User talk:AutomaticStrikeout/Archive 6

Hello

Hello,

I am looking for some experience working with other users. Mind joining in for a collab?

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

What exactly would you like to work on? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Not quite sure actually. I dont mind working on anything at the current moment - Articles, WikiProjects, anywhere where some pair of hands ten fingers might be required... You decide TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, do you have an interest in going through my adoption program (as soon as I finish setting it up, that is)? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Rcsprinter is already adopting me - Am through 8 or so topics already I think. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. Well, Renewable resources is currently the article selected by Today's article for improvement. You're welcome to take a hack at it. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Umm... What do I do to improve it? I am not exactly sure on measuring the quality of articles. This is the only one I have been the major contributer of till date. So Idk what are the places where it can be improved (I have begun to get the hang of it for news related articles, but not really for general articles) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem we have with these TAFI's. It's hard to find something that enough people are interested in. If you can't find something, that's ok. If you'd like, you could try finding a good candidate for adminship and we could consider co-nomming. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe the problem is that people do not know what to improve. If I knew what exactly are the shortcomings of this article, maybe then I would work towards removing them. But it would require me being shown that the article lacks references, or is loo long, or is complex to read. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd tell you what the problems are, but frankly I don't know. Mainly I just handle clerking at TAFI. It's not getting much participation from writers. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Now that it has got approved at Pump, it should. Maybe Signpost can help us by having a few editors come there. TAFI could certainly use the extra help to make sure its ready for the main page and the onslaught thats coming. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

And how about personally inviting more experienced users to help around with the maintainance? Cant think of any right now, but I am sure there will be many whose coming would help TAFI TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

There is an invitation template here. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Saw that. But I dont know of many editors experienced in this sort of stuff. I think some people at the Teahouse might be able to help in making the tutorials; but we would still need more editors with article-space experience to help with properly tagging articles and highlighting potential areas of concern. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I see. Quite frankly, I have gotten tired of maintaining the project. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

NOOOOOO!!!!!! Dont get tired yet! We will need a lot of enthusiasm when the page actually hits the main page! We need to gang up users and get them to work now! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know when that will be. I've quit keeping track of all that. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

With luck, soon enough. The main scheme has been approved on the Pump, and now its about discussing and finalising on the little other issues(how to display on main page, how to choose articles etc), and implementation. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If you do think of any candidates, please send me an email. That would be better than discussing it here. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I understand RfA well enough right now. Most of those who I wish to nominate are either admins, or have tried to be. Most of those I would not want to be admins are already admins or are trolls. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. Right now, I'm trying to finish getting my adoption program ready. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Semi-Retirement

I've been considering stepping away for a while and this latest bout of drama is the last straw. I'm not going to rule out a future return, but goodbye for now. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me say, "Fare thee well". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope that you come back when the time is right for you. I've enjoyed your valuable contributions, especially to our small corner of the baseball world. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 00:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

AutomaticStrikeout, I hope that you will be back soon. :) CURTAINTOAD! ^TALK! 00:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Wish you the best man. ZappaOMati 01:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Have a good break man, they're necessary from time to time. Ping me when you get back. Ryan Vesey 14:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Fare thee well AutomaticStrikeout :) I know how you feel, as I experienced that about a year ago. I hope to see you back soon, but I understand if you do not return. gwickwire^talk_edits 19:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous IP Honda fan

Doh! I am sorry to hear about this, not only because I was looking to you for support in the matter of one particularly energetic and abusive IP. He's back. Anyhow, someone else will be able to help. Enjoy your real time - get some flowers or make a baby or something else which is actually useful. And thanks.  Mr.choppers | ✎  07:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Changing to retirement

Thank you to all who have written kind words above. I have decided to change my status to full retirement and to find a hobby that is less stress-inducing. Happy New Year, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Fare well.

