Jump to content

User talk:Dabomb87/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Re: Watch out!

moved to User talk:Gary King/Archive 9#Watch out! Gary King (talk) 05:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Do your worst :) Gary King (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Virtual Boy games

Hey, could you check back on the work done here? It looks pretty good, and you said you would revisit. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr (converse) 17:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

<br />

Regarding this and, likely, similar edits, the forward slash following "br" is not needed. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but that happens as part of the script I use, not manual. I could individually revoke each of those line break edits, but it would be too much work and it doesn't change anything. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Can the script be modified to prevent it from adding the forward slashes? →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not my script. User:Brighterorange created it. If the slashes bother you that much, I can revoke those individual changes in the future—the script allows the user to preview and modify the edits. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The forward slash is needed. For HTML, it used to be optional, but for XHTML, it's strongly recommended that it be used so that it works with as many browsers as possible. Gary King (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you direct me to the policy/guideline which says this? It is my understanding that the wiki software automatically converts <br> to <br /> for XHTML compatibility. →Wordbuilder (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah; I'm talking about in general. Yes, the wiki software converts them; it's still definitely good practice to include the slashes, though. For instance, I would never recommend that a bot go through articles just to add the slash, but I don't mind seeing the script convert the slash when it's used to convert other things, too. Gary King (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Which is precisely the case here. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. Since the software handles the conversion, it doesn't hurt anything aside from adding some characters, so it's no big deal. Thanks for the info. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks Gary. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I know you don't like these messages, but ping

State Route 74 (New York – Vermont)'s FAC needs a recheck on your comments. Thanks!Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 17:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Done.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 18:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Toa Payoh ritual murders FAC

Hi, Dabomb87. Thank you for taking a look at the article and commenting in its FAC. I have tried to address your concerns, though I have further questions for the "then" and the bombastic sentence. The story might be grisly, but I hope you have a good read. Jappalang (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I have followed your suggestions and edited the article accordingly. Could you revisit the article when you have the time and deem if it is suitable for FA or if it still requires further work? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorting and linking of dates

Unfortunately, due to the inclusion of the {{sortname}} template in the list, the addition of the {{dts}} template would cause the template transclusion limit to be broken for that article, leaving much of the functionality of the table and the reference templates in tatters. Sorry. – PeeJay 16:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it in a few minutes. However, I've got an even bigger problem; for some reason, when I have either the Friendly or Twinkle scripts enabled, table sorting does not work for me anymore. I see you are using both scripts; is the case the same for you? Could you try emptying your monobook.js page and just enter the following:
importScript('User:Ioeth/friendly.js');
importScript('User:AzaToth/twinkle.js');

Do a hard refresh, and see if sorting still works? Gary King (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I posted it here. Gary King (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
They already watch that page, but I'll ping both about it just in case, I suppose. Gary King (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
List of English football transfers winter 2008–09. They don't even come close to the template limit. Gary King (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep, the shortened tab names is new. I don't like them thought so I disabled them immediately after they were introduced. I don't think they are related as that change was made weeks earlier; I think the table sorting problem must have happened today or yesterday considering how both of us probably use table sorting fairly often. Template limits can be found by viewing the source code of any page and finding "NewPP limit report". Gary King (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, fair enough. The thing is that previous seasons' transfer articles had broken the transclusion limit, so I thought it would be best not to risk breaking it on the winter 2008-09 one too. – PeeJay 23:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

FAC reviews

Hey, Dabomb87, I just wanted to thank you for your reviews at FAC; with the page so backlogged, and reviewers lacking, your feedback is most appreciated. Happy New Year! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for all the work you do to keep WP:FAC running smoothly. Best wishes for the New Year! Dabomb87 (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


word removed in Metroid Prime Hunters

Sorry about this. A javascript swear-word remover in my browser (Firefox) removed the word "dang" - i did not. Thanks. --212.139.87.189 (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Note: My user name is Ajfweb

FLCs

Is there a good reason? No. I was too busy chasing birds and Matthew was working on articles, so we both forgot. I believe that Matthew is doing some closures right now. -- Scorpion0422 05:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Terrence Oglesby

Updated DYK query On 4 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Terrence Oglesby, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Jack Kemp

Thanks for the pointers at Jack Kemp. In response to your comment. I think this article suffers from the fact that the politics people don't want to handle all the sports and the sports people don't want to handle all the politics. I am hoping Byron Brown passes GAC soon so my next nominee won't have the same problems.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi 'Dabomb87', List of districts of West Bengal has got promoted to FL. Thanks for your comments/suggestions in FLC review.--GDibyendu (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback can be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! — Aitias // discussion 07:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Your rollback

Congrats on being accept for permission to use the rollback function. Hope you'll use it wisely. Happy new year. -- signed by SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 (spell my name backwards) at 07:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

My Test?

What test was that?

Esperanto Guy EoGuy (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks again for all your efforts and patience on High-level radioactive waste management. It was a pleasure working with you, and learning how some things are done here. You were most helpful and responsive to my dumb questions. Hope we have a chance to get together again on another project. And I hope you had a least a LITTLE holiday... Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: List of Colorado Avalanche players

That would be excellent. I am aware that these lists have fallen below the current FL standards, and was already planning to upgrade List of Calgary Flames players as part of my attempt to build a Flames featured topic. I know we have a few player FLs, so yes, a list of anything you feel is in need of improvement would be ideal, and we at WP:HOCKEY will attempt to address them. Cheers, Resolute 23:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I'm heading out to a junior hockey game shortly, so I likely wont be able to put any serious work into addressing suggestions until tomorrow at the earliest. And, I look forward to, and appreciate, the review of the NHL history article. Resolute 23:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I've done some upgrades to this article, and engaged another hockey editor to help look over the other player lists. Let me know if you have any further concerns regarding the quality of this list. Thanks, Resolute 17:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Metroid media

Do you think that it's okay that there are two different table styles; one in "Video games" and another in "Soundtracks" and "Printed media"? I'm working on making the page a featured list. Gary King (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think its fine. In fact, I like it because it further underlines the difference between video games and the rest. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Grammar problem

See WT:FICT#Because I fail at grammar. Looks insignificant, but you'd be surprised to what extent people go to wikilawyer this stuff. Any advice you can give would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr (converse) 23:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

I've requested arbitration over this date delinking situation and the conduct of those involved. You are named as a party. Please see here. Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Julius Franks

That Who's Who info probably made the difference between me banging my head against the wall to get this promoted over and over again and it passing. Thanks. I think it is now ready. Does the source show anything on Thomas Wilcher or Toni Preckwinkle that is missing from their articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Will take a look tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

New Award

see barnstars page

Picture captions

Thanks for you copyedit of captions here. I'm not trying to badger your edits, I'm just inquiring so my future editing can hopefully improve. I was just wondering why the captions were originally wrong as WP:CAP#Wording seems to say that as extended nominal groups there should not be final periods. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It had nothing to do with the style guidelines, I was just improving the flow of the captions. In doing so, they became complete sentences, so I added periods to the end. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok thanks for clarifying. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hubert Maga

Hi Dabomb (which you are). Wuld you mind copyediting Hubert Maga? ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 19:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

dat linking rfc summary

I think the summary is fair and unbiased - to the point that counting !votes allows, but as you aren't trying to take it to the next step (actually determining true consensus) that's fine. --MASEM 22:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

PR review request

If you've got time, could you review Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Orlando Magic head coaches/archive1? Thanks! Gary King (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Date-linking summary

Thanks; I'll do it in the next six hours, I hope. Tony (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Summaries

Those for my RfC look fine. I'd like more time to examine the raw data for the others. Tony (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Auto formatting

