Dabomb87

Thanks for doing this and bringing this to my attention. It had been on my back burner for a long time. --Golbez (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have ordered the refs now. Anymore copy edit help would be greatly appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I really thank you for your fine copyediting. You're good at it. As you see, I'm better at fact gathering and refs ;-). I've addressed all your 2nd round, leaving you one question on the live action issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

That was fast! :D Dabomb87 (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was working Karanacs and jumped onto yours when I was done with hers. I'm motivated to get this to FA, and with you and her helping, we may actually make it ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 01:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Fixed groundbreaking — Rlevse • Talk • 02:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

fixed latest round. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

fixed latest round last night. Since Karanacs isn't answering my questions in her section, what should we do with the personal life section (topic vs time)? Yes, I posted on her page a few days ago too. Tks for all the help. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll try to put up a few more things. I won't be able to access WP for an extended time until tomorrow. As for Karanacs, her contributions show that she is actively editing. Perhaps leave another reminder on her talk page and wait a couple more days before asking someone else. The issues she raised were hers, she has the best ideas on how to fix them. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Check Karanacs' edits to the article and he comment last night on the FAC page. Looks like she's willing to support once I go through the Barbera book, which is coming from a library to me. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

My library autobio book on Barbera is in. We'll pick it up tomorrow, Tues. Let me know on my talk page is you want me to look for anything specific. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've made the changes you suggested to the FAC. If there's anything else, could you let me know? Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Further changes have been made. Thanks for picking them out! You've got a good eye for that. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've left some comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1964 Gabon coup d'état. If you have time, I wonder if you would revisit it? Thanks, Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Are there any more issues that I can address to secure your support in this article's ongoing FAC? Plasticup ^T/C 03:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

See User_talk:Karanacs#Barbera_book_and_William_Hanna_FAC. If you could look over the updates and smooth them, I'd appreciate it. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Took a shot at fixing the latest round. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I replied on the FLC. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hate to bother you about this, but you're currently the only oppose and I was wondering if you would have time to look over it this week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much for your help. Check your barnstar page. It's not an FA (see WP:FA but Gimmebot hasn't run to update the page yet). I plan to do Joseph Barbera next as they were partners for 60 years so there's lots of overlap. Thanks again, I couldn't have done it without you. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I will finish my review (last one left) soon, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I think I have this close to FAC ready. Could you please look it over? Would you prefer I nom it for FAC now or after you look it over? Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll look over it now. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

"Why "especially Collier's"?" because that's where he had the most success with magazines. Cut out "especially" or clarify? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)...Also see where I moved the phonetics, what should be done with that? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The pronunciation is fine; clarify especially. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have a watch on your page, so you don't need to ping my talk to tell me you answered, unless you just want to. ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 23:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I can't find refs for any of "Cartoon Network put up a bumper in late December 2006 that showed Barbera in a black marker portrait. In the next scene, the words "We'll miss you" were written above the Cartoon Network logo. Adult Swim had a banner that said "Joseph Barbera [1911-2006]" with the banner fading out without showing their logo at the end, something they only do when a person they consider important passes away and something they had done twice before; for Harry Goz in 2003 and Sam Loeb in 2005." If I cut it, should I leave the Death section separate or put in Personal section like I did with Hanna? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)...Done with your items. When we finish this cartoon ref/adult swim item, should we list for FAC? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Merge the Death section with the Personal section. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to cut the unref'd stuff. Then list for FAC, or do you think it's not ready? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Looking back at the Hanna FAC, there were three issues: prose (FA criterion 1a), comprehensiveness (1b), and images (3). The prose is much better this time, I can't judge on comprehensiveness, and the single image seems to meet standards. So yes, I think it's ready. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The prose is better because most of this is a copy from Hanna and you and Karanacs made it so good, the images is a learned lesson, and it's more comprehensive because I found more info on his personal life. Thanks. It'll be listed in a few minutes. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have seen you marked Ned Kock for speedy deletion. I came across Media naturalness theory which seams to be promoted by the same user, 15 links within short time [1]. Would be nice if you can have a look. - 83.254.214.192 (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

In the Austin article, the original statement before your edits was that Austin has 3 Fortune 1000 companies. When you changed this to F500, you should have rechecked the source. Please don't enter incorrect information into articles when editing them. After I corrected your first mistaken edit, you reentered it again, please take the time to read the documents your are sourcing and contact other editors who are seeking to correct the articles before blindly reentering the incorrect information. TheMindsEye (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I did read the source, it's right here: [2]. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comments. I left some replies on the FLC page. Nergaal (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have noticed that you are doing a good job in locating prose issues in Featured Article Candidates. I am planning to nominate Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge for Featured Article in the future and would like to get an opinion on its current form. If you have the time, please take a look at the article and drop your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge/archive1. I would greatly appreciate it if you would like to attempt to copyedit the article as well. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sure. I'll tackle this tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your review of the Louvre Abu Dhabi article. Could you just clarify on a few of your points? See the review page for more. Thanks, --Jordan ^Contribs 17:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've fixed up the article according to your suggestions. Anything else? Jordan ^Contribs 12:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've fixed the formatting of the prices. All of the other points you have raised have been dealt with, besides the quotes point. How's the article looking? Jordan ^Contribs 14:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Much better. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your effort in peer reviewing this article. Your comments and suggestions were a great help. It looks like it might make GA now, thanks to you. Much appreciated, Jordan ^Contribs 09:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there!

Thanks for letting me know, I missed it from my watchlist! :) The Helpful One ^(Review) 17:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I have tried to address your points so far. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've replied again. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I recall Tony using the date script to remove linking from dates and see that you are doing so. How can one use the script? Many thanks, sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, thanks for your interest in removing this next-to-useless feature. Here are the instructions, copied from one of Tony1's subpages: Dabomb87 (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I apologize about the links. They weren't added intentionally, but I think were included accidentally in the course of some edits I made. So sorry about that, and thanks for letting me know. I'll be mindful in the future to look out for mistakes like that that I may inadvertently make. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.219.45 (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the help at the peer review. I snagged everything you mentioned. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reviewing Family Moving Day (I've cleaned it up at your word). Now, shall you please check how well this TV show list is going? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sure. I'll make comments in the evening. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can you do me a favor and copyedit this? I would like to see it make FA. Either edit yourself or leave suggestions on FAC page like you have before and I'll even do it, though I've never edited it before. When this is done I'll support it. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Working on this. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Let me know when you're done and if you think it's FA ready at that point. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please see if current revisions have addressed your concern and improved the list enough to change your mind. The intro section was considerably revamped. Thank you very much for your time and assistance. 2008Olympian _chitchat^seemywork 00:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Does your strikethroughs mean that you are voting to Support the nomination now?--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 02:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • Not yet, I want to give the article a once-over tomorrow before supporting. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think I've resolved most of the minor prose issues you brought up in the FAC. Feel free to check to see whether they've been fixed or not. All the best, Cam (Chat) 00:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please see the ongoing discussion over linking dates, particularly years in historical articles. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

In this edit you replaced the date 1978-02-22 with the date February 2, 1978. Please undo all the edits made with this script. If you intend to continue using the script, please fix it first. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

For the peer review. It gave me some ideas of where to go next. MBisanz ^talk 14:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, you wrote in the peer review of United Nations article: "Em dashes should be unspaced." Is this the same with en dash? Is it meaning that 1293 – 1820 should be 1293–1820 (in headers, (), plain text, and so on)? If you need a better example please have a look ar List of mayors of Hamburg — it's on peer review too. I'm no native speaker and don't know about this, and wp:mosnum wasn't very helpfull for me. Please answer right here, I'll watch this page. Thank you. Sebastian scha. (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've put in a query at the MOS talk page. I'll tell you the answer as soon as somebody can tell me. Please continue to watch this page. I will tell you however, that en dashes are spaced when used as stylistic alternatives to em dashes. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Answer: For this instance, yes, the en dashes should be unspaced in all instances (1293–1820). An explanation is here. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. That helped. Sebastian scha. (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Delighted to that you're using it. However, there's been a complaint about [this], where a wrongly used ISO has been wrongly translated. Have you tweaked your version of the script to translate ISOs? If so, well and good, but it appears to need correction. Thanks. Tony (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is much easier on the fingers. There's also a list here. Tony (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Don't know what you're trying to tell me, I am using the script. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

See barnstar page.

Hey, per the WP:MOS it's recommended that city and state links are kept separate so if someone wants to click on the state then they can do so. Also, to update templates, just WP:PURGE the page. Gary King (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually, per Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context—"It is generally not necessary to link individual words when a phrase has its own article." Ontario, Canada has its own article, and it has a link to Canada on the first line. We don't need two links when one will suffice. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Additionally, I tried purging the page as per your link but it did not work :S Dabomb87 (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well it's not a phrase, first of all. They are both two distinctly separate things. I imagine that that suggestion is referring to something like linking "Lipstick on a pig" rather than "Lipstick on a pig". In the case of cities and countries, however, I'm pretty sure that if someone was to click on the country then they would expect to be brought to the country's article. Gary King (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's not a big deal to me. Whatever's better for the reader. *shrugs* Dabomb87 (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

All done at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Dave Matthews Band and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Wilfrid Laurier University people. Gary King (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Cheers thanks! If you've got a chance, perhaps take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of anthems by country and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of universities in Ontario; both have been at FLC for two weeks and need more comments. Thanks again! Gary King (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to say thank you for reviewing several FLCs. Your work is very appreciated. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Beck Gary King (talk) 02:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi.

Thanks for the comments at PR. What "specific examples" need copy-editing?

--TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 21:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Again, thanks. Could you please read through it now, see if everything is OK? TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 15:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do you think it's ready to nominate at FLC? TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 12:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I left more comments on the peer review. You do have the peer review page on your watchlist, correct? Dabomb87 (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I do have it on watchlist. I've pretty much sorted all the problems. If you don't have anymore comments for the PR, I shall close it so I can nominate it for FLC. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 15:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I, however, have a midterm tomorrow, so I'll try to get to it ASAP thereafter. Pandacomics (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Eco and David have finished their image audit. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I addressed all but one of your comments which I didn't understand. You wrote "Why is there a key for a symbol that is not used? " what do you mean by that? Thanks for the review. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Three entries use this key! Have a look at entry 99, 100 and 108. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Do I get your support now? MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have addressed the comments and suggestions you made for this article. please let me know if you have any other suggestions or questions. Alansohn (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have replied to and addressed your second set of comments. Please let me know if there are any other comments you have about the article. Alansohn (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have addressed your latest suggestion and added an entry to the key describing the link for each season. Thanks for the suggestion and let me know if you have any others. Alansohn (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi.

Would you please be able to review I Should Coco which is a good article nomination? TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 14:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the comments. Not really sure where I post reply comments to a review so I'll post here. The [3] link is reliable because the website is run by the band members and has been for years. I'm sure that makes it reliable. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 17:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

You can post your replies on the review page itself. Talk:I Should Coco/GA1 Dabomb87 (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think everything has been sorted now. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 19:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Lead section So the lead needs expanding. Do I include things that have been said later on in the article and do I need to include all the refs? I've never really done a lead section before. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 19:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Basically, a lead section is a general overview of the rest of the article. Wikipedia:Lead section says: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist." References are not necessary in the lead unless it has statistics, direct quotes, or other contentious information. A rule of thumb when writing leads is this: For each level 2 or level 3 section of prose (paragraphs and sentences) , summarize that section with at least one sentence in the lead; sections with more information should have more than one sentence. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've made a start on the lead. How's it looking? Am I doing OK with it? TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 22:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Pretty good. At some point, you should split the lead into separate paragraphs. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Does it still need expanding? TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 03:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Looks a lot better now. I'll give it a more thorough look tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Have you had a look at this yet? TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 00:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Passed. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that I have removed most of the images that didn't have proper information per your comment here. As well, the FLCon is currently running and unfortunately part of the problem with it is that most of our current regular reviewers are entrants. I would hate for people to lose in the contest solely because of a lack of reviewers, so could you please take a look at some of the following FLCs if you have time?

• List of Honorary Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford – Has plenty of comments already. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
• List of acquisitions by Hewlett-Packard – Has plenty of comments already. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
• List of universities in Nova Scotia – Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
• List of Governors of Arizona – Already done. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
• List of St. Louis Rams head coaches – Has plenty of comments, but I may do this one anyway. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
• List of Vancouver SkyTrain stations – Has plenty of comments already. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
• List of Soul Eater chapters – Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your time, and the reviews you have been doing at FLC are VERY appreciated, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the welcome. Shiva (Viṣṇu) (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello - (I had just asked SandyGeorgia about this) why was the link to India removed in this case? Surely the country is important and relevant, so it can't possibly be overlinking. Shiva (Viṣṇu) (talk) 00:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

India is another of those commonly known places that doesn't need to be linked. If readers really want to get to the India, then they can use the search box or go through the Mumbai article. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Isn't it more convenient and user-friendly to have a link? Anyway, while I don't agree about countries and historical events, but I will follow your advice. Shiva (Viṣṇu) (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is actually a rather controversial idea (what to link). I suggest you see the discussions at WT:OVERLINK, WT:MOSLINK, and make comments there. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dabomb87, I've made some alterations to List of awards and nominations received by David Bowie as per your suggestions at the FLC. Thanks for your input, --JD554 (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've made a change based on your latest comment. Thanks, --JD554 (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Regarding the article I wrote about the List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2003, I have made the changes you suggested on your review. If there's anything else, please let me know.

Thanks you, Jaespinoza (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I responded to your concerns with the FLC. I'm pretty sure I fixed all the problems that you brought up. Thanks for looking at the list! - Yohhans ^talk 18:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to take the time to personally thank you for going through the ISS EVA list, (and trust me, I know that one wasn't easy to read through! lol) and for the suggestions for improvements. Hopefully just the linking issue remains, (plus the linking issue I actually thought of, lol). I'm interested in what your opinion is regarding the thoughts I posted, and I wanted to sincerely thank you for the time it took you to go through this list. I really truly do appreciate it! Ariel♥Gold 00:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've responded to your comments. When you get the chance go back to the FL discussion and tell me what you think. Thanks! --Mr.crabby (Talk) 01:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have made changes to List of Milwaukee Brewers Opening Day starting pitchers per your suggestions, which were most helpful. Please let me know if you have any other comments or suggestions regarding the article. Alansohn (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

• WP:Featured list candidates/The Bellflower Bunnies (season 1) (begun yesterday)
• WP:Peer review/The Bellflower Bunnies (season 2)/archive1
• WP:Peer review/The Bellflower Bunnies (season 3)/archive1

I'm about to begin a featured topic concerning these. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 14:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Any chance, you'd be able to look over this article and comment on it please? Any help would be greatly appreciated. C4v3m4n (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Reply