User talk:Dabomb87/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Sure! (Re: Signpost request)

I'd be happy to help! (*Telling myself: please remember, please remember...*) :P Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Don't worry about remembering; I'll remind you when it's ready :) Dabomb87 (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Denied Protection Request

What's the point of asking for protection for pages when the staff refuses to help protect against vandalism? Something that would take 10 seconds to do, no? TyVulpine (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ty. First of all, I'm not a "staff" member, but a volunteer, just like you. Second, protection is not applied to every page that is vandalized. Only articles that receive a significant number of unhelpful edits in the recent (not one every few days) are semi-protected. We use protection only when absolutely necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring Marymount college

It is disingenuous to claim that the recent reversions were about deleting the properly sourced description of the college. A simple review of the history page will reveal the users Kellycurtis, 68.48.87.125 and Mccormick915 have all been intent on deleting the Expansion controversy section of the article. Even after attempts to engage them and changing the name to Expansion plans, the deletions continued. Toward the end the edits became more sophisticated but each time centered on deleting the expansion section. I suggest those three users, who have contributed to Marymount College, Palos Verdes and no other articles, have the same agenda and might be the same person masquerading as a sock puppet after user:Kellycurtis was blocked for vandalism.I ♥ ♪♫ (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever tried to identify your motives for reverting; as protecting admin, I have no opinion on whose edits are "right". However, please do not edit-war; use the talk page to reach a consensus. If the other users (whom I have also warned) refuse to discuss and continue to revert, then report them to WP:AN/I or WP:AN/EW. If you really believe that the other two users are sockpuppets (and have the evidence to substantiate the claim), then open a sockpuppet investigation. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence E. Roberts

Could you do your usual thing here? I've put it at DYK too. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Interesting read, as usual, though I was expecting him to be an Eagle Scout ;) This sentence doesn't seem particularly relevant: "He taught his children to live their lives without limitations." (something you be more likely to find in an obituary than an encyclopedia article, I think). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Masonic Buildings

Hey Dabomb, Could I get your help on an article. I recently got involved in a discussion related to List of Masonic buildings due to a request for help at WP:N. The list is fairly long, and the article is in abysmal shape. That being said, I see a lot of potential in the list. There have been a few questions that I would love to get your input on: A) In your opinion, do you think there would be value in such a list? B) How would you define Masonic building? This appears to be a major bone of contention among those who are invovled. (The bone appears to be around the fact that the National Registry of Historic Places Wikiproject wants to include any "masonic" building on the NRHP on the list, whereas the Freemason Wikiproject doesn't. C) Any advice on the structure/formatting? Right now, it needs a lot of help so I don't expect you to do a detailed review, but just some guidance from a person who spends a lot of time with lists as to what people might want to do to get this into shape would be appreciated.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Balloonman, I haven't forgotten this one, but I'd like to read up on the discussion a little more before making an informed reply. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. Now that I've taken a look, here are my thoughts (disclaimer: I know very little about Freemasonry and related topics): as you probably know, the possibilities for lists are nearly endless. If you want to work on this article, hashing out a specific inclusion criteria should be your first priority (as you probably realized): what entity decides if a building is Masonic, and what are their conditions for doing so? As wiki-cliche as this sounds, how do reliable sources classify buildings as "Masonic"? If sources can't agree on that point, then perhaps the list isn't worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, and my answer to question A would be no. If you can get around those obstacles, then structure and formatting should be a breeze, relatively. A tabular format could work quite nicely; there are ample examples at Wikipedia:Featured lists#Art and architecture. Nev1 (talk · contribs), Peter I. Vardy (talk · contribs), Rodw (talk · contribs), and Hassocks5489 (talk · contribs) are experienced and helpful editors in that department. Good luck! Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry for the delayed response. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

updated flc article

I've updated List of Kentucky state symbols to hopefully conform better to current FLC standards. However, it could use a copy edit. Looks like you are the "lucky" maintainer of the Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Task force list. If you think it meets your standards, could you "remove" it from the task force page. Oh, if you are reading this Courcelles, I'm mad at you... You didn't share your Dana Doughnuts. :) Bgwhite (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. I'll take a look in the evening. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Great job! I've moved it to the "restored" list. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision history of 2008 UEFA Cup Final riots

Vandalism has started on this article mere hours after you unprotected it. For the record, as far as I can tell, most of the vandalism originates from a very strong (and at times violent) sectarian rivalry between the Protestant Glasgow Rangers and Roman Catholic Glasgow Celtic soccer teams. In that regard it might be sensible that this article remains protected. Pit-yacker (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I see a couple bad edits, but not enough to warrant semi protection just yet. If the vandalism persists, re-report at WP:RFPP. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueEnergy

Hey Dabomb87, I noticed you took down the page for BlueEnergy, which I had originally put up. Sorry I didn't see this as it happened. I don't know if there's a way to access the old versions of the entry anymore, but I found the most recent one in Google Cache. The re-written article definitely smacks of "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" as flagged, but I think rather than deleting the entry all together, it should have just reverted back to an earlier, unbiased version. Is there still a way to do this? Fnordware (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC).

Done. To be honest, I'm not sure that even the unbiased version wouldn't be deleteable under A7, but hopefully there's something out there. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll make a pass through it to address the A7 concerns. Fnordware (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Tip

Since you spend a fair bit of time at RfPP, you might find User:Steel359/Protection js useful. :) Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've been using it for some time now. Am I forgetting something? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realise. Just ignore me! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Is Pending Changes still on trial?

Thank you for granting me reviewer status.

The trial was supposed to end on August 15, and that date is long gone... so is it still a trial or not? --Nitsansh (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly is going on... but AFAICT, the actual pending-changes feature still works. See Wikipedia:Pending changes/Closure for more information. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

For taking care of the Papandreou moves. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

User Reqluce

User Reqluce seems to be going through Asian and Oceanic fashion houses and designers at a rapid clip, marking them all for deletion. What can be done? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Reqluce#Your_fashion_statements Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've advised him or her to slow down. PRODs sit at least seven days before deletion, so that should give other editors to look through them individually. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but one editor can remove a PROD tag, as long as the removal is explained, right? GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Right. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Pope Gregory I...

So it'll be Saint Pope Gregory I instead (snickers) Seriously, it can't hurt. I'm scared to go to some saint articles, in fear of what I'll find. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't doubt it. Some editors have the ability to tune out anything they don't want to read or hear. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Papandreou moves

Hello! It seems you forgot to move the talk page as well ;) Cheers, Constantine ✍ 03:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I'm still new at this. Done now; sorry about that. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

manual of style

When you said you don't see a use for the link to the main page. The reason i put it there was because when a newcomer is welcomed via friendly manual of style is one of the links the newcomer gets, so i think it would be a good idea to have that link to the main page as an example to newcomers. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 03:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but what is the link to the Main Page going to help the "newcomers" with? It's not even an article. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I might of misread it, what i was talking about was when it said that the main page "contains basic principals" i thought it was using the main page as an example. Sorry if i am wrong, Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 05:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Question on FLC

Hi I have an article going through the FLC process at the moment here. It seems to have become bogged down can you advise how many supports it needs to be promoted its stuck on three at the moment. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I usually don't promote FLs with fewer than three supports, but it's more than just a straight !vote count. I look at the breadth and coverage of reviews, the reviewers themselves (I look for editors uninvolved with the list and the subject, as well as subject-matter experts), and the list itself (if it's one in a series of promoted lists it may not need as much feedback) when promoting. This list isn't too far from promotion, though, so hang in there. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Was MilHist notified of the FLC? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've left comments, though what I've learned is that I know just enough to realise I don't know the topic. This one needs MilHist eyes in my opinion- the content needs expert eyes that would normally have been shined on it at an ACR. Courcelles 17:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yes MILHIST are aware it on their list of {WPMILHIST Announcements} and I did notice User:MisterBee1966 a member of MILHIST had supported. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Script Installer

I figure I'd just write it up now. Gary King (talk · scripts) 20:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, have installed. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hey. Just letting you know for the F&A part of the signpost, the Featured Topics has now moved the threshold from 1/3 to 1/2 of articles needing to be featured. As such, 23 topics have been moved from Featured to Good. Might be worth adding in to the 9-13 issue, if so I can give you a list of affected topics. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes please. Tony (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A link to the demotions is here. Ucucha 00:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's a list of them, from the diff listed above:

• Millennium Park
• 1997 Pacific hurricane season
• 2006 Pacific hurricane season
• Hurricane Dean
• Hurricane Isabel
• Lost (season 4)
• Simpson family
• South Park (season 1)
• Dream Days at the Hotel Existence
• No Doubt albums
• Rock Steady
• Main asteroid belt
• State highways in Essex County, New York
• New York State Route 20N
• Chrono titles
• The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
• Guitar Hero series
• Half-Life 2 titles
• Halo media
• StarCraft titles
• The Orange Box
• Adriatic campaign of 1807–1814
• Atlantic campaign of May 1794

Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and congratulations

Thanks for your prompt help with the reviewer user right, and congratulations on your recent successful RfA. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 23:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks! Dabomb87 (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Tag of BDR Thermea

Whatever (if you think this is not unambiguously promotional). In my book, a mention of a company in wikipedia with absolutely no supporting cites for notability is a poster child for spam. It's sort of "hey, look, we exist!". I'm pretty sure removing the speedy tag (and putting up the hangon template as directed to the originator of the article) might be a boo boo. But if it makes you happy, I'll go the afd route. --Quartermaster (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The criteria for speedy deletion do not apply to hypothetical situations, and as written the article is certainly not promotional. Someone else might argue that it's an A7 candidate, and I wouldn't quibble with that (although I personally wouldn't delete it). An AFD or even a PROD is fine with me. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing hypothetical about single line company blurbs being spam on wikipedia. If you think otherwise, you're going to be causing a lot of unneeded grief and effort for a lot of editors. Listen. You're an admin. YOU could have argued and converted to A7 on this (which I should have done originally, but I'm not the most fastidious editor, and when I see something as obvious dreck I don't hesitate to suggest admin oversight with a speedy tag). I've had editors say "I deleted your speedy candidate under a different criterion than you proposed" but you're the first who's played this angle. --Quartermaster (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I never said I would agree with an A7 tagging, but that a legitimate case could be made for it. Please read the text at WP:CSD#G11; the article merely stating the existence of the company, not promoting it. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to weigh in on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BDR_Thermea as you are interested in this article. --Quartermaster (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Witch of Pungo

My first double DYK hook! It's at T:TDYK under "The Witch of Pungo". The articles are Grace Sherwood and Pungo, Virginia. Could you help improve them, run the bot, etc? The "Allegations of witchcraft" section in the Sherwood article could especially use your copyedit skills. Thanks for all prior and future help. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Grace Sherwood is probably one of your most interesting yet! Some of the jargon will need to be linked or briefly explained ("trial by water", "trial by ducking"). Also, "As she was pulled out of the water, a downpour started." What's the significance of this? Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) is something of a witch expert enthusiast, you should ask him to take a look. I'll peek at Pungo later. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ducking is linked in the lead. Is more needed? See in the body it was clear weather and she predicted they'd get wet afterwards and they did. I ping Malleus. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I just missed it the first time. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you like this one so much. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe myself as a witch expert exactly, but I've hacked away at a few witchcraft articles, and it's something I have an interest in. I'll be happy to take a look. Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

FLCs

I've doen the two you've asked me to look at. If there's anything else that needs another pair of eyes, just let me know. Courcelles 22:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Dabomb87 (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

DaBomb, would you like to move this to FLC, or just archive it: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Santana discography/archive1? As you wish ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looks in a poor state, nowhere near ready for FL candidacy. Archiving is the best course of action here. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, TRM-- I'll go ahead and do that then, since the FAC page is really getting long. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Note

I usually do not post like this, so forgive me if I don't format it right, or I do something wrong. I noticed you corrected a vandalism by user

Tide rolls

I took a look at the user's activity, and Tide rolls is posting and deleting (vandalism) faster than I could keep up with. Is there anything that I could do to help here? Aetern142 (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to help but I need more information. Is there a specific article to which you are referring? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

TPP hyphens

I have replied to you on my talk page. Oh boy have I replied. --Surturz (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dabomb87, I am seeking to have someone explain the civility policy to User:Surturz here. Tony (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Bryan Adams album discography

Hi. I received your message and will add some comments within the next few days. — Jimknut (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Kesha Discography

Hello, actually ive messaged The Rambling Man a number of times asking if there was anything else. But i haven't gotten any responses. I dont want to change it truthfully, i dond even know why that was brought up as its not an issue and if you look at other discographies ;Lady Gaga discography, Rihanna discography (just two off the top of my head) they use the first available release date) which is done for all albums for all artists as well. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

moved to barnstar page 00:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Can you move Cleveland Volcano (Alaska) to Mount Cleveland (Alaska) (as in, delete the redirect and move it?). Mount Cleveland is the much more commonly used title, and the one used in the article. See this for example. Cheers, ResMar 18:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Moved, but you could have done it yourself. The target didn't have a significant history, so even non-admins could have moved over the redirect. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. ResMar 00:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Signpost

Hopefully the comment I submitted was okay. I tried adding myself to the list of Signpost recipients, but did not receive the one my comment appeared in. Perhaps it takes some time for the bot to deliver them or to be 'accepted' as a recipient. I went ahead and copied the bot delivery message to my talk page for future reference, but hopefully I will start receiving the notifications automatically, as I think they are very informative. Keep up the great work! --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Dabomb87 (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

PC Changes protection

Do you would have any problem if some of the recent pages that you and Kww are protecting? I've checked on the history of those page (WP:RFUP), and it's not enough vandalism for re-indef protect them. Thank you. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to request unprotection at RFPP; I was just restoring the status quo before the PC trial started. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I did it but I was sent here. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 23:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Help please :)

Can you please protect Only Girl (In the World) so only admins can edit it (any other pages if there are any would be sweet as well). Im so tired or redirecting. Also, could incubate this version so i can edit and then just have the edit history merged into the article once it created. That would be so much appreciated - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 02:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Only a couple autoconfirmed editors have recreated the article, and they've both been warned; I'm somewhat reluctant to use the heavy hand of full protection just yet. If it continues, ping me again. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Okie dokie. Thank you. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 02:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Can another admin help with the userfying? I'm not sure how to do it and preserve the history at the current page at the same time. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This is doable. Give me a moment. Courcelles 03:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't you just move the article to the User namespace, then recreate the redirect? In the article's History, it should show "1. Moved to User:..., userfying. 2. Creating redirect." Gary King (talk · scripts) 03:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually i have another question which im not clear on. (Different people say different things, rather a pain) Regarding 3RR if i continually redirect articles (per delete consensus) is that a violation? Further is reverting deliberate factual errors or unsourced additions a violation? Im asking as i dont usually pay attention to 3RR as all the issues ive listed above are very disruptive and i dont use them in an edit warring fashion. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• You can find a version of the article at User:L-l-CLK-l-l/Only Girl (In the World). When you are ready to put it back, please let me know. --Courcelles 03:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks; what you did makes sense. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• L, I'm exhausted right now and can't put together a coherent response to your question (because the answer is not that simple IMO), but I'll definitely get back to you in the morning :) Dabomb87 (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Length

Length in FLs has always been a concern to me. I haven't done an FL for several months and there are at least two lists I have my eyes on that I may nominate at FLC soon. The reason I am here though, is to ask your opinion on a length question as you can tell. See one of the two lists I have in mind is List of WWE Divas Champions (the other being List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions if you are curious). It is currently at 9 reigns, but later this month WWE is holding a unification match with the WWE Women's Championship. If the Divas Champion were to win this match then this means there will only be 9 reigns in the title's history. Would you consider that long enough to become an FL if this occurs? Just thought I'd see, because I got two options. If this is long enough I'll take it to FL, if not I'd merge it with the main article and take it to GA like I did with TNA Television Championship and TNA Knockout Tag Team Championship.--WillC 03:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Good timing actually; there's an RfC at WT:FL? regarding criteria 3b, which will probably affect that article. I'll take a closer look tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be waiting for your answer.--WillC 03:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

FLCs etc

Hey Dabomb87, hope you're well and not finding those extra buttons too onerous. Couple of things:

1. I guess we can close the oldest FLRC, and since I participated in the second-oldest (Sugababes discog), that one's down to you.
2. We've got quite a few "old" FLCs which have really no indication of support or opposition. You normally recycle them, I'd archive them... I'm talking about Bathurst, One Piece Manga, Billboard Top Latin Songs Year-End Chart,
3. Venues of 2010 Summer Youth Olympics is ready to go I think, considering Goodraise isn't going to be around much.

Let me know if there's anything else I can do, in the meantime I'm heading into the thick of it to review those FLCs I haven't had a chance to look at yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, will take a look at those FLCs tomorrow. Thanks, as always, for your timely reviews. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You might want to check this diff

[1] as it's a reversion of what's claimed to be an inappropriate rollback by someone you recently reinstated rollback to. I haven't read the contents of the diffs, and I don't know the history of the rollback reinstatement, so I'll leave the rest of it to your best judgment. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've cautioned the user. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry ya'll, I'm usually pretty good about these things. I must have just seen the tag and assumed, I'll make sure to be more careful in the future. - Schrandit (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Moving largest eruptions

Now concenus: 3 yes and 1 sure. ResMar 23:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, done. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've had you do a lot of moving lately haven't I :) ResMar 02:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Nate Robinson

Nate Robinson still has Pending Changes.—Chris!_c/t 01:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, unprotected. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Witch of Pungo going for FAC

Malleus and others talked me into this: User_talk:Rlevse#Witch_of_Pungo_on_the_move and User_talk:Rlevse#Grace_Sherwood_AKA_Witch_of_Pungo_Pre-FAC Feel free to help — Rlevse • Talk • 01:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you're in good hands now. I'll keep an eye on the FAC if you start one. Good luck. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Grace Sherwood - Witch of Pungo FAC filed

See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grace Sherwood/archive1 and we're off. Thanks for your help and encouragement, it's been great. FAC constructive comments, help, review, etc would be greatly appreciated. Last night and this I add a lot, especially the "personal life" section, so review and copyedit of those edits would be greatly appreciated. Please do another bot run and copyedit. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer userrights

Hi there, I see you've granted reviewer userrights to User:Eyreland. Looking at that user's latest (250) contributions, what stands out are zero edit summaries, and 100% minor edits (unjustified at that). Are you sure this user is up to such a responsible role? (No reply required - just a thought that I wanted to pass on for your consideration. But if you wish to reply, please put talkback onto my talk page.) Schwede66 05:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As Christchurch has just had a major earthquake, this has lead to a substantial amount of updating for South Island pages. I have no idea what this is about, just that the Avon River lacked any existent geological context -- and it had to be added. The Avon River is probably 10,500 edits from being fully usable, in spite of its modest dimensions (that I have seen in person).

Eyreland (talk) 07:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Schwede, the threshold for reviewer rights is quite low; see Wikipedia:Reviewing#Becoming a reviewer. While Eyreland should be using edit summaries and probably be more judicious in marking edits as minor, these little issues are not enough to deny any editor rights that (for the most part) they already had. Anyway, the Pending Changes trial is now complete, so this shouldn't be much of an issue now. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing pending

Do you think that considering Jimbos comment that the tool is ongoing that you need to remove the tool if it has been working fine? Has someone requested you to go around removing the tool? Off2riorob (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned your edits on Jimbos talkpage here Off2riorob (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll stop if it's causing controversy. However, I don't think "Jimbo says so" is always a good reason to do (or not do) something. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not just Jimbo it is the vast majority of users that commented in the straw poll. A dozen contributors on a talkpage do not override the good faith support of hundreds of users.Off2riorob (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

But nobody has said that this "vast majority of users" (I haven't placed myself in either camp, yet) constitutes consensus. Anyway, I've stopped removing PC protection. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus levels for a tool that is in development to assist us in protecting articles is not required to be excessively high. There is clear support for the tool to continue in some form of experimental way. It helps to protect articles, its not a monster. Off2riorob (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

RE:Speedy deletion declined: Paraitinga River (upper Tietê River)

Hello. I must have inadvertently triggered a tool, because I do not remember having it nominated for deletion. My sincere apologies. I ask sincerely apologize. RmSilva ^{can talk!} 22:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. For the record, this was the edit. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals

REplied at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals - nothing worth salvaging. Skier Dude (talk 04:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, you're probably right. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello. You have a new message at ErikHaugen's talk page. Message added 00:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC).

Kristine Rispi

User RochelleT2010 my page Kristine Rispi has been deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by RochelleT2010 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The article has been deleted several times now because there is no indication that Kristine is noteworthy enough to warrant an article. All articles must be cited to reliable, third-party sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

IP comments

Hi Dabomb87, I guess the answer to this that we have to consider the concerns raised by the IP and decide whether they are relevant or not. If the IP is not being disruptive they have every right to participate in the process, I don't recall anything restricted anon editors from taking part in FLC... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: FLC review request

Done. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good; I'll do that early this Sunday, not a problem. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 12:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Need an uncontroversial page move via deletion of a redirect

Could you please move James "Jimmy" Bartolotta to Jimmy Bartolotta? The creator of the 'James "Jimmy" Bartolotta' article was clearly unaware of Wikipedia title conventions and should have never redirected the 'Jimmy Bartolotta' page to it. I would like you to please delete Jimmy Bartolotta to make way for the page move, and then move the page. Thank you. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Grazie. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

List question

Hey Dabomb, I've been working on List of World Heritage Sites in Spain (actually back in January, and just started again) but was wondering if you could take a quick look over it. Does it seem alright, as far as content and scope goes? Thanks for the feedback. Grsz¹¹ 22:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a very good start. I wouldn't link the centuries per WP:OVERLINK. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Butting in, but I thought I might be able to make a few comments as I've been working an a similar list for the UK. I think the lead could be epanded to include information on the nomination procedure, what protection sites are given, stuff like that (the UK list's lead is pretty well developed). As far as the main table is concerned, that is precisely the format I would choose; it includes the main information (where, when, what etc), and importantly includes a description of the site without going into an overwhelming amount of detail. The table with the distribution of sites across communities looks useful; if there weren't so many counties in the UK it might be worthwhile adapting that idea for the UK list. The sticking point I had was what to do with the tentatives list. I chose to include it as they might be worth listing somewhere but it didn't seem worthwhile having a separate list; you might choose otherwise (I know I'm considering whether it's worth including as it's the main hurdle to taking the UK list to FLC). I also chose to use the same format, which dramtically increased the amount of work invovled as I had to write descriptions for each one (which is why it's still incomplete); there'd be a lot for Spain too, so perhaps a more streamlined table (ie: without descriptions) would work. I'd be interested in hearing any ideas on that. Anyway, you've got the makings of a great list on your hands. Nev1 (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

And all that :) Dabomb87 (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nev. I knew I got the format from somewhere, and saw the UK list when I went looking. I like giving descriptions, although I don't think it would necessarily be needed to pass FLC, though I could be wrong. I wouldn't mind including tenative listings, but that's another 24 for Spain. Maybe in my case, just a numbered list. Grsz¹¹ 00:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Anybody care to take a second look before I proceed? Grsz¹¹ 02:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sigh...

I sense a bit of trolling on this individual's part.  :) I believe in AGF, so if you'd like to unblock him, feel free to do so. If he acts naughty again, we can give him another timeout. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Francis Land House

Request your help with this new article. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

bot fixes, ce, or anything? — Rlevse • Talk • 11:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, was busy, will take a look. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, thanks as always. I do appreciate it. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"Features and admins" column

For the record, feel free to let me know if you ever need additional contributions to the Signpost FL "choice of the week" again. Just making an offer in case you need someone last minute for any reason. Assuming I am available to help, I'd be happy to pick a favorite again. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Same here. Goodraise 19:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I expect I'll need both of you to help out eventually, as we don't have an endless supply of FL regulars :) Dabomb87 (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Bill McKown

Another new one if you don't mind. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Kasaragod Town

What vandal work did I do to get blocked from wikipedia?? My contribution will showoff that I'm certainly not a vandal. That IP was reverting it all the time and at last I'm found to be the culprit. Have you read the discussion that we had on that page in the articles discussion page??? Then how did you come to conclude that I did not discuss a thing and that I started the edit war??? I just asked to protect that page until the dispute resolves in a polite manner... Instead of just placing your query, you just put a warning bomb on me.... Great dude...That IP (more in the sense its sock puppet) has reverted the edit again..I'm off.......Thanks for your kind reply..  arun  talk  04:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Arun. Let's clear this up: Nobody has blocked you. I merely warned you not to continue edit-warring (I also warned the IP, though since it is dynamic that may not have much effect). Regardless of who's right or wrong, revert-warring is the wrong way to achieve consensus; use the talk page instead. If the IP editor refuses to cease his/her edit-warring, however, I don't mind reconsidering full protection. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Friend, today the IP ( different IP from the same range) reverted the edits once more and by his feedback in the article talk page, I'm pretty much convinced that both this IP's are the same person. As you may notice, we had a discussion in the article talk page. If he provides a citation from a reliable source that Tulu indeed forms the majority language in the Kasaragod town, then this thing ends then and there. But the IP is intend on putting the script back again and again on a regular pertaining basis. This is English Wikipedia, and as seen by me, the official script of an administrative region is more than enough for representing the name of the region in addition to its name written in English script. For example, see article on India. Hindi is the national language of India. In addition to Hindi, 22 other languages has the status of official language in India. But does the article bear all those 22 language script?? No, it only bears Hindi language script as Hindi is the national language of India. I'm not stressing that Tulu is not spoken in Kasaragon town, it is spoken, so is Kannada, Konkani, Beary and Marathi languages. But saying Tulu as the major language in the town is not acceptable (without citations). If today Tulu script is included, then tomorrow the article will become a target for IP editors to scribble multiple language script in the article. To avoid this situation, Isn't it better to add only the administrative language of the region in the lead and elaborate on other spoken languages in the language section of the article??? Anyways, I should not have jumped straight away for page protection...Sorry for that...No hard feelings.... :)  arun  talk  15:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

I wanted to let you know that I've undone your removal of my nomination for 2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final on WP:TFAR. Please add your nomination to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending and wait for space to open up on the request page. You'll notice that there are 2 other articles waiting there already that will come ahead of October 18. If you read the header of WP:TFAR carefully, you'll understand that this is the appropriate way to proceed. Sorry for any confusion and let me know if you disagree with the actions I have taken. If you'd like to discuss this further, I've begun a discussion on the TFAR talk page. --SkotyWA^T_C 08:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I can see now that this was not your nomination, you were just the one that took it upon yourself to remove the earlier nomination. I've notified the editor who made the original nomination with a similar comment. Hopefully everyone's on the same page now. Thanks! --SkotyWA^T_C 08:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. Unfortunately, I don't have time to take a closer look right now (Tuesday hopefully). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand

On the assumption that this article was deleted as being a copy of http://www.pgfnz.org.nz/, could you please undelete it? We have received OTRS permission for it which I can add as soon as it is restored. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sweden Democrats fully protected

Well done, Dabomb. I was a little worried somebody would carelessly semi, as requested by Miacek. Bishonen | talk 15:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC).

Thanks. Editors are always ready to cry BLP when it suits them. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually here to request that Sweden Democrats be unprotected. They just received 5.7 percent of the vote in the 2010 Swedish general elections, and have elected approximately 20 members to the Swedish national parliament (previously, they have elected zero), and thus it feels like something of a travesty that this most momentous occasion in the history of this party presently goes without note at Wikipedia. It is, of course, entirely possible that this article was simply protected at an unfortunate time (even an optimistic partisan of the Swedish Democrats would not have known they would achieve such a substantive result, after all), but never-the-less, hopefully we can now all agree that having this article protected, at a time when this article needs to be updated perhaps more so than has ever previously been the case, is not a desirable status quo.

Thank you for your time. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 08:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to deal with this request at the moment, but you may request unprotection at WP:RFUP (I have no problem if another admin decides to unprotect). Dabomb87 (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I've gone ahead and unprotected it, while warning the (apparently) involved parties. If this flares up again and I'm not around, feel free to go ahead and re-protect. Airplaneman ✈ 23:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ray William Johnson

I am going to be posting this on multiple editor talk pages to get some discussion going. We have yet another section on the talk page requesting Ray William Johnson be added to the List of YouTube personalities. Something has to be done because people request he be added and don't give any references for the most part but someone tried to give references, but I checked them and they were not good ones. We don't need a new section everytime someone wants him added. We have umpteen sections requesting him be added. Again, something has to be done! Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 15:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Isn't he YouTube's third most subscribed user? BTW, I know this is a primary source, but http://raywilliamjohnson.info/ would be a good start. Then his channel states his subscriber numbers (near 2 million) and video view counts. Then, to prove that he is #3 most subscribed, use YouTube's list. Again, they aren't the best sources (I couldn't find any really good ones either) but I would not consider them unsuitable for this purpose. Airplaneman ✈ 23:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Admin help needed

Hi dabomb, I seem to remember you have some views on overlinking. The horrible template:lang-en includes, for some bizare reason, a link to English. I posted a request on the talkpage to remove it two weeks ago, but nobody is watching it. Cd you deprotect it or edit it yourself? Cheers, Sandman888 (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I made the change. Ucucha 20:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Guide

Hey dude. I've been thinking, I might well knock up a bit of a guide along the lines of "What TRM will look at when he reviews your list", a bunch of hints on some basic things that I pick up on most FLCs. Sounds like a good idea? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

When you're done, will you write one for me :) I'm thinking a "pet peeve" page is what I really need. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've seen a couple good ones: User:Steve/Oppose rationale and User:Epbr123#Style and prose checklist (the latter is list of commonly made mistakes). Dabomb87 (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm enjoying this. It seems like it could be a useful resource. I think it'll need a bit of a review but so far so good. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Epbr was DaBomb before DaBomb87 :) He would go through and fix any FAC I asked, doing all the MOS stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

I've put a response on my talk page
Limideen 14:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wat Pasantidhamma

Would appreciate you checking out another new article. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI

[2]. I know this means I now have two running but the other hasn't been edited in 14 days. Hope thats okay, if not do what you must. :) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Quick look at School for Creative and Performing Arts?

Hi. We are close to wrapping up Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/School for Creative and Performing Arts/archive1, on which you kindly helped before. SandyGeorgia has noted some "hyphenation issues", but to he honest, I don't know what she means by that. If you have a chance to take another quick look, it would be a big help. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nasty Housecat. I've been very busy lately, so sorry for the delayed response. Hopefully, I should be able to take a look at this tomorrow afternoon. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to fix them either, DaBomb. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I just checked the article, and the use of hyphens does not seem to be problematic in my opinion. However, I did find that the adjective "award-winning" was used rather liberally, so you may want to check that out. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for checking it again. I will correct the adjective abuse.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

can I ask you: WHY?

are these:

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Metallica concert tours/archive3

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Counties of Romania/archive1

closed without votes?????? Nergaal (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm still closing FLCs. Please give me some time to respond. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. As much as I hate archiving FLCs with no !votes, there wasn't much I could do with the Metallica concert list. I don't mind extending FLCs for a week or two, but when one month passes and there were still no supports, one has to be realistic about the list's chances. Your best chance is to wait four or five days, renominate (hope for better luck with reviewers), and be more aggressive in finding reviewers (notify WikiProjects and ask editors who have written similar FLs to take a look). Counties of Romania was a no-consensus closure as well; to be honest, you shouldn't have nominated it in the first place as the FLC instructions say "should not add a second FL nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed", and the Metallica concert tour FLC had not reached that stage. I'm truly sorry about the two FLCs, and understand your frustration, but if FLCs don't have enough reviews, there's not much I can do to address that (except review them myself, and I haven't found the time to reviews lately). Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Since when FLCs have transformed into a popularity contest? I have waited patiently for a month, and when I saw that nothing is happening I decided to add one of them to the notice template on top (interestingly how the last one added was the one right before and that one got to sit there for a week). Most reviewers I've seen on other pages don't even bother to look behind anything than technical issues, and those votes count? I have reviewed probably more than 10 noms in the last month and I am not sure if this is normal. And yes, there is a way: RESTART the nom. And it wasn't that it had supports or not, it had NO COMMENTS essentially. PS: in conclusion the newest requirements are to be popular not the actual merits of the pages - weather it is actually a good list or not. Nergaal (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

More trolling, Nergaal? For someone who claims as many stars as you do to act the way you act is unbecoming and undignified. The volleyball list meets all the actual criteria, not whatever standards that exist only in your own mind. (And, for the record, as regarding the Metallica list, while I will review lists regarding modern music, I will rarely support them, as I don't know nearly enough about the subject to judge 3a.) Courcelles 00:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Nergaal, I did say you can renominate one of the FLCs in four or five days, so that is essentially a restart in itself. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

But that will mean waiting 5 days doing nothing and then another month until it might get listed on the notice template. I understand waiting when there is a concern not yet resolved, but no outstanding concerns were presented. Nergaal (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Repetition

...Which is always why you should check the comments above first =) ResMar 15:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. I was very tired when I posted that, so I'm not surprised that I missed your note. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It's ok, everyone is human =) ResMar 20:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Note

Regarding this. The IP is that of User:Keyan20. I've had numerous interactions with the editor on my and their talk pages, and there are numerous warnings too. Every time there's a warning for one action, they start a new problematic one and/or switch to the IP to do the same thing. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Legit?

Are these edits legit? — Rlevse • Talk • 19:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

No Angels discograhy

Hello, I'm sorry for nominating two at the same time! :( why is it that i can't do this? AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I had originally removed your nomination, but then I realized that the Atomic Kittens discography was a co-nomination between you and Mister sparky, so I restored the nom. Carry on as usual :) Dabomb87 (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Attempted deletion of sitting FL's?

Hi, can you look at the editing surrounding Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_acquisitions_by_Juniper_Networks and weigh in at the AfD? This editor appears to be nominating multiple FL's for deletion just because they can (and apparently he believes should) be merged back into a parent article. Your comments as FL director would be most welcome. Jclemens (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've commented there. As a side note, there has been a case in which an FL has been deleted—Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of works by William Monahan. Featured status should not be a barrier to deletion (though it may be an indicator that an article is worthy of inclusion). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the list go through FLRC first? I thought that is what should be done.—Chris!_c/t 01:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's the sensible (and courteous) thing to do, but it's not a requirement. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Discography changes....

Hi Dambomb87, I hope you're ok? I'm just here to let you know that WP:DISCOGSTYLE is being updated and by the end of the week it will have been converted completely to reflect the various wide-reaching changes in the manual of style. It will have an overarching affect on current and future FL nominations for discographies... as essentially all new FLs will have to pass WP:DISCOGSTYLE otherwise per FL criteria they are not eligable because they would not adhere to MoS. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 02:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. When the page is done... I'll let you know. There will hopefully be a notice at the top of the page explaining why the changes happened and that now project discography is more aligned to the manual of style and accessibility standards. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 03:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Dabomb87. You have new messages at Rambo's Revenge's talk page.
Message added 11:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC) by Rambo's Revenge (talk). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Note

According to the page history, the edit war has been going on for much longer. See this for more information. Just a note. Netalarm^talk 02:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem is that substantial changes have been made to the article since May, and many may not be a result of the months-long edit war, so I'm not sure if going that far back will be helpful. If you have a better "base" revision to revert to, I'd be happy to change it; alternatively, I don't mind going back to the version I had originally protected and leave it that way per WP:PREFER (and endure the wrong version flak). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, of course we shouldn't go back to May 2010. I was discussing this with another user on IRC and it seems that we both conclude that this article is a total wreck. Regarding the version protected, I really have no idea which one would be best. This has been going on for so long now that it's next to impossible to easily see which one's correct. I guess now someone's going to have to manually check the dates... what a weird thing to edit war over. Oh, I was told one of the IP addresses is a suspected sock of an abusive user - that might help explain. Netalarm^talk 03:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that's problematic. I'm logging off for the night, but keep me posted if anything pops up. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Fox News Channel

Per your request, FPP expires today. Thanks for the oversight. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the heads-up. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Protection on Coffee Party article

Hello Dabomb87. I noticed that user:Xenophrenic requested semi-protection on the Coffee Party article due to increased edit warring by IPs, and that the article is now on lock down (editing prohibited by both IPs and registered users). Any chance you might scale it from full protection back to semi-protection so that registered users can work on the article? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi AzureCitizen. When a content dispute involves both IPs and registered (autoconfirmed) editors, administrators cannot just semi-protect the article, as that potentially favors the autoconfirmed editors in the dispute. Use the {{editprotected}} template to suggest improvements. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, understood now. Okay, thanks for responding... --AzureCitizen (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It is apparent Dabomb87 misunderstood the request for page protection. It was not requested because of a content dispute, but because of excessive edit-warring on the part of dynamic IPs (all used by the same editor). The IPs had exceeded 3 reverts in a 24-hour span of time, and typically engage in personal attacks instead of constructive editing. With disruptive editing originating from many IPs that change on a daily basis, blocking is not a viable option, and semi-protection is typically implemented. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

My rationale for protection did not necessarily reflect the suggested rationale, but based on what I saw in the article's history. I fully protected to encourage all involved parties to discuss their edits, not just the IPs. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

When the discussion has already deteriorated down to one party saying "You can't do that, it violates Wikipedia's editing policies", and the other party saying "So what, I'm doing it anyway", I must admit that I don't share your belief in the productivity of your approach. The full block appears to only have chilled the conversation, as well as productive editing, for 3 days. Edits over the past hour indicate the original problem persists. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now its just getting silly on that article. IP tendentious edits have been reverted by me, Dayewalker, Arabicadark, Ronhjones, and there has been no discussion. Could you please take a look again? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

When I first looked at the article, it was not readily apparent that it was one POV pusher against everybody else, though that does seem to be the case now. I'm willing to admit I made a mistake in fully protecting. Anyway, the IP has been blocked, so no use in protecting just now. Let me know if any other problems arise. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/Mariah Carey albums discography/archive2

Done. Max24 (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Jeffery J. Varab semiprotection?

Hello Dabomb87, I have been trying to make changes to the page on J.J. Varab. I am new at this so might have been doing somethings wrong. I believe that the last changes that I made did have the proper citations, but I may be wrong about this. I am not trying to vandalize the page or provided any wrong info. I am simply trying to make the page more up to date and accurate. Can you please direct me to what I need to know about this problem or please help me by explaining the issues. Thank you very much. dennishiggins —Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC).

Read this comment, because it sums up what I would say very nicely. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:National Basketball Association general manager templates

Hi, I am wondering if you can delete this for me. All the general manager templates have been merged to the team templates, so this category is no longer in used. I already tagged it for speedy deletion a week ago, but apparently no admin see it. Thanks.—Chris!_c/t 20:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. C1's have a hold time, hence why it looked like noone saw it. Courcelles 20:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Courcelles. Apparently, Dabomb has many talk page stalkers! :)—Chris!_c/t 20:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't normally bother reading here, but categories and CFD are things I spend far ore time working on than Dabomb. So, the header made me take a look. Courcelles 20:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, thanks! Dabomb87 (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)