Jump to content

User talk:Dabomb87: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 116: Line 116:
:Show me where information in a year link is relevant to the context, and I will reconsider. [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87#top|talk]]) 04:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
:Show me where information in a year link is relevant to the context, and I will reconsider. [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87#top|talk]]) 04:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
:[[Just]] [[because]] [[we]] [[have]] [[the]] [[ability]] [[to]] [[do]] [[things]] [[on]] [[an]] [[online]] [[encyclopedia]] [[that]] [[we]] [[can't]] [[on]] [[a]] [[paper]] [[one]], [[does]] [[not]] [[mean]] [[we]] [[have]] [[to]]. [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87#top|talk]]) 04:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
:[[Just]] [[because]] [[we]] [[have]] [[the]] [[ability]] [[to]] [[do]] [[things]] [[on]] [[an]] [[online]] [[encyclopedia]] [[that]] [[we]] [[can't]] [[on]] [[a]] [[paper]] [[one]], [[does]] [[not]] [[mean]] [[we]] [[have]] [[to]]. [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87#top|talk]]) 04:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

::It should be [[PRIMA FACIE]] evident that if someone is known for age, then their year of birth is relevant. For example,

http://erstarnews.com/content/view/4963/26/

We see a life-history timeline that features life events of this person.

Far more than mere age, however, ANY article that deals with HISTORY should have a link to the relevant historical time period. I do have two degrees in history with a WORLD HISTORY endorsement.[[User:Ryoung122|<span style="color:red">Ryoung</span><span style="color:blue">122</span>]] 04:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(cur) (last) 04:55, 19 November 2008 Dabomb87 (Talk | contribs) (19,350 bytes) (if you have a problem with the MOS, bring it up on the MOS talk pages; as long as this is a featured list and as long as MOS says to not link dates, I will unlink them) (undo)

Correction: MOS says do not link dates for "autoformatting" reasons...it does not say that dates cannot be linked for HISTORICAL reasons. Show me the MOS policy you are citing.[[User:Ryoung122|<span style="color:red">Ryoung</span><span style="color:blue">122</span>]] 04:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:19, 8 December 2008

Hey, you may remember me from a peer review that I opened for Pendulum discography a couple of months ago. Since you were kind enough to leave a review of the article, I thought you might be interested to know that it is now (finally) an FLC candidate. If you have some time, any additional comments or opinions would be very helpful. Otherwise, I apologise for bothering you. Thanks – Ikara talk → 23:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the reply, thank you – Ikara talk → 10:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick White

Thanks for your edits. I've asked Nygaard why he's been obstructing there. User_talk:Gene_Nygaard#Patrick_White Tony (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primate at FAC

Hello! As a previous reviewer of Primate at FAC it would be great if you could have another look at the article. The FAC has been restarted, and any comments would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for List of Washington Wizards head coaches

Updated DYK query On 1 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of Washington Wizards head coaches, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Mandrax has sniffed out this location and is stirring up trouble by reverting back to the date links and autoformatting. Tony (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Germany internationals

Just wanted to say thanks for all of your help with this FLC nomination. It got there in the end! ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome! Dabomb87 (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Please, give a copy-edit on this current GA nominee. Cannibaloki 01:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. No problem. Cannibaloki 01:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! but see: "Job for a Cowboy extensively extensively their debut EP..." =D Cannibaloki 20:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ack! Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, great! Cannibaloki 21:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help. For some days I've been re-writing and shortening up Dickinson's article. here I'm working with the "Samson" section. I'm not here to ask you to copy-edit it or anything (maybe in the future). The article seems to be full of quotes by Dickinson. I got the most important one from that section and quoted it (yu'll see it quickly). But I can't find a place with the citation, a ref, except for this one. On the section "IV Samson", first paragraph appears the citation. Do you think that's a reliable source. Could you help me, or gimme a suggestion on how to find that citation?

Here's what I've done with the sections "solo career" and "Iron Maiden".  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 02:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be reliable, because it lists its sources at the bottom. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I saw the message at the top of this page to "keep the conversations togother".  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 16:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not bothered by the fact that you're following me around, but surely there must be a better strategy for finding biographical articles? I mean, think of all the ones I look at but don't edit. How are you going to find them? Deb (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From your link on "Stalking": "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." Anyway, I know that there are many bio articles out there; I could go down the multitudes categories of bios in alpha order I suppose, I just look at your contribs because there was a time when you seemed to be adding date links to articles, which I wanted to correct. You seem to have stopped doing that, so I will let off. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inline query reply

I removed the most recent query you inserted. Technically, a catastrophic eruption is caused by a large explosion. I meant any other type of explosions. —Ceranthor 03:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments have been addressed. Thanks for reviewing! --SRX 18:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: AFL-NFL merger

Per WP:DASH, it meets "As a substitute for some uses of and, to or versus for marking a relationship involving independent elements in certain compound expressions (Canada–US border, blood–brain barrier, time–altitude graph, 4–3 win in the opening game, male–female ratio, 3–2 majority verdict, Lincoln–Douglas debate, diode–transistor logic; but a hyphen is used in Sino-Japanese trade, in which Sino-, being a prefix, lacks lexical independence.)"

It can be considered the "AFL and NFL merger". Gary King (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather this issue be discussed on the talk page first. These four established news sites use a hyphen:
I left a notice at WT:NFL about the move also. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should go by what reliable sources say. I don't think they normally use dashes correctly, at least according to the MOS. Gary King (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll wait until I get further feedback at WT:NFL before changing anything. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mind peer reviewing when you've got time? Thanks! Gary King (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, keep 'em coming! Dabomb87 (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Dallas Cowboys head coaches/archive1 Gary King (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regarding playoff win percentage, ultimately I agree that it should be there. I do notice, however, that a lot of recently promoted FLs don't have it, while a small number do. Probably something to keep an eye on in the future. I don't know why they were missing to begin with. Gary King (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Carolina Panthers head coaches/archive1 Gary King (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Standards were lower back then. I will add them in. Will take care of that PR right now. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Back then, as in last month? :) Glad that they are higher now then. Gary King (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A month ago, baseball lists were all the rage! Dabomb87 (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Minnesota Vikings head coaches/archive1 Gary King (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Seattle Seahawks head coaches/archive1 Gary King (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed your concerns on the article. Thanks a bunch for reviewing! -- Nomader (Talk) 00:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ponticelli

You seem to be good with words. Mind copyediting Ponticelli? ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, although I don't know whether I can get it to meet Tony1's lofty standards. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Year linking, History, and Supercentenarians

Greetings,

In this age of video-game-zipping quickness, too many people are too quick to make changes without first considering the rationales behind them. You have not shown any attempt so far in the date-linking debate to be fair, rational, or reasonable in the current debate about year linking. Rather, you appear to be little more than a storm-trooper operative supporting a coup d-etat of User Tony1, whose objection to year and date linking was founded on an attempt to make Wikipedia an old-fashioned paper encyclopedia. Well, guess what, it isn't. The entire point of WIKIpedia is the WIKIlinks...without them, the system doesn't work. Your overpruning of links is detestable, as is your apparent lack of understanding and attempt to apply a "one-size-fits all" policy.

Too many people today think in terms of current events; they lack the dimensions of time past and time future. Your deletion of relevant Wikilinks is akin to destroying a known time-travel machine "because it doesn't look pretty."

Please develop some complex reasoning and rationale here before continuing on with this crusade.Ryoung122 04:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show me where information in a year link is relevant to the context, and I will reconsider. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because we have the ability to do things on an online encyclopedia that we can't on a paper one, does not mean we have to. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should be PRIMA FACIE evident that if someone is known for age, then their year of birth is relevant. For example,

http://erstarnews.com/content/view/4963/26/

We see a life-history timeline that features life events of this person.

Far more than mere age, however, ANY article that deals with HISTORY should have a link to the relevant historical time period. I do have two degrees in history with a WORLD HISTORY endorsement.Ryoung122 04:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(cur) (last) 04:55, 19 November 2008 Dabomb87 (Talk | contribs) (19,350 bytes) (if you have a problem with the MOS, bring it up on the MOS talk pages; as long as this is a featured list and as long as MOS says to not link dates, I will unlink them) (undo)

Correction: MOS says do not link dates for "autoformatting" reasons...it does not say that dates cannot be linked for HISTORICAL reasons. Show me the MOS policy you are citing.Ryoung122 04:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]