User talk:Dabomb87/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Master of Orion II GA review

Hi, Dabomb87, thanks for closing this (as a pass). I've left a message at the original reviewer's Talk page. --Philcha (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Rumford Prize

Can you explain your oppose a little? I'm going on vacation, doubtful I can access the Internet; I've asked Ceranthor to finish the FLC, if he accepts can you please send him the same PDFs you send me? Thank you.ResMar 19:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll accept here, for convenience sake. ceranthor 19:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Okey dokey, I've resolved all the non-content concerns, could you send me the e-mail, too? ceranthor 20:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll send you a Wikipedia email first. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

4 Minutes

Hey Dabomb, I withdrew nomination of 4 minutes and applied for a PR. Well can you give your inputs there regarding what more can be improved? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops!

Thanks for transluding that one. I completely forgot! :) iMatthew ^talk at  22:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Incentive system for reviewers, again

For WT:FAR. To be frank, I think there is 0% chance that the average detail of reviews will decrease. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably busy, but...

...do you have anything else for the FLCs for Pritzker Prize and/or Mercury Prize? Both reviews have somewhat stalled. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to work my way up the FLC list. I'll see what I can do over the weekend. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No problemo. Have a good weekend, don't "work" too hard! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Pritzker (besides the redirects which are fine) done. Thanks for your quick review. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Done your pesky redirects dude! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Done your peskier repeated refs duderino! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, supporting. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Too kind! Enjoy your weekend. Get on the Mercury comments when you get a few moments! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I doubt that day will ever come. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Akureyri

See User:User F203/sandbox/Iceland for explanation and checklist.

The article is much improved. I have avoided adding fluff to make the article longer as is the case with some articles, yet the article is 80% of the recommended maximum for some browsers (26kb now versus 32 kb limit for some browsers). All the sections found in other GA city articles are covered. It would be nice of you if you can confirm the GA status because there would still be time to do last minute corrections during the weekend. Thank you. User F203 (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll take a look this afternoon. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, for a small town, you'll have to admit that there's a lot written in the article! User F203 (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"This afternoon" was yesterday. Did you have a look at it? If it passes your review, then I will enjoy the weekend and slowly improve it. If not, I will make the final push this weekend and work on it like there is no tomorrow. See the top link (sandbox) for an analysis. Thank you. User F203 (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you did not reply, I'm going to take the weekend off. I was hoping that if it did not pass but was almost there that I could make the final push this weekend. By not replying, I can't make the final revisions to meet the July 5 deadline. So could you either pass it, say the article is complete rubbish, or let me know that it's almost there. User F203 (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. Based on what you wrote, I think the article is almost GA for a small town and that a weekend's work can fix it. Your understanding is appreciated and will not go unrewarded. Furthermore, I'll even remind you myself that the deadline is over once I work on it another weekend (this weekend, I'm away from the computer most of the time).

Some of the things that need sources actually do have sources but the source covered much of the paragraph. For example. Sentence 1. Sentence 2. Sentence 3. Reference number. The reference covered sentence 1,2, and 3. I didn't add any facts from my personal knowledge. In fact, I kept some personal knowledge out of the article to avoid OR.

Will write back to you soon after I get a chance to do the final revisions! Of course, minor revisions will be done for months to come as our work is never done! User F203 (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Discography FLCs

Regarding your comment at the albums project, These aren't strictly under the scope of this project, but if someone could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Dream Theater discography/archive2 and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Devin Townsend discography/archive2, that would be great. While discogs are of interest to most members of the albums project, there is a project specifically related to them: WP:DISCOGRAPHY. -Freekee (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I know, I posted there, but in the past, there are times when we still haven't gotten eyes even when I posted there. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. No problem, just trying to help out. It's tough getting help on tasks like that. Everyone seems to have their own areas of interest. -Freekee (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

RE

Ok. I think that you are right. I can nominate for the featured list the List of awards and nominations received by 30 Seconds to Mars? It is a great page. What do you think?--Matthew Riva (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean you want to withdraw the discography FLC? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Now I am improving the page.--Matthew Riva (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

see barnstar page 17:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Not often I disagee with you...

...but I've just declined a speedy for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of skin-related conditions/archive1. Over 200 pages (mostly talk) link to it, which actually brings up slight canvassing concerns. At the moment, seeing as the FLC is an current active nomination I think that, at least until the nom is finished, keeping the redirect is practical and convenient for some users. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, did not notice those. Mind if I retag it after the FLC concludes? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No, be my guest. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

A query

Thanks for commenting on the Ruff FAC. I just wanted to ask about the origins of the which/that guidelines. I've never come across this particular rule before, either in my dozen or so previous FACs or elsewhere, and I'm old enough to have attended a UK school that taught that sort of stuff, and I don't remember it.

Now, this isn't a complaint, your Google search link made it clear you are correct, and I accept that. I just wondered how it had slipped under my radar. Is it a relatively recent formalisation, or something that's primarily American (I note MS Word's grammar check has a tendency to query which on every conceivable occasion), or is it just something I've totally missed in the decades since I left school? As I say, this isn't a whinge, I'm just curious. You may well not know the answer, so I don't necessarily expect a reply, thanks jimfbleak (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed that it seems to be a British tendency to use "which" instead of "that", but I've seen and heard Americans use them interchangeably too. In informal English (especially spoken), many use either which in lieu of that regardless of circumstance, and it is considered acceptable to do so in most instances. In more formal encyclopedic prose though, I think the grammatical precision is necessary. I hope someone who has more knowledge in this area can help me out here. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style puts it very well, and is a lesson for all English-speakers. It goes something like this: because "that" and "which" can both be used without comma to indicate a subset rather than the whole, but ", which" indicates only the whole, it's good to avoid any sense that the writer might have got it wrong, which is common enough. "The funding that will enable construction" (a specific subset of funding) leaves no doubt that the writer might have meant "The funding, which will enable construction" (all of the funding). If you write "The funding which will enable construction", the comma might just have inadvertently left out, which could be disastrous. The optional "which" is thought to be elegant by some English-speakers (including David Attenbrough), but I got over that long ago, emboldened by the plain English movement, which started in the 70s. Tony (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the detailed replies. I'm sure you are right about the usage being less formalised in BE, which at least partially explains my former ignorance. jimfbleak (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Essex FLC

Thanks. The only reason I asked TRM, as the bot had run and there was no FLC promotions, so I got a little worried.Mitch/HC32 16:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Article prose size

I was interested in the comparison of article prose sizes, as compared to overall size, for the various FAs on cities. How does one calculate that? Sunray (talk) 08:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, much. Sunray (talk) 07:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

List of cardinal-nephews

Hey dude. Reviewing this list and can't get my head round why the table cols change width from 13th to 17th Century tables. The nominator is setting every col of every table to 200 but those tables in the middle of the list are clearly not equally spaced out. Any ideas? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Question about a list

I am considering creating a couple of new list articles. The first one is regarding the aireal victories of Eddie Rickenbacker, there are 26 for WWI but I am not sure if this would be enough to warrant a list, any suggestions? The other involves the Medal of Honor recipients (bix surprise huh, lol). I am thinking about creating a couple of new lists, 1 for Buarials at Arlington Cemetery (there are about 340+ recipents buried there) and in regards to the American Civil War lists, I have continued to struggle with how to deal with these from the standpoint of getting featured and I think I am going to breakthem up by Battle, about half can be easily aligned to a battle (Gettysburg, Chancleorsville, Frederickburg, Spotsycourthouse, etc) and I was wondering if that would be appropriate? Thanks for the help. --Kumioko (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem with NBA FLs

Since you guys are checking copyright problems for FLs, I am just wondering if there are NBA featured lists that have copyright problems.—Chris! _ct 00:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I only checked for obvious copyright problems (e.g. many instances of close paraphrasing and excessive usage of quotation of copyrighted info). There may be individual sentences or phrases that could be rephrased in the NBA lists, but I saw nothing blatant. Since many of those lists are mostly statistics or lists of entities, you needn't worry much. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, also for catching my mistake :)—Chris! _ct 00:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you help copyedit 2009 NBA All-Star Game when you have time? I've appreciated it. Thanks—Chris! _ct 01:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well you asked for it........

Some comments - got the feeling you had an easy run from the other reviewers! Wouldn't want you to feel cheated! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That's exactly what I was looking for. I'll get on it. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Akeuryri, semi-finished for now

Thank you for your flexibility. I have addressed all of your concerns. If it can remain a GA, let me know. If there are small issues that prevent it from being GA, then I'd like to use that weekend gift (allowance to work on it this weekend) that you granted. If it is hopeless, then you can declare it BA (bad article). Please note that even if you let the article remain GA, I will continue to improve it slowly.

Please also consider that it is a small town with little written about it. The WP article could be the most comprehensive resource for Akureyri on the internet now! User F203 (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is such thing as a "bad article"; some articles are just better than others. I can give you the weekend. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Your reply is unclear. If it can retain the GA in it's present form, let me know. I've complied with all of the suggestions. The weekend allowance is just to do some more corrections and look for more references to expand the article. In other words, I'd like your re-evaluation now. If it fails but is almost there, then the few extra days will help to salvage it. If it passes now, then that's a relief but will not mean that I will stop editing. Thank you. User F203 (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Runcorn lists

Just to say thanks for your positive comments here. It all got off to a bad start with the comment about combining lists, which would IMO not be a good idea, for geographical, historical and cultural reasons - surely these are more important than the mere numbers of items in a list. The whole nomination seemed to have got stuck up a blind alley, so I hope your involvement will move things on a bit. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I personally like the lists separate too. FLC has gone in a funk recently about content forking and "short lists" because in the past editors could pass ten-item musician's awards lists (which could have easily been integrated into the main article) through FLC and call them our "best work". However, your buildings list does not qualify as such, and, as you said, numbers aren't everything; there are other things to be considered in stand-alone lists, such as those you mentioned above. Keep up the good work on the lists and good luck on whatever topic plans you may have. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Sorry about the gender thing - I should have looked at your user boxes. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Illinois Athletic Club

I think an article could survive WP:AFD, but do not expect an article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Super Bowl of Poker

DaBomb could you take a look at this article. I want to nom it for FL, but I don't want you to lambast me again for noming an article that needs alot of help. Engrish grammer hath alweys me problim b.  ;-) (The problem with learning to spell phonetically when you had a childhood speech impediment.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright & fair-use rationale of SVGified logo

You are invited to participate in an interesting discussion at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#File:Man Utd FC .svg. Your comments & suggestions are very much appreciated Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 08:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

+

see barnstar page 06:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Lake Burley Griffin YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 16:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Working on it. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I

I finished fixing the items you identified as well as some other things. I am going create some articles to get rid of some of the red links and I will continue to review the notes. Please take a look at your leisure and let me know if I missed anything.--Kumioko (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

When moving pages...

When you move pages, please update the links that you've now changed. And I'm not sure if a page move really qualifies as a "minor" edit. Hooperswim (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, is having a "–" in lieu of "--" in the Wikipedia MOS somewhere? The double hyphens are easier to type than the spaces and em-dash (or is it an en-dash?) Hooperswim (talk) 03:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about not changing the links. I think moves are automatically marked as minor; do you know how to fix that? It's not explicit, but per WP:MOSDASH, listed or separated items are separated by spaced en dashes. See for example, the Olympic pages in Category:Table tennis events at the 2008 Summer Olympics. As for keying in dashes, yes it's a pain, but you can key them in with this code: – Dabomb87 (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No, not sure how to not mark a move as minor. I will try to see if I notice something the next move I do (but given that I don't tend to move pages too often, that might not be anytime soon). Hooperswim (talk) 03:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

They are automatically marked minor. See this discussion. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Rather randomly, I ended up moving a page today, and did not see an option to not mark it as "minor". I guess the PTB are still waiting on the software changes? Hooperswim (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose so. I can understand both sides of the discussion; i.e., mass moving would flood Special:RecentChanges, but moves are certainly not "minor". Dabomb87 (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for updating cent

Thank you for updating {{Cent}} after the RFC closed. I just realized I had forgotten about it, but you had already taken care of it. Same for all the other things you took care of related to my proposal. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Do you think we should notify the Village Pump, the usual noticeboards, add a watchlist notice, etc.? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for dealing with comments on the FLC. I was kind of busy and don't have time to deal with it. BTW, can you help me save List of San Jose Sharks players? I tried to but would need some more helps to fix all comments. If you can't, that's ok. I think you have already done a fantastic job keeping FLC running smoothly.—Chris! _ct 17:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt text

Thanks, I may have to rethink putting an image column on the lists. I left a comment at the link you left. --Kumioko (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I see you are now opposing based on the lack of alt text. The criteria state " "alt" text if necessary" - it seems that you are now suggesting "alt text for every image" should be the wording. I can't see how I can add alt text to the head-shots of people. Their names are next to the images, the alt text would be "a picture of name..." - is that what we really want? I think we're going to delist a HUGE number of articles if this is how we're going to interpret that criterion. Perhaps you could collate another list of lists to be demoted for lack of alt text, as you did with the copyright quotation list? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

:And also interestingly, the first example given on our own page for alt text is the flag of France with alt text of "National flag of France". So, for instance, in the Mercury Prize list, we have "Inaugural winners Primal Scream" under a picture of Primal Scream. This seems very similar to the example at WP:ALT. What do you suggest? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. A bad start to Friday indeed. However, the first paragraph is pretty much okay still. If you want to mandate alt text, we need to look at all our FLs, agreed? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the alt text thing. The thing is that we're close to closures, and I have no other way to catch people's attention. I'll revisit each one individually today. Sorry for the rough greeting. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries. The bad start was really the fact I didn't do my homework before getting a little too irritable for my own good. I think all my current FLCs have now got alt text where I think it's required. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just glad this impulse of mind came on a Friday and not on a Monday :) Dabomb87 (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, would have been a very very bad start to the week...! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to let you know that I left the below comment on the alt text discussion. After giving this a fiar bit of though I think this would be the best way to make this work.

Recommendation: I would like to recommend that as we implement this we start with the image itself. If we create a standard alt text for an image then a bot, AWB or even a human can ensure that the alt text is 1)associated with the picture and 2)is consistent from article to article for that picture. I admit that it may require a modification to the way that comments are associated to images however I think this is the easiest way that allows us to present a clean and consistent alt text to the readers and editors while at the same time minimizing the manual editing required. If we can come up with a standard wau to document the alt text for an image it shoudl be relatively easy to create a script or bot to populate said image with alt text. See File:Moh right.gif as an example. --Kumioko (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Done

Thanks; too used to SPI's and CHU's, I guess :/. Thanks again! -- Avi (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Good luck with the FAC. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame/archive1

Hi, you commented on this FLC a few days ago, and I believe that I have addressed all of your concerns. The FLC is on its tenth day, so it is eligible to be closed soon. If you could stop by when you have a chance, I would really appreciate it. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. I hope I'm not getting annoying, but I responded to your concerns six days ago. If there is anything else that you feel needs to be fixed, I would really appreciate knowing so that I can get to work on it while the FLC is still open. Thanks again, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Akureyri

I was hoping and did ask you for some guidance a few days ago so I could make final weekend fixes. However, you must be busy and did not respond. Therefore, I will leave Akureyri alone for now and leave it subject to your axe.

