User talk:JonRidinger/Archive 6

1453:; basically that it served no edicational purpose. What's frustrating is that the editor who raised the issue did very little to elaborate (he's already done much the same at the Stephens City article) and certainly nothing to solve the problem and now I'm stuck with having to submit this AGAIN even though the article is essentially there. The other "outstanding issue" about the writing style was never fully explained (he said he would get to the rest later) and likely wouldn't have even come up if the image issue had been taken care of. The main reason I submitted it when I did was because the GAN took FOREVER (like almost a month). I had no idea the FAC would be this laborious and screwed up. A lot of what I did during the review I felt like was far more preferences of particular editors as opposed to actually improving the article according to the MOS. There are still things I changed that were never responded to even from the MOD WHO CLOSED IT. I feel like I've totally played by the rules, done everything I was asked to do, and this is the thank you I get for it like it failing FAC was because I just couldn't get it there even though I responded ASAP to EVERY comment. The way it was closed made it sound like the article had all these major glaring problems even when it had majority support. So yeah, I guess I need to find some better places to use my time and energy for now. I feel like I want a refund of all the time poured into this wasted effort. -- 1779:

Wikiprojects do not have those kinds of article standards because the scope of ther project is much wider. As for the religion section, it's not a requirement for FA (many FA's don't even have religion sections or it's simply mentioned as part of demographics) and I'm not totally satisfied with the data from the survey, especially since I am getting it second-hand from city-data; I'd much rather have the actual published survey. The simple fact it doesn't even mention non-religious people is the biggest problem. Living here I have a REALLY hard time believing some of the numbers are accurate if non-religious people aren't factored in. Also, if it's truly a survey then I need to know what number it was based off and how they got their totals. I plan on adding it, but it's not a deciding factor between FA status and not FA status; the editor who mentioned the religion section did so as a personal preference. The bottom line was the article failed FAC because some reviewers took too long and did not respond to changes; the article itself is fine in terms of content as that wasn't really questioned. --

1815:

problem Ruhrfisch found with that 77% of workers number in the Economy section; without the proper context it doesn't make sense and looks inaccurate). As for messenging reviewers, after the failure I messaged both SandyGeorgia and Tony1 and Tony1 replied several days later (in one line) on the post I left on SandyGeorgia's talk page; she never replied to my direct question or even to my changes on the FAC, but she definitely saw them, so it definitely has mixed results. It really isn't the job of the nominator to be chasing people down unless there is a huge break or a clarity problem. If someone replies and offers support or comments, there is no reason they shouldn't have the page in their watchlist or at least check back, especially the experienced editors that are handling FAC. Just be careful offering advice, though I do appreciate your concern and support. You are talking like you've had an article

1694:'d it. It's cool, I can always bring it back at the time I have the information available from the Town or the County (need to go to the library) that says it is before 1923. I use templates to upload my images quicker, so it only takes me a couple minutes. I have over 250 images uploaded so I knock them out pretty quick. :) The FAC should end on Tuesday (thank you God) and it should be passed, baring any unforseen circumstances. I am working on a couple other articles at the moment and it is off to the races on some others once those are done, plus I want to get the Stephens City article on TFA, so that is part of the next round of things to do as well. I am hoping, if it passes TFA, to get it on the front page for its 252nd anniversary on September 1. - 2264:

the Frederick County article. Oh well. In any case, you'll also notice I cleaned up the sources for the History section of Stephens City. Using the vertical orientation is much harder to read, plus a lot of them used "cite web" when they were actually "cite book". I removed the url parameter if it wasn't being used and if it wasn't being used I also removed the "accessdate" parameter as the access date is for when the website was accessed, not when a book was read. For sources that cited the same book, I simply put the author's name and the page numbers cited. I also took out where the same citations were used very close together. If a source has info that is used in several sentences, it doesn't have to be used after every fact. --

256:(a FA grade article) and even stole a little from your setup on Kent, Ohio. :) I will ask my reviewer and see what they think the next step is or like you said check FA. Wonder if Wehwalt would know? He has had a few FA grade articles. I will find out and get back to you on that one. Like you, I only edited little small stuff. The Stephens City article was my "big prize" article, if you will. I wanted to get it to FA status in 2008 (September 1 to be exact) when Stephens City celebrated it's 250th anniversary, but it wasn't GA grade yet. So I am a little behind. :) But with the work you, me, Park and Wehwalt have put in, I think it is close and might get FA by the 252nd anniversary. :) So, that is something to look forward to. - 2894:

updates, etc. that would have a lot of irrelevant content to the article subject), when it's really just a choice of format for an official outlet. And to be honest, that blog is far more useful to a reader about Kent than the city's own website, which is why I included it in the first place; it's a very relevant resource. You'll also note that editor has really been big on the intro even though virtually every city article intro is fairly short (even Stephens City) and does not necessarily summarize every paragraph in the article. It would help if I could get some additional comments and perspectives. FAC shouldn't be about molding the article into someone else's view; it's about making sure it meets certain standards. --

