User talk:Dabomb87/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

USNA lists

Done with astronauts, moving on to CNO list. Thanks again. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Done with the CNO one now. But I have a question on the pictures. Most are official poses, so they're not really doing anything, so I am not sure what you want added, what is there too add really? Can you elaborate? I did tweak two of them. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that putting the stuff that you are putting in the table in the image captions would be redundant. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Scotland international footballers FLC

Hi there

As this FLC appears to have stagnated a bit, and the original nominator seems to have stopped addressing comments, I have decided to step in, and have rectified what I perceived to be all the outstanding queries. I was wondering if you would be prepared to drop by and re-appraise it....?

Cheers! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Why do you think tables should be overlinked? I can't find any policy or guideline to support it, so it would appear to just be a preference of editors. There is no real benefit to overlinking tables. TJ Spyke 03:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This coming from a strident opponent of overlinking—in sortable columns, if one only links the "first" apperance of the term, if you sort the table by other parameters, the term no longer appears first as a link. Therefore, we must link all occurences of the term. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

HELPPPPP!!!

Help me!! My article, Secret of Shadow Ranch was redirected!! I spent a long time on that article! How do I get it back?--God'sGirl94 (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Is there anything specific which needs salvaging? The subject appears to have been duplicated, and the redirect justified. The target article appears more complete than the one it replaced. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • As Ohconfucius said, the article already existed and had more information. If you have anything encyclopedic to add, add it to the existing article. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
    • oh. rats. I don't have much to add to it, but it was just a bummer to go look at it and it took me to a different article. Oh well.--God'sGirl94 (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Charts

We have two unresolved threads. Please visit. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please respect the date delinking injunction

As you will no doubt be aware, the Arbitration Committee has issued a temporary injunction during the date delinking case, in which "all editors are instructed not to engage in any program of mass linking or delinking of dates in existing articles, including but not limited to through the use of bots, scripts, tools, or otherwise."

In a recent series of edits ([1][2][3][4]) you mass-removed date links. Please do not do that again before the arbitration is concluded. — Hex (❝?!❞) 06:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• four-article mass-delinking appears to be a contradiction in terms. Why don't you "have a Kit Kat" ;-) ? Ohconfucius (talk) 06:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

In those four articles, dozens of links were removed. That's mass removal. I suggest you either take lessons in reading comprehension or quit trying to cover up the facts - whichever seems most appropriate. — Hex (❝?!❞) 08:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I am the contributor whose work Dabomb87 mass-delinked. Dabomb87 has yet to reply to my message of 24th February pointing out his lack of courtesy. Ohconfucius, like Dabomb87, has not complied with the rubric for an edit summary that says "Briefly describe the changes you have made". "Ludicrously overlinked" is not a description, it is a criticism based on an opinion. A month ago Ohconfucius was temporarily blocked from editing for having violated the delinking injunction. Whatever their opinions, all contributors should respect rules, injunctions, different perspectives and above all other contributors. Motacilla (talk) 10:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The links that Dabomb87 removed were links to bare years and centuries. Such links have been deprecated since long before the current dispute over autoformating. Yes, the articles were seriously overlinked. What's the value of a link to south for example? Colonies Chris (talk) 11:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding my edit summary "Ludicrously overlinked", I apologise for the offense caused. We are all driven by our own set of values, and what we do often comes down to a value judgement in the end. To reinforce what Chris said, I fail to see how wool, sty, court and bridge add value to the article. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup, the injunction should not be used for political purposes by construing it far more widely than intended by the arbitrators. The linking of dictionary-type words has been a no-no (unless there are extenuating circumstances) for a long time. The injunction referred to programs of "mass delinking". Tony (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou Ohconfucius for your apology.

By contrast, Dabomb87 has archived my original message without answering it and has gone on another spree delinking my contributions in Bloxham. Once again: the rubric for an edit summary says Briefly describe the changes you have made. "Severely overlinked" is not a description, it is a criticism based on an opinion. It contradicts Dabomb87's own imperatives to the rest of us (I find it ironic that they are not phrased as requests): Be polite / Assume good faith / Avoid personal attacks / Be welcoming.

Every Wikipedian has their own priorities. However, I find it much more positive to write new articles or add content to existing articles than to mass-delink another Wikipedian's contributions.

I have reverted Dabomb87's delinking of turnpike in Bloxham. Dabomb87 describes "turnpike" as a "common term". This is true in the USA but Bloxham is in the UK. The UK abolished its turnpikes one by one in the course of the 19th century. Britain's one major modern turnpike, M6 Toll, eschews the name "turnpike". I am unconvinced that all readers will know that "turnpike" is the historic term for a toll road, so I suggest that a link in the Bloxham article to explain it is helpful. Motacilla (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you not see my apology on your talk page? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I did not remove the link to "turnpike"; that was Ohconfucius. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Rufus Wainwright discography

Just wanted to let you know that I have addressed concerns raised during the first FL nomination process, and the discography is now going through the process again. Since you were involved with the nomination procedure last time, I just though I would let you know in case you wanted to take a look at the article again. Take care! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the caps at the FA nomination for Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall, and for your edits to the article. Much appreciated, and please let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article or earn your FA support. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

List of winners of the Chicago Marathon

Have you decided if you are supporting List of winners of the Chicago Marathon yet?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

My talk

Left a response at my talk, and wanted to say how much I appreciate your reviews. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Your move of The Oakland Tribune article

On what factual basis did you move the article entitled "The Oakland Tribune" to "Oakland Tribune" when it appears that "The" is part of its official name? Tennis expert (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've seen it used both ways, but I will move it back as more reliable sources use "The Oakland Tribune". Dabomb87 (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Moves

Just to let you know I think the rest of Category:Lists of awards by television series should be done for consistency. I don't have the time right now, but will do them at a later date if you are bored of moving pages. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

We'll split them—I will do A–M and you do the rest. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI the Category:Lists of awards by actor may also need doing, but I don't fancy it tonight. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither do I. When we get to it, let's split the work the same. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but lets swap round so I do A–M (as I think I got off lightly with my "half" of the TV series) and you can do the rest. Also I'm watching your page so you don't have to keep replying to both. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

A–M done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I was going to try and do the lists in Category:Lists of awards by award winner as well, but I stopped after I created Category:Lists of awards by film and moved a current FLC which resulted in some problems for me to fix. As it is a small amount of articles I'm going to leave them alone for now. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I did the rest of the lists in the actor category. That should cover most of them. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Thought you might be interested...

Already knew, but thanks. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists) article titles with ranges like A-C, etc. should use en-dash, not a hyphen. — Moe ε 23:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you were using em dashes, I moved the wrestling articles to en dashes. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an em dash, which is incorrect: —

This is an en dash, which is what I moved the lists to: – (notice the code on the edit screen). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Honest question: When you deleted my reply, was that acknowledgement that you've read it? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I will take this as a yes... Dabomb87 (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. — Moe ε 23:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

wanna !vote on WT:WIAFA?

• wanna !vote on WT:WIAFA? Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oh PS (don't overlook the above...). I saw the protection of Malleus' talk. I am waiting very expectantly for a rationale to justify this act. My.. first thoughts are... none can be offered. It should be interesting to see what maxim says. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 07:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Dashes..

I see you doing dashes, you have a script for that? I hate typing the code, but I hate typing out the convoluted thing to create a real one too... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm using Brighterorange's. Add everything I added in this edit (messy, I know) into your monobook.js page. Bypass your cache, and you're done! Good luck with your bishops ... some of them seem quite feisty. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I should probably add that just importing the script doesn't work, I've tried. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No go, either way... bother. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, call on me for dashifying if Brighterorange isn't around, I usually don't take too long to respond! Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Cameltrader/Advisor.js is another script that turns dashes from "–" to "–", and other neat punctuation and MOS changes. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

M.I.A.

Firstly, M.I.A. is a solo artist, not a band. Also, I changed it because "a M.I.A. album" (which would be pronounced "ay em-eye-ay album") just sounds completely wrong - would you say "a MTV show" or "a MI5 spy"? Certainly in UK English we'd use "an" before "em", given that it starts with a vowel sound...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks. Just when I think that I have it down, there always seems to be some nuance that I miss. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to worry. Out of interest, in the States, would you say "Cribs is a MTV show" or "Cribs is an MTV show".....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The latter. It may also depend on the region, i.e. I live in the South so we tend to speak a certain way, but those "Yankees" up north may say something slightly different. No different than what you probably experience. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I live in the Midlands, so I get the best and the worst of both halves of the country :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Date linking/de-linking injunction violation

I reported you for violating the date linking/de-linking injunction. Just stop de-linking dates entirely while the injunction is in place, okay? I tell people on the pro-linking side to hold off as well, and will report them if I see them linking dates, and do not link (or de-link) dates myself. I abide by the injunction and I expect you to, as well. It's only fair. --Sapphic (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought I was pretty clear in my edit summary. Nine times out of ten, I would have held off, but this was a special case. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

Please take a 24 hours break. I am sorry you decided to test the limits of Wikipedia:ARBDATE/Injunction. They are in effect, and are enforced. Jehochman ^Talk 02:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to appeal the block, but I would like to explain my action for anyone interested (I'd rather that nobody replies or comments in this section unless they are an arbitrator or clerk).

Featured articles are expected to comply with all points of the MOS. I never intended to delink more than one article. I had previously believed that injunction only referred to mass delinking—editing many articles in a short period of time; featured article contributors had used this method with impunity thus far. Obviously, my interepration of the injunction, and the action itself, was in error and I should have waited until the conclusion of the arbitration before delinking the article's dates.

I apologize for my rash judgement. If it is decided that my block should be rescinded or shortened, then I will accept this happily. On the other hand, if I must wait out the duration of the original time, so be it, and I will not argue. It was my choice alone, that led to this.

Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I would appreciate an acknowlegement that the blocking admin and an arbitrator has seen this statement. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have seen this statement. If another administrator agrees to unblock, they are welcome to do so. I do not want to undermine the arbitration process by speedily unblocking. This is why I suggested waiting a few hours. At that time, I suggest you post an {{unblock}} request. Thank you for your understanding. Jehochman ^Talk 02:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked, per the above. Given Dabomb's statement there is no need to prevent further disruption here. I also want to make the point that we should not be giving additional incentives to further petty vindictive reporting of minor "infractions" to WP:AE, by giving the reporters the satisfaction of seeing their opponents blocked so easily. The problem in this matter are not the editors who delink or relink dates, it's the editors who keep fighting about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your understanding. I will make sure that this type of incident does not happen again. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:

Thanks man, that means a lot. I also reviewed that FLC for ya :)--₮RUCӨ 02:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. You are on your own for a day... Dabomb87 (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

RE USNA Legislators

See comments there pls. I need an answer to one of them. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Check now. Made a ce. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: User:Sapphic's comment

Hmm, okay, thanks for the note. I was going to strike it, but if Greg L wishes for it to remain unstruck, I'll leave it alone. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I wanted it struck too, but Greg sent me an email saying not to have it struck. I can email the text to you, although what he says is quite...savory. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary; I'll take your word for it. :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Y Reading. Thanks for the diff. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Copy that sir

Im working right on it, meantime, can you bring me some names of croats users that would help for this work ? NIR-Warrior (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you left asked at the relevant WikiProject talk pages? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia comes to mind. See WP:PRV for a list of volunteers for copy-editing. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Para Siempre

Hello. I was wondering if you could help me with some c/e on the article... I have made some changes and I want to take to the FA. Thank you, Jaespinoza (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jaespinoza, I haven't talked to you in a while! Unfortunately, I'm quite busy in real life right now. If I have time on Friday or Saturday, I will do my best, but in all likelihood it will have to wait till the end of next week. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Another favor...

List of members of the Gregorian mission. I'm contemplating a Featured Topic on the mission, and need format help for the FL. Help! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so what would you recommend on the prose? (I'm studiously ignoring the drama fest over at FAC...) I might as well try for my first FL... (blanches). Ealdgyth - Talk 23:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL.. so I post here and you're playing with the article... great minds and all that... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Your reply on WT:FAC reminded me :) There isn't much to fiddle around with in terms of grammar and all that (one of the things that makes FLs so much easier to write than FAs), but I have a couple questions, see my inline comments. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey

see barnstar page 22:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I've been looking at the dabs and links, I only note them when they are a problem (which is kind of rare). Really? Darn! =D Lets see if my reviews are as good as yours.--₮RUCӨ 23:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

FLC for List of Scotland international footballers

Hi Dabomb

Just to let you know I've responded to your comments at this FLC, just wondering if you could stop by and see if they've been addressed to your satisfaction?

Many thanks!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood filmography

Hi, I would like to thank you for helping out with my Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography FLC. I was wondering if you would be willing to take a look at Clint Eastwood filmography before I nominate it. I've modeled it off of several other FLs (turning it from this to its current state), so hopefully there aren't any major issues. If you can't review it, no worries, I already appreciate your assistance with my first FLC. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing, but only because he is such a bad ass ;) Dabomb87 (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

See the talk page of the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know I was such a bad ass! No, he certainly is. I've been impressed with Clint Eastwood lately and have been watching a lot of his films, which brought me to this list. I addressed the issues you raised. For the second point I assumed you meant that he didn't appear in sixty TV shows and sixty films, so I split it into two sentences. Although I enjoyed using ventured in a sentence, I went with "started". If you can think of a better option, I'd be happy to hear it. For the em dashes, I placed it in the Role and Notes columns but not the various director, actor, music, and producer columns after looking at Spike Lee filmography. If you still think that the columns need it, I'll add them. Anyway, thanks for reviewing that so quickly, I appreciate it! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Skunk Anansie Discography review response

Hi, thanks for the heads up on the review. Please feel free to asses it with a Pass or Oppose depending on what is required :). Cheers!.Marcus Bowen (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Marcus, I intend to do a lot of reviewing today, so I will eventually get around to your article. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you think before you leave, you can review this list before I move it to the mainspace? Thanks.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If I have time, maybe in a couple hours. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Review request

Sure thing. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments and strikethrough

Hey, sorry, didnt mean to offend with the strikethrough, I (and others) have used that convention when working through lists of comments to keep track of what's fixed. dm (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It is just an FLC guideline, "Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors". What you can do instead is put an indented bulleted done under the resolved comment. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

{{done}}

On the timeline. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Your "Summary of the Date Linking RFCs"

Sssoul keeps adding a {clarification needed} tag to User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Draft RfC (example). Please see this talk thread, User_talk:Ryan_Postlethwaite/Draft_RfC#rationale_please, where I have directed Sssoul to you to further discuss this. Greg L (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Peer review?

Just thought you might want to comment on this after your vacation. Cheers, -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Braddles in 1948

Fixed it for you. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 06:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Skunk Anansie discography

Hi, I have addressed all the points you made, but need to find a free-use image which I will quite myself. Cheers!.Marcus Bowen (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, ping me when Truco's comments are resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

All comments have been addressed, just need to wait for Truco to pass them as resolved :)Marcus Bowen (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Requested move

I'd love to help you out, but sorry, I'm not an admin.

Also, I'm curious about your opinion about the posts I have started in WT:FLC. Do you think this is a serious issue or am I over-reacting. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I have always thought you were. I'll ask Matthew. I am reading over the other posts right now. That statement you created is very interesting. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

So what do you think? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. You can add some to the main post if you like, just make sure you sign them. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Good reviewer but...

I think you are the best list reviewer we have, but I feel you are singling me out by only critiquing my comments. Why should I help when two people tell me to bugger off and piss off and you get on my case and yet say nothing to them? This sort of language is not helpful and by saying nothing to them you only encourage them and turn away potential helpers.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will talk to the other two also. You seem like a good editor, and I hope you continue to contribute to these discussions. I just want everybody to be calm, so maybe tone it down a bit? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Just make sure they clean up their act too. tks.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I'm not appreciative of a random bloke coming into a discussion with no intention of addressing the substance of my original question. Guess I can put that behind me. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he would have if the language issue hadn't come up. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't until his initial post, which was entirely unconstructive. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I guess I'll defend them:

1. List of female Nobel laureates—this is on the border, but female Nobel laureates generally were a big thing for the Nobel Foundation to the extent that they maintain a official list on them. For all other groups, ethnicities, and whatnot, they don't. I wouldn't support any other such list past this.
2. List of actors nominated for Academy Awards for foreign language performances—this is a big deal; you rarely get a foreign film up to par to the degree that the Academy likes the performance enough to give it a nomination outside of the Best Foreign Language Film category. NOT#INFO doesn't really apply, especially with an official list existing.
3. List of actors nominated for two Academy Awards in the same year—my defense is weaker than the above, but actors who participate in enough quality films to get multiple nominations in any given here are generally worthy of note; the official list deflects the NOT#INFO concern here.
4. List of FLCL episodes—each episode is much longer than the standard anime episode (by virtue of being an original video animation), hence the longer plot summaries. As pushing all of them into a "Plot" section in the main article would create a very bloated plot summary that would hedge on WP:NOT#PLOT concerns, a separate episode list is fine.

Personally, I think he's being a little too strict here. Stuff like List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes is perfectly fine; there's a time when oversplitting is visible, but when stuff is generally discriminate and verifiable and can't be merged elsewhere without WP:WEIGHT concerns, then the list is appropriate. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Numbered for my convenience. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied at Sephiroth's page. Unfortunately, the discussion is kind of forking out, I'd like to keep it in one place. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:User:Scorpion0422/FL audit

I just want to express my view to you since you mentioned 3 of my lists at FL audit. I don't think the Cabinet lists are unnecessary since most Cabinet Secretaries had been white males and it is not frequent that women or African Americans to serve those positions.—Chris! _ct 03:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I can live with female and foreign born, but do we need African American? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think so.—Chris! _ct 03:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

But why should special attention be given to that race? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I just treat it like gender. But I can see how WP:UNDUE would be an issue.—Chris! _ct 03:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

USNA main list

Thanks for cleaning up the comments here but you look at the image image I and others added you'll see all but one or two are fine. I deleted one myself. Where is Matt anyway? He needs to wrap up this mess he started. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I only capped the images issues that were struck. It seems that Matthew hasn't edited in a few days. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my point, that's not his normal pattern. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's spring break time, he may have gone on vacation. Don't worry, the FLC will be open as long as progress is being made. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's really nothing more to do but striking out the images done and maybe quibbling over a couple, so actually, he is holding up progress. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's nothing you or I can do about that. Perhaps you could email Matthew. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sad but true. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I am away. I expected my internet access to be fine, but it turned out it isn't. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Wikiprojects

Sorry. Hey, I have a question for you. Who do I go to to request a WikiProject?--God'sGirl94 (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "request"? Do you want to start one, or just join one? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to start one. I have joined a couple, but one I really want isn't on there and I was wondering who I should go to to request it.--God'sGirl94 (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Are there other editors who would be interested in starting the WikiProject with you? It's easier with other users. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. I don't want to go and just ask random people becuase they might not respond. Do I go to the Community Portal for that?--God'sGirl94 (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What WikiProject do you want to start? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to start a Nancy Drew Book/Computer Game Project--God'sGirl94 (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals, but I would suggest renaming to the simpler "WikiProject Nancy Drew". Dabomb87 (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

THank you SOOOOOOO much!! I will do that right now!--God'sGirl94 (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I proposed the project quite right. Could you help please?--God'sGirl94 (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion that Nancy Drew is a bit too narrow of a topic to create a WikiProject on. I suggest creating a taskforce under Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels. You may want to propose something there first. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll work on that later. I have to go. But thanks again!!!--God'sGirl94 (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for this. Perhaps I was a little heavy handed with the archiving :-) I've also popped the notice at the top of the workshop page that you asked for. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you also put the notice up on the other pages too? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Javascript help needed

Script is pretty much done. For now, tt only works if you don't have "Enhanced changes" enabled. All you need is the following:

WatchlistConfig = { ignorePages: [
	'User:Gary King', 
	'Talk:Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare', 
	'Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates',
], };
 
importScript('User:Gary King/hide pages in watchlist.js');

It should be self-explanatory. There may be bugs, so let me know what those are if you find them, although I managed to find most of them. Do you think this script could be useful to a wider audience? I'll go setup a page for it in the Wikipedia namespace. Gary King (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Great work Gary, I will test it right now. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Hide_Pages_in_Watchlist#How_to_indicate_to_the_user_that_a_page_is_hidden_from_view.3F Gary King (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll

I've done the move, can you change the links? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Doing... Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Yukon Quest competitors

Ah, I see what you mean now. I misunderstood what you were saying the first time around. Thanks for the fix. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

ref list

Thanks for tweaking Miller. I just copied "3" from somewhere. How did you know to make it "2"? Tony (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Three columns break on some browsers; I just changed {{reflist|3}} to {{reflist|2}} Dabomb87 (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Silver Slugger winners

There isn't anything wrong with the format that I'm using. WP:CITE says that "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." It doesn't say anything about specific references. WP:CITE also says that "Where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected." FLs are not created by bots; editors and styles are unique. Could you explain what is wrong with what I've written, rather than what's different? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope my edit and edit summary serve as a good compromise and explanation. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Now when I look at it, I say "general what?" because inline is "inline citations". I also don't agree with the columns in the reflist, especially since it renders as three extremely cramped columns on my browser. I wouldn't mind 2 so much, but inasmuch as there used to be a rule against 3-column reflists, I really don't like the way that looks. I suppose I can live with inline versus in-text, even though there's no difference in meaning. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding: I changed Silver Slugger Award to what I'm currently thinking of if it's going to be changed. Do we really need "General" or "General reference" as a header at all? WP:CITE doesn't show that as an example usage. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, it's redundant to mention "reference" twice. It's like writing a biographical article about John Smith and then having a header titled "Smith's early life". The rule is against fixed three-column reflists, which break on some browsers. With colwidth, the reflist expands or contracts to fit the reader's browser. We could remove "citations" from inline, since that is also understood and largely redundant. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding after edit conflict: I don't care if "general" is removed. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Done now, should be all right. These three columns still look ugly to me though. Can anything be done about that? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Three options: remove "colwidth" entirely, change it so that it the column widths are larger (40em), or change back to a fixed two-column reflist. I don't really care at this point. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Got it. I'll take care of it. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Lists

Thanks for starting a discussion at WT:SAL. The whole process with regards to Lists at Wikipedia needs addressing. I was going to start some time ago, but it's rather overwhelming. I believe a major overhaul of WP:SAL, WP:LIST, WP:LOW, WP:EMBED, WP:PACL, WP:NCLL, WP:AOAL, and WP:DOAL is necessary, with some merging and new pages created in some cases. There's also some related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (long lists)#Proposed move and merge and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Archive 11#Naming conventions for lists. User:SMcCandlish offered to help me with getting List naming conventions up to scratch although I never really got further than an introductory paragraph. User:Tony1 has also expressed interest in sorting out WP:LISTS. If people seem serious about sorting out our lists (and from inital appearances, they do), now might be a good time to set the wheels in motion although it will still be a long, hard task. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Coupe de la Ligue winners

Why's that? I've already supported..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Bah, I always miss that. Sorry! Dabomb87 (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Just taking a look now, check back in 20 minutes or so :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I was going to wait a couple of hours in case I decide to promote any more. Then I'll update everything. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for archiving it, and yeah I'm still watching the FLRC, cheers. Sunderland06 (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sign off

Congrats with your good work tonight. All your comments to the projects did not go unnoticed (in fact it flooded my watchlist!) so well done for gathering input and keeping the discussion flowing. I won't be as active for the next couple (few?) days but will still pop by when I can. As for WP:SAL, if you figure out how you think you want to implement the new proposal (e.g. in a new section, as an addendum to something etc.) give me a prod and I wil try and help out with discussion/wording etc. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 23:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

USNA MOH

Fixed all your issues with this. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to ping me, I'm watching :) Dabomb87 (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

[5] I apologise, I will try to stop saying things that could be taken the wrong way. I know that was not the reason at all, so please forgive me for my naivety in putting this bad joke in such a public place. If someone has interpreted this wrongly, I cannot apologise enough and am fully accountable for my actions. It will not happen again. Sincerely, Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 21:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

PD review

Posting to several FLC regulars, maybe this program would work, see [6] — Rlevse • Talk • 01:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This should also go out to FAC regulars, too. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

for your comments and kind words on my editor review. I appreciate it. :) –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 01:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Stepping

I wasn't planning on stepping down any time soon (unless there is a huge call for it), but in the summer I will be heading to New Brunswick and I thought it might be a good time to move on (if TRM is interested). I've found that I've recently become less interested in the process, which has partially led to this problem in the first place. I often forget to do promotions and like I've said, I'm an editor, not a reviewer. Just to clarify, all that would happen is that I wouldn't close lists, I would still be heavily involved in the process and help out where I could. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

In case I haven't done so, I just wanted to thank you for all your help as of late (especially for your reviews). It's going to be a long road to cleaning up the process, and your help is very appreciated. I had already noticed that peer review, is there anything specific you wanted me to look at? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to thank me, I enjoy what I do. Well, you're the expert with Olympic lists, so I thought you would want to check out the newer format. Since you have already looked at it, I guess there's nothing else to check on then. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that someone had already asked the question, and the main article is rather long. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Noel Coward

Noel Coward has been promoted to FA. Thank you for fine comments. They helped us add the last bit of polish to the article! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

USMA Astronauts

See Bencherlite's comments and my responses about date formatting in refs. This is going to be an issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

told ya — Rlevse • Talk • 20:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of TNA X Division Champions

I have answered all your concerns at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of TNA X Division Champions.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 23:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The note you left has been taken care of. I also want to thank you for taking the time out of your day to review the list.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 00:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I was holding off on supporting because of Giant's concerns, but since they've been addressed, I will support. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much. This is the first list I've taken to FLC. Hopefully this article will turn out better than the first time I took an article to FAC.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 01:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:FA

is it good for you ? almaghi (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the rollback, I see it was a genuine mistake. I removed my warning. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

List of members of the Basketball Hall of Fame

Since this is on your to-do list, and I am actually planning to bring this to FLC soon, do you want to help me with writing the lead? Cheers—Chris! _ct 02:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. It will have to be after the weekend, though. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

List of QI episodes FLC

Hi there,

I wish to ask you, seeing as how you have been commenting on the List of QI episodes FLC, I was wondering if would now please either state if you now support or oppose the promotion to FL. So far, only one user has given their support/opposition rather than just commented, and it is getting close to the 10 days before the article is reviewed. I would really appreciate it. ISD (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Autoformatting oppose

I thought your reasoning was pretty sound. Indeed, ENGVAR is an excellent comparison and I would actually support making variations of US/International dating methods a part of that guideline. After all, when it comes down to it DMY or MDY is merely a "variety of the language". Sillyfolkboy (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please look

See User_talk:The_Rambling_Man#Hello_TRM — Rlevse • Talk • 22:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

New FL criteria discussion: Final phase

Hello, I think we've hammered out a good revised Featured List criteria here. If this passes, there will be quite a few FLs (my estimate is somewhere between 60 and 75) that could soon be delisted just because of 3b. With that in mind, I'd like to get comments and opinions from all FLC regulars and everyone else who has participated in the discussion before it's implemented. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Archbishops and bishops

Thanks for your support on this one; it's been suggested that it should be a list of all clergy who attended the college (which would bring it up to c. 200 names from c. 30) and I wondered whether you had any thoughts. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 21:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America)

Should we remove the final periods from this? Is there a bot that can do it? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes to your first question, I don't think so to the second. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10