User talk:CaffeinAddict/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:CaffeinAddict. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I see you also had to put up with the coterie of pro-Flickr defenders. Vallaint effort on your part. I am done with them. They can have it the way they want. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It was a chore. I won't be touching anything unless they try to remove the whole section again. I'd like to see that condescending Pogue article go, since they'll never have the huff post article back. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Might have been embarrassing if the Pogue 'Cheese' quote had been retained in the WP text Guess it pays to be friendly when you're a tech journalist :-) http://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/news/yahoo-hires-tech-columnist-pogue-to-expand-technology-news-offerings-435469 He won't go short of cheese now Longshot1944 (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. We really need your opinion on which of these photos would make the best Infobox portrait for the Rick Remender article. Could you please offer your opinion in that discussion? The most recent subsection of that discussion is here, so you can just chime in there if you don't want to read the whole thread. I really appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jim Hoskinson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DGA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Freeman Dre and the Kitchen Party, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Irish and Polish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey there,

I'm with the Wikimedia Foundation and was looking into some impressive edits you made for an article on the Wikimedia blog. Can I ask you some questions about those over email? You can send me an email at jerrett@wikimedia.org.

I too like coffee.

JErrett (WMF) (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is the Rob Ford article in a timeline format? What requires it to adhere to such a format instead of using prose like other articles on political scandals? ViperSnake151  Talk  00:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Because it's an ongoing issue that is currently a 91,684 byte article? I don't have a problem with it being in prose, but it'll be a MASSIVE chore for anyone to do it. It's also not an unreadable article at the moment because it's nicely split up into days. It would probably be best to wait for the whole story to be finished before condensing and rearranging the article. The problem is that Ford does something outrageous every single day - so it's hard to see when and if this is ever the final chapter... CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

JErrett (WMF) posted a note to you above. I wonder if you could contact him, since you can help by explaining your approach to editing the Ford articles. 17:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

A page you created, Canadian Society of Cinematographers, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a club or other organization, but it does not indicate how it is important or significant, and thus why it should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for organizations in particular.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Josh3580_talk/hist 05:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Did my edit remove the sources you were about to add? They might still be available in your browser's ctrl + h. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it did not, no worries! Thanks!. CaffeinAddict (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion regarding the better photo for an article Infobox? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi CaffeinAddict,

Thanks for your help on Terry Richardson's page! I think that "The sexual nature of Richardson's photography has always been controversial" in the article is WP:Editorializing. What do you think? Also, I made an edit to the sentence: "He has been repeatedly accused of sexual assault." In my previous edit, I changed the sentence to "He has been repeatedly accused of inappropriate sexual behavior and exploiting young female models.", which I think is accurate. I did this because none of the articles indicate that he's been accused by someone and only one mentions sexual assault. Let me know what you think. Jppcap (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Obviously he has been "repeatedly accused of inappropriate sexual behaviour". I feel like the "exploiting young female models" line is a loose accusation, because that doesn't really seem to be the real issue (the allegations of sexual misconduct being the real controversy). But that said, we have to follow the NPOV rules considering none of the allegations, which are still only that - allegations have been proven. So, in short, I think your leading sentence makes sense, but "exploiting young female models" is kind of vague. CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Jppcap (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey CaffeinAddict! Saw you working on Terry Richardson's page, I edited the "Controversy" section title from "Sexual Assault Allegations" awhile back (maybe twice?) and it looks like it changed back. I think it reads better with how the section is. Just wondering your thoughts. Thanks! Jppcap (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rehab (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in the consensus subthread of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for participating; it is much appreciated. I've taken your thoughts into account, and have removed the reflections from his face. Thanks again! Nightscream (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

..that I am a scientific professional with the necessary doctoral level training (and, as well, a background in the ISEF arena) and so qualified to do a first major edit of the Andraka article. The edits that will shortly begin to appear have been the result of days of research and work. The article does indeed have NPOV, OR, VERIFIABLE, and other issues, and other editors that have noted these before should have been give the response AGF requires (and their raised issues thoroughly vetted and not dismissed). Please read the Herper Forbes article and Smithsonian article already cited, in anticipation of my edits. These sources, further research in the secondary literature of in vitro testing for cancer biomarkers in early disease diagnosis, and a fundamental commitment to the sourcing of science that WP demands will be the basis for the edits that appear. Expect bold edits based on my expertise and experience (and a commitment to defend the rigour and objectivity of the edits, as necessary). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. Happy New Year. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is better for the Infobox here? If you're not able to participate, just disregard this message; you don't have to message me. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for participating in the photo discussion. I really appreciate it. One thing: A new photo has been uploaded and added to the discussion. I hope I'm not bothering you by asking if you would mind indicating whether this changes your viewpoint, or whether it remains unchanged? Thank you very much. Nightscream (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the The Grand Budapest Hotel page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Damion Scott has taken issue with the photo in his article. He previously demanded that I replace it with one that I thought inferior to the one already in the Infobox, and has now replaced with a third one of his own. In the interest of WP:CONSENSUS, can you offer your opinion on this? Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, CaffeinAddict. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, CaffeinAddict. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which of two photos is preferable in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Nightscream - no problem, I put my two cents in. Feel free to contact me on any other discussions in the future. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Nightscream (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi CaffeinAddict.

I've been checking your Ontario COVID-19 page and I noticed that the graph data is out of date. I thought I'd help by editing the graphs to fill in the gaps but it seems I don't have edit capability. I'd like to help. How can I add missing data to the graphs?

...Komoko4 (Jozo Capkun) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Komoko4 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

New accounts can’t edit protected pages, you’ll need to do at least 10 edits to become an auto-confirmed user. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi CaffeinAddict. Last year you used affairpost.com as a reference [1]. It doesn't appear to be a reliable source to me. Can you look at it again? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

No, that is probably not a reliable source... probably a mistake. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of bars, restaurants and venues closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Toronto is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bars, restaurants and venues closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Toronto until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

A Provincewide Shutdown is slightly stricter than a Tier 5 lockdown as used in other areas before this measure. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Right, I agree the language is starting to get stretched out with many new changes. Looking to keep some continuity on the semantics in the page. CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Especially given that a Provincewide Shutdown overrides the regional tier even if you were at the lowest level before. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Your edit to COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Well for fuck sakes - the Ontario government is so useless at communicating the best thing I can do is try to work on a wikipedia page. I'll use news sources instead - no problem - I knew you kinda had to do this... CaffeinAddict (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)