User talk:Dabomb87/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Houston - Austin Image

Re: Texas Revolution page:

Thank you for not discarding the image outright. I don't quite understand the resistance this image is receiving. Both Huston and Austin, whose pictures did not appear anywhere on the page, were central figures in the Texas Revolution, which ultimately gave birth to the Republic of Texas. This one image not only has fine engraved depictions of both Huston and Austin but it also commemorates the 100th anniversary of the Rep. of Texas. On top of that it also depicts the Alamo, the battle of which as you must know also played a role in that revolution. All of these things, all rolled into one image...yet it seems to have been received as if I posted a picture of 'Bart Simpson' on the Tex'Rev page. In any event, I appreciate the effort that goes into these pages and was hoping the image of Huston and Austin would be a welcomed addition.

GWillHickers (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gwillhickers; sorry for the delayed response. I don't think anyone wants the Texas Revolution article not to have any Houston or Austin images. I believe Karanacs (talk · contribs) meant that there are more appropriate images of those two figures than the postage stamp picture, such as the portraits in Sam Houston and Stephen F. Austin. I don't feel strongly enough about the issue to spend time on it, but feel free to start a discussion regarding image usage on Talk:Texas Revolution. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: minor correction to Outlines

Re: | this edit:

It is not helpful to support your edit with reference to the entire style manual. I, too, have a busy life. If you have an actual citation, and are not merely citing for effect (which I see done far too often), please offer that actual citation - that would be in the form of a link to as fine-grained a portion of page as possible. That way I can actually find the referenced text and learn from it, which I'd be grateful to do. As it is, it looks like you're either lazy or trying to brush me off by giving me a task few people will do: search the entire style manual.

Which I did...and came up with nothing relevant. Please direct me to the relevant section, if it actually exists.

Note (ha!) that I have NO objection to the edit you did. There's no change of meaning, and you reduced the word count. Fine. It's the sloppy justification you offered to which I object. My training is as a scholar, among other things. I actually expect (and always try to offer) explicit citations. It's simply a "best practice" in rhetoric.

(You can just reply here, if you like. I'm watching.)

Tom Cloyd (talk)

Alternatively, Dabomb87, you may choose to ignore these insults. You wouldn't be the first to decide they have better things to do after such behaviour. Colin°^Talk 22:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Relax Colin. Cool heads prevail. Please see my response to you here. I'm not being rude, nor am I a troll. Name calling isn't good rhetoric. Do your research - check my edit record. Tom Cloyd (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tom. See MOS:NOTED. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent - thank you. Now I know the nature of your objection, so I can reply to it. You may have a point, but I'm far from certain of it.

I agree that writing "Note that...", where the reference is solely to what follows in the sentence, is usage that can be improved. However, in my usage I was directing the reader's attention to a particular aspect of an example just given, to make a crucial point. I don't see a problem with this, although it may be done using other language - that's a trivial matter. I am completely certain that it is common practice in all sorts of serious and academic writing (including encyclopedic writing) to present a figure or graph, then call the reader's attention to some aspect of it which is deemed important. That was what I was doing. There is ample precedent for this, as you surely know. A minor point, but, gosh, we scholarly types live for such rubbish. Thanks for making my day. :) Tom Cloyd (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

NWA World Middleweight Championship

I see that this was failed, even though it has not been on there nearly as long as most lists and I had responded to everything on the page. So exactly why was it failed?  MPJ -DK  15:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

See my note at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Closure log. I suggest a peer review before renominating to ensure that no prose concerns linger. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Well you run the show, so that's how it ends  MPJ -DK  15:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't take this too badly. An unsuccessful FLC doesn't mean the list is damned forever. Plenty of FLCs have succeeded on their second go-around. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a matter of focusing on the parts of wikipedia that I enjoy the most and lately the FL process has not been one of them, not because of the process but because I seem unable to catch grammatical various issues before nominating lists.  MPJ -DK  16:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. Many editors struggle with writing professional-quality prose, which is why we have PR and GOCE to aid them. I'm sure that if you ask nicely, plenty of editors who work on wrestling and sports articles (Giants2008 comes to mind) will quickly go through the lead for you. That said, if all this is causing you stress, then it's probably best to take a break. Hope to see you back at FLC in the near future. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

San Jacinto Battle Map

I found a wonderful hi-resolution San Jacinto battle map at: http://www.sonofthesouth.net/texas/battle-san-jacinto.htm (page down) It appears very old. I would like to upload it to COMMONS and include it on the Battle of San Jacinto page. Am not sure if its PD. Any ideas? GWillHickers (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I haven't forgotten this, but image policy is not my area of knowledge; I've asked User:Rambo's Revenge to give his input. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Fix your vector.js

On your vector.js, remove the following line:

document.getElementById('p-logo').childNodes[1].accessKey = null;

Gary King (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that fixed it! Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

List of Law & Order: Criminal Intent episodes

Hi, DaBomb. I brought List of Law & Order: Criminal Intent episodes to FLC a year ago. I've recently returned to Wikipedia and found the page to be a complete mess.[1] I've spent the morning redoing the page, and left a message on the talk page. If you wish to comment, feel free. Practices change all the time, and I haven't kept myself up to date with them all, so I suspect you're more versed with current article and list structures, the MOS for lists and whatnot than I am, whether or not they are Featured. Best, Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Took a quick look, and the cleaned-up version looks fine to me, from a general standpoint. One thing that could be fixed are the unformatted references. I assume that you are still working on referencing the airdates and other recently added info. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I'm gathering references for airdates for season 8 and 9, but I probably won't get around to adding them to the article until tomorrow. Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Renomination of List of Numbered Roads in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario

Now that several months have passed, and the main irk removed long ago, I was thinking of a fresh nomination. Besides the links, very few other criticisms were presented, so I'm hoping it'll fly through this time. However, I wanted to ask before I nominated it if it was ok to do so given its past? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No significant edits have been made since a week following this discussion. Are you sure that the problems brought up in the past have been resolved? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask the editors who commented on it to come here and give their own opinion on that one. I had made the significant change mid-nomination (removing the map citations), and nobody commented after that. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have informed them, but they don't seem to be posting. Will remind them tonight, but otherwise I'd consider it approval by silence. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think so too. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no immediate objections, but that's not an endorsement for promotion. I honestly haven't looked over the list since the last FLC closed. Imzadi 1979 → 17:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Imzadi. As a director, I'm not looking for immediate supports, but just want to ensure that the same problems aren't raised again, which bogs down the FLC and is frustrating for reviewers and nominator alike. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hello, we meet again. Anyway, quick question, I was thinking of nominating another list at FLC soon. Currently IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship has two supports. Would you think that it is currently fine to nominate another article or would it be better if I waited just a bit long? Just want to make sure it won't cause a disruption.--WillC 04:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You should be fine; go ahead and nominate the next one. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, good. Now I just have to figure out which list to nominate.--WillC 03:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for passing the IWGP Article.--WillC 01:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, but it's the reviewers who deserve the real thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Re:Request

I didn't respond to either because I felt neither needed a response. Resolute disagreed with my suggestions, and I have no problem with that, but I haven't had time to do a full review of the article, so I don't want to pass judgment on it yet. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)