User talk:Epicadam/Archive 1

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

Puerto Rico

I came here to ask that you postpone a GAR process until August, currently me and other members of WP:PUR are organizing a FA push that should be starting in July (I will try to get everyone in tune by July 15), I for one have already added several sources but in a article of this size the effort needs to be organized, we also need Mtmelendez to work with the politics section, but he is currently working at a sister project and should be back by July. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Washington, D.C.

Thanks for your efforts to improve Washington, D.C.. I was the person who nominated it for delisting. If the effort you have made had come during the delisting, I would have felt it sufficient for a keep. IMO, it is a little short for a new listing. However, it is probably above the threshold where a delisting would be appropriate once listed. I would encourage you to add at least one citation for each paragraph since each paragraph is suppose to present a new idea. This request is merely a recommendation to beef up an article that is ever so slightly below the standard I would like to see it attain. I think you could easily meet such a request.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

When reading A More Perfect Union: Advancing New American Rights, I learned an interesting perspective on the history of the geography of the city. If you can find it (maybe at your public library) you may want to check it out. I was not concerned about the length. Keep in mind things like footnotes do not count in WP:SIZE considerations. The numbers that matter at readability are readable prose. Under 50KB is an easy case and under 60KB is still an arguable case. D.C. has a lot of good daughter articles where excess can be hidden as needed. I am mostly concerned about citations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

GA holds

Are you still going to review La Salle Green Hills and University of the Philippines, Los Baños? These articles have been on hold for almost a month. miranda 23:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


Please review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

How is that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I delinked Rubloff. That's all the history I've got.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


I have noticed that you are writing templates ShearedIP....

If there is no problem I will ask you to add similar templates for user:, user:, user:, user:, user: , User:, User: After starting action against my edits has come under attack of harass SPA accounts [1], [2], [3] so I am little interested about this proxy IP. In my thinking they are connected with banned user which is using proxy IP example: user, User User, User

It will be very nice of you if you can add templates ShearedIP to IP in question ! Thanks--Rjecina (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Again thanks --Rjecina (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
In reality I am frustrated with situation. It is very hard to block banned user which is using multiple proxy IP and it is ulmost impossible to explain situation to administrators. All in all around 3 months of explanations are needed before block and for me this is too much...--Rjecina (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Washington DC

Thanks so much, I really appreciate the compliments. --SRX 16:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


Thanks so much for the barnstar. I still like getting them. Most of the hard work was done by Raime and SRX, but I guess I did get the ball rolling. Glad you like the work and thanks again for the praise. Remember (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Cedar Fair Incidents

Hey, about the kid getting his arm stuck in the elevator, i witnessed it and it wasnt severe enough for news to broadcast it, but i was trying to improve wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you very much for the barnstar and compliments! Cheers, Raime 17:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Not Vandalism

I have no idea what your problem was with my edit to the Lenny Bruce article concerning an additional Allan Sherman reference to Lenny Bruce in one of Sherman's best known works. It seems to be in keeping with the other items in that section and it is a fact. I personally recall hearing that item on the radio in 1964 and took the trouble to verify the exact words before posting. Jszigeti (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles

I made some comments on your GAR for Los Angeles. Calebrw (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hylton Castle GA review

Hi. Thanks for the reminder. I don't think I'm going to have time to work on it anytime soon so it might best to withdraw review. Thanks for your advice, though, and I'll be sure to to make the changes as soon as I get a chance. Craigy (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Underground City (Beijing)

Many thanks and a big hug for taking the time to do the GA review of the article and for answering my many newbie questions. *grin* -Samuel Tan 00:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Washington DC

Nice to see someone working on the article. Pretty much all of the images seem fine, only thing I can think of is the MCI logo, Chipotle in Image:Mci center jan2006b.jpg. I'm pretty sure it shouldn't infringe, but you might want to check with the super-duper image peoples, I guess at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the slight delay, the Michael Jackson FA has been rather hectic

  • Too many web links might cause you a problem. It wouldn't stop me supporting (so long as the links are of a high quality) but some people are against large quantities of web linking.
  • Current ref #19 is a dead link.
  • Personally I'm a big fan of having all the refs at the end of a full stop, not at the end of commas. Unless it is something controversial you might want to consider moving the source to the end of the full sentence.
  • Some picture captions have full stops at the end, some don't, consistency is favorable.
  • The sports section seems under sourced
  • The bottom paragraphs of "Education and health care" could do with extra sourcing.
  • There are a lot of mini paragraphs in the article, some like three lines long. Could any of these be joined together, I think it flows better?
  • When writing numbers and words together, for example, $45 million, it should by typed like so $45 million .
  • Regarding the sister cities section. Try to find out (unless you know already) if you are definitely allowed to use flags in that manner. I know using national flags in music articles (to indicate different album release dates) is discouraged. This topic isn't my field of expertise so maybe it is different here.
  • According to the actual article Health care is favored as two separate words, and when I join them together on my spell checker it is underlined in read as incorrect spelling. If "Healthcare" is the American version (I'm not American) then obviously keep as is.

Sorry for this delay in response, I'm posting here because the actual PR looks very busy and I don't want to bog you down over there. Hope that helps a little, let me know if and when you decide to nominate it, with a little work I would be inclined to support. Now I must return to the madness, the joy. — Realist2 (Speak) 15:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a very good article but it is always best to suggest every possible complaint before hand. Personally I don't see the obsession with books and I'm not a fan of over sourcing for the sake of sourcing either (in fact I successfully argued that point on the Michael Jackson FA review :-)). I couldn't see any single point that would cause the article to fail, thus was scrapping the barrel. Like I said, with a little twigging I would happily support. I would suggest that you watch over other FA reviews and read the complaints that come up over and over. I would advise that you watch the Jackson review, since it is a controversial article every possible criticism will be thrown at it. Reviewers will look extra hard for reasons to oppose (rightly so in fact), it will be a breeding ground for good advise. — Realist2 (Speak) 18:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Washington, D.C.

Sure, I'll be happy to give it a look. I'll be busy for the next day or so, so it may be a little while before I get to it. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I haven't read the entire article yet, but at first glance, I suggest moving the Cityscape header under Geography to its own section, and puting "Architecture" as an H3 header under Cityscape. Not a big deal, but man-made cityscape and architecture doesn't seem like geogtraphy to me.

I'll try take an in-depth look once the weekened is over. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on the FA! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Pendle witch trials

Thanks very much for your review and support at this article's FAC, and also for your comments and fixes. I've been working on this on and off for months, but I decided to try and finish it and submit it today, so fingers crossed. Thanks once again. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Washington, D.C. in the American Civil War

Thank you very much for inspiring me to take up an old project of mine and resume working on the series of articles I created for various U.S. cities during the American Civil War. As part of the Wikpedia Civil War Task Force, this article is among a group of nearly two dozen articles, and, as such, it deserves its own entry. However, to your very valid point, it was quite short, as I abandoned the project due to lack of time as I focused on writing a couple of new manuscripts for publication. I have now expanded the Washington article and will continue to do so in the future, so please do not merge it with the History of Washington article. Thanks, and have a great day! (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Burundi GA

We are about 75% done with fixing the Burundi article. If you have time between now and Sundayish, could you please give us more suggestions. I have been really working hard on this article (the tragedy of genocides has kept me from editing this) and would love for it to be GA. Thanks, and have a wonderful day! miranda 18:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

NY Route 100 GA

Failed the article finally on my day off. Thought Mitch would have the time to roll around to it. Thanks for the note. SriMesh | talk 01:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Washington DC

Actually they're not disruptive edits, the numbers are simply wrong...Georgetown and Washington DC were two separate cities in 1800. The numbers are right here from the U.S. Census: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Then you're simply being historically inaccurate and inconsistent with the rest of the U.S. census data about other cities. It simply causes confusion.


Hi. I've fulfilled your request. PLease see WP:RBK or feel free to ask me if you need any help with the tool. Pedro :  Chat  21:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


Good work, saw that star up there. Needed to congratulate you. So, what's next, or you thinking about a break now? Maybe investigate the mayhem that is the 'Today's Feature Article' requests page.--Patrick Ѻ 05:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

DC star

Congratulatons on the star, wholly deserved. I am pleased to have been associated, in a very small way, with this article's development. I look forward to reading more of your work. Brianboulton (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Washington, D.C. FAC

Thank YOU for doing most of the work on the article! I see now, that it has it's star, so congratulations are in order! The article has certainly undergone tremendous improvement recently.

On another note, there's some editors currently working on Saint Paul, Minnesota, in advance of the Republican National Convention there. It's twin, Minneapolis, of course, is already FA-class. If you want to help get another article up to par, it looks like a good opportunity for collaboration.

Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Royton GAC

Wow! Thanks for the swift review! My experiences with GAC meant that I expected to have about a month to play with for expanding the Demography section... so that's my bad, sorry! I agree that that section is thin, and have a few sources to use to expand it nicely.

Once again, thank you very much for such a swift review. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  19:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)