1794:

comes from the Glenmary Research Center and they have first reference. But I understand what you mean, since it doesn't factor in the non-religious, that could be considered biased, but I think the readers will take away something in any case. I definitely agree on the reason for failure though, it was the slow or no response to some things. My advice on that, once you have addressed something, message them on their talk page. That let's them know they need to look at the FAC again, it also shows you have told them about it and if they don't come back, you can always say "hey, I let them know, but they never came back" and the final reviewer can take that into account and that might play into your favor. -

1715:

viewed as inferior prose in the intro. I think I'm going to resubmit mine in the next few days because it has a valid use rationale for the seal (I'm still waiting to hear back from the city as to its actual copyright status) and the fact that all other "issues" were never fully elaborated on not to mention the multiple supports it had. It's frustrating that there really doesn't seem to be a Cities Wikiproject reviewer who is familiar with what the scope of city articles should be. So much of the review on Stephens City focused on stuff that shouldn't be in a particular town's article (the whole business with surrounding schools, voting results, sports teams, etc.). --

2978: 2756: 2613: 2357: 2036: 1351: 1056: 31: 1733:, while it is a good WikiProject and I have found three good people from there, you really can't get questions answered there. I have a question sit there for weeks and I came back to ask another and it was still sitting there, unanswered. If all WP:CITIES is for is a group of names and unanswered questions, I say ditch the project and let the state WikiProjects pick up the slack, they do a better job anyway. But anywho, give a notice to 820: 1876: 2388: 424: 154:

material. :) I really don't know what I will do once it gets GA status. I don't know what the next step is to A Status. The big question is does it really need that much work to get A or even FA status? But don't want to get ahead of myself. Just wanted to give you that tidbit of information on the new editor on the page, so keep your eyes open for edits on the page. :) Take Care....

940:. We won't be having any cool t-shirts to commemorate our start-up, but adding your name to the members list will certainly carry some Wiki-cred as being an inaugural member... It's a completely from-the-ground-up project, so we can use all the help available. After you join (assuming you would be interested in joining this humble venture) , please slap this template: 1292:

FAs have the seals of the town/city on them, so they have to be allowed. I even brought up, granted a GA, that Stephens City passed with a seal on the page. So I think it is all a bit silly and I hope they can all get past it (not dwell on the subject too much) and get this page to FA status soon. It has been there, what, a month now? Too long in my opinion. -

3157: 2110: 302:

It isn't that I couldn't have found more, it is just that is all there was for what is on there. Plus, Stephens City isn't as big as some towns, so I couldn't source it better than it was. So I hope that isn't a strike against me. I will link you to the review when it is done (with the amount of reviewers that popped up, it might be quicker now). -

1277:

copyrighted or not. Personally, I don't care, and I think the whole debate at FAC over this is inappropriate. If FAC doesn't want such logos in geographic articles, then they need to work with the cities wikiproject so that the infobox template doesn't have it or develop a specific guideline for such cases of copyrighted city logos. --

1820:

original; it's not just a file I saved from a website and uploaded to Knowledge (XXG). So, I'm going to need some concrete policy to show why the seal prevents it from being FA or how its presence in the article violates a policy. The way FAC went, it didn't provide anything beyond one editor's personal interpretation of a policy. --

1754:(another good reviewer) reviewing your article. They will give you lots of good information and help as needed. If worse comes to worse, I would ditch the seal, just so it isn't a repeat of the first go-round. I want to see Kent on the front page too. When you do put it back up to FAC, I wish you good luck. :) - 2908:

I will look at their comments and see what I can do. If the person (Manager) gives updated information and it is from the actual guy (which I think we can safely assume) then it could be considered a reliable source since it is from the City and all talk of blogs would be moot and could be listed no

2893:

I've thought about it, but the person bringing it up hasn't given a formal support or an oppose, so for now it's a suggestion (much like I did at the Stephens City FAC). It's mostly because someone sees "blog" and they immediately assume it's a personal blog (like mine, with lots of family pictures,

2789:

and gave it a look-see. I split the section in two seperate paragraphs, so you have one that is about the history of Kent Religion and one is about the current (2010) religious organizations and congregations. I think this looks like clumped together and easier on the eye to read. Please feel free

2278:

Well, I am kinda holding out hope, for the moment, that the actual study has town-based stats. For the moment, it can be county plus Stephens City and then we can cross the bridge when you receive the study information. If it is town-based information, it could be used on many other articles in the

1819:

pass FAC. I thought for sure mine would pass, especially after it got so many supports...and we all see where that went. There are also things you were willing to compromise on that I probably won't. I took the time to make the actual image file on Photoshop of the Kent seal from a poor copy of the

1448:

The rationale to use the seal is there and the debate doesn't look to be that high a priority whether it's even copyrighted or not (a separate issue which directly stalled this FAC). The issue isn't that the image is too high resolution or the city did not "release" it; the issue was that ONE editor

569:

Hello, I am awaiting an official peer review, but was told by a FAC delegate to get as many people looking at the page as possible. The page just received GA status today. At your earliest convenience, could you take a look at the Stephens City, Virginia page and review it (placing it on the page's

301:

Wow, I didn't know you could skip GA. I thought everything had to go through GA to get to FA. I still have the article waiting on a reassessment as well, but that is just as slow going as GAN. I hope the fact that I only have 68 references doesn't make people look bad on the Stephens City article.

232:

I honestly don't know what the next step is. I guess it depends on the GA review and what they say. In all the years I've been editing Knowledge (XXG), I've never actually gotten this far as most of what I have done is adding pictures, correcting problems, starting articles, and expanding them, but

211:

Yup, waiting on GAN. Took the backlog of GAN to ANI to get some eyes on the page and LOTS of people have been reviewing articles, so this is good :) Got a question for ya....what does one do once an article is certified as a Good Article? Do I take it immediately to FA? Does more work take place?

3494:

I'm happy to help. The only reason I started watching and editing the high school page was because I was in Waterloo in May and drove past the high school and wanted to learn more, then found the article with huge lists. I haven't really done anything else with related articles. You are also free

3255:

You could use either one, just let the person know. If you need help writing the blurb (it is like writing the lede) let me know. I recommend taking a look at other WP:CITIES FA blurbs and how they were done. But again, this isn't necessary until November, but I recommend getting it when the date

3240:

Well, I won't hold my breath. There is no "founding" date for Kent beyond "November 1805", so I guess we get 205 this year, but as for the exact date, the 1888 history I have says "on or around the 1st of November" and the 1932 history says "mid November". Both are very detailed and accurate. I'm

3103:

I'd agree with including the people that lived in Kent, at least during its earlier years; we don't generally have notable people sections on township articles, since at least the sources I've seen will normally say "_____ lived near _____" rather than "_____ lived in _____ Township". No complaints

1714:

Well, since Tony1 isn't going to be reviewing FACs for a little while, your chances of passing are pretty high as he is very picky about prose and wording. He was one of the "opposes" on mine and actually never fully reviewed the article (came in right at the end), just basing his oppose on what he

1576:

I went ahead and changed it myself. No point in describing to you what I can easily just do myself! Basically, the wording needed to reflect the fact that the percentage (77%) was of those employed, not of the entire town's population. I also removed instances of "just" and "only" as those can be

1405:

I am so sorry to hear about your FAC. You seriously did everything right and should have gotten that FAC. When you get back and are ready, I will help you with your FAC if you want to put it back up. I fear the same fate for mine, if so, I will definitely do some complaining. The rate things get

153:

I honestly don't think anything else needs any work except that history section. That is kinda the big problem at the moment. Once we get that out of the way and any little fixups around the other sections, I hope to take it back to GAR, where I have already been told by another user that it is GA

2580:

Took out the study from the Stephens City page "Religion" section and left the part you wrote. I added some more information about our first church with information I found from the "Newtown History Center" (a PDF file actually) and tinkered a little. At your leisure, could you give it a look-see

2312:

You're welcome about the sources. In reality, though, the data isn't "county plus town", it's just county, so Stephens City is included of course, but makes up less about %2 of that data set. Perhaps Stephens City is in line with the county stats (who knows, it may very well be close!) but I know

2242:

Wehwalt didn't online until about an hour, but I had long since given up and asked Finetooth on the subject and he suggested some tinkering, which I did, but other than that, said it was good. So I changed what he suggested and put it into practice. Thanks for bringing the Glenmary information to

1814:

Oh, I'm fully aware that the religion data comes from the Glenmary Research study. Unfortunately, getting it through city-data.com means that I don't have access to the study itself (hence getting it "second-hand") and thus an incomplete view of the data or even context for the data (much like the

1793:

On the Religion section, the data is actually from the "Congregations and Membership in the United States" from the Glenmary Research Center, it was just posted (with reference) on City-Data. I only mentioned City-Data as that is where the information was shown at first (so they get credit) but it

1741:

is part of that WikiProject by default, they might be able to help you out. I would also add that "Religion" section (with a picture of a Kent church in place of the one I have on there for reference) to the page prior to putting it back on FAC. Let me know when you do and I will give a once over

1669:

if you click "edit"). That way the bot won't think the file isn't being used. Any file not being used at all will be deleted here, especially if it's listed as copyrighted. I don't delete files off my computer that much either, but like I said, I don't want to create more work for myself here if

1620:

Thanks for your support on the seal. I, albeit reluctantly, removed the seal from the page earlier. I decided it just wasn't worth the fight. I could have had the oppose tossed since I had my 3 supports, but I didn't want to make things harder on myself in future FACs. I appreciate your support

1291:

You're Welcome. :) Glad I could help on out the Religion section. No worries on your removing it from my sandbox, 'tis cool. As for the FAC/Seal debate, I think it is all just silly. I pointed out to the user who brought it up (and he did remove his opposition to the point) that other town/city

666:

Sure, not a problem. :) The things you find out looking for album artwork. :) I didn't look at the KSU alumni page, just the "People from" page as the James Gang page didn't say they were KSU students. Since I am well rested (when I wrote the above post last night, I was barely there), I will do

337:

Ah, good. That was a worry for me, the references. I posted to Wehwalt about the "next step" and am awaiting an answer back from him. I will copy it to you also so you can read it as well. I really can't see where I can improve on the Stephens City article for FA to be honest. Now, others will

322:

Pure number of sources isn't a factor. Even at the Kent article, the raw number is nearly 180, but many of those are multiple citations from the same book (just different page numbers or ranges) or specific pages from the same website. FA seems to focus on even greater details for the same factors

175:

Hey Dude, haven't seen you pop up on my watchlist. Hope all is well. Wanted to let you know what I added Stephens City to the GAN page after some work by Wehwalt. He cleared it for resubmission on GAN. I will let you know how things go, but as you know yourself with your Kent, OH article (which

3026:

I'm glad. You need to let an admin know that you are willing to stick to one account because that is what is getting you blocked. I tried saying that to the admin that blocked your last accounts, but no response. If you don't make an effort, an admin will just block you again, which I'd hate to

2263:

You're welcome. I still don't think it helps the reader to know the religion stats about Frederick County in the Stephens City article. Remember, Frederick County has some 70,000 people while Stephens City has about 2,000. There are bound to be differences and the info can easily be included on

2142:

I like it alot, but I have one concern...would it be called a synagogue if it is just a regular looking building with some neat glass windows in the front? Would it be called a mosque, it is just a regular house? Because that is what both places are. They aren what you would normally consider a

1991:

I just heard back from one Suzanne Robertson from either the legal department or the City Manager's office of the City of Kent (I sent my email to Legal, but her email sign off says City Manager's Office. She's told me that the image is not copyrighted and we are free to use it. I will re-tag with

1159:

and scroll down about 3/4 down the page, look for "Religion statistics for Kent" and "Breakdown of population affiliated with a religious congregations". This information comes from the "Congregations and Membership in the United States" study by the Glenmary Research Center, published by Dale E.

285:

Well, as far as I know, it doesn't need to be GA to get FA. I saw a GAN get pulled with the rationale "This is more FA material" by the nominator and it was still rated as "B" class. I thought about doing that with the Kent article, especially since it has almost 180 sources, but wanted it to go

237:

one thing that was mentioned for a possible FA was the citations being at the end of the sentence (which I don't really agree with uniformally). In looking at many of the other articles that are being passed for GA, I think a lot of what we've done on Stephens City and Kent are above the basic GA

2328:

Yeah, you do have a point. My plan is if the study doesn't have town-based stats (like the Census does) which I fear is going to happen, then I will take the stats out, move some things around, tinker a little and get a full sourced section, without the stats. Just waiting. :) Darned slow mail

1834:

On the Religion section, I think you can get the study, but it costs your $ 20.00 US and you get a CD-ROM of all the information. As for my FAC, yeah, you kinda have a point, I am getting my cart before my horse. I guess with everything Fascha Nua opposed gone, he will support it (I hope) and I

1100:

article and I noticed his father and brother mentioned here and in the source, so figured I might as well take care of it while it was opened. I live near Fairchild Avenue in Kent (a semi-major road here which is undergoing a huge bridge project), which is named after Lucius and is very close to

2681:

Very cool. I'm not going to hold my breath for Kent. Seems to have come to a halt once again and it seems no matter what I do it's not good enough for someone. If it does finally make FA, I will try to get it up around November 1st, which is what the history books say is the date it was first

2541:

Yes I was planning on sending you a message very soon. I have the book and it is indeed all county-level, even the cool national map they sent. At the very least, however, it is definitely a reliable source as the Glenmary itself only gathered Catholic data; another group collected the data for

1835:

have three other supports, so I guess my mind is thinking it is a done deal. Yeah, if I see I am not going to get things to be in my favor, I will bend, I don't mind. Just works out better for the greater purpose, passing the FAC. That isn't for all, but for me, it just works out easier. :) -

2871:

This is just my opinion, so take it how you wish, but I would do away with that link. The main "City of Kent, Ohio" and "Kent Chamber of Commerce" links should be enough. I don't think the one to the City Manager is necessary. To me, it wouldn't be a deal breaker, but to some it is. For the

1276:

Thanks for this...not sure when I'll get to it, but I did copy it into my sandbox and went ahead and removed it from yours (hope you didn't mind). I have some additional info and sources I can add. Thanks also for the comments regarding the city seal. Now the debate is whether it even is

1778:

Depends on what question you ask at Cities as to what gets answered. Note the question about the scope of a city's article drew a huge response, while my question about city seals drew no response. In the end, the articles about cities need to have some sort of standard format; the state

2313:

my hometown varies greatly from most of the other demographic stats, so I have no reason to believe religion will be any different. In any case, to me it borders on speculation without any actual data. But in the end, I'm not really going to say much more nor do anything about it. :) --

1663:

I was thinking about it being deleted here. Even though uploading files doesn't take THAT long, it's something I don't particularly enjoy doing, so if I can prevent something from being deleted I will probably re-upload later I'll do it. Usually you can put brackets (<!--- and ---:

1235:, but the Kent article is your "baby" and I don't want to goof anything up. :) Plus with it under FA Review, I don't want to do anything that messes that up. Should you want to add to it, please feel free to use my sandbox or transfer it to yours, whichever works for you. Take Care... 1231:. All that needs to be done is a picture of a Kent church put in place of the church picture I have one there now (currently a Stephens City church to reference how it will look). All the information is from the pages referenced, so it is correct and updated. I would add it to the 3478:

too. Not only is it worse than the high school article when it comes to listing unnotable people, but it contains links to the pension information of many of the former administrators (including a relative of mine). That stuff needs to be oversighted. But I'm not holding my breath.

196:

I've been somewhat busy with other things and less motivated to edit for the most part. Thanks for noticing! Was actually going to see what you had been up to as there seemed to be a lull in editing on the Stephens City article. That has obviously passed! Anyway...on to GAN :)

3297:

for an example. On the other hand, I'd say that the tree is too complicated for PD-ineligible — it's an artistic design, so I'd say that you need to provide a fair use rationale. Shouldn't be hard (after all, logos are easy fair use), but PD-ineligible isn't the right tag.

2728:

The new map looks great and I struck that quibble on the FAC. If you think you have answered all of Nasty Housecat's objections, I think a brief note on his/her talk page asking to please look at the article again would be fine. I just had an idea and will add it to the FAC.

3292:

First off, trademarks aren't an issue; they prevent us from using whatever is trademarked for purposes unrelated to the trademark holder, and our use of them to identify trademark holders helps those holders. Trademarked media aren't prohibited on Commons; see

1427:

I also wanted to let you know that I was sorry that the FAC closed as it did, but would be glad to review the article again when you feel up to trying again. I wondered if the city might release a low res version of the seal under a free license? Take care,

3525: 3410:

Oh geez. I guess I don't mind people using Knowledge (XXG) at work (I do when things are slow, but I'm currently a substitute teacher, not a DHS employee!), but seriously, if they have time to do it this much, what is the tax money paying for???

2183:

So technically the "synagogue" and "mosque" terms would fit for both places, even if they are fit the "look" for those particular buildings. Cool. :) OK, I think it is ready, should we let Wehwalt give it a once-over or put it onto the page? -

1642:

I have the seal on my computer, so if I need it again and get approval from all the powers that be, I can reupload it. Keeps it off the page (out of sight, out of mind) but available for reuploading at any time. I never delete anything. :) -

3499:

and general Knowledge (XXG) guidelines. Anywhere you see huge lists like that in a school or district article, they should be removed. The only lists that should be present are those of Notable alumni and notable faculty (if any).

1591:

Cool, thanks! :) The "just" and "only" is when I was trying to "change up" what was being said so it wasn't bland and repetitive, but I understand what you are saying. Appreciate the help and the changes to the page. :) -

2790:

to revert if you don't agree. That aside, I think the section is well-written and well-sourced and definitely should be added to the page. I recommend adding it above "Notable residents and natives". Good work! :) -

1160:

Jones in 2000. I sourced both that and the City-Data.com page in my sources. I would include, if you have it, a picture of a local church in the section, just to make it look pretty. If you like, you can base it off

3130:

as soon as you can. If you do, you will need to space it out away from the Stephens City article (which was on September 5) by one month. It is with great honor I present to you the below userbox. Nicely done! :) -

2479: 2462: 2446: 2441: 2436: 2420: 2415: 414:

status. May I be the first to award you the following userbox and thank you for helping me on this article. I look forward to working with you in the future as I move the article closer to Featured Article status.

2909:

matter what. But if (and this is a big "if") it becomes a sticking point, then I would let it go, but you bring up a good point for inclusion, so for now, it should stay. I will look at the FAC and help out. :) -

3088:

article, much of it was simply borrowed from there (which I wrote anyway) and altered to fit the township since so much of it is the same for both. Still not sure how to handle the notable natives section though.

1406:

FAC'd and some just forgotten is beyond sad. Enjoy your Wikibreak (if you haven't aready, I recommend a template at the top of your user and talkpages) and I will see you when you get back. Take Care Dude. :) -

233:

never really taking them to this high a level. I would look over the review process for FA and see what all they will be looking for, especially watching out for things that could earn a quick fail. I know with

137:

Well, looks like Parkwells is out. He has lost interest in the page and has decided to work on other things. Kind of a disappointment as he was doing a good job. I did find a potential replacement for Park in

3205:

Thanks again. If I follow the pattern you did, then it can be anytime in early to mid November, as that's when it was first settled in 1805 (two reliable sources disagree, but neither has a specific date).

2164:

I looked at their websites and the Islamic site describes it as a "center" (which means it is probably used for more than worship services...the local Islamic center here also has a school) while the article

1577:

considered POV terms. The only time you would probably use "just" and "only" is if you were comparing the percentages/totals to other locales like a neighboring town, the county, state, or national data. --

286:

through the GAN process to see how that went and see what suggestions and comments would be made. There are definitely things we miss in editing an article extensively that other editors can pick up on. --

2560:, the county Stephens City is in. Not sure if someone would want to add the information to each and every county, but it is an idea. Well, looks like I got work to do. Thanks for letting me know. :) - 1154:

Hey Jon, I seen where they are looking for some religion information (probably similar to what I have on the Stephens City article). I have found some stats on what adheres to what religion in Kent. Go

3162: 2115: 963:

I've checked the links and posted the results at the nomination page; I'm not clear where I should have added my comments, so they're at the bottom — would you please move them to the proper spot?

624:

Thanks for the heads up. I will look some more, though the non-reliable blog sources I've found seem to indicate it was formed by KSU students, which wasn't all that uncommon in the late 1960s.

944:

on the talk pages of every Cleveland-centric article you edit. Thanks, and may the forxe be with you (and by that I mean the Jedi force of course... not the defunct Cleveland MISL franchise).

1665:) on text or a file to "hide" it on the article, but it's still actually there for future use (I think you know what I'm talking about, but if not there is an example of blocked out text at 2929:

Thanks. I'd like to see a few more comments, and if others feel it shouldn't be included, then so be it. At this point, I think it's one editor's incorrect interpretation of policy. --

2660:

All the work you, I and everyone else did on the Stephens City article culminates on September 5th when it is featured on the Front Page. Hope your article will be up there too soon. -

2279:

same format probably. But I am taking a wait-and-see approach to things at the moment. :) Thanks for updating some of the sources into "cite book" and condensing them. Thanks :) -

2475: 2471: 2014:

Thank you very much. I was waiting to hear back from the City Manager (who was waiting to hear back from one of the other departments). Glad to know that is taken care of. --

1963:

I just took a whole bunch of people who have contributed to the project in the best ways possible and your name was on the list from the word "get-go"....so no worries. :) -

3431:

Thanks for the heads up - since there have been no new edits in just over an hour, I have watched the article and will semi-protect if any more attempts to put her name in.

1327: 1746:

a message as well prior to the FAC and tell him about it. He is excellent at FACs and really knowledgable. He would be a great help as well. You will also probably get

2773: 2626: 2370: 2049: 1364: 1069: 774: 1383:

page since you have previously worked on it? I know that you said that it is too positively biased still, but I'm having trouble figuring out where to make changes.

534:

Ah, sorry, wasn't aware. Been working on my article :) I made one correction on it (I think it was #6). Let me know if yours gets GA (which I think it will). -

429: 3241:

inclined to lean towards the 1932 history. Even funnier that here we just rounded up to 1806, so we did the bicentennial stuff in 2006, not 2005. Go figure. --

849:, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at 2399: 937: 1024:

You are very welcome - thanks for all of your hard work on the article - it is nicely done and I learned a lot reading it. Glad to support it at FAC now too,

652:

are examples of KSU alumni who also lived in Kent so are on both lists), otherwise we'd have everyone on the alumni list also on the people from Kent list. --

1002:

I too checked into what you'd asked me to check and posted my findings at the ink you provided. Hope it helps. Thanks again for joining the WikiProject:CLE!

2169:

seems to indicate it's a pretty general term for a place of worship. The Jewish site in the history section refers to "our present synagogue building." --

1729:

From what I am told it is Karanacs who will take the final review of the article and I am told that will be on Tuesday. I am really not too thrilled with

2811:

That's fine. I like it better split up, so thanks! I only recently expanded the history part of it and didn't get around to breaking the section up. --

636:

was founded by KSU students, that's where it should be unless there are members who are actually from Kent. Pretty much the rule I've followed for the

106: 709:

involved in the "nationally-recognized" fashion museum, which really isn't even backed up by the citation. If that can be fixed, it's good to go!

1256:

Oh, just let me know when you are done with the sandbox and have the section somewhere else, so I don't clear the sandbox before you are done. -

2943:

I posted a comment at the almost bottom of the page (we EC'd each other on it) and will comment when that user comments further if necessary. -

2222:

officially offline, with it being 12:53a, so he will probably see it in a few hours. Nothing that really needs to be rushed, I don't think. -

3384: 358:

There are a lot of things other editors notice, especially when they aren't familiar with the town. Always good to have more perspective. --

3370: 3356: 629: 671:

and see if I can't find out some more for ya on where exactly they came from, KSU or Kent. I will let you know what I find. Take Care...

2062: 3220:

You get extra points if it is on an important date, even more points if it is on a X00th, X10th, X25th, X50th, or X75th anniversary. -

2387: 570:

talk page or mine is fine) independent of the official peer review. I would open to any and all requests during the review. Thanks...

2143:

synagogue or a mosque. Being not of either of those faiths, I don't know what they technically consider a synagogue and a mosque. -

3041:

One way you could do that is create a user page that demonstrates you are here to stay and this will be your permanent account. --

1529:

page. I will be in Columbus Aug 8-11 and was wondering if any Wikimedians would be interested in meeting up then. If so, I started

338:

probably see places, but to me its perfect. :) I bet everyone says the same thing about the article they are working on too. :) -

3475: 3017: 3002: 97: 3468: 1185:

Hey NH thanks for the link and suggestions! Thanks even more for pointing out where the city-data.com data comes from!! :) --

89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 3338: 637: 600: 3173: 2126: 865: 1925: 3345:

flunky who has tried many times before to insert his preferred "Yale of the Midwest" phrasing into the article (see also

1164:

section (word-for-word if you like) from the Stephens City article, just with the stats changed of course. Take Care...

805: 714: 1684:

I would have done that, but it was already deleted, mostly due to my request. I figured it was gone anyway, so I just

869: 835: 603:

page and didn't see it. I didn't add it since I can't confirm it with a source, hence my message to you. Take Care...

3013: 2998: 1913: 2557: 38: 3539:

Given with respect and admiration to JonRidinger in recognition of all your hard work and perseverance in getting

3065:

Wow, you've put quite a lot of work into this article! This is by far the best article on any township in Ohio.

1530: 1497:

Sorry for the short delay, I addressed the concern you raised and posted a reply on the bottom of the FAC page. -

842: 439: 3378: 2843:

Should be OK, the Stephens City "Religion" section is 2,938 bytes. I don't think there is a kb limit on FAs. -

1228: 411: 3364: 3350: 3081: 2984: 2786: 2243:

my attention and please let me know if there is town-based data in that study when you get it. Thanks again...

2001: 2977: 1898: 777:. If you have the time and interest, it would be nice to have some additional help on that article. Thanks. 2120: 1227:

I was bored, so I put together the Religion section I proposed above (that was recommended on the FA) at my

1007: 949: 801: 770: 710: 563: 434: 407: 3257: 147: 3374: 3268: 3228: 3139: 2951: 2917: 2880: 2851: 2798: 2708: 2668: 2642: 2619: 2612: 2589: 2568: 2528: 2337: 2287: 2251: 2230: 2192: 2151: 2092: 2042: 2035: 1971: 1936: 1843: 1802: 1762: 1702: 1651: 1629: 1600: 1563: 1505: 1475: 1414: 1391: 1357: 1350: 1300: 1264: 1243: 1207: 1172: 1062: 1055: 986: 916: 850: 736: 679: 611: 578: 542: 500: 457: 380: 346: 310: 264: 220: 184: 162: 120: 3360: 3346: 2487: 831: 3505: 3457: 3416: 3318: 3294: 3246: 3211: 3094: 3046: 3032: 2934: 2899: 2834: 2816: 2687: 2547: 2318: 2269: 2209: 2174: 2019: 1954: 1825: 1784: 1720: 1675: 1582: 1458: 1282: 1190: 1132: 1106: 895: 782: 754: 657: 525: 479: 363: 328: 291: 243: 202: 47: 17: 3496: 2483: 834:

on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a

2363: 2356: 875:

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

706: 3572: 3548: 3436: 3400: 3190: 3126:

Congratulations Sir, you are now the proud author of a Featured Article. I recommend taking it to

2734: 1995: 1433: 1029: 846: 489: 3387:)). Other than wishful thinking about the government plugging its budget holes by getting rid of 1730: 1621:

on it and others as well, but in the great scheme of things, I felt it better it go. Take Care...

1526: 2070: 1688: 1335: 1003: 945: 880: 797: 3127: 1467:

Next time you are online, which I hope is soon, check out your userpage. :) You earned that. -

2696:

Don't give up, stick with it. Mine ground to a halt three times, I almost gave up. Work with

3484: 3303: 3262: 3222: 3133: 3109: 3070: 2945: 2911: 2874: 2845: 2792: 2702: 2662: 2636: 2583: 2562: 2522: 2331: 2281: 2245: 2224: 2186: 2145: 2086: 1965: 1942: 1930: 1837: 1796: 1756: 1747: 1696: 1645: 1623: 1594: 1557: 1499: 1469: 1408: 1387: 1294: 1258: 1237: 1201: 1166: 1140: 980: 968: 932:

You are officially invited to join (even though you live in Kent and may not be interested)...

910: 730: 673: 605: 572: 536: 494: 451: 374: 340: 304: 258: 214: 178: 156: 114: 1734: 1450: 857: 702: 3501: 3453: 3412: 3314: 3242: 3207: 3090: 3042: 3028: 3027:

see. You are making some great additions to articles that have needed them. Good luck. --

2930: 2895: 2830: 2812: 2683: 2543: 2314: 2265: 2205: 2170: 2015: 1950: 1885: 1821: 1780: 1716: 1671: 1578: 1540: 1454: 1278: 1186: 1102: 891: 778: 750: 653: 595:

Not sure if this can be confirmed, but as I was digging up some album artwork, I found that

521: 475: 359: 324: 287: 239: 198: 3392: 2204:

Yeah basically that's it. I don't mind having additional eyes look it over. Can't hurt --

1555:

I replied to your post there about the "Economy" section. Hope all is well with you. :) -

1096:

You're welcome! It started from needing to include a source about Lucius Fairchild in the

861: 2762: 2755: 2501: 819: 668: 112:

AWESOME! Love the new "double" map. That is exactly what I was wanting. Great work! -

2084:

For your help and hard work on the article, I present you the below userbox. Thanks! -

3582: 3568: 3558: 3544: 3509: 3488: 3461: 3446: 3432: 3420: 3404: 3396: 3322: 3307: 3274: 3250: 3234: 3215: 3200: 3186: 3145: 3113: 3098: 3074: 3050: 3036: 3021: 3006: 2957: 2938: 2923: 2903: 2886: 2857: 2838: 2820: 2804: 2769: 2744: 2730: 2714: 2691: 2674: 2648: 2595: 2574: 2551: 2534: 2505: 2343: 2322: 2293: 2273: 2257: 2236: 2213: 2198: 2178: 2157: 2098: 2074: 2023: 2008: 1977: 1958: 1849: 1829: 1808: 1788: 1768: 1751: 1724: 1708: 1679: 1657: 1635: 1606: 1586: 1569: 1545: 1511: 1481: 1462: 1443: 1429: 1420: 1395: 1339: 1323: 1306: 1286: 1270: 1249: 1213: 1194: 1178: 1144: 1110: 1090: 1039: 1025: 1011: 992: 972: 953: 922: 904:

Neat! Welcome to the Reviewers side of the Wiki, where our logo looks like a lopsided

899: 884: 809: 786: 758: 742: 718: 705:

now pass and the culture section looks reasonably good. Only issue that remains is the

685: 661: 645: 617: 584: 548: 529: 506: 483: 463: 386: 367: 352: 332: 316: 295: 270: 247: 226: 206: 190: 168: 126: 1875: 1081:

Many thanks for helping with the editing of thr Cassius and Jairus Fairchild articles-

2066: 1331: 1125: 1086: 876: 3480: 3388: 3299: 3105: 3066: 2697: 1743: 1136: 964: 423: 139: 3567:

You are very welcome - only sorry that I somehow didn't give this to you earlier.

1449:

didn't see the point of the seal in the article and thus concluded that it failed

796:

Looks like those editors adding additional climate charts are now adding those to

3524: 1534: 649: 253: 146:

several featured articles, front page articles, and DYKs under his belt, plus 2

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1156: 864:, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see 3540: 3167: 3085: 2497: 1738: 1666: 1380: 1232: 1097: 695: 633: 596: 471: 234: 845:

to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only

1161: 3156: 2872:

greater good (the FA), I would drop it. Again, this is just my opinion. -

2109: 2063:

Talk:2009 Little Caesars Pizza Bowl#Point spreads on college football games

2997:

formerly WearyWorld, SoShinesAGoodDeed (but you probably already knew).

599:(the old 70s classic rock band), was formed in Kent, Ohio. I checked the 1082: 773:

GA nomination. There is also another GA nomination from the same area,

2520:

that you have received the study in the mail it is county-wide data? -

372:

That is a good point. Helps to see the whole thing with fresh eyes. -

2166: 1328:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bband11th

749:

Thanks...It's been 2 days short of a month since I nominated it! --

978:

Also checked the links and posted to the FA page. Good luck :) -

856:

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious

3256:

range opens up so you can have a free range of days, or use the

625: 176:

just finished being reviewed) things take awhile. Take Care...

3342: 3080:

Thanks. It's been a long time coming as much of it was in my

905: 143: 25: 1992:

PD-text etc, and forward the confirming email to OTRS. Best,

628:

was also formed at this time at KSU. Joe Walsh is listed on

150:. He said he would take a look at the page in "a few days". 3104:

if you have sources that place people in this township :-)

2776: