User talk:Espresso Addict/archive2

Note: This is an archive of past discussions. Current discussions are at User talk:Espresso Addict

Just a quick note to thank you for contributing to my editor review - I've taken on board your comments, so thank you for taking the time to contribute. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 15:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you. All my best Tim Vickers 17:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tim! I hope I can deal with the stress better this time around. Espresso Addict 13:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input at my recent RfA. It unfortunately did not succeed, but I'll try to make improvements on the concerns your brought up. Hope to see you around. Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to let you know I was inspired by comments made by you and a few others at my RfA to contribute what I hope is useful article content. I talk about it here. I'm not expecting to sway your vote with one more stub, but I wanted you to know that I am taking your views seriously. Thanks for your input! -- But|seriously|folks  03:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments on my editor review. I appreciate the kind words. Per your remarks, I'll definitely be keeping eye on the peer review and request for feedback pages for opportunities to contribute there. Thanks again! -Chunky Rice 16:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left some comments at your editor review. Walton^One 18:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Walton. Espresso Addict 19:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support in my unsuccessful RfA. I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me; however, this time around things just didn't work out. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support in my successful RfA. I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me. Carlossuarez46 22:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the very good advice re: new editors. The only thing is that when I'm patrolling new articles if I go through each users' edit history, it will slow me down quite a bit. On the other hand, there are several new article patrollers. Also, a lot of the articles are patently unsuitable (i.e. a personal biography about that user) and will never be salvageable, so I figure it's better to tag them and let the user focus on suitable articles that won't ultimately be deleted. What do you think about a newbie editor template for a failed first article, that's much more gentle, because I think you make a good point, but ultimately, not deleting bad articles could easily create a backlog of cleanup tagged articles that really won't ever be suitable. Thanks again! - superβεεcat  17:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in My RfA which closed successfully. I am honored and truly more than a little humbled by the support of so many members of the community. It's more than a bit of a lift to see comments on my behalf by so many people that I respect.

I know that it's not easy to !vote neutral on those things, and I respect that you did it with a great deal of consideration. Thank you for that consideration. I'll do my best to not disappoint you or the community. - Philippe | Talk 06:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I loved your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schrödinger's cat in popular culture. Bearian 22:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found myself changing my mind as I read the article, and couldn't withstand the silly joke. Espresso Addict 22:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Gaskell, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--W.marsh 16:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I used the current DYK question because it is the best I could think of. I have, however, revisted the issue. Perhaps, Did you know that among Political ideological groups in the U.S., liberals are the most educated? would be better. Here the data is clear: 26% of conservatives have college degrees, vs. 49% of liberals. Regards, Signature^brendel 17:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like that hook a lot more (which probably says something about my political leanings), but I think the data might still a touch unclear -- 49% Liberal vs 46% for the subgroup 'Pro-business Conservatives'. Could the summary figure for all Conservatives be mentioned directly somewhere in the article? I might be missing it, but it doesn't seem to be in at the moment. (PS I'll copy this conversation to the Template talk:Did you know page for transparency.) Cheers, Espresso Addict 18:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The summary figure is in the Demographics section where it states that "Liberals were the most educated group with 49% being college graduates compared to 26.5% among conservatives." The 26.5% is for all conservatives, not just pro-business conservatives but also social conservatives. Thanks for your help! Regards, Signature^brendel 21:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good to me, but unfortunately it looks as if another editor doesn't think the new hook is sufficiently neutral! Sorry! You probably need to check out the discussion at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created_on_July_24 and see if you can sort that out, as it's not permitted to load it to DYK until all problems raised have been cleared up. Espresso Addict 21:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I think using the full Reverend is the normal thing on Wikipedia anyway. Regarding Revd vs Rev Google hits are 5 vs 65 and Google Books 24 vs 246. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the quick search I've just done clicking 'UK pages', I suspect many of the Rev. or Rev hits are in different senses: Rev./Rev can also stand for revolutions or for the gene product Rev, whereas Revd or Rev'd is pretty distinct. Both are certainly correct according to both Oxford and Chambers. But I'm completely happy to go with 'The Reverend', especially if that's the usual wiki style. Cheers, Espresso Addict 21:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sorry I should have stated the search I did was for "Rev William Gaskell" vs "Revd William Gaskell". Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like for this article to put on the DYK but I am having difficulty coming up with a hook that everybody likes. Any suggestions?--Southern Texas 01:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of your suggestions sounds good but is significantly over the character limit. I've suggested a pruned version, but I don't know if it fits within the rules. Espresso Addict 12:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		Thank you
		Thank you for your comments on my recent unsuccsessful rfa, which concluded today with a final tally of 22/15/3. The comments and suggestions from this rfa, combined with the comments left during my first rfa, have given me a good idea of where I need improvement. —TomStar81 (Talk) 05:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to add your thoughts to the discussion at my recent Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Angus Lepper RfA, which failed, with no consensus to promote me. However, I appreciate the concerns raised during the course of the discussion (most notably, a lack of experience, particularly in admin-heavy areas such as XfDs and policy discussions) and will attempt to address these before possibly standing again in several months time. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 16:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grateful for your views on this. PrimeHunter wants to delete it as trivial. He put on a prod notice that I removed. He's a specialist on prime numbers and what is trivial to him is surely not trivial to most people; anyway, if it's so obvious, how come he didn't know it already? I concede that it may not really be by Bell, but surely that's grounds for a rename, not deletion? How do I contest a deletion vote if he moves one?--Bedivere 21:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you've contested the prod by removing the tag, then the other editor must take the article to the AfD process if s/he wishes to delete it. This triggers a 5-day debate on whether or not to delete the article in which all community members can participate. If this happens, you can contest deletion by commenting at the specific AfD page (which will be linked from the article page if it is submitted to AfD).