Hopefully, you will not axe it too badly and let it remain a GA. On the GA assessment, I have done everything that is required and marked it with a  Done. User F203 (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Akureyri/1. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I can live with that. Your summary is not harsh or bitey at all. Rather identifies it as a small town and asks others for guidance. Best of luck in WP and until we meet again by chance! User F203 (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Black Hawk War

I stumbled across this while working on my latest USMA list and it's in pretty good shape. I've started fixing it up and listed it at Good Article Noms. Any help would be appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Question

Do you think list of cutaneous conditions could be a viable candidate for feature on the main page? ---kilbad (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, lists cannot be featured on the main page. See User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day for a failed proposal to that end. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks lol

Thanks for that haha, I must be on something xP--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Stuart Woods

heh, you're stalking me! :p

What's up with "…"? I added changed it from "..." because at first I couldn't remember how to type it properly, until I noticed it in the markup section below the edit window. Shouldn't it be used? Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I just used Advisor.js to fix it. According to MOS: "Pre-composed ellipsis character (…); generated with the … character entity, or as a literal "…". This is harder to input and edit, and too small in some fonts. Not recommended." Dabomb87 (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'd forgotten about WP:ELLIPSIS. I wonder why, then, we include the "…" character in our "Insert" markup. The guideline also answered my next question; should spaces go before it.

BTW, what do you think of Stuart Woods so far. I've only gotten as far as the paragraph ending in "Mystery Writers of America", and I haven't written a Lede yet. He's my favourite author, I have most of his books, except his first two which I need to re-borrow from the library. It appears from the article history that the subject copy/pasted the biography from his own website, and I'm trying to make it more Wikipedia-ish than a self-serving advert type thing.

Should I consider writing his sailing endeavours as something similar to Commander Bill King, describing in some detail each race, or should I leave that bit and focus more on his career as a novellist? Any suggestions you have would be good. Regards, Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a nice start. Still need sources in a couple areas—I added fact tags. Was there any critism of his writing? Here's a weird sentence: "Woods, King, and their third crewmember, Shirley Clifford,[17] left from Portsmouth, England to The Azores in August 1975.[18]85-98)". If you ever plan to take the article to a high level (GA, FA), be sure not to become too reliant on his autobiography. Did Woods not marry? Where is he based now? What are his plans? Just some things to think about. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the author, but the weight given to his sailing and his writing seems fine. One thing, if you can address it, is that it seems as if those two parts of his life were independent of each other, although they are somewhat related (his second novel was to be about the Round Britain Yacht Race, etc.). If there is any way you could integrate the two more, so that it reads more narratively instead of topically, that would be great. Otherwise, nice job. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wimbledon Alt text

Hello ! You asked for alt text to be added on the List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions review page, and I just wanted to ask you a question about that : Should the alt text be entirely descriptive, or can I name the players ? That is, should I write alt texts like : "Pete Sampras looks at his opponent as he prepares to serve" or "A portrait of Reginald and Lawrence Doherty show the two brothers sitting on the floor in tennis outfits, looking at the camera" ? --Don Lope (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

FL(R)C

Sorry, I hadn't seen that you'd suggested it the other way round in a comment above. It read funny to me but I am in little doubt that you are correct because English is really not my forte. On a different matter do you have any ideas of what to do with this, as it is all rather stagnant and I would like to get things wrapped up (if possible) before I go away in just over a week. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking

Heh...interesting that you should point that out, since I did follow parts of that discussion, and I'm usually pretty careful about DElinking dates. Has there been a consensus yet regarding the use of templates like {{by}} in article text, and is that the linking to which you are referring? Or is there something else that I'm doing that I'm missing? -Dewelar (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What happened is that the filter, for whatever reason, caught this edit. You didn't do anything wrong, although you did link "debutdate" and "finaldate" in the infobox (don't think they need to be linked). Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Yeah, I usually copy and paste those infoboxes, and use the existing format. If the dates are supposed to be delinked in there, I can try and remember to remove them next time. Thanks! -Dewelar (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Public Account

Hi. I just wanted to confirm that you've set up a public account at User:Dabomb87Public. It popped up at WP:UAA and I just wanted to make sure it was you. Thanks! TNXMan 00:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's me. Thanks for your vigilance. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

For transparency's sake, I only intend to use it for when I don't have access to the computer for a while (e.g. I'll be out of country for a while later this year and my only computer access will be through cybercafes). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'll need the same thing in a few months! TNXMan 01:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

MoS

This is wrong. Per MoS: "For example, in Outline of Africa, the first sentence of the lead should describe Africa, and present it in bold - not Outline of Africa (the article is not about outlines of Africa, it is presenting an article on Africa in outline form)." Africa is bolded as Christopher Smart should be. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:BOLDTITLE, links should not be bolded, and bold should only be used if it is a verbatim repetition of the title of the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I just quoted where it says right there Africa and not Outline of Africa, is bolded. That is not "verbatim repetition of the title". Then it says "Use as few links as possible before and in the bolded title." Not "don't use any links". You seem not to understand what it says, and if you persist I will take it up at AN. The English is 100% clear. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I won't revert you; I'm restricted by ArbCom ;) Take it up with Sandy or Tony if you like. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Using no links seems to be compliant with "as few as possible". Dabomb87 (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've worked with Sandy and have shared FAs with her. Trust me, I know the MoS. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC

I have closed the RfC you co-proposed. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Role_of_Jimmy_Wales_in_the_English_Wikipedia#Notes and the subsequent section. I am sorry to say that I did not find consensus for the proposals. Please review my closure and let me know if you think I have made any errors, either in interpratation or administration. --Dweller (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Dweller, that summarizes my views on the consensus too. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael P. Murphy

Good day to you Dabomb. I am having a problem with this article. I cannot seem to get the table with the ribbons to come out right could you please assist? --Kumioko (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this. What's wrong? Everything looks fine to me. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Medal of Honor, Silver star and purple heart in the table shoudl be centered (without the last empty cell) as they are in the Chesty Puller article. I must be missing something because I just cannot seem to get the table to work correctly. --Kumioko (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are referring to the table with the actual names of the medals, I think you need to add colspans. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Your right and I tried that but I can't seem to get it right. Would you mind taking a look? --Kumioko (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I see what I did wrong now. I was only adding the colspan to the row not the entire table. --Kumioko (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Featured article review

Thanks for your comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Military career of L. Ron Hubbard/archive1. I've resolved the issues that you identified - I'd be grateful if you could check it over and update the FAC page accordingly. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Silent Alarm FAC

Hey there. Are you any closer to giving a verdict on the article's nomination? It's been there for a while now and we're trying to get a consensus or further advice. Thanks. Rafablu88 20:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, a few people have said their pieces on the band plural/singular thing. Have a look and let me know what you make of it. Rafablu88 17:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you any closer to giving a verdict following your comments being resolved? No rush, but it'd be nice to get a consensus going. Plus, Laserbrain struck out his oppose. Rafablu88 21:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Master of Markup

Hey Dabomb87. Currently working on List of England national football team hat-tricks and can't get the blasted results column to sort, using either the {{sort}} or {{nts}} template. Can you help? Pretty please? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You've got to use a hidden sortkey, like so: {{sort|##|result}}; "##" is the hidden sort key, such as 03 or 12. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried that, I'm sure, with this version but it still didn't work for me... Been a long week, have I missed yet another obvious thing? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Single-digit sortkeys need to be preceded with "0". Dabomb87 (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I bloody knew that. I've even told other people that. ARGHHHH. Cheers dude. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps

Could you please take a look and see if all your comments haev been addressed?--Kumioko (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

List of international cricket centuries by Sourav Ganguly‎

Thank You for your comments. I've done my best to address your concerns. Please see the nomination for more details. Abeer.ag (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right:done. Thanks again Abeer.ag (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sory for missing your alt text comment. Now added for all images except graph.Abeer.ag (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Re. Jean Hugo

I've redirected to the golfer. Deleting the page is unnecessary, because of the hat note on Jean Hugo (golfer) which directs towards the artists. Hope you don't mind. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 18:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Good job! I was getting a little worried about the article...Modernist (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Table formatting question

Sorry to bother you with this but you seem to be the answer man lately. I am almost done refomratting the President of the united States list and I can't get the color formatting right for the party on some of them. Would you mind taking a look and see what I am doing wrong. Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks I really appreciate it. I see what I did wrong now. --Kumioko (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)