User talk:Dabomb87/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Review request

If you have the time, I'm preparing an article for FAC, and I'd love to get some input. It's failed twice before, and hopefully the third time will be the charm. It's about dog mushing, so hopefully it'll be a change of pace for you, at least. :) The article is Yukon Quest, and any comments you'd care to add before I take it to FAC would be extremely welcome. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

ODI FLRC

Yeah, hadn't really thought about it that way. It's a little confusing with Matthewedwards and Scorpion in and out, iMatthew didn't do any FLRC closures last time (or the time before), and I was just trying to get on top of things. The ODI list was much much much much better and it was taking up good reviewers' time and energy when it wasn't needed. Anyway, tsk. One self-trout awarded. Thanks for the nudge. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much.

Hi Dabomb87. Thank you for resolving all concerns for the nomination for the List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums from the 1990s. I have been sick, but now I am on full recovery and ready to take this list to the next level. I will work on an article for the soundtrack Dance With Me, it is the only album from the entire list that is missing. It should be ready tomorrow.

Once again, thanks. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, and I'm glad to hear that you're feeling better. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Alt text

Wow, you are a good alt text writer. Could you check my featured list or articles for me? I just wrote some, but they aren't great obviously.—Chris! _ct 02:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Dates

I will stop with adding links. I didn't know that it is't allowed. Sorry, --Vojvodae please be free to write :) 11:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Dead links in our FLs

You are already aware that Billboard is redesigning its website, so all Billboard charts at WP:FL are now unverifiable with many dead links. Today, I noticed that oscars.org either redesigning again or just removing old press releases, so all Academy Award lists at WP:FL#Media become unverifiable, as well. I tried searching the Oscar's website, but I didn't find any of the pages that are cited in our lists. Do you have any suggestions what to do next?--Crzycheetah 19:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I know the old girl took a bit more work (changes between nom and your suppport now), but I think the article is better for it. Thanks for being the first to reply and the latest to support. :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of CMLL World Trios Champions/archive1

thank you for the heads up on the Marine Corp article, in return could you please tell me if this article has fixed all your concerns please?? Thanks  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  05:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Anchor

Errrr ... what's an anchor? Tony (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It allows you to create a link to that section even when its name is different. For example, User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises#Noun plus -ing works because that's the section's name, and User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises#A common problem—noun plus -ing also works because of the anchor. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply: Soundgarden nomination

Sorry, I keep forgetting about it as I'm distracted with other things. I'll take a look when I get a chance.-5- (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

4 Minutes (Madonna song)

Hi Dabomb. I understand that you must be too busy nowadays and hence couldnot take a look at the prose of the above article. however, could you refer me to someone who might be able to do it? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Legolas, I apologize profusely for not getting back to the article. I know a couple good music editors:

• WesleyDodds (talk · contribs)
• Indopug (talk · contribs)
• Drewcifer3000 (talk · contribs)
• Another good technique to locate good copy-editors is to look through FAs about similar subjects and find editors who have helped to bring them to featured status. If you haven't already, I highly recommend that you read User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Dabomb. I will surely ask their help and read Tony's essay. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Marine Corps Brevet Medal

Thanks, I have been having internet issues so it might take me a couple days doing a few at a time.--Kumioko (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, you might want to make a note of that on the FLC so that the directors don't close it. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I fixed a bunch of the issues already but I had a couple of comments/questions so if you could swing back by I would appreciate it. I will also be creating the rest of the red linked articles in the next couple day. --Kumioko (talk) 02:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It took a little while but I think I am done with your comments, please take a look when you get a moment. I added a lot of content and some better refs. I still need to create some articles for the red links but other than that I think I am good to go. Off to work on the WWI list. --Kumioko (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I made all the corrections from the last batch you submitted. Could you please swing by when you get some time and see if there is anything else? --Kumioko (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional corrections you made to this list but I do have one question. Why are we now putting dashes in place of missing images, we have never done this before I and I personally think it is tacky and unneeded. --Kumioko (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

For consistency with other featured lists. Also, I've found that putting dashes in blank image cells deters editors from putting in non-free or incorrectly licensed images. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok on the latter point although I think that deters from someone putting any image at all. On the first point though I have to argue that this has never been a requirement in the previous lists I submitted with images missing. --Kumioko (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) In my experience, more often than not, images that are inserted usually are not licensed correctly and violate the WP:IUP. As for "never been a requirement", well standards change and reviewers don't catch everything. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If you look at FLs promoted in the past few months, you'd see the same pattern. For example, List of tallest buildings in Las Vegas and Templeton Prize. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have had several promoted in the last few months including several Lists of Medal of Honor recipients. I can go back and fix it thats not a big deal but I still think its unnecessary and I think it could prevent users from putting in an image, licensed or other wise while this placeholder is in the way. Is there something somewhere that says that this is needed or is this just a personal preference of yours? --Kumioko (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it will totally deter editors from putting images, although it may make them think twice. It's just one of those unwritten conventions of FL, kind of like the 10-item minimum and (until recently) the red-link requirement. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I did a couple of articles and then I found Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps that has File:no image.png|75px|alt=This image is inserted to represent no image in places where there is not image. I think this is the better way to do this (especially if we are going to enforce it as a standard) and it also meets the alt text requirement rather than putting a dash in an image column. What do you think?--Kumioko (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Why don't you bring it up at WT:ALT? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Where?--Kumioko (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, broken link. Fixed now. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am a little confused, why would we submit it there if it is a policy of the FLC? Wouldn't it make more sense to propose this at the talk page of the FLC? --Kumioko (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, bring it up at WT:FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Sofia Rotaru/archive1

I have no idea what the procedure is for declined peer reviews. Are they normally deleted or left in the archives? In any event, if it is appropriate to speedy it, please DO NOT add a speedy deletion tag to any page that is transcluded in another. You should remove the transclusions first (this page is transcluded by WP:Peer review or, if for some reason the transclusions cannot be removed or it is impractical to remove them (eg a userbox used all over creation), you can include the speedy tag in <noinclude> ... </noinclude> tags. By using <noinclude>, you prevent every page that transcludes the one you want to delete from showing up in CAT:CSD. If an admin deletes the page without checking for transclusions, then everything is "stuck" in CAT:CSD until manually purged because deleting a transcluded page doesn't purge the categories. --B (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorry for that. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I will archive the PR - we do not delete them unless there are two duplicate requests (which this article had a few days earlier, oddly enough). The thought is keeping the PR is important for the statistics (see WP:FAS which tracks monthly PRs) and as a record for the article. For example if someone else tries to nominate this for PR while it is in such a state and full protected, perhaps the old PR will let them know not to. Thanks for the heads up, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry for making a mess of things. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It is no probelm - thanks for fixing my duplicate PR notices on the talk page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:ArticleHistory

Ahhh it's because they didn't have dates, because I couldn't find a date, but you managed to! Well done - rst20xx (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The oldest FTC noms never had the processes archived - rst20xx (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahh you got the dates from the WP:GA page. Wow, this is early days stuff - rst20xx (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the 1996 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1

Please see my responses there. Cheers, Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 17:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Could you show me which links go to disambiguation pages in Ancient Egyptian literature? The link you suggested does not work for my computer. Thanks.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Charlotte Bobcats head coaches/archive1

Would be nice if you could peer reviewed this. Thanks in advance, -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Date linking

Hey, I have a quick question. What's the current status on the MOS recommendations regarding date linking? Is it still discouraged? I'm not sure where exactly to check. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

MOS:UNLINKDATES, and yes, it's been deprecated and done away with, though not without a lot of carnage. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

one quarter

Don't really like the North American trend towards "one third", "one quarter", when we all used to use "a", which flows off the lips more easily and is shorter. And I've seen "one-" hyphenated, but not often. I wouldn't hyphenate either unless there was a particular reason to. Tony (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

McDonald's Cycle Center FAC

You have spent a great deal of time with the McDonald's Cycle Center article. I appreciate your efforts. You are now pretty familiar with the content. Are you able to or nearly able to support its candidacy in its current state?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

AEJ Collins

Thanks for that again. Hopefullyy it should be cleared up soon. I'm not sure about the comprehensiveness. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Question

Okay I guess I'll try that, although wikEdDiff doesn't work for me even when it is enabled for some reason. Gary King (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sheffield FAR

Thanks for the help. At first I was pretty much resigned to the article being delisted, but now I think that it can be saved. Hopefully I will get time to work more on it over the next few days. —Jeremy (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. Raul seems to have vanished as well YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you !

Such a relief when I don't have to do everything! [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hack away some bits from an article?

I've been writing The Boys from Baghdad High for about a year now, and I've just added the synopsis and jiggled with the production and reception sections. Now it's a bit too big though and probably half from each of the three sections could do with being removed. Care to play? Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

WT:FAR delegate

Started a discussion there YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration: Date delinking amendment motion

A request to amend the dates delinking arbitration case (filed 19 July 2009) has resulted in a motion (filed 2 August 2009) that proposes to change the restrictions imposed on you as a result of the case. The proposed amendment would affect the restrictions pertaining to 16 editors, all of whom are now being notified of the proposed amendment. Given that the proposed amendment affects your restrictions, and further that the proposed amendment will restrict the filing of further proposed amendments for a period of 30 days, your input is invited at the amendments page. You may view an unofficial table of the proposed changes here. Comments from affected parties are currently being considered by the Arbitration Committee. If you would like the arbitrators who have already voted to reconsider their votes in light of your comments, please indicate that in your comments.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 03:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Comment

Cheers for the comment. My enquiry was specific to Sandy's reasons on the matter (and you can see why from my further comment). Thanks for trying to help though! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. I can understand why you might be frustrated. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again

[2] Sheesh, too much going on, and I need to read FAC. Thanks as always, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of violent spectator incidents in sports/archive2

Sure, withdraw it now. I just thought you recommended way too early. If it's going to fail, I wanted to at least get some useful feedback in the process. What you provided was not useful or helpful. Subsequent reviewers did provide some useful feedback. As a side note, I hate {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} because they use up way too much document length, making the actual content of the article difficult to identify when editing and confusing and intimidating well-meaning novice editors. -Drdisque (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. I'm sorry if I came across as brusque and unhelpful, but FLC is not a wholesale article improvement process (we have a chronic shortage of reviewers), so submitting ostensibly unprepared nominations sucks in reviewer resources even more. Admittedly, my comments were probably very vague to a non-FLC regular, and I apologize for that. I suggest opening a peer review and inviting the reviewers from here to comment there (I'll try to pitch in if I can). WRT citations, there's no requirement (I agree that they are not very intuitive), but every citation requires info. For web citations, you need URL, page title, site publisher (or publication name if its a newspaper, magazine or journal), and the date of last access. For news articles, if it's on the web, you need the above plus date published and author (if it's print, no need for URL or last access date). Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wind farms

Hi. Without having reviewed the content and how the sources were used, they all in all look reliable at a glance (specialized newspapers and significant local newspapers - in fact, we have articles on most of them, but the editor did not bother with links and copyedits -, and a handfull of material sourced from primary sources). While I for one have to wonder if wikipedia would feature a list of projects whose ultimate goal is to become more than projects (just who is going to maintain it once featured, and what will it transform into the moment all projects get implemented?), and without going into how the info is backed by the sources, the sources themselves look okay. Dahn (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. If you have the inclination to review the article more carefully, please do so. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Toney Douglas

Looks a lot better than most of what I've foisted upon DYK in the past, and what I will be bringing there soon. To respond to your questions:

• The professional section was empty when I first looked at the article, and is still one sentence. Information on his selection in the draft and the trade can be put here, and should provide for a solid paragraph.
• Weight looks reasonable, except for the professional career section I mentioned earlier.
• NPOV also looks okay. One thing you could look for is a reason why Auburn didn't want to make him the point guard.

Once the pro section is beefed up, this will make a fine DYK, and may have GA possibilities down the line. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm in the middle of writing the pro section (which won't be nearly as long as the college section). In the long run though, will Hill and Douglas really change things around at Madison Square Garden? Doubtful... Dabomb87 (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course they're not going to change anything. I just wanted to see the section look more like it does now. It's hard to discuss his pro career when it hasn't happened yet. Has D'Antoni said anything about what Douglas' role will be? Giants2008 (17–14) 15:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The Boys from Baghdad High

Hiya. I've opened a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Boys from Baghdad High/archive2, just so I can get additional help in taking out some of the unnecessary stuff. Thanks for your help with it so far, Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I can. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Australia at the Winter Olympics

Done YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK Article Review Request

I placed an article up for DKY today and was wondering if you could review it for approval. my Article on John Wood Community College. If it needs any extra work, please let me know. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/CMLL World Mini-Estrella Championship/archive1

Would you mind taking a look at this again to see if I answered all your concerns? Thanks in advance.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  12:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

FLC is all yours now buddy

Whew, I wish I could come on here everyday to review as many FLC's as you do man. But with school coming up and time constraints, I just can't review FLC's anymore. This benefits me and FLC (me: more time for myself, less worry to follow-up on reviews) (FLC: my comments not being capped or replied to or me not voting on them, etc.). My vacation ends in about a week and I think its time for me to hang up the boots for reviewing. Thanks for the interactions we had and for the help you have given me through all my experiences, I really appreciated it :) Sorry to leave you by yourself again, but I know you will be able to handle it.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about this, but at the same time glad for you; a change is good once in a while! Come to FLC when you can, but enjoy life outside Wiki, too. To be honest, I'm not sure how I've kept up the pace I have (good multitasking skills?), nor how much longer I can continue like this. Cheers, and thanks for your hard work, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Its not that I don't want to anymore, its the time constraints. I know I'm letting everyone down but it's something I have to do. Thanks for that! Also, your multitasking skills are amazing: you need a well deserved vacation :D. Also no problem for the work :)--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

FA for Otto Julius Zobel

You made some comments at the FAC for Otto Julius Zobel which was not promoted. Although your specific comments (on disambiguation links) were addressed, you did not return to either support or oppose the article. Can I ask what changes would induce you to support this article at a FAC, if indeed you would? SpinningSpark 17:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't usually support unless I read the entire article. I would need to look at it more closely before deciding one way or another. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you not think that is a little discourteous. You are demanding that candidates do work on an article at FAC and then not bothering to give an opinion. You did not even bother to give an opinion on the work that you had asked for. I feel I have wasted my time responding to the "drive by" comments of which the FAC seemed to largely consist and it seems to me that I would have been better off asking editors who are actually interested in the subject to take part. SpinningSpark 07:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Not all reviewers conduct full reviews of articles; e.g. Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) checks only sources on the vast majority of articles (and doesn't support), while users such as Awadewit (talk · contribs), Jappalang (talk · contribs) and David Fuchs (talk · contribs) check only images. FAC requires that reviewers read the whole article before supporting. It would be bad form if I just threw in a support without examining the prose, content, or references; likewise, it would be "discourteous" to oppose without providing a detailed rationale and suggestions for improvement. What happened is that I checked over the FAC list for articles with disambiguation links and posted messages at the FACs for the ones that did without looking at other aspects of an article. Yours happened to be one of them. I wouldn't read an article and then comment only about dab links. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Joachim-Friedrich Huth

Sorry, where do you want me to check? The hook has slipped out from the page MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems the hook has been accepted, though altered slightly. See Template:Did you know/Queue/3. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Good stuff

Dabomb. Barnstars are all very well, but your contributions have gone well beyond that (even as determined by a seemingly controversial figure like me) so keep it the heck (I have more emphatic words here) up. The cheque (check) is in the post. Double time. Catch my drift? Much admiration... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; it's easy when you enjoy it. I was never a barnstar person (chap) anway. Thanks for the favorable (favourable) comments. :) Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind words! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

Thanks for your invitation to do reviews here which puts me in a quandary. I am not comfortable with criticising and assessing others' work nor do I like getting into arguments. And I have a mountain of articles I want to write/improve for Cheshire and NW England generally (currently I seem to be one of the very few editors contributing to WikiProject Cheshire - we "lost" two excellent editors a few months ago due to problems elsewhere on WP). I have to confess that for me, Cheshire is more important than FLs; I have nominated lists as FLCs partly for personal pride, partly to get suggestions for improvements for the readers, and in the hope of getting a few little "badges" for the Cheshire project. Incidentally I am most grateful for the helpful ideas and suggestions you have made for the FLCs I have nominated. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand your hesitation. I'm not saying you have to do what I do (do full reviews of most lists that appear at FLC). If you see anything that you like to be clarified or fixed on another list, just mention it or fix it yourself. You don't even have to review now. Architectural lists are pretty common these days at FLC, and we often need more reviewers for those. That subject seems to be your expertise, so anything you could offer for those lists (when they come to FLC) in terms of content especially is great. I'm not going to say that you have to review other lists, but if nominators reviewed just one list for every list they nominated, we would not have that much of a problem with reviewer shortages. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of WWE Hardcore Champions/archive1

Hey, Will has addressed all your comments at the above FLC, and you haven't replied in over 5 days. Just wanted to see if he missed anything or not. Thanks! =]--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Alt text templates

I edited Template:Infobox NBAretired to add an alt= parameter.

I proposed, and an admin installed, a fix to Template:Cr to make it more accessible. Eubulides (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Toney Douglas

On August 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Toney Douglas, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

WP:DYK 02:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Relevance and importance are relevant and important

Thank you for your quick reply to my comment. I am still learning how to navigate through Wiki so please forgive any clumsiness or ignorance of Wiki protocol and processes on my part.

I was unaware of the criteria for Featured status, and appreciate your succinct clarification. However, my comment speaks to a larger point, that Wiki SHOULD change its rules and criteria to include relevance and importance in selecting the Featured Articles.

I consider Wiki to be an extremely valuable resource -- possibly the best research tool ever created -- and I use it many times every day and strongly recommend its use to countless other people. However, every so often such people will react quite negatively to Wiki, making the point that Wiki entries are often inaccurate, and sometimes extremely trivial. I believe this reputation will remain deserved until the Wiki administration decides to put its best foot forward and select the daily Featured article based on criteria that include relevance and importance.

The Featured Article should display Wiki at its best. It should be a daily reminder to both experienced and new users that Wiki is as valuable as most of us believe it is. However, there have been more than 100 Featured Articles about video games, which represents something like 5% of all Featured Articles ever anointed. Based on any reasonable standard, it might be suitable so far to have included 2 or 3 articles about video games, for example, World of Warcraft due to the number of infants who have died from neglect by parents who have succumbed to this highly addictive activity (the "crack cocaine of video games").

However, it appears to me that these articles are disproportionately selected for Featured status not just due to their "quality," but also because the same people who are consumed by video gaming have also mastered the process for nomination and election of Featured Articles. So they have cornered the market and use it to promote an extremely obscure topic by any reasonable standard of relevance and importance.

I love baseball and many other sports, and so do millions of other people. But it would be patently ridiculous to have designated so far over 100 articles about individual baseball players as Featured Articles. It would be silly and make Wiki look silly. This front page obsession with video games is equally damaging, and it should be eliminated for the greater good of Wiki as an institution.

The reputation of the Wiki "brand" does matter and it will have a serious impact on the long-term health and success of Wiki. Jrgilb (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I find your views most interesting. I think you are mixing up the featured articles that are featured on the main page (TFAs) with featured articles in general (FAs). Any article can be promoted to featured status through the FAC process if they meet the FA standards for writing, comprehensiveness, accuracy, neutrality and style (as well as being compliant with Wikipedia's general policies and guidelines). Not all FAs, though, will make it on to the Main Page. For example, Raul654 (talk · contribs), who is responsible for deciding what today's featured article is (every day), said that he will never put Jenna Jameson on the front page. You can understand why especially after Gropecunt Lane was featured on the front page a few weeks ago, causing an uproar. We do have a more FAs on certain subjects, such as video games, military history and hurricanes, due to systemic bias—we just have a large number of editors interested in those topics. Given the circumstances, I think Raul does a good job mixing it up. Take a look at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 2009—only one video game article was featured on the main page. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Bakshi FAC

There were no issues. DocKino was biased against the article from the start. Steve made no attempt to fairly review the article. The consensus of the FAC was in favor of the article. It should have been promoted. You're not doing your job right. The majority of reviewers agreed that the article should be promoted. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC))

Front page

Thanks. You're right I am focused on the front page FA, so maybe my numbers are wrong, since I counted the Video Gaming articles in the list of "Featured Articles." However, I have noticed over time quite a few video gaming articles in that spot on page 1. I reckon that more than about one a year is too many in light of all the other worthy topics. I expect that Raul654 is already tuned into the "mainstream branding" impact of the front page. In that regard, I would advise Raul to consider the negative impact of any gaming concentration. (Hope I get the signing technique correct this time.) Jrgilb (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You might want to talk to Raul about it. I'm sure he won't mind discussing the issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Having considered all the requests for amendment and requests for clarification submitted following the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking, the Arbitration Committee decides as follows:

(1) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is topic-banned from editing or discussing "style and editing guidelines" (or similar wording) are modified by replacing these words with the words "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates";

(2) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is "prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline" are modified by replacing these words with the words "prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates";

(3) All editors whose restrictions are being narrowed are reminded to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines in their editing, so that further controversies such as the one that led to the arbitration case will not arise, and any disagreements concerning style guidelines can be addressed in a civil and efficient fashion;

(4) Any party who believes the Date delinking decision should be further amended may file a new request for amendment. To allow time to evaluate the effect of the amendments already made, editors are asked to wait at least 30 days after this motion is passed before submitting any further amendment requests.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 04:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Hi Dabomb, about Ancient Egyptian literature

You mentioned the use of both single and double quotation marks in Ancient Egyptian literature; I want to alert you to the fact that I have amended the article so that only double quotation marks are used (the American English standard, as opposed to British, which can use either single or double). Thank you for bringing this topic up for discussion; if you have time to review the article in full, please do so! I feel that it will pass soon, given the supports it has already garnered. However, you might spot something that still needs to be fixed, so I encourage you to take a look. Cheers!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed that last concern...--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Image in List of Kirby media

I went ahead and removed the image altogether; I'm not too familiar with copyrights and images and I've made mistakes with regards to derivative works before with the Wario list so I'm in no rush to repeat the same error. I'll try to look for a free-use replacement although I can't guarantee anything– thanks for pointing out the problem. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 02:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I happened upon the issue while perusing Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Task force, if you're interested. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll definitely check it out. I've always wanted to be more involved in the review process but I haven't found the time lately. Seems like FLC needs the reviewers so I might try to lend a hand in the next week or so. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 02:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You might want to check out the video-game-related lists on there. Best to fix them up before they reached FLRC. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

We do definitely need reviewers though, especially since Truco no longer has time to help out. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, for the next few days I won't be around but I should be back soon after that and I'll try to throw out reviews and work on some lists. I'll be sure to go through them– I noticed a couple on there that I'll try to work up. Just an FYI, I'm copying this conversation over to my talk page, no need to talk in two places. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 02:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Aus at the Winter Olympics

Replied YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 07:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Toney Douglas

The GAs that I have done that are most similar to Douglas are Manny Harris, DeShawn Sims and Evan Turner.

• For all of them, I hustled around at www.flickr.com to get photographers to change the licensing on their images. Most people that don't work for school newspapers are likely to consent.
• For all of them, I found all of their scouting report info to fill in templates.
• I think your guy should have a more detailed WP:LEAD.
• Click on the articles for these guys thahttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.pngt are from newsbank. Then hit the new search button. Start looking for more details in the newspapers from the various newspapers in the region he was playing in at various times of his career. You may want to have more honors in the infobox such as my articles do.

I personally, think it might pass, but you could make a much better article with more details that are surely readily available.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Questions:

• How does one go about asking the photographer to change the licensing status for the images?

• Become a registered user. I simply use the following text or something similar: "Would you consider changing the licensing of any of the following image:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/method606pix/3798033463/ for use on wikipedia to replace the main image in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavilion_projects? In order to use an image on wikipedia its licensing must either be CC-BY (Creative Commons Attribution license) or CC-BY-SA (Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike). You must change the licensing to release the image for use on wikipedia."

• A lot of the time they will try to change the license to a wrong license type. A lot of the time they will say no. A lot of the time everything will go smoothly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't have access to Newsbank; I use InfoTrac. Is there anything on Newsbank that could be used for Douglas? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• If you can read the newspaper articles cited in the articles you have access to newsbank. From any article hit the new search button. For some reason sometimes you have to hit the new search twice because the first time it only looks in the same newspaper as the article from which you came regardless of how broad a set of newspapers you choose. Make sure to use the permalink at the bottom for the url as opposed to the address in the address bar.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• The newsbank link you added does not seem to be working so I will reiterate Make sure to use the permalink at the bottom for the url as opposed to the address in the address bar.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• You should be able to see the newsbank articles from my articles above and then go to new search again. Note you can search by author or headline (which you know for this article) or you can redo the prior search.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I finally realize what you mean, but too late. Is there any way I can re-gain access? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Looke for the linked title at the bottom.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you made any flickr queries?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have asked someone, but they have not replied yet. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised how few images of him are at flickr. Good luck with the request. Sometimes you get blanked sometimes your cup runneth over.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

For both Cato June and Rob Pelinka, I have used a separate collegiate infobox. Douglas surely has a list of college awards and honors like the guys I have done that could be made readily available to the reader in such a format.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get on that later. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The article may not be as incomplete as I thought. I think beefing up the WP:LEAD could solve many problems. I am the kind of reader who tends to only read the WP:LEAD and infoboxes of many articles. I think an article should be essentially complete for a reader who only does so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

How is the lead now? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I am still left wondering how good he was in high school and college. My best comprehensive leads are at Tyrone Wheatley and Cato June. Have a look at those in addition to the guys mentioned above. Do you want to make this a PR and work on it for a while?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll start a peer review tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hit my talk page with the link when you get it started. I don't know what is out there for Douglas, but here is an example of what you can do to an article with newsbank.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

FAR

Thanks for the comments at SandyGeorgia's talk page. Its good to know that our FA-base is being kept well maintained. My chief concern is not so much for the FAR itself as it is for milhist participation in the process; we decided a while back to list the article but not to make any attempt to save them, and I think that sort of fuels a "its not my responsibility to comment on the FAR" mentality which can hurt an attempt to save an article. That's why I was asking for input; if you can nail the big issues at PR then the rest should be fairly easy to handle. Incidentally, you are welcome to comment on the page as well if you like. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

My comment was actually addressed to Sandy :) Military history and warfare isn't really my expertise, but when you sort out the content and citation needs, I can look at the prose and MOS issues. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, nobody believes anything I say, and think that I'm rampaging around vandalising and trashing everything (probably people give me these jobs as a poisoned chalice so I can take the blame or whatever as people think I'm a troll, and my opinions were never hidden), but whatever, I'll rant. Sandy went and posted warnings to the talk pages of articles with five different tags on them: Wikipedia:Featured_articles/Cleanup_listing. The number of variety of tags is not a good rank of FA-endangeredness. A lot of the articles high up on that list are well-cited, which is why the odd uncited sentence sticks out and is usually tagged for cites, whereas a lot of heavily citation-lacking articles like Fauna of Australia aren't, because there is no point in tagging almost every sentence. Bodyline has four problems listed, but only four sentences are unaccounted for. Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport and Rail transport in India were removed for having 75%+ home-made or non-independent sources, but neither have any tags. A lot of the weakest articles sent to FAR had little/no tags before they were nominated; I mean most unreferenced start-class articles (and thus FAs), nobody adds everywhere. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the offer. When I get everything sorted out I may take you up on that. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Algorithm/GA1

Re your comment there: the difficulty in clicking to find the reference is somewhat offset by seeing the author's name and year directly in the article. Once a reader is even slightly familiar with the topic, it becomes very easy to tell which reference is intended from that information alone, making it unnecessary to click at all. This is really the main benefit of parenthetical referencing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for the assistance you gave in getting List of new churches by John Douglas accepted as a FL. Your comments, advice and suggestions were always helpful and courteous, and I much appreciated them. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! Dabomb87 (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

scripts and bots

How did you run these scripts/bots? Nergaal (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Plastikspork/monobook.js/script.js. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Order of battle at the Battle of San Domingo

Thankyou for your comments at the above FLC - the article has now passed and your assistance was much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome, and congrats! Dabomb87 (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Intimacy

Hi there, one of the opposers at my new FAC wants a third-party prose check-up before he strikes his verdict.

You've been really helpful, supportive, and anal (all in equal measure ;)) with regards to prose analysis at my last two FAs that I was wondering if you'd like to have a look.

Cheers. Rafablu88 02:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Much obliged like usual. Rafablu88 02:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Userboxes

You have a simply awesome userbox on your page. Loved it so much that it ended a drought of nearly four years. Had to nab it. :) Cheers, Durova³⁰⁶ 04:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

response

A comment ceases to be a comment when it becomes a nomination. Just trying to mercilessly correct your mistakes as you so helpfully did for others. :) ocrasaroon (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing the spirit of the guideline. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver

As you know, I've been working on improving this article. I had to take a break from it for a few days and returned to find that the article is now a former featured article. When you placed a hold on the review on August 2, you noted that there was active work going on. I thought that we would have some time to upgrade the article. Thus, I don't understand why it has been delisted. We have addressed every observation made but one (the one about the history section, which, frankly, can be fixed in a day or two). I'm only half way through an extensive edit. I think that we've demonstrated the ability to fix the problems and we were assured, more than once, that if we kept working at it it would not be summarily delisted. I'm very unhappy with this process. Would you be able to shed some light on the situation? What recourse do we have? Sunray (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no control over the FAR process; I'm just an interested editor. Best thing to do is ask Raul654 (talk · contribs) about the delisting. It understand that you must be very frustrated with the way things went. Despite this, I encourage you to keep on working on the article and bring it back to FAC. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Your advice has been most helpful throughout this piece. Sunray (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you think?

Hey Dabomb. I was thinking what is going on with the FAR of 4 Minutes. There is no updations at all. Also I wanted to ask what do you think of the Madonna biography article? Do you think with little polishing it can gain back its FA status? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Summer is usually slow for reviewers; I'll take a look at the article if I can. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. What about the bio article? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Bob (1985)/archive1

Hey, I know you're busy, but could you revisit this FAC if you get a chance? It's at the bottom of the list, so I'm not sure how much longer it'll be open. Thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Having slept on it

This is something that falls outside the paradigms of most featured content discussions, so perhaps a full statement is needed. In the spring of 2001 the National Brain Tumor Foundation requested permission to republish the original List of brain tumor patients. They still host parts of it at their website along with my original comments. My first edit to Wikipedia was in October 2005, so obviously this wasn't written for featured credit. It happened to be feature-worthy, and the wiki environment allowed people from around the world to contribute and expand it. When I explained that in an offsite conversation the response was "But real world uses don't necessarily meet Wikipedia's featured content standards." What does that matter? The people who actually use it neither know nor care what the gold star in the corner means. It is still the best list of its kind in the world.

Featured recognition is a feather in the cap; you may say anyone who puts their featured count in their signature obviously cares about that. Well, to some extent that's right. But once you have a few hundred of these one doesn't make much difference. Today I'll nominate a children's book illustration that's a hundred years old. Am also in the middle of restoration on a 1916 photograph of the Brooklyn Eagle storefront, which will be useful when the New York chapter moves forward with the Brooklyn Public Library. The Eagle went out of business half a century ago and that library owns its archives. If we can get them to release the material it'd be a boon to Wikisource, and if that collection also includes the original photographic negatives it'd be a boon to Commons. This is the work that expands WMF's relations with cultural institutions. In the aftermath of the National Portrait Gallery's legal threat to Derrick Coetzee, there's urgency to building those relationships. I bring something to the table that very few Wikipedians can do; my priorities are there. Also in that other window is a map of New York harbor. The original dates to the days when it was called New Amsterdam, and although the restoration is nearly complete it may take days to finish because the original was nearly four centuries old and it was digitized over ten years ago on a miscalibrated scanner. The technical challenges to that work are exceptional, yet--fortunately--we already have a museum that wants to use this. It's part of a package I'm putting together for the Tropenmuseum of Amsterdam, as followup to the Suriname exhibit that's scheduled to run in November.

When I departed that featured list review I thought my statements were perfectly clear: to the point of bluntness and the verge of rudeness. Your query last night indicates that it was not. So to put this another way: when people come to my talk page and talk, one on one, I make time for them. Often they get more time then I really ought to lend. But really--when people nominate a credit for review and preach quality in terms of MOS compliance while they obviously haven't read the existing sources, there's very little worthy of respect about that. Everything that doesn't ring true at the most superficial glance was put to scrutiny and the burden placed entirely on the editors who had written it. Based solely upon a glance at the domain name, hollywood.com was challenged. It was during the rereading of Sandy Duncan's life that my perspective changed. Mary Martin's performance on Broadway as Peter Pan had been wonderful; she was a very hard act to follow. Yet when Sandy Duncan took the role she made it her own. Ms. Duncan followed that with a television career and was a rising star when, still in her twenties, she went blind in one eye. The diagnosis must have been agonizing: MRI scans and even CT scans didn't exist yet. A tumor in her frontal lobe had invaded her optic nerve. She's one of the lucky ones; she's still alive. But her career was ruined because one of her bright eyes had to be replaced with glass. In nineteen days no one has answered my query "What is the challenge to hollywood.com as a source for actor biographies?"

If those are your priorities, then by all means delist and begone. Durova³⁰⁶ 19:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If that doesn't communicate the message clearly then there is little more to be said. Increasingly, some of our featured content processes have taken on the tone of a game called 'let's have a review' in which certain people set themselves up as gatekeepers. They preach quality, but upon rational scrutiny their standards are facile--a matter of setting up hoops for other people to jump through like trained circus poodles. What this actually does is waste the time of the people who really contribute content. To reiterate: I have no remaining interest in the featured list process. Which is sad, because I had meant to contribute a few more of those. Your local consensus is effective at demoralizing dedicated content contributors. Adieu. Durova³⁰⁶ 20:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Cape Feare

My issue is as clear as day. I've stated my issue with the Amazon link - it has not been resolved. And the more users continually badger me about this article when existing issues haven't been solved, the less sympathetic I become. DJ 09:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ref cleanup

Thanks again; it's been on my list for a long time, but I've just never gotten around to it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Postings

I have been adding relevant video clips to subject matters. We have numerous interesting award winning videos about various aspects of Austin, Texas life,history, etc. We are a non-profit and produce these for Austin PBS and the history center. I felt that many of the videos were relevant to the content as well as to users interest. I keep getting spam information, but I am not a spammer.

MollyKay64 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollykay64 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'll have a word with Kay and Stepler. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    • If he continues to disregard he can be warned and blocked. I'll see where I can find the boilerplates for them. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

list of brain tumor patients

Hi dabomb. It's kind of hard to reconstruct the opening when the title of the list omits a crucial word: "notable". Without that word, I think it's necessary to announce this in the opening sentence.

I've tweaked a few minor things there and left a note on the discussion page about the need for the lead to be more explanatory. Tony (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For stepping in. My blood is literally boiling right now (well, not literally.......) and it's good that I can step away. I....yeah, thanks for stepping in. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 21:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

FAC check

Hi Dabomb, would you mind checking out the sources and possibly the prose for me at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1968 Illinois earthquake/archive2? ceranthor 21:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it later, if I can. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Louisville, KY

According to wikipedia guidelines, massively adding "citation needed" to articles is considered vandalism. I was cleaning up after a vandal. A "citation needed" is not required for things like listing schools within a city, or after a sentence stating that Louisville is home to the Kentucky Derby, that's like saying a citation is needed for asserting the Eiffel Tower is in Paris. There was a MASSIVE "citation needed" spree that I cleaned up after.

"The airport is located approximately 6.75 miles (10.86 km) south of the downtown area.[citation needed]. Is akin to saying "The Eiffel Tower (French: Tour Eiffel, /tuʀ ɛfɛl/) is an iron tower built during 1887-1889 on the Champ de Mars beside the Seine River in Paris." needs a citation.

"By the end of the war, Louisville itself had not been attacked once, although skirmishes and battles, including the battles of Perryville and Corydon, took place nearby.[citation needed] " Where Perryville and Corydon link to the battles.

READ A PAGE'S HISTORY and READ A PAGE before you critique an edit. dragon76 (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

see barnstar page 06:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I know you don't like this but...

I granted your requests here. DJ 23:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I like to review the oldest FLCs first, so I'll get to yours later in the week. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:And the streak continues...

Thanks, although I don't know how much longer I'll be able to keep it going (I won't have much time to edit in the fall, and I'm running out of lists to work on). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

US state

Why link? Tony (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Normally, I'm against linking for the sake of linking. However, since Alaska is a US state, I think it could be handy for non-US readers who don't exactly understand the nature of a state—political subdivisions differ from country to country. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Rough draft

I have put together a page outlining the Bolognia project at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force/Missing_articles#Bolognia_push_2009.21. How does that look? ---kilbad (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Kilbad, I'll get to this as soon as I have the time. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

FLC nomination of Kawartha Lakes Roads

I would appreciate the tag being left off the article until I make a new nomination in the near future. As both the sole material contributor to the article, and as the person who nominated and withdrew the article, I feel I should have the ability to undo my nomination. I'm happy to leave the archive in place, I just don't feel it needs to be tagged on the article itself until I make an eligible nomination. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dabomb87. You have new messages at Talk:Unification of Germany.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have time,

Just a question, not a review. A question was brought up here, on what was acceptable in a FLC. Your thoughts would be appreciated, but I completely understand if you are busy with other things. Thank you for all that you've already done, it's been a great help. — Ched :  ?  14:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Dabomb. I know you've been offered adminship nominations before, and turned them all down, but I'd really like to see you give it a shot. I truly believe you'd benefit 100% from the tools. Would you ever consider running? iMatthew ^{talk • take my poll} at 01:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate the offer, and would appreciate having the tools, but I'm quite busy now and don't have the time needed to keep up with an RfA. Also, I doubt that I would pass right now with my track record... I might consider it, though, next year—after my three-week end-of-2009 trip. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, well you'll hear from me again next year. :) iMatthew ^{talk • take my poll} at 01:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Back to the proposal to recodify civility

Dabomb, please consider revisiting and commenting on the remaining issues. Tony (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

clear template, image sizes

Hi dabomb, thanks for tending to the redundancy page in that way. There was an e.c., so I've overridden your "clear" template (is this what I've been looking for for ages? Something that stops other templates leaking down?) and restored large image sizes, as well as centring them all. I suddenly realised that centring them will stop the continual need for maintenance when edits are made anywhere in the text—it's been a bug-bear ever since I started these exercises.

Would you mind having a look again, and if the image sizes are really preposterous, can you reduce them to what you think would be acceptable? I like 'em big. And if the clear sign is still needed, would you mind? Tony (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Seinfeld info

I don't understand what you are asking me to look for.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

1G--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Celebrity Big Brother housemates/archive1

All of your concerns have been addressed. Dale 22:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The page has been moved also. Dale 11:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Fredonian Rebellion

Goodness, you're quick! Thanks for the MOS fixes - my copyeditor is not that familiar with the MOS and I didn't catch those changes. Karanacs (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, remind me to take a closer look later; my Texas history is not up to snuff, and I need to keep up some pretense of being a real Texan :) Dabomb87 (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

4 Minutes

Do you still think there is any change required in the article for it being a FA? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to do a sweep of the prose before you resubmit. I'll try to take a look on Friday; if not then, Sunday or Monday. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Do your best. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, do you find any discrepancies in the articles after you checked? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was busier than expected over the weekend. I'll finish up later this week. In the meantime, you might want to ask Tony to check if the article's up to snuff now. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Will do. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Unreviewed

When I tried to do this almost a year ago, she objected on the talk page (see the talk page of unreviewed articles). I'm glad someone finally moved it off! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: List of Project Runway contestants

I appreciate your edits to the article, but the second sentence of the lead no longer makes sense. Hoping you find the rest of the article qualifies for FL status. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, fixed now. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No prob! Just wanted to bring it your attention. Thanks again for your contributions to the list. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/IWGP Tag Team Championship/archive1

I have seen the notice, but I've come to say I believe all the important format changes, etc have been fixed.--WillC 23:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, but I still want to wait it out. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright.--WillC 00:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15