User talk:Epbr123/Archive 2

RfA thank-spam
, I wish to tender my sincere thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 37 supports, 2 opposes, and 2 neutral. The results of the RfA are extremely bittersweet because of the recent departure of my nominator, Rudget. Hopefully I can live up to his and your expectations. I would especially like to thank Epbr123 and TomStar81 for mentioning that they were preparing to offer me a nomination. The past week has been one of the most stressful weeks in my life, and I appreciate your vote of confidence in me. If you ever need anything, just get in touch. -MBK004 20:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article
I moved AKA up to Jan. 29th instead of Feb. 14th, because that's the day of the sorority's incorporation, as seen here. Thanks.  m ir a nd a   05:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Kent assessments
Do you fancy doing some assessments? I've assessed all outstanding Kent articles that I've not edited myself. The 26 outstanding articles are either created by myself or ones that I've edited substantially. Mjroots (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

RFA
, Thank you for your support in my RFA which passed 43/0/1. I would like to especially thank Bibliomaniac15 for being my nominator and admin coach. I would also like to thank Rudget for being my co-nominator. I'm sure that I can live up to the community's expectations as an administrator, and not totally mess everything up. Thanks again for your support! Malinaccier (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Independent Schools Barbarians
Four people who know nothing about Rugby Union and Wikipedia deletes a really interesting entry about a very significant new initiative in UK and Irish Rugby. A perfect example of everything that is wrong about Wikipedia! Admins playing God! Paste (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Cordelia's Dad
Could you clarify why you think the sourcing of the article is too trivial? As of now the references run to ca. 4,000 words from three countries, that's about ten times as much as the article itself. I'm not aware of any other instance where this would be considered trivial coverage. Thanks, trialsanderrors (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts?
Epbr, if you have a moment, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this topic. If you'd rather e-mail me, that would be fine, too. Best regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

rfa thanks
Thanks for the nomination and support. I appreciate it. Just gotta figure out what all those new buttons do! :-) —EncMstr 00:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Belladonna awards and nominations
I personally think that although this is a long list that you created, it would be better off merged to Belladonna (porn star). Thoughts?--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 01:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have similar feelings about List of Sandra Romain awards and nominations. It's not WP:IDONTLIKEIT (with Belladonna, I don't like her in general as a matter of opinion), but I don't see how these lists need to be standalone pages. For a precedent in a different sort of way, see Articles for deletion/List of Yes band members.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 02:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are also precedents such as the Featured List List of U2 awards. I think it depends on the length of the list. If Belladonna or Sandra Romain ever get nominated for GA or FA, it is likely that the lists will be required to have their own articles. Epbr123 (talk) 08:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

rfa thanks from lquilter
Hi Epbr123 - thanks v. much for the nomination. it was an interesting process! and i'm glad it succeeded.  --Lquilter (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Tumbler Ridge
Thanks for looking over Tumbler Ridge. The FAC is 5 days old without any feedback. Could you please comment there: Featured article candidates/Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia? Is there any aspect or quality that you found lacking? I need someone to break the silence and point me at something I can pursue. --maclean 06:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks
I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your support. I will take on board all the comments made and look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 21:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Me neither, but I also want to thank you for nominating me for my RfA. Happy‑melon 09:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Mani Madhava Chakyar
Thanks alot for giving suggessions to improve the article. I request you to help me in making the article a Good Article.Thank You Sreekanthv (talk) 12:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Murton and Dawdon
Hi, I noticed that you were involved in giving the article on Dawdon a rating last year, and wondered if you could take another look at it, as I have been doing quite a lot of work on it. Perhaps you may feel it could be upgraded?? (Another Wiki person HAS upgraded it, but I don't think that is official, cos no user name. Could you also take a look at the Murton article, please, and give that a grade too. Many, many thanks! Seahamlass 12:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Tyrone Wheatley
I noticed your recent editorial involvement in Tyrone Wheatley. You may wish to comment at Featured article candidates/Tyrone Wheatley.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been renominated and I have noticed you have made several edits since. You may want to voice your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent AWB edits
I notice that you've recently been running AWB to change occurrences of compared to to compared with. The two do not quite mean the same thing, however. Compared with is an examination of the similarities and differences; compared to is a partial comparison of either the similarities or the differences. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Just a belated note of thanks for your input on Wormshill which achieved FA while I was on a wikibreak. Cheers Dick G (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hi, just dropping by to say thanks for supporting my RfA, I totally wasn't expecting to get so much support, it was a really pleasant surprise. Melesse (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 

Melesse (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Editor review/Epbr123
Here it is, sorry you had to wait so long for it :-) delldot   talk  18:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Biruaslum
Another editor has added the " " template to the article Biruaslum, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Aldermaston Soke
Another editor has added the " " template to the article Aldermaston Soke, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hilton Head Island, South Carolina
References have been provided for all notable residents with the exception of Angie Aparo who has been removed to the talk page. Thanks for the suggestion and edits. Do you think this article is ready to be a featured article candidate? MoodyGroove (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Your GA expertise
Hey, Epbr123, remember me? Would you mind giving Kim Ki-young‎ a look as far as GA standards? Thanks! Dekkappai (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Epbr123-- I've replied & brought up concerns at the talk page. Dekkappai (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Operation Camargue
Thanks for the dash fixes. Hope to see your comments on the FAC! SGGH speak! 17:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Brabsterdorran
Another editor has added the " " template to the article Brabsterdorran, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

sheep
Hey, just fyi, the domestic sheep article is an FAC now. Just in case you feel making some comments. Van Tucky 19:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Theft
I nicked your lovely 'style and prose checklist' for my talkpage. Hope that's OK. Fainites barley 22:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm flattered! :) Epbr123 (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Szigeti
Hi there, thanks so much for helping clean up the Szigeti references! It was going to be really hard for me to find the time to do so, and I appreciate your taking on the task! Cheers, K. Lásztocska talk 03:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

RfA doh!
Hi Epbr123, Guess what I only found today! I'd wondered what happened, but assumed you were rather busy... Anyway, I'm still willing and able to launch this, if you are. I should make one correction to the nomination intro you provided, I've actually been the main editor of 3 FAs: Felice Beato, Pierre Rossier, and Adolfo Farsari. Thanks! Pinkville (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Battle of the Gebora TFA
Wow, thanks for nominating it! I'd pretty much given up on any of "my" FAs coming on the main page any time soon :)

Guess I'll be busy that day reverting! Carré (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

ITFC history FAC
Hey, thanks for your comments at the FAC. There's an ongoing discussion about date and piping to articles but I'd be grateful if you could confirm that we've dealt with your concerns adequately! Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your support. Since the FAC is getting bloated (already!!) would you mind if I "hid" your comments that we've resolved (or better still you do it yourself if possible) so that the FAC doesn't become unmanageable?  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for handling the MOS issues that Sandy brought up at the FAC. Much love to you! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Battlefield
Epbr, any interest in finishing up the list of minor MoS corrections at the bottom of Featured article candidates? Cirt has real-life things preventing him from finishing up. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Branderburgh
Another editor has added the  template to the article Branderburgh, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Seton Hall University
Thanks for your help and input, im looking for a mentor on wikipedia and i would be honored if you helped —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankun (talk • contribs) 10:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review request
Hi Epbr123, I was looking at the list of peer review volunteers and was wondering if you could please look at List of municipalities in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania, which is up for peer review here? If you are unable to look at it I understand, but could you please let me know either way? I would be glad to peer review something of yours in return, thanks Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comment - the map was made smaller and the list is now at FLC. Please let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Glorious First of June
Thankyou very much for your support of the Glorious First of June article which has just passed FAC. --Jackyd101 (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hillcourt
I've done significant work here and would appreciate further comment, Featured_article_candidates/William_Hillcourt. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 02:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Biruaslum
I have nominated Biruaslum, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Biruaslum. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 22:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre cleanuping
Hi there. Can I ask why you are cleaning up some articles, but in doing so are replacing valid spaces with the HTML code for spaces? It seems completely pointless to me and in fact seems to be worse that not cleaned up. If there is something I'm missing please let me know but it seems really bizarre and actually making the articles worse for editors who have to content with HTML coding instead of normal text. Canterbury Tail  talk  00:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay fine, I understand now. But there was no need to be so harsh in your reply, that was a bit uncalled for. All I asked for was some clarification of the situation which seemed very odd to me, but yes the MOS does explain and for that I apologise. Commenting that someone should not revert edits by established users seem to imply that established users edits are always right, which they are not always, and newcomers should stay away from them. Canterbury Tail   talk  00:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You should have asked before reverting. Epbr123 (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I should, and I have since also reverted my other reverts. However my comment on the harshness of your comment still stands. Canterbury Tail   talk  01:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. Although your comments and edit summaries weren't entirely friendly. Epbr123 (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Shall we admit we were both wrong (on differing aspects), agree to disagree, and move on with our editing? Seems fair and amicable on both sides. Canterbury Tail   talk  01:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Epbr123 (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't know why I said agree to disagree, and we weren't really disagreeing over anything, I just jumped the gun and edited before seeking clarification. Aw well, continue the good work and happy editing. Canterbury Tail   talk  01:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Re:FAC
Just wanted to say thanks for all your various copyedits and changes for the featured article candidates I've submitted over the past month. They've never been very big in terms of bytes, but they've always been very big in terms of content. I really appreciate it, and never let it be said that your changes don't mean anything — they certainly did for me. Thanks a lot. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

DeFrancis at Seton Hall
Please see my comment. All the best. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

MoS woes

 * Thank you for pointing out a range of MoS issues in my recent FAC article Terra Nova Expedition. I'm much more careful now.  If you can find time, perhaps you'd look at my Discovery Expedition article, currently waiting, unloved and unregarded, for a peer review.  I hope this demonstrates a much better awareness of MoS. Brianboulton (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane John (2006)
Thanks a lot for giving that article a copyedit. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Paleolithic-style diet
I appreciate your tedious work on this article. Thank you! --Phenylalanine (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, quick question: do inline sources need to be in numerical order, for example [1][16][33], as opposed to [16][1][33]. Thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They don't have to be, but some users prefer it as it looks better. Epbr123 (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Another quick question: Is the punctuation in the following sentence correct? (In the paper where I found it, the quoted text is a sentence beginning with a capital and ending with a period.) According to Milton, "there is little evidence to suggest that human nutritional requirements or human digestive physiology were significantly affected by such diets at any point in human evolution." I did check WP:PUNC, but I still have doubts? Thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Opinion please- image formatting
I am of the view that a image should not contain any formatting information such as |left|237px, as the formatting should be left to preferences set in the user browser. As stated in the Manual of Style.

This rule is broken when the image is in portrait ( there is a |upright for this) and overwhelms the page- or is in an infobox when it is usually necessary. |left| should only be used to make a head face into the page.

I mention this as there seems to be a wave of 'format' adding going on with Kent articles, and I wondered if there was a AWB or a similar tool is programmed differently, or if I interpret the Manual of Style differently from others or if there are enthusiastic editors who are unaware of this recommendation?ClemRutter (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * When I next run AWB, I'll try to remove the size formatting from non-infobox images. Although, there are many users who are against this rule and it is rarely enforced at WP:FAC, WP:GAN, etc. There is no rule against left aligned images, as Manual of Style states, "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left". Epbr123 (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I do most of them by hand when I see them- I was just doubting my sanity! And OK course, now I have mentioned it, the problem seems less severe, but it is a good idea to check when you are doing a batch run. ClemRutter (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Villa history
Whoops. Thankyou for that, I am going to go sit in a corner rather sheepishly. Woody (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * With regards to History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present), Graham has tweaked the first sentence a little bit. Your view at the FAC would be appreciated, thanks. Woody (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Haifa
Hi. I remember last year you did the Good Article review for the Tel Aviv article. I have nominated Haifa, and was wondering if you could do the same here. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Recommended to review Milton Friedman FAC (for MOS issues)
Hi, I nominated Milton Friedman for a FAC and you were recommended as a notable article reviewer, specifically for MOS issues. If you have a chance, could you take a look at the article and make any comments at the FAC page at Featured article candidates/Milton Friedman? Thanks! Gary King (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Her Majesty's Theatre
Hello. Can you support the FA now, or do you have any further concerns? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Geology
Hi, I see you have just added a series of articles on aspects of UK geology to WP UK geography. Most of these are or ought to be in WP geology. Rather than putting them all in both perhaps there should be a daughter project UK Geology? Pterre (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't do any harm having an article included in more than one project, and is probably an advantage as it gets the article more attention. I don't know whether there are users willing to set up UK Geology project. Epbr123 (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Geo articles
Since you specialize in geography articles, do you have time for a look at Featured article candidates/Alanya? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA?
 bibliomaniac15 would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact bibliomaniac15 to accept or decline the nomination. A page for your nomination at Requests for adminship/ . If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Seeing that you've been quite active in nominating other users for RFA, I don't suppose you've ever considered running yourself? If you do, I would be very please to nominate you. Please tell me whether you would like to run, and I will create the page if you accept. Cheers,  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Biblio, get to writing a nomination so I can "support." Good luck Epbr! Malinaccier (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There's only one question that I'd like to ask to help me in writing a nom. How do you think you have improved from your RFC?  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel my level of civility has greatly improved since the RFC. At the time, I was more concerned with imposing my views at AfD than on getting on with other users. The RFC taught me the importance of working well with others, as having disputes over minor issues is a waste of time and counterproductive to improving the encyclopedia. I now get on well with some of the participants in the RFC, and I hope I am now more sensitive to the feelings of other users. I gave a similar answer in my Editor review. Epbr123 (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That wouldn't be my opinion. What does keeping your head down for a few months prove to anyone? Once granted the bit you could revert to type couldn't you? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern. Epbr123 (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, and although my initial reaction was to oppose your RfA, I will not, as it may seem to others to be a tu quoque response on my part. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not one to badger people about civility, but try to assume good faith, please, Malleus. You might not support this user, but that's no reason to make assumptions.  bibliomaniac 1  5  18:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Having had bitter first hand experience means that I am not making assumptions about anything. Please try to bear that in mind Bibliomaniac. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a redlink anymore. You know the drill.  bibliomaniac 1  5  19:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good luck, and please archive this talk page! :) dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 00:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, are you male or female? I feel awkward referring to you as s/he.  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm male, unfortunately :) Epbr123 (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Co-nom
Mind if I shamelessly co-nom? OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be delighted. Epbr123 (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd have to be the same. Remember the offer a few months back? It might still be on this page. :) Rudget . 11:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate that, thanks. Its only fair as you were the first to offer. Epbr123 (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Right-o. Rudget . 12:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Rudget . 12:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User page
Hello! As I teacher, I really like your Style and prose checklist and have added a link to it from my user page User:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles. As you can see, I also keep my own list, albeit a much shorter one. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA
Hm, I'm in kind of an unfortunate situation with this. I'd really like to support, but I didn't think your answer really gave me enough to go on. You weren't angry with them? If someone calls your reply harsh and uncalled for, and you weren't angry at them, shouldn't you make an effort to clarify that you weren't? How would you word your reply if you had another chance? You do see what I'm saying about how your responses have the potential to cause unnecessary conflict, right?

I'm glad your RfA's passing, you're a highly qualified candidate. Like I said, I feel kind of insane not supporting based on one small thing, in the face of everything good you've done for the project. I'm not trying to badger you, we can just drop it if you'd prefer. What would you think of me leaving you another note at some later time to let you know how I think you're doing? Peace, delldot on a public computer   talk  05:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I know my response should have been softer, and if I had another chance my initial comment would have been something like, "Hi. I know my edits seemed odd but they were based on the guidelines at WP:MOS. It may be best to ask for clarification from users before reverting there edits in future, as there may be valid reason for them. Keep up the good work." To be honest, my wording was strong partly because I felt he would remember not to make the same mistake again if I made a big deal about it. However, in hindsight it was inappropriate of me to try to "discipline" an adult user like this. I myself will try to learn from this incident. I would appreciate any feedback in future, as my sole aim here is to be a good user and improve the encyclopedia. Epbr123 (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for the thorough response. This is enough for me to support, which I'll do when I get home and into my real account (using a sock in an RfA... just... sketchy... :-]) Thanks for the dedication, see you around.  Peace,  delldot on a public computer   talk  10:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching request
You have previously expressed an interest in undergoing the Admin coaching program. We're currently engaged in a program reset to help things move more smoothly in the future. If you are still interested in the program, please go to Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching and re-list yourself under Current requests, deleting your entry from Older requests. Also, double-check to make sure coaching is right for you at theCoachee checklist; WP:Adoption or WP:Editor review may be more appropriate depending on your situation and aspirations. We should get back to you within a day or so, once a coaching relationship has been identified. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 06:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

PR for "Irreplaceable"
Hi. Could you please take a look at this? I need more comments before I pass it for FAC. Thanks in advance. --Efe (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

alicia alighatti
I'm positive that Excalibur got her biography from an old version of her wikipedia article. I'm not sure what to do here since it can't be proven that it's circular. Vinh1313 (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I does look as though it came from Wikipedia, as it's not Excalibur's usual style of writing. I think it's safe to say it can't be used as a reliable source here. Epbr123 (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply to RFC comment
Hi. I really would like to support, but I'm concerned that the remorse is coming now when you've something to gain from it and you're on your best behaviour, rather than back when you didn't. That said, it's certainly better than nothing... give me a day or so to consider it, and I might change my vote to Support. Your answer to Q4 is actually quite encouraging on that front, as well. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC).

The Corrs
Hi, I've addressed your concerns for The Corrs on this page. Please take the time from your busy RFA nomination to come and take a look here. Cheers. σмgнgσмg (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There was really no need to address your concern raised on this page. I'd left a reason why. Please take another look. Thanks. σмgнgσмg <sup style="color:black;">(talk)  05:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick favor to ask?
Could you do your thang and remove the unused cite template spaces and other space from Template:Project Chanology protests, February 10 2008 and Project Chanology? It would help to free up spaces in the article and reduce article size overall, which would be very helpful. Thanks so much for all the edits you've done in helping me with some articles I had at WP:FAC. Cirt (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Cirt (talk) 06:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

ANAK Society
On Featured article candidates/ANAK Society, you said, "Logical quotation should be used, as per Manual of Style" ... can you check the article to verify that this suggestion/criterion has been satisfied? SandyGeorgia isn't sure it's been fixed. Thanks! —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Requesting peer review of List of unrecognized countries before listing as WP:FLC
Hi, I am requesting your time to peer review the List of unrecognized countries article. I would like to list it as a WP:FLC but feel that a peer review from you will help increase its chances of passing. Thanks for taking a look! Gary King (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please post your comments at Peer review/List of unrecognized countries/archive1 and feel free to edit the article if you feel that certain things need to be modified and are fairly trivial. Gary King (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have responded. Please respond back. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

List of unrecognized countries has been nominated as a WP:FLC
I have just nominated List of unrecognized countries as a WP:FLC at Featured list candidates/List of unrecognized countries/archive1 and would appreciate it if you could vote in it, criticize it, and hopefully eventually fall in love with the article. Also, feel free to edit the article if you feel that a minor edit is needed. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 06:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Nominating List of recessions as a WP:FLC
Hi, I have nominated List of recessions as a WP:FLC at Featured list candidates/List of recessions. I would appreciate it if you could look over the article and comment on the FLC. Thanks for your time! Gary King (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update
This is a form message being sent out to all of the GA sweeps reviewers. Thank you for all of your dedicated work in the difficult and time-consuming task of ensuring the quality of articles within the GA project. Many reviewers have taken time out of reviewing articles at WP:GAN (this may be one factor in the expansion of the backlog), writing articles, and probably getting some sleep! I have sent this message out to update you on our current progress and to remind you to please keep up with completing your reviews and updating GARs/holds. As of March 1, 2008, we have swept 20% of the 2,808 GAs we started with. At our current progress, all of the articles will be assessed in just under three years (based on when we started). If we want to complete the sweeps sooner, we need to continue reviewing at a higher rate (consider doing one or two more reviews a week or whatever you feel comfortable with) and inviting new, experienced reviewers. If you are taking a break, focusing on GAN, writing your own GAs, or are already reviewing articles like crazy, I still want to thank you for all of your hard work and hope you are pleased about our current progress. Keep up the good work and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chanel Chavez
An editor has nominated Chanel Chavez, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Your sock
Could you please label your sock as such on both your and the sock's userpages? I used to have one, but I found that it was too much work to operate one main account and one for grammatical maintenance.  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

admin nomination unsuccessful
Epbr123, I am sorry to report that your admin nomination was unsuccessful at (68/28/5). If you're interested in submitting another request in the future, consider reviewing closely the comments made in your request for adminship. In any case, keep up the good work. You are a valued addition to Wikipedia. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Better luck next time! Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 01:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)