FAC, so I'll leave it for others to judge whether it meets the FA criteria or not. Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked the captions a bit, perhaps they work better for you now? Yes, I've ummm heard that your diplomatic skills are rusty. It's not a problem, really. I was startled when you came back at me so fast and hard about the citations and captions. I always have flak about the citations, and I'm used to it, but it's a standard academic format, and I don't plan to change it any time soon. I've made the changes you've requested in the prose, and I'd really like to work with you so you can support this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have so many administrators just gagging for a reason to block me that I can't afford to be anywhere there's even the slightest hint of disagreement, as anything I say will be used in evidence against me. So I'm afraid that I'll be bowing out of the review. I wish you luck with it nevertheless. Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is up to you. I'm not fussy about disagreement, I'm just fussy when people don't agree to disagree, or don't respect the other's opinion. And I would certainly stand up for you in that case. Did someone warn you off this? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to bear in mind that I've been blocked for using the word "sycophantic", and I've got more administrators on my back than you could shake a stick at, just waiting for me to slip up, so I'm going to have to give the review a miss. My policy now is only to engage in those articles or reviews where there is no perceptible friction. Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there is a lot of sucking up that goes on around here, truly. I understand. so hang in there! No hard feelings from me! Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protein allergy

We put our article Protein allergy up for GAN and someone was nice enough to review it. However, they deleted a number of sections and revamped our entire article. And still said we would get a quick-fail. How do we get the article back to how it was, with maybe keeping the new sections they added? Clarker1 (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it would be good to collaborate with one or both of the two reviewers who have looked the article. You'll probably remember that I said something early in the class: we don't "own" the articles, and lots of people may help us / contribute to the article, once we get it going. If you're worried about the grade, don't be. I've read several times what you wrote, so it's not an issue. Now, the issue is letting go of parts of it, and working with others to make it better. I've "talked" with the editor who deleted some of the material, and he/she seems to have a rationale for it (I don't necessarily agree with it, but this editor is in the project under which Protein allergy falls). So hang in there, and see what three or four bright people can come up with, rather than one or two, okay? Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback on my talkpage.

Response for you on my talkpage

Hello, Auntieruth55. You have new messages at Jhfortier's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ACR for Red Tail Reborn

Hi, Ruth, the 28 day period of the Red Tail Reborn ACR will expire soon. Can you please take a look at it again and see if your concerns have been addressed or not? The primary editor has left a couple of comments in relation to your own. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of October (Concert Band)

An editor has nominated October (Concert Band), an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/October (Concert Band) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Jubilee ♫clipman 00:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: the article was created by one of your students and is causing a bit of a stir over at AfD. Any thoughts? --Jubilee ♫clipman 00:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brougham Castle/archive1

Hi, I was wondering if the Brougham Castle article is still a bit confusing. I've tried to iron it out, and once you get past the minorities the history gets simpler anyway. Nev1 (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For you

		The Military history A-Class medal
		For prolific work on Battle of Dürenstein, War of the Bavarian Succession and Order of Saint Hubert (Bavarian); promoted to A-Class between March and April 2010, by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the Milhist A-Class medal. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mount St. Peter Church

Hi Auntieruth55, Sorry I hadn't noticed that you were editing Mount St. Peter Church, until I saw your comments on /GA2.

I have effectively three copies of the article open on Firefox and I was updating (refresh) the oldest copy of the article because it was out of sync (I have two copies of the article plus a citation open) when I saw your /GA2 comment.

An interesting word Plat, I did not know that a plat or platting existed. What the US calls a Plat and Canada calls a Plan, would be called a Plan in the UK. We have Planning in the UK, also known as Development Control. In Scotland, drawing a plan, or plat would be known as dividing the land up into plots; hence my change to "Once the land was surveyed and plotted; but I have no objection to you changing it back to Platting. It looked like a typo, not a proper word.

Comments will be going into GA2, probably after 7pm (its now 5:20 pm where I am) after I've had some tea (well dinner).

I shan't be doing much for the next couple of hours, if you want to do some tidying up. Pyrotec (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Auntieruth55. You have new messages at Jayen466's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

February Shadows

Hi, this is Katherine from class. I have just moved my article from my sandbox to February Shadows. I still need to add one more picture of the bookcover. If you could please look at it and tell me what you think that would be great. Also do I need to cite pictures from Wikicommons? And is it ok that my article is not 50 kilobytes? Mine is around 33 right now but I'm not sure if I can expand any further. Thanks so much. Paraskevia8 (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]