User talk:Dabomb87/Archive 26

4274:. It's also very against the culture of Wiki: your edits count, not who you say you are, since any one of us could be an Essjay. We are judged by our edits, not our allegations of who we are. I hope this doesn't have to come to a head on this particular issue, because it would be unfair to those particular admins. We don't know that editor has an advanced degree-- he's a bunch of ASCII characters on a screen. I'm not saying we don't AGF or that we don't believe them-- I'm saying we shouldn't feed future ESSJAY issues and start down a slippery slope that will make the reward culture that already exists at RFA even worse. Please think about it-- if you were out and about in more areas of Wiki, you'd see how badly the reward culture is affecting the entire Project. 1138:

troublesome because I am currently applying for positions at other universities, and when people reviewing my applications look me up on the internet it is most likely that they will view these discrediting words. What makes this also disconcerting is that the person making these changes seems to be listed as an anonymous guest user. Or can you help me to find out who this was by their ip addresses? I have also just noticed that the ip user who made these slanderous changes has also previous made changes to the bio of another living musician, Bill Watrous, and the history of his entry indicates that Mr. Watrous also had to immediately reverse the change that this unknown ip address user made. Please help us avoid these vandals! thank you, Paul

1371:(Relating to the 'Backhouse Shuffle' deleted at 15:27, 10 October 2010) It says you deleted the article under 'G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion.' I do not understand how the page was exclusively promotional? The Backhouse Shuffle is neither nonsense nor a piece of advertising, it is the name of a dance move which is becoming popular (as the article said) in and around the London area in clubs and dance-halls amongst young adults. The articles purpose was merely to INFORM those who did not know a) What the Backhouse Shuffle is b) How and who created it and c) How to do the Backhouse Shuffle. I beg you to reconsider your decision of deleting this key article. Thankyou. 4600: 3773: 3629: 2338: 2123: 281: 4670: 31: 3279: 3202: 4609: 1637:, the removal of PC on individual articles (my aforementioned mass removal notwithstanding, but that was a different beast) has not been controversial enough to require prior discussion (and until you posted at my talk page, there was no indication that this one would be either). That said, I will of course honor the consensus of any talk page discussion and reverse my action if need be. 2808: 1698:; however in this circumstance I feel that most editors here - under the collective goal of building an encyclopedia - would have discussed this potential change first on the article talk page -- or at least left an edit summary describing the reasoning. In this case, other uninvolved editors have in recent past established that this article is written in accordance with 3902:(talk page stalker) At the moment, admins should be prepared to justify the use of pending changes over other forms of protection when challenged. But FWIW Dabomb doesn't appear to be using it as a "routine alternative to semi-protection". He has used pending changes three times in the last week, which is low compared to the number of semi-protections he has applied. — 1652:

was easily dealt with. You can remove it although I will ask you not to and attempt to find out as much as possible about who wanted it removed and why and if other users disagree, but I have not the time or the energy to open lengthy discussions on the talkpage in an effort to get consensus to replace it after you have removed it.

1303:. As per normal, I hope there's nothing going through FLC that I haven't had a chance to look at. If there is, then of course I trust your judgement (I'm sure you would have nudged me if that was the case, anyway!). But hopefully in a week or so I'll be able to get back on FLC full-time for a couple of days a week. Much love. 3815: 3346:

You just delete my page on AbuseHelper. The deletion have been done because it contains some similar text than on BruCon.org wiki. It's normal has I have written both text. I already mention it when Knowledge bot found the text. Please, restore the page! I could proove that I'm the author of the

1651:

I appreciate your comments. From my position, we are still in trial and the more we can find out the easier and the more beneficial towards the projects goals our final decision will be, so simple removal at present is imo not worthwhile, the level of IP vandal contributions there was at a level that

4420:

Hi Dabomb87; Thank you for protecting the article, which has been a battleground for two IPs that appear to be single purpose accounts on behalf of their candidates. My question regards your reversion to an earlier version, in which properly sourced content that did not violate any policies has been

3141:

for TFAR on 28 November, but I'm not sure if I'm calculating the points correctly. The article was promoted to FA over a year ago, so I know it gets a point for that. The series premiered on 28 Nov 1932, 78 years ago. How many points would that get? Finally, would it get 2 points for there not being

1584:

Pending is working fine there, please explain why you removed it? Even better, just replace it. You should not remove it on your personal whim, you should open a discussion and explain why you think it is not working and allow users that edit the page to discuss if they think it is useful or not, if

1541:

thank you for the comment, but i would like to state that the aforementioned accounts were NOT, i repeat, NOT, sockpuppet accounts as you phrased it, and were neither created by me nor the original poster of this, they are independent users who happened to think that the cause and case for restoring

1449:

Im from the Leyton area of London and just got a text sayin that this page had been deleted. I know the guy who started the shuffle through my cousin and yeah its a real dance. Deleting the page would be stupid. The Backhouse Shuffle is everywhere and its gonna be big... i mean how many dance moves

1332:

Hi. You no doubt saw my singular closure (at the moment). I hope you would agree, in principle at least, to what I added in the closure log. Timing was unlucky, but all-in-all, a better solution would have been to fix the main article, not the list of winners. Anyway, hope to get some more done

110:

Hello, how are you today? I see there has been a dispute with the reliability of Video static. Now, im not very familiar with how we determine if a source is reliable or not. I chose to include it and thought it was reliable because its written by "Steven J Gottlieb" who is the former Senior Editor

3421:

Dabomb, these aren't really G6 candidates, especially since some of them have been here for over half a decade. In fact, if someone had sent them to RFD, I'd have !voted to keep them because when you delete redirects that old, you always do a decent amount of collateral damage and breaking of old

1849:

That is what I'm thinking about. Is it possible to remove the links, so they'll remain as black-coloured text? I'm not sure about an article for every single athletes. If they were senior Olympians, inherent notability is there. But this is the junior version... the notability level isn't as high.

1760:

tag, but rather a cleanup tag indicating that he/she has a problem with the tone of the article (in that it sounds like a promotional entry, though not rising to the level of speedy deletion). Your best course of action would be to ask Pashmina to explain their concerns on the article's talk page.

1618:

Ok, but in future would you please open a discussion on the talkpage to see what the consensus is for its removal, I had no issues with the IP additions, revert block ignore is the other option. I can see a couple of IP contributions that were not reverted and vandalism is not isolated to a single

1421:

The Backhouse Shuffle page had relative information on it that people who were concerned with the Backhouse Shuffle needed to know. It is a popularly used phrase around the London area and i myself have used and heard it on many occasions. Its not just the younger generation in said area that know

4377:

Well, when the article is actually protected, the {{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}} will put up a silver lock at the top right corner of the article, and that lock disappeared when the protection expired. Usually, a bot will remove the template shortly after the protection expires, but that didn't

1191:

hi. user: aariix3 can i write about the new estimate of Ecuadorian population did you know according to inec the ecuadorian population is around 21 million people all Ecuadorian immigrants who live in other countries such as the u.s, Italy, Germany, Switzerland,england and the highest Ecuadorian

1707:

While I'd normally be inclined to discuss this manner directly with the editor that made this change, I prefer to exercise a bit more caution here, being that my employer is the subject of this article. After noticing that you (as an uninvolved 3rd-party) weighed in on a similar scenario here:

4246:

It is in the interests of the project that readers know who our new admins are and where their skills and interests are likely to be as admins. We don't have enough admins, so I have no problem in welcoming them in a public space. The fact that we are promoting editors with advanced degrees in

1465:

First, please stick to one account when editing. It's hard for me to take you seriously when you create sockpuppets to try to convince me to change my mind. As to the article, yes, it was not promotional in the traditional sense, but nothing short of a complete rewrite from would have made the

1137:

Hi, I am having trouble with vandalism. I am currently a Full-time contracted Associate Instructor in Opera at Indiana University, and apparently one of the students here finds it amusing to change my wiki page listing me as an undergraduate band student or even a janitor. This is especially

228:

parameters. I took an existing example and simply edited it to change the parameter data to suit this case. The resulting page says that it is missing several parameters such as source and author, when they seem pretty clearly to be there. Can you tell me what I'm doing wrong? Thanks.

3164:

Hi Matt, long time no see! The article would definitely get 1 point for the date connection and 1 for time since promotion. I think that the 2 similarity points also seem reasonable, but editors often have differing opinions on them. You may want to ask for other second opinions at

3695:

It seems that he/she created another account: Historian.X1 and is posting on random users' talk pages trying to convince them to edit the article in his own way. Please take a look at his contributions/IP/etc. As I understand he is now violating even more Knowledge rules.

3966:

Hey dude. Suddenly got interested in contributing lists again, so haven't done a great deal of review/closure. I'm out shortly until tomorrow, but I had a quick look today and think the following about the oldest FLCs, in reverse order... (but feel free to ignore me):

3682:

Hi, sorry to bother you with this again, but the situation has deteriorated somewhat since I last contacted you. User Russian.science has now been blocked indefinitely due to creating multiple sock puppets and vandalism, and he appears to have created another one (user

111:

of music video trade magazine CVC Report (published from 1983 through 2004). Considering he is an author in his field i thought it would be appropriate to include the website. Please share your thoughts on this here as im watching your page. Talk to you soon :) -

3522:

function as a comparative article, but it is essentially a compiled list of several sets of data. "number-ones" sounds rather vague though, perhaps "number-one singles"? I would prefer "(1952–1969)", if that is more accurate (did they chart singles before 1952)?

2289:

I contacted Courcelles and no response, and the discussion is still stale. But the main outstanding issue was dealt with anyway, so just checking in for another status update. Also, I've seen many discogs are changing their formats due to the new changes made to

787:

article. Personally, it seems like pure vandalism/trolling, the guy has no other edits, and does enter into any discussions. I gave him/her a level 2 "unsourced info." warning, but this may not be enough. In any case, your co-operation may be required in the

1619:

article, users that can't vandalize freds page simply move to someone else's page, theoretically just moving the issue not solving it. Excessive vandalism does not imo assert not working, often it is the same two or three users that simply need blocking.

4265:

If we have verification, yes it's important. Short of verification (which would be difficult to prove in any case) the Signpost is furthering an already very bad reward culture trend at RFA by puffing up these candidates so, and increasing the chance of

4575:

I stand by my actions and will not do it: as a volunteer, I am under no obligation to perform any action. I am aware of consensus, and I will not re-delete it if another admin restores it, but I most definitely will not restore edit summary vandalism.

1813:, which seems to meet all the FL criteria, except for one issue. There are dozens of redlinks present in the article; more than half the medal winners do not have articles of their own. What do you think are the chances of this article in FLC? Thanks. 4443:

is a non-consensus set of arbitrary decisions; it is unsourced, and it does not describe the English language. I will ignore any attempt to impose it, and feel free to revert any attempt to do so without discussion - on the talk page of the article.

3006:

Hey Dabomb, sorry if I haven't been able to come back to my FLC comments lately– I've been pretty busy on the real life front lately. I'll try to get back to FLC as soon as I can but I'm pretty swamped. And thanks for checking on my comments at the

3446:

Done. I should've known better than to delete all of them, considering that I recently closed an RfD as a keep for that same reason (that's the last time I'm using batch-delete on Twinkle for a while...). Thanks for calling me out on my mistake.

3470: 1997:

Just a quick question. If someone else was the major contributor to an article, but it was nominated for FL by me, will that person receive the credit as well? Do co-nomimations work in FLC? I see some credits in FLCs going to WikiProjects.

1068: 3073:

I recognize that your time is quite valuable, so thanks for being so responsive and helpful in your recent communications with me. I've added your talk page to my watchlist, so if you are able, feel free to respond right here. Cheers,

1294:

Hey D. Just a quick note to let you know that I'll be unavailable from tomorrow morning (e.g. 1100 GMT) until Monday (around 0800 GMT), then off again as of Tuesday (around 1600 GMT) until the following Monday. First bit is a weekend

4521:; in this case, like all too much of MOS, it is disputed; it makes claims of fact about Knowledge and the English language whch are unsourced and implausible. In short, it leads over a crevasse; I'll stick with my ice-axe, thank you. 4362:

Thanks. Correct me if I'm missing something, but what's throwing me off is that as a non-admin, I don't see anything about when the protection expired. When I go to edit I still see the {{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}}. Thanks again.

716: 3478: 4160:

Where was this move discussed? Such a major article seems like it should have a consensus reached before moving, especially a move that seems to be inconsistent with the manuals of style. Are you aware that this is a word in the

541:

It doesn't seem like likely to be notable, but it appears to be a good-faith attempt to draft an article (and it's not blatantly promotional). Unless the user moves it out of his or her userspace, I'm inclined to leave it alone.

1917:

I think creating a new article each for the hundreds of athletes without one... even with a few editors, it'll take a while. I am thinking of removing the links; leave it as black text. Then go for FLC. Is that fine for an FL?

4012:

Will work on reviewing the more recent lists as soon as I get a chance. Let me know if there's anything I can help with, assuming you're okay with me continuing to review/support where necessary? Hope all is well with you.

1067:, I see that one featured list I nominated is credited to Whataworld06, my former username. I am assuming this list is compiled by a bot. Is there any way instances of "Whataworld06" could be replaced with "Another Believer" 4343:

Actually, the protection expired just yesterday, on 17:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC), which explains why the IP was able to make the edit today (30 October UTC). If the disruption is too much feel free to request protection at

3474: 560:

Yeah that sounds about like what I thought would be the best course of action. It's not like it's "Click here for our YouTube page!" or anything. Still, it is a new user, so there's always a chance s/he'll make it go live.

2650:. Or perhaps the public can't see it ... let's hope. Either way, Boxbobsam needs to be closed down: the same language that went on last year. (I believe the ISP was traced to the Australian National University last time.) 130:

Hi L-l-CLK-l-l; thanks for your thoughts. It might be better for you to post that rationale to the FLC page, where the reviewers can see it. A source's reliability is dependent on many things, but here are a few pointers:

3918:

Yep, semi-protection is always my first option. If you check my logs, I've removed PC far more than I've implemented it (and when I do, I usually explain in the box why I use PC). My application of PC does not seem to be

726: 3541:? I was leaning that way, the only reason it wasn't "number-one singles" before was because it said "singles charts" and I thought repeating singles wasn't desirable. However, you could argue that the title in this post 874:. While no means a definitive measure of notabilty, the Alexa ranking of 3,583,238 (compared to 160 for Torrentz) is likely to indicate that this site is nowhere near as notable so should not have a page on Knowledge. 1269:

Please be aware that this editor's claims about public transport in Quito are pure fabrication, including a falsely attributed photo, and that he has been banned for similar edits at least twice this year already.

2668:

Boxbobsam is not autoconfirmed, so his/her edit was not visible to the public. I've watchlisted the article, and blocked the Boxbobsam as a vandalism-only account. If activity picks up, I may have to semi-protect.

1902:

Oops, sorry for not getting back to you earlier! It's entirely your call; you've read the sources and know the subject matter, so you are the most qualified to judge whether or not an athlete is possibly notable.

1406:

I have been 'Backhouse shuffling' non stop at every party around Watford that I have been to, and agree that it is necessary for people to be enlightened with such an opportunity to shuffle the Backhouse shuffle

412:, and I've redirected the article there. The actual content in the article indicates that the editor is just trying to add his autobiography to Knowledge, and has been blocked for repeatedly recreating it. 3887:

Why are you applying pending changes protection so routinely? This interim period (which shouldn't exist at all) was supposed to use this thing sparingly, not as a routine alternative to semi-protection.—

3115:, I thought it best to err on the side of caution upfront and ask an outside observer for a second look. Appreciate you taking the time to respond to my musings on multiple occasions! All the best, 3983:

List of national parks of Pakistan - fail, not enough support by a long way and still outstanding issues. Perhaps a problem with working in a sandbox when working on the real list would be better?

426:

I'd assume you did it because he kept reposting, though at least it's not indefinite. I did offer to have it userfied but it's good you were able to find the right article to redirect it to. –

2786:

had finally stabilized and reached a consensus version (somebody left me a note to that effect recently). I hope I haven't caused too much trouble. Will take a closer look when I get the time.

441: 756: 3920: 3862: 1466:

article suitable for inclusion; it was merely singing the glories of the dance and not encyclopedic at all. I've restored the article to a userspace page where you can draft the article:

722: 458: 4547:, the RFC option is and always has been open. If you really want to effect change, that would be the road to go down, not a one-man crusade. Until then, we stick with the status quo. 2767:. We need some overall guidance here, as a few contributors are (justifiably) getting pissed off by the fact that MOS can change mid-nomination and therefore scupper existing FLCs. 3008: 1166:

Thanks for alerting to the other disruptive edit. Unfortunately, I cannot block the IP because he/she seems to be a hit-and-run vandal, which means a block will have little effect.

4295: 2509:. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 1835:

Hi AngChenrui. Yes, you'll definitely have to do something about the redlinks for the article to have a chance at FLC. Are you sure that every medal winner deserves an article?

450: 3284: 3207: 481: 3989:

Celine Dion singles discography - borderline promote. Could use another independent reviewer, preferably someone like Goodraise or Rambo's Revenge who won't pull punches.

3414: 3379: 4543:; it is common practice to use en dashes for numerical ranges (check the article for sources). Even if, as you say, a bastion of MOS "regulars" is obstructing changes to 578: 2470: 2316:. As for the discography style changes, I think it's fair to allow some time to grandfather in old-style lists (as long as you do take care of it in the near future). 2069: 1064: 378: 354: 2097:

From the outset, the article may have been about a trademark, but was focused more about the company than the trademark. There was no indication of significance or

3538: 1382: 324:

Wow, I think I must have accidentally tagged the wrong page; I know I did that a few days ago, when I was attempting to tag something right above it (that time, I

2763:

appears to have started some trouble. MOS is continually changing and now we have "fail" or "oppose" based on some obscure (and very poorly explained) change to

1071:(instead of a re-direct) so that credit can be transferred to my current account. I have no intentions of changing my username again. Just thought I would ask. -- 619:

Real life is a bit complicated at the minute, but when I have time to properly respond to reviewers, I'll be sure to renominate it. Thanks for the clarification.

599: 4220:(that particular editor is displaying five FA stars on her userpage ... ummmmm ... ) I really don't know why we're doing this at all. I wonder what happened to 2760: 118: 1412: 646:

Can I ask you to reconsider and semi-protect (not fully protect) UCL and KCL. I get the impression that you implemented full protection because of edits by

4218: 4050: 4421:

deleted in favor of content from the candidate's website--for me the acid test is how happy it's made one of the IPs, but that's incidental. Thanks again,

2740:

Hi Darren, the disruptive editing was from one user (now blockeD), so I'll wait on upping the protection for now. I'll keep an eye on the article, though.

2488: 2824:

by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!

1721: 1392:

I am from the area stated and I can confirm that this is a popular dance move that is being performed by young people, it was mentioned on Mercury 96.6FM

3875: 3869: 1673: 579: 3426: 4032: 3413: 1519: 433: 421: 148: 112: 4099:

does say "meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and

2445: 887: 2795: 1356: 1342: 1327: 1124: 1104: 845: 706: 692: 674: 4064: 3608: 3590: 3576: 3558: 3513: 1533: 4322:

Hello, there's something I'm a confused about; if you a chance to explain, I'd appreciate it. Recently, you put semi-protection on this article.

3347:

text if required. If you look at the BruCon website, you will se e that I'm the speaker for a AbuseHelper workshop were the text is coming from.

3178: 2167: 2110: 1810: 1802: 220:

Hi -- hope you don't mind a completely random question; you seem like a knowledgeable chap and I'm hoping you can help. I just uploaded an image,

1242:

Thank you but i don't know what to do when I'm done making my changes it asks me to make a summary what should i mention in that large text box?

266: 254: 209: 3999: 3758: 3740: 3358: 3124: 3102: 1897: 1788: 1770: 1751: 1737: 1139: 812: 2536:? The latter is the correct spelling and capitalization of his name, yet it redirects to the lower-cased/incorrect version of his name. Thanks! 2181:

over the current redirect. I have requested this through the G6 process so it should be done shortly, but just thought I'd let you know anyway.

1487: 633: 614: 164: 4556: 4530: 4512: 4490: 4468: 4401: 4387: 4372: 4357: 3932: 3786: 3642: 3441: 2995: 2907:

Sorry, I've been quite busy, and haven't had a chance to respond to all of my talk page queries. Will get to this later in the week, probably.

2518: 2506: 2495: 2355: 2215: 2140: 2060: 2034: 1979: 1953: 1939: 1912: 1871: 1844: 1661: 1646: 1628: 1613: 1250: 1200: 298: 4286: 4260: 2376: 2019: 1829: 3850: 3532: 3456: 3407: 2749: 2391: 2325: 2090: 1279: 1180: 1042: 1024: 1010: 990: 972: 3711: 3051:

article, as a cleanup tag was added to it without any edit summary or description. Following your advice, I reached out with a kind note at

3032: 2402:

Hi Dabomb97! Just stopped by to ask if a list composing of fictional characters can ever be nominated to a featured list status. Thanks! --

2274: 2257: 2208: 1262: 1237: 585:

Hey! Is there anything I can do to fix the article for a future FLC or was the archiving just because of the lack of participation? Thanks,

4116: 3635: 3628: 3017: 2954: 2940: 2916: 2574: 2560: 2545: 2075:

Hey you deleted the page about the trademark Maximus Studios, This is an atricle about a trademark not about the companies using it......

570: 551: 4270:-style issues by printing info that we have no means of verifying. The F&A section is also moving very far away from adminship being 4173:, so this seems like a step backwards. I am not an expert in the language, so wonder what reliable sources you have to back this up. The 3913: 2734: 2696: 2678: 2637: 2619: 1092: 3856: 3083: 2902: 124: 4585: 4326: 4323: 3835: 2776: 2663: 2425: 2362: 1601: 372: 339: 333: 3370: 2980: 2523: 2193: 492: 2465: 4660: 3001: 2610:

Tony, I've put it on pending changes so that this IP's changes can be filtered out without preventing other IPs from contributing.

2493: 1800: 1086: 829: 510: 402: 4107:

and such before considering a nomination. The lead's length seems in proportion with the size of the list, so I think it is fine.

2591:. I see the pestilence has started again; I have no idea who it is. Are you able to semiprotect again, for at least a few months? 2367:

Thanks for that pointer. I wasn't sure if Speedy Deletion was the right way to go, but couldn't work it out. Heading for RfD now.

1422:

the move, also older people in their late 20's know it. Anyone who dances should if not already does know the Backhouse Shuffle.

4103:" (emphasis mine), and that's been a bone of contention among reviewers WRT "short" lists, so you would do well to ask around at 3896: 2411: 1386: 3432:

Hmm, the ones I checked (obviously not enough) were not more than a few months old. Anyway, my mistake, and I'm restoring them.

3158: 3142:

a radio-related article on the main page in the last 6 months, or is it too close to a TV series as it's broadcast media? Best,

1459: 4148: 3256: 2710: 2174: 1401: 960: 797: 3333: 1416: 659: 650:, but he was already blocked and unblocked and should no longer be a problem. The only problems here, I think, are the IPs. 605:

Hi HJ. Yes, the lack of reviews was the reason I had to archive the FLC. It's been a few days, so feel free to renominate it.

395:

even though it's a one-liner. Since the article creator is a new user I think we should give him and the article a chance. –

242: 2846: 1562: 1442: 780: 368: 329: 3992:

List of Buso Renkin episodes - not a single support in nearly a month, but only two reviews. Where have the reviewers gone?

3779: 3772: 3498: 4570: 4337: 4224:. Can you get Tony to dramatically cut back the content on that page, and stop the puffery? Thanks for commenting out the 4207: 4193: 4078: 3677: 2082: 535: 495:, and I request you for some advice on how I can prepare myself for adminship. I will greatly appreciate your feedback :) 194: 4453: 4310: 4240: 4022: 3809: 2068: 1147: 236: 3803: 3671: 3386:

applies here. I'll take the fall for that (apologies). However, there is still no indication that the article meets our

3137:

Hiya, Dabomb. How's everything going? I have a quick thing for you if you're not really really busy: I want to nominate

1585:

not then we have some decent feedback about why its not working, not just your arbitrarily "removed not working here" .

3882: 3728: 3338: 3316: 3239: 2647: 2604: 2451: 2351: 2242: 2147: 1378: 1312: 739: 443: 921:

I'm waiting for all of the reviewers to comment on the source reliability issues raised by Courcelles. Have you asked

4477:; so? How many of them are there? Have they found any sources yet? Where Wikipedians disagree, as on the spelling of 3038: 2314: 2307: 2136: 1687: 105: 4089: 2877: 853: 314: 3909: 3320: 3243: 743: 4430: 2502: 1594: 1212: 915: 294: 179:

I can go back to breathing. It might not mean much to you but it was the most concentrated attack I've ever seen.

3956: 3138: 3052: 2966: 2683:

Thank you. I believe the subject has not seen the article and doesn't care. But that is not the point of course.

2294:. This wouldn't affect the process of this FLC since it was nominated prior to the changes were implemented, no? 2178: 2163: 1776: 1467: 946: 474: 2262: 4633:

on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!

3366: 3056: 2711: 1558: 1438: 665:

Done, thanks for letting me know. I had seen Rangoon's block, but for some reason did not make the connection.

4536: 4736: 4728: 4723: 4711: 4706: 4698: 4122: 4028:

If the only thing holding up List of MBTA Commuter Rail stations is one mroe reviewer, let me take a look...

2456:

I thought the term in question was a hoax created by the creator. Thanks for the notification. Many Regards,

1775:

Very good - I appreciate your recommendation here, and I've followed up with a good-faith note on Pashmina's

1347:

It was the right decision, in my opinion, thanks. I'm about to do some long-overdue closures myself. Cheers,

1258: 1208: 221: 200:

No problem. It's probably a planned attack of some sort (or he's suddenly prominently featured in the news).

97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 1604:. Just about every anon edit inserted vandalism or unsourced material, and was a waste of reviewers' time. 1475: 932: 430: 399: 3295: 3218: 2755: 2419: 2397: 1470:. For the article to have a chance to be included in the encyclopedia, it must be referenced to multiple 861: 503: 4677: 4043: 4018: 3601: 3569: 3551: 3491: 2772: 2438: 2159: 2025:

Yep, feel free to add other significant contributors to the nominator line at the top of the FLC page.

1512: 1338: 1308: 1117: 1079: 954: 880: 871: 688: 655: 38: 3473:

but I am struggling to name it (it would be regarded as a list not article, yes?). Thoughts have been

4656: 4641: 3690: 2842: 2429: 1366: 774: 515: 143:

Does the website/publication cite its sources and undergo a rigorous fact-checking process (or both)?

1163:

I'm unable to identify the vandals by their IP addresses. Very few editors can, for privacy reasons.

4590: 4181:

Foreign characters that resemble apostrophes...are represented by their correct Unicode characters.

3923:. Of course, if you see any articles where you believe PC to be unhelpful, feel free to revert me. 3151: 2588: 2199:

Looks like somebody else took care of that. Sorry for the trouble, and thanks for letting me know.

2086: 3270:, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions. Please post this on your user page. 4503:

to your liking does not mean you can ignore it at will (and revert those editors who follow it).

3866: 3193:, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions. Please post this on your user page 3184: 1058: 761: 427: 396: 263: 233: 187: 4328:. The protection is still on the article, so how was the IP able to edit? Thanks in advance. -- 3816:

Knowledge:Featured_article_candidates/List_of_countries_by_future_HDI_projections_of_UN/archive1

3107:

Thanks -- I agree with your note and I've gone ahead and removed the tag. My gut feeling was to

3089:

Hi Jeff. You don't need my "go-ahead" for anything—if you think it's the best course of action,

4306: 4282: 4236: 4153: 3754: 3722: 3707: 3312: 3261: 3235: 3132: 3120: 3079: 2582: 1784: 1747: 1717: 793: 735: 496: 486: 391:

I was in the midst is editing the article you were trying to delete. I'm leaning toward using

1499:

You've probably noticed I've blocked two of the above accounts (Affers123 and Nibbles2k10) as

4315: 4123: 4038: 4014: 3819: 3596: 3564: 3546: 3486: 3055:

inquiring as to which portions of the article warranted revision; however this user has been

2768: 2718: 2514: 2433: 2291: 2155:

Just to let you know, I think you overlooked the talk page move when carrying out this move.

1507: 1455: 1334: 1304: 1132: 1110: 1072: 950: 875: 684: 651: 628: 594: 386: 4247:

particular areas, and editors who are on track to produce featured content, is significant.

224:; I do this sufficiently infrequently that I can never remember the annoying details of the 4652: 4552: 4526: 4508: 4486: 4464: 4449: 4397: 4383: 4368: 4353: 4333: 4112: 4060: 3928: 3906: 3846: 3736: 3657: 3650:

Hi Dabomb87, am I supposed to provide a description for each featured list in the article?

3586: 3528: 3509: 3452: 3437: 3403: 3354: 3174: 3098: 3048: 3028: 3023:

I totally understand; I've been quite swamped too. Thanks, as always, for your FL(C) work,

2991: 2976: 2950: 2912: 2838: 2791: 2745: 2674: 2615: 2556: 2407: 2387: 2321: 2253: 2214: 2204: 2106: 2078: 2046: 2030: 2005: 1965: 1949: 1925: 1908: 1883: 1857: 1840: 1824: 1766: 1733: 1683: 1657: 1642: 1624: 1609: 1590: 1546: 1529: 1483: 1426: 1397: 1374: 1352: 1323: 1246: 1233: 1196: 1176: 1100: 1020: 968: 867: 849: 808: 770: 702: 670: 610: 547: 417: 350: 250: 225: 205: 160: 1160:(you should too, if you haven't already) so that I can quickly spot and revert such edits. 8: 4474: 4435: 4413: 4271: 4221: 4203: 4189: 3974:

List of number-one singles from the 2000s (New Zealand) - fails, just not enough support.

3799: 3766: 3166: 3145: 2643: 2344: 2337: 1275: 1157: 940: 469: 134:

Is the publication/website backed by a reputable third-party organization or corporation?

3865:. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. 3841:

Looks like Sandy and Ucucha have taken care of it. Thanks for letting me know. Regards,

3504:

Hi Rambo, I haven't forgotten this, just been busy. Will take a look later in the week.

1958:

Well, since there's no outright objection... it's going up soon. Thanks for the advice!

1579: 4686: 4630: 4496: 4104: 4072: 3971:

Ciara discography - good to promote now, Courcelles seems to have withdrawn the oppose.

3831: 3668: 3622: 3362: 2851: 2821: 2817: 2801: 2728: 2587:

Hi, there was persistent vandalism from an IP in past years, and someone semiprotected

2372: 2331: 2301: 2228: 2116: 2057: 2016: 1976: 1936: 1894: 1868: 1826: 1709: 1554: 1494: 1434: 1192:

population rate in Spain please can i have your permission to edit Ecuador article?.

1143: 1036: 1004: 984: 909: 641: 260: 230: 181: 47: 17: 4037:

Started Dion review and, yes, despite being well supported it is below standards IMO.

3995:

Timeline of town creation in the Hudson Valley - one support, but ditto re: reviewers.

727:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/1997 Michigan Wolverines football team/archive1‎

717:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/1997 Michigan Wolverines football team/archive1‎

4637: 4599: 4581: 4299: 4275: 4229: 4212: 4162: 3823: 3750: 3718: 3703: 3545:

be confused with album charts. I don't think it is likely but something to consider.

3464: 3324: 3307: 3267: 3247: 3230: 3190: 3116: 3075: 2283: 2282: 2270: 2238: 2224: 2189: 2129: 2122: 1780: 1743: 1713: 1254: 1204: 899: 789: 747: 730: 680: 521: 360: 170: 4154: 1156:

The vandalism by other editors is indeed problematic. I've placed the article on my

4141: 3940: 3691:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Russian.science/Archive

2933: 2895: 2870: 2783: 2764: 2646:. I wonder whether there's a glitch in the pending changes system that has allowed 2570: 2541: 2510: 2461: 1451: 926: 620: 586: 566: 531: 367:, and see where it goes from there; it does pass A7, but seems PROD worthy to me. 364: 310: 287: 280: 274: 215: 4522: 4482: 4445: 4393: 4364: 4329: 4255: 4174: 4029: 4008:

List of MBTA Commuter Rail stations - would prefer to see one more reviewer here.

3977:

List of awards and nominations received by Drake - stays open, needs more review.

3952: 3903: 3651: 3423: 3212: 2972: 2691: 2658: 2632: 2599: 2482: 2403: 2040: 1999: 1959: 1919: 1877: 1851: 1814: 1653: 1620: 1586: 1393: 1186: 4685:

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

46:

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

4544: 4500: 4440: 4345: 4199: 4185: 4096: 3795: 3391: 3387: 3328: 3289: 3251: 3108: 3090: 2829: 1699: 1695: 1634: 1503: 1500: 1408: 1271: 997:

Thanks to Adabow, it is a known reliable source used for the item in question.

936: 893: 821: 751: 647: 464: 4005:

Grammy Award for Best Pop Instrumental Album - wouldn't hesitate to promote...

1678:

Hi there, Looking to get your guidance/assistance on an edit that was made by

4618: 4548: 4504: 4460: 4426: 4379: 4349: 4316: 4108: 4077:

Hey, is there an official minimum number of items for a list. I'm looking at

4056: 3961: 3924: 3892: 3842: 3827: 3732: 3664: 3582: 3581:

Yep, I prefer "number-one singles". Otherwise it just sounds too colloquial.

3524: 3505: 3448: 3433: 3399: 3383: 3170: 3112: 3094: 3024: 2987: 2946: 2908: 2787: 2741: 2723: 2670: 2611: 2552: 2533: 2529: 2383: 2368: 2317: 2296: 2249: 2200: 2102: 2053: 2026: 2012: 1972: 1945: 1932: 1904: 1890: 1864: 1836: 1762: 1729: 1679: 1638: 1605: 1550: 1525: 1479: 1430: 1348: 1319: 1229: 1221: 1172: 1096: 1031: 1016: 999: 979: 964: 904: 804: 698: 666: 606: 543: 526:

It seems like an advertisement for a non-notable group comprising teenagers.

413: 392: 346: 246: 201: 156: 4540: 3697: 3684: 4577: 4055:

Thanks, all. Closing FLCs is near the top of my to-do list this afternoon.

3012: 2266: 2234: 2185: 1757: 1569: 1471: 1225: 176: 4622: 4495:

I find that argument unconvincing. That you cannot find the consensus at

4414: 4132: 4083: 3395: 2924: 2886: 2861: 2566: 2537: 2457: 2098: 1574: 1289: 922: 562: 527: 319: 306: 3861:

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at

3069:

or, preferably, revert it yourself if you see this as the best approach.

4248: 4166: 3948: 2852: 2684: 2651: 2625: 2592: 2477: 784: 4626: 3986:

List of Denver RTD light rail stations - needs a couple more reviews.

3863:

Knowledge:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure

3044: 723:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/2007 USC Trojans football team

4422: 3888: 2717:

Do you think vandalism has intensified enough for that article and

1712:, could you provide your guidance on how to best proceed? Cheers, 835: 409: 3874:

You received this message because you participated in the earlier

3481:. Or maybe "Comparison of..." would be better. I don't think "List 840:

They talk about similar tools, so I don't understand what's wrong!

1171:

Let me know if you have any other questions or requests. Thanks,

140:

Has the website/publication been cited by other reliable sources?

4296:

Knowledge talk:Knowledge Signpost/2010-11-01/Features and admins

3278: 3201: 1474:(not Facebook or any other social networking sites). Please see 4267: 4225: 4081:. Also, do you feel the lead there is too short? Thanks a lot. 1318:

No problem; I should be able to take care of things. Have fun.

3378:

Hi, after searching I noticed that the page is licensed under

870:

doesn't mean it should. The page on Bitgle would need to meet

4608: 4198:

Looks like it has been moved back. Sorry for any confusion.

4170: 4101:

could not reasonably be included as part of a related article

3998:

Mariah Carey singles discography - seems to be a niggle from

449:

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

155:

is a good article to read WRT source reliability. Good luck.

3789: