User talk:Dabomb87/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about 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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Primate at FAC

Hello! As a previous reviewer of Primate at FAC it would be great if you could have another look at the article. The FAC has been restarted, and any comments would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for List of Washington Wizards head coaches

On 1 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of Washington Wizards head coaches, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Lazare_Ponticelli

I see that Mandrax has sniffed out this location and is stirring up trouble by reverting back to the date links and autoformatting. Tony (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Germany internationals

Just wanted to say thanks for all of your help with this FLC nomination. It got there in the end! ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome! Dabomb87 (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Job for a Cowboy/GA1

Hi there! Please, give a copy-edit on this current GA nominee. Canniba loki 01:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. No problem. Canniba loki 01:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! but see: "Job for a Cowboy extensively extensively their debut EP..." =D Canniba loki 20:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ack! Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, great! Canniba loki 21:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Dickinson

I need your help. For some days I've been re-writing and shortening up Dickinson's article. here I'm working with the "Samson" section. I'm not here to ask you to copy-edit it or anything (maybe in the future). The article seems to be full of quotes by Dickinson. I got the most important one from that section and quoted it (yu'll see it quickly). But I can't find a place with the citation, a ref, except for this one. On the section "IV Samson", first paragraph appears the citation. Do you think that's a reliable source. Could you help me, or gimme a suggestion on how to find that citation?

Here's what I've done with the sections "solo career" and "Iron Maiden". Rockk3r Spit it Out! 02:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be reliable, because it lists its sources at the bottom. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I saw the message at the top of this page to "keep the conversations togother". Rockk3r Spit it Out! 16:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Stalking

Hi. I'm not bothered by the fact that you're following me around, but surely there must be a better strategy for finding biographical articles? I mean, think of all the ones I look at but don't edit. How are you going to find them? Deb (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

From your link on "Stalking": "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." Anyway, I know that there are many bio articles out there; I could go down the multitudes categories of bios in alpha order I suppose, I just look at your contribs because there was a time when you seemed to be adding date links to articles, which I wanted to correct. You seem to have stopped doing that, so I will let off. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Let's face it, you haven't got a strategy for "putting right" date links. Deb (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't spend all my Wiki time delinking dates; I don't aim to delink all of them. I go on spurts when I am in the mood. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Inline query reply

I removed the most recent query you inserted. Technically, a catastrophic eruption is caused by a large explosion. I meant any other type of explosions. —Ceran^thor 03:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of ECW Television Champions

Your comments have been addressed. Thanks for reviewing! --S R X 18:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: AFL-NFL merger

Per WP:DASH, it meets "As a substitute for some uses of and, to or versus for marking a relationship involving independent elements in certain compound expressions (Canada–US border, blood–brain barrier, time–altitude graph, 4–3 win in the opening game, male–female ratio, 3–2 majority verdict, Lincoln–Douglas debate, diode–transistor logic; but a hyphen is used in Sino-Japanese trade, in which Sino-, being a prefix, lacks lexical independence.)"

It can be considered the "AFL and NFL merger". Gary King (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather this issue be discussed on the talk page first. These four established news sites use a hyphen:

I left a notice at WT:NFL about the move also. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should go by what reliable sources say. I don't think they normally use dashes correctly, at least according to the MOS. Gary King (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll wait until I get further feedback at WT:NFL before changing anything. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Houston Texans head coaches/archive1

Mind peer reviewing when you've got time? Thanks! Gary King (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, keep 'em coming! Dabomb87 (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Dallas Cowboys head coaches/archive1 Gary King (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, regarding playoff win percentage, ultimately I agree that it should be there. I do notice, however, that a lot of recently promoted FLs don't have it, while a small number do. Probably something to keep an eye on in the future. I don't know why they were missing to begin with. Gary King (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Carolina Panthers head coaches/archive1 Gary King (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Standards were lower back then. I will add them in. Will take care of that PR right now. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Back then, as in last month? :) Glad that they are higher now then. Gary King (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

A month ago, baseball lists were all the rage! Dabomb87 (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Minnesota Vikings head coaches/archive1 Gary King (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Seattle Seahawks head coaches/archive1 Gary King (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy, looks like you've got your hands full with the discussion below. Gary King (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Last one: Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Miami Dolphins head coaches/archive1 Gary King (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, related to these lists, how do you think List of National Football League head coaches should be organized before it's sent to FLC? Gary King (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

← Initially I didn't plan on submitting this one since it was peer reviewed seven months ago, but I figured that was such a long time ago that it should be brought up to standards, too: Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers head coaches/archive2 Gary King (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Kirby media

I think I've addressed your concerns on the article. Thanks a bunch for reviewing! -- Nomader ^(Talk) 00:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ponticelli

You seem to be good with words. Mind copyediting Ponticelli? ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, although I don't know whether I can get it to meet Tony1's lofty standards. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Year linking, History, and Supercentenarians

Greetings,

In this age of video-game-zipping quickness, too many people are too quick to make changes without first considering the rationales behind them. You have not shown any attempt so far in the date-linking debate to be fair, rational, or reasonable in the current debate about year linking. Rather, you appear to be little more than a storm-trooper operative supporting a coup d-etat of User Tony1, whose objection to year and date linking was founded on an attempt to make Wikipedia an old-fashioned paper encyclopedia. Well, guess what, it isn't. The entire point of WIKIpedia is the WIKIlinks...without them, the system doesn't work. Your overpruning of links is detestable, as is your apparent lack of understanding and attempt to apply a "one-size-fits all" policy.

Too many people today think in terms of current events; they lack the dimensions of time past and time future. Your deletion of relevant Wikilinks is akin to destroying a known time-travel machine "because it doesn't look pretty."

Please develop some complex reasoning and rationale here before continuing on with this crusade.Ryoung122 04:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Show me where information in a year link is relevant to the context, and I will reconsider. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because we have the ability to do things on an online encyclopedia that we can't on a paper one, does not mean we have to. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It should be Prima facie evident that if someone is known for age, then their year of birth is relevant. For example,

http://erstarnews.com/content/view/4963/26/

We see a life-history timeline that features life events of this person.

Far more than mere age, however, ANY article that deals with HISTORY should have a link to the relevant historical time period. I do have two degrees in history with a WORLD HISTORY endorsement.Ryoung122 04:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(cur) (last) 04:55, 19 November 2008 Dabomb87 (Talk | contribs) (19,350 bytes) (if you have a problem with the MOS, bring it up on the MOS talk pages; as long as this is a featured list and as long as MOS says to not link dates, I will unlink them) (undo)

Correction: MOS says do not link dates for "autoformatting" reasons...it does not say that dates cannot be linked for HISTORICAL reasons. Show me the MOS policy you are citing.Ryoung122 04:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, so you know a lot more on me about history than me. How does that make linking to years any more useful?

P.S. Have you commented in the RfCs about date linking? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The Cure discography

Hopefully I've addressed your points at the FLC. Let me know if there's anything else. Cheers, --JD554 (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

FLC - List of monarchs of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty

Hi, Dabomb87! I just wanted to thank you for your FLC review and to let you know that all of your comments have been taken into account. Regards. BomBom (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that the image review for the List of monarchs of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty has been completed, and that all of David Fuchs’ comments/suggestions have been taken into account. You are welcome to comment on the article’s FLC page now that all the images have been confirmed to be free. Regards. BomBom (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration (FLC)

You recently commented on and registered support for the above FLC nomination, for which many thanks. Another reviewer has suggested that some of the images, in particular the FU one, "may have to go". The comments of an experienced image reviewer are awaited.

None of the images are essential to the table, but they add to its interest and aesthetics. Could you let me know whether it would affect your declared support if I was required to delete some images? It is important that this list gets featured status, because it is the future parent to a Featured Topic (seven of the expedition articles are FA so far). If in your view a loss of images would fatally impair its chances of becoming a Featured List, I have the option of withdrawing it and reformulating it as an article, along the lines of Farthest South (FA). That would enable a different approach to image selection. But I don't want to do this unless I have to. I'd welcome your comments on this matter, either here or on my talkpage. I have sent this message to other declared "supports". Brianboulton (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I would not retract my support for such a small thing. I would rather see the articles' images meet copyright laws (and thus the Featured List criteria) than see the article rewritten just because of a visual issue. The article itself is excellent, and removing some images would do nothing to change my opinion on that. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That is very heartening. Thank you. Brianboulton (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Joking Apart episodes

Thanks for your comments and support of my FLC. Much appreciated. On a sentimental note, the show's director, Bob Spiers, passed away yesterday. I would have expected this and it's parent article to have been viewed many times over the last 36 hours, so it's a good job it's in decent shape. Your copyediting remarks have helped that. The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 TMC

Hello ! I've added a comment about eventually splitting tennis tournaments main articles into smaller articles –or, more exactly, put day by day summaries into individual draw pages– on Talk:2008 Tennis Masters Cup. Since that would be a rather important change to the 2008 Tennis Masters Cup article, I'd like to have your input on this. Thanks, --Oxford St. (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be a good idea. I was concerned about the article's use of summary style anyway; the article was at 62 KB readable prose, which is on the high side. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Curious

Just curious. How exactly do you reason that "Dates should not be linked, unless there is a reason to do so" can be interpreted as meaning "Dates should never be linked under any circumstances, and all date links should be eradicated" as you appear to do? G-Man ^? 00:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

My personal belief is that date links are never useful except for articles that are about chronological items (December 21, January, 1940s, 2006, Monday) and holidays that fall on the same date (Christmas Day link to December 25 and (Armistice Day). Except for those, virtually nothing else. All recently Featured Articles and Featured Lists also follow this standard. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine, you are entitled to your views, but as far as I can see from the various discussions not everybody agrees with your opinion, and many people have different ideas about where it is appropriate to link dates. Some of us are not particularly happy with bots being used to delete all date links on articles. The wording of the policy at MOSNUM clearly gives leeway for some dates to be linked, unfortunately it is rather vague as to what reason to do so actually means, and is inevitably a matter of opinion. Might I suggest that you stop removing date links until the present policy is clarified? G-Man ^? 00:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Last month, I stopped my delinkings for a little more than a week. During that time (or shortly afterward, I can't remember), there was an ANI thread in which multiple uninvolved admins declared that because the strong consensus for my position, date delinkers were no longer to be reported for their actions. There will never 100% support for the removal of date links; the 85% who support the current deprecation as well as the aforementioned Featured Articles and Featured Lists serve as enough consensus for me on date linking. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The MOSNUM wording was subject to many changes; the page was protected because of the edit warring over the wording. Since there is no clear guidance on that page, I use the recently promoted Featured Articles and Featured Lists as my guidelines. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a curious argument. As far as I can tell the date link usage on Featured Articles was implemented by people like you by default with bots without any discussion or consensus. Yet you claim that as a guideline. That is surely a circular argument. G-Man ^? 01:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yet they accepted it without argument. If you truly believe that they want to link dates, bring up the topic on WT:FAC and WT:FLC. Might I direct you to User:Tony1/Information on the removal of DA and User:Tony1/Support for the removal of date autoformatting, which contains support from talk pages of Featured Articles (therefore dispensing with your argument that there was no discussion) and FAC regulars. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

A few carefully cherry picked statements really don't prove very much. I'm sure I could construct a similar list of carefully selected comments to support my case. G-Man ^? 22:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong in that we use "bots"; in fact, we use semi-automated scripts, which make the task of removing date links much easier while allowing human oversight. The only bot that I have known to remove date links is User:Lightbot, which is not running. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's take the Winston Churchill article, the dates were first removed on 30th August by a bot or script or whatever it is called, by stealth without any discussion. The same process has been followed on practically all featured pages. And you are wrong that people accepted it without argument. I have seen numerous examples of date removals being reverted. And not just by me. G-Man ^? 01:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I would hardly call that stealth, as everybody can see that action on the page history. Show me a recently promoted Featured Article in which the removal of dates is disputed. Did you look at the links I provided? I have digged through the archives, and you are wrong that there was no notice of the changes for FAs and FLs. See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates/Archive_7#Date_autoformatting_change and Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive30#Date_autoformatting_change. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Both of those links refer to the removal of autoformatting, which is a different issue from the linking of dates per-se, that does not justify the removal of all date links. G-Man ^? 01:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC) (P.S. I'm going to bed now, I'll be back tommorow)

Okay then, let me turn your argument around you say that people accepted the changes without argument. This to my mind is evidence of indifference/and or/apathy than anything else. Having looked at the history of the Winston Churchill article. The dates were linked on the article since the very first edit in 2001. They survived for seven whole years without anybody removing them or objecting to them. That hardly suggests that there was any public dissaproval of their presence, or any strong demand to get rid of them. The same applies to practically every other article, featured or not. So where is your evidence for the claim that there is any strong public demand for ALL date links to be removed outside of your small band of associates. G-Man ^? 22:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The linking survived because linking was required by the MOS for autoformatting. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The MoS doesn't require anything, it merely suggests. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Featured Articles, at least, are mandated to follow the MOS. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I read WP:FA?, but didn't come away that there was any kind of "mandate" for it. It says "follows" and then refers to them as guidelines.. that gives the appearance that it's not required to reach FA status. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The criteria might be lax, but the FAC reviewers are not so forgiving... Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a requirement somewhere that all articles be written in accordance with the featured article criteria, even those articles that have not yet been nominated for feature article? You might want to take a look at the good article criteria, especially the information about compliance with the MOS guidelines, before answering. Tennis expert (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as the ultimate goal is to bring all articles to Featured Article Status, sure I don't see why we shouldn't strive for that. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this "ultimate goal" stated somewhere? Or is this merely your "ultimate goal"? Tennis expert (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the ultimate goal is perfection (notice the link to Featured Articles in the See also section). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Tennis expert, can you please clarify your "retired" banner, when you are clearly still somewhat active in Wikipedia, if not article space (which baffles me). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If perfection is the ultimate goal, perhaps you should try to change the good article criteria first and make the MOS mandatory instead of encouraging. As to my status, it is obvious and no clarification is needed. Tennis expert (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Dabomb, for what it's worth, I completely agree. This project is to create an excellent, free, online encyclopedia whose content is accurate and consistently presented. It has been made clear on numerous occasions that some editors do not see this. We should all be working in the article namespace to improve, enhance and perfect (yes, perfect) articles to which we can bring something positive. It's a shame we have so many "contributors" who are happy to snipe from the sidelines instead of actively improving articles. I, for one, will continue to contribute to peer reviews and WP:FLC where I can, even when I am pushed for time. That's what this project is all about. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Chloe

No worries. I put like a half dozen articles up, so it worked in my favor as they all were not reviewed at the same time. Thanks for taking the time to review Chloe. I'll get to work sprucing up the prose (I already took care of the lead section). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Baseball-Almanac

Do you think baseball-almanac.com is a reliable source of information? -- SRE.K.A~~nnoyomous~~.L.24_[c] 20:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"Baseball Almanac has MORE than 300,000 pages of baseball history, MORE than 900,000 fast facts, original research from recognized experts AND material not found or seen on any other web site in the world." Who are the "recognized experts"? We need to know what sort of fact-checking this site does. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. You may need to e-mail the site's operators. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ustase

I've already elaborated fully why the added text - on the article talk page, then removed by me and others, is a defamation of the Einstein's name. Please, avoid supporting this defamation further.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Fullmetal Alchemist chapters

Fixed the issues you mentioned. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Trivium discography

Before the band recorded their second album, Young was replaced by bassist Paolo Gregoletto, and Corey Beaulieu joined as the band's second guitarist. (?) Canniba loki 23:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

GAN reviews

Do you do GAN reviews, in addition to your FLC reviews? Gary King (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I do, although usually on request only. If you have any for me to do, I could probably to them in a couple days. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't have one at the moment. I will let you know if I do, though, since you are very thorough. Gary King (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was planning to get more involved in the GA process now that FLC backlog seems to be manageable. I've only done two GA reviews so far, so I would like to do more in the near future... Dabomb87 (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy, we could certainly use you there. Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report has plenty of statistics to get you up to speed as to just how big the backlog is. Gary King (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at this since you "[know] a bunch about grammar" :) Gary King (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I will take you up on your invitation for GAN reviews. The Simpsons Hit & Run is now up at GAN, and I'd really appreciate it if you could be as critical as possible in your GAN review before the article is submitted to FAC. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review; I will get to it in a few minutes. I'm currently copyediting the article. I was copyediting the article before your review, but had to leave abruptly when I got a call telling me my snow blower was ready after being repaired, so I had to go pick it up. Go figure :) Gary King (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Come to Central Texas, you will never need a snow blower! Dabomb87 (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

When you got time, the GAN is ready. Also, if you have even more time, I'd appreciate a copyedit before submitting to FAC :) Gary King (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have too much RL work today and tomorrow for much Wiki-stuff. I will definitely finish the GAN review tomorrow (maybe today, if I can squeeze it in). Copy-editing will probably have to wait a couple days. I can definitely get to it by this weekend. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Stalking, Part 2

Okay, I have warned you before about the stalking, but it doesn't seem to have had any effect. I suggest you stop now because I really don't want to have to make a complaint against you. Deb (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." —From WP:STALK, which you linked to above. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not what you've been doing. All you are doing is following me round the biography articles - it's very clear that you just go to my contributions list and look to see what biography articles I've worked on, then you go and look to see if you can find something wrong with them. And in fact, you admitted above that you only de-link dates when you feel like it. While we're about it, if you insist on replying on your talk page instead of mine, please place a note on mine to say that you've done so - so that I don't have to keep looking at your page to see if you've replied. Deb (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

So, what is wrong with fixing things? At the top of my talk page, it says to keep it on your watchlist. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You cannot possibly be too stupid to understand the warning I'm giving you. I'm not going to repeat it. Deb (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me what I am doing wrong. There is nothing wrong with looking at an editors' contributions and fixing articles that they have edited. Also, another quote from WP:STALK: "If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." I am being civil, I have not attacked you, and I am not disrupting you or any other editors' actions. Please be more specific. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You must be aware that there's currently only a consensus to deprecate date links for the sole purpose of auto formatting. Date links for other purposes are at best showing a consensus for "sometimes" and at worst a no consensus (which means we return to the status quo until consensus can be reached). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Sylvester Medal

Not sure if I'm entirely allowed to do this but.. The issues with the Sylvester Medal and Royal Medal were just about the same. I've dealt with the RM issues and you've ticked them off; could you take a look at the Sylvester Medal page and do the same or, if there are issues remaining, give me a poke as to what they are? Thanks. Ironholds (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

New York Rangers seasons

SRE.K.A.L.24 suggested at this article's FLC that the page needs a copy-edit. If you have time, could you please take a look at this and provide some assistance? Even a simple review would be great. I can't see what's wrong with the text, and I'm not sure that the last round of comments made a big difference. Thanks for any help you can provide. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Responded at the FLC. Thanks so much for finding some time to give it a review, and I'm happy that a major copy-edit apparently isn't needed. Giants2008 (17-14) 05:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Another request

This one should be much, much more challenging. I've listed it at FAPQ, it would be nice if it got some feedback from there. It's kind of a mess, it needs a lot of copyediting work. Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 00:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Two Dozen and One Greyhounds GA review

Excellent, thanks, I will get right on it now. I think it should be good enough to take to FAC soon, so any comments at all is appreciated. Gary King (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Bleach chapters

Do you see some parts of this list that require Copyedit? Could you tell me? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That tag was added to attract more attention.Tintor2 (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Already fixed.Tintor2 (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to submit to FLC whenever it's ready, I am more or less through with the prose scrubbing. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Article copyedit request

If you've got time, could you take a look at Scene7 and copyedit any major issues there? It's currently at FAC, and a few issues were brought up; I tried my best to clean it up, and also expanded the article from 7 kb of prose to 12 kb right now (will try and add more if I can find anything), but perhaps I missed a few things. This is the article's second time at FAC, so I'm hoping it will pass this time around. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Working on it right now as you commented. Don't make any edits! Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Responded to both your queries on my talk page. Gary King (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you copyedit Max Payne 2 if you've got time? It's also at GAN. Gary King (talk) 16:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, give me about 15–30 minutes. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your inline comment here, your edit botched the text which is probably why it was not very understandable :) Gary King (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; Development is always hardest to write because there is little information for it on the surface; you always got to dig a little deeper to find the good stuff. Scene7 is my only FAC which still needs comments; also, my articles at GAN (including Max Payne 2) could do with some reviewing :P Gary King (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, no problemo; I think Max Payne 2 is ready for FAC but I usually go through GAN just for a second opinion first. Gary King (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I got them all. Gary King (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I've got two articles that I think are ready for FAC and will nominate then in a few weeks, but if you've got time, could you take a look at them? They are The Day the Violence Died and Two Dozen and One Greyhounds; I don't think they need much more work, but perhaps I missed a few things. Gary King (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Will look at The Day the Violence Died today or tomorrow; I did a GA review of Two Dozen and One Greyhounds and can't help there much more unless there is something specific you want me to look at. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay; those are the only two articles I have that I think are ready for FAC. I'm working on a few others but they aren't ready yet, but hopefully they will be in a few days. Gary King (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If you really got time, mind taking a look at The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II? It's almost at FA level, but not quite in my opinion; I've been copyediting it recently and have been hitting the wall a few times, as the edit history will indicate. I'm unhappy with its accessibility to a general audience; not surprising, considering the literature that the game is based on! The two sections that need more work in particular are Gameplay and Plot. I'm going to continue working on them, but would appreciate some help in making them more understandable. Gary King (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, this one will probably have to wait till tomorrow, when I have a fresh mind. I can look at TDTVD later, but I am reviewing an FLC right now and am a bit busy. Lucky for you, I really have time! :) Dabomb87 (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit on the LOTR article. I've been having trouble working on it, but I think I'm pretty much satisfied with it now. Every time I read it over, I find something else wrong; for instance, I read it over and wonder if a few things could be explained better for people who are unfamiliar with LOTR, but I think it's much better now so I will probably submit it to GAN within the hour—I try to only submit articles to GAN when I think they are ready for FAC; as I said before, it's just a final check before I consider it ready. Again, thanks for the copyedit! Gary King (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No prob—"Every time I read it over, I find something else wrong" That's good (don't take that the wrong way), as that detail-oriented attitude will make the eventual FAC easier. As a sidenote, it is kind of annoying to have three people leave messages on your talk page at once—especially when one of them is a borderline personal attack :(. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Baltimore Orioles managers

Thanks for removing the disambiguation link from this article; however, I left that link in the article intentionally to distinguish the fact that the Cardinals also used the St. Louis Browns name, necessary because I said that they "adopted" the name. I'm going to change it back, but I just wanted to let you know why. Thanks! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the heads up about Portal:Theatre, and also for fixing the date on the talk page at the link in the article history. Cirt (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for all that you have done to keep the Featured Portal process alive. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Dickinson discography

I've been working on this discography for quite a while already. When I found it, it looked like this. I've been brain storming trying to find the best way to put a good lead for the article, but it's been really difficult. So I'm here again, to ask for your help, just like you did on Maiden's discog. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 22:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Will look at it later today. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:ECW FL

Oh, thanks for noting that. I dabbed it to Orange County, the city, as opposed to the town since a stadium is most likely located in a more popular city.--S R X 02:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

a question...

Hi. First of all, thank you for all your comments regarding my project for the Top Latin Albums. But I have a question about something else, do you know how to upload music samples? I have been working on Para Siempre by Vicente Fernández and I think the articles could be improved if I upload samples from the tracks included.

Thanks, Jaespinoza (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files and Wikipedia:Uploading images (generally the same info for uploading sound files). Go to Special:Upload to actually upload the file. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

RE:Hey

Thanks! Yeah its been a while. Took a nice wikibreak to focus on school, but now I'm back. Thanks for the welcome! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 00:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Not at the moment. If they need help, I would of course offer my assistance. But as of this moment I do not want to take any official roles and do not want to step on any toes. I wholeheartedly endorse Seph as Director, and it seems s/he is doing a great job. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 00:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

William D. Boyce

Happy Holidays! I'm done with the raw info here. The lead needs expanded (which I'll try to work on), and there's some overlap in the business and expedition sections that I'm not sure what to do with. Also, it could use your brilliant touch before FAC. Any help is appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

"not really related to his monetary protectiveness, so this should be rm'd? No, just moved" Moved where? Feel free to go ahead. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Added an explanatory phrase instead, feel free to tweak and move around as necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you done or do you still need to do Scouting and Legacy? Lead has been expanded some too. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I still need to look at Scouting and Legacy. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the seasons is that the refs used seasons, not months, so we have to fudge here. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, we will have to be very vague then, perhaps "mid-year" or late in the year? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Outdent, I put in named months. On the "answer to philanthropy", it's something along the line of "how to fulfill his philanthropic dream/ideas". — Rlevse • Talk • 15:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Changed to: "but could not find a way to channel his charitable ideas and dreams". I could probably cut "dreams" though. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Finished my sweep. An enjoyable read! Dabomb87 (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. Answered final questions. Many thanks again. Any ideas on the lead? PS--for lead para two, how can we say "Boyce received many awards and many memorials for his efforts" — Rlevse • Talk • 17:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Try something like: "Boyce received many awards and memorials for his efforts, including the [insert most memorable and notable awards here]." Dabomb87 (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Check out Nishkid64's new lead (I ce'd a bit) and the move of a paragraph I just made (summaries are "move para" and "move para here". — Rlevse • Talk • 13:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar!

see barnstar page

High-level radioactive waste management

Thank you for your efforts on the references on this page. I've made a few additions to information in #16-19 which necessitated changing the format of the reference you had created. Not sure how to insert things in that format, so you may wish to look at them. A few are producing odd results in punctuation and such: Vandenbosch cites don't always have a period after page number unless inserted manually, and author of #15 does not display in list although it is in the citation in the text. I'll clean up a few more in the next couple days when I have time. Again, thanks. It's looking much better (and shorter!). Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Messed with the article a bit more, verifying references and deleting unreliable text and refs. A couple of notes for you: (1) spacing/punctuation issue in current note #37 same as #3 (2)note # 22 is not a book, but a series of Canadian laws comparable to U.S. Code, so cite looks a bit strange as a book (3)#23 and #25 author is same as publisher, if that matters (not displayed in cite as author), also #27 same as #33).

Hope I've got the numbers right above and didn't delete something that changes them all.... If these issues are ok with the reference format you are using, that's fine, but I just wasn't sure if its a glitch or intentional.

Not sure what Gary means about linking URLs to titles in his comment on talk page, and I don't know how to do that, do you?

Again, thank you for your efforts. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 05:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I can fix these things right now. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Also added info to the last reference in the group, but not sure I did it right. Have a good holiday! Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your efforts. You ARE amazing!!! Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Merry Christmas

Thanks, you too! Gary King (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Baltimore Orioles manager FLC

I believe that we have an issue that requires your clarification. Would you mind taking another look? I'd appreciate it. Thanks! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

My username

I purposely wrote Annoyomous. Just read the section, "My username" on my userpage. Happy holidays. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.A~~nnoyomous~~.L.24 _{spell my name backwards on} 00:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it's KV5's FLC. I just seem to comment on it a lot. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.A~~nnoyomous~~.L.24 _{spell my name backwards on} 00:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Silly me. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:FLC Backlog

Oops, I must be seeing things, I was counting the days wrong, eh. Sorry.--S R X 20:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of the Adriatic campaign, 1807–1814 FLC

Thankyou for participating in the FLC for Timeline of the Adriatic campaign, 1807–1814. The article has now passed and your assistance in the process was much appreciated. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

William Henry Harrison

I just stumbled across this, never edited it. Is it worth taking a stab at? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. It passed GA about 6 months ago. The reviewer said that before FAC, the article needed 1) a copy-edit 2) a vetting of the sources. You might talk to User:Charles Edward about it, as he was the GA nominator. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You're the copy edit expert. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll get around to the copy-editing sometime in early to mid January, probably no earlier. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

List of works by William Monahan

Don't piss me off. You're pissing me off. Read yourself a book and stop misinterpreting policy like a donkey.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

What does "FLs don't start out like this, see recently promoted lists" mean? This article was promoted with that beginning which was recommended at the time. It doesn't make sense to begin any other way. The article is not about the person but his works. It's a list of works.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You're doing this to every featured list's lede? Why? Just because an article is a featured list doesn't mean it now has to have an idiotic lede.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to explain before indiscriminately personally attacking me. At WP:FLC, we have moved away from the "idiotic" repetition of the list's title, with emphasis on having an engaging lede sentence that establishes context for the article. As an example of a recent promotion, see List of University of Waterloo people. Now, granted, what I added to your article was hardly the of the best quality. But I would have appreciated it if you had asked a polite question before bombarding an unsuspecting me with "Read yourself a book and stop misinterpreting policy like a donkey". Dabomb87 (talk) 03:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for lede sentence: "William Monahan, American screenwriter, literary novelist, and former journalist, has written [insert # of works here] books/novels/works." Dabomb87 (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

That dog won't hunt.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

All you wrote was "lead" and the next time "FLs don't start out like this, see recently promoted lists". There is nothing wrong with the lede. It reads: "This list of works by William Monahan classifies all known works by William Monahan (born November 3, 1960), an American screenwriter, literary novelist, and former journalist." How would you better characterize the article? It's not quite a bibliography but rather a list of works. It's also a list of works that classifies all known works by William Monahan. I don't want to say that I find a lot of WikiGnome edits to be quite damaging to the encyclopedia but they often get me quite irate. They're akin to a drive-by shooting with rubber bullets; every once in a while they can seriously wound an article.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, I acknowledge that my edit summary was cryptic. In plain speak, this is what I mean: The straight repetition of the list's title in the first sentence has been discouraged at FLC for the past five or six months. Take a look at the featured list log for December. Instead, the lead sentence should be more engaging and contextual, if not directly connected to the list's title. Any more questions? If you have any more issues with that, I suggest you take it up at WT:FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we just leave the lede the way it is and not waste time on the current fashion over at FLC. The lede for "List of University of Waterloo people" is idiotic if you ask me, while the list itself is quite good. Why doesn't the lede say clearly--from the get go-- that this is a list drawn from faculty, alumni, staff, and former university presidents for the University of Waterloo? Anyhow, the current fashion which will probably become something sane again sometime down the road.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Then we must agree to disagree here, because I find the old list openings as bad as you find the new ones. Look at Harvey Milk, a Featured Article. It doesn't start out: This is an article about Harvey Milk, an American politician... Why should FLs be different? To reply to your question ("You're doing this to every featured list's lede?"); no, have only changed the ledes on a couple lists to gauge opinion. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. You seem to have strong feelings about these type of lists, may I suggest that you review some lists at FLC? We are always in need of reviewers :) Dabomb87 (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, we'll let sleeping dogs lie. I wonder what a study of the value of WikiGnome edits would determine. I see a lot that I don't like in them: correcting spelling errors in article titles, or quotes, de-linking or re-arranging dates in incorrect fashions, and other weirdness. I am not so certain they are on the whole useful but I would love to be corrected. Definitely should be studied. Actually what are WikiElf edits? Anyhow, I don't really have the time to review featured lists.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Not trying to be asinine. This is actually something I have thought about.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

That's quite an interesting take on the subject. I have never encountered disruptive WikiGnome edits (although some can be annoying), nor do I regard them as with much suspicion. However, I understand your concerns. A study of WikiGnome edits would be interesting, as I would imagine that there would be much debate over the definition of a "WikiGnome edit". Dabomb87 (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

Hi, I have some grammar questions for you. In this FLC, a question came up saying that the title "List of NBA All-Stars" is incorrect and should be replaced with "List of NBA all-stars." I just want to ask you which one is correct and should be used. Thanks.—Chris! _ct 19:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it will be great if you can comment directly on the FLC.—Chris! _ct 19:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Just commented. Note that if I have previously commented on an FLC, I will keep it on my watchlist until the nomination is archived. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks—Chris! _ct 19:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"Don't use graphics"

Hi, I notice you removed the {{Done-t}} templates on an FLC here. Just to let you know that these templates are allowed as they are not graphics. They are just templates with coloured text, which is why I use them instead of {{done}}. I just thought i'd let you know that the templates appended with "-t" are allowed (it stands for text). Regards, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant templates; the FLC pages have template limits, therefore those should not be used either. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for clarifying. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Image reviews at FLC

Hi White Cat. I noticed that you did the image review for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nobel Peace Prize Laureates. I am a frequent FLC reviewer, and as part of the FL criteria, images should be properly licensed/attributed. I have held up a nomination because I am not sure if their images meet criteria and am not experienced enough in this area to check every image. Could I request you to look at one? It is Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Boston Latin School alumni. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a million, although it is a bit of a letdown to have bothered you only to discover that all images are in fact correctly tagged/attributed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I created a {{Alumimg}} and will apply it to the list now. My check cannot determine the copyright status with 100% accuracy. All I can do is review the existing licensing and assume the person uploading it isn't lying (unless such a lie is obvious). -- Cat ^chi? 22:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I know, but some of the licensing issues on those images confused me, which was why I was not able to check the images properly. Once again, thanks. Your template should address the thumbnail issue, nice work. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Portland Trail Blazers accomplishments and records

On 28 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Portland Trail Blazers accomplishments and records, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cunard (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

En dashes

Hello!

I noticed that you've been converting some em-dashes to en-dashes (forgive me if my terminology is incorrect, I don't really know too much about things like these). I'm not sure if you're running a script or not but, in case you are, maybe you could look into tweaking it so that it does not convert these dashes in hyperlinks because that can render them inaccessible. Case in point, article Tomasz Kucharzewski has a reference that was changed from http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/story.html?id=21601e92-c90d-4a13-ab48-79fc1f68e915 to http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/story.html?id=21601e92-c90d-4a13-ab48–79fc1f68e915 on this edit. The link with the en-dash now doesn't work and it may become difficult and tedious to correct these things if they're being changed en-masse. Could you look into it, please?

Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

So sorry, usually I catch these things but I must have missed it. Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It is somebody else's script, I did not create it. As I said, I usually catch those errors (the script allows the user to nullify unwanted edits) but for some reason, I didn't catch this one. I will go slower in the future. Once again, I am very sorry about the inconvenience. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No need to feel sorry. Full response on my talk page. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Canadian Idol finalists

I was wondering if you can copy-edit this article for me, which will be greatly appreciated. Thanks and happy holidays. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.A~~nnoyomous~~.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 01:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, give a bit of time. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for copy-editing the article nicely and quickly. My response to the first hidden message is that I can't actually elaborate on economic changes, because it is copied directly from the reference. On the second one, if you read the sentence carefully, "Sixty-one contestants have reached the finals of their Canadian Idol season", I think it is clear to say that their is referring the contestants respective seasons. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.A~~nnoyomous~~.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 01:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

For the sentence, "Sixty-one contestants have reached the finals of their Canadian Idol season", I've added "respective" between "their" and "Canadian Idol". -- _{signed by} SRE.K.A~~nnoyomous~~.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 01:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, looks good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have any more comments or concerns relating to the article, please let me know ASAP, as you may know of course, I will be nominating this article for FLC in some period of time. Thanks again and cheers. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.A~~nnoyomous~~.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 01:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The picture of Rex Goudie is the only image to have a sufficient description and information. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.A~~nnoyomous~~.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 02:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

A couple other pictures are free, but their information needs to be organized like Rex's file page. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I will fix the images after I deal with what I'm doing in the "real" world. Cheers. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.A~~nnoyomous~~.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 02:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the summary on the ones which you thought were free. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.A~~nnoyomous~~.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 01:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)OK, what about the ones whose copyright status is in doubt? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll do those later. I feel lazy today. :( -- _{signed by} SRE.K.A~~nnoyomous~~.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 01:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Delinking is not an excuse to change date formats

So stop doing it.

See WT:DATE#Delinking dates is being used as an excuse for improper format changes. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Diffs would be nice. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: New Super Mario Bros. GA

Cool. On a side note, I should probably mention in my GAN nominations that I am preparing for an FAC (for reviewers who don't usually review my articles), so I'd like reviews to be as critical as possible. I'll go do that now. Gary King (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully it doesn't scare away other reviewers though. Also, be sure to put "status=on hold" in the GA template when the review is done; I see you've placed the template already; kind of confusing when it's placed but there is no review. Gary King (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought about that right after I pressed "Save page". I'm about 3⁄4 done, so I shouldn't be long. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Al-Muallak Mosque.

Hi. I have responded to your comment on my nomination's entry. If you have the time please respond. Thank you --Fipplet (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)