Am I right in thinking that if a new method of auto formatting were created that addressed your concerns (not working for anon. readers being the biggest one I'm aware of) that you wouldn't have any objections to it? I know we (MOSNUM) go round and round on this, but on this issue (separate from date linking of course), would that be agreeable for you? —Locke Cole • t • c 22:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I would not object to it, no. The consensus supports your view that some method of autoformatting should be retained. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I do not believe that the evidence does support this move. Dabomb, why is it that you believe whether day or month goes first is a problem in the first place? I'd really like to know. Tony (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't want this to happen either, but there seems to be a significant amount of people who do. Compromise might be necessary to move past this lingering issue. Of more importance to me is date linking. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and for what it's worth I think we generally see eye to eye on date linking as well, it's just the manner of delinking existing dates that's causing problems. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 02:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • For readers where potentially valuable date links are blindly removed without being checked for relevancy, and for our editors who may have intentionally linked dates (not simply for auto formatting) because they believed the date article to be relevant. A script/bot can't discern what is or isn't valuable and that's the crux of the issue for me. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Jack Kemp FAC

You previously opposed Jack Kemp and the commentary has been restarted. Of course, I don't really want you to restate your opposition, but I have to notify you that there is renewed discussion at the discussion page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Temporary injunction in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

The following temporary injunction has been passed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking;

Until this case is decided or otherwise directed by the Arbitration Committee, all editors are instructed not to engage in any program of mass linking or delinking of dates in existing articles, including but not limited to through the use of bots, scripts, tools, or otherwise. This injunction is entered as an interim measure and does not reflect any prejudgment of any aspect of the case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 11:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

you might be interested

Have you seen this issue?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Evidence#Civility

(1) He diffs to an accusation that non-admins can't see.

(2) He raises stuff I wrote on the AdminReview page (and later withdrew) that seems to have nothing to do with the current case.


I've commented here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Evidence#Complete_denial_of_natural_justice

It seems that the ArbCom hearing is involving abuse and injustice just in third-party submissions: a chance to get at me for daring to start the AdminReview process page?

T

copyediting texas

I have divided the Texas page into 6 parts. Hopefully with more manageable chunks, people will be more willing to copyedit the page. would you be willing to copy edit one section of the Texas page?

Talk:Texas#Copyedit_plan Oldag07 (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Listed buildings in Runcorn, Cheshire FL

Made it! Many thanks for your help and encouragement. It's a first for WikiProject Cheshire. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! Hope to see more. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Bleach chapters

I'll see if I can add a bit more to the summaries for a future nom. I ll tell you when Im finished. By the way, can the nom be withdrew? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I finished the expansion. Here there are all the changes. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I will look at it again today or tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

WCW Hall of Fame

Hey DA-BOMB!, hows it going? When you have time, can you check out the above article, which I want to nominate at FLC. (Dont worry about the sourcing, I got that covered at a future FLC). If you comment, may you leave comments on its talk page? Please and Thank You.--Truco 23:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Requesting an (unusual) peer review

Hey, this is a bit more of an unusual peer review request than my others. I'm working on Outliers (book), a book article, and I think it's pretty good so far (been working on it for only a few days but it's come a long way), and I'd like to receive as much feedback as possible on my first book article before bringing it to WP:FAC. So if you've got the time and/or interest, please review it at Wikipedia:Peer review/Outliers (book)/archive1. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Megadeth discography

You not completed the review, return to the page, and talk about Zobbel. Regards, Cannibaloki 01:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Publisher in references

Thanks for providing a detailed explanation of why publishers are not needed. I agree with what you said, my only slight hesitancy for neglecting publishers is that for some clearly reliable sources (e.g. The Independent), they might not always have the cited published being the normal company. (e.g. it is normally published by Independent News & Media, however I think that for something like this the work is the same, but the publisher should be cited as FindArticles). You seem to be quite scholarly on Wikipedia referencing, so I just thought I'd enquire. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. However, for the article in question, I think the articles were taken straight from the source. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. So you can neglect the publisher if the work is from the original presumed source, and must specify it if it is from some other publisher. That does seems logical and sensible. Thanks for clarifying. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Linda (1997)

Just letting you know that I've addressed the concerns you had at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Linda (1997). Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hellfighters (film)

You wrote in my talk page

And in response I would say: (1) As to plot summary:

I'm not sure what the exact rules are, but since plot summaries are generally not published elsewhere they would, to some extent, have to be exempt from the "no original research" rule, e.g. someone writing a plot summary of a movie by definition would be including something which is either exclusive to Wikipedia or not available many other places. As for the plot summary, I've watched the movie many, many times and know it quite well.

(2) as to the notation t/c:

I have a habit of inserting entries in shorthand. "T/C" is shorthand for "Technical Correction", what it basically means is one of two things (1) someone else saved something missing a minor point, they misspelled a word, left off a semicolon or otherwise left some minor and otherwise trivial error that I have corrected; (2) (the more usual case, especially if the t/c change occurs right after a prior change) I screwed up and saved a rewrite without checking it because I thought it was okay, then discovered after I saved it that I misspelled a word and I had to go in, edit it, and resave it to make a correction that I shouldn't have made in the first place, and had I examined the edit before saving it I would have caught the error. Those are the usual reasons for a T/C change, e.g. a technical correction for a minor speling; punctuation: grammer or other similar minor ereor. :) Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You wrote in reply on my page

Generally I don't take reasonable questions about why I wrote something personally; in one case, someone who had serious involvement in an issue asked me about an article I wrote, where he had no idea about the subject. I checked and was unable to verify the item, so I've asked for it to be removed. Someone checking on something allowed me to remove crap and make the encyclopedia more useful. Most of us do understand that we all want a quality product, and I take questions asked in a civil tone in that fashion.
I don't know if it was John Wayne's best performance, however I do think the movie was far, far better than the critics savaged it, however. It personally is one of my three favorite films, having been knocked from number two favorite (after The Andromeda Strain) to number three (after Starship Troopers knocked Andromeda Strain to number two. Or it might be number four, I also like The Medusa Touch a lot and it could possibly be third or a tie with this one. (And I think Richard Burton's performance in that film shows how much he wasted his talents as an actor.) Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of New York Islanders head coaches

I think I have completed all of your requests. Thanks! iMatthew // talk // 16:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

FAC thanks

Even though we ran out of time to complete the fixes, I wanted to thank you for your attention on the History of the National Hockey League (1967–1992) article. I am going to give it a little while before re-nominating, and I expect following your efforts, it should pass easier. I was wondering, if you aren't that busy, if you could complete your copy editing for this article, and possible for History of the National Hockey League (1992–present) as well? I'm in no rush for this. I found with the first two articles that I got better results from your and Giants2008's reviews during the actual FAC nomination than I got from the peer reviews, so this time I figured I would just bother you before re-nominating so we can all save time. ;o) Resolute 16:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will get around to it later today or tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Appreciate it, thanks! And yes, I am waiting a while before renominating. Maxim was attempting to find an uninvolved copyeditor as well, and I want to give him time to do so. Cheers, Resolute 16:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:FLC

Haha. You got to be quick :P But what do you mean save the sports list at the top? Also, thanks for the comments, I think I addressed them all.--TRUCO 19:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant that I haven't reviewed the FA cup list or starting pitchers list, and I won't until the nominators fix your issues first. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh. Yeah, I hate when that happens, like other reviewers review thoroughly before you. Looks like we got our own edit war going :D.--TRUCO 19:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, guess we are going to have to take this to ANI :D. Anyway, all issues were resolved, I supported. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Haha. I wouldn't be surprised if you get blocked :P But thanks, your review was appreciated. I rarely see any FLCs from you..--TRUCO 19:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
'Tis unfortunate. I spend so much time reviewing and copy-editing for others that I don't have that much time for article writing. I will try to get back to it later this month. You'll be watching the game, of course? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, yeah I see what you mean. And you know it, I will be watching my Ravens win. Who are you supporting?--TRUCO 19:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Ravens, definitely! I hate most teams from Pennsylvania, so I am hoping for a Ravens–Cardinals Super Bowl. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Great! I don't know, I'm a bit skeptical about Arizona, to me they seem a bit inexperienced at the Super Bowl, but they could get an upset over Philly.--TRUCO 19:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll let you have the 2 new ones :P--TRUCO 22:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
So kind of you... :) Dabomb87 (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Damn, Bmore lost :( By chance, can you pre-review NWA Hall of Fame?--TRUCO 20:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about your Ravens. I will be rooting for the Cards in the Super Bowl. Yeah, I will take a look. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, I added some images, can you run-by them to see if they are okay, thanks. + Yeah, maybe next year, but did you see the game? We weren't playing like ourselves. I want to root for Arizona but it seems like Steelers may have a good chance.--TRUCO 22:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know on all these updates :)--TRUCO 01:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Heh, I just don't like to see all that work from the contributors go to waste! Dabomb87 (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, they increased that article substantially, and is well deserved to remain as an FL.TRUCO 01:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:2008 Tennis Masters Cup/GA1

You helping with this? rst20xx (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for backing me up there. Quite apart from its being a monster to read and review, they actually have 2-3 GAs worth of material. Re-structurung would be a big job, and I'm prepared to be more patient with it than GA reviwers normally are. --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Any idea how long Oxford St. will be away? --Philcha (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
None at all. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

RFAR and Locke Cole

To answer your question, there is indeed. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I thought so. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Meshuggah FAC

Greetings Dabomb87! You supported the FAC Meshuggah on its 2nd nomination. That nomination was not promoted, but it is currently nominated again. I would very welcome if you consider to express your opinion on the current nomination: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meshuggah. Have a nice day!--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of female United States Cabinet Secretaries

Could you take a look at this FLC? I think I have addressed all of your comment. Thanks—Chris! ct 22:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States)

Thanks for your comments here. It has helped a lot. --Efe (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. --Efe (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Pantera discography

As you suggested, here is a list that needs to be reviewed. or Give me a copy-edit in this list, please. Cannibaloki 03:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I will do it within the next two days. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Cannibaloki 03:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
All done. Cannibaloki 01:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Tireless contributor

see barnstar page

Henry P. Caulfield, Jr.

Ok, reorganized some things and added inline refs. Please take a look and tell me if I missed anything. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Done that. Thanks for all your efforts. Pleasure working with you. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

FLC: List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK)

I think I have addressed all the points you mentioned and have indicated this on the review page. Would you mind checking through the article again and checking that I have corrected points from other reviewers. One thing I am yet to do is go through the wikilinks and alter redirects and dablinksCheers. 03md (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Golden Globe moves

I'm not sure I understand about the mass moves of Golden Globe Awards to pages that use the endash rather than the hyphen in the title. If a person is going to search for a specific award, they won't be entering an endash in the search box, so every time one is searched, they will go through a redirect; likewise through the templates and article page links. How helpful is that? Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:DASH, "a hyphen is not used as a substitute for an en dash that properly belongs in the title, for example in Eye–hand span." Here, the en dash serves as a separator (name of award and category). As you said, readers will be redirected even if they type in a hyphen. Therefore, the article is compliant with the style guidelines and at the same time accessible to readers. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I can understand the page rename, but I'm wondering if someone is going to work through the myriad of article/template backlinks to update them so that a redirect isn't used when a reader clicks blue links? Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN says that there is no need to fix redirects. I will get around to fixing the links in the navigation template though. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

List of foreign-born United States Cabinet Secretaries

Hi, I am wondering if you can do a pre-FLC review for this article/list. I'd appreciate it. Thanks.—Chris! ct 22:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not now. Perhaps in the next 24 hours. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Sure, this is not urgent, anyway. Thanks —Chris! ct 06:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Fiona Apple

Hi there! You reviewed the article I created, List of awards and nominations received by Rufus Wainwright, when I nominated it for FL status. I am currently working on a similar list for Fiona Apple. Here is a link to peer review, after which I will be attempting to get the list FL status as well. If you have a few minutes, I would appreciated any suggestions you may have. If not, thanks again for your help with the Wainwright awards list. Best wishes! -Whataworld06 (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Not now. Perhaps in the next 24 hours. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your time and suggestions! I will read the review and make edits to the article ASAP. -Whataworld06 (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

List audit

Is there any chance of you doing an FLC type peer review for a list that doesn't meet the unwritten 10-item rule, as it needs a peer review to be eligible for a topic. There is no rush, and I see (above) that you are in demand, so if you are too busy don't worry about it. Can you also see if my fix of a peer review comment you made was satisfactory. Many thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

List of World Series of Poker Ladies Champions

Hey there Bomb, I'm working on another list right now that I want to get into shape to submit to FLC, but before I submit it there, I want to try to address all of the issues that I can think of based on my first experience before sending it there. I have one issue though. Many of the women who have won the Ladies Championship haven't done anything else or are relatively unknown. In many cases, all we know is the bare basics and they currently do not have articles. This means that when I use the SORTNAME template, that it is giving me a bunch of redlinks.

The ladies championship (along with the Main Event and more recently the HORSE tournament) has become one of the most publicized events every year. In other words, I think this list is definately one that people would like to see, that being said, I don't know what to do about the redlinks? I could create stubs, but they would truly be stubs. So and so won the XXX Ladies Championship. With an infobox and WSOP bracelet box. Do you have any other/better ideas?---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 19:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and created stubs for each of them.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 06:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I would be interested in ideas on how to handle this. I was thinking about getting some of the annual results up to FLC standards as well. Here is the example of what the list currently looks like. Many of these players are non-notable players. WP:POKER has held that making the final table of a non-main event WSOP event does not confer notability to individuals players. The project has taken the position that one has to win the bracelet or the final table of the main event. Thus, creating articles for many of these people is not an option. Any advice?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 21:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
What you have done is good. If their is no reason to create an article, then don't even redlink them. However, this is a personal preference. I would rather see some names not linked than see that many red links. Others have differing opinions. Why don't you ask on WT:FLC? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Ah! My Goddess episodes (season 1)

Hey. I finally found a copyeditor able and willing to CE the list (Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs)) and he has completed his CE. Can you take a quick glance at the list and let me know if there are any other outstanding issues before I renominate it for FLC? There's no rush for this as I will not be renominating until at least the first of February. Thanks! NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 20:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to start reviewing sources, but I want to know what you do to specifically find sources that may seem unreliable?--TRUCO 21:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh okay, cool. I didn't know that applied to FLC as well :P--TRUCO 22:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Bleach episodes (season 10)/archive1

Think I've nailed everything. As I've noted on the PR, there were a host of anon edits between my edits when I set up the peer review and your review, so some of your comments didn't apply. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr (converse) 03:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on my FLC

Are done Thank you! iMatthew // talk // 13:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Malvern Hills

Did you even read the edit summary? Template warnings like that should be avoided where possible, and since I explicitly said that I'd undo the edit you should have queried me about it rather than doing that. 91.110.241.200 (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the polite reply. I know (from many years of experience before "retiring") what a pain it can be reverting and warning people. The reason for the edit was that it is part of a school project - I merely needed a screenshot of a vandalised version of the page, and previewing of course has the message "This is a preview" clearly written on it. Said screenshot will be used to teach people about wikis, vandalism, and the proper citation. Yeah, it was a little naughty but I was about to undo the edit. Actually, I'm rather happy to see someone react within a minute to undo vandalism and it reminds me of how good the people here continue to be.
Regards, 91.110.241.200 (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Hope your project goes well. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Access dates

Thank you for your kind offer to help adding the access dates in Plug-in hybrid. I wish I had a script which made that easier. 69.228.215.76 (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You could if you were registered ;) Dabomb87 (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I will get on those access dates later tonight (or today, depending on where you live). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to make sure that you didn't miss my reply on the NWA FLC about the sources since Chris began commenting.--TRUCO 00:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Nope, I caught it. I just wanted to wait a bit before immediately supporting. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Cool, cool.--TRUCO 01:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Guitar Hero III

Not sure, I will check the article soon and see what else is necessary. Gary King (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

WT:FLC

Thanks, I got your reply.   jj137 (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Amy Winehouse

FYI - If you happen to have more time and would be interested in another peer review (my last one for a while!) you are welcome to view the peer review for List of awards and nominations received by Amy Winehouse. If you are not interested, thanks again for your assistance with the Fiona Apple list! -Whataworld06 (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Boyce

You helped with this so thought you may want to know it's at FAC now. Input appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Canada in 2006

Thanks for fixing—I see all of the false positives in my Word changes, damn it. Colon should be bold, I think. That can be fixed easily, I hope, with one action in Word. Tony (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Wikicup and FLC

I just noticed your comment, thanks for letting me know. I would appreciate it if people did start revelaing that they are WikiCup entrants. -- Scorpion0422 16:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments in Local Time

If you can, please put Wikipedia talk:Comments in Local Time on your watchlist; I will be forming discussions there related to the script. I've already posted a question there and would appreciate input. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Los Angeles Clippers head coaches

I was wondering if you can copy-edit this article for me. I'd greatly appreciate it! -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 22:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the notice at the top of my talk page? ;) I will try to get around to it soon. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Oops, I'll go ask another copy-editor. Thanks for replying though. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 23:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh. Well, I ran through it already :) Dabomb87 (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Merci! -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 23:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There is something I think you should reply to... -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

cal.syoboi.jp

Concerning cal.syoboi.jp as a reliable source, I have posted on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard in the hope that someone there can shed some light on the situation. Just wanted to let you know! NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 05:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of One Piece episodes (season 9)

Hi, I fully understand if you don't have the time, but I was wondering if you've forgotten about this one. In any case, thanks for reviewing it in the first place. :) -- Goodraise (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Number-one albums of 1984 (U.S.)

Hi Dabomb87. I find your comments very helpful, sorry for not replying before. Do you think the article is ready to be featured list?, and maybe if you are not busy you could take a look at the lists for 1983 and 1985, I would appreciated any suggestions you may have. Thanks for everything. Frcm1988 (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is ready. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Dead link?

I'm sorry, I am not sure I understand the comment you left on the Fiona Apple featured article candidate entry regarding the dead link. The link appears to work for me. Am I supposed to find another source? Sorry for any confusion--just want to make sure I am doing everything properly. -Whataworld06 (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. Thanks! -Whataworld06 (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Maurice Kouandete

Hi Dabomb87, would you mind copyediting Maurice Kouandete? If there are more outstanding requests (as I'm sure there are), this is not a priority. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I intend to knock out everything on my to-do list in the next six days, so you shouldn't have to take so long. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


Completed your comments

Here. Thanks, iMatthew // talk // 12:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of New York Islanders award winners received a copyedit. iMatthew // talk // 16:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I saw that on my watchlist; I will revisit soon. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Dispatches

Thanks for helping out ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You're all over the place! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Is this good or bad...? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Good :) I appreciate the help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all of this; it is a great help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Ah! My Goddess episodes (season 1)

Before I renominate List of Ah! My Goddess episodes (season 1) for FLC, I had a question about sources. Seeing as nobody can confirm or deny that my current source is a reliable one, the airdate of Episode 12.5 is the only glaring issue at this time. That being said, some people have told me that I should just cite the episode itself and call it common knowledge. I'm 100% sure that the airdate is in fact March 31, 2005, but I can't find an online source to confirm this (and there certainly won't be any paper sources). Are there any other solutions aside from the one I named? NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 21:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the episode per WP:V and the fact that not a single WP:RS can confirm its existence or its airdate. If you don't have any objections or suggestions, I am going to resubmit this to FLC within the next day. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 06:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I've renominated it here. Could you pop by and comment on it? Thanks. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 21:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Amy Winehouse

Thanks so much for your feedback! The edits have been made, the peer review has been closed, and I have nominated the list for FL status. Much appreciated! -Whataworld06 (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I believe I have corrected all concerns raised and suggestions made in the FL candidate process. Thank you so much for your assistance, and please let me know if there is anything else that can be done to improve the article! -Whataworld06 (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dabomb87/Archive_5&oldid=1190126383"