User talk:Dabomb87/Archive 39

This is an archive of past discussions with 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.

Dabomb, can you remove User:Ryulong's use of rollback? He knows what it's for, I'm certain (his ~6 years and +162,000 edits as a user would indicate such), but he used it to systematically revert edits to convert navboxes to WP:HLIST, which is the new agreed upon way to format navboxes.

Ryulong first became aware of this new formatting here, on January 6th at 10:29 with the edit summary "why was this formatted this way?" He then decided, by himself without bothering to ask or confirm these changes are by consensus, that the hlist is "a bad format" and changed that navbox back. Since User:IznoRepeat's edits were clearly not vandalism, and because Ryulong was way too lazy to "undo" Iznorepeat's edits, he just figured ehh what the hell let me rollback every single one of them, it will save time.

I cannot tolerate that sort of laziness and abuse of privilege here. What are your thoughts? Jrcla2 (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response; I've been rather lazy myself when it comes to responding to messages here. I have seen Ryulong make ill decisions with rollback before, but in this case he seems to have realized his mistake and addressed the problem. I'll try to keep an eye on him though, and will take further action if necessary. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Rollback is a tool. While usually used for reverting vandals, it is also used far mass-reverting any kind of edits. I agree Ryulong's initial reverts were in poor judgement, but I see nothing wrong with rolling back one's own edits to save time. — Edokter (talk) — 11:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to alert you of an ongoing situation I am having with another user on the Adolph Rupp page. The situation has been ongoing for a few weeks now. A few weeks ago I went on the Adolph Rupp page to read the history of the coach. I was curious about his past and I did what I usually do to learn about something quickly, I checked his wikipedia page. When I read the page, I found it loaded with points that were not cited, extremely subjective, not in a neutral point of view and just generally slanted towards making the individual looks as good as possible. Many of the points that were cited were cited from a popular UK basketball blog.

I began to make some smaller edits and removing content that was not acceptable to an encyclopedia. Every edit that I made was reverted immediately by the same user. I also attempted to add in a section about some serious violations of NCAA rules that happened when Adolph Rupp was the coach at UK. Essentially, UK basketball was the first school to receive any penalty from the NCAA for rules violations. I added what I thought was a fair and objective section on the event that I cited to a few unbiased sources on the web. My edits were again reverted by the user. He claimed that my edits were not factual and completely inaccurate.

At this point I became frustrated and alerted another editor of this situation. This editor went through and made some changes to the page based on the same issues that I wrote about above, the article was not meeting academic standards at all. He was very helpful and neutral in his edits. However, the user who was reverting all these edits became angry and combative to the changes being made to the page. Eventually, we were able to reach consensus on a few points. However, this user kept changing the page even after we agreed on the edits to be made. He also added all the other sections back in that were not written in a neutral point of view. A few days ago, he made over 45 edits to the page.

This user has a long history of making biased edits to UK basketball pages. He also has a long history of reverting any other edits to the pages that he personally disagrees with. He literally owns the Adolph Rupp page. I have since given up on trying to make the page historically accurate or meet Wikipedia's standards for content. No matter what changes I make or anyone else makes, he will revert them or rewrite them later to suit his own point of view. Why is a user like this still able to make edits to pages on wikipedia? Why is a user who has a long history of making biased edits (and other violations that have brought him temporary bans) still able to freely edit wikipedia?

Leochews (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

See a shiny new move protection box on Mauna Kea and oh whats this. ResMar 03:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If the SOPA blackout is instituted, you may have to move the article slated for the 18th to the 19th. ResMar 04:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

can you undo deletion of William Brown (psychologist). As established by the references, the subject of the article is notable and I'm not sure why you deleted it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I nominated the featured article W. E. B. Du Bois to appear on 23 February, his birthday. On the page Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, there is a chart that lists "Potential upcoming requests, Feb 10, 2012 – May 10, 2012". The article has several votes of support, but it is not yet listed in that chart. Do I need to take some action to get the article into that chart? Sorry to bother you with this question, but I've never been through the process before. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Calculate the points your Dubois nom gets. If it's higher than the lowest existing nomination on that page, delete the nomination with the lowest points, and replace it with your nomination. Raul654 (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the guidance. I'll do that. --Noleander (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Noleander, you seem to have misunderstood. The article is already on the requests page, but you re-added it to the pending requests template. That is for upcoming potential not already on the page. I don't know who keeps it adding that template to the mainpage or why-- it used to be just on talk as a reminder. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I guess I misunderstood. Would you mind removing the template? I dont want to break anymore china in the china shop :-) --Noleander (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, everything is good :) SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Dear Dabomb87,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you move 2011–12 Big 12 men's basketball season → 2011–12 Big 12 Conference men's basketball season? Per WP:CBBALL the full names are used, plus this shortname doesn't allow the article to become bolded when appearing on {{Big 12 Conference men's basketball navbox}}. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to do the next batch of main page scheduling? Raul654 (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take care of it within the next 24 hours. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ""Texan" versus "Texian"". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crews Giles (talk • contribs) 04:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Dabomb87. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

188.28.158.107 (talk)

Replied. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated List of unreleased Michael Jackson material for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Rubiscous (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw you had done some work on heavily-used gadgets. We're trying to start a library for gadget authors to use. Please check it out and post any questions or comments there. -- ☠MarkAHershberger☢(talk)☣ 02:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, you've participated in format-related moves of articles about SkyTrain stations such as Oakridge – 41st Avenue Station back in September 2009 [1]. I recently looked through articles for other SkyTrain stations. They currently use both spaced and unspaced forms, and I suggested standardizing on one of the forms. If you have any particular opinion about this, please chime in at Talk:TransLink (British Columbia)#Article naming standards. Thanks!- --user:Qviri 02:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

(Cross posted: Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/requests#Remove_Tiananmen_Square_self_immolation_page)

I edit and watch in the Falun Gong space of articles. I strongly suggest that the Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident page be removed from the main page. It is currently subject to intensive, controversial editing and to some degree edit warring. The tenor of the page has changed dramatically in the last 48-72 hours, with upwards of 60 edits that quickly changed important parts of the article. I am about to submit a note for its Featured Article status to be reconsidered, with a view to rescinding that status, because of this. The page is not stable and currently suffers neutrality issues.

Background to this note:

The article was promoted to FA status in 2009; editor user:Ohconfucius was the lead editor at the time. He put tremendous effort into seeing the page reach FA status. The page was revisited in 2011 by a group of editors who discussed major changes quite exhaustively (lead by several editors who are more sympathetic to Falun Gong). At that time, editor user:SilkTork wrote that "I think there is some editing to do to get this article fair and balanced, and with the appropriate amount of information. However, I am very much encouraged by what I have seen so far. I think people are on the whole working well, and listening to each other. Well done."--a lot of the changes that occurred were discussed extensively. Consensus was reached. That was early 2011.

Ohconfucius re-appeared a couple of days ago and made a flurry of changes, apparently in an attempt to return the page, in whole or part, to how it was in 2009, when he edited it. He ignored the interim discussion. The changes made in 2011 identified and resolved misrepresentation, omissions, original syntheses, and failure to cogently present the views of Falun Gong or third parties in a manner commensurate with their notability, etc. Ohconfucius preceded to edit, apparently bringing the page back to how it was in 2009, without discussion or any attempt to form consensus. An example: the 2009 version did not say that the use of torture on Falun Gong practitioners increased in the wake of the immolation; that was added to the page in the 2011 version; Ohconfucius deleted that piece of information when he started editing the page again. Ohconfucius has made around 60+ edits, judging by the history. Most of those edits, many of them controversial, were not discussed. He was asked on his talk page and on the immolation talk page, and for the most part failed to do so while continuing to make make changes that changed the tenor of the article. His peers have expressed exasperation at this behavior.

This is obviously a sensitive topic. The incident led to people being tortured and killed. It thus deserves to be treated with circumspection and caution. That caution has not been forthcoming, and I think it would be valuable if an administrator would intercede and monitor the discussion, because attempts for other editors to discuss it with Ohconfucius have not been effective. There is a behavioral problem when an editor makes that many changes unilaterally while ignoring the discussions, particularly when it's a featured article under ArbCom sanctions. He has been politely and repeatedly asked not to make substantial changes, including those that misrepresent sources--which he's done more than once--or change the balance of the page without discussing, but has not done so. It is difficult to know what to do, except find some time to breathe.

Thus, I am strongly urging that the page be removed from the front page as a featured article. I am also entering a request for the page's feature status to be reconsidered. And I am initiating a mediation request so that an uninvolved editor can step in between Ohconfucius, the page, and other editors, to make sure that proper process is being followed on this important and contentious topic.

Further notes: I have made a decision not to edit the page amidst the current strong dispute. Ohconfucius has an open opposition and animus toward Falun Gong. I have said to Ohconfucius that it is my opinion that he is too close and invested in the topic, and should stick to the voluntary self-ban he initiated some time ago. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Dabomb87. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I could not see any significant history of vandalism, an indefinite protection here seems to be overly conservative. Can we try unprotecting please? 219.79.91.187 (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if you've been watching WP:Featured list candidates/List of battleships of Greece/archive1, but this nom seems to have fallen afoul of some sort of informal criteria as to the number of items required in a list that isn't spelled out in the FLC criteria. No informal criteria should be operating here; either spell it out formally or don't use such a thing. Reviewers are also quibbling about whether it's a stand-alone list or an article. The thing that gets me is that if this list had 20 items on it rather than 4 it would be treated normally even though it's fundamentally the same as List of battlecruisers of Germany, an existing FL.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Notification that Kathleen Ferrier was to be TFA on 22 April was posted on my talkpage at 23.01 hrs GMT, 21st April. The notification advises me to contact Raul or you if I have difficulties with this choice, or to start a talkpage discussion. It also asks me to tweak the blurb as necessary, and to deal with any necessary maintenance before the article's appearance. Now, 23.01 GMT is after midnight BST, a time when I am most likely in bed, or otherwise unlikely to be online, so my chances of doing any of the things you mention, should the need arise, are problematic to say the least. Now it happens that with this particular article, the likelihood of its TFA selection was such that I did what was necessary ages ago. But last-minute notifications seem to be the general policy nowadays, as against the several days' notice that used to be given until recently. Can you explain the rationale for this change in practice, and perhaps say why you think it is an improvement? I would always want a reasonable time to get an article in order, after it had been chosen. Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't notice: Dabomb87 hasn't edited since 14 March 2012. Goodraise 00:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I was unaware. I will redirect my enquiry. Brianboulton (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Dabomb, it looks like of the four FLRCs we currently have running, at least three of them can be closed, but of course I'll leave that to your judgement. Just a gentle nudge, hope all is well with you. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Dabomb, I'm done with WP:FLC. Will continue to do the best I can until we can find a replacement. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I have started the proposal to turn this Project into a task force. Feel free to join in. --George Ho (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the selection, but we might want to delay that. Floydian (talk · contribs) wants to nominate Ontario Highway 401 for its 60th anniversary on July 1, which is also Canada Day. If so, people might complain about having a second highway so soon, especially from a state that's next door to Ontario. Imzadi 1979 → 22:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you should be fine. A month will have passed between the running of this article and that one. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, but I will also be out of town on that day potentially, and thus not around to help monitor the article in case of any questions, comments or issues. For right now, I'd just as soon not have it run. Imzadi 1979 → 23:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for giving this the requested date. I need to tweak the blurb very slightly (removing close repetition of "possible"), and I don't see any instructions for doing this; can you point me in the required direction? Brianboulton (talk) 08:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It's freely editable at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 6, 2012 until 24 hours before it hits the main page. Is that the link you were looking for? Bencherlite^Talk 09:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This is just to let you know that I've redrafted the TFA blurb, adding the territories and an explanation of why she's no longer head of state of Pakistan, South Africa and Ceylon. I've cut Supreme Governor to keep the blurb within 1200 characters and because I don't consider it a major point. There's plenty of time before the day to iron out anything in the redrafted blurb with which you're uncomfortable. DrKiernan (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It appeared once before. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 7, 2005. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Raul654 knows this - it is a deliberate decision given the rare event that's about to take place. See Raul's talk page. Bencherlite^Talk 07:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Continuing on Raul's talk. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've unprotected Sadhana Sargam, a protection you had originally restored that had been put on the article two years ago. It came up at RFPP, and seemed worth trying as unprotected. You haven't been around enough to ask, but wanted to notify you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

	promotion of today's featured article
	Thank you for your continuous work to keep the top of the Main page the top of quality, thanks especially for presenting there today my chosen symbol of excellence, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (3 February 2009), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a request for you at RFPP: Artforum. Regards, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 15:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. You've move protected Pham Ngoc Thao‎ due to the TFA. The blurb is using the redirect: Phạm Ngọc Thảo (the one at the beginning; I just changed the "more..." link to match). I think it should be at the proper title. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You semi-protected Kathryn Calder over a year ago. Looking through the edit history there doesn't really seem to be much controversial at the time, aside from one ip user that was persistently vandalising for short period. An indefinite semi-protect seems a bit heavy-handed - could you consider unprotecting now? Little Professor (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to be blunt, but your performance as a delegate with responsibility for choosing TFAs is becoming a cause of increasing concern. I don't know exactly what duties Raul has delegated to you; I do know that repeatedly, editors are being given less than an hour's notice of an article's impending appearance - and are still instructed to inform Raul if the date is inappropriate, to check the blurb and to deal with any problems with the text, etc. These instructions are ridiculous, given 59 minutes to carry them out. Nearly all articles need a degree of polish and preparation before a main page appearance, the more so if they are older FAs, and I would say that as a minimum, three days' notice should be given, or even longer; why is that so difficult to manage? I see that at the top of this page you announce that you are busy in real life and "I cannot promise that I will fulfill your request in a timely manner, if at all". Does that not suggest that this job, which requires regular attention, should be given to someone else? Brianboulton (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I am on a team at MIT/HARVARD doing work on Product Exports Maps as part of the Economic Complexity Observatory http://atlas.media.mit.edu/. The graphical output for these maps are incredibly useful for visualizing exports. The project hopes to add these maps to every country page on Wikipedia. We would like to put a map on the UK page but it is semi-protected. Is there any chance you could allow me access?

The homepage for this project can be found at http://macroconnections.media.mit.edu/featured/economic-complexity-observatory/

Below is what the map looks like. It would go in the Economy section of the United States page. We have already placed these on a number of country pages with editor permission. See example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany/

You can enlarge the picture to see more detail.

Thanks very much.

Talmage Cooley user:doubleodd

Hi, sorry, I should have done this earlier, but a very long discussion is going on here re TFA and I mentioned your name so thought I'd notify you. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I see you've deleted the old history of this page. Please restore that, as these diffs:

• 00:56, 14 August 2012 Br'er Rabbit moved page Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 21, 2012 to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 25, 2012
  edit summary: station opened on 25 August 1862
• 12:35, 14 August 2012 Raul blanks the 25th

are on offer at:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#mostly diffs by Br'er Rabbi

and your deletion has broken them. With the date now scheduled, it is my intention to show the difference between what I moved there and what ultimately landed there, which should be just tweaks to the "Recently featured" links. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. (Dabomb, I have no objection at all if you want to revert me ... I'd just be very surprised, since this is informal evidence in an Arbcom case request. I know you're very busy and I didn't want this to become a topic of discussion.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, I was previously unaware of the arbitration request. Thanks for taking care of it Dank. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 20:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Dabomb ... I'm not real good on formalities or anything .. but I saw it mentioned that on WT:TFAR that you should be pinged about the conversations there. ping. :-) — Ched :  ?  08:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully this will be dealt with before you read this, but just in case: [2]. Best, —WFC— 05:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Curious as to why you didn't schedule Lettuce. It's got way more supports than anything else and can be slotted any day.PumpkinSky talk 23:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I was not aware that it had been removed from the nominations list. I was hesitant in scheduling it, though, because of the ongoing concerns regarding factual inaccuracies. If those have been resolved, I would be happy to slot it in. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If you look up the history of the TFAR, there was one opponent, and his issue seemed resolved, - I think it could be scheduled and make some people happy ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Take a deeper look at that one user. Lettuce deserves TFA. PumpkinSky talk 23:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for scheduling it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

My issues were not resolved. I had an admin with ownership issues resort to name calling, after ignoring issues I had raised on another FAC and on this one, both complex issues and simply outright misreadings. Please do take a deeper look at me, and discuss me, rather than fixing the article. I dislike having these made up taxonomies and genomics in Wikipedia, much less on the Main Page. It used to be amusing. Eau (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#Do we need points any more? which might interest you. Hope all's well. Bencherlite^Talk 09:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/requests#Promoting_articles_with_tags PumpkinSky talk 01:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

PumpkinSky wrongly thought that you had scheduled a TFA when there were "citation needed" tags on it when, in fact, those tags were added only after you put the article in the September queue. "Deadlink" tags have been added too, although I don't know whether those links were dead at the time it was scheduled or whether checking for deadlinks is something you do before selecting a TFA. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 09:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, my goof, but there is a discussion on this general issue at WT:DYK now. PumpkinSky talk 11:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know I've mentioned you here. FWIW I think scheduling this was a bad call; I can't think of any topic more over-represented at TFA. (More bishops and horses have run, but there are a lot more bishop articles; if this runs that will mean 36% of all the bridges in west London have been TFA, which is ridiculously high for a topic of such marginal interest.) – iridescent 23:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I've switched it out; thanks for letting me know. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I have left a message at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list which I would like for you to respond to in your FL-Director capacity. This is also Sven Manguard 20:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Would you like to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Featured lists? Thanks, TBrandley 02:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look at User talk:Rschen7754#TFA? Some users have decided that they can schedule TFAs whenever they want, if you have not scheduled 7 days in advance. --Rschen7754 07:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's the user who thought that if scheduling doesn't happen 4 days in advance, she can schedule an article that has the consensus of the community without Wikipedia tumbling down. - I still think the same, thank you for scheduling 7 days in advance! - 14 would be even better, to really show the best the project has to offer well prepared ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you scheduled Kappa Kappa Psi for Today's featured article for October 17. Would it be possible to hold off on this TFA for November 27? October 17 is not a very important date for the fraternity, while November 27 will be the fraternity's 93rd anniversary. Sycamore (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Br'er Rabbit just deemed me "uninvited company" and removed the following exchange (which I've copied and pasted here because it pertains to a discussion in which you took part). —David Levy 05:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Those rules apply to articles. The main page's formatting differs in numerous respects.

It's reasonable to argue that a similar standard should be applied to the TFA section, but you know perfectly well that the current disparity is intentional and longstanding. You're welcome to propose change, but please refrain from unilaterally imposing it. —David Levy 03:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ignore All R[a]ulz. They're wrong; its bad design. Good design applies to all pages. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ignore All R[a]ulz

"Ignore all rules" ≠ "ignore consensus" or "ignore fellow editors"

And this has nothing to do with Raul, who didn't design the main page's layout.

They're wrong; its bad design. Good design applies to all pages.

You aren't Wikipedia's arbiter of what constitutes good/bad design, with the authority to unilaterally overrule those with whom you disagree. —David Levy 04:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

seen wikipedia:ignore all fools?

/right/. you routinely do as you please with things like main page images.

and that green is ugly; pls don't use it on this page. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I edit material in accordance with the community's established standards. I disagree with some of our conventions, but I don't deem their advocates "fools" and disregard consensus. —David Levy 04:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC

[discussion resumed on this talk page]

no, you don't. you change images on your own while the tfa blurbs are protected; you changed a bunch to 133px (from the “std” 100px) presumably as some sort of response to my increasing img sizes. the main page's “current disparity” is simply wilful and “homely” (Gardner). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Administrators routinely edit protected main page content. In doing so, I most certainly do adhere to our established standards. I would never willfully abuse the community's trust.

I normalized the sizes of upcoming TFA images (thereby making some smaller and others larger).

In most main page sections, we limit the image width to a maximum of 100px (to avoid excessive text wrap). For consistency (and to avoid assigning undue prominence to an image illustrating only one of several blurbs), we place the same constraint on the height. With a 3:4 image, this results in a width of 75px.

But with TFA, the image relates to the entire section, so we've never constrained the height. As a result, a 3:4 image is displayed at 100x133px. And because the section comprises a single blurb, the aforementioned text wrap issue is greatly mitigated, enabling the display of images wider than 100px.

Indeed, I did notice your image size increases (another unilateral change). And while some were inconsistent with the section's established style (as they resulted in images far larger than usual), a width of 133px is appropriate for a horizontally oriented image; a 133x100px image is equal in size to a 100x133px image.

I find it rather odd that you're criticising me for partially retaining/implementing your change (to the extent that I believe it reflects consensus) instead of undoing it outright. —David Levy 06:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You missed the point; *I'm* not the “arbiter” here because you are; I don't get to overrule you but you get to overrule *me*. While BRD has its place, it is far too often used to lock-down a status quo. In this case /your/ established procedures.

You do good work on much of it. I've no issue with the photoshop work, the proportions. But this is your turf and you're defending it. You're locking-down poor design and throwing obstacles in the way of progress (such as too much discussion of minor things). You make petty reverts, and hijack the discussion with dabomb I'd replied to in good faith. Fine. Retard the main page. It could be so much better, though. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You missed the point; *I'm* not the “arbiter” here because you are; I don't get to overrule you but you get to overrule *me*.

No, you're missing the point.

When I insert, crop or resize an image (or otherwise modify the main page's content), I do so in a manner consistent with the community's established standards. I don't disregard consensus and impose my personal preferences. That's what you did.

While BRD has its place, it is far too often used to lock-down a status quo. In this case /your/ established procedures.

I didn't design the TFA layout, nor do I endorse it over your alternative. The idea of shifting the image to the right has crossed my mind on occasion, and I believe that it warrants discussion. It simply isn't the sort of change that's appropriate to institute unilaterally.

You do good work on much of it. I've no issue with the photoshop work, the proportions. But this is your turf and you're defending it.

No, I'm defending the current consensus. If you knew me better, you'd realize that I staunchly oppose preferential treatment of administrators and go out of my way to avoid receiving it (e.g. I inform users that their deference is misplaced).

You're locking-down poor design

Again, this is your opinion. It counts no less than mine does, but neither of us is entitled to overrule the community at large.

and throwing obstacles in the way of progress (such as too much discussion of minor things).

The image justification isn't minor.

You make petty reverts,

Huh? That wasn't even a revert. The original image was replaced with one for which an added border was superfluous. How was it "petty" to address this minor oversight?

and hijack the discussion with dabomb I'd replied to in good faith.

"Hijack"? I, too, replied in good faith. You then decided that my presence was unwelcome and removed our exchange (pasted above). I regard this action as inappropriate (because it created the appearance that your statements had gone unaddressed). Nonetheless, I made no attempt to contest it. Per your wishes, I vacated your talk page and brought my concerns to Dabomb87's (at which you resumed replying of your own accord). —David Levy 18:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

ignoring most of it. it was a petty revert as I'd added the border when at tfar. you made sure to remove every bit of editing I'd done. and a border is not superfluous on an image with solid colour to the edges; it serves to slightly soften the sharp edge. and your intervention in the thread on my talk wasn't a reply to me as I wasn't talking to you. a reply would have had dabomb's sig on it. bye, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

it was a petty revert as I'd added the border when at tfar.

And you assume that I knew that? I had absolutely no idea. Regardless, I removed the border from an entirely different image.

and a border is not superfluous on an image with solid colour to the edges; it serves to slightly soften the sharp edge.

That's inconsistent with our current style conventions (though you're welcome to seek consensus that it's desirable). To be clear, I wasn't even aware that anyone (let alone you in particular) advocated such a practice.

and your intervention in the thread on my talk wasn't a reply to me as I wasn't talking to you. a reply would have had dabomb's sig on it.

That isn't how Wikipedia works. If you wish to engage in a private conversation, use e-mail or another off-wiki communication channel. —David Levy 20:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

“Wikipedia works” ^{{{citation needed}}}

html .thumbimage {
    border: 1px solid #CCCCCC;
}

*every* thumbnail gets an automatic border. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The "thumbimage" class is applied to images displayed via the "thumb" parameter, not to every thumbnail (unless that's your definition, in which case the main page doesn't contain thumbnails). —David Levy 23:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

"thumb" is simply a shorthand for "thumbnail" in wiki-syntax; try it. no, the main page is not using "thumb/thumbnail"s. but millions of images on the site /are/ and they're getting borders that soften the edges (and are more obvious on some images). point being, borders are /not/ "inconsistent with our current style conventions", they're *everywhere* except a few benighted places, such as the main page. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

"thumb" is simply a shorthand for "thumbnail" in wiki-syntax; try it.

I plainly acknowledged the possibility that you were referring to such usage (as opposed to the general computing definition).

But note that all scaled-down images appear in "thumb" subdirectories.

Also, I should have referred to the "thumb" or "frame" parameter.

no, the main page is not using "thumb/thumbnail"s. but millions of images on the site /are/ and they're getting borders that soften the edges (and are more obvious on some images).

They're getting styling substantially different from that used on the main page (in addition to the 1px border).

Never before have I seen "edge softening" cited as a reason. Would you care to explain how the edges of an image with a light-colored background (such as Simple shapes example.png) are softened?

point being, borders are /not/ "inconsistent with our current style conventions",

I was referring to our use of the "border" parameter, particularly on the main page.

they're *everywhere* except a few benighted places, such as the main page.

As I noted in my first reply, the main page's formatting differs in numerous respects (for better or worse). I don't disagree that it could be improved, so we needn't debate that point. You're welcome to propose whatever changes you believe should occur. —David Levy 00:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

While generally level-headed and constructive, LIU tends to get overly bureaucratic at some times.

i'm calling bullshite. you're wilfully trolling me here. your minnow was warranted. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I recognize that comment from my RfA, but even if you agree with it, I don't understand how it leads to the conclusion I'm trolling. I'm sorry that you feel that way. —David Levy 01:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

i made you a userbox: {{user wikipedia/WikiZombie}}. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:2012 main page redesign proposal/Br'er Rabbit. 14:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

So you know, you were mentioned several times at [3]. --Rschen7754 21:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

scheduled a bit more for TFA, only the next 5 days are covered, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sufficiently concerned about this. Will be sending an email too. --Rschen7754 18:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Just realised he's on an extended wikibreak... please take a look at the post I just left for him. Thanks, --Dweller (talk) 10:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Derry City F.C.

Hi Dabomb, I think you do a great job at running TFA in Raul's absence, but I think you've dropped the ball - pun intended - on this choice. As I pointed out at TFAR, the article has deadlinks, two {{unreferenced section}}, one {{refimprove section}} and is a member of Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements from July 2007. The prose is poor (two "however"s in two sentences in the lead and the blurb) and it needs a good clean-up, which isn't going to happen when the FAC nominator Danny Invincible (talk · contribs) stopped editing one month after the article was promoted to FA status over 5 years ago! Please rethink and reschedule this, please. If alternatively it's a waste of my time pointing out problems such as these at TFAR, please let me know and I'll find something else to do. Bencherlite^Talk 08:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry, that was a bad choice. This is what happens when you have too many tabs open at once. I'll replace it immediately. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

And thank you for your tireless work at TFAR. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the dramatic way in which I made this request. On reflection, it was wrong of me to get so worked up about it. Sorry. Bencherlite^Talk 21:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Once you are here, Stephen Crane was removed from the requests because too many were concerned about two authors within a week. I would have left the decision to you, obviously you were not afraid to schedule two Asian faces in a row. I parked this and prepared nominations here, feel free to help yourself. - Thanks for scheduling more, it's a relief, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Actually one article was about a recent book (Pilgrim at Tinker Creek) featured on September 17 and the other article was a biography on a different writer Stephen Crane (November 1, 1871 – June 5, 1900) (removed from requests), which per the rules (rule 5) are not considered similar, IMO. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Those were the initial concerns, but then Ian Fleming (23 Oct) was a new one. I think the two writers are different centuries and a week apart, not too similar. Crane died 1 Nov. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The article history of Louis Riel tells me that "he" appeared in 2005, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

yes, Louis Riel appeared on May 13, 2005. See: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 13, 2005 And follow up: [4][5][6] MathewTownsend (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Louis Riel (comics) is what is meant. I'll change it and you can revert If I'm incorrect. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Tabbed browsing has gotten me into trouble a few times before... so annoying when that happens :) Mark Arsten (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Good explanation, Mathew, thanks for fixing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking closer, this phrasing is not clear to me: "It deals with Métis rebel leader (pictured) Louis Riel's relationship", not even without "pictured". Is it right that the article is about a 2003 comic? The pic suggest something else, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind protecting the pages when you schedule TFAs? Thanks. --Rschen7754 04:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I usually do, though I guess I forgot to the last time around. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Rschen7754 00:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for protecting Folding@home. I was going to request that when the TFA got closer. You beat me too it, and I feel much safer now. • Jesse V.^(talk) 00:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Wait, no its not semi-protected like I thought. Is it move protected or something? What did you do? I'm confused. • Jesse V.^(talk) 00:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It's under move protection. Standard protocol is to move protect the FA up to and through the day it is on the Main Page. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh. I just didn't understand the log but I see that the bot came by and added in the templates. Nice. Could it be semi-protected as well? I'm concerned about vandals during the traffic spike is all. It's appearance on the Main Page is set for November 1st. • Jesse V.^(talk) 00:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

We generally don't semi-protect TFA unless the vandalism gets really bad (want to encourage people to edit and all). --Rschen7754 00:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Why was this article scheduled for November 2nd when consensus was against its appearance on November 1st? It's far too similar to Ian Fleming, which appeared this week. See here: seven opposes. The nomination was removed October 19th. María (yllosubmarine) 12:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, that must have slipped my mind. Now changed. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satya_Yuga) has some conflicts in the contents posted...

In the The Satya Yuga according to some holy texts section, there is a statement "The average life expectancy of a human being in Satya Yuga is believed to be over 400 years."

But in the para after the quotes in the same section, there is a statement - "The average life expectancy of a human being in Satya yuga was approximately 4000 years."

Can you modify it suitably?

Thanks, Ade. S — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adethya (talk • contribs) 04:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dabomb, just to let you know that a discussion at T:MP has resulted in two changes: (1) the TFA section is now headed "From today's featured article" and (2) the "more..." link at the end has been changed to "Read the full article". I neither participated in nor closed the discussion; I'm just notifying you of the result. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 20:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I might bring back the ellipsis though. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

(Read the full article...) - this is now on the Main page, and similar for the next days. A space is missing between the word article and the ellipsis, and what does the ellipsis stand for anyway? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Dabomb, I was just thinking that "read the full article" sounds fine as a full sentence... any particular reason for keeping the elipses? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• The ellipsis, as punctuation, is an indication that something's missing, i.e. in this case the rest of the article. In my view, the ellipsis should stay, but maybe this conversation should take place somewhere else. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• What Truthkeeper said, basically. I feel that the ellipsis adds an element of anticipation that draws the reader in to read more. Am I being a bit corny? Probably. If it's that big an issue I can remove them. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that the ellipsis functions in the manner you describe. The issue, as noted by Crisco 1492, is that "Read the full article" is an independent clause. Similar links ("Start a new article" and "Nominate an article") lack ellipses.
  I suggest keeping the ellipsis and shortening the link's text to "Full article...". That's consistent with other usage of ellipses on the main page (and I believe that it's equally clear). —David Levy 03:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion migrated here? Hmm.

I liked the full sentence, with or without ellipses, as I said on Main Page talk.

David Levy, "Read the full article" is a full sentence, not an independent clause. And a link to the rest of an article is different in kind from an invitation to contribute or nominate an article. For a different function, a different form may be appropriate.

That being said, I don't intend to get into a fight about it.

Awien (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I liked the full sentence, with or without ellipses, as I said on Main Page talk.

How, in your view, is it superior to the current link? Do you believe that it's clearer or conveys additional information? It certainly is less applicable to persons utilizing text-to-speech software.

David Levy, "Read the full article" is a full sentence, not an independent clause.

An independent clause is a complete sentence. What distinction do you seek to draw?

And a link to the rest of an article is different in kind from an invitation to contribute or nominate an article. For a different function, a different form may be appropriate.

Agreed. And on the main page, such invitations (including "More featured articles...", "More current events..." and "More featured pictures...") take this form. —David Levy 00:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

OED: clause...(Gramm.) distinct member of a sentence....

I request that the consensus version of the link be restored (Read the full article, or Read the full article...), subject to modification if a new consensus is achieved through discussion in the appropriate forum. Thank you. Awien (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

OED: clause...(Gramm.) distinct member of a sentence....

Right. And an independent clause is referred to as such because it can stand alone as a simple sentence. It also can be part of a complex sentence, compound sentence or complex-compound sentence.

I request that the consensus version of the link be restored (Read the full article, or Read the full article...), subject to modification if a new consensus is achieved through discussion in the appropriate forum.

In the discussion that occurred, three users supported the wording "Full article", three users (including you) supported "Read the full article" (with one suggesting that something shorter be considered if that was too long), one supported "'Read the full article' or something similar" and one supported "'Read the full article', 'Read the article' or 'Full article'". (Note that I didn't participate, so I'm not including myself.)

How, in your view, does this constitute consensus for your preferred wording in particular (as opposed to the variant more similar to the longstanding link)?

You've ignored my above question as to how it's clearer or more informative and my comment about its inapplicability to persons utilizing text-to-speech software. —David Levy 18:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I copied this discussion to Main Page talk, where it is ongoing. Awien (talk) 12:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 10, 2012

Perhaps a picture for this one, maybe a crop of the center of this File:Defense.gov News Photo 100413-N-0696M-241 - Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen and the Sesame Street Muppets Elmo Jesse and.jpg ??

Or maybe something else from commons:Category:Sesame Street ??

Just a thought, up to you, — Cirt (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion; I've added a picture. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how pictures of Bert and Ernie can be free to use - they are still copyrighted characters, per Commons:Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Comic and action figures, so I have nominated the file for deletion on Commons, requesting input ASAP so that this can be resolved for the TFA date. Bencherlite^Talk 16:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

And I don't see how a photo of Big Bird from 1970 can be free to use if a more recent photo of Bert and Ernie is non-free, per the discussion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bert and Ernie.jpg and past decisions at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Derivative works of Sesame Street puppets. Bencherlite^Talk 20:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Forgive me, I'm useless when it comes to images and copyright. Thanks for cleaning up after me. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I have the same problem but just occasionally I understand something! Bencherlite^Talk 20:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes but maybe that picture I'd first identified above would be okay, or a crop from it, seeing as how it's PD-USGov ? — Cirt (talk) 06:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No it wouldn't be, unless you were to crop out the puppets. The US Government may have released the rights it has in the photograph, but it cannot release the rights that the creators of the puppets have in their intellectual property. It's a free photograph of a non-free subject, and ought to be deleted on Commons as previous Sesame Street images have been and will be. It could only be hosted and used on Wikipedia (not Commons) with a valid claim of fair use (which in any event would not enable it to be used on the main page). See the discussion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mrs. Nixon meeting with Big Bird from Sesame Street in the White House. - NARA - 194339.tif and the previous discussions linked there, in addition to Commons:COM:TOYS, Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Derivative works of Sesame Street puppets and Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bert and Ernie.jpg. Bencherlite^Talk 13:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

WT:FAC discussion. --Rschen7754 21:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dabomb87, could you please weigh in on the thread below User talk:Uncle G#Rotherham by-election (it's subject is "Unprotection request" - but there are two of them so I can't link directly), I'm hoping you'll be able to shead some light. 12:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012 Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m. Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104 Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki. Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration. Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

'tis the season

I don't envy you about the tricky scheduling for 6 November, overdue, but what's new. - Thank you for not appearing in the title story 'tis the season, however loud your name was called. - Scheduling for Halloween the article of a blocked and banned user was an especially delicious treat ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Please treat us to more scheduling, 3 days in advance doesn't deserve the name "advance" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for two more. However, I am not so happy with 9 Nov - another bishop on top of the one proposed for 16 Nov, + two days in a row without an image. Any woman, by chance? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

ps: I like Malleus Fatuorum, but two articles on two consecutive days, isn't that too much of a good thing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

see above for 3 days, and please comment on the Points on WP:TFAR, the discussion was started on my talk but seemed worth moving to general discussion. There was speculation that the Points would help you, is that right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for relief in the TFAR list! Points still under discussion, also delegates, as you probably know, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you please join the discussions on TFAR, and perhaps schedule a few more? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm catching up on all the discussions taking place in the umpteen talk pages. I'll make some comments soon. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I also have trouble to look at all of it, so I reduced my efforts to one question at a time, Let's keep it simple. - Some suggestions went on and off TFAR, including one for 5 December. He is now on WP:QAI/TFA#Alexis Bachelot, and I will not move him back to the official requests again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Forget the last one and relax, scheduling done until 7 Dec, a good step forward, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Now 8: Imagine! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Now 30 - 2012 was rocky for TFA but is finishing nicely --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Dane Boedigheimer#Redirect Target change. -XapApp (talk) 04:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Following a couple of suggestions, I've started Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Delegates. Bencherlite^Talk 14:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, Happy New Year. Please, help me on the peer review of Priyanka Chopra list of awards and nominations. As decided during flc, to get wider opinions on the list the PR is going on. Pls, contribute and help me regarding its PR. This time, i don't want to be left behind. I want it to be complete and one of the best lists on Wikipedia. Please contribute and help me. Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Priyanka Chopra/archive2. Thank you.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 19:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

		Best wishes for the New Year!
		Here's wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you; thanks for all you do! Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, thanks to many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I just came across Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Task force - is this still active? I noticed List of locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal (my first FL back in 2006) was listed under both Structure & References. I've had a go at the reefs & added sorting & accessibility features - would you be kind enough to take a look & let me know if there is anything else you think is needed?— Rod ^talk 12:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Dabomb. The King and I has been nominated for FAC. I see that you have reviewed FACs in the performing arts area before. It would be great if you could take a look at the article and give comments at the FAC. Thanks for any time you could spare! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

For being Nice. Bobherry talk 21:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Dabomb, hope you're well. We're taking on User:Hahc21 as a delegate but since you hadn't edited at WP:FLC for a while I wondered if you would be prepared to either stand down or reduce your commitment from director to delegate? We're not exactly maxxed out but, like Raul654, there's been some chatter about directors of process who don't actively participate in the process. I'd much prefer you to stay on in any capacity but I understand also if you can't commit to it. No worries either way, take care, all the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dabomb, I noticed a few months ago, you had placed protection on the page for Snoop Dogg (I suspect around the time of his name change). Now, there was a bit of discussion about the possible moving of this page on the talk page back in August 2012, but that has dwindled out. I was wondering if we could unprotect the page and go with an executive decision to move the page to Snoop Lion or if we should try to get a discussion back up and going. Cheers. NickCochrane (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. You are invited to join Darius Dhlomo Drive, a project which aims to cleanup and resolve one of the oldest copyright investigations on the sire. We hope that you will join and help to clean what's left of the copyright violations. You are getting this invitation because you have helped out previously, and I am inviting you back to hopefully wrap this up. Wizardman 01:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey. Would it be possible for you to opine here for a TFL? As a part of centenary celebration of Indian cinema on 3rd May, we would like to have this FL on 6th May for main page appearance. - Vivvt (Talk) 15:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Would you be able to unprotect that page? I received a request on OTRS here, and I'm thinking it might be nice to reconsider it, since it I don't see any reason that it should be protected at this point. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I've lifted the protection. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 02:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Dabomb87, you may be interested in a discussion that I've started at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Request for comment - images in TFA blurbs. All views welcome. Bencherlite^Talk 16:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

promotion of today's featured article
Thank you for your continuous work to keep the top of the Main page the top of quality, thanks especially for presenting there today my chosen symbol of excellence, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (3 February 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 167th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 167th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	It seems that you've now resigned as a TFA delegate, but I wanted to say thank you for scheduling all the TFAs for several months, even though you had mostly become inactive. Best wishes for the future. Rschen7754 08:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering if you review my featured list article (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series/archive1)? Please, it will be greatly appreciated! SoapFan12 21:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dabmob, Alan Light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been protected for around 5 years to prevent sockpuppetry, would you consider unprotecting or PC protection? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. –xeno^talk 23:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

:) Bobherry talk 14:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. - Ealdgyth - Talk 15:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Seanearlfrog (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Hey Dabomb, here's a blast from the past--thank you for your years of service and your hard work. All the best to you. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

For being awesome. Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 01:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I see you edited the Axolotl page, and I would like you to edit it. There is no evidence that Axolotls eat gravel as gastroliths, as you used frogs and one x-ray of an axolotl that survived with gravel. Most people can not do it right, with gravel I mean, and many axolotls die because of it. I would like you to edit it please. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliygh and Mia (talk • contribs) 07:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you please take a look at "Ed, Edd n Eddy" Edit request. Could you also consider removing the page protection on this page? 78.146.140.77 (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Precious

Five years!

Fondly remembering that you scheduled the sapphire for TFA, which appeared 5 years ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	We miss you. Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 15:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Please remove auto confirmed from this article, as it was set in 2011 and currently have low frequency of editing. Thank you. 202.161.64.247 (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

... and today seven years precious, - your work here is remembered! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Almac, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
• It appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement of https://www.clinicalleader.com/ecommcenter/almacclinical. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

		Natalis soli invicto!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Combat Aviation Brigade, 10th Mountain Division has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

History of the flags of Romania has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)