User talk:Dabomb87/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dabomb87. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Re: Sid Rosenberg Show link

RE:"Please do not continue to add the Sid Rosenberg Show link to Tim Donaghy. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)", I think everyone has the right to see a first hand account and confession. Did you even check the reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbormbracer (talk • contribs)

I did. The link does not meet Wikipedia's policy on external links for biographies of living people, and therefore I do not think it belongs in the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Closures

Had a bad day, a long day, and a yet-to-finish day. I will be able (and would like to) do closures (including those from which you have recused yourself) tomorrow if that isn't too terrifying for our sometimes impatient but undoubtedly impeccably professional contributors. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think our eager beavers can wait a day. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

:( I'm just sad seeing nominations like the Red Sox list languish with nothing I can do. It's precisely up to the same standards as multiple other similar lists I've written (including the Astros who were nom'd a week AFTER this one). The nomination has sat without significant content (KV5 was nice enough to leave another review, but he only took issue with one small wording, other than that more than 10 days have passed since the last anything), has 3 supports, I don't know what I can do. Staxringold _talk^contribs 07:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Nice fix :)—Chris!_c/t 00:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That wording had bothered me for quite a while. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You're good

Always watching my back. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Italian orders of knighthood

I noticed you've closed the FLC. Do you mind if I ask why? It had two supports (three including myself as nominator) and no opposes. Quite a lot of work has gone into it and into addressing the comments raised. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't close it. The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) did. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It was stagnant, so restarting it would be a good idea. Oh, and Dabomb, thanks for MOSing my closure log...! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Battleship list

I went back and added my comments and lined out the ones that looked completed on the battleship list. Sorry it took me a while to get back there and thanks for the reminder. One question came up though that I had a question about. The list has references in every cell of every row but most of the refs for a column are the same. I suggest adding them to the column title unless it changes (for example note 1). I think that would make the tables look less cluttered and cut down on the overall bytes of the article. I was wondering what your input was on that? --Kumioko (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that seems like a sensible idea. Feel free to make the suggestion on the FLC page. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I will --Kumioko (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

FLC

Yeah I'll pop in later, since its 1 in the morning and I'm kind of tired. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 01:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

hey

hey Dabomb87 could u help me?how old r u? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Germanshepherds100 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

hey

hey do you only come on here when it's late. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Germanshepherds100 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Search request

Newsbank is no longer freely accessible.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's unfortunate (I had wrongly assumed you subscribed to it). Do you know of any good place I can find a reliable source for that information? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dabomb87. You have new messages at Killervogel5's talk page.
Message added 23:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of hydroelectric power stations/archive1

The Nominator wants to withdraw his nomination. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 10:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've taken care of this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, RR. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

FAC

Dabomb, if you're around and up for fun, I'm starting through (but probably won't finish 'til tomorrow):

The Green Child
Panellus stipticus
L'ange de Nisida
Alexander Pentland
Rumours (have to check that final Oppose is in fact resolved)
Takalik Abaj

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much; you're The Bomb :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This is funny; now I'm using my list on your page to read articles :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever works :) Dabomb87 (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking good so far. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Trying to help with the huge backlog

Hey, man I have never seen such a backlog since a long time. I'm sorry I can't help as I used to, you know if I had the time I would review every list on there. But, time constraints kill me now. So, for now I can only get the ones you put on the backlog (since they are more urgent). Just update that list, and I'll get to those when I have the time (mainly weekends and now since I'm snowed in by this blizzard).--Truco ₅₀₃ 23:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Anything you can do is appreciated. I usually add to the log when I do closures, but it seems quite a few editors review the lists when I put them up there so I'll update it more often. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you think WWE Brand Extension can qualify as a list?--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be better classified as a article with an embedded list than as a proper list article. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit intro

DaBomb, I have no idea where to find my editintro page; it's not listed in my subpages on my contribs, and I can't remember what it's named. I need to add the new line of the FAC instructions:

insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

Could you tell me the page name so I can learn to do this myself? Thanks (for everything)! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:SandyGeorgia/Editnotice is the page. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

ah, ha, I was looking for Editintro :) How come it doesn't show up in my subpages? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The root is User talk:SandyGeorgia. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again (don't tell the whole Wiki what a techno-dummy I am :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Good work

Just popped in to say thanks for keeping the FA articles that have/haven't appeared updated, just stumbled across it and realized you are doing it manually. Kudos Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 01:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I do it partially for my own satisfaction, as well. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's reasurring to find behind the scenes mechanics going on all over the place - what a complicated machine this is! I did have one thought that might be of use - combining the 'pages that have' and 'pages that haven't' into one, then you would just have to change the status ( a little star or something ). For example medicine articles ( my spiritual home ) looks like most of its FA articles have been on main page as the list is relatively small, but it doesn't actually have that many FA in total ( hard standards and more of a general improvement of all of it's articles rather than specific one's ) . THis might give a better picture and make your maintenance easier. Just a random thought, cheers! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 02:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:FA already does that with the {{FA/BeenOnMainPage}} template (a bot updates it every day); the page I update is just more specific and helps with the counts. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I can't see any obvious link to an article having been on the main page in that list though, I'm assuming it's to do with being italicized or not - but it doesn't state that anywhere! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 03:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, I forgot, you have to add a script to your CSS file. Do the following (copied from the edit screen of WP:FA): "To see which articles have appeared on the main page, add "span.has_been_on_main_page{ font-weight: bold; }", excluding the quotes, to your personal CSS file ... and refresh both that page and this, the relevant articles will be bolded." Dabomb87 (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ben Paschal FAC

Copyedit is done, thanks to Giants2008, I'm going to meet his concerns tonight. Thanks Secret ^account 17:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

CSA

Worked your issues on this list at FLC. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Done again. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA

Hi Dabomb87,

Firstly, apologies for this long message! I may need a response from you directly underneath it, per (3) below.

You are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?

As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) HOW TO CLARIFY YOUR VOTE:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".

In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).

Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. I will copy any responses from this talk page and place them at CDA Summaries for analysis. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk page bulleted list

Pretty good idea. It would be nice to have all the needed returns in one place, just so I can keep track of them all. My only concern is how I'll archive them. Perhaps a new section should be started following each time I archive the page. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Kinks

Hello, Dabomb, and thanks for your edits over at The Kinks. I would not support the portal template's placement in the ref section - it splits the colwidth=30em parameter's effect, changing the ref list from two columns to one column. I would prefer to see it in the external links section, or not on the article at all. Perhaps a few relevant articles could be found to beef up a "see also" section - I think that would be the best choice. Until then, I will remove it from the page and await your response. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Does this edit look satisfactory? - I.M.S. (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Rookie (1990 film)

As far as Dog Day Afternoon and November are concerned, I know; thats whats I'm afraid of. Your saying there's no way in hell either of those two articles would have made it their condition if it were submitted in 2010 correct? I wish it was still 2005. But honestly, I think the article is a strong contender. Its really not that bad. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 1:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

November looks quite good, actually (but keep in mind that I don't edit film articles). Dog Day Afternoon seems lacking, though. My point is that FA standards are continually rising, and perhaps you should look among the most recently promoted FAs for a model article. Here are a couple: Tender Mercies, Tropic Thunder, and Star Trek: First Contact. As for The Rookie, it is not bad at all, and you should be proud of the work you've done on it. I'm just not sure it measures up to the quality of other film articles promoted to FA. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, we'll see what happens. I'll do what I can to improve it. By the way, I accidentally screwed up the infobox. The last few words of the final sentence of the ALT|Text for the Main Image does not show. Do you know by any chance how to fix it? I tried to tweak it without success. Helppppppp! Mike Tompsonn (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It works for me. Perhaps you need to purge your cache? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Really? Ok, I will do that. Thanks. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

NEW RESPONSE Thanks for the help. I just made some comprehensive changes with more cited references. Feel free to check them out. I hope the article makes it...lOl....Mike Tompsonn (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it appears The Rookie article has been tossed from the list.....lOl.....I think I did the best that I could with it. I really felt in its current state, its FA quality. But I guess the experts thought otherwise. I might be back in the future with a 3rd stab at it. We'll see. Thanks for the advice and contributions. I had fun along the way. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi :) Thank you for your kind words. We don't have internet at home - again! - so I'm using our laptop and Panera Bread's internet for now. It was a funny feeling being away. I wanted to edit sometimes like when I would access the site on my phone and find something wrong, but the software doesn't allow it. I didn't actually miss editing though. I think a mixture of burn-out and "office politics" played a large part in that, but still, it's nice to be back. I'll return to FLC with some reviews in the near future, too :) Best, Matthewedwards : Chat 23:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about reviews or anything like that; just glad to see you here :) Dabomb87 (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Heyo, piggybacking on this thanks section to say thanks for the promotion of List of American League pennant winners! Small thing, does the FLC need to be tagged closed? Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Usually, GimmeBot runs on Tuesday evenings or Wednesday mornings, but I went ahead and added {{FLCClosed}} for your benefit. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Tillson Harrison

Hi Dabomb, and thanks for your comments at the Tillson Harrison FAC. In addition... thanks for keeping at it! I'm really thankful for your continued contributions. I have addressed all of the issues you raised but one... the part about finding the centenary date in this source. It is there: last sentence of the article. Thanks, Arctic Night 10:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Knockout Title List

Thanks for passing it today. This one went quicker than my previous one, which is a good thing since it had that giant problem. Thanks!--WillC 18:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: FLC Reviews

Those three on my talk page are done, just let me know if you need any more and I'll get to them every Friday (or I will try my best to do so), as well as the ones in the box at the FLC page.--Truco ₅₀₃ 23:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Was able to get around 7 reviews today, hope it helps.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Argyle FC list

Thanks for keeping it open as long as you did. Hopefully the nominator can get the sourcing worked out soon.Cptnono (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

FLC

It's fine, I'll renom it (which will actually be nice for the WikiCup as it'll make it clearly content for round 2). My issue with staleness closures (from lack of reviews, not lack of nominator response) both here and at FPC is it doesn't do anything. This image had it's first FPC closed just because of a lack of reviewers. But that didn't do anything other than force me to renominate it, at which point it passed. I suppose at some point you need to clear truly inactive nominations, but in cases like this you aren't really clearing a backlog you're just resetting stuff at the bottom to the top again. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I know, but as a director there's not much I can do (I try to review several a week myself), short of actively recruiting reviewers (which I simply don't have time to do) or putting nomination limits (which I don't want to do). Sigh. Thanks anyway for your understanding and your contributions to FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Heyo, per your closure note I've waited a few days (the Royals list got tantalizingly quick reviews) and I've gone ahead and re-nomed this sucker and notified the reviewers from the first FLC. Mind sticking it as an FLC of note? I think it merits it, as a recent renom. Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to put it on there right away because there are others that are more needy, and your FLC is not the only one that has been renominated because it failed due to lack of reviews (see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Gunsmoke television episodes/archive2 and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Italian orders of knighthood/archive2). However, if the FLC still doesn't receive much feedback after being open for 6 or 7 days, then I'll add it to the list. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

hi

hi I keep trying to talk to you but oyur not on here alot. y?Boysrsocute 19:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boysrsocute (talk • contribs)

Is there anything related to Wikipedia that you need help with? I usually spend some time on Wikipedia daily, but I'm too busy too spend my entire day here. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Attack account

Special:Contributions/Dabom87_is_going_to_be_dead was blocked almost instantly, but I just want to make sure you saw that they existed. —Soap— 16:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

On my radar

First pass, older noms only:

Ha, now I can come back to this list to read them :)

Second pass:

Death of Ian Tomlinson (pending oppose)
Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the lateness Sandy, I was busy today. I got up to Howell; will take a look at the rest in a couple hours. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to apologize to me ! I don't expect you to always tag me :) I got delayed by the SPI at FAC, and one pending oppose, and my POV battles, decided to pr tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, in that case, I'll wait till tomorrow too to finish up. I'm dead tired. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)