User talk:Dabomb87/Archive 25

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Dabomb87. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

→

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:

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:

I guess we can close the oldest FLRC, and since I participated in the second-oldest (Sugababes discog), that one's down to you.
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,
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)