P.S. You might want to take a look at the top of my talk page. I couldnt stop laughing for minutes while I wrote it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• I wish you the best and am sorry to see you retire under these circumstances. It has been my pleasure and good fortune to have known you, and I'll remember you often. Peace, --My76Strat (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for being a part of Wikipedia. I sincerely hope you come out of retirement, and soon enough too. Cheers! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Your retirement

I am very sorry to see that you are this unhappy with Wikipedia and hope that your departure will be only a temporary one. Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I also hope that come back soon. Until you come back (if you do – please do!), you will be missed by many, including me. I think this is the first time I've given out two smileys. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 03:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It is really sad to see an editor like you retire. Your contributions have been valuable and I always admired your work. I strongly suggest you to re-consider this as I'd not like to add your name to my userpage. — Yash ^[talk] 06:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It's very sad that you have decided to fully-retire Wikipedia. Please come back. :( CURTAINTOAD! ^TALK! 08:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

CURTAINTOAD! ^TALK! — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hey AutomaticStrikeout! Wishing you a very happy New Year :) CURTAINTOAD! ^TALK! 23:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

2013

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg		Have an enjoyable New Year!
		Hello AutomaticStrikeout: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 15:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Goodbye

Wow...I was very shocked when I saw that you had retired...Well, I hope you find your new hobby enjoyable. I am not sure what made you leave, but I will always remember you. After all, whenever I type four tildes, I have to remember you. If you ever decide to come back, please let me now. --Jakob 15:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	You were active in wikipedia and helped wikipedia without being tired. I'm so sad seeing the retired message on your page. But good luck for you in real life and in future don't forget about us.And if there's any thought about coming back in your mind then come back without hesitation. Pratyya (Happy New Year) 07:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year, AutomaticStrikeout

Pratyya ^{(Happy New Year)} — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2024. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2024 goes well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

Goodbye (and please reconsider)

Hello, AutomaticStrikeout.

The two of us both made our first edits on our respective accounts in April 2012, and have both risen far since then (both of us to reviewers, and you to a rollbacker as well). Like yourself, many of my edits deal with sports articles or current events articles. We have interacted on only a few occasions, but I was sorry to hear that you have chosen to retire. I've heard you mentioned as an editor who could possibly lead to a "bright future" to Wikipedia, in a time when many great, longtime editors are either retiring or only engaging in sporadic editing.

I hope you please reconsider your decision. Just one bad RFA doesn't mean you can't ever be an admin, and even many non-admins are often respected and viewed as if they were admins. I'm not familiar with any other events that may have influenced your decision, but if there is anything I can do to show you that it's worth staying, and that there is some greater good that overshadows these bad influences that led to your departure, then I will gladly do it.

If there is really nothing I can do, then this is Good-Bye from RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

To clear one thing up, this isn't because of my RfA. Wikipedia just simply hasn't been very much fun of late. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that you're at least partially back. Perhaps you simply needed a WP:Wikibreak? I myself have done so at times, and it helps to get away from the "daily grind" of Wikipedia, so to speak. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps. Sometimes a break is needed. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Please remove the retired templates

Hi - Your clearly not retired so please remove the retired templates - thanks - Youreallycan 09:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Why does it matter to you? I only started that brief editing spurt in order to defend myself against allegations of socking. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 14:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see AutomaticStrikeout remove the retired templates because he changes his mind about retiring, but in the meantime, I don't think this sort of pestering is helpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not see the need for this pestering, which can come across as rude and civil. While I would like to see this user remove the template and, of course, come, as Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) said, this is not really helping matters. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 19:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Another change

Sorry for the musical chairs, but I have changed my status back to semi retirement. I don't expect to be around as much as I used to be, but I don't want to be completely gone. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It's good to see that you're not completely gone. I just started missing you :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It took that long? I'm glad to be (partially) back. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. I don't know if you're up for it, but The rape of Savannah Dietrich was at a pretty poor state when it went to AFD. I doubt it will be deleted, but I'm hoping to pull a David Heymann and was wondering if you'd help. Ryan Vesey 00:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you're up to it. I suggest you stay away from anything with Wikipedia: in front of it. You can even do what I've done and completely or almost completely wipe your watchlist so you can focus on just articles. It probably won't last too long, but you'll enjoy editing a lot more I believe. Ryan Vesey 00:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the good advice. I'd rather not get involved in that kind of article. Besides, I'm going to try to limit my time here. Thanks anyway, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm so glad that you did not quit Wikipedia altogether! Jakob 16:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's refocus on something important here. My girlfriend is a huge Tigers fan and would like your views on their closer situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, good question (even though you didn't phrase it as a question). I haven't paid a ton of attention to that, but I've just read that our minor leaguer Bruce Rondon will be given the chance to be the closer (he would, of course, have his own separate page if that happened). I've also heard Brian Wilson and Rafael Soriano tossed out there, and Joel Hanrahan was once considered an option before he was traded to Boston. I'm not really sure where I stand on it (still busy celebrating that Raburn was released). Maybe Boston's old closer Andrew Bailey is an option? Or, what about Phil Coke? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 16:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me make you and your fellow Tiger fans and offer you can't (not) refuse! You give us Phillies Miguel Cabrera, I'll give you our entire bullpen. Sound good? Go Phightins! 20:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Did someone tell you that Ed Wade is running the Tigers or something? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No go. See "contrary to the best interests of baseball" or unconscionable contract. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ed Wade was secretly a Phillies operative when he was the Astros' GM, otherwise there's no way on God's green earth that we'd have gotten Pence or Lidge. Go Phightins! 20:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That's what I was referring too. Btw Brad, isn't "unconscionable contract" a reference to the extensions given to Bud Selig? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, an "unconscionable contract" is a reference to Carl Crawford. Or Daisuke Matsuzaka. Or Josh Beckett. Or Adrian Gonzalez. Or John Lackey. Or J.D. Drew. Or Bobby Jenks. Or Mike Cameron. Or... screw it, Fenway Sports Group. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you have a point there. Why did John Farrell leave Toronto again? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope you're not being serious, considering Vernon Wells, Alex Rios, B.J. Ryan, Frank Thomas... Actually, Joe Posnanski coined the term "Ricciardis" a few years ago to describe bad contracts. I guess even three years after he's gone, the unconscionability still lingers in Toronto. You see, only about half of Epsteins are unconscionable, but Ricciardis are always unconscionable. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the Blue Jays are in better shape going into this season, IMO. Then again, remember what Baltimore and Oakland did last year, compared to what they were expected to do. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

True... my Red Sox are gonna be a middle-of-the-road team for awhile... luckily, the Tigers and Cardinals are among the other teams I appreciate (some close family members of mine are from those areas). ;) RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. The Cardinals are my second-favorite team. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Yes. —Theopolisme 23:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	"Furthermore, if you are an admin, you should quickly indef-block every editor who !voted delete during the AfD, as they obviously have a grudge against you and are therefore dangerous to the encyclopedia." Your essay is very good in both humor and seriousness. Cheers. TBrandley (what's up) 01:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you actually agree with that part? Glad you liked it. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No, of course not. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 01:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Corvair nominated for deletion

I nominated the image of the Corvair for deletion on commons here. You can find various images to replace it at [1]. Ryan Vesey 02:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. There are pics on the Corvair page that are probably good, I hope. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

File:1964 Chevrolet Corvair.JPG might work. Try to check the uploader, if you see anything uploaded by Barnstarbob or Vegavairbob, it is most likely copyvio. Let me know and I'll look into it. Ryan Vesey 02:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I have changed the image. Hopefully this one will not be a problem. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review

Just wanted to let you know that Kww undeleted the UFC page and histmerged the contents into 2013 in UFC. I've closed the deletion review. Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the notice. Btw, I first found out about this edit when I checked this page and saw that you had made the most recent edit. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Hey! I was keeping this for you, but now that you are back.... :) — ΛΧΣ21 16:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, although I should save room for my birthday cake. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Apparently, we both registered our accounts in April 2012, gave them baseball-inspired names, are now reviewers, and list the Tigers and Cardinals among our favorite teams. Surreal indeed! RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The irony is rich indeed! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for coming back.

LlamaAl (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome (although I may be allergic to cats, but not to iCats ) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

It's good to see that you are back! CURTAINTOAD! TALK! 03:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I think everyone is trying to kill me with kindness! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It's good to see you back! :)

Userboxes

By the way, just a quick reminder — you might like to create your userbox page! Please click here to find many more userboxes! Cheers Automatic! CURTAINTOAD! ^TALK! 07:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the encouragement! Had to go to the dramaboard today and that is always disheartening. I just wish I could learn how to write better. My access to research material is limited to the internet and that really puts a cramp into it, not to mention that I haven't had to write anything more challenging than a proposal or a training memo since college several decades ago. We've been around here about the same length of time and I appreciate recognition from a true peer more than from the newbie's that usually thank me. It means a lot. Tiger's fan? I was a Michigander for 25 years (Kalamazoo), but I am a Bleacher Bum through and through. And as there are not many Christians (Disciple of Christ here) around here that are proud to say so, but not insane, I am gonna leave you a userbox I nicked from someone.

This user believes that the universe began with a big bang when God said, Let there be light.

Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I love that userbox and plan to use it myself. I'll add it soon, I'm too lazy right now, unless someone really wants to add it to the top of User:Ryan Vesey/Userboxes for me. Ryan Vesey 05:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I did it :P — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You guys may remember a few months back someone wrote to the Teahouse and asked if there was a Christian bias to Wikipedia. She was somewhat a crackpot, but Dennis, I think, wrote her a nice note stating, among other things , that Teahouse may just attract more Christian users because of the Christian credo of being helpful. Methinks he may be right. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps so. I'm glad you were encouraged. It would have been interesting to be there when God created everything, but I wasn't (it was, after all, a long time ago). AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Potential admins

Hey AutomaticStrikeout. Can you please add me to your "Potential admins" list -- I think I will be a good admin. Thanks, CURTAINTOAD! ^TALK! 08:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Which? — Yash ^[talk] 14:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a list at the bottom of my user page. Sure, I can add you Curtaintoad, but you probably won't be ready for adminship for a while yet. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. CURTAINTOAD! ^TALK! 20:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Essay for potential RfA candidates

I have put out a second essay that is particularly targeted at those considering a run for adminship. Of course, anyone is welcome to read it and please feel free to correct any grammatical errors that I may have made. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The IP

I am the IP you guys were talking about. I didn't know what I was doing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.17.249 (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As this IP is now blocked, we will keep the conversation on its talk page. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Trouble/Help Re "Adminship"

Hey AutomaticStrikeout. On the "Adminship" message that you sent me on my talk page, it says "<redacted>" somewhere on the message. What did you write? :/ CURTAINTOAD! ^TALK! 06:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably something that was redacted because it shouldn't be on-wiki. Which also means it shouldn't be here either. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I might know what it was -- maybe it was my age. :/ CURTAINTOAD! ^TALK! 06:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my bad, I didn't realize it would be a problem. Don't worry about it, you got the gist of my message anyway. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 15:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

RRA

• WP:RRA

You asked about when it would go "live", it now has : )

Feel free to check out the WP:MOD proposal as well, if you like. - jc37 17:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I will look into it. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

An informal survey

This is just a simple survey from my talk page stalkers and anyone else interested in participating. Simply answer the questions below.

Do you think the Requests for Adminship process is broken and if so, do you think it can fixed or is a new process necessary? Also, do you think Wikipedians are capable of reaching a consensus on major changes related to RfA? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I think that there are good things, and bad things about RfA. Good things are that there's actual consensus before something is done, i.e. a Bureaucrat can't go be bold and then be reverted in promoting an admin without an RfA. However, a lot of editors pile-on their votes, using simple statements as "per x" or "above" as their rationale. Personally, I think every editor should have to explain in their own words why they oppose or support a candidate, and anything other than a "Why Not" which is short should be discounted. That would make it harder for users to just pile-on oppose on someone, and actually have them think about things before they oppose on them. Oh, and for that last question, I think there's no way in hell editors will come to a consensus on a 'new' or changed RfA. And glad to see you've partially returned AS :) gwickwire^talk_edits 04:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• RfA is supposed to be a "transparent" process (you see everyone's !votes, discussion, etc.), but it looks like it only makes matters worse, as users pile on their !votes with little or no weight. Even the Arbitration Committee elections, which are done by a private vote, seem to be less controversial. If adminship is supposed to be "no big deal", then arbcom must be the biggest deal. And yes, there will never be consensus for a new/changed RfA process – people simply have different standards of what they would expect for an administrator. I'd like to echo gwickwire and welcome you back from your retirement. (Shorter than you thought, I hope? ) The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 04:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I would find it a fairer process if things like seniority and # of edits were made an objective standard, thus taking them off the table. Limiting questions to one (or another number) per user participating and requiring that they all be in prior to the process would help, too. The way it works now is just uneven and unfair and it gives someone with an ax to grind a chance to grind and grind and grind. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

• Op-ed: Meta, where innovative ideas die

• WikiProject report: Where Are They Now? Episode IV: A New Year

• News and notes: 2012—the big year

• Featured content: Featured content in review

• Technology report: Looking ahead to 2013

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Signature sanitization

Just a suggestion. While looking at the source of several talk pages you have commented on, I noticed curious syntax highlighting of sections that should not have been highlighted. After careful examination, it appears that the HTML and wiki markup in your signature is not correctly formatted.

Your current signature:
[[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Blue">'''Automatic</span><span style="color:Orange">''Strikeout'''''</span>]] <small> ([[User talk:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Blue">'''T'''</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:#FF8C00">C]])</small>

Notice that the bold on on "Automatic" is not closed before its span tag, and the "Strikeout" bold and italics markup is mismatched. The span style=color:#FF8C00 tag is not closed.

A visually indistinguishable signature with correctly closed tags and wiki markup:
[[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Blue">'''Automatic'''</span><span style="color:Orange">'''''Strikeout'''''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Blue">'''T'''</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Orange">C</span>]])</small>

Although there is no display difference, and outside text is not actually altered, syntax highlighters commonly used to aid editing will render text below your signature in the wrong colors. As well, future changes in the MediaWiki software could cause display problems with pages you have signed. To ensure that any pages you sign remain at least technically sound, please consider changing your signature as I have suggested. Thank you. - HectorAE (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so familiar with html, but if the only change AS made would be to add the final </span> wouldn't it have the same effect? His apostrophes after strikeout should be closing the bolding for the word Automatic and Strikeout I believe. Ryan Vesey 22:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

In the syntax highlighter I am using, no. It stills thinks everything following "Automatic" is in bold even with the last closing tag. And in any case, separating the words in bold and italicized bold is much cleaner wiki markup. - HectorAE (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm sure AS will make the changes. Ryan Vesey 23:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing it out, Hector. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) At the top of your pages, the word "Automatic" is orange/yellow and the word "Strikeout" is blue. You might like to swap them around like your signature. Cheers, by CURTAINTOAD! ^TALK! 04:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that. I hadn't fixed it yet, but I will now, since it makes more sense for them to match. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

re curtaintoad

Hi, I'm curtaintoad's mum.

I have just looked through his talk page.

I would like to thank you for the support you have offered.

He is a child with autism and sometimes he finds it very difficult to understand things,

He does really want to be a great Wikipedian, and I think he will one day if he can slow down and take the time to learn what he needs to do.

I have tried to talk him through some of the messages that have been left for him and I think he will settle down..for now he will concentrate on editing.

Thank you.

WendyS1971 ^Talk 10:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. He's just trying to go too fast but that can be typical of any young person (even me when I first started here). Given enough time, I think he'll do just fine here. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

TAFI

Thanks for the invitation, I've joined. GiantSnowman 11:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure, good to hear you're a member. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'll have to pass. Already more things I want to edit than I find time for :-( —Bagumba (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I understand what you mean. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

ITN credits

ITN offers recognition banners for the nominator and article updaters (see Wikipedia:ITNMP#Recognition), but in terms of WikiCup scoring, only those who have significantly updated the articles can get WikiCup points. For an example, I worked on Wegelin & Co.; here's the diffs showing work I did to update it to be ITN-suitable: [2]. Spencer^T♦C 01:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the answer. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

TAFI

I hadn't been watching TAFI recently, have you? I checked the most recent article, and it's seen a lot of improvement. I was pleasantly surprised as I had assumed the project was going to die off to some extent since some of the earlier articles weren't receiving much work. Ryan Vesey 17:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't been watching it much either except for updating the blurb, moving the TAFI template to the appropriate article and adding the former TAFI template to the talk pages (so basically, once a week), but I had kinda given up on it too, so I'm glad to see that it is picking up some steam. To be fair, the current article was pretty barebones when it was selected, unlike some of the others. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Who, what, when, where, and why

I'd suggest not asking such questions like that at WP:ITN/C (or any other namespace than the user namespace). It's a good way to cause unnecessary drama. Ryan Vesey 20:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

An essay

I have decided to try my hand (or, to be more specific, my fingers), at essay writing. Please take a look and tell me what you think. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ha, your essay had me in stitches. Ryan Vesey 21:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It's gratifying (and rare) when my attempts to be funny produce desirable results. Btw, if anyone catches any errors in the essay, please feel free to correct them. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, it's a very good, funny essay. And it's not as unrealistic as it seems; I've encountered a few too many IPs (and by that I mean a few IPs) who have done most or all of those things, claiming to be in line with policy. I get their point now! RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Love it. The sad fact is, I have had to argue with the fella you are writing about, but I am betting that everyone who has been here longer than 6 months has met him too. He has lots of names. Are they all socks? Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I did find a typo but I left it. I kinda like the idea that Wikipedia had four fathers. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your two comments till just now. Actually, the four fathers part is intentional and the essay wasn't written with anyone in mind. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Eeegad, if you all understand the irony of the example in that essay, you're as old as I. Time to recruit younger editors. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 04:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm only 19 but I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the irony". AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I passed 60 and owned a 1961 Corvair in the '60s. Loved it. Your example of IAR is so perfect and ironical because Nader's book Unsafe at Any Speed would have been rejected if Wikipedia existed forty-some years ago. Many of Nader's assertions were proven incorrect when actual tests were completed even though the book had a huge impact. I can personally attest to the stability of the Corvair. Corvair was a great car. Nader did ignore the rules (of conduct) of his era long before there was a rule to IAR. I suspect he would have been a disruptive editor who ultimately ended up blocked.(WP:NOTCRYSTAL) Your essay includes twists understood by an old man in ways you may not have intended but that parallel your intent. Well done. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 23:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, I actually didn't intend or necessarily even think about that part of it. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup!

Hello, AutomaticStrikeout, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The competition begins at midnight UTC. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders:

• The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page.
• Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started the review in 2013.) We will be checking.
• If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself.
• Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens.
• Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked.

Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 22:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Re:A WikiCup scoring question

Yep. Scores go back to zero at the end of the round. Anything promoted during the interim period (2 days) can be claimed in the round afterwards, but not until the next round has begun. J Milburn (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Joe West

AS, I see that you responded to the second batch of comments I put at the FAC. I'm planning on doing a review for a different article tonight, but will take a look at the West article on Monday. Hope this is all right. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

FAC reviews

I am taking a look at your Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joe West (umpire)/archive1. Can you take a look at my Juwan Howard FAC?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably not, I don't think I am qualified/prepared to do FA reviews quite yet. Thanks for your help on the West FA. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Adminship

Hello AutomaticStrikeout. Hey, I just came to say that I have planned to make my RfA in 2017. Thanks, -- CURTAINTOAD! ^TALK! 07:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, we'll see what happens there. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. And how is my new pages? :) CURTAINTOAD! ^TALK! 23:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		Project Editor Retention This editor was willing to lend a helping hand!
		For your efforts of getting "Editor of the Week" off the drawing board and onto the pages of our first recepient. Well done.```Buster Seven Talk 13:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, thanks Buster! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Members of Today's Article for Improvement

Category:Members of Today's Article for Improvement, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Another Believer _(Talk) 22:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

• Investigative report: Ship ahoy! New travel site finally afloat

• News and notes: Launch of annual picture competition, new grant scheme

• WikiProject report: Reach for the Stars: WikiProject Astronomy

• Discussion report: Flag Manual of Style; accessibility and equality

• Special report: Loss of an Internet genius

• Featured content: Featured articles: Quality of reviews, quality of writing in 2012

• Arbitration report: First arbitration case in almost six months

• Technology report: Intermittent outages planned, first Wikidata client deployment

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

My first try at an essay/WikiProject -Tell me what you think

User:TheOriginalSoni/Rolling Ball.

Do leave your feedback on the talk page. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I get the chance, I'm on my way out now. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)