User talk:Dabomb87/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

WP:FAS

Since I screwed up last month, I only did the FAS numbers I was sure of this month (I left FA demotions and ΔFAs blank for now). If you have a chance, could you (or a TPS) please check my numbers and fill in the last two stats? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm just now catching up -- will have a look -- thanks so much for all you do, Ruhrfisch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all you do Sandy. And thanks for all you do Dabomb87. Once more unto the breach ... ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what happened last month (I missed it), but everything looks good now (for August and Sept). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not update FAS until Sept. 3 last month, and it was very difficult with the time lapse (and I made some mistakes which Dabomb87 caught, thankfully). Thanks for finishing the stats, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If we could encourage the FAR people to close out their archives on time, the entire task might be much easier and quicker :) :) As it stands, I usually resort to doing it myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Userpage cloned

You may want to have a chat with User:RealProffesional Yes. -- œ^™ 06:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Closure

Hi DaBomb!

Thanks for closing that. Even a few minutes exposure to that article (and its sequel) gave me nightmares last night.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

FLC matters

There are several lists that were supported by both myself and TRM, and neither of us seems to want to close them. Therefore, you are the one who logically should close these lists. FLC could use the closures, too, as the process is rather jammed at the moment. Please take a look at FLC when you get some free time. Thanks. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Dabomb, just popped in to say hi, hope you're okay and not too overwhelmed with other matters on Wikipedia. Giants is right, we have a few stalled noms that we have mutually reviewed and supported, so your closure would be appreciated. Also worth having a quick look at WP:FLRC while you're there! All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for not being here much lately; I'm just swamped IRL. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Turk Telekom Arena page

Hello,

Inoticed you have semi-protected the Turk Telekom Arena page due to edit warring. The problem with the page is about the "owner" field about the stadium. The stadium has been built by and owned by the "Turkish General Directorate of Youth and Sports", this is publicly known and there is no discussion about this ownership, there's even a big sign on the stadium that reads "This stadium is owned by the GSGM" here's the news: [[1]] GSGM being the Turkish initials of Youth and Sports general directorate [[2]]. Here's another resource [[3]] Problem is this club's fans in WP keep editing the ownership as if it's owned by the club, Galatasaray SK, which is not the case - and again there's no discoussion about who owns the stadium, there's no bogus situation, it's publicly very well known. Now the page is protected, and the "Owner" field remains as the club, so when the protection is removed the edit warring will resume. With this information, could you please change this field and end this meaningless issue? Thanks very much for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pisarro (talk • contribs) 03:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving a page

I totally screwed up the Stony Brook University Track article when I erroneously moved it, numerous times. Can you please move Stony Brook UniveristyTrack back to "Stony Brook University Track" and then deleted the crappy redirect? Thanks! Jrcla2 (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Bencherlite^Talk 15:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

10/31 TFA

If schools see "The Human Centipede" as a front-page "can't avoid looking at it," Featured Article they will block Wikipedia. Imagine yourself as an elementary school principal and you saw 5th graders looking at the front page of Wikipedia with "The Human Centipede," as the FA. What do you do next? Abe Froman (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Follow up with Jenna on a day when lots of kids are studying?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

CampusEAI Consortium

I noticed that this article has been under semi-protection since May 2011. Requesting unprotection to see if previous vandalism-level will re-occur. Shearonink (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Tippecanoe TFA

FYI: Per discussion at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, I've written a new TFA summary for the Battle of Tippecanoe here. Thanks! —Kevin Myers 10:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

RL work pressure

Hi, are you able to do FC for two weeks? Please see my note at the newsroom. Tony (talk) 11:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Important

I require your urgent attention at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list/November 2011. Nightw 12:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Page move

Hi again. Could you uncontroversially please move St. Francis College Terriers men's basketball → St. Francis Terriers men's basketball? Per WP:CBBALL naming conventions, there shouldn't be a "College" or "University" in its title. Thanks! Jrcla2 (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Jrcla2 likes this.

Move protection of SS Edmund Fitzgerald

Hi. I just semi-protected SS Edmund Fitzgerald for two weeks, and also applied move protection for the same time period. I noticed after doing this that you had already move-protected the page, but for a shorter period of time, because it was to appear (and apparently is now appearing) as TFA. I assume there's no harm in my having extended the move protection past what you did, but if you see a problem that I'm overlooking, please feel free to revert what I did. — Richwales (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

William de St-Calais

Question: if William de St-Calais is protected (in advance of upcoming TFA), why doesn't it look protected? --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It's only move protected, not editing protected. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Ealdgyth. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

TFA blurb

I completely rewrote the lead of Blackbeard and therefore also the TFA blurb. Did I do it right? I'm ignorant of any technical restrictions. Parrot of Doom 23:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

TFA blurb for William de St Calais

Can someone add "and Bishop of Durham" to the end of the first sentence of the TFA blurb? --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Bencherlite fixed it. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

TFA alert!

We have no TFA for the 26th at the moment. — Edokter (talk) — 00:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see my report on Raul's page.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Dabomb87/Archive 38! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

03:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil

Hi, Dabomb87. Could you be kind and tell my why Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil won't be TFA's on next 1 December even though it had three people supporting it? You chose in its place instead School for Creative and Performing Arts. Is it really more important than the 180th anniversary of the princess' birth? Maria Amélia's article was promoted on 16 April 2011 by eight different reviewers and not it's simply not good enough? Just because Malleus Fatuorum said so? I warned on the article's nomination that Malleus Fatuorum and I share a history of enmity[4][5] and that his opinion was biased and it seems no one cared. That's very unfair. I have several featured articles on my back, such as Pedro Álvares Cabral, Empire of Brazil and Pedro II of Brazil (all three TFA too) and Maria Amélia's isn't worth it? Couldn't you place School for Creative and Performing Arts's on another day? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, you've not bothered to answer me. I hope it's because you're busy in real life. Nonetheless, not placing the article as a TFA is still unfair and the lack of encouragement to a FA editor like myself is equally unfair. --Lecen (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Lecen, Dabomb has not made any edits since 02:09, 27 November 2011, a day and a half before you left your message. Saying that he hasn't "bothered" to answer you is rather discourteous. He hasn't ignored you; he just hasn't been editing at all and so probably hasn't even seen your request here yet. Bencherlite^Talk 13:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind. I don't know why he is in charge of closing or accepting nominations if he is not even available to answer other editors when needed. --Lecen (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the late response. I haven't researched the personal history between you two, and I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so. What I did see, however, were Malleus' actionable comments about the prose (other editors echoed his thoughts), which indicated that further work on the article may be needed before it is TFA-ready. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The article has been recently promoted FA and the other editor who believed that pieces of the text could be improved did it by himself and gave his support. Why Malleus Factuorun's opinion has more weight than other three editors? --Lecen (talk) 10:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Far be it from me to speak for Malleus, but I think he'd be very uncomfortable with someone considering an article "not really an FA" just because he expressed reservations, when several other copyeditors and the delegate agreed it was ready to be promoted. OTOH, if there's anything you see that looks wrong, Dabomb, by all means point it out, articles can always be improved. - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at WT:FAC and hopefully we can receive guidance on this. It strikes me as a matter of routine coordination among Raul's delegates, actually and I'm surprised it isn't adjusted "in house".--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

ummmmm ... there is no "routine coordination among Raul's delgates" (nor should there be, IMO-- the independence and transparency is part of why FAC works, or at least works better than some other processes that appear to be driven by off-Wiki fora, and we do not coordinate on- or off-Wiki), but this seems to me at least to be a case of WP:CCC when new info comes to light. I certainly hope, and expect, that Dabomb87 is not swayed by any other delegate-- that would be a big problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I don't mean in selection, I just mean in applying the same standards.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please join us there, Dabomb, no rush. - Dank (push to talk) 19:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's getting to be quite an extended discussion, sorry for my earlier misunderstanding. My takeaway is: if someone opposes at TFAR over the same prose that I supported at FAC, I'd like to hear about it ... the worst that could happen is, I'd learn something. - Dank (push to talk) 00:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Consider un(semi)protecting Zombie

Hi,

Just a head-up. There is what seems to be a genuine request for un-semi-protecting the Zombie article here: Talk:Zombie#Can_we_unprotect_this_until_9_Dec.3F. According to the page log you applied the semiprotection over a year ago. Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 20:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Throwing in a comment here. The request is a teacher for a class of students with no Wikipedia-editing experience. I can't speak for other editors, but I'm not too big on Wikipedia-writing as a classroom tool. I've seen too many articles that were botched up, contained conflicting styles or redundant information, or were left incomplete after the semester was over. The Zombie article gets vandalized when it's not protected. If there's a matter of consensus to consider, I'd like to see the semi-protection stay in place. Thanks. Boneyard90 (talk) 10:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No TFA for 12/5 yet

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article#Alert:_system_not_working.3F. Ta, Trafford09 (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Those American reptiles are hungry for attention

Please consider running "U.S. state reptiles" in your TFL slot.TCO (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Two US military TFAs back to back

FYI, a complaint (and my response) at WP:ERRORS. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 19:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Object to running Mary Anning on the main page Dec. 16th

I am the person who has done the most edits to Mary Anning and I would like to be around to help patrol the article when it runs on the main page. I will not be available to do that around the 16th. Also I was really hoping to try and get this article run on the main page closer to or preferably on her birthday on May 21. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Dumb question time

Hi, How do you see what articles are going to be scheduled as a Main Page Feature article?--Abebenjoe (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Once Dabomb and I schedule them, they show up here: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2011 Raul654 (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't even realize this process even existed until recently. Oh well, live and learn. Take care.--Abebenjoe (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Holiday wishes...

see barnstar page 22:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39