User talk:Espresso Addict/archive4

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

The DYK project misses you... :( Hope all is well and Happy Holidays! --JayHenry (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't heard from you for a while and hope all is OK. In any event, best wishes for 2008. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delighted to have you back. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Would you have time to check for journal deletion debates again? See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals#Deletion discussions. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did think I was in the running for the annual Wikipedia Big Meanie of the Year award in prodding that, but there were IP edits coming from friends that were going to draw attention at some time. Meh.. :O) No big thing. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reply) Well, yes and no: I had tried the more subtle welcome and quick "hey there" approach - I like to call it uw-0 :O) - while he was still editing and didn't get a response. Honestly, in a case like that, I think they are much more likely to get a new account if they are going to edit. At least, I didn't come in with I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I was wondering if I could tap into your virology expertise regarding passenger virus (I saw you removed the PROD tag as it's a notable term). Does this term have any notability or significance outside of Peter Duesberg's claims? I've seen hepatitis G referred to in the literature as a "passenger virus", for instance, but only in passing (eg PMID 9716223). Same with EBV. My feeling is that if the term is independently notable only in terms of Duesberg's claims, then we have POV forks enough for them and it should be deleted and covered in Duesberg hypothesis. On the other hand, if this is a term with some currency or notability in general, non-crackpot virology, then we should rewrite the article to emphasise its use in mainstream virology, perhaps with a one-sentence note about Duesberg's use of the term. What do you think? MastCell ^Talk 19:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've replied to your message on my talk page. Regards, Astral (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting the AfD, I was debating whether or not to start the AfD process myself but you made my mind up for me. -- Atama^chat 17:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to be trying to save the article on Dr Turk, his most-cited paper (although he is not the first author) had 66 cites. This is rather low. His h-index seems to be 11, which is very low for a prof. AnteaterZot (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Brian MacMahon, 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.

--Archtransit (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please replace Kohndo on DYK if you feel it is not good enough to be there. I apologize - it was over an hour past the last update and I was late for an appointment IRL (which I have now completley missed) and I grabbed two that I should not have. My apologies, but I do not have time to update it again myself (and I would probably screw up again the way the day is going). Sorry, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that. I was a bit frazzled yesterday and neglected to thank you properly Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather have something in DYK that several will complain about off the Main Page asap, so I appreciate you cutting Kohndo's 15 minutes of fame back. I can also certainly sympathize with being intimidated by updating DYK to the Main Page. My new rule is "When in doubt, keep it out" (which still did not stop complaints for my inclusion of Pandora Jewelry on DYK yesterday - see Talk:Main_Page#Really_tacky). Eventually I may get it right, but I imagine I will stumble into more things like this along the way. To err is human ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		To Espresso Addict, for your careful work checking DYK nominations (and for your help keeping the Main Page in better shape than I would have left it on my own). Given with respect and admiration and my thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tom Shires, 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.

Congratulations! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jenny Uglow, 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.

--Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rookery Hall, 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.

--Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind of you to award me a barnstar! Actually I have really enjoyed working through the Cheshire churches and finding out so many interesting facts about them. I think that Cheshire now has the most comprehensive series of articles on notable churches of any county in the country. I see, with delight, you are now back with Wikipedia; hope you will be coming back to Cheshire soon. It's a bit lonely with so few regular contributors. The Greater Manchester editors, who have achieved so much in the way of GAs and FAs, have offered to help us in a similar direction, but the response has been somewhat muted. For myself, I would rather write articles than polish and shine them in the struggle towards FA (previous experience painful). I also think we serve Wikipedia better by filling the gaps with "good-enough" articles rather than trying to get the prestige of GAs, FAs, etc (although it's nice to get one or two in the process). Best wishes, Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, since you removed both prods at Belinda Chang, I just wanted you to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belinda Chang. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current WikiProject Academic Journals Collaboration of the Week is Electrical Experimenter Please help to improve this article to the highest of standards.

Hi, Espresso, thanks for voting in my RfA, which passed with 47 supports (I hoped for a perfect square, but two away is close enough!), 3 opposes (the first odd prime), and 0 neutrals. I'm glad the community has decided to trust me with the mop and bucket (the flamethrower isn't supported). Of course, special thanks goes to my nominators Auawise and that one guy who buried stuff (not that the thanks I give to the you isn't special!). If you ever need a hand with something, or just want to say hello, tough feel free to drop a line! Best wishes, Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 23:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you feel I'm not experienced enough, and I'll do my best to live up to your standards. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for decorating your vote with so much text. The oppose vote is really important, since obviously there is a lot to learn and it can be easy to forget that with everyone just "support, rah, rah, great guy", and your specific diff is definitely something he should consider as an editor. I just wish the recommendations for improvement didn't have to be phrased as an oppose (I mean seriously, WP:NBD, the guy is not a vandal, a hot-head, or a sociopath, so any mistakes he makes can be fixed, probably by him), but I think the neutral comments will not carry as much weight as an oppose.

I hardly ever comment on RFA's as they don't seem like a useful training venue. I've had admin tools on my own wiki since the day I created it. I've had to *install* the admin tools since they don't even ship with mediawiki! The tools are seriously no big deal, but there does need to be a time when other editors do some peer review, and the RFA for whatever reason seems to be the main place for that.

At any rate, I just wanted to make sure it was clear I wasn't try to cover your vote with endless commentary (by covering your talk page with endless commentary), and while I tried to bring out the importance of your vote on the page, my comments were already too long, so I decided to be more explicit here. Thanks. JackSchmidt (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully with 40 supports, 13 opposes, and 4 neutrals. For those of you who supported my RFA, I greatly appreciate it. For those who did not, I'm also thankful for your constructive criticism. If you need some advice or have some pointers for me, you know where to reach me! A special thank you to Majorly for all his time and effort he has placed in my nomination. Once again, thank you all for your helpful comments. Now off to new admin school! Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 01:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment beneith the hook for your Acton, Cheshire article in the "DYK waiting room" Check it out. --House of Scandal (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Acton, Cheshire, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: your edit, which I mostly agree with. It doesn't have a single reference, it has a link to the journal which does not pass WP:RS because it's inherently unindependent. I went through and took the notability tags off a number of journals yesterday, but none are more than a stub because it's hard to find independent coverage of the journals rather than the subjects they cover. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the explanation, that makes sense. I agree that the ISSN verifies existence. I just would love to find sources to back up why these journals are notable, other than sheer existence. Is there any work underway at the project to look into articles on a large scale? I deal with them as they come up in the backlog, but not really on a proactive area. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

for assistance with this problem, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals for the criteria and how we meet them. Even for a non academic journal, Ulrich's can give circulation and longevity.DGG (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rookery Hall, 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.

--Gatoclass (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a different notability standard at DYK than for WP? I have never heard of an article that survived notability challenges not being allowed at DYK.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. so since there is no real rule for notability and since generally once an article survives a notability challenge it is eligible there is no obstacle other than personal preference and standards. I should not add the hook myself as the author/creator and nominator. The hook is two days overdue. The hook has a relevance to the pictured hook since the hook in question also references the Buffalo Mayor. Thus, it is more relevant on the slate with the pictured hook. The article is admittedly of low importance to any project it would be associated with and of marginal notability for WP. However, it has survived a WP:CSD and would likely survive a full-blown WP:AFD for the reasons stated at T:TDYK. I would kind of appreciate it if you would waive your standards for this hook. Is that possible?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reformated the article. I also would like to note that I sort of disagree with your theory. In finance, we describe that as the $100 dollar bill on the sidewalk theory. If a $100 bill was at your feet on the sidewalk would you bend down to pick it up or say it could not be there because someone else would have picked it up. Actually, Franczyk might be more like a $1 bill, but you get the point. Actually, the logic in this case could be extended to WP by saying that no articles should be added because anything notable has already been created. I think that is enough analogies. In truth, I hope you would revisit my revised article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your involvement in this article. Fine for the "biography" slot, I suppose, as it is. I hope to borrow Hubbard's book and, if appropriate, to expand the text and add any more works which come to light. Perhaps then it could go for GA. At the moment the "works" are getting a bit long and I am working on more images and more Wikilinks. Perhaps in time this should become a separate list (go for featured list??). What do you think? Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) --PeaceNT (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ilmari (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for fixing that Expresso. As usual, it seems that I noticed the update was four hours late at exactly the same time as another user, and as I was busy fixing grammatical errors and running around trying to find an active admin to do the update, you had already done it! Gatoclass (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can understand the stress, but on the bright side, there are plenty of other eyes on the mainpage and errors aren't likely to last long :)

I may eventually stand for adminship again but I think it's too close to my last (abortive) RFA. Gatoclass (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peckforton, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 11:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Made it after all. Congrats. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Crewe Hall, 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.

Gimmetrow 04:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, alright. If you want to change it and put bechstein back in the expiring then you can if you want, i just went and picked it sinc it had a picture and was expiring. I don't mind either way. Wizardman 20:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the history. I don't think the protection "took", if you know what I mean... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just now realized that you protected it like last October. Man, I gotta pay attention. Sorry about the comment above^ J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

	Thanks!
So, yeah, you know how these work... »»»» Thank you very much for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with a final tally of (75/1/0). Your trust in me is greatly appreciated, and I can assure you it has not been misplaced. I shall use these tools to the best of my ability, and will do my best not to let you down. Thank you once again, and happy editing as always! Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to the specific policy or guideline that says that someone who is an FRS is automatically notable. Otherwise, please leave the tag in place. If 44 are selected every year, that alone doesn't seem all that notable to me. Collectonian (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ref added to the article re the nickname. Mjroots (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion of a proposal to merge WP:PROF into WP:BIO at Wikipedia talk: Notability (academics). Since you have commented in AfD discussions for articles about academics, you may want to participate in the discussion of this merge proposal. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent is a WP:RS and I would think that stands no matter what section the article may have appeared in. But if you pull the article I won't restore it, so it's up to you. Gatoclass (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should try and tone down the hook a tad, I thought it might be a bit overstated at the time but the other hooks weren't to my satisfaction so I thought I'd have a quick go myself. Gatoclass (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see someone else has reworked it already. Well, I think it's probably okay now :) Gatoclass (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree, but basically I worked two hours on that update (a case of "work expands to fill the time available") and by the time I got to the end, even though I felt uneasy about the hook, I thought, what the heck, I can't spend any more time on this today.

IIRC the statement "immune" appeared in the original article but it was clearly hyperbole and I probably shouldn't have used it, or else should have put it into quotation marks. It was just a matter of running out of puff really, and if I'd been posting the update myself I probably would have done something to smarten it up a bit too. Gatoclass (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much!! This is my first DYK submission, and it's my first DYK submission to pass! Thank you so much! –The Obento Musubi 16:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tia Keyes.May not change your opinion, but you should be aware of this. DGG (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the DYK, certainly more to come (I just nominated Jifna). Cheers and Happy editing! --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Espresso Addict. Thanks for your question. I replied here. -Susanlesch (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hallur DYK hook as it appeared on the front page was perfect. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 05:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I understood was the Easter holiday... ie today ... there is another one for Easter sunday. Sorry if I misunderstood Victuallers (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it. David Straub (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henry Weekes, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 10:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update is due, would you like to post it? Gatoclass (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Binguyen also just made the mistake of turning up at the top of my watchlist, so I'll hassle him instead :) Gatoclass (talk) 03:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was I who put in the link to Forest Chapel. Hope it has not messed up. Good luck with the DYKs. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just felt like cheering a random person up, today, and decided that you would be the one! So drink up this latte and enjoy your weekend! God bless, :u) --Is this fact...? 03:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted his edit using twinkle, then what is wrong with it? WP:TW has two types of reverting - one for reverting which is not vandalism (in this case the edit summary will be Reverted 1 edit by User X using TW) and the other is for reverting vandalism (in this case the edit summary will be Reverted 1 edit by User X identified as vandalism to last revision by User Y. using TW). I did the first. Secondly, I know that addition of information is better than addition of fact tag. But in case where I have no ready reference to use in the article, I will certainly use fact tags to request citation instead of deleting the unreferenced material. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]