User talk:Espresso Addict

RFA vote

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]

RFA

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 am appalled!

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]

Acton, Cheshire

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]

Journal of Medical Sciences

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]

DYK

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]

DYK

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]

John Douglas

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]

A Walk to Beautiful

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

Thanks

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

Thanks

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]

Peckforton

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]

Re: Carl Bechstein

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]

Protection of Abbotsley

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]

RfA Thanks

File:Hersfold.JPG

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]

Tim Clutton-Brock

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]

50p Building

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

proposal to merge WP:PROF into WP:BIO

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]