User talk:Epicadam/Archive 3

Location change (and reservations made) for DC meetup

We originally considered TGI Friday's in Foggy Bottom as the meetup location, however I stopped by TGI Friday's this evening to make reservations. I was less than impressed, which is consistent with the comments on APK's talk page. The staff was not so helpful, and the menu has hardly anything vegetarian which is an issue for some people. And, they apparently don't take reservations, except perhaps if you call 24 hours ahead of time.

So, I checked out the Bertucci's pizza/Italian place across the street (21st & I St NW). Their staff couldn't have been more helpful, think it will be fairly quiet so we will be able to hear each other, and is a suitable place for us (e.g suitable for Wikipedians under-21, accessible for the disabled, not too noisy, etc.). So, reservations are made for Bertucci's at 5pm on Saturday. I hope you can make it to the meetup. --Aude (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

D.C. Meetup, Saturday, June 6, 2009

The 7th DC Meetup dinner will be held this Saturday, June 6th, starting at 5 p.m. The event will be at Bertucci's, near George Washington University and the Foggy Bottom metro station. It will follow the Apps for Democracy open source event at GWU. For details or to RSVP if you haven't already, see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 7. (You have received this announcement because your user page indicates that you live in Maryland, Virginia, or DC.)
Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 19:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) to report errors, please leave a note here.

Volunteer opportunity in Bethesda, Thursday, July 16

The Wikimedia Foundation will be conducting an all-day Academy at the National Institutes of Health, in Bethesda, Maryland, on Thursday, July 16. The team that will be teaching at the Academy, a mix of paid staff and volunteers, is looking for four more volunteers to be teaching assistants, providing one-to-one assistance in workshops whenever a workshop participant has a problem following the instructional directions. (We currently have two editors signed up as teaching assistants, and are looking for a total of six.)

The NIH editing workshops are only for two hours, but volunteers are asked to meet the Wikimedia Foundation team at the hotel in Bethesda at about 7:15 a.m. (time to be finalized shortly) and to stay for the entire day, which ends at 4:30 p.m. Lunch will be provided. (The full schedule can be found here.)

The team is not necessarily looking for expert editors (though they are welcome), just people who can help novices who might get stuck when trying to do some basic things. If you've been an editor for at least 3 months, and have done at least 500 edits, you probably qualify.

If you're interested, please send John Broughton an email. If you might be interested, but would like further information, please post a note on his user talk page, so that he can respond there, and others can see what was asked.

(You have received this posting because your user page indicates that you live in Maryland or DC. --EdwardsBot (talk) 04:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Washington Metro

You refer to the "most recent talk page consensus", but that wasn't about Metrorail (Washington, D.C.). After a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Washington Metro#Should Washington Metro be renamed to Metrorail (Washington, D.C.)? the article was moved to that title on June 7, 2007. SchuminWeb then reverted this move on October 7, 2008, with no apparent discussion, citing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) - but that page talks about ambiguity, which is a concern here, since both Metrorail and Metrobus are part of the Metro. So the last apparent discussion about Metrorail (Washington, D.C.) was in favor of moving it there. --NE2 16:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay... so SchuminWeb made the page move and there was no complaint. That reflects a new consensus by default. Now, seven months later another discussion was opened on whether to move the page back. The consensus was to not move the page, and that is now the current consensus. Like I said, if you have arguments to make, do so on the talk page. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 16:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There would have been a complaint had I had the page on my watchlist... --NE2 16:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That's unfortunate but again, please don't discuss this on my talk page. Use the article's talk page instead. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 16:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm discussing a move that you made. Shouldn't that be discussed on your talk page? --NE2 16:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The page move was simply an administrative action based on the current recently-discussed consensus. If you wish to move the page back, please do so by forming a new consensus on the article's talk page. I really don't know how much clearer I can make it. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 16:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I already explained to you that the recently discussed consensus had *nothing* to do with Metrorail (Washington, D.C.). --NE2 16:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Washington Metro GAR notification

Washington Metro has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

D.C. Meetup, Saturday, September 26

The 8th DC Meetup dinner will be held this Saturday, September 26, starting at 6 p.m. The event will be at Burma Restaurant (740 6th St, NW near the Gallery Place-Chinatown Metro station). For details or to RSVP if you haven't already, see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 8. (You have received this announcement because your user page indicates that you live in Maryland, Virginia, or DC.) --EdwardsBot (talk) 06:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

note from WashPost writer

Adam, I am working on a story about this page. Can you contact me at rosenwaldm@washpost.com? Thanks. MikeR1717^(talk) 15:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice story. Adam - sadly the flu kept me from weighing in on this but I'd have just been gilding the lily anyhow. Nice job representing yourself & Wikipedia! JohnInDC (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Height limits in D.C.

Hello. You have recently added to article about Washington, D.C. an information, that "Despite popular belief, no law has ever limited buildings to the height of the United States Capitol building or the Washington Monument." However, here and here this "popular belief" still can be found. I hope You'll find some time to fix this issue :) Regards, User:Bambosz Karate (PL). 89.72.1.175 (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!

Famous man!--Wehwalt (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations indeed! Just finished the article - hopefully exactly the kind of publicity that will bring in new editors. Keep it up and you may become "notable"! bd2412 T 14:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me join in congratulating you on the fine Washington Post profile and your good work. -- Dauster (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Post Article

Hey Adam, it's Eric (Wrigley)! Congrats on the Post article! Surprised the hell outta me seeing you on the front of washingtonpost.com. I have done a lot of Wiki editing for Silver Spring, MoCo, and my neighborhood, as well, though surely not as thoroughly as you have managed DC's page. I've probably made changes to DC's page, as well, at some point or another. Again, Congrats!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crzytwnman (talk • contribs) 04:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my congrats as well! That's pretty sweet. I'm glad your getting the recognition.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 21:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

A message for the "very, very courteous" Epicadam.

Now that you're a celebrity, please, promise me you won't shave your head, buy a chihuahua, or allow your hoo-ha to be photographed while getting out of vehicles. APK because, he says, it's true 09:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. - Have you ever seen these interactive WaPo stories? I just found them. APK because, he says, it's true 16:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S.S. - Here's a laugh at my expense. (scroll down to the end of the article) APK because, he says, it's true 16:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I had seen the map and the article attributed to Don Hawkins (he's one of our board members), but I hadn't seen the other stuff. It's definitely interesting... probably needs to be worked into an article somewhere. Did you attend the "race" tonight? ;-) -epicAdam^(talk) 03:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, the annual running of the high-heeled bulls. I'm a bad ghey. I didn't watch this year's race because the weather was so crapalicious, not to mention, dangerous. I swung by the Soviet Safeway around 6:30 and noticed crowds were already lining 17th Street. Did you watch _{or participate}? I wonder how many Lady Gagas were in attendance. ("Bless God and bless the gays!") Sarah Palin, Carol Schwartz, and the FLDS ladies were quite popular last year. APK because, he says, it's true 11:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw it, but I was not a participant. Friends came over to my place and ate takeout "Chinese" food before witnessing the travesty that was the 2009 17th Street Drag Race. Oh, and I avoid the Soviet Safeway like the plague unless there are really good deals... I tend to go to this converted-skating-rink palace of wonderfulness instead. :-) Laters! Oh, and respond on FaceSpace, MyBook, whatever! -epicAdam^(talk) 19:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in here; not sure if this is poor form. Just wanted to say congratulations for the Post article, that I love the small world that is Wikipedia, and that I was also at the race on Tuesday. I live a block away and I think this was my fifth year attending. There were too many umbrellas to see much, though -- the man on a ladder(??) had the right idea. Everything counts (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

DC Architecture and a Few Miscellaneous Items

Dear Adam:

I read the Post article with interest. Thank you for correcting the misinformation about the DC building height limitations! I have a few other minor corrections or revisions of nuance to propose to you.

1. The article indicates that the McMillan Plan is regarded as the "completion" of L'Enfant's plan. Indeed, it is widely regarded as such, but in fact, the urban design proposed by the McMillan Commission was thoroughly different from L'Enfant's. First, it's worth noting that, strictly speaking, it was not L'Enfant's plan that was executed in the first place--it was that of Andrew Ellicott, which was based on the work of L'Enfant, but contained a number of important differences (including the exact routes of certain major avenues, the designs of some of the major public squares and parks, and the layout of what became the National Mall). The McMillan Plan (officially called the Senate Park Commission Plan) did indeed call for a resurrection of the basic spirit of the L'Enfant/Ellicott plans, but the later design was heavily influenced be prevailing architectural attitudes at the turn of the 20th century. The Senate Park Commission envisioned a much grander and more elegant monumental core than did L'Enfant.

2. The article describes the original Library of Congress building as "French Second Empire." Although there is evidence that aspects of its design were inspired by the Opera House in Paris, most architectural historians would argue that the LoC building is more of a "German Renaissance" design.

3. The article refers to the Old Stone House as the oldest building standing in the District of Columbia. This is actually a very tricky issue. While the Old Stone House is regarded as the oldest LARGELY INTACT building still standing on ITS ORIGINAL SITE in the District, there is at least one other building that could claim to be the OLDEST BUILDING IN the District. The Lindens, a private house in Kalorama, was built in 1754 -- more than a decade before the Old Stone House -- but the catch is that it was built ELSEWHERE and later moved to its current site. There are also several PARTS of other buildings in the city that are older than these structures and remain standing, but have been absorbed into larger structures.

4. The article's mention of the National Building Museum could be misinterpreted to suggest that the museum is a federally operated institution like the Smithsonian or the National Gallery of Art. While it was indeed chartered by Congress, the National Building Museum is a private, nonprofit institution. It also includes some long-term exhibitions, in addition to temporary and traveling shows.

5. When Sharon Pratt Kelly was elected mayor, she was still Sharon Pratt Dixon. She later remarried while in office and took the name Kelly.

Thanks for your efforts!

- A local architectural historian —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchDes (talk • contribs) 15:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding item 1, above:

That's not all that the McMillan Commission did. L'Enfant's original plan called for a "Grand Avenue, 400 feet in breadth, and about a mile in length, bordered with gardens, ending in a slope from the houses on each side" in the center of the present National Mall.(See "The L'Enfant Plan for Washington"). Ellicott's revision of L'Enfant's plan retained this avenue. (See Andrew Ellicott's "Plan of the City of Washington in the Territory of Columbia") As you can presently observe, L'Enfant's "grand avenue" in the Mall does not exist. Blame or thank the McMillan Commission and others for this largely overlooked demonstration of the truth of the old adage: "The best laid plans of mice and men oft go astray". Corker1 (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Washington DC minimum elevation

Hey, I just read the good article in Washington Post re your WP improvement work. Great going! Out of curiosity I scrolled thru the DC article, and was indeed impressed by its quality. However, I noticed one factoid that could be an error; it states the maximum and minimum elevations in the District. It says the minimum is sea level at the Potomac intersection. I doubt that is true; otherwise the river would not continue to flow southeast-ward. If you have access to a USGS 7.5' quadrangle map (WASHINGTON, D.C. EAST, probably), you could see what it lists as the riverfront elevation. Thanks in advance. Raymondwinn (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the comment above by Raymondwinn:

The southwest boundary of the District of Columbia is the Potomac River's mean level at the Virginia shore. The River is therefore entirely within the District.

The River is tidal below Chain Bridge. The lowest point at the bottom of the river within the District (probably near the Woodrow Wilson Bridge) is the lowest point in the District.

In a tidal area, the intersection of river surface and land at mean tide is the same elevation as the mean sea level. The lowest point in the District is below sea level.

During the incoming tide, the Potomac River flows northwest-ward, not southeast-ward. -- Corker1 (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

WP article

Congratulations on being featured in a page one article in the Post and carrying the DC article to FA. The reporter contacted me (among others, I suppose). I hadn't worked on the article for awhile, so I demurred from an interview, but wrote some positive comments (which weren't used). I had no idea where he was going but he did what he said he would do, and it turned out pretty well. Again, congratulations! Student7 (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you to everyone who has left notes on my talk page. I will be responding to everybody's comments over the next day or so, but do know they are appreciated. As always, if you think something can be improved, please be bold and dive right in. I'm truly humbled by the support and recognition I received and again I thank you. Best always, epicAdam^(talk) 06:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have just registered as a user to make a comment on the entry for the Temperance Fountain. Thanks for your good work! In the entry on the Temperance Fountain at 7th and Pennsylvania, there is confusion about the location of the fountain. The fountain is located in a truncated wedge formed by the diagonals Pennsylvania and Indiana Avenues and Seventh Street. Its location could be given as Penn and 7th or as Indiana and 7th. The writer may have read both these locations in sources and assumed that the fountain had been moved (possibly it has been moved a few feet at most in reconfiguring that open area), and states wrongly that Indiana is several blocks away. I work for the National Archives and am fond of the fountain and very familiar with that part of town. ref></ref> any map of Washington DC or a quick trip by Metro to Archives stop.Paperlover (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Award

		The Press Barnstar
		Superb work on the Washington, D.C. article and related articles, and nice to see you get the recognition. --Aude (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Congrats

I also wanted to congrat. you on the Washington Post article. I found out because the Secretary of State of PUerto Rico, the Honorable Kenneth McClintock e-mailed it to me. For those who may come to this talk page and not know what I am talking about, please read about Adam here: "Amateur historian rescues D.C.'s Wikipedia page"-The Washington Post; Friday, October 23, 2009; by: By Michael S. Rosenwald, Tony the Marine (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Finished Regarding DC Meetup #9

• You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
• Planning — for the most part, anyway — is now finished (see here) for DC Meetup #9.

--NBahn (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for your assistance regarding District of Columbia voting rights. SMP0328. (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Npendleton restored his biased Introduction, but then Patrickneil reverted that restoration. Npendleton, including his alias 207.171.146.226, needs to be blocked, because otherwise he will never stop his POV-pushing. SMP0328. (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I already submitted a report yesterday: WP:AN3 All that's left to do is to wait and see. I did make specific mention that the user and anon IP are the same person. Thanks, epicAdam^(talk) 16:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: Someone found your block request to be "stale" and then Npendleton made an even greater alteration to the article, which I reverted. I believe it would be helpful for you to comment again at AN3. SMP0328. (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871

Hi. Just wondering why you reverted the deletion of that last sentence. It doesn't seem to make much sense or be necessary. The previous version was "It is for this reason that the city is known by two names; "Washington" and the "District of Columbia" are now used interchangeably" which is a little better. To the best of my knowledge the Organic Act did not get rid of the name "Washington", just its charter. Station1 (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it did not get rid of the name "Washington" but from that point forward, the entire District became collectively known as "Washington, D.C.", including areas outside of the City of Washington, such as Georgetown. That's the point being made. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 20:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Washington, DC (Geography)

ok. I understand that some of the 'info I added' was uncited, but there was no urgent need for a full revert. The main purpose of the edit, was of course, to avoid exact resemblance of the description at Geography of Washington, DC. If you read the remainder of my edit, you would have seen that I organised information progressively (winter -> spring -> summer -> fall); it was previously organised as (spring/fall -> winter -> summer), which is less sensible. --- 华钢琴49 (TALK) 23:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Reordering is fine if you think that doing so makes more sense. However, as for removing information, there is no prohibition on wording being substantially the same in two articles; that happens a great deal on Wikipedia. When text is similar, instead of removing information from one article, it's best to expand the content of the other (especially when dealing with sub pages). If you believe that sourced information is unnecessary in the main article, then that is something would probably want to bring up on the talk page. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 02:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Underway Regarding DC Meetup #10

• You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
  
• Please be advised that planning is now underway (see here) for DC Meetup #10. --NBahn (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Happy Memorial Day

The Lesbians have invaded!

I hope you stay safe this holiday weekend. Word on the street is the lesbians are all riled up after their drum festival. APK whisper in my ear 21:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. I can only imagine what they'll be like after pride... Wow, that is a crap page. Anyway, are you around? Let me know... -epicAdam^(talk) 02:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer rights

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Image placement in Washington, D.C.

I disagree with your assessment. An image under a header is perfectly acceptable and reasonably common, especially since long infoboxes create this necessity all the time. Regardless, left-aligned images, whether directly under a header or not, are acceptable (especially when there is already an image in the section on the right side; it allows for a better flow). Second, an image shouldn't disrupt the flow of the text if at all possible. On my screen (res 1440x900), the airport photo overflows the next header. A displaced header is much worse than a left-aligned image under a header. Plus, the wider the display gets, the more likely the image will overflow the next header. A quick switch like I made solves the problem and only lets the photo overflow the header line and the text below, which is much less disruptive. I think we should revert back to my edit. Your thoughts? (Unfortunately, it seems to happen a lot in this article; at least 2 or 3 other images disrupt subsection titles, which, while causing less impact than the airport photo, is still disruptive). upstateNYer 21:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Not left-aligning images under a header is a general style convention in web design and publishing. Pointing out how something appears on your browser matters very little; everybody's browser is different and it's impossible to format Wiki markup to generate the same way for each individual. In any event, if you're really that hard-up about it, go ahead and revert. It doesn't change the subject matter so I'm not going to argue about it. -epicAdam^(talk) 00:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yea, if you're okay with it, I'm going to revert. I understand your point about individual browsers, however in this case it affects at least most users. Only if a user has their browser sized thinly (not the best word, I admit), would this image not overflow into the following header (and there's no text to overflow into on the right because the sister cities list is left-aligned). In general, not just web publishing, you would never see an image disrupt a heading; it's just poor practice. Anyway, thanks for responding and not going all "this is my article" on me. upstateNYer 01:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)