Sorry I can't be of any more specific help, as I'm not a mathematician. You might consider asking at the talk page of WikiProject Mathematics, where you might find a suitable expert. Regards, Espresso Addict 22:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted and I've started a DRV. I know you're not a mathematician, but if you can look at the DRV I'd be grateful.--Bedivere 08:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up on the DYK update. I recently went on holiday and I still haven't got back into my editing rhythm. Also, it's around my dinner time so I can't edit as much as I'd like. So, if you have the free time and have the desire to help out, it would be greatly appreciated if you could work on the Credit templates from the last update. See Template:Did you know/Next update#Credits, there is one template you add to the articles, one template for the nominator, and one for the article creator (if it's different from the nominator). It's rather monotonous, and I'll get to it in a few hours if you don't. Feel free to contact me regarding updates or other admin tasks involving DYK in the future, and thanks again for your last notice. Keep up the good work.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a go in a minute. Thanks a lot for doing the update; it's frustrating when the suggestions page is bursting with good material that it's not possible to upload directly to the main page without involving an administrator, so your prompt assistance is much appreciated! Espresso Addict 00:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on Makuleke. If you go to the site and click the refs, you will see that I have added the neccessary licence to the material in question - my article about the Makuleke for Wilderness. The license is longer than the original article but so be it!

Thanks for your help!

Profberger 05:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I fixed it I hope its well thanks. --Vonones 08:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that St James' and St Paul's Church, Marton appeared on the main page under Did you know? yesterday? Thanks for your expansion which probably made it viable for Did you know? The "Doom" references are fascinating and I had also overlooked Thornber. Best wishes. Peter. Peter I. Vardy 08:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have been working recently on the Baddiley article and that you have included some material about the church. You will probably realise that I have been writing articles and stubs on the Grade I listed churches in Cheshire — in an attempt to populate the Category of Grade I listed buildings in Cheshire, as requested (and I'm interested in churches). My last effort has been a short article on St Michael's Church, Baddiley which rather cuts across what you're doing, but I think the church merits a separate article. Hope you agree. Please edit it as you see fit. Peter I. Vardy 15:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I beat you to it (I'm not in any sort of competition). The screen and tympanum sound fascinating, but may be difficult to photograph. I guess you could make an interesting gallery of photos. Good luck. Peter. Peter I. Vardy 17:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Chain Barnstar of Recognition
		For making a difference! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 3-5 others with 500+ edits but no barnstar.

You may find the conditions of this barnstar annoying; feel free ignore it if it cuts into your useful editing time. I got one of these a bit back and haven't paid it yet, but when I couldn't find any barnstars on your page, and saw that you seem to have made quite a few good contributions, both in the mainspace and wikipediaspace, I thought you deserve it. Rigadoun (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Churche's Mansion, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Circeus 02:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I realized that a wee bit too late, but I suspect selecting other hooks will just delay the bias, and they are at least varied (2 bios, one history/folklore and one geo.). Feel free to change them, but I've already started updating talk pages (though not people, so if you want to change, I'd leave it to you b/c I was going to get off the computer). Circeus 23:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry about that comment then. I hadn't noticed. 23:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Cheshire. It's good to see your name added; you are one of the few who seem to be doing anything much to improve the lot of the Cheshire articles.

Also thanks for your helpful and constructive comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Runcorn. After the rather aggressive comments from Tony I had decided to call it a day and abandon going for FAC; in fact it's not going to get it this time and I'm not sure I shall bother again. This is mainly because most of the criticisms are of parts of the article I have changed, or actions I have taken, because of peer review and following comments made at the first attempt at FAC. At peer review I was told that the lead should be longer and cover everything in the article, so I expanded it with necessarily bland sentences which were then criticised; the history section was too long, so I shortened it. Then I was advised to have it copy-edited so I found a retired professor of English (American) to do it. He shortened most of the sentences which has resulted in the choppy prose. Anyway with your recent suggestions I have made some more improvements (details on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Runcorn) but I'm not sure how to go about a sketchmap. Perhaps I ought to be content with GA status and the fact that it is a comprehensive article about the town for anyone who may come across it and read it (and a great improvement on what was there when I first saw it). Best wishes. Peter I. Vardy 21:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's in no small part your exertions in creating new Cheshire articles that made me decide it was worth joining, even though I disagree with some of the aims of the project.

I'm glad the comments on Runcorn were useful. I do think it's worth keeping on trying to get the article to Featured, as it does seem to have a reasonable chance this time and it's among the best of the Cheshire Wikiproject's offerings. I like the images that you've added, they do improve the visual impact, as well as giving more of an idea of what the town is like. Even if it doesn't get it, you have definitely done a great job in producing a very useful article.

I can have a go at a sketchmap if you'd like, though it might take a while as it's considerably more complex than anything I've tried before. Espresso Addict 22:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sketchmap; it's brilliant and I've no idea how you do clever things like that. I guess it took you all night (and much Espresso). May I make some (constructive) comments? (If it is possible, when you have time, and when you fell like it.) Could the Old Town centre be indicated; this is quite important in the context of the town and the article. I agree the railways are a bit complicated. Perhaps we could have the Liverpool–London line because it crosses Runcorn Gap parallel to the road bridge and this links up with the images. To the east of the town it is more complicated because the main branch of the West Coast Main line crosses the Manchester–Chester line. Perhaps it would be possible to include the latter (mainly because of Runcorn East station) and leave out the WCML. But don't bother if this is a lot of work as the map adds much as it stands.

Regarding the WikiProject, it does seem to be something of a curate's egg, but if it leads to even a degree of improvement for Cheshire, that must be a good thing. It seems highly unlikely for it to achieve all its "aims", I think. Peter I. Vardy 08:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- largely Photoshop and lots of patience! I have uploaded a revised version now, will put the details on the talk page rather than here, for reference. Espresso Addict 00:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant again! I like it as it is — see my comments on Talk:Runcorn. Many thanks, again. Peter. Peter I. Vardy 08:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eleanor Davies-Colley, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Peta 03:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Partridge (artist), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Peta 23:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting the mistakes I made in typing that entry: I was getting pretty tired when i did it, and it showed! Hopefully, I won't make so many so long as I pace myself more. 13:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

On 24 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Partridge, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Laïka 19:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I was wondering if you wanted to get back into FA reviewing. I've put the article on Oxidative phosphorylation up as a FAC nomination. Any comments or suggestions you might have at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oxidative phosphorylation would be very welcome. All the best Tim Vickers 20:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very grateful for that excellent copy-edit. Absolutely superb work. Thank you. Tim Vickers 15:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the ref problem, and I'd insist on the more recent number, which is less than half a million. See my answer at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created_on_August_21. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heyyyyy! Did it expire? Did I fail to do it right? What happened? I can't see it on the nom page anymore. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Sorry. I discovered the update page. Wow! Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found 2 citations but if you want to add it back without directly alluding to names such as that people allegedly involved are now backing the government is also appropriate See here.Also added an academic book to cite all generally known facts about the JVP insurrection. Thanks Taprobanus 13:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do have one question about DYK. I added Wicked Priest because it was one of the few hooks that could be considered non-Western in some way (it's about the ancient world) - I was aiming for diversity. Do dates trump diversity, because I know the DYK list tries to be as diverse as it can. Awadewit | talk 15:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Espresso Addict, thanks for the comment. After you made a comment at DYK, I made some changes and tried to make it more different from the said site. Do you still feel that there is an issue there? If there is, the RFA disregarded, I'd be happy ot take a look. -- -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. I will have another look now, do some shifting. I will give you another shotu when I tihnk I have made some significant changes, and you let me know. Cheers (hey - by the way: you seem to frequent DYK; how many DYKs have you successfully submitted? You could qualify for this...) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I have tried to do some re-working of sentence structure. I have only done something fairly quick. Please tell me if you think the problem really does still persist, and I will give it my full attention until you are satisfied. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! No, I hold you in high esteem. You are a regular at DYK. And it was you who raised the issue. So what are your thoughts now? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. So it is. This afternoon, I will try and really rework it. Maybe find another source. However, you will find that I did do some changes. Honestly, it has to flow logically, and the flow of the source is really the only proper chronological flow of the life of Tessimond. I do have so ideas though... Cheers -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More changes. Beginning of restructuring. The lead and initial paragraphs comprise a general overview of his life, and then the Gunpowder Plot and later Life sections go into greater detail about the key points of his life. If you have any ideas about how I could better shift and rework the content, I w0ould be most appreciative. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, due to a spat of recent discussions relating to journals, and a fifth name added to my old proposal, I have moved the proposal page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals to kick off a more central discussion. The wait is finally over :-) John Vandenberg 15:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to be prowling around Wikipedia and I stumbled across Wikipedia:Editor review/Espresso Addict2 and from there saw your post at Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Requests. It looks as if nobody ever answered your question about Wikistress. Maybe they did and I just missed it, but I'll nevertheless go ahead and offer my unsolicited advice: I notice we have similar interests -- both like article writing, I've also seen your comments at DYK where we both like to update T:DYK/N.

So anyways... I've found that for me stress starts to build mostly at contentious places like AFD. I once asked User:DGG (who, as you may know, is one of the project's strongest inclusionists) how he copes so well with so often being on the losing side of a discussion. He told me this "The method I like best for things I think worth the trouble is to bring things up again, calmly, not pressing very hard, at intervals of several months. WP works much faster than that, so people who do have a long range plan and patience enough not to get into uncooperative modes along the way, can accomplish a good deal for whatever it is they support." I've found that whatever the cause of stress, even after a few weeks of concentrating elsewhere I either 1) no longer am that worried about it or 2) have the energy to continue the good fight.

I don't know if that's helpful, but for some reason I found his two sentences deeply reassuring and thought I'd pass it along in hopes that it might help a possibly like-minded Wikipedian. Oh, and p.s., I saw you're interested in getting involved more with Featured Articles or Good Articles. I've done a handful of each, and if there's any particular projects you'd like to work on I'd be happy to do what I can to help out. Cheers and keep up the good work! --JayHenry 05:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eavesdropping on this page I came upon the above message. I must say that I've got a bit screwed up by some (minor) episodes on Wikipedia — mainly when I have asked for a review, followed the advice given and then being criticised by someone else for doing what was advised, especially when I have perceived (rightly or wrongly) an element of aggro in it. But then I stood back and asked myself why I contribute. This is mainly because I enjoy it, especially in reading up and constructing new articles, and, as a side-effect, someone somewhere sometime might find it helpful, useful or interesting. I've experienced enough stress in life that I see no point in getting stressed now about what is, for me, a hobby and a means of keeping the mind active.

Keep up your own good work. I don't know how you get the energy to do all you do. And especial congratulations on the succession of DYKs you produce. Best wishes. Peter I. Vardy 12:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now I accidentally saw this myself. The other thing I mentioned is to work on a great number of different things--something is always working out right. Both these methods I learned in the RW, where my work has always been a matter of maintaining a consistent effort against against indifference and a bureaucracy. DGG (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Espresso Addict, I've seen you around and noticed your excellent and conscientious contributions, especially at places like AfD. I went through your contributions and my hunch was confirmed that you would be a great candidate for adminship. I'd be happy to nominate you, although I'm not an admin and haven't nominated before, but I think you'd be great at it. Let me know what you think! :) (p.s.:i accidentally posted this in your talk archive first... i was going through. my bad!) Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, am impressed by your contributions. Please consider standing for adminship. Best of luck. Majoreditor 02:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah why not ? You seem to have it together Taprobanus 22:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support you if you chose to do this, but being an admin is more work and more hassle, so don't think I'm recommending it from experience! Tim Vickers 23:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal fighting creates high edit counts, but in my experience people value quality more than the sheer weight of numbers that come from automated reversion tools. I'd be happy to nominate you if you wished to try, it isn't really a big deal, so if you think a few more functions would be useful - go for it. Tim Vickers 00:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stay on line, back in a min. Tim Vickers 03:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gender corrected. The things you learn.... Tim Vickers 04:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		My RFA
		I thank you for participating in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 60 supports, no opposes, no neutrals, and one abstain. Edison 14:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you have had a good holiday. Mine comes soon!! While you have been away I have been in discussion with User:Vox Humana 8' here about whether the title of articles relating to churches should be of the format "St xxxxx's, Church, Somewhere" or "Church of St xxxxx, Somewhere". The (vast) majority of articles relating to churches, both in Britain and in USA, use the former format. Vox Humana 8' has been busy moving some Cheshire churches from the former to the latter. Comments have been made by User:Carbonix on my talk page here, and by  DDStretch  (talk) here. Vox Humana 8' and I seem to have reached a degree of agreement, but since then s/he has moved "St James' and St Paul's Church, Marton" to Church of St James and St Paul, Marton (without changing the infobox, etc). As you have been involved in this article I should be grateful for your opinion on its title. I still think that the original title in this case is OK, but I would not fight strongly (in this case) to maintain it. If we use the "new" title, changes will have to be made to the infobox (I have already dealt with the cats). Best wishes. Peter. Peter I. Vardy 20:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back; your support is always appreciated. In fact the question has been asked before here and it received absolutely zero response (the user raising it had also been messed about by User:Vox Humana 8'). I have been looking around the church titles both in GB and USA and the vast number use our preferred format (ie. there seems already to be a "consensus"). I'm not sure whether to raise it again (and maybe stir up a hornet's nest – or nothing at all again). I'm due to go on holiday later this week so I shall leave it until my return, unless someone else wants to have a go. The other point is whether to use "St" or "St.". There is no clear consensus that I can see and the variation messes up the automatic sorting for example in one's watchlist. WP:ABB does not help; it says both are OK. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy 16:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a bit on the late side, but I noticed your comment on thinking about trying for more more GA/FA articles. This is something I can certainly help with. Did you have any articles in mind? Tim Vickers 00:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support of my article. I only went and di something stupid by adding it back to the DYK suggestions page because I didn't know where it had gone (it's my first time lol) Icosahedron 01:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Icosahedron[reply]

Hello -- I note that one of the editors you are coaching is currently at RfA, and wondered if you'd have time to take on another person? Regards, Espresso Addict 20:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but no. If something changes I'll let you know. --Fang Aili ^talk 13:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And in case you are puzzled you may remember me another way! Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think you are mad! But the wishes are sincere and yes it looks ok to me (some rfas are just weird here). Among other things I'm working on regional photos on Commons so shout if I can help with anything - all the best --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to say the mention of commons was not a dig at your contribs more an "ask if I can do anything" one! Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Espresso Addict! How are you? I am RS1900. I looked at your contributions and I think you have done a great job. You created over 100 articles. That's great! I supported your RfA. All the best! RS1900 10:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on the Alexandru Papana article getting a DYK! I greatly appreciate it! Chris 00:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. I will also remember in the future if I have more than one source to start doing inline citations. Chris 01:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- Nice article, looks like a fantastic area. I noticed while investigating for DYK that the hook claim "more than California and Washington combined" doesn't actually seem to be covered in the reference? Being in the UK, I don't know anything about reference sources on US Wildlife Reserves and can't find the comparative figures, so I wondered if you would be able to dig out references for them? Alternatively, the hook could perhaps be rephrased. Thanks, Espresso Addict 01:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Somehow the cite for that statistic didn't make it in. I looked at it, and was sure it was on the list. Must have been too late at night or something. I've added it now. It points to http://library.fws.gov/Refuges/oregoncoast00.pdf. Look on page 6 (of 13)—at the bottom of the "Did You Know?" :-) Thanks, —EncMstr 02:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I saw that the URL was outlawed and I couldn't work out why. I assumed that at some time in the past some enthusiastic person had tried to use wikipedia as part of a marketing campaign. Howeverr wiki has not really blacklisted the site only its url... I think... it has banned its url being hot linked .. if you get the subtlety. As I understand it the Wiki has litte censorship and it would be censorship I think is we ignore the site ... which appears scholarly without some more evidence. Hope you agree. More than willing to change the url... but if a mistake has been made then surely we shouldn't compound it Victuallers 07:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Berlie Doherty, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 13:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I've updated and left messages. Thanks for the offer of doing the messages, but it isn't that bad with only 5 hooks, all self-noms. Anyway, as you know, you can come to me whenever for DYK updating. However, with the way things are going with your RfA, you won't need me (or any other admin) for much longer. How exciting. Good luck.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dear Espresso Addict,

Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 83 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutrals. No matter if you voted (I mean, "!voted") support or oppose, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. I'm new, remember, so if you have any suggestions feel free to inform me of them, and if I do anything wrong, feel free to add to the permanent chorus of disapproval on my talk page. Special thanks to Walton^One and Dihydrogen Monoxide for nominating me.
iridescent (talk to me!) 20:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Credits

This design was brazenly stolen from inspired by Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor's RFA Thanks, which in turn was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

Thanks for keeping the stub, and yes, I'm signing up at WikiProject Academic Journals. Cheers. Alastair Haines 00:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC) PS Has your work in virology given you any hunches regarding the evolution of sexual reproductive systems providing selective advantages wrt disease resistance? What is your personal view on the state of understanding in this area? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alastair Haines (talk • contribs) 00:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned that you're extending it to far. As I see it, someone needs to make a reputation, not just publish a certain number of articles, and I think that citations relative to others in the field is a good measure. I can see lowering it to the level of a beginning reputation (eg associate) vs established (full),( or in UK terms I suppose senior reader) but I am not sure it would be defensible in the current state of things at WP. As for subjects rather than people, I certainly dont think anything shown in one or two papers is notable unless acclaimed as such in a review or in a news item in Nature or confirmed by a substantial body of work and interest from other groups. Our first priority should be to build up the articles on the best people--check the list of members of the NAS, and see how many are missing--or even the royal Society. I want to build up the content as fast as possible and this is the place to do it. DGG (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! --Deskana (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Now pick up your mop and bucket and get ready for the abuse. Tim Vickers 13:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, and congratulations!  DDStretch  (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woo-hoo! Congratulations, and I hope you won't get too caught up in the dramas of adminship to leave articlespace behind ;) If I can be of any assistance, please feel free to get in touch. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes congrats! Don't forget about the little editors like me now that you're a great and powerful admin! --JayHenry 03:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations too from me! Sorry you did not get a "support" from me but I was away on holiday and by the time I discovered you had been nominated, you'd got it. Hope you will still have time for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheshire; it needs you. Best wishes. Peter. Peter I. Vardy 10:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason I'm not on the "Current" RfAs list? Lazylaces (Talk to me 16:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For consistently good work all over Wikipedia. Rigadoun (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Barnstar I gave you before was deleted (for good reason) but your fine work was not, so I'm giving you one that is unlikely to ever get removed. I guess I don't check RFA enough, I would have supported you there for sure. Congratulations! Rigadoun (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 50 supports, 1 neutral, and 1 oppose. My goal is to keep earning your trust every time I grab the "mop". (And I'm always open to constructive criticism and advice!) Again, thanks. --Fabrictramp 15:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee is up at FAC...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad on this call. I am sometimes a little too quick on the speedy deletes when going through the new pages. My nominating record for A7 is pretty good but at least 5% of the time I still mark articles I should have recognised as having potential for development with a little effort. I'm working on this flaw in my judgment. Thanks for catching it and particularly for adding the references, my personal bugbear on WP. Cheers, Pig^man 15:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting my successful RfA, which closed at 63 supports and 1 opposed. I appreciate it and hope to do my best. I really liked your comment about my "Prolific, sensible contributions", but you put me to shame! Anyway, I especially want to thank Shalom for the nomination, DGG for the encouragement, and Jokestress for welcoming me. Bearian 13:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. The article looks great, lots of references, I think I'll withdraw the AfD (if I can figure out how), as it obviously is notable. --θnce θn this island ^Speak! 20:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? was updated. On 28 September, 2007, a fact from the article Electricity sector in Argentina, which you recently wrote or substantially updated, uh nominated, uh, WROTE THE HOOK FOR!, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in this DYK; I think we have solved the issues of references. Do you think the article is DYKable now?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, as long as you are here, could you take a look at the talk page - bottom - we are discussing whether to include or not a link to Soviet historiography. For such a trivial issue it has generated a long thread, and we are deadlocked and could use some outside opinions.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just came to thank you for your calming and moderating influence at this contentious article. I had no idea that Piotrus was already here. Anyway, thanks a lot. Hopefully, the article will be get enough editors and readers from being featured at the main page. --Irpen 04:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EA - seen the tag,but I don't think we've spoken.

I see you made the comment "Nice article, but is it possible to add an inline citation for the missing article" re. Samuel Iperusz Wiselius on DYK noms ... bit confused as its bristling with inline citations Victuallers 19:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]