User talk:Dabomb87/Archive 24

2461:. I'll ping Sandy to work on her conomination statement. In the meantime, feel free to add your statement and begin answering the questions. Let me know if you think my statement needs to be tweaked. I questioned whether to bring up the date-delinking, but I am pretty sure it will be brought up by someone if not addressed early on. If you plan to use that as an answer to one of your questions, I may remove it from my statement. Thank you for being patient...I feel bad that it took this long for Sandy and I to be ready, even though we were the ones encouraging you! 6781:

article meets the given criteria, thats a fact, and if you had any other concerns I would have dealt with them up front. Now to Dabomb, I was told by Legolas the rule was to have a "14-day interval in between nominations", which I had 14 days and 2 hours, so I didn't break any rule whatsoever. Now I disagree, and feel there is no fair reason to not promote the article. I'm here being told that the article will not be promoted (nor the new one) because 2 editos do not agree with a 8 month old "merging consensus." Forgive my language, but thats Bull-shit.--

579:(though it's probably true). Also, why do are there so many paragraphs about notable people who have participated in or directed the show? How does that aid understanding of the topic at all? Most of the material in the notable directors section isn't even about the students' roles in the show but about their other activities. This is just one person's opinion, so feel free to ignore it. However, if you do want my advice on how to improve the article, I would suggest trimming it significantly so it looks more like it does in 6934: 6203: 5810: 5265: 4021: 3053: 31: 599:

of the University, but of NE Scotland. To that end we felt the article should feature many more of the contributors than only the directors; also to illustrate that these have never been amateur productions put on by students for fun, but serious professional productions, produced by people who were already locally renowned, or became so later - with the Show being a starting point for many careers. But your points about this and other elements are much appreciated and well taken.

2272: 4392: 4638: 6747:

ready, I've had time to incorporate feedback from the last one into the next list, and hopefully only have to clean up things that are there because I suck at copy-editing my own prose. I'll monitor the situation instead of rushing to oppose the singles list, but the a better course of action would have been to go back to the talk page and rediscuss a merge, instead of opening another FLC.

4086:

confirmed to have directed Episode 4 of Season 6 not Episode 5, an Robert Singer has only been confirmed to have directed Episode 3 of Season 6 not Episode 1 because Episode 1 will be directed by Phil Scigrcia, Episode 3 is also written by Ben Edlund. Also the Live Free Twi Hard Episode thats currently a working title for one of the episodes this season we just don't know which one yet.

2086: 492: 6989:(whose talk page is a sad story, if you haven't seen it; this copyright issue is further evidence that that's an impostor). I don't deal much with copyrighted images; does one simply post a speedy notice in a situation like this, or is there a way to tag it for review and later deletion? I won't be back on WP till tonight so I won't respond for a while. Thanks for any help. 713:). Nearly three weeks had passed, and there were no supports. That's the worst way to see an FLC end, but content-review processes are chronically short of reviewers so I do have to make those closures periodically. Feel free to renominate in five or six days. In the meantime, perhaps you can review some FLCs yourself? Reviewer karma exists, I promise! Cheers, 1958:

other means. If you can show that you are willing to be patient and learn from your previous mistakes, there will be editors who will be willing to let you return. By continuing this pattern of behavior though, you are eliminating the already-small chance you have to get back into the community's good graces.

1187:. It is slowly moving into a new standard of its own which I understand very little and I don't know what to do. I nominated and worked on the article but it appears to have been taken over and now I don't really know what part of MOS its working towards or based on. Perhaps its time that yourself and 6849:

because of a grammar problem, and then once it's fixed, just leave it hanging. I'll tell you why, because the whole system is unfair, people shoot down great opportunities, because so many have no decency. I'm now being told the FLC failed because of a merge that was discussed with a consensus months

5839:

I hope you are ready to stay up all night, you fucking neanderthal. That UEFA list page is getting vandalized for the whole night when that protection expires in two hours. I'm bored with nothing to do and you are my perfect form of enterntainment. Get ready, bitch! I have enough IP addresses to last

5658:

I don't have expensive tastes, but a week-long vacation to Europe (all expenses paid) would be fine :) In all seriousness, doing reviews is probably the best thing you can do to help out; not only does it help to bring other lists to featured status, it helps you to become more critical and observant

5419:

I can see you deleted a wiky page I created /Elnec - 21:48, 25 August 2010 Dabomb87 (talk | contribs) deleted "Elnec". I can understand partly your concerns and this action. However, the page was online nearly a year and I believe it is appropriate for inclusion. Longer time I was not online, that is

5096:

I add a part to the article which i think is relevat , someone blanks it out , saying it is merely my opinion. I start a discussion , by the book , stating why it is not . It gets blanked again with the reason that it's not ironic , which then i explained the meaning of ironic in the discussion , etc

879:

Since I have withdrawn the FAC nomination (after all, I thought that was where to go to get articles critiqued, aside from the good article review), does that treat it as an unsuccessful FAC or can it still be nominated for peer review without the 14 day window? Had I realized peer review was there,

727:

Thanks for the reply. Just trying to understand the process. I will be sure to re-nominate in the future, as I believe the list meets criteria. And you are absolutely right, for as much nominating as I do (I love generating FLs!) I need to offer more reviews or at least helpful comments. Thanks again

598:

Thanks. I'll discuss with the original author Solaricon, when he returns from vacation; and with and other contributors to the evolving / underlying much larger database. I think the intent here was to be quite comprehensive, and to indicate the importance of the Student Show to the culture, not only

574:

Hi, I see that the article has now been moved to the prep queue, so other editors may not have shared my opinion. Anyway, I think that the article contains too much trivial detail. To be honest, I think your past involvement with the show may have influenced your edits to the article; that is, you've

7050:

I try to leave messages for reviewers whenever I get the time, but that is certainly not my obligation. My apologies if it seems I'm favoring one FLC or the other, because that is not the case. Also, not all reviewers need to "revisit" the nominations because there's not much that could change their

7022:

Hi, I'm just wondering something. This is in no way an accusation or bad-faith, I'm really just wondering. I've noticed you've left editors messages, telling them to "please comment back on the nomination page, and express support, neutral or oppose." Well I was wondering why you couldn't do that to

6780:

Now this goes for Courcelles. You and Dan Dassow are the only 2 edtiors that have expressed an interest in "a merge," 6 editors (now including Lakeshade as he expressed) do not agree. What more is there to discuss about it? You would like to fail the FLC simply because you disagree over a merge. The

6692:

Firstly, the only reason I did not ask reviewers to comment back on the page is because thought it was against the rules, and feared it would possibly disqualify the nomination. Please, at least give the nomiation another 24 hours to get straightened up. Ill make sure to have it sorted out by then.

