User talk:Dabomb87/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Media naturalness theory article

Hi Dabomb87. It took me a while, but I think that now the media naturalness theory page is properly formatted, referenced, etc. Can you take a look and let me know what you think? My next project will be on channel expansion theory, which has also been getting a lot of citations lately. Best regards.--Senortypant (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Tennis articles

Hi Dabomb87 - just to let you know, Tennis expert undid your unlinkings, and I've repeated the unlinkings, in an attempt to bring these articles in line with the MoS, but he's now busying himself reverting my work on those articles too. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I know—the only thing we can do is to keep persisting. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Baseball Year

Can you please stop removing the Template:Baseball Year per WP:CONTEXT#Dates, I see that you are keeping it in the infobox, but why are you removing them from the article.--Yankees10 03:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed the ones in the article, they are harder to distinguished. Consider using writing out "Baseball Year" in those templated dates so when I run the script, they are kept intact. Compare {{by|1987}} and {{Baseball Year|1987}}, the second template does not get delinked when the script is used. In addition, I don't think you need to link every year to a baseball year, especially in the prose. Once readers get to a baseball year article, they can navigate to the other ones from there. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

See this edit to see how the second BY template is preserved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait, so you are not doing this manually? im confused--Yankees10 03:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I am using a script which automatically delinks the articles—hence the identical edit summaries— but lets the user of the script preview the changes made and make other manual edits if needed. What I did in the baseball players' articles was I used the script to automatically delink all the dates, and then I manually restored the Baseball Year links. In a nutshell, I am using a script (not a bot) to delink the dates, but I have the power to modify those delinkings in the same edit. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. When I restored some of the Baseball Year links, I used an edit summary of my own instead of the one produced by the script, that is why it seems like I delink dates manually. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for fixing it--Yankees10 04:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Lazare Ponticelli

Greetings. For Lazare Ponticelli, we are using year links for someone noted because of extreme age. hus, the reader can easily access the year 1897 to find out what people were doing when he was born. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 17:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I see what you are saying. However, linking to what are essentially a trivia articles for one does not aid readers' understanding of Lazare Ponticelli's life or his accomplishments. If readers really want to know what went on that year, they can enter the year into the search box. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please STOP vandalizing articles on longevity:

Current revision as of 03:43, 19 November 2008 (edit) (undo)Dabomb87 (Talk | contribs) (script-assisted date/terms audit; see mosnum, wp:overlink)

Banally citing policy, without considering its application, is inappropriate. Further, persons such as Lazare Ponticelli are famous due to age, as "living history." It seems incredibly ridiculous for you to continue deleting pertinent links.Ryoung122 03:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I still do not see how links to what are essentially trivia articles aid the reader's understanding of the topic. Also, please do not introduce new formatting errors in addition to your erroneous linking of dates, such as putting commas after the month in day-month-year format. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Date linking

I notice you're running a script which removes full date links. Can you please stop running the script? There is currently no consensus for the removal of date links (see WT:MOSNUM) and doing so only hinders our ability to format those dates later. Thanks! —Locke Cole • t • c 19:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Date Linking with a reason

According to the below policy, date-linking is OK if there is a reason to do so:

Linking of dates Shortcuts: MOS:UNLINKYEARS MOS:UNLINKDATES Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked, unless there is a reason to do so. More information can be found at WP:CONTEXT#Dates. In particular, dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting (even though in the past this was considered desirable).[1]

Yet your apparently automated edits do not consider whether there might be a reason. In particular, any article dealing with biography, longevity, or historical events have a good argument for date-linking. Remember, date-delinking was originally begun once autoformatting was no longer needed. Unfortunately, people like you have misinterpreted the policy into a "zero tolerance" policy.Ryoung122 07:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Your rationale below is faulty:

Current revision as of 02:40, 9 November 2008 (edit) (undo)Dabomb87 (Talk | contribs) (do not link dates, it is against MOSNUM and the links do not aid readers' understanding

It is NOT against MOSNUM to link dates; it is only against MOSNUM to link dates without a "reason to do so." Also, links DO aid reader's understanding. What do you think the purpose of a date is? To allow readers to place a person or event in historical context. Enabling the user to click on the date to see "what happened in year X" makes a lot of sense.Ryoung122 08:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not meant for discretionary browsing; if users want to do that, the search box is awfully handy. That "without a reason to do so" wording is awfully ambiguous and is still under discussion, it just happened to be what was on the page when it was protected. Even so, if linking a year provides "historical context", what is the point of linking a month and the day? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:List of Nobel Laureates in Literature

I believe David finished his review (per the edit summary, it was his last review). — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 01:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Iron Maiden discography help needed

Hi, you can give a help to this list? This job is about to be finalized, but needs a copyedit, then take a look on this page. If not an uncomfortable, I need you to merge information that was written by the user on the main list. In short, make a mix between the best of both texts. Cannibaloki 02:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I copy-edited the sandbox page, but I will have to do the merge tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

State highways in Hamilton County, New York FLC

I have resolved all your comments on the FLC. Thanks!Mitch32^(UP) 19:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Chief Justice of the Common Pleas

Heya. I struck their comments to indicate the concern there was dealt with, not for any other purpose. Ironholds (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I know, but from the FLC instructions: "Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors". put little "dones" next to the resolved comments instead. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Righty-o, sorry! Ironholds (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Do you think that the lead about Iron Maiden's discography (here) could make it to pass the FLC, I'm just talking about the lead, not the whole article. I saw you made a copyedit, so if you could suggest me the best way to make it look professional, I'd appreciate it. Thanks  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 17:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Irish ODI cricketers

Thanks for you review of the list, my fixefox plugins are playing up at the moment so my spelling is a bit unpredictable. I've made these changes to the article per your suggestions and was wondering if you now feel the article is in a better shape? It's good to have the view of someone who doesn't know about cricket as it's easy to forget some terms aren't clear to everyone, so thanks again for your time. Nev1 (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and helping polish the article. Happy editing. Nev1 (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of FA Cup winners

I've replied :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Extra "original"

That's what happens when you think you're being really clever by doing a search-and-replace in Wordpad :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of One Piece video games (3)

Hi, the "table issue" has been somewhat addressed. Please reexamine the list. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning regarding unlinking of dates

As this practice (and the actual manual of style guideline) are currently in dispute, you should probably back off of unlinking dates until the dispute is resolved. Prior ArbCom cases have looked unfavorably on editors who attempt to force through disputed changes on a massive scale as you (and other editors) are doing. Specifically, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli, which I quote:

Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.

— Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli

Continuing this behavior could be considered disruption. Please stop and instead participate in the ongoing discussions at WT:MOSNUM and elsewhere. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That is a very odd post. Rather than threatening users, the writer might have stepped back and pondered whether his actions represent the disruption. Tony (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is a very relevant post. Dabomb87 has not shown any inclination to discuss this issue, instead using volume of changes to force acceptance...clearly not ethical behavior.Ryoung122 05:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Tony did not say it was irrelevant, he said it was "odd". I am not "forcing acceptance", as you say. Clearly, you could go through my delinking edits and revert them and in most cases, I would not stop you. However, that would definitely be "unethical behavior". Furthermore, reverting a good faith edit that complies with MOS and calling it "vandalism" is surely not "ethical". Dabomb87 (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

2008 Tennis Masters Cup

Hello, I'm a regular editor on tennis articles, and the main contributor to the 2008 Tennis Masters Cup article. I have tried, for that page, to cover all points extensively with refs, in order to approach a FA-class article. I intend to put the page to the Peer Review sometime soon, but before that I'd like to review the page myself again - and see what other editors have to say about it. Since you've read the article, and work frequently at the Peer Review, I thought I'd ask you for advice about the page. What do you think are the major flaws of the article, or, in what ways do you think it falls short of the FA requirements ? Cheers, --Oxford St. (talk) 12:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for GA status. Should I ask someone else from PRV to copy-edit the article or will you have time to do it ? --Oxford St. (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Both, if possible. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Iron Maiden discography

I agree, but it still needs some touches, I'll let kyou know pretty soon when I finnish updating it with the japanese chart position and some other stuffs. Just a little more work and it'll be perfect.  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 23:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, okay. =) Cannibaloki 02:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Featured list candidates/List of WCW World Tag Team Champions

I replied to your comments at the above FLC.--TRU_CO 02:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Houston Rockets head coaches

Sorry to brother you, but I've leave a question for you at this FLC regarding your comment. Please take a look, thanks—Chris! _ct 02:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've another question. Please take a look again, thanks—Chris! _ct 17:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

First of all, thank you for all the help on my lists... I really needed it!. And because of that I want to ask you to take a look on my newest list: List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2007 and also on an article I made about an album titled Para Siempre.

Thanks in advance, and happy editing.

Jaespinoza (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks a lot for your help!. Jaespinoza (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: My FLRCs

I have notified WT:CRICKET, and Nev1, just to let you know. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 02:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

nbsp

  is unnecessary for numbers written out as words per WP:MOS I believe. They are suggested because it's strange seeing a number at the end of a line; numbers spelt out are acceptable without  , I believe. Gary King (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

MOS does not say anything about that, but I will stop adding nbsp to spelled-out words. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I guess you're right, after checking WP:NBSP, but I recall reading it somewhere and it sounds reasonable enough to me. Gary King (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Also, someone AfD my FLC? Gah. Gary King (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I put all that effort into a nomination statement for nothing! :) Gary King (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

All the more frustrating, right? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

My comment

I did comment on content. I notice you also live in the USA. Thanks for providing proof for my point. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said, nationality does not matter. The point is, undermining someone's contributions or opinions because of their nationality is somewhat naive. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:WORLDVIEW. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. Oh, and please don't wikistalk me. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Please elaborate on both counts. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, you didn't answer the question. To avoid "stubby" isn't a good reason. Or we'd delete stubby articles, which we don't. Did you not want that comment brought up there? Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That was not the only reason, also the Featured Topic issue. Please ask Gary for more detail. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

To answer the question, if the merge had bad reasoning, yes, I would object. But this article had consensus to be merged, as I have said many times before. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Notification

Because you requested to be notified, additional information about your edit history has been posted here. Tennis expert (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hopefully the RFC will finally decide this once and for all. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 00:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Name of the US Open

After long discussion and as evidenced by editing practices since then, the name of this tournament on English-language Wikipedia is "US Open", not "U.S. Open", "U S Open", or any other variation thereof. The pre-open era version is called the "U.S. Championships". Tennis expert (talk) 06:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I second that. User:Yohan euan o4's move from 2008 U.S. Open (tennis) to 2008 US Open (tennis) was a good, and long due one. It does create inconsistency with previous articles, but the best thing would be to move the 1969-2007 articles to the right name US Open, and not keep the 2008 one to the wrong name. Cheers, --Oxford St. (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Chuck Daly.jpg

Yeah, the license is valid. I went ahead and tidied up the image page. The categories should get checked too. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind doing checks, it's just Gary pumps out quite a few FLCs rapidly :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"Year of" Articles NOT trivia

Please stop your campaign of harassment and POV attack against history and historians. "Year of" articles are NOT trivia, or trivial. There is a reason the World Almanac puts out a list of events in the current year, 25 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago...have you even tried to THINK or CONSIDER that you just might be wrong? What else links Peter the Great and Robert LaSalle? Try 1682.Ryoung122 18:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Notification regarding MOS modifications

As a courtesy notice, and because this issue has cropped up at AN, ANI, 3RR/EW repeatedly, any editor that is involved in the process of date-delinking and -linking will be subject to a block by an administrator. There is a draft RFC regarding this issue, and you are encouraged to participate in the discussion. This message applies to all that have been involved with the recent discussions and reports at the noticeboards above, and this message will be repeated on the respective user talk pages. Thanks, seicer | talk | contribs 00:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: List of Gantz chapters

Thanks. Done the fixes.Tintor2 (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Nice work. Also, done fixed issues showed.Tintor2 (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Iron Maiden discography at FLC

The list has just been nominated. You might want to go around it's nomination page and leave any comment regarding your criteria. I'll sign out for a couple of hours now, when I come back I'll answer any question or comment. Have a nice day.  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 17:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I let you know that the list was being nominated and you didn't even go there to take a look at it and sign your name as good contribuitor. I do recognize that you did a good job on that article and I appreciate. Also, I hope this doesn't make you mad, as I was thinking on giving you another lead for a copy-edit (Bruce Dickinson's discography).  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 01:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that you sounded kinda mad on that comment you left at the nomination page. I'm not blaming you or anything, but just saying my opinion. I told you when the list was nominated and now it's that you go there, that's OK, but then why did you complain when you didn't see your name on the "credits"?.  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 02:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I think I took it the wrong way, my bad. About Bruce Dickinson's discography, I'm working on it (you can see it t my sandbox), but I'm really struggling with the lead.  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 02:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: List of Wilfrid Laurier University people

The merge looks fine to me. Gary King (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:List of New Jersey Nets head coaches

I made some minor fixes, and it's ready, I think. The only concern I had is referencing. Some sentences in the lead might need some more refs.—Chris! _ct 23:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, everything in the lead is referenced, I just didn't put that many inline citation tags. Specific phrases would be helpful. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, never mind the referencing. I guess the team history ref pretty much cover everything. The only suggestion I had now is converting all the refs using citation template. I think featured lists/articles are required to do so.—Chris! _ct 23:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, Does "Top 10 Coaches in NBA History" need to be italicized?—Chris! _ct 23:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Citation templates: "The use of citation templates is not required by WP:CITE and is neither encouraged nor discouraged by any other Wikipedia citation guidelines." As for the Top 10 Coaches in NBA History issue, I'm not sure. However, it is italicized in the main article. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Dates and Numbers

Reading over your comments at the RFC; I think you're generally expressing similar sentiments to me. Hopefully sensible conclusions are reached, an autoformatting method that does not rely on user inserted content in articles is created and editors stop wasting valuable time tinkering at the fringes. We'll see how things pan out though eh?! Regards. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I considered this issue resolved back in August, but I guess its better that we are finally (hopefully) eliminating any vestiges of doubt that unlinked dates are better, and we can go back to (gasp) improving the encyclopedia. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Caltrain stations

Since my FLC does not have any comment, I am wondering if you could review it. Many thanks—Chris! _ct 03:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: List of New Jersey Nets head coaches

How about CBS Sports? -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 06:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This is all that I could find. If you meant something else, please provide a link. I wanted something that had prose, a description or recap of the franchise history rather than just statistics. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of New Orleans Saints head coaches

I replied to the concerns that you brought up at the above FLC, can you re-review it? Thanks Dabomb!--Tru_Co 01:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Washington Wizards head coaches

Hi, do you mind if I submit this article for DYK? I want to ask you first, since you created it. Thanks—Chris! _ct 22:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I already have :) Dabomb87 (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I didn't know. :> —Chris! _ct 22:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Invite

Since you had contributed to several NBA related articles, I am officially inviting you to join WikiProject National Basketball Association.—Chris! _ct 22:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please accept this invite to join the WikiProject National Basketball Association, a WikiProject dedicated to improving National Basketball Association related articles. Simply click here to accept!

Thanks, but I have already joined! My username is at the very bottom of the members list. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, stupid me!—Chris! _ct 22:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome

Cheers, you're welcome to copy it if you like, or I can finagle one for you with different colors. Peace. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Date linking RFCs

Yeah, I'd be surprised if it wasn't over 200 !votes total in a couple of days (assuming the notice isn't taken down). =) Really the more input the better. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit?

Would you help me with Nevado del Ruiz, if possible? I need some help w/ copyediting. One is not enough, could you come by and tighten up the prose? Thanks, —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 00:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help. However, I have other copy-edit requests to tend to, as well as reviewing FLCs and writing my own articles, so initial progress may be slow. I've already streamlined the lead a bit. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw that, thanks. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 00:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed some of your comments, feel free to add more! —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 03:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC

• Dabomb87. Thanks for the heads-up regarding the whine-fest on the ANI over the dueling RfCs. My response here. Greg L (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Date Autoformatting

Here you say: Autoformatting is a trivial function that doesn't affect the appearance of the dates that much.
I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean. (Not wanting to make too much of a fool of myself in public, I'm asking here rather than there!) Would you mind explaining what you mean in a little more detail? Sorry to bother you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and its thoroughness!

Interesting. I think I hold a different groups of opinions to yours, but I wouldn't go as far as saying I actually disagree with you.

In my (no doubt biassed) opinion, I think it would be better if auto-formatting and date-linking were two separate and independent functions. I think you agree with that? I also think you think linking every date is a bad idea. Yes?

Changing subject slightly: One can't enclose the whole date in one set of brackets. (Correct?) Do you know why it was implemented that way? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we agree more than you think! Although I do not believe that autoformatting is very useful, if the developers can separate date autoformatting from date linking (make them 2 separate functions), and make it available for all users (including IP's), I would not complain. As for linking dates, I believe that in 95% of the cases, linking dates is not necessary. However, I believe there should be exceptions to that rule; link to dates on articles about calendar items (such as 12 May, December, 2009, Sunday) and articles about well-known holidays (I would link 25 December on an article about Christmas). "One can't enclose the whole date in one set of brackets." I know that if you do that, the date will not be autoformatted. I do not know why the developers did things the way they did. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Pdfpdf (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Stalker

There is someone stalking me. I'm wondering if you have noticed? Ohconfucius (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not notice, but it doesn't surprise me. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Pendulum discography

Hey, you may remember me from a peer review that I opened for Pendulum discography a couple of months ago. Since you were kind enough to leave a review of the article, I thought you might be interested to know that it is now (finally) an FLC candidate. If you have some time, any additional comments or opinions would be very helpful. Otherwise, I apologise for bothering you. Thanks – Ikara ^talk → 23:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw the reply, thank you – Ikara ^talk → 10:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Patrick White

Thanks for your edits. I've asked Nygaard why he's been obstructing there. User_talk:Gene_Nygaard#Patrick_White Tony (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10