Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:06, 17 November 2008

Note: I'll always reply to comments that are asked on my talk page under the same section to make the discussion easier to follow, so if you ask anything or make a comment, put this page on your watchlist until you receive your answer/reply. Thanks! Dabomb87 17:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Archives

July 2007–August 2008 September 2008–October 2008

Media naturalness theory article

Hi Dabomb87. It took me a while, but I think that now the media naturalness theory page is properly formatted, referenced, etc. Can you take a look and let me know what you think? My next project will be on channel expansion theory, which has also been getting a lot of citations lately. Best regards.--Senortypant (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Tennis articles

Hi Dabomb87 - just to let you know, Tennis expert undid your unlinkings, and I've repeated the unlinkings, in an attempt to bring these articles in line with the MoS, but he's now busying himself reverting my work on those articles too. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I know—the only thing we can do is to keep persisting. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Baseball Year

Can you please stop removing the Template:Baseball Year per WP:CONTEXT#Dates, I see that you are keeping it in the infobox, but why are you removing them from the article.--Yankees10 03:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed the ones in the article, they are harder to distinguished. Consider using writing out "Baseball Year" in those templated dates so when I run the script, they are kept intact. Compare {{by|1987}} and {{Baseball Year|1987}}, the second template does not get delinked when the script is used. In addition, I don't think you need to link every year to a baseball year, especially in the prose. Once readers get to a baseball year article, they can navigate to the other ones from there. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

See this edit to see how the second BY template is preserved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait, so you are not doing this manually? im confused--Yankees10 03:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I am using a script which automatically delinks the articles—hence the identical edit summaries— but lets the user of the script preview the changes made and make other manual edits if needed. What I did in the baseball players' articles was I used the script to automatically delink all the dates, and then I manually restored the Baseball Year links. In a nutshell, I am using a script (not a bot) to delink the dates, but I have the power to modify those delinkings in the same edit. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. When I restored some of the Baseball Year links, I used an edit summary of my own instead of the one produced by the script, that is why it seems like I delink dates manually. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for fixing it--Yankees10 04:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Lazare Ponticelli

Greetings. For Lazare Ponticelli, we are using year links for someone noted because of extreme age. hus, the reader can easily access the year 1897 to find out what people were doing when he was born. ~the editorofthewiki ~ 17:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I see what you are saying. However, linking to what are essentially a trivia articles for one does not aid readers' understanding of Lazare Ponticelli's life or his accomplishments. If readers really want to know what went on that year, they can enter the year into the search box. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Date linking

I notice you're running a script which removes full date links. Can you please stop running the script? There is currently no consensus for the removal of date links (see WT:MOSNUM) and doing so only hinders our ability to format those dates later. Thanks! —Locke Cole • t • c 19:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Date Linking with a reason

According to the below policy, date-linking is OK if there is a reason to do so:

Linking of dates Shortcuts: MOS:UNLINKYEARS MOS:UNLINKDATES Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked, unless there is a reason to do so. More information can be found at WP:CONTEXT#Dates. In particular, dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting (even though in the past this was considered desirable).

Yet your apparently automated edits do not consider whether there might be a reason. In particular, any article dealing with biography, longevity, or historical events have a good argument for date-linking. Remember, date-delinking was originally begun once autoformatting was no longer needed. Unfortunately, people like you have misinterpreted the policy into a "zero tolerance" policy.Ryoung122 07:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Your rationale below is faulty:

Current revision as of 02:40, 9 November 2008 (edit) (undo)Dabomb87 (Talk | contribs) (do not link dates, it is against MOSNUM and the links do not aid readers' understanding

It is NOT against MOSNUM to link dates; it is only against MOSNUM to link dates without a "reason to do so." Also, links DO aid reader's understanding. What do you think the purpose of a date is? To allow readers to place a person or event in historical context. Enabling the user to click on the date to see "what happened in year X" makes a lot of sense.Ryoung122 08:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not meant for discretionary browsing; if users want to do that, the search box is awfully handy. That "without a reason to do so" wording is awfully ambiguous and is still under discussion, it just happened to be what was on the page when it was protected. Even so, if linking a year provides "historical context", what is the point of linking a month and the day? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:List of Nobel Laureates in Literature

I believe David finished his review (per the edit summary, it was his last review). — sephiroth bcr 01:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Iron Maiden discography

Hi, you can give a help to this list? This job is about to be finalized, but needs a copyedit, then take a look on this page. If not an uncomfortable, I need you to merge information that was written by the user on the main list. In short, make a mix between the best of both texts. Cannibaloki 02:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I copy-edited the sandbox page, but I will have to do the merge tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

State highways in Hamilton County, New York FLC

I have resolved all your comments on the FLC. Thanks!Mitch32 19:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/Chief Justice of the Common Pleas

Heya. I struck their comments to indicate the concern there was dealt with, not for any other purpose. Ironholds (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I know, but from the FLC instructions: "Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors". put little "dones" next to the resolved comments instead. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Righty-o, sorry! Ironholds (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Do you think that the lead about Iron Maiden's discography (here) could make it to pass the FLC, I'm just talking about the lead, not the whole article. I saw you made a copyedit, so if you could suggest me the best way to make it look professional, I'd appreciate it. Thanks  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 17:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/List of Irish ODI cricketers

Thanks for you review of the list, my fixefox plugins are playing up at the moment so my spelling is a bit unpredictable. I've made these changes to the article per your suggestions and was wondering if you now feel the article is in a better shape? It's good to have the view of someone who doesn't know about cricket as it's easy to forget some terms aren't clear to everyone, so thanks again for your time. Nev1 (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and helping polish the article. Happy editing. Nev1 (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/List of FA Cup winners

I've replied :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Extra "original"

That's what happens when you think you're being really clever by doing a search-and-replace in Wordpad :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/List of One Piece video games (3)

Hi, the "table issue" has been somewhat addressed. Please reexamine the list. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning regarding unlinking of dates

As this practice (and the actual manual of style guideline) are currently in dispute, you should probably back off of unlinking dates until the dispute is resolved. Prior ArbCom cases have looked unfavorably on editors who attempt to force through disputed changes on a massive scale as you (and other editors) are doing. Specifically, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli, which I quote:

Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.

— Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli

Continuing this behavior could be considered disruption. Please stop and instead participate in the ongoing discussions at WT:MOSNUM and elsewhere. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)