User talk:Dabomb87/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Dabomb87, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  NickelShoe (Talk) 12:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

HP Wikiproject

My mistake, sorry. I thought I had addressed an issue that had come up a few times in the article - a back and forth over controversy as opposed to religious. As I said, my bad. Thanks for catching the mistake. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:80.59.223.252

Ha! It seems that you got to AIV before me. -- Chris.B 16:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Harry Potter roll-call


Hi there. Your username is listed on the WikiProject Harry Potter participants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. Your name has therefore been moved to a "potentially inactive" list. If you still consider yourself an active WikiProject Harry Potter editor, please move your name from the Potentially inactive list to the Active Contributors list. You may also wish to add {{User WP Harry Potter}} to your userpage, if you haven't done so already. Conversely, if you do not wish to be considered a member of the WikiProject, leave your name where it is and it will be moved to the Inactive Contributors section. If you wish to make a clean break with the Project you may move your name to the Known to have left section. Many thanks.

What about assuming good faith?

Sorry I put this at the top of your talk page at first.

I was in the middle of editing the Matthew Dowd page, moving part of the info about his career from the 'personal' to the 'career' section. I'm not deleting anything. If you'd slow down a bit with the accusations and look at the talk page for Matthew Dowd, you'll see that I discussed this previously.

Additionally, you are perhaps warning me against editing my own talk page? I didn't know that I was required to leave the baseless and false accusations against me - which I consider vandalism. But if that is the policy, I won't do it again. Dlabtot 17:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I put a detailed apology on your talk page. Dabomb87 17:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!

Congrats on finding my first secret page in a series of increasingly harder to find secret pages. =) Have you looked for the second?  hmwith  talk 21:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

BLP

This was actually unreferenced, unencyclopedic and highly controversial information about living persons. You shouldn't have restored it. Please be a little more careful in future, not every removal of content by an IP is necessarily vandalism :) Cheers, Melsaran (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Capital Metro

Ralph Mudge 16:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

> "deleted paragraph which consisted of widespread speculations and POV content"

If you include complete nonsense (my POV) from Capital Metro's "Fare Value" brochure, then delete contradicting facts taken right from their budget, that does not yield a neutral article.

Yes, Dabomb87, my paragraph concluded with some, ah, original research, but certainly didn't "consist" of it. Don't just wipe it all out, help me fix it, OK?

Sorry about that. I saw the paragraph and tried to rephrase it while keeping out the OR, but it didn't work out well, so I deleted it. I meant to come back to it but just plain forgot about. It looks better now, thanks. Dabomb87 21:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Scathing Performance Review

Ralph Mudge 13:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dabomb87, I realized that "scathing" was strong wording but I used it anyway. Wouldn't everyone--even the Capital Metro's Board of Directors--agree that it was a "scathing" performace review? Hard to think of any other term to do it justice.

We could call it an "unfavorable" performance review, but that would come across as humorous understatement.

PS, Thanks for all the work you put in assembling the initial article.

Help

{{helpme}} For sports scores, do you list them high-low, or do you put the visiting team's score first (regardless of whether it is the higher score)? Dabomb87 21:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I had to ask around a bit, but most people seem to agree that it doesn't matter which order the teams are in. *Cremepuff222* 21:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Also, what type of dash do you use in sports scores? MOS wasn't very clear. Dabomb87 21:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Erm, again I don't think it mattes. Go ahead and use a normal dash. Remember, be bold in editing. *Cremepuff222* 23:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. Dabomb87 01:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Cap Metro Edits

Ralph Mudge 18:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dabomb87,

On 30 Oct 2007 user 66.193.119.190 made some major edits to Cap Metro.

At 14:41 he updated the routes and schedules--which is fine.

But starting at 20:07 he removed both the table of fares and taxes as well as Cap Metro's entire troubled past, and replaced it with 3 paragraphs of PR pasted from www.capmetro.org. For instance,

http://www.capmetro.org/news/history.asp :

  1. "voters in Austin and the surrounding area approved"
  2. "The voters agreed that the communities would support"
  3. "one mayoral representative appointed by the mayors of the suburban cities of Travis County"

http://www.capmetro.org/news/news_detail.asp?id=1127 :

  1. "more than 3,000 stops"
  2. "highest ridership per capita in Texas"

http://www.capmetro.org/news/Who_we_are.asp :

  1. "fixed route bus service includes 54 metro routes"

http://www.capmetro.org/business/vendor_guide.asp :

  1. "under the provisions of Article 1118x, re-codified as Chapter 451 of the Texas Transportation Code" [Well, that's interesting! ;-)]

I'd like to undo back to 14:41 30 October 2007, but that would also delete a lot of exhausting BS, such as the exact composition of the Cap Metro Board. I don't want to start a war.

What would be fair?

The best thing to do would be to go to their talk page and see if you can discover their true intentions. If you can get him to see his error, great! If not, then raise the issue on the article's talk page and wait for an outsider's opinion. see also Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Dabomb87 00:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)




Hello

Hi..how are you...i want to ask if you can put a photo for Griffin Frazen,with a good license coz there is no one..hope still contacting..--O.waqfi (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


Invite

Please accept this invitation to join WikiProject Kansas City Chiefs, a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with the Kansas City Chiefs. Simply click here to accept!

Kimu 00:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

399 to go

We are almost done, Category:Articles lacking sources from June 2006 is down to less the 400 articles to find references for. I would like to thank you for listing yourself as a volunteer at Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles and would like to take this opportunity to invite you to visit the project again and work on getting the last few articles referenced. We started with 5,572 and we are in the home stretch, please come and try to do a couple a day and we can finish it up in no time. Jeepday (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


Secret pages

I have noticed that you have been interested in finding secret pages. As you may or may not know, Wiikipedia administrators are discussing whether or not to delete secret pages. I am complilng a petition against deleting secret pages here. If you are interested in saving secret pages, sign this page. Thank you. Together, we can beat the system!

Someone dedicated to making your day a little bit better! (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: pass the message on!

New Focus at Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles

The huge set of unreferenced articles from June of 2006 is finally completed. Thank you for your contributions. The new focus at Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles is Category:Articles lacking sources from July 2006 which as of May 28 is only 1,322 articles and should go much quicker. Thank you to everyone who has contributed and listed themselves as a volunteer. Jeepday (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Saint Paul Aritcle

Could you be as specific as possible with the CITE problems? Thanks, Calebrw (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, regarding the citations:
*Ref 42 is just a link without an included title. That needs to be referenced correctly with the appropriate citation template.
*On ref 41, the previous issue applies.
  • What makes jazzpolice.com reliable (ref 41)?
  • Ref 1 needs more information (date of article, date retrieved, work and/or publisher of the article).

:*Ref 5-Is 2008 part of the title, or is it the date of publication of the article? (picky, I know)

That's all I have for now. If you have any more questions, feel free to contact me. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I have addressed some of these issues and will work on as many more as possible. Calebrw (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Purdue Peer Review

Thanks a lot for your suggestion!! :) I have tried doing all that you said and the article definitely looks better now. Jainrajat11 (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What?

You've told me not once but twice, now, to make summary comments after editing, etc., Wiki. So, now, unless you are a Wiki admin, please mind your own business. Canihaveacookie 16:23 CST, August 12, 2008

Actually, I've only told you once. Also, you don't need to be an admin to remind an editor of a good practice. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Happy Wikiversary!

Thanks!--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Trenton

Hi. How can I close the peer review on the Battle of Trenton? Thanks. Red4tribe (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I closed the peer review for you (nominators are discouraged from closing their own peer review request). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks.Red4tribe (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Your help comment

OK - So WebMd can have a page yet a competing site cannot? I am afraid I do not understand your logic. Please advise.

I'm afraid I misunderstood your request. You want to create an article on your website, correct? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Refer to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webmd

We are a health and medical portal - owned and operated by a licensed MD. I would like to have a page similar to theirs on Wikipedia. My question was: How do I create such a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Healthmadeeasy (talk • contribs) 18:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. There is nothing to stop you from creating an article about your portal. However, there are some things you should know
  1. Establish whether your topic is notable: In short, if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.
  2. If the topic is notable, then you may write an article about it, but be sure to write the article from a neutral point of view. Also, make sure the information you write is verifiable: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.
Good luck, and if you have any more questions, please ask. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
As to creating a new page, read Wikipedia:Your first article.

FAC Meshuggah

Good day! Will ou have a look on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meshuggah? It's stuck.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 10:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings! I really need your help now! The last candidation failed because some sourcing issues took too long to deal with. Now it is all fixed. I also made some changes in the text as well - but not many. Could you, please, make a read-over and a simple copy-edit? It won't be many issues. It would help me very much. --  LYKANTROP  ✉ 16:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! If you are interested, you can leave comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meshuggah. Have a nice day!--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 21:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Good day Dabomb87! The sourcing issues have already been solved!--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 21:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany

Hi, noticed you changed the sentence "The Nazis often equated the Jews with the harmful effects of tobacco" to "The Nazis blamed the Jews for introducing tobacco and its harmful effects" in this edit. I think the second format implies fact while the first structure implies view. If we say "The Nazis blamed the Jews for introducing tobacco and its harmful effects", it will suggest the Jews really introduced tobacco and the harmful effects of tobacco were really introduced by the Jews. I will change it after discussing this matter with you. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, sorry about changing the sentence without bringing it up on the FAC page first. I see what you're trying to say. Maybe change the word "blamed" to accused? If we know for a fact that the Jews did not bring in tobacco, we can say "wrongly accused". The problem with the original sentence was that the sentence was in effect saying that the Jews had qualities of the harmful effects of tobacco. Anyway, let me know what you think. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I like your suggestion. I will change it to "accused". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Or, another suggestion. How about the sentence "the Nazis claimed that the Jews were responsible for introducing tobacco and its harmful effects". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's the best one. Put that in. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 Done. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Thanks for all your help with peer review - just a heads up, I do not generally remove reviews from the backlog if the comments focus all on one area. So User:Ealdgyth only reviews references on articles heading to FAC, so they also need comments on things besides refs. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that—I didn't know. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
It is no problem at all - just wanted to let you know for future reference and thanks again for your help, it is much appreciated. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dabomb87/Archive_1&oldid=1190121891"