User talk:CaffeinAddict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Leave me a message here.

Flickr[edit]

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)

Requesting your opinion on a photo[edit]

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)

Disambiguation link notification for November 3[edit]

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)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12[edit]

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)

Rob Ford edits[edit]

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)

"Not going to happen any time soon"[edit]

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)


Speedy deletion of "Canadian Society of Cinematographers"[edit]

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. Josh3580talk/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)

Infobox Photo Discussion[edit]

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)

Terry Richardson[edit]

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)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2[edit]

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)

Wil Wheaton photo discussion[edit]

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)

Please understand[edit]

..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)