5681:

Thank you both for your response. You really don't want me doing reviews... There is a reason I went into math and computers. Also, in my responses to people, I can come across as hostile. I will take a deeper look at FLRCs and the task force page after the weekend. Maybe trying to bring a page

4848:

I don't understand why you reached the consensus of stale regarding IP 86.7.134.158 . He has repetitively added unsourced material to the pages. I've made personal comments about it on his page on WHY he should add sources, gave him warning, reverted his edits with an edit summary stating that you

3214:

Second, thanks for the encouraging comments. I will wait for feedback from the others I've asked before we make any determinations, but if we decide to move it to FAC instead, can we move the nomination as it is or do we have to delist and start over again? Also, should we let it finish FLC before

2243:

out editors who can offer subject-specific advice. WikiProject Video Games is a large and active one, and if you look around I'm sure there will be plenty of users who would be happy to take a look (especially if you return the favor). Another good technique is to look at current video game FLs (see

2242:

Considering you've now submitted the list three times to FLC, and it's been deemed not ready by each time, I would strongly advise you to go through some kind of peer review process first. Don't just slap the PR tag on the page and hope for a lot of good suggestions though; you need to actively seek

2219:

FLC. I am assuming it's because it was unedited for several days, which makes sense. However, I have corrected every single one of the commentor's complaints with the exception of a few things I have given select reasons and precedents for keeping. Therefore, I was wondering if you could take a look

1228:

still marked as a "proposed" guideline? I've seen music editors left and right cite it as long-standing consensus, but it still has not been formally categorized as a style guideline. Anyway, I rather not get too involved, as I am no expert on web accessibility, and would prefer to stay neutral as I

687:

closed when only one person commented on it and no one opposed it. Shouldn't more time be given for reviews? I am certainly not questioning your decision to close the nomination, as I realize how familiar you are with the process, but I am simply wondering what the policy is when there has only been

5565:

4. Since last week, progress on the UEFA list has practically stalled, primarily on the "why ******g bother" grounds (I'm simply making enough token progress to ensure it doesn't get delisted/to piss him off, I openly admit to having no motivation right now). If I knew there was a watertight way of

5224:

Dabomb, Karanacs is still out, and I am unlikely to have much time online between now and Sunday (29 August); if you see any withdrawals or obvious drivebys, pls feel free to close or archive them yourself, or let me know on my talk if anything needs my urgent attention, as I will be checking in as

2721:

Thanks, I have been planning on working on some of the newer poker articles and trying to bring them up to FLC calibre. I want to get the WSOPE Feature Topic back... but that means getting 2009's article to pass FLC and by the time that was done I might as well do the 2010 one which is just around

1896:

I must say I also considered blocking this account as a sock (based on my limited familiarity with Jamen Somasu, sockpuppetry didn't seem unlikely), but I decided to give it a little more time; we'll see what the people at the football project have to say. AL1982, it is quite unusual for a newcomer

1771:

Jesus christ, you have any idea how many people are from South America? How many of us like our competitions? We might as well eliminate those pages and get it over with because it sounds like no one can edit them now. Any why did you erase all of my commentary of the feauture list page? Everything

290:

Sorry about that. I have reverted to a clean version without the links to the derogatory sites or the duplicated info. When I first saw the revision, I considered just reverting outright, but the edit appeared to be in good faith, so I accepted it and did some cleanup. I was not entirely sure about

6295:

I'm so happy that you passed RFA! I suspected from the beginning that the result would be pretty close to what it turned out to be. I do apologize for essentially abandoning you halfway through, but I knew Sandy could take care of anything that came up. Anyway, you're one of the good guys, and I

5696:

Yes, the best FLRC is the one we never have to have. Choose judiciously, though, there are a decent number on the list that won't survive FLRC for reasons totally unrelated to their present condition. 3B is especially hard to fix by editing; for those it can almost be just waiting for someone to

5124:

This fact is not emportant enough for people to write a book about , a discussion forum thread stating the thing , and multiple people commenting about it will be the most that will ever gets written about it. I am currently looking all over to find anything else that can be seen as a source , and

1957:

Your knowledge of Wiki processes goes past the standard familiarity, though. Here's my advice, take it or leave it (if you truly are not SuperSonic/Jamen, which I truly doubt at this point, disregard this): take a long break from Knowledge. Don't even try to get around your block though socking or

1873:

So basically...I am stuck between a hard and a rough place...I can't edit because editing is now, incredibly, forbidden. Why? If I do and I give some bad vibe, I might get kicked out for nothing. If I don't, I look guilty and might get kicked out for nothing...I am asking you as a FL director...is

883:

On a side note, I'm working with Frickative (who took a break on that one for about a month, according to the history) to get the article fixed up, so I will probably show a big interest in the peer review as well. I'll be in contact with her during and after the peer review before going to FLC.

6746:

Logical question (for Peter, not Dabomb)... if reviewers, including myself, opposed the albums discog on 3B, what makes you think the singles one won't meet the same reception? This is why I like to prepare different kinds of lists for FLC in sequence, so that by the time the next of one type is

3448:

I'm guessing that rule came up when I was having my wikibreak. If it wasn't, then I must have never heard of this rule for some unexplained reason. I usually wait 10 days until my next FLC nomination, and supports usually come within those 10 days, so I thought nominating this list now would be a

328:

I am Caprice Bourret's assitant and am acting on behalf of her in regards to correcting said information on her Knowledge page. I have either edited information that is incorrect, such as stating that her birthplace is Whittier, California, or updated her information, such as with regards to the

274:

These two external sources are not solid, even though the assertion seems plausible. Jonathan Elendu is a pundit. Nigerian Village Square is just a public blogsite that runs a lot of attack articles from members. I think it is o.k. to quote Elundu pointing out that it is his opinion in the text,

2682:

Damn my laziness... like I said in my !vote, you've been on my radar since we interacted last year. I thought then that you would have made a great admin, but the ArbCOM case prevented me from noming ya. (I thought we had talked about it, but looking at yours and my talk pages I don't see any

5648:

Why not try doing some reviews anyway? You might either find a new area you'd like to write/research, or just learn things that will make your own FLCs go smoother. By the way, I paid for my RFA supports in Third Zimbabwean Dollars; everyone got to be billionaires while I didn't have to skip

4085:

Hi Dabomb87 sorry for not siting my recent editing work I did on Supernatural Season 6 I got all my information from IMDB but just so you realize some of the current information you have on the Supernatural Season 6 that you reverted back to isn't right for one Jensen Ackles is currently only

2812:

I wasn't looking for a particular answer to the question, I was just curious to discover another editor's view on the subject. To be honest, if I had answered the question, my reply would have been pretty similar to yours. Perhaps Knowledge should clarify its goal - to collate the sum of all

630:

No need to apologize: didn't come across as brusque, and your comments are in the spirit of helping to improve it. I'll pull the original research content, and have asked my fellow contributors for help to better define its scope and content. I'm a little to close to it at this point. Cheers

1033:

Hey Dabomb, hope you're well. The above FLC appears to have stagnated under the weight of opposition comments, the nominee appears to have lost interest. I won't re-visit or re-review until my remaining comments are resolved, and those of Legolas. And Werewolf is one of the supporters...

5509:). As of this post there's every reason to assume good faith, but look at the content of the first 10 edits, and the timing. ("Augustus Loren" a.k.a. Jamen was banned that same day). No grounds to wade in based on the meaningful edits he's made, but definitely worth a quiet eye. Regards, -- 4849:

need sources, and maybe more. Yet he has yet to talk about it to me or debate to why his edits are OK. He just keeps on adding more and more unsourced material to these articles and ignores every single thing I say to him. So please explain to me why the consensus was stale. Thank you.

4864:

By the time I looked at the request, the IP had not edited for about three hours, which suggests he/she may have given up, thus making any block useless (and certainly not preventative) at that time. If you think I was in error (or if the IP pops up again), feel free to re-request at

1256:

Jack has made it clear that if I was to do so I'd be breaking ALL MOS rules on wikipedia and he's made clear already that he's not adverse to reverting any edit of mine which trumps his understanding of MOS. So I'm confused as to where that leaves me and also as to where that leaves

2220:

at the article from a non review standpoint and see if I have any reason to renominate? It would be greatly appreciated. If you feel there is substantial work to be done, I will take it over to Peer Review, although I haven't had any feedback on my previous PR for other articles.

2011:

Seeing that I was banned for nothing, there was no other way to contact or message you. Besides, you are not even an admin so you can't help. When your opponent plays dirty, you play dirty, so you best ban every IP address in the southeast of the USA because I can use them all.

7065:

That's fine. Although I find it ridiculous that the articles are being shot down because of a merge that was decided through consensus months ago. I mean, take a look at Madonna's discographies, they are both FL and the same length. Why aren't they or didn't they fair the same

1233:

has been in flux (as some parts of the MOS tend to be frequently). With regard to the discography, I would advise you to go with local editorial consensus, and worry about conforming with the constantly changing guidelines when they stabilize. This same situation occurred with

4971:

I kindly ask you to just do it for me.. add 1 fact to the ad-aware article.. read up about it from the links I gave .. Add it in your own words , really i don't care ... Ad-Aware pops up popup messages advertising lavasoft products and more , even flowers on mother's day.

1179:. The said user, one Jack Merridew, is proceeding to make significant changes to the article which in his view are better for accessibility and userbility. My main issue is that the article is quickly moving away from the standards set by other FL discographies e.g. 4975:

Tell me , show me , how to add that to wikipedia in a way that is acceptable.. and i dont mean to add it in a way that will please everyone that reads it.. A majority will not make truth ! Enough people denying the fact the earth is a splere will not flatten it !

6844:

Well, I trusted an experienced editor, so yes my fault, won't happen again. Honestly Dabomb, I really am pissed and disgusted at the lack of support and everything else here on Knowledge and FLC. Someone presents one hell of an article, and editors just write

575:

attached more importance to certain aspects of the show than I would expect to read about in an encyclopedia article. For example, I find the origins of the "Student Show titles" too "crufty" to mention in an article, and much of it comes across as unverified

1485:

I often think a news ticker would be useful... I have noted the FLCs where you are "involved" and am waiting for existing reviews to finish up (or for new reviewers to opine) on those, seen and watchlisted the AfD and will comment there in due course, and

5393:

righto, i'll ask at some point. someone asked at bot requests before and they said they'd need the source code. maybe we could get the code of the original bot operator though i don't know if he's contactable. bit of a shame as it's a pretty useful tool.

3150:

and I are currently considering whether to change the nomination back to FA, or proceed with FL first. While I won't ask you to do a full copy-edit (if you do, though, it's appreciated as well), would you mind taking a quick look and provide an opinion?

1008:, I'm away for a while and have asked Chris to look after the tail end of an FLC (which I thought might have been finished by now). Anyway, sorry to do this and if anything big comes up feel free to withdraw on my behalf (hopefully it won't). Thanks, 472: 3087: 255:

I saw you accepted a revision on this one, then did some clean-up. I would say the revision is vandalism. It pastes back the July 9 version (8,155 bytes) once again, wiping out later changes. See the article history and talk page. The effect is to

1938:

BTW, this is the year 2010; that means that most people in the civilized world have touched a computer, know what a forum is, know what wapedia is and all those other wikiwannabe websites...I would be more amazed if someone came in and pretended

756:

Thanks for the invite, but we're meant to be going on holiday at the weekend... if we get round to booking anywhere, that is! Tell you what, if I think I'm going to be around one weekend, I'll volunteer to be asked, if that makes sense. Yours,

1275:

No, by "local editorial consensus" I was referring to editors who have been involved with this article, Kelly Rowland discography. For example, have you asked the editors who have already supported the FLC to comment on the accessibility issue?

5629:

I'm starting to feel like a leech on FLC. Is there any way I can help out? I would be an extremely horrible reviewer. Trying to think of things.... work with Ucucha on checking dab and external links? Run AWB on an article? Anything else?

3077: 3440: 3803:

To me, "List of volcanic eruptions" tells the reader it's a list of all notable volcanoes, whereas "List of large volcanic eruptions" seems to fit the scope of the list more (but shouldn't it be "List of largest volcanic eruptions", a la the

1532:

last night, apparently I had some reference problems (mostly italicizing incorrectly) but more importantly, prose problems. So, since fresh eyes help, is there anyway you could go through the article piece by piece and check it for prose.

6596:

Hello. I do not understand why you failed the nomination. I corrected all of the concerns the other editors had. At least let me notify them to leave their final response. I mean, every issue that was mentioned was dealt with, so why is it

1590:

First off, thank you for taking a look. :) I have addressed your concerns at the far bottom of the FAC page. Please let me know if there are any further questions or concerns, as I will be glad to tinker or edit more as necessary. :) -

122:, and added their support after reading the article. That's my only guess. I do agree, that is suspicious, but I have nothing to do with it otherwise. Also, I wouldn't mind if that user's support was removed from the nomination, either. 3442: 4793:), where you can improve the article to Knowledge standards. Once you have done so, feel free to ask me or any other administrator to look at the article and decide whether the article can be moved back to the article space. Regards, 3186:

definitely looks more like an article at this point. I think the length of the production section, the inclusion of information about the music, and the depth of the reception section is enough to make it an article at this point.

3083: 4952:

I have added enough material to prove without a doubt the veracity of that 1 line. If the party in question admits it being there , why would i need a third party source , which there are ! Even testemony from numerous people.

6719:

The FLC is not likely to be "straightened up" and ready to be promoted in 1 day (and it probably would not be for at least a week). Please try to resolve the concerns outside FLC. In addition, you just submitted another FLC,

6642:

I don't agree, I addressed all the issues that each editor had. They just never had the decency to comment back like I asked. There were no such issues as you mentioned. At least let me ask the editors to express their final

1332: 6669:

Reviewers are often busy people, and it's your responsibility as nominator to ask them to revisit the nomination. The consensus among reviewers was that 3b was a problem; even if the split was agreed to a few months ago,

4948:

The ends justify the means eh ? First it was seen as an opinion from me ? It is not. It not being ironic... the one that said that needs a dictionary. Then they said my sources were created by me? Not true in the least..

1772:

that I mentioned perfectly disregard everything he said (which was basically accusing wildly, as well as trying to find the smallest thing to shut this down). Why is he so keen in this list not making it to become a FL?

3535:

and wondered whether I would finally receive the support of dabomb? (since TRM always(?) takes care of footy stuff). More importantly, would a cap on GA nominations be something to consider, or do you only do in FACs?

5420:

why I did not react to deletion messages. Elnec is really known worldwide and I believe after my improvements page will satisfy notability guidelines. Please give me chance to improve the page and make it undeleted.

4895:

Thanks for you note. I was trying to keep that page private, using my sandbox to draft all the rework this article needs. Just so we're clear, was my error was leaving the off the "User:" at the start of the link?

5160:

I will do my best to find extra sources , every time i find one that i think would be acceptabele i will add it to the discussion part and ask you to review it and revert my addition to the article with the added

3181:

better than when I first saw it at FAC. The line separating a season "list" from a season "article" is extremely fuzzy, and I won't pretend to know the exact difference. That said, compared to most TV season FLs,

1067:

Vis-a-vis Werewolf voting, I suggest we strike through any "votes" if the SPI proves to be valid. As for RFA, make sure you let me know when you're about to "launch".... (I'm really good at spoiling stuff....!)

3641:

Yes, it was accidental. Damn iPhone; that's one of the few things I don't like about them -- it's easy to do that and that's probably the fourth or fifth time. Thanks for cleaning it up and letting me know.

558:

Received your brief note about this being nominated for 'did you know?' and that there might be some problem based on recent edits. Any chance of more specific pointers to what the flags might be? Many thanks

6495:

Unfortunately, there is not. However, a note at relevant WikiProject would not go amiss. Also, I'm sure these articles receive a higher-than-usual level of scrutiny due to the ongoing climate-change dispute.

3158:

and the prose is a little smaller, but I am not entirely certain if it qualifies and wanted to ask someone more experienced. I've also asked a couple of the supporters from that review for opinions as well.

329:

timeline for her lingerie line. All of this information can be correctly and legitimately sourced and referenced. If this correct editing continues to be rejected then Caprice will be involving her lawyers.

4789:(such as major newspapers or peer-reviewed journals). If you would like to improve the article to meet Knowledge standards for inclusion, I would be happy to restore the article to a page in your userspace ( 5142:

I kindly ask that the article be returned to it's state before they started blanking that line out , and they be asked to contribute to the dizscussion as to why I should be seen as the vandal here and not

3936:

OK, I'm a bit early, but allow me to be the first on your talk page to wish you a big ol' congrats on your Rfa, which is the most lopsided vote in favor I can recall in the past year! Best wishes always,

6721: 6229: 1659:

Hi, I was wondering why you closed the FL discussion for Ciara discography. I was still working on resolving the errors and was still in progress of completing and had not stopped working on the discog.

500: 614:

Cheers. I apologize if I came across as brusque in my previous comment. I should mention that some of your edits were very good and improved the article quite a bit, such as the inclusion of the table.

6590: 4582:

Congratulations. That makes you the most supported RfA in almost a year, the most supported of 2010 so far and the 12th most successful RfA ever. :) Very impressive. If you need anything, just shout!

5862:

Good to go! September 11 it is! I have a few dozen accounts now; I can probably squeeze in a few more in the next few hours. Meanwhile, I will have fun with some other pages...ones you seem to like.

1415: 119: 5894: 2879:

I wrote on your Request for Admin page. Seems like your really popular on Knowledge. Holy crap dude, you have 70 likes and nobody wrote anything against you. Good luck on the becoming an Admin man.

1683:. An FLC cannot continue indefinitely; it is not peer review. You can resubmit after you have addressed the remaining comments and the opposers have verified that their concerns have been resolved. 5633:

Also congrats (condolences?) on being made an admin. I'm paying Jujutacular $ 50 to his/her swiss account for every support. I guest you will be doing it too. Egads, FLC is getting expensive :)

4406:

and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

4601:

Congrats, and you managed to avoid that one damn pesky oppose! I would wish you luck, but seeing as you managed to pull off a unanimous RfA, I'm not sure why you would possibly need it. Regards,

3882:

Yeah, I've posted it on the FLC. I'm pretty sure everyone whould agree that the current name is silly :) I have a question though, what is the standing on using "Table of" in article titles? Ae.

1794:

I'm disappointed but understand your position Dabomb. Regardless, I'm not going to waste this charity's money, or my time, by filing an SPI when a block is clearly warranted. In the interests of

3844:

Ah, the redirect already exists. Once you get your mop tommorow, can you make your first admin action break the redirect and move the article? Page history needs preservation. Much appreciated,

1738:

when people come and start accusing me of sock-puppetry, hating on certain people for being from a certain place, and copyright violations (I haven't uploaded anything). Could you help, please?

3464: 2996: 1798:, I will refrain from making further "allegations", have no further interaction with the user, and revert any attempt he makes to interact with me on any page other than this "FLC". Regards, -- 1525: 7023:

my FLC, as that was the problem? would it have killed you to give me the same courtesy, to help sort the page out? It seems that page has more of your support than mine had, unfortunately.--

3117: 6363: 1419: 1026: 1906:

Please...I'm a Marine. I work with computers and I have edited pages similar to wiki. I would have to give the taxpayers their money back if I can't figure this website out in a few hours.

2683:

evidence that we had.) But I recall spending a fair amount of time reviewing your edits and some how missing the ArbCOM case until I was all but ready to ask you if you wanted to run.---

6473:. I've made one edit to include the material in the lead, but it ought to be properly added to the body. It is very possible that um, strong opinions about how to include it will occur. 1252:

Thanks for the response. So should I just conform to all the changes Jack is recommending even though I'm not sure where they are stemming from? If by local editorial consensus you mean

1175:

project is blatantly violating new accesibility and general usability guidelines. This discussion has opened in detail at the talk page for MOS:DISCOG but has since branched off too at

1132:

Hey thanks for reverting my edit...I'm still trying to get all of these policies down pat ya know? So thanks for pointing me out to WP:notnews. I appreciate it. Have a good one man.

5659:

of your own mistakes in creating lists. If reviewing not your thing, we always need more FLRCs. Plenty of FLs don't meet the current standards, and a good number of them are listed at

1929:

Well, just let me know when you decide to give me the ax. People have told me about wiki and I have abstain myself from using a username because of a lack of interest. Now I know why.

6850:

ago, with no proof of any other issues. I'm sorry, but its BS and I don't support, its a shame, and I as an editor would never treat someones work or nomination in such a fashion.--

6807:

There is no such interval; Legolas has mistakenly applied the FAC instructions to FLC. As I said before, if you believe my closure was in error you are welcome to make your case to

6881:

Would you mind removing my rollback rights? You probably recall the last time you posted on my talk page, but if not, see the most recent post there for the reason why. Thanks.

880:

I would have taken it there first before FAC or FLC - again, my first time trying to promote an article after doing little bits of editing here and there for a couple of years. =)

2195:...though on skimming quickly through just now I see that you are the nominator or co-nom on three FLCs, so perhaps it is better if you wait until at least one is closed. Cheers, 1392:

No probs - I just wanted to draw your attention to avoid any more ECs - I normally do the dashes at the end, though, if I had done them first that might not have happened ... lol

6430: 6246:

I'm going to archive the albums discography today, anyway. As to whether the singles discography FLC is premature, that's a different question. I'll take a look in the evening.

5016:

first instead of "edit-warring" to push your version through. As for getting involved in the actual dispute, that would be inappropriate, as I am the protecting admin. Regards,

1043: 2490:

My apologies as well ... it's been one thing or another for both of us all summer! I'll work on it tonight, as I have way too much on my plate during the business day today.

1735: 386: 5890: 1897:

to immediately start an FLC, and bound to cause suspicion—whether that suspicion is justified or not I'm not yet prepared to say. If the suspicion is incorrect, I am sorry.

1464: 1027: 5107:

As i said , the ends justoify the means , where this article is suposed to be an advert for the "lavasoft ad aware" product and not an article with multiple points of view.

7100:

Congratulations on your new position! I absolutely would've supported, I've just been out of commission between moving and no internet at home as the account gets set up!

6096: 6167:. That is a page where wikipedians can request that a particular page on a blacklisted site be un-blocked (whitelisted). The site currently has a hat statement that reads 6089: 3139: 786: 5056:

As I said before, I would rather not be involved in the dispute. Even if the claim is referenced to a reliable source (and not all editors believe that forum posts are

4790: 2143: 1374:

Yikes, I'm sorry about that! To be honest, I got to the article through a section link, so I never saw the banners at the top at all. Feel free to overwrite my edits.

5548: 3883: 3720:

Nah, it was just a heads-up on the unusual circumstances. Leaving it alone might avoid any friction with Jeff G. Premptive congrats on your RfA & best regards --

2157: 703: 678: 6463:

I'm not familiar enough with RPP processes to know what to do if there's a possible need, not yet manifested. I took a quick look and didn't see any such requests.

4003:

I don't like using a talkback template, and I don't know if you happened to have watchlisted my other IP's talkpage, so just letting you know that I replied there.

6028: 3000: 2046: 2017: 1983: 1911:

Based on your comments at this talk page and the now-closed FLC, and your edits elsewhere, I am almost certain that you are not a newcomer. Wikipedians can extend

1303: 948:

Got my answer on my talk page. If it's worked on after an FAC withdrawal, then it's all right. Just passing that on should you encounter the question again. =)

337: 1357:

I am guessing that you either did not see or did not pay any attention to the GOCE tag at the top of the page and that is why I have just had the edit conflict ?

5452: 1830:, and you're right, it would probably be a waste of time. However, I'm not an admin and I haven't interacted with the editor enough so I have asked the folks at 6674:, so perhaps you should revisit the split vs. merge debate. If you feel that my closure was a grave mistake, feel free to ask the community for wider input at 114:

to Knowledge, but I don't have any direct connection with that user otherwise. I did realized that the account was just opened, so to be friendly, I added the

5929: 4694: 5545: 4761: 1480: 1458: 1171:. You'll notice on that discussion that an experienced user with 'professional experience' in ICT has commented on how the discography as well as the entire 3691:

all that the popups show is the blank user page for his dynamic (174. home) address. I guess that's why he arranges his sigs in that way. Hope that helps --

2352:

Strike that, I've seen your post now on talk. I couldn't figure out what had happened. I added it, went back to clarify something, and couldn't find it. :)

5562:

3. It would be extremely naive to think that the user has enough of a life not to have created dozens of these accounts, rendering semi-protection useless.

1809: 1147:

You too. If you have any other questions about Knowledge, please ask ... it's a big place, and the editing process can be more complicated than it looks!

6476:

Seems to me that we don't do protective protection, and that's fine, but if there's a better way to urge some to keep an eye on it, please let me know.--

3899: 3857: 3798: 2516: 503:

and links updated. I did this as a talk page stalker because, until Dabomb gets "the bit", someone else would have needed to delete the redirect anyway.

3688: 3684: 3019: 2106:

Thanks ... for some reason, every time I try to load ANI, the browser crashes, or I would have posted there instead. Sundays are the worst sometimes...

1967: 1952: 1924: 1781: 1766: 6978: 6871: 6802: 6618: 5949: 3449:

good idea. If I violated a rule, then it should be reserved, so I'm guessing holding off the nomination would be a good idea. Thanks for the notice! --

2797: 2021: 2006: 516: 6489: 5877: 2128: 2115: 2101: 1901: 1200: 7087: 7060: 6824: 6741: 6714: 6687: 6664: 6637: 4888: 3616: 3584: 3537: 2650: 2530: 2485: 2399: 2378: 1507: 1077: 1062: 964: 743: 722: 672: 6016: 5196:. If you cannot find any mention of the fact in a reliable source (reputable news site, magazine etc.), then perhaps it is not worthy of inclusion. 4911: 3988: 3974: 1156: 624: 592: 530: 6458: 5923: 5784: 5763: 4802: 4124: 3875: 3835: 3817: 3615:

A recurring issue I see. just FYI, I proposed a cap when a topic is backlogged. I think the reasoning of FAC and FLC is equally applicable in GAN.

3517: 2868: 2783: 2757: 2415: 2256: 2152:

Too slow...I already had another IP address by the time your buddy blocked the old one...although he probably blocked a good number of users also.

1219: 780: 242: 7011: 6919: 6907: 4365: 3664: 3503: 3479: 3391: 1005: 6112: 6100: 5252: 5205: 5187: 5069: 5043: 5025: 4631: 4442: 3822:

Agreed. The article needs some work to meet criteria, but it's somewhere close. FYI: I like getting requests, it makes me feel more important :)

2606: 2575: 2561: 2502: 2360: 1987: 1605: 1571: 1162: 453: 155: 7124: 6581: 6282: 6269: 6255: 5745: 5527: 4596: 4573: 4208: 3134:

as an FA, we had a discussion on that page eventually delisting the nom. Frickative and I have both worked on the article since then through a

2175: 1881:

the man waving that blood-covered sword...except that it was used in self-defense from a mob. That should teach you a little about appearances.

1648: 1494:

may also be of interest). Agree on the Ciara discog; will close tomorrow unless there are major developments there. As for the other ... thing,

1285: 1270: 1247: 798: 543: 6947: 6751: 6523: 6505: 6448: 6216: 6140: 6126: 6092: 6083: 6068: 6062: 5827: 5719: 5683: 5676: 5634: 5595: 5577: 5539: 5489: 5480: 5403: 5388: 5282: 4733: 4474: 4038: 3979:

My post was at 20:57, 20 August 2010, and I asked his opinion on something myself, so I still disagree. But why are we arguing over this? =)

3624: 3610: 3592: 3574: 3560: 3367:

I made my choice and put it up there. I wasn't sure if you wanted me to do anything else. If you do, let me know. Thanks for the opportunity!!

3344: 3315: 3289: 3135: 3070: 3008: 2931: 2736: 2716: 2204: 2190: 1859: 1843: 1680: 1414:

Hey dude. So, you have a couple to close which I inadvertently voted in, plus it'd be interesting to see your thoughts on two sudden issues -

1401: 1383: 710: 137:

Just a note: All commentary about this case will almost exclusively take place on the case page, so you may want to keep it watchlisted. Best,

5701: 5653: 5341: 4882: 4837: 4512: 4381: 4356: 3956: 3434: 3238: 3224: 3196: 2917: 2903: 940: 922: 868: 203: 6377: 6160: 5660: 5612: 3356: 3229:

If you to go to FAC now, that's quite alright. I wouldn't change the current FLC into an FAC; it's always better to start with a clean page.

2589: 2544: 2446: 1692: 1585: 994: 684: 426:

I'm home, but need a few more days of R&R; if Karanacs is around, we should be able to get the ball rolling before the end of the week.

300: 6536:

I assume it's just an oversight, but I've already done them and they should be move=sysop. You might want to go back and fix them. :) Best,

5691: 5009:, not truth. In addition, when multiple users disagree with your edits, the normal course of action is to discuss them on the talk page and 4927: 4494: 4458: 3926: 2166: 6348: 6195: 6169:“This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.” 5365: 4663: 4553: 2984: 2674: 1253: 1172: 1121: 1109: 5968: 4609: 3743: 3729: 3715: 3422: 3274: 6589: 6357: 4706: 825: 5443: 640: 608: 568: 291:

the ELs, but on further consideration I should have taken the safe route and commented them out. Let me know if there is anything else.

6305: 6180: 5664: 1555: 5520: 2704: 7044: 6315:

I think you made a mistake using rollback of 68.219.42.148 post to Wizardman talk page, I was fooled by the IP revert of you. Thanks

4889: 4231: 3532: 2458: 1225: 218:

at FAC. I thought it was in pretty good shape but it obviously needed some expert attention. Thanks to your help, it got promoted! --

5326: 3328:

I saw your recent note about West not being inducted as a contributor. Do you know which list he should be on? Thanks for you help.

2324: 1633: 416: 349: 5954: 4773: 2236: 1368: 3758:

Thank you! Can't believe I did not know about it. He should have told me about it! I was helping him with the article beforehand.

3683:'s sig ironically obscures who wrote the comment, rather than clarifies. Anyone using popups who hovers over the original sig (as 2853: 1491: 1090:

I been looking at your contributions closely and I'm wondering if you are interested in an RFA. You are qualified for one. Thanks

5918: 4918:

Yep, it was just the "User:". As to your second question, anyone can see your second link and be able to edit that page. Cheers,

4449:

Now that it's official...git to werk! And all that stuff. Um...well, I said congrats three days ago, I now say it officially!

4257: 4253: 3905: 2841: 2369:

Yep, sorry about that. It doesn't help that I'm on an unfamiliar laptop without a mouse (I always use one), which slows me down.

345: 4148: 3415: 3376: 1238:

a few months ago, and many editors just gave up on alt text altogether because nobody could agree on how to write it correctly.

4667: 4361:

Milk, two sugars. Or tea with lemon. (Didn't you know, junior admin buys caffeine!) Enjoy the new buttons, you'll be fine.

2830: 979: 6040: 6001: 5730: 5463:

know and we'll be happy to reconsider moving the article back into namespace. Please note that all Knowledge articles must be

5237: 4104: 4075: 4009: 3551:

I actually used to review all sorts of FLCs (including football lists) back in the day. I'll try to take a closer look later.

2295:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 1141: 1021: 6888: 6336: 6154: 5988: 5347: 5278: 4718: 3676: 2635: 2311:

if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the

1673: 6996: 4968:

If you know something is true , have enough facts and date about it , proof and sources , how would you go about adding it?

4671: 4034: 3700: 3598: 3583:. I understand the merits of a wikicup, I really do, but the effect of a sudden flood could be quite chilling on reviewers. 1344: 7109: 4769: 4436: 4140: 4096: 4057: 3545: 3248: 2231: 2139: 1176: 957: 893: 814: 765: 483: 227: 6967: 6240: 5642: 5300:

also needs to be moved, though (and any subpages that it has, which in this case I don't think it has any). Thanks again!

3649: 1890: 1796:

assuming innocence until the man wandering through the scene of the massacre waving a blood-covered sword is proven guilty

1747: 6562: 6290: 6049:

is used only for actual articles about Knowledge, whereas this page is used for its administration. Try a subcategory in

5847: 4999: 4170: 4162: 2990: 2153: 1439: 806:

Not really going to have time to look at the Rivington list before I go, alas. Ought to be packing right now, really...

657: 315: 284: 6466: 6186:

Hi Greg, unfortunately I know next to nothing about the spam pages, but I have asked another administrator to help out.

5823: 5796: 5556:

1. IPs are extremely useful over there, and a string of Eastern European and South American leagues are about to finish.

5097:

etc.. Where in the end , you revert it to what it was befor i contributed and lock it. That last action involved you .

4956:

I even started a discussion about the whole thing , people didn't takle the time to coontribute and just kept blanking.

3066: 2521:

Alright, thanks again. I've answered the three questions, and yes, I did mention the date-delinking case in question 3.

5869: 5722:

a slew of featured sounds today (which doesn't happen often). Thought there might be a place in the Signpost for them.

5411: 5297: 5179: 5035: 4991: 4899:

Also, if I give another user (who is helping me out) this link, will they be able to see and edit it or is it private?

4193: 3100: 2697: 2181:

Feel free to add another one. Your FLCs are usually low-maintainence, and you've done more than your share of reviews.

2052: 2013: 1979: 399: 131: 6274:

Ahh ok Dabomb. Just checking since a similar rule is there at FAC, where a mandatory 14 days gap is needed. Thanks. —

5530:

after the initial ten (almost certainly an attempt to gain "autoconfirmed" rights) is very telling. Will keep an eye.

4822: 3337: 2278: 7148: 6050: 4236: 3771: 2594:

OK, ready to go-- I didn't write enough (pout), but Karanacs already covered it well! I'll be out most of the day.

2470: 2147: 2077: 6232:

seems totally premature, seeing that the nominater already has another list up for FLC, which is failing anyways. —

5855: 4781:

Hi Pedro. I deleted your article because it did not demonstrate how the company is important or significant, as per

4533: 4479:

188-0? Blimey, that's impressive! Anyway, congrats, and if you need any mopping help, feel free to give me a shout.

4027: 4020: 3941: 3805: 2431: 2262: 2161: 6394: 6373: 5682:

on the task force page upto standards would be good... several articles look interesting and something I could do.

5573: 5516: 5497: 5439: 4962:

This is nothing more than harassment and ganing up on me from a couple of regulars who know eachother. Sad Sad Sad

4858: 3778: 3303: 3262: 3104: 2771: 1855: 1805: 1728: 468: 438: 403: 374: 186: 6319: 4341: 3171: 847: 118:

to their talk page. I guess that the user then went through my contributions, noticed that I had discussed on the

5792: 5289: 3155: 2346: 2138:

Did you know it takes about 18-23 seconds to get a new IP address this days? Or better yet...use someone else's?

1517: 1191:

also become involved in this and the generally wider discussion? If not at least some advice would be helpful. --

910: 843: 275:

which the previous version did. But not the Village Square, never the Village Square. Take another look. Thanks,

182: 3597:

I don't do much with GA, but the folk over there tend to like more freedom in the way the process is conducted;

3485: 2999:. I didn't revisit as I was on vacation :) I'm glad this didn't prevent the article from being promoted though. 2888: 2859:

No problem, I just happened upon it and decided to make the tweaks now to save you from SandyGeorgia's wrath :)

2580:

I've tweaked my nom statement for what is hopefully the last time, so whenever Sandy is ready, we can go ahead.

2244: 1715: 6406: 3421:

Funny is good (RfA can be such an uptight environment, no?). You'll have to share the "fake oppose" honor with

3041: 2969: 4184:

it and it will certainly be useful to revert vandalism. Also, congratulations on becoming an admin. Cheers! —

1094: 6424: 6412: 6164: 5506: 4753:

This company isn't different. I posted public information, there was no publicity, only stating that exists

2807: 1948: 1886: 1777: 1743: 1622: 1616: 1349: 970:

You absolutely called it on the CSD. I went ahead and chucked it out under A7. Thanks for letting me know! -

553: 97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 5600: 6400: 5884: 380: 6724:, so I think you should tend to that one for now instead of trying to juggle multiple noms at a time. The 4624: 1495: 6418: 4747:

There are several companies with sites in the Knowledge. Even smaller ones like hotels and hostals like:

4181: 3670: 3402:

There have been no real serious opposes (other than the so-called "badge of honor" troll), so I put up a

3397: 3004: 2788:

Yeah, but that "oppose", pretty convincing, dontchathink? I'm thinking about changing my opinion.......

1207: 962: 341: 1831: 7082: 7039: 6866: 6797: 6709: 6659: 6613: 5757: 4688: 3968: 3893: 3851: 3829: 3792: 3782: 3765: 2793: 2631: 2512: 2481: 2312: 2298: 1476: 1454: 1435: 1073: 1039: 1014: 856: 736: 696: 654: 509: 361:

Can you explain what you mean? That could well be the problem.ValenShephard 00:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

38: 5736:

Thanks for the update. I'll let Tony know; he can probably do better job than I of writing up blurbs.

5034:

A link to the ad-aware forum , where an employee explains to why they added popup ads is not enough ?

4414:}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ 3127:

Getting away from the RfA (it's looking successful BTW, 170-2-1, so I offer a premature congrats!)...

1426:. As ever, keep up the good work, I took the liberty to extend out your (and my) tenure at Matthew's 728:

for the reply, and thanks again generally speaking for all of the work you do at FLC and elsewhere. --

233:

No problem. Feel free to ping me if you bring more articles to FAC in the future. Congrats on the FA.

7017: 6330: 5994: 5271: 5264: 4739: 2210: 1654: 1258: 1168: 1137: 636: 604: 564: 6982: 4278: 3777:

I don't think the current article title is appropriate, but I'm unsure as to whether changing it to

2391:

No worries, my fault, I should have checked the history as the first thing when I couldn't find it.

6022: 4765: 4431: 4144: 4100: 4051: 3910:

Now they want to rip that badge of honor away. That troll apparently doesn't count as a !vote. =D

2849: 2835: 2374: 2226: 2111: 2073: 2002: 1994: 1944: 1882: 1773: 1739: 580: 223: 6940: 6933: 5332:

Done. If you need anything else moved in the future (assuming it's uncontroversial), just ask me.

2722:

the corner. Unfortunately, I have a sick wife and 3 kids under the age of 6 that keep me busy.---

6993: 6927: 6916: 6885: 5851: 5713: 5624: 5290: 4700: 4566: 4166: 3646: 3496: 3457: 3372: 3362: 1518: 320: 6296:

think the tools will prove to be a help in your delegate work - I'm glad you finally got them.

5873: 5559:

2. Reviewers and admins generally know how to get someone disruptive blocked extremely quickly.

5372: 5318: 5233: 5219: 5183: 5039: 4995: 4305: 3913:

Sorry, I just like amusing things in serious discussions like this. =) And I'm observing with

3620: 3588: 3541: 3488:. Still laugh about it. Hope I'll be the first to congratulate you on your future adminship! -- 3406:

while having already supported (youreplied to that one, #169). You're welcome to comment. =)

3096: 3059: 3052: 2753: 2602: 2557: 2507:

Mind you, only 74 edits at portal talk... I'm not sure you're taking any of this seriously....

2498: 1599: 1549: 1427: 1297: 874: 464: 434: 395: 148: 4309: 4297: 3866:

hard), but would prefer that you seek consensus for it beforehand (at the FLC, if necessary).

3088:

Knowledge:Featured topic candidates/2009–10 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/archive1

3078:

Knowledge:Featured topic candidates/2009–10 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/archive1

2271: 2058: 7105: 7067: 7024: 6851: 6808: 6782: 6694: 6644: 6598: 6576: 6545: 6531: 6280: 6238: 6209: 6202: 5940: 4677: 4647: 4591: 4507: 4377: 4352: 4293: 4189: 3527: 2789: 2627: 2508: 2477: 2283: 1703:

Yes, I am watching it, but I haven't had time to fix the things. I will get to it tomorrow.--

1472: 1471:

being dealt with so perhaps you could look it over and decide if it should continue to run.

1450: 1431: 1318: 1266: 1215: 1196: 1188: 1069: 1035: 1009: 810: 776: 761: 729: 689: 651: 504: 248: 6730:

until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed

6339:), but on balance there are better ways to deal with the disruption than continual reverts. 4301: 3443:

Knowledge:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Drake/archive1

3253:

Hi, please confirm that you requested a doppelganger on ACC just a few minutes ago. Thanks,

2844:. I plan to take it to FAC this week and I appreciate having your expert help in advance. -- 2762:

That must be a new record for speed. Now I'm just wondering if this will be a WP:200 event.

7120: 7095: 7056: 7007: 6986: 6903: 6876: 6820: 6737: 6683: 6633: 6558: 6517: 6501: 6483: 6444: 6388: 6370: 6344: 6326: 6265: 6251: 6191: 6136: 6122: 6108: 6079: 6058: 6036: 6012: 5982: 5865: 5843: 5816: 5809: 5780: 5741: 5672: 5608: 5591: 5570: 5535: 5513: 5476: 5435: 5427: 5399: 5384: 5361: 5337: 5248: 5201: 5065: 5021: 4982: 4923: 4878: 4833: 4798: 4757: 4729: 4714: 4529: 4204: 4136: 4120: 4092: 4080: 3998: 3871: 3813: 3739: 3711: 3660: 3606: 3570: 3556: 3475: 3430: 3387: 3352: 3308: 3285: 3267: 3234: 3192: 2980: 2899: 2864: 2776: 2731: 2712: 2692: 2646: 2571: 2540: 2526: 2442: 2252: 2200: 2186: 2065: 1975: 1963: 1920: 1852: 1839: 1802: 1762: 1725: 1688: 1644: 1581: 1567: 1503: 1397: 1379: 1364: 1340: 1328: 1307: 1281: 1243: 1152: 1133: 1117: 990: 918: 864: 831: 794: 751: 718: 668: 632: 620: 600: 588: 560: 526: 459: 449: 370: 333: 296: 238: 199: 170: 6624:

There were multiple opposes, many of which were legitimate concerns about issues (such as

2247:) and look at their page histories to identify editors with similar interests. Good luck! 1621:

Hey there, I was taking a look at the FL promotions, and my initial thought was to choose

8: 7144: 6972: 6223: 5973: 5912: 5788: 5771: 5752: 5312: 5012: 4854: 4818: 4469: 4454: 4426: 4423: 4047: 4004: 3984: 3963: 3952: 3922: 3888: 3846: 3824: 3787: 3760: 3680: 3513: 3411: 3220: 3167: 3143: 2927: 2913: 2884: 2845: 2476:

Phew. I was virtually unconscious through holding my breath for the last few weeks....!

2370: 2221: 2107: 2069: 1998: 1639:

No, that's quite all right. We'll alter the caption to mention that you picked the list.

1625:, but I see that a picture from it has already been included. Should I pick another one? 1180: 1127: 1000: 953: 936: 904: 889: 839: 219: 178: 111: 105: 6990: 6913: 6882: 6812: 6675: 6301: 6046: 5803: 5258: 4561: 4403: 4240: 4014: 3643: 3491: 3452: 3368: 3333: 3323: 2585: 2466: 2427: 2308: 1667: 1423: 1333:

Knowledge:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Up in the Air/archive1

1056: 975: 311: 280: 127: 47: 17: 6977:

Hi -- sorry to bug you again but I'm guessing you'll know the answer to this quickly.

3687:) sees the information on his static (67. at work) user page that explains all, while 5687: 5638: 5226: 5193: 4933: 4907: 4808: 4616: 3636: 3108: 3091: 3084:

Knowledge:Featured topic candidates/2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team

2746: 2595: 2550: 2491: 2452: 2216: 2040: 1593: 1543: 1534: 1529: 1101: 427: 407: 390: 209: 139: 5586:

I'm willing to try pending changes, once the semi-protection ends in a couple days.

4063: 1541:(who have been actively helping me on this) prior and he recommended you. Thanks... 7130: 7101: 6568: 6537: 6469:

by Lomborg may be viewed as a bombshell, so it would be wise to keep an eye out at

6310: 6275: 6260:

There's no mandatory "gap" required between two unsuccessful nominations, however.

6233: 6176: 5964: 5933: 5724: 5485:

Thanks. I have updated the text and added several references. Please have a look..

4583: 4548: 4500: 4485: 4373: 4349: 4334: 4214: 4185: 4175: 4154: 3931: 3046: 3034: 2962: 2947: 2823: 2667: 2409: 2122: 2095: 1898: 1754: 1709: 1627: 1311: 1262: 1230: 1211: 1192: 1184: 807: 772: 758: 537: 477: 115: 6470: 5980:

Can you move this to Combo guard? The second word should be in lower case. Thanks—

5352:

bonjour, i don't suppose you know anyone who could help out getting this revived:

3020:

User_talk:Gadget850#List_of_Eagle_Scouts_.28Boy_Scouts_of_America.29.E2.80.8E_size

2922:

Thanks. I just got your message and one from somebody else saying the same thing.

2302: 1261:

as, if I understood the comments/procedure correctly, is close to being passed? --

6895: 6748: 6512: 6478: 6383: 6367: 6132: 6104: 6075: 6032: 5698: 5650: 5567: 5510: 5486: 5460: 5431: 5395: 5357: 4710: 4411: 4362: 4271: 3725: 3696: 3298: 3257: 3183: 3147: 3131: 2766: 2724: 2685: 2549:

Ack -- hang on -- if you want to transclude it now, let me pound out my co-nom.

2392: 2353: 2339: 2321: 2290: 2172: 1849: 1799: 1722: 1393: 1360: 1336: 1324: 356: 7139:. I'm going to review and figure out the correct way to do that in the future. 1757:, I can't blame WFC for drawing those conclusions. What do you expect me to do? 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

7141: 6625: 5904: 5464: 5353: 5302: 4945:

Keeping finding new excuses to remove what I added does not make it less true.

4850: 4843: 4814: 4782: 4539:

Congratulations from me as well on an incredibly successful RFA. Best of luck,

4466: 4450: 4415: 3980: 3948: 3918: 3509: 3407: 3216: 3163: 3112: 2923: 2909: 2880: 1698: 949: 932: 900: 885: 835: 789:

there will be a "featured lists" section, and you can insert your blurb there.

411: 215: 194:

You're welcome. If you have any questions about Knowledge, please ask. Cheers,

174: 161: 5928:

With regards to all the recent developments for discographies your comment at

5663:. Find one that stands out to you as especially deficient, and nominate it at 4979:

Show me how it's done. Show me how to get an unpopular truth into wikipedia..

7116: 7052: 7003: 6899: 6816: 6733: 6725: 6679: 6671: 6629: 6554: 6497: 6440: 6340: 6297: 6261: 6247: 6187: 6118: 6054: 6008: 5898: 5737: 5668: 5604: 5587: 5531: 5472: 5380: 5376: 5333: 5244: 5197: 5061: 5017: 4919: 4874: 4870: 4866: 4829: 4794: 4725: 4525: 4267: 4200: 4116: 3938: 3867: 3809: 3735: 3707: 3656: 3602: 3566: 3552: 3471: 3426: 3383: 3348: 3329: 3281: 3230: 3188: 3122: 3013: 2976: 2941: 2895: 2860: 2708: 2642: 2581: 2567: 2536: 2522: 2462: 2438: 2419: 2248: 2196: 2182: 1959: 1916: 1912: 1835: 1827: 1795: 1758: 1684: 1662: 1640: 1577: 1563: 1499: 1409: 1375: 1277: 1239: 1235: 1148: 1113: 1105: 1051: 986: 971: 914: 860: 819: 790: 714: 664: 645: 616: 584: 522: 445: 366: 307: 292: 276: 249: 234: 195: 123: 6722:

Knowledge:Featured list candidates/Mariah Carey singles discography/archive1

4372:

Congrats! I'm sure you'll do well. Hope you're enjoying your shiny new mop!

4111:

I didn't actually revert your edits. You may wish to discuss the issue with

3961:

Actually, I beat you both. I was requesting his first admin action above :)

1997:). But evading your block to ask your question is probably not a good idea. 501:

Knowledge:Featured list candidates/List of cities and towns in Utah/archive1

6956: 6436: 5502: 5057: 4903: 4786: 4785:. Articles are considered "notable" if they receive significant mention in 4676:

Random factoid - You have the highest support tally for any unopposed RfA.

4263: 3177:

Hi! First, thanks for the early congrats. Second, the article is looking a

1538: 1085: 663:

No, I just need a better sense of humor. The Internet is hard sometimes...

576: 385:

You commented at a prior discussion for this candidate. Please comment at

7135:

Thanks for cleaning up the mess I made trying to fix a copy-paste move on

7136: 6354: 6316: 6172: 6067:

Thank you. I added two other categories. Does the same reason apply to

5974: 5960: 5834: 5468: 5456: 5006: 4744:

I would like to know why did you eliminated the site JTSL from the wiki?

4540: 4480: 4325: 4112: 3753: 3025: 2953: 2874: 2818: 2658: 2329: 1721: 1704: 1091: 1049:

Yes I am still keeping up with it and the errors will be corrected soon.

421: 6567:

Hey, if I had a penny for every time I've cocked up, I'd be a rich man!

4161:

Thank you for the kind offer to start the AFD - I'll take you up on it.

2120:

Not a problem, you've got enough admin talk page stalkers to be okay ;)

306:

That looks fine to me. Welcome to the murky world of Nigerian politics!

4748: 4602: 3721: 3692: 2997:

Knowledge:Featured list candidates/List of Digimon video games/archive1

5566:

not needing to interact with Jamen on those lists, it would return. --

4071: 6362:

On that note, I'm unfamiliar with the procedure, but I presume that

6088:

Not wanting to burden you with this question, I have gone ahead and

4984: 4391: 3146:

says the article might now qualify for FA with the recent changes.

1112:), and as soon as they are ready I will go through with it. Cheers, 4155: 1335:. I would appreciate your considered comments on the nomination. -- 260:

Duplicate some basic bio information (you started to clean this up)

473:

Knowledge:Featured list candidates/List of cities in Utah/archive1

263:

Remove a note, not sourced but probably true, on an honorary title

1915:

only so far, and you are near the end of that leash, I'm afraid.

4637: 2215:

Hey. I was just wondering as to your reason for the closing the

6228:

length of days between two nominations by a same user? Because

4399: 3862:

I don't mind doing that (once I figure out how... doesn't look

3205:

First, saw the reply before seeing the Talkback template. *LOL*

3154:

We've looked at a similar article that is already FA, which is

4959:

Is the one that complains the quickest the one that is right?

2171:

I'm drowning in work that is ready to nominate. Just saying.

387:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Millennium Park/archive3

5930:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Discographies/style#Time to update

5891:

Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Justin Bieber

1167:

Hi there, You'll probably know me from the FL nomination for

1028:

Knowledge:Featured list candidates/Ciara discography/archive1

6950: