User talk:Dabomb87/Archive 26

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

→

Hello (Ciara discography)

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 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 :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

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:

Is the publication/website backed by a reputable third-party organization or corporation?
Is the author a considered a subject expert in his field?
Has the website/publication been cited by other reliable sources?
Does the website/publication cite its sources and undergo a rigorous fact-checking process (or both)?

This Signpost dispatch is a good article to read WRT source reliability. Good luck. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

THANK YOU

Now that you semiprotected Eiichiro Oda I can go back to breathing. It might not mean much to you but it was the most concentrated attack I've ever seen. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It's probably a planned attack of some sort (or he's suddenly prominently featured in the news). Dabomb87 (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

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, here; I do this sufficiently infrequently that I can never remember the annoying details of the Template:Information 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. Mike Christie (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Damn; I was looking in the wrong place. Thank you! Mike Christie (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dabomb87. You have new messages at Yousou's talk page.
Message added 20:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Made by another user. Yousou (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Re:

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 did notice my mistake, and corrected it). Sorry about that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to PROD it anyways, per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER, and see where it goes from there; it does pass A7, but seems PROD worthy to me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hubpages page

I was in the midst is editing the article you were trying to delete. I'm leaning toward using AFD 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. –BuickCentury Driver 21:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

In all likelihood, the correct target should be HubPages, 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 Wikipedia, and has been blocked for repeatedly recreating it. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

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. –BuickCentury Driver 21:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Wilkesboro Metropolitan Area listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wilkesboro Metropolitan Area. Since you had some involvement with the Wilkesboro Metropolitan Area redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Dough 48 72 00:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

review request

Hi - I just opened an editor review, and I request you for some advice on how I can prepare myself for adminship. I will greatly appreciate your feedback :) Shiva (Visnu) 15:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Sparx221/SSR

Is this something worth deleting? User:Sparx221/SSR

It seems like an advertisement for a non-notable group comprising teenagers. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

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. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

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. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by The Bill

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, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

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. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Protection

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 User:Rangoon11, but he was already blocked and unblocked and should no longer be a problem. The only problems here, I think, are the IPs. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks for letting me know. I had seen Rangoon's block, but for some reason did not make the connection. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The two of them are now at it on Durham University -- blocks in order? It would save me the trip to 3RR/N. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Done that too. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

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

As a reviewer of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2007 USC Trojans football team, I thought you might consider commenting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1997 Michigan Wolverines football team/archive1‎.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Russian.science

Hi,

User Russian.science (talk · contribs) is still reverting edits to the Andre Geim 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 future.--Therexbanner (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll keep an eye on him/her. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Bitgle

Hello,
Why did you delete the Bitgle article?
Why don't you delete also articles like Torrentz???
They talk about similar tools, so I don't understand what's wrong!
Thanks
--Torrentler (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). Just because something exists doesn't mean it should. The page on Bitgle would need to meet notability requirements for web pages. 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 Wikipedia. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Update

Hi! Wondering what's the status left on the FLC of Ciara discography? Candy o32 00:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting for all of the reviewers to comment on the source reliability issues raised by Courcelles. Have you asked Adabow (talk · contribs), Chasewc91 (talk · contribs), and The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) to look at them? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll check in with them. Candy o32 02:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Adabow, it is a known reliable source used for the item in question. Candy o32 03:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. Have you asked Courcelles to revisit now? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Going to ASAP. Candy o32 22:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Name change

Hello Dabomb87. I have a quick question. When looking here, 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" here (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. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thank you so much! --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul Mauffray

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 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 Paulmauf (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Paul, I'll reply to you in bulleted form:

The vandalism by other editors is indeed problematic. I've placed the article on my watchlist (you should too, if you haven't already) so that I can quickly spot and revert such edits.
I'm unable to identify the vandals by their IP addresses. Very few editors can, for privacy reasons.
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.

Let me know if you have any other questions or requests. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Aarrix3

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 population rate in Spain please can i have your permission to edit Ecuador article?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aariix3 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't need my "permission" to edit anything, as nobody owns articles. What's important is that you can cite a reliable source for your statement. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aariix3 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

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. Kevin McE (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Moi

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 sans internet, second bit is being abroad sans internet. 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. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem; I should be able to take care of things. Have fun. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

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 tonight before I head off tomorrow. All the best to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It was the right decision, in my opinion, thanks. I'm about to do some long-overdue closures myself. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Backhouse Shuffle

(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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.10.67 (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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 George5210 (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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 Affers123 (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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 the move, also older people in their late 20's know it. Anyone who dances should if not already does know the Backhouse Shuffle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seddon15 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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 have made it to a shout out on the radio! Nibbles2k10 (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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 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: User:Seddon15/Backhouse Shuffle. For the article to have a chance to be included in the encyclopedia, it must be referenced to multiple reliable sources (not Facebook or any other social networking sites). Please see Wikipedia:Your first article for more information. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You've probably noticed I've blocked two of the above accounts (Affers123 and Nibbles2k10) as WP:DUCKy sockpuppets. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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 the page was a valid one. Thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seddon15 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Fred

Fred Phelps

previous discussion about removing pending protection

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 not then we have some decent feedback about why its not working, not just your arbitrarily "removed not working here" . Off2riorob (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It was not "on a whim", but based on a request at RFPP. Just about every anon edit inserted vandalism or unsourced material, and was a waste of reviewers' time. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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 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. Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge and based on what I have seen at RFPP, 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. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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 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. Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested assistance // speedy deletion tag

Hi there, Looking to get your guidance/assistance on an edit that was made by USER:Pashmina to the New Media Strategies article on October 9th. This edit marked the article for speedy deletion.

I fully support the concept of WP:BOLD; 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 WP:NPOV, substantiated by third-party publications.

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: Pashmina user talk page // Speedy deletion declined: Chitika, could you provide your guidance on how to best proceed? Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your quick response -- much appreciated! Jeff Bedford (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jeff. Pashmina did not add a speedy deletion 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. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Very good - I appreciate your recommendation here, and I've followed up with a good-faith note on Pashmina's user talk page. Best, Jeff Bedford (talk) 00:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibility of this passing FLC?

Hi Dabomb87, there's this article, List of 2010 Summer Youth Olympics medal winners, 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. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk ♨ 15:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 03:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

*Nudges* ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 04:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

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. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

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? ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If reviewers are satisfied by that, then yes :) Dabomb87 (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, since there's no outright objection... it's going up soon. Thanks for the advice! ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

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. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, feel free to add other significant contributors to the nominator line at the top of the FLC page. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright thanks :) ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"Maximus Studios"

Hey you deleted the page about the trademark Maximus Studios, This is an atricle about a trademark not about the companies using it...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.206.168 (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

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 notability. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dabomb87. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
Message added 05:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dream a Little Dream of Me

Hi Dabomb87,

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

The song is now at Dream a Little Dream of Me, but its associated talk page Talk:Dream a Little Dream of Me is still a redirect to Talk:Dream a Little Dream of Me (disambiguation).

The talk page Talk:Dream a Little Dream of Me (song) therefore needs to be moved to Talk:Dream a Little Dream of Me 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.

Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like somebody else took care of that. Sorry for the trouble, and thanks for letting me know. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

St Agnes GAC

Hi Dabomb87,
This article's content now appears to be a copy and paste from its website.
--Shirt58 (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted, thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!, Dabomb87--Shirt58 (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ciara FLC

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 WP:DISCOGSTYLE. This wouldn't affect the process of this FLC since it was nominated prior to the changes were implemented, no? Candy o32 00:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully Courcelles will be able to look in again soon[1]. 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). Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dabomb87. You have new messages at Terrillja's talk page.
Message added 00:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Deletion of Redirect - Tony Coburn

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. Reynardo (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

A friendly question

Hi Dabomb97! Just stopped by to ask if a list composing of fictional characters can ever be nominated to a featured list status. Thanks! -- FDJoshua22 (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'd say it's definately possible. We have video game (e.g. List of characters in the Uncharted series) and manga (e.g. List of Naruto characters) character lists that are featured. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

RE:CSD to PROD conversion.

I thought the term in question was a hoax created by the creator. Thanks for the notification. Many Regards, Yousou (report) 15:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Re:Signpost "Features and admins" column

Sure, I'll do it. Surprised to be asked, but flattered. --Pres N 17:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Andrew Lowey

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Andrew Lowey. 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. RobRedactor (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Uncontroversial page move request

Hey again. If you get a chance, could you please move Leroy Edwards to LeRoy Edwards? The latter is the correct spelling and capitalization of his name, yet it redirects to the lower-cased/incorrect version of his name. Thanks! Jrcla2 (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Grazie. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

vandal returns

Hi, there was persistent vandalism from an IP in past years, and someone semiprotected Robert Gilbert (chemist). 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? Tony (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I've put it on pending changes so that this IP's changes can be filtered out without preventing other IPs from contributing. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Perfect! Tony (talk) 06:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

But the response was to start a user account. I wonder whether there's a glitch in the pending changes system that has allowed this. 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.) Tony (talk) 08:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

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. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe the subject has not seen the article and doesn't care. But that is not the point of course. Tony (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 Atlantic hurricane season

Do you think vandalism has intensified enough for that article and Hurricane Igor (2010) for semi protection or level 2 PC? Thanks! Darren 23^Edits|Mail 18:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

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. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Can of the usual...

This 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 WP:ACCESS. 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. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that WP:ACCESS 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. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Greetings!

Hello Dabomb87, Wilhelmina Will has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove 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!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hope you're having a good day! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Craquelure

Can you give this a look over? Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing worth changing? — Rlevse • Talk • 15:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Okey dokey cowboy. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, took a look. I learned something new today! Dabomb87 (talk) 03:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Heisman winners

Excellent work with the associated trolls/vandals. Obamafan70 (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. Not more than what I usually see. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Responding to my comments at FLC

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 No Angels discography, I'm much obliged. Nomader ^(Talk) 23:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I totally understand; I've been quite swamped too. Thanks, as always, for your FL(C) work, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Best way to move forward?

Hi there D -- we chatted briefly 1 week ago on your talk page (archived) about the New Media Strategies 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 on Pashmina's user talk page inquiring as to which portions of the article warranted revision; however this user has been inactive since Oct. 9, and hasn't responded.

In moving forward, I am hopeful that you can either:

give me the go-ahead to revert the tag,
or, preferably, revert it yourself if you see this as the best approach.

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, Jeff Bedford (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jeff. You don't need my "go-ahead" for anything—if you think it's the best course of action, be bold and remove it. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks -- I agree with your note and I've gone ahead and removed the tag. My gut feeling was to be bold, but in striving to stay in line with WP:COI, 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, Jeff Bedford (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

Hiya, Dabomb. How's everything going? I have a quick thing for you if you're not really really busy: I want to nominate Flywheel, Shyster, and Flywheel 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 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, Matthewedwards : Chat 20:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

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 WT:TFAR before making the actual request. Good luck, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Millennium Park

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions. Please post this on your user page

This user helped promote Millennium Park to featured article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Shimer College

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions. Please post this on your user page.

This user helped promote Shimer College to featured article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Bad deletion - AbuseHelper

Hi,

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 Wikipedia bot found the text. Please, restore the page! I could proove that I'm the author of the 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.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddurvaux (talk • contribs) 14:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, after searching I noticed that the page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License, so I don't believe G12 applies here. I'll take the fall for that (apologies). However, there is still no indication that the article meets our standards for inclusion on Wikipedia, so I have tagged it for deletion. Please note that all articles must be referenced to third-party reliable sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Epiphany (disambiguation). and the rest...

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 links and revisions. Courcelles 01:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, the ones I checked (obviously not enough) were not more than a few months old. Anyway, my mistake, and I'm restoring them. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

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. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Name help

I've written this but I am struggling to name it (it would be regarded as a list not article, yes?). Thoughts have been List of UK single charts and number-ones before 1969 or List of UK single charts and number-ones (1952–1969). Or maybe "Comparison of..." would be better. I don't think "Lists" of..." sounds right. What's your opinion? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rambo, I haven't forgotten this, just been busy. Will take a look later in the week. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think "List of" is fine. It can 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)? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

So List of UK charts and number-one singles (1952–1969)? 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 could be confused with album charts. I don't think it is likely but something to consider. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

{Nudge} Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I prefer "number-one singles". Otherwise it just sounds too colloquial. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dabomb87. You have new messages at AngChenrui's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Dabomb87, am I supposed to provide a description for each featured list in the article? ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 06:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Russian.science sock puppets

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 Historian.X1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Historian.X1

This is the block log: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Russian.science/Archive

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 Wikipedia rules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Historian.X1

Regards, --Therexbanner (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Historian.X1 (talk · contribs) has been blocked by a checkuser. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, yeah it has been dealt with (for now). Thanks! --Therexbanner (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

New Message

Hello, Dabomb87. You have new messages at KingpinBot's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Move a misplaced FAC to FLC

Hi, [according to this diff] the nominator of Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/List_of_countries_by_future_HDI_projections_of_UN/archive1 would like help moving it to FLC. I've also notified User:The Rambling Man and User:SandyGeorgia. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Sandy and Ucucha have taken care of it. Thanks for letting me know. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. A Horse called Man 05:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

Pending changes protection

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.—Kww(talk) 05:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

(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. —W F C— 05:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

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 out of the norm. Of course, if you see any articles where you believe PC to be unhelpful, feel free to revert me. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Thanks very much,

Ymron (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Listy

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):

Ciara discography - good to promote now, Courcelles seems to have withdrawn the oppose.
List of number-one singles from the 2000s (New Zealand) - fails, just not enough support.
List of awards and nominations received by Drake - stays open, needs more review.
Counties of Romania - promote.
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?
List of Denver RTD light rail stations - needs a couple more reviews.
Celine Dion singles discography - borderline promote. Could use another independent reviewer, preferably someone like Goodraise or Rambo's Revenge who won't pull punches.
List of Buso Renkin episodes - not a single support in nearly a month, but only two reviews. Where have the reviewers gone?
Timeline of town creation in the Hudson Valley - one support, but ditto re: reviewers.
Mariah Carey singles discography - seems to be a niggle from User:Nathan86, but has good support.
Grammy Award for Best Pop Instrumental Album - wouldn't hesitate to promote...
List of MBTA Commuter Rail stations - would prefer to see one more reviewer here.

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. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

If the only thing holding up List of MBTA Commuter Rail stations is one mroe reviewer, let me take a look... Courcelles 17:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Started Dion review and, yes, despite being well supported it is below standards IMO. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Closing FLCs is near the top of my to-do list this afternoon. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hey, is there an official minimum number of items for a list. I'm looking at List of World Heritage Sites in Cuba. Also, do you feel the lead there is too short? Thanks a lot. Grsz¹¹ 22:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Grsz. No, there is no "official minimum". However, FL criterion 3b 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 could not reasonably be included as part of a related article" (emphasis mine), and that's been a bone of contention among reviewers WRT "short" lists, so you would do well to ask around at WT:FLC 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. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Silver Knapsack Trail

Can you do your thing on this new article? Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

ʻIolani Palace

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 Hawaiian language which does not use an apostrophe? It is the mark known as ʻOkina, 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 Wikipedia:PUNCT rule clearly states that:

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

W Nowicki (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it has been moved back. Sorry for any confusion. W Nowicki (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Seriously

The Signpost is feeding the reward culture;[2] (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 WP:NOBIGDEAL. Can you get Tony to dramatically cut back the content on that page, and stop the puffery? Thanks for commenting out the Essjay-style stuff-- wow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

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 particular areas, and editors who are on track to produce featured content, is significant. Tony (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

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 Essjay-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 WP:NOBIGDEAL. 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, subtlety didn't work, so I raised the problem at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-11-01/Features and admins after severl reverts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Komodo dragon

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. [3]. I'm confused because an IP just edited the article [4]. The protection is still on the article, so how was the IP able to edit? Thanks in advance. --CutOffTies (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

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 WP:RFPP. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

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. --CutOffTies (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

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 happen here, so I've removed it manually. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense, thank you. --CutOffTies (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Rob Wittman

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 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, JNW (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Dash it all

WP:DASH 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. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion, not one supported by consensus. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Not one supported by the regulars at WT:DASH; so? How many of them are there? Have they found any sources yet? Where Wikipedians disagree, as on the spelling of color, we should agree to differ. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I find that argument unconvincing. That you cannot find the consensus at WT:MOS to remove/alter WP:DASH to your liking does not mean you can ignore it at will (and revert those editors who follow it). Dabomb87 (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a guideline; in this case, like all too much of MOS, it is disputed; it makes claims of fact about Wikipedia 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. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring the MOS for a second, let's look at the actual changes. See Dash#Ranges of values; 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 WP:DASH, 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. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Your request at my talk page

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. Nyttend (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

Wilhelmina Will has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!

If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Cheers! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.