Hi. I've nominated Richards Medical Research Laboratories, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 21:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loved the improvements to Richards Medical Research Laboratories and noticed that you specialize in Kahn's buildings. I usually just take pictures (including the one in the infobox at Richards); which brings me to the Esherick House where I also took some pix - any interest in making that your next project? And if you want to diversify a bit - there's the Vanna Venturi House down the block. All the best. Smallbones (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do let me know what you'd like to have photographed of Kahn's in or around Philly. Knowing what to shoot is a lot more important than just snapping pix. I might even promise a 2 week turnaround. This time of year is a bit unpleasant at times, but most of the trees don't get so much in the way. I generally have about 5 or more photos on a site for every one I post on Commons, so if I read a good description of what's important, I might even have something ok on hand. e.g. after reading the first section after the intro of Richards, I came up with File:Goddard South.JPG, which seems to be on topic, if not especially beautiful. Let me know what I can do. Smallbones (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK - a list of 14 items is a bit challenging, but I asked for it! Expect 1-5 to be done ok if the weather cooperates. Smallbones (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - just got back and did the first editing - it looks like 9 photos will be more or less ok and fit with 6-7 of your requests. The angles are tough and if you put some pix together the way I'd planned, you'll get seasick. Will be uploaded within 2 hours. Smallbones (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The entrance, tower tops, and concrete porch photos look good to me, but I'll let you be the judge on how informative the pix are.

If you have any requests as far as the factory near Harrisburg, please do let me know. I MAY be going past in 12 days and it looks accessible. Knowing what to shoot helps a lot! Smallbones (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I decided not to take that trip in the snow, but don't worry - I go by at least every six months, and it might only take a couple of months. I see what you mean about a view from an airplane being best, but the factory is very close to public roads and parking lots, and needs some distance anyway to capture the whole thing. Google Street View shows how easy it is to get close. I'll probably fall back on my usual method - take what seems important, take what seems beautiful and try to walk around the whole thing without worrying about taking too many shots.

Thanks for the kind words on the Richards shots. Feel free to change the descriptions. I might consider removing one photo from the article, where the towers are bending together. You might also consider using a gallery (see Esherick House for an example). Galleries are officially discouraged, but I think for architectural articles they can make sense. All the best. Smallbones (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richards Medical Research Laboratories, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Louis Kahn's design of the Richards Medical Research Laboratories (pictured) at the University of Pennsylvania influenced other architects despite criticisms by scientists who work there? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your article Victuallers (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better belated than never: Welcome to Wikipedia! Nice to see your excellent contributions on Louis Kahn buildings. I would certainly encourage you to bring these further to Good article status. All three major expansions you did are already close to that level. One tiny Manual of style issue I noticed is the lead section being somewhat too short. You might be also interested in WikiProject Architecture. Cheers. --Elekhh (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I haven't forgotten about taling pix of the Olivetti Factory. There have been a few snowstorms here and it's a bit far, but I'll get there probably sooner than later.

I very much like your expansion of Esherick House. I recommend that you take it to DYK, and perhaps later try to get it listed as a Good Article. There are a few hoops to jump through to get a GA, but I think it's worth it, if only because of the increased readership that it generates.

Very much the same with Richards Labs - I'll suggest you first go to WP:Peer Review and ask them whether they think it best to go to GA or for a Featured Article. There are a huge number of hoops to jump thru for an FA, but it is very much worth it, among other reasons it may be able to then go on the Main Page for Today's Featured Article. Or perhaps WP:Architecture might be able to do a better review, as they are more familiar with the topic, terminology, etc.

I had noticed the Clever House article and had planned to go there as soon as the snowstorms go away. Everything is now melted, so perhaps within 2 weeks. From Google Streetview, the strange thing about the house is the "normal, suburban" area that it's in.

Are you interested in Oscar Stonorov? I've snapped 4-5 of his buildings including his own house at Avon Lea. File:Stonorov Chesco.JPG If that looks a bit strange, because of no trespassing restrictions it's taken literally from "over the river and through the woods." In the same "Middle Pickering Rural Historic District" in Chester County on the NRHP there are supposed to be some pre-fabricated houses designed by Kahn and Stonorov, but I can't get an exact location. They should stick out like sore thumbs - this area is 7 old farms, most with houses from the eighteenth century. If you know about this, please let me know. Also I think I have a pix of the house of city planner Edmund Norwood Bacon rebuilt by Stonorov around an old house (but still have to check whether its the right house in the proper location). File:Mid Pickering Chesco.JPG

All the best,

Smallbones (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bilpen. Just giving you a heads up that I intend to review the GAN for Phillips Exeter Academy Library. I look forward to working with you! Edge3 (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Don't worry about timeliness, since I will also be busy over the next few days and may have time for only brief reviewing. Nevertheless, I am here to keep your first GA experience as simple as possible. I'm flexible when it comes to how you want to respond to my comments, but it is common (not necessarily standard) practice to respond to each bullet point. Sometimes the nominators begin their revisions and respond to the reviewer's comments at the same time, but if you would like to discuss the revisions with me first, then that is also fine. Feel free to send me a message if you have any more questions! Edge3 (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... I didn't realize I passed the unreviewed version. :P Congrats, though, on the GA! Edge3 (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations too, nice too see progress with this topic! --Elekhh (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all! It was such a pleasure working with you, and I'm sure that any future GAN processes will go much faster for you. :)

As for your question, I don't think your article is in violation of WP:V. I first point out that WP:V has much less stringent requirements for sourcing than GAN. It says that "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." It appears that in the article you are simply making statements about observable aspects of the building. Since this information is unlikely to be challenged, especially by anyone who looks at pictures of the building or (even better) actually visits the building, WP:V does not require you to provide an inline citation. (maybe WP:GACR and definitely WP:FACR require one, however, since the verifiability standards are higher)

Having said that, I should point out that WP:OR goes further than WP:V by stating that "a source must exist even for material that is never challenged". So the question we must answer now is whether you do have the appropriate sources for Fred E. and Elaine Cox Clever House. My understanding of WP:PRIMARY tells me that you do. Although the book you are using is a secondary source, the photos themselves are primary sources. Therefore, you should take great care to make sure that you are only making descriptive remarks about the building and are not offering personal interpretations of the architecture. Your descriptive remarks do not require inline citations, since they are unlikely to be challenged. Interpretations must be sourced to secondary sources, which you apparently do not have at the moment. Therefore, it seems that your article does not have any issues with respect to V or OR. You could also mention that your observations came from pictures and not text, but it is not necessary.

Does that answer your question? Let me know if you have any further questions! WikiProject Architecture could also help you, if needed. Edge3 (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consider adding some of the material you've been reading/writing to Pro-life feminism? :) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your interest in Louis Kahn, I wanted to draw your attention to some edits I made to Yale School of Art about their building which has relatively recently been attributed to Kahn. I only added a couple of sentences (drawing on, as you can see, Susan Solomon's book on his Trenton JCC), but I thought that I'd call your attention to it in case you wanted to add it to your to-do list to improve the Kahn section. Remes (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilpen, and thanks for starting the article Trial of Susan B. Anthony. It looks great, and definitely well-written with plenty of reliable sources. I did run Earwig's copyvio detector on it just to be sure, and the results suggest close resemblance to one of the sources in particular.

I figured I would reach out to you here first, before tagging the article, especially since you just created it. Can you take a look? Quotations are fine (I see much of what was detected are quotes), but copy/paste would be copyright infringement. = paul2520 (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I finished reading the article & marked it as reviewed. After a second look at the copyvio detector results, the vast majority are longer direct quotes, which are cited. That and some legal terminology (which looks to me to be fair to use the same terms). I would still appreciate you looking over the results, but overall - the article is great. Thank you for your contributions to our encyclopedia! = paul2520 (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(@Paul2520:) Thanks for the careful checking. You are right in saying that much of the resemblance results refer to direct quotes and legal terminology. Others refer to the names of organizations and institutions. The remainder are brief phrases that no one could reasonably claim as copyright violations. I didn't spot anything that looked like a serious problem. If there are any, naturally I would be happy to modify them, but I think we are OK here. Bilpen (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks for following-up, Bilpen. = paul2520 (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yea sorry, I confused with the page of the Nineteenth Amendment ;-) Bye. --Foghe (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After your good edit on the Louis Kahn template I checked your user page and wow, nice work, thank you for your great contributions to Wikipedia's suffrage and Kahn collections. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Susan B. Anthony you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Unlimitedlead -- Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Susan B. Anthony you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Susan B. Anthony for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Unlimitedlead -- Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Free Religious Association, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Felix Adler.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when you expanded National Woman Suffrage Association in 2020 here you generated some sfn errors, which I believe I have now fixed. I realise that was four years ago, but do you know there are scripts to highlight sfn errors? Otherwise small errors can mean that the references don't match the bibliography. I use Svick's script, there are some instructions about it here. TSventon (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]