User talk:Epicadam/Archive 2

HoulihanLokey
I appreciate your posting on my talk page because of your neutral acknowledgement that book is a good reference while offering information on how to use it.

In other instances I've come across some oxymoronic feedback, maybe you can shed light where others have not: what is the best way to address the banner requests for "citation" and "verification" when adding valuable information that is not already online? Regards, HoulihanLokey (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Burundi
I saw your request for a second opinion on this article, but I'm finding the review a bit hard to follow. Are you the lead reviewer? If so, I'll be happy to give my opinion that the article's not at GA yet, and explain why. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your review of Trafford Park, an article that I've been trying to get "finished" for what seems forever. I've taken a look at Burundi and given a second opinion, which is basically that the article's still a long way from GA. I haven't really seen much evidence either of substantial improvement during the hold period, and much remains to be done. The content seems reasonable to me, but the quality of the prose is really letting the article down badly right now. If I were in your shoes, I'd be seriously considering closing the review now, as a fail. The only alternative that I can see would be for you to dig in and sort out the copyediting yourself. :-) Thanks once again.--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Balch Creek
Thanks again for your help at peer review with Balch Creek, which made FA today. If ever I can return the favor, please ask. Finetooth (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Reassessment
Hi Epicadam,

Seeing as how you and Jackyd were the only people other than active article editors who weighed in at the Horses in warfare reassessment, and Jackyd claims she can't do anything without a "community consensus," would you look over the article and comment? We have done a lot of work on it over the last three weeks, and given that only a little of the work was mine, and a LOT was that of other editors, I am taking it on myself to round up people who can get the reassessment closed so we can keep the article in GA status. Thanks. Montanabw (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Now, do you have any clue how to close a reassessment? Montanabw (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If you, Epicadam, don't feel comfortable in closing this reassessment then I'll quite happily do it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm comfortable with closing the reassessment, I just wasn't sure if that's how the process works. I directed MontanaBow to User:Geometry guy since he seems to be in charge over there. -epicAdam (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We're all in charge over there; it's the closest that GAN ever gets to FAC. ;-) But seriously, don't leave it to Geometry guy. If you're convinced, and I certainly am, then close it yourself. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Will do. Thanks. -epicAdam (talk) 01:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Indigo Bunting GAR
The main contributor has made no edits anywhere since 29 July. Given the time of year, I've kept it open assuming a holiday. I'll give it a couple of days more, and close then if no action (might even tweak and pass it myself if feasible) jimfbleak (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Density Figures
Hi, well I read your message when I finished calculating the density. The density for each state is simply Population (2007 est.) divided by the total Land Area. The population (2007 est.) and Land area are official figures released by US Census Bureau. The density figures for 2000 are outdated in the year of 2008 (For example, Louisiana was hit by Katrina in 2005 and the population density now trails KY and WI. The 2000 density does not show that!) The 2007 population figures are the newest and they are definitely the most accurate in the year of 2008. The density figures for 2000 are still on the summary page. I don't think there is any problem to include 2007 density figures. They can serve as contrast with the 2000 figures. So can you please leave the 2007 figures as they are?

--cchow2 (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok then. I will bring it up on this discussion page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_U.S._state#2007_Population_estimates

--cchow2 (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you open the case for me (since you want a discussion)? I am too lazy. Thanks.

--cchow2 (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Washington D.C.

 * The zone information means everything to gardeners, like myself, and is a very important piece of information. Far more important than you can probably imagine. Upon further inspection, the wiki page regarding USDA zones, while "technically correct" most certainly does NOT tell the whole story.  The maps on that page are from 1990.  Those maps are ONLY still accepted today, because the USDA decided partly for unknown reasons to reject the new, 2003 version, which accumulated data over a 15 year period from 1986 through 2001.  The 1990 map, uses data collected over a 13 year period, from 1974, through 1986. Part of the reasons many feel that the 2003 map was officially rejected by the USDA, is the Bush administration's un-comfortability with acknowledging global climate change / shift, towards a warmer global climate. It is widely known, and accepted in horticultural circles, that the current 1990 map is no longer correct.  If we were to go by that map, then we could not grow certain things here in the district, such as camillas or some species of palms.  If it is just a matter of the sourcing for you, then I will gladly provide the link to the AHS website section that still houses the 2003 version of this map, in PDF format. You can go and look at it yourself if you like here: AHS/USDA 2003 Zone Hardiness MapPlease do look at it, and please do by all means, zoom in on Washington D.C. so you can see for yourself.

EDIT 8/19/08.

Thank you for making the changes. I do apologise for not sourcing the information the first time around. Sorry for the delayed response, but I have not had too much time to dedicate to things online the past week. Thanks again and cheers! =o)

DCA Palms (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

History of Washington, D.C
Please restore my edits. If you believe that there are too many links, feel free to remove those that you believe to be excessive or redundant.

Thanks.

Corker1:14-Aug-2008

You stated that Ellicott's changes to L'Enfant's Plan were superficial. L'Enfant himself considered them more important. His letters strenuously objected the the changes in his plan that Ellicott had made after he offered his letter of resignation to George Washington.

L'Enfant believed that lines of sight should be limited. His plan therefore offset some streets so that people would see buildings, creating a neighborhood effect. Ellicott (perhaps because he was a surveyor) preferred distant views. He therefore straightened Massachusetts Avenue and removed some of L'Enfant's plaza.

The books that the article references describe the above. L'Enfant's letters are consitent with this.

Corker1:14-Aug-2008

L'Enfant images
If you are indeed of the view that some of User:Corker1's edits sometimes need a bit of extra review, you may also want to keep an eye on History of Washington, D.C., Streets and highways of Washington, D.C., and Pierre Charles L’Enfant, where this same L'Enfant / Ellicott issue has also come up. I've repaired the image captions there but that is about all I have time (or expertise) for. JohnInDC (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Corker1 seems to have taken things to heart and has stopped reverting the caption. I would say the problem is behind us - if you agree, maybe you can drop a note to your entry on Editor Assistance indicating that the matter is resolved?  JohnInDC (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Editor assistance/Requests
Hi Epicadam, just a quick request, when you tag requests as resolved (or otherwise), could you sign them please? They're archived 2 days after being tagged, and it's done manually not by bot, so it's handy to have the timestamp on. It's also quite good to have a signature so we know who's tagged it. Occasionally requests are prematurely tagged as "resolved" by people who are involved in disputes when others don't agree the issue is resolved. To sign in the temaplate, just put  . Anyway, thanks for helping out there. Regards, -- Beloved Freak  21:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Tunbridge Wells review
Hi Epicadam - thanks so much for the (extremely!) prompt review of the Royal Tunbridge Wells article, and for the very helpful comments. I will endeavour to work on resolving them. Sjc196 (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As you can see, your comments were just what was needed! Thanks for taking the time to review again. Sjc196 (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Some of the pages you are assessing with the WikiProject DC Template are, in fact, in Virginia (ie: Alexandria, Virginia). A previous user tagged ALOT of pages well outside DC (some in VA, MD, WV, even PA) with the WikiProject DC Template. If you see pages like this, please remove the DC template and replace it with it's respective state WikiProject. If would be of great help :) Take Care...  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  22:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well done
Congrats on getting Washington D.C to FA, I just read it, wonderful piece. — Realist  2  20:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sale, Greater Manchester
The FAC for Sale closed a couple of weeks ago, but I was wondering if you thought I'd addressed your concerns? I do intend (at some point) to take the article to FAC again but I want to make sure I don't trip over the same issues. Nev1 (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Kedco
Hi Epicadam - I see you have marked a page i created on Kedco for deletion. They are one of the leading renewable energy companies in Ireland similar to airtricity, so i cannot see why you would delete the page? Robert.carpenter (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK!
All the best in your Good Article nomination! - Mailer Diablo 08:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

PilmerPR
Hi, Could you lay eyes on the PilmerPR page, please? It may be somewhat out of your arena but I noticed that you've looked at notability issues in other areas. I first saw the page when it was newly created and strongly considered tagging it for rapid deletion but instead flagged it as essentially an advertisement, lacking neutrality, references, etc. I seriously question the company's notability -- having fast growing clients doesn't quite make it, I think. It just reads like a puff piece to point to the company's website. Sources are sketchy at best as they include company press releases and a listing of award winners (looks like it came from an ad) with no defining context. The original author of the page revised it and removed some of the tags but I don't think they met the standards. Please let me know what you think and advise on what you think might be appropriate next steps? Thank you. --Contributingfactor (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject DC Template
Thank you for helping to clean up as well. I've also noticed that former Georgetown athletes (see: ) are also included as well. I'd like to also take care of that once I finish with the Bullets/Wizards players. Do you have any ideas on how to prevent this from happening again? I'd hate to see all our work go to waste if someone else were to automatically re-add the template using a bot.

Thanks! --Djrun (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:EA request
Hi Adam, you were kind enough to answer my message on EA/R about the Chinese gymnast pages, and offer help if I came up against a 3RR situation. I have an editor reverting and replacing unsourced/BLP bio in Jiang Yuyuan and I would like to take you up on that offer. :) It's BLP vio so I think I'd be OK reverting it again but I'm not sure, so here's my SOS. Best, DanielEng (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Omaha
I would appreciate any further insight you can provide to the Omaha, Nebraska article through the GA nomination I opened. Thanks. • Freechild   'sup?   04:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Quick question: the article received GA status today. Aside from the guidelines, would you be so kind as to point out anything you think the article needs to move to FA status next? I would appreciate it. • Freechild   'sup?   01:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Lincolnshire, Illinois GAN
Hey EpicAdam. I've seen your contributions to Washington, D.C. and how you have several GAN reminders linked to your userpage, so I am assuming you are a GA reviewer. May I ask you to take a look at Lincolnshire, Illinois? I've been putting in the hours since August to get the article up to par. Your input would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks and cheers, --Starstriker7(Say hior see my works) 02:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi again; thanks for taking a look at it. I have a few questions concerning the GAN, which is on this page, and I hope you don't mind if I ask you a few things about your comments.


 * What do you mean when you say "unfocused?" Is it that it is too specific, because if so, wouldn't I have to re-add it to make the article "comprehensive" later on?
 * Also, how many pictures do you think this article needs? Is what that is already there sufficient (Andrea Jaeger picture excluded)?


 * Thank you for your time, epicAdam; I should be able to patch Lincolnshire up fairly well. All I really need are a few clarifications before I can proceed all-out. Cheers, --Starstriker7(Say hior see my works) 21:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Brunswick, Georgia
epicAdam,

I've been making some modifications to Brunswick, Georgia's article since you reviewed it for GA back in August. It's not quite GA yet (I don't think -- the history and media sections need some work, and it still has a miscellaneous section; both will be resolved before renomination), but could you just look over the page so far and give me your thoughts? The city's population is just over 16,000, and I was surprised to see how much could be written about it. Oh, and the citations in the lead -- how important is it that these are to be avoided? Thanks. United Statesman (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Abhinav Bindra
Appreciate your edits to Abhinav Bindra. Please note however, that his dad and mom dont carry the Singh, Kaur name respectively. This info is unverifiable as yet. Also, there is no mention of them being khatri sikhs - this info is also unverfiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.121.21.2 (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please dont undo changes, do you have any verifiable info ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.121.21.2 (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, are you going to block Rationalist22 for posting this -

some Indian regionalist scum is deleting any reference to the fact that Ahbinav belongs to a affluent Khatri Sikh family, also deleting the line which says "Rs.1 crore was presented by Punjab Government to Mr. Bindra" this loser seems like some regionalist scumbag who hates Sikhs and is mourning the fact that a Sikh won the first ever indivudial Gold medal at Olympics for India...what a loser. (Rationalist22 (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.121.21.2 (talk)

Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan
Thank you for taking the time to review and adding your notes on the article in the GA nomination regarding Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan. Will putter away at your suggestions. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk

More Stuff About Lincolnshire
Hi again, epicAdam; I haven't been able to get to Wikipedia much lately (with the exception of rating a good bunch of Cities articles to help me get through really boring necessities), but I have a few extra questions on Lincolnshire, Illinois. I'll get to work on it as soon as I can, but I have left up a few comments.

Thanks, --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 22:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibility of a Featured Article Drive?
I was pecking around other WikiProjects, and I saw under the WikiProject Skyscrapers structure that they help a featured topic drive to bring the lists of the United States' twenty-five tallest skyscrapers to FL status. Maybe we could organize something like this for WikiProject Cities. What do you think?

Thanks, --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 00:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, epicAdam;
 * I just wanted to inform you that I have it roughly organized, if you think this is a good idea. You can find the table I created at this location here.


 * Please get back to me as soon as possible.


 * Thanks, --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 05:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:CITIES announcements list
Please note, it is not necessary for individual GA reviewers to update the announcements list at WP:CITIES after every single review. I update this once per week based on the reviews that I see at WP:GAN. If reviewers keep doing this, it will greatly add to the additional work required to complete a GA review, and will deter reviewers from reviewing. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Gulfton revisited
Hello, Epicadam! Gulfton, Houston, Texas is now in its third GA review. Much has changed since your review (more content in general, answer to how Shenandoah's streets were barricaded, etc) - Right now Derek Cashman (Dr. Cash) is looking at the article, but if you want, please feel free to comment :) WhisperToMe (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Verbank, New York
Hi Epicadam&mdash;I've been working on Verbank, New York, and I've encountered a roadblock. I've searched for hours, and found no history information whatsoever. As you have significant experience in city/town/location articles, do you think you could give me some suggestions? Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  22:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Melbourne GA Review
Thanks for reviewing the article. I've gone through the WP:MOS errors, and fixed many to the the best of my ability. There are still a few more things that need sorting out though. A second review/check would be invaluable -- Flewis (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been about a month since Melbourne was nominated for GA, and many of the issues have been fixed and sorted out. Could you please recheck the GA page once more, and decide whether the article meets GA standard. Thanks, -- Flewis (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Capitalisation of band names....
Regarding your response here: WP:NC states "In band names and titles of songs or albums, the standard rule in the English language is to capitalize words that are the first or the last word". MOS:TM also applies with regards to band names, as can be seen from the use of Kiss (band) as an example. MOS:TM states to "choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner". Furthermore, "Trademarks rendered without any capitals are always capitalized". So as I see it, there are plenty of policies and guidelines out there, all of which have been applied on numerous articles to render stylised, lowercase band names to capitalised, correct English band names. After all, we don't want the encyclopedia to look like a five year old wrote it, do we? Nouse4aname (talk) 08:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

D.C Sports
Regarding your last edit to this this section, I'm wondering what the issue is. the NFL,NBA,MLB,NHL,and MLB, even if they have a minor team, all essentially encompass the sports that were in question. To someone who has no idea what those sports are or the teams you were speaking of, this truly makes better sense. I just wanted to know about the reasoning behind it before I reverted it.--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. The issue here in Overlinking. The links to those professional sports were already inserted previously in the section, and they are spelled out. Further, there is a link to the article Major professional sports leagues of the United States and Canada that would explain to users just exactly what those sports are, in case there are a handful of people who are unfamiliar. To link every term is just overkill. Best, epicAdam(talk) 16:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

...Wow..On further review, now that I thoroughly look at the article in question, I understand completely what you mean. It is overkill and I probably would have done the same thing. --EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Lincolnshire...Reloaded...
Hello again, epicAdam.

Jordan left a few comments prior to his retirement, and I edited accordingly. I've patched up the lead, although I do not yet think it is sufficient; I've also removed a few things, according to your comments on the GAN. I haven't addressed some of the comments, however (For example, the information on Lincolnshire's high school, as I know that what is probably the only reason anyone has heard of the village is through the academic achievement of the establishment, I just don't know how to connect it).

If it makes more sense to nominate this for GA status once again prior to requesting your advice, I'll do it.

Thanks, --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 22:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I nominated it for GA again. Although you haven't been active recently, I just thought you would like to know. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 14:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarajevo
I was wondering what you thought about the Sarajevo article. Do you think this is up to FA quality? Some paragraphs have little or no citation. It looks like a B class, not even GA standard to me. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Your help is needed
Epic, i was hoping you or any other admin could intervene in regards to this edit this edit. i have gone into the field of correcting misinformed articles and this Anon User has done nothing but posted back the incorrect additions to this article. i have reverted the information being posted by people and have noted that it all is simply speculative so im hoping you could handle the situation.--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Liechtenstein or Lichtenstein?
Hi Epicadam, i don't get why Lichtenstein should be redirected to Liechtenstein, afaik Lichtenstein is a misspelling in this case... or am i wrong? --MisterGrigri (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. I made Lichtenstein link to Liechtenstein per WP:REDIRECT, which follows the convention of redirecting common alternate names or misspellings to the most common usage of the word; in this case, an independent country. The situation is akin to "Luxemburg", which redirects to "Luxembourg" despite the fact that there are three other world cities/towns, which have the name "Luxemburg". In the case of Liechtenstein, those few readers who are actually trying to find another "Lichtenstein" will be able to find it easily by using the prominent disambiguation link found at the top of the country article. Best, epicAdam(talk) 15:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For me it seems quite confusing to redirect a misspelled entry to its correctly spelled entry when there's also a meaning behind the misspelled version, because in consequence, all user users typing in the correct word are redirected to an article they haven't been looking for. Imho Lichtenstein (disambiguation) holds many possibilities pepole might be looking fora nd in fact the very most seem to know how to spell the country correctly ( vs. ). Would you mind me changing it to redirect to the disambiguation page? --MisterGrigri (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First, it depends on whether or not you think the entry is misspelled. Lichtenstein and Liechtenstein are two rather commons spellings. In fact, the disambiguation page provides all entries for both spellings. The second consideration is how many of those people who type in "Lichtenstein" meant to find another Lichtenstein. Very few. Of the 194 people who searched for Lichtenstein, only 9 went on to look for Lichtenstein, Germany, only 13 went to Lichtenstein (Reutlingen), 63 went to Lichtenstein Castle. That means over 100 people who typed in Lichtenstein probably got to their correct location. And, imho, it is always best to link to an article with a dab page, then to a dab page directly. When you force users to link to a dab page, then every user must navigate the list of possible entries. When linking to an article, it's likely that some (if not most) of people have correctly found the article they were looking for, and the few others who have not, can then use the dab page to find their article. Best, epicAdam(talk) 16:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately we don't know what the users actually were looking for, e.g. Roy Lichtenstein has quite many hits, but if it's the common practice just the way it is, let's keep it, it isn't that worldshaking to me. --MisterGrigri (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, we can't say with absolute certainty, but we can look at what would make sense and be the most likely, given the information we have. As for the names of people, often users type at least the first and last name. There are arguments about the folks at Washington and George Washington about where "Washington" should redirect, but the common belief is that people who are searching for George Washington would almost always type it in instead of just the last name. Best, epicAdam(talk) 00:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

DC
I agree that the worker wages are not supported by the online version of the Washington Post. In fact, there appears to be no such box online. I appreciate your verifying it. All refs should be verified by someone! However, the box was in the actual hardcopy of the Post, front page, lower left, if you happen to be in the DC area. If not, maybe you can contact someone here who still has a copy sitting around. Like you, it's hard to get enthused about stuff that can't be verified online. Most serious articles are mostly from books to which I do not have access and have to take the editor's word for it. (with Lord knows how many edits above the original reference!). Student7 (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Bellaire Ga review
Thank you for the improvement suggestions! I am already implementing many of them as we speak. If you do not mind, would you like to look at some of my comments regarding some of the suggestions? They are at the GA nomination page.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestions! I have one more little question left on the page (about number spacing) WhisperToMe (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Tagging
Erm, why did you remove an assessment tag on ?  MBisanz  talk 19:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Washington DC as TFA
Hey, I'm one of the losers who hangs out a lot at the TFA/R page where people request articles to be featured as Today's Featured Article on the Main Page, and I've added Washington, D.C. to the template to give advance word to other editors it might be a good article to have as TFA on January 20. The article has to be nominated, this ought to happen around New Years'. Hoping you'll think it is a good idea.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Wehwalt. Thank you for contacting me. Getting DC on the main page hasn't really been a primary focus of mine, but I'd be happy to support a nomination. DC's actually been on the main page several times (mostly as a result of ITNs, like current) and I think it's been good exposure. My only concern is that the article won't really pass muster as being related enough to the inauguration. There's very little in the article (actually, almost nothing) about the president or the presidency. This is mostly because Congress is entirely responsible for the District and the President has almost absolutely nothing to do with the status or operation of the city. How do you figure that DC would tally 3 points at TFA/R? If you were to somehow convince the folks there that the date is relevant to the article, and that DC is basic subject matter (I guess 12-year-olds would learn about the US Capital?), and if I nominate the article (first time nominator), then we could get up to 3. However, city articles are commonly featured at TFA and I feel like that would knock DC down 2 or 3 points. If there was a way to make sure that no city articles are featured the month before the inauguration, that would be great! :-) Best, epicAdam(talk) 08:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If we can give Yao Ming a point for Olympic Opening Ceremony . . . the eyes of the world will be on Washington DC, I think the point will stick. I would suggest adding the article in early January.  As for the city, maybe a nice note on Raul's talk page asking him to avoid city articles would be the way to go.  I think this would be really great.  I'm focusing more on the Inauguration than on the Presidential aspect, as you point out, the President has next to no role in governing the District.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yao Ming: point taken. I will ask Raul if he wouldn't mind holding off on city articles. Is there anything else you think should be done to the article in advance? I'm sure once the article goes up for TFA/R, the editors there will have plenty to say about it, but I typically like to have as much work done in advance. I regularly check for broken references and update them as needed. I don't think there's much information that could be any more up-to-date, but if you have any suggestions I'd appreciate it. Best, epicAdam(talk) 23:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll give it some thought, but I really doubt it. As long as the article is in reasonably good shape, that should suffice, this isn't FAC, as long as it is gnerally up to today's FA standards, that is good enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it is on the request page and getting good support. I did not intend to add it this early, but the article it replaced has had serious issues at FAR.  You sure you know what you're getting into?  I just spent a harrowing 24 hours with Albert Speer on the main page and lots of off the wall edits!  WDC may not last on the request page, but it can be readded if it gets knocked off.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on Raul selecting the article to run tomorrow! It will be on beginning at 7 tonight, assuming you are in the Eastern Time Zone. If you want an appropriate userbox for having a TFA run, steal it off my userpage! I'll keep an eye on vandalism when I can.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I did notice that the talk page was updated. Thanks for keeping an eye out on it. While I hope there aren't any major problems, I know that unlike other city articles, people seem to have a lot of say about D.C. There's also a lot of pseudo-information out there that I think people will want to add to the article, especially information about the Obamas and the inauguration. Thanks for your help! Best, epicAdam(talk) 17:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate Use of Rollback
The edit you made here constitutes a misuse of the rollback feature, and I must ask you, in the future, to ONLY rollback clear cut cases of vandalism, and not good-faith edits like the one here. As such, it appears the editor was attempting to delete biased sounding content, and may have deleted some content in the process, but the edit was obviously NOT vandalism. Thank you for your time. Scapler (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * All due respect, but that's completely a matter of interpretation. I see the removal of sourced information as vandalism, you see it as a good faith edit. Whether or not I used "rollback" or "undo" is just a matter of semantics. Best, epicAdam(talk) 23:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Vandalism" w.r.t. the edit on "list of rapid transit systems in the United States". The change I made was to correct a factual error. If you visit the NYC Subway page, you'll see that the system is 656 miles in length, not 242 miles in length (the total track length is actually technically 842 miles, but some of that is non-revenue length). Please stop changing this number. It is in direct contradiction to the NYC Subway article itself. Regards, Jwill99

GA review of Bellaire, Texas
Because this review has been placed on hold an abnormal length of time (+11 days), I was hoping you could finalize your judgement in order to help with the backlog at GAN. I understand the review process is time consuming, and I appreciate your efforts in improving the encyclopedia :) -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I recommend ignoring this remark. It is up to the reviewer when to close a nomination. This editor has been placing similar remarks on multiple pages. Geometry guy 20:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * like i have already said to Geometry guy, reviewers don't suddenly own articles, and the guidelines at WP:GAN recommend closing a review after seven days. of course, these are just guidelines/suggestions so if you feel this is a case which would be facilitated by extending the hold time, then go right ahead - it's about improving the encyclopedia after all. Happy editing! -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 02:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand going a little over, but it's been over a month and nothing's really taken place. If you could follow-up on this one that would be great. Wizardman  22:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

DC sister cities
Adam, I hope you've managed to fizzle out that particularly nasty row over the Natives in DC. I did have one question, and that was where the info on years for the new sister cities template. There's no source, and that might be a place to add one. I might add a little table like that to other city articles, but date info isn't always easy to come by.--Patrick «» 02:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nevermind that, I see the source there. I expected it after the table.--Patrick «» 03:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries. I just kept the source in the same place. After searching around a bit, I couldn't find any more information about the connections between Brazzaville or Chongqing and Washington. Both seemed a bit dubious to me, but were included because of the source from Sister Cities international. Now that the source has gone "offline" while the organization revamps its website, we'll see if they're included again in the new directory. My guess is they won't—their original database was riddled with errors, and I hope that's what they're fixing. If they do, then hopefully they'll have evidence of it, because the DC gov't sure doesn't! Best, epicAdam(talk) 04:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Lincolnshire, Illinois
Hey, epicAdam.

I've been working to improve the prose of the article, and I've been carrying a copy around with me and proofreading what I can when I have the time. The prose was crap before, but I think it's gotten better. Do you think it's ready for an FAC nomination? --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 03:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

New York and London populations
Hi. Just a reminder of our discussion about when New York's population overtook London's. It seems to have died out without any real resolution. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Overhaul
I have no objection to your proposed merger. Just make sure it doesn't result in any duplication of material in District of Columbia voting rights. SMP0328. (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Airports, in the middle of downtown!
I have been having an ongoing problem getting rid of the descriptions of facilities which do not belong in the scope of an article. See WP:TOPIC. Like Bethesda claiming the Smithsonian (I'm making this up! :)  or Chevy Chase the Washington Monument. My current kick is on airports which most metropolises can't possibly encompass because the runway requirements are too vast - 2 mile runways, that sort of thing. I'm about to delete airports for DC and I wanted to let you know why. I hope you will support this. (I had actually stopped editing this article BTW but was "forced" back into this one edit). Student7 (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

barnstar spam
 APK  is like a firecracker. He makes it hot.  12:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Washington, D.C. commas [sic]
Those commas are mandatory. Yes, fewer commas is better, but certain commas are required mechanically, and this is one of them. It's the same comma you see after a state in something like, "He was born in Poopaw, Iowa, in 1877." Please leave them there. Our manual of style is better than nothing, but not by much, and if it doesn't specifically address an issue, we must fall back on generally accepted long-standing practice in edited printed matter. The Chicago Manual of Style, and, I'm sure, all reputable manuals of style, require this comma. If you aren't thinking about this comma, you won't notice it. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to move this discussion to the talk page of the article. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Metro talk page archiving
Just as a heads-up, I've gone ahead and redone your talk page archiving work at Talk:Washington Metro, in order to maintain consistency with the earlier talk page archive. The first archive was done via page move, and so I went ahead and reverted your archiving and then page-moved the talk page to Talk:Washington Metro/Archive 2. Then I moved the headers back to the main talk page, plus moved the one active discussion (about fares) back to the main talk page as well. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Federal Triangle
I have a lil question for ya. Do you think "Category:Neighborhoods of Washington, D.C." should include the Federal Triangle article or "Category:Geography of Washington, D.C."? Currently, the only category is "Category:Washington, D.C." which seems too broad IMHO. I was about to create a F.T. category on Commons and realized it's not technically a neighborhood. Thanks for the help.  APK  I got your crazy  07:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. - I can't believe this building doesn't have an article, yet.  APK  I got your crazy  07:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey APK. I don't think creating a F.T. category on Commons is a problem. There's no rule that every category needs to be an official neighborhood. On Wikipedia, Federal Triangle would be a part of the Downtown Washington, D.C. article, since that is its official "neighborhood". However, as far as categories are concerned, I think you can get away with labeling the article with "Category:Neighborhoods of Washington, D.C.", but just point out in the article that it's not it's own official neighborhood, just a part of Downtown, D.C. And yes, that auditorium definitely needs an article. I don't even know what it's used for anymore! Still Treasury? Maybe it's the drop point for the TARP funds? ;-) Best, epicAdam(talk) 16:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. Thanks for the Carol Schwartz award. Putting Mara up was a stupid idea. He seemed like an okay guy, but the DC GOP knew that there was no way that they could win with a split vote. :-/ -epicAdam(talk) 16:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

DC Meetup Events: You're invited!
This has been an automated because you your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Gaza GA review
Greetings Epicadam! I was just wondering if there any more issues in the Gaza article that I could fix. I (and yourself) rectfied most of the issues pointed out on its review page. Is the article almost ready to be a GA? Regards, --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Epic. I hate to be a bother and I know you are busy in real life, but could you pass or fail the Gaza article because it's been on hold for over a month and a half now. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

A-class review for Spokane, Washington
Seeing as how you're a pretty experienced reviewer for city articles, could you assist us with providing comments for an A-class review for WP:CITIES for Spokane, Washington? Anon134 has requested an A-class review. Leave review comments at Talk:Spokane, Washington. Thanks! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection of the Washington D.C. entry
Dear epicAdam, I tried to update the Washington D.C. entry with information about the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Adas Israel Garden of the Righteous both based in Washington D.C. and user Wehwalt deleted my contributions and semi-protected the entry without a reason. He then simply told me he wouldn't like to lift the semi-protection and to contact you. So here you are. I must edit the current Washington D.C. entry because it doesn't host any information on the Righteous and the Shoah. As I told Wehwalt, is the semi-protection there to prevent people from talking about antiSemitism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gariwo (talk • contribs) 14:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No answer, yet... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gariwo (talk • contribs) 16:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Warned Tapdancinghotdog
Noticing you considered the "Robert Warrington" edit to Washington Metro as good-faith when reverting, I believe I should explain why I warned Tapdancinghotdog. I took a look at their userpage and their history, and it appears that Tapdancinghotdog is the Robert Warrington in question, and in light of the user's history, putting two and two together brought me to the conclusion that this was vandalism rather than good-faith editing on their part. Please don't hesitate to revert this user and warn them for vandalism if it continues. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Gaza GA review
Hi, I was looking through WP:GAN and noticed that the Gaza article has been on hold for over five weeks. There doesn't seem to have been much discussion on the talk page in April, so what's the status of the article? Nev1 (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, three months is way too long for anything to be on hold. I ask that you either finish it asap or let another reviewer handle what's left and remove the hold tag. Wizardman  16:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Washington Metro stations
The data in the table you reverted is no longer correct. For example, in more recent lists of stations, I've seen Silver Spring as having surpassed Shady Grove for total ridership. I'd love to be able to incorporate more recent data, but have come up against a brick wall. If you have more recent ridership data for the article, that would be great. Otherwise, yes, the data is now out of date and misleading to readers, and I hope you'll reconsider your reversion. Best, Geraldk (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The data is valid, cited properly, and is clearly labeled as being from May 2006. The Metrorail system has not undergone any serious changes since May 2006, and the numbers generally compare with those figures from May 2008. As such, I do not believe that including the information is any way "misleading" to readers. Additionally, this data is important because it's the only listing that has jurisdiction-specific data. If you have a reliable source that claims that Silver Spring station has surpassed Shady Grove station, please feel free to provide it; however, deleting an entire section of data simply because there may be a minor fluctuation in ridership numbers is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Best, epicAdam(talk) 01:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Then here's the problem. By keeping the table, you have two tables (one above the other) that disagree. Not just about the ridership numbers, but about the rankings. #4 on the top 10 chart is Dupont, #5 Farragut N, that's reversed on the table immediately below it. Same with #7 and #8, Gallery Place and Foggy Bottom. Pentagon City, #10 on the top 10 list, isn't even on the top 10 of the jurisdiction list, and Rosslyn in the top 10 of the jurisdiction list isn't even in the top 10 now. My guess is that in the Maryland and Virginia portions of the list there would be many similar switches in rankings. If the jurisdiction list exists so readers can see the ten most commonly used stations in each jurisdiction, and the lists have shifted enough that some have dropped off the list and some have been added, then yes, that list is misleading. And out of date. Geraldk (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, a year-on-year, a slight change in a few hundred riders may cause the "rankings" to appear inconsistent. However, that problem is easily alleviated by the fact that the article states, very clearly, that the information is from two different years. I have faith that people are smart enough to understand that point. Best, epicAdam(talk) 04:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Washington DC
You appear to be making a spelling mistake in your AWB edits - according to this edit which I've corrected. Thought you would want to know ASAP. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sam. I noticed it and corrected it! Best, epicAdam(talk) 21:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Bayhawks & Sports in Washington, D.C.
I removed the team from the table because they now play in Annapolis. —D. Monack talk 22:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah okay. Well, considering that they're still the "Washington Bayhawks" I still think it's okay to include them; similar to the Redskins. Best, epicAdam(talk) 02:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)