User talk:AutomaticStrikeout/Archive 2
 | 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. |
AFI
Hey AutomaticStrikout and congratulations on your successful RFA nomination! I'd love to nominate you at some point, too. I have been working on the NPP backlogs and on another non-umpiring article, which I got promoted to B-Class. I was thinking about nominating one of the articles in our task force for TAFI, but would like to know which one you want to do. I also saw your feedback on Chris Conroy and have (so far) added a sentence and a citation, but it still needs more work. Best, Electric Catfish 22:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC).
- Thanks for the kinds words. I won't be ready for an RfA for a while though, I've only been here for four months. As for your idea about an umpire TAFI, I'd like to see that happen at some point, however probably not in the near future because right now the focus is going to be on articles with well-known subjects. As for Chris Conroy, I know it's real short, the problem is there just ain't much to add (that I know of, anyway). AutomaticStrikeout 00:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
History portal
How is it relevant to List of Major League Baseball pitchers with 200 career wins?—Bagumba (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Seems to me that such a list is history-related. At any rate, I would like to know why EdelweissD has removed it three times now. AutomaticStrikeout 20:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Anything in the past is technically "history", but it seems a stretch to link it here. Most people wanting to read about baseball would not find it useful and would be frustrated if they clicked there. Think History Channel ads on ESPN or visa versa.—Bagumba (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps so. Still, EdelweissD's failure to discuss the situation at all, even when asked directly on his talk page, doesn't look good for him and given his past history, I wouldn't be surprised if he was reverting it solely because someone else made the edit. AutomaticStrikeout 21:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I was discussing the portal link independent of EdelweissD.—Bagumba (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, my bad. I guess I'm willing to have it left out of the article, but when I come across someone who is practicing ownership of an article, and thereby undoing my edits, I'm not necessarily one to let that go unchallenged. In a sense, this was majoring on the minor, but if you give people the minor without stating your case first, they'll take the major next. AutomaticStrikeout 21:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I was discussing the portal link independent of EdelweissD.—Bagumba (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps so. Still, EdelweissD's failure to discuss the situation at all, even when asked directly on his talk page, doesn't look good for him and given his past history, I wouldn't be surprised if he was reverting it solely because someone else made the edit. AutomaticStrikeout 21:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Anything in the past is technically "history", but it seems a stretch to link it here. Most people wanting to read about baseball would not find it useful and would be frustrated if they clicked there. Think History Channel ads on ESPN or visa versa.—Bagumba (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Vandalism
If you need help from an administrator, The Bushranger is a good one to go to. He's around alot too....William 22:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll try to remember to keep that in mind. He was certainly efficient in this case. Thanks for your help as well. [[U
Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2) Your review is required and will be greatly appreciated :)
Hi AutomaticStrikeout 
! I have started my second editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2). I will be greatly delighted, thankful and valued to have your review for me regarding my editing and possible candidate for Adminship. As you are a experienced and long term Wikipedian so i have asked for your kind review. Take your time to review my editing and give the best review that you can :). Feel free to ask me any questions you would like to on the review page itself. It will be a great honor to have you review me for which I will truly feel appreciated and helpful! I always work to improve Wikipedia and make it a more better place to be for Everyone :). Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Newsletter
Hey, thanks for you defense of what was largely just a well-intentioned act apparently undertaken too Boldly. I'll just say that I appreciated you sharing your views. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 02:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low 
to High 
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Project idea
Hey. I know at the baseball talk page you were talking about getting a stub drive going. If you're looking for a group of articles to do but don't feel up to writing Hall of Famers, you could always pick a year and team and try to improve all the players there. That's what I'm doing with my project in the sig, and I've seen other baseball writers doing similar things (since you're a tigers fan, working on the players of the 1984 Detroit Tigers season could be a good option for you). Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
If you're up...
..and about, might summon any help you could provide at List of Major League Baseball players with 2,000 hits. I've reported the abusing editor here and has even gone to removing their mention at 3RR notice board. Zepppep (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Page Curation newsletter
Hey AutomaticStrikeout. I'm dropping you a note because you've been using the Page Curation suite recently - this is just to let you know that we've deployed the final version :). There's some help documentation Wikipedia:Page Curation/Introductionhere that shows off all the features, just in case there are things you're not familiar with. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)
- To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here
This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!
View the full newsletter
|
|---|
Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way. Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process. An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here.
 Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created. As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May) Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes.
Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement: 1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum.
2) A universal dispute resolution wizard, accessible from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers. |
Please share your thoughts at the RfC.
--The Olive Branch 18:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the welcome!
Thanks for the welcome, AutomaticStrikeout. I am unfortunately not the great Hipolito Pichardo, but I remain a big fan of his owing mostly to his fantastic name and under-the-radar toiling for the mid-90s Royals. If you know of any other baseball articles that could use some updating/freshening, just let me know! Cheers, HipolitoPichardo (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
RFA
I assume your editor review is a precursor to an RFA and I just wanted to drop by to say that I would definitely support you in that and if you'd like I would be happy to nominate...Go Phightins! (talk) 02:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I appreciate the kind words! However, I've only been around for slightly over five months, so I highly doubt I would succeed with an RfA now. Any RfA will have to wait until later. AutomaticStrikeout 02:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- 6-12 months should be sufficient, especially with your edit count to satisfy the editcountitis crowd. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, personally I agree. However, I think the hang up here is less edit count related and more time related. I'd like to run now also, I just don't think I'll succeed yet. AutomaticStrikeout 02:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Let me know when you do want to (you should within the next 2-3 months--even if you don't get elected, it'll be invaluable for when you eventually do), I would be honored to nominate you. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I'll think about it. If I do decide to go ahead, I'll let you know. AutomaticStrikeout 03:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- All right, and I apologize if this sounded like I was pushing you, I just think you'd be good at it and as you stated in your Bagumba nomination, Wikipedia needs good, active administrators. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it does need more admins. I just would rather avoid having friends oppose me because of a lack of experience. However, I will consider it. AutomaticStrikeout 03:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Or, and this might be a better idea, wait until your one-year anniversary as Dennis Brown suggested at which point you'd be a shoo-in. Sorry for dropping this bomb, so to speak, it is just something I think you should do because you're an up and coming editor who is definitely going to have the mop eventually. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it does need more admins. I just would rather avoid having friends oppose me because of a lack of experience. However, I will consider it. AutomaticStrikeout 03:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- All right, and I apologize if this sounded like I was pushing you, I just think you'd be good at it and as you stated in your Bagumba nomination, Wikipedia needs good, active administrators. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I'll think about it. If I do decide to go ahead, I'll let you know. AutomaticStrikeout 03:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Let me know when you do want to (you should within the next 2-3 months--even if you don't get elected, it'll be invaluable for when you eventually do), I would be honored to nominate you. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, personally I agree. However, I think the hang up here is less edit count related and more time related. I'd like to run now also, I just don't think I'll succeed yet. AutomaticStrikeout 02:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- 6-12 months should be sufficient, especially with your edit count to satisfy the editcountitis crowd. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Also take a moment to read WP:Advice for RfA candidates and all its links and footnotes if you have not done so already. Not to put you off, but to show you what the challenges really are. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Just offering my $0.02, I would most likely be inclined to support you in the event that you submit an RfA. There are times when I disagree with your viewpoints (here, for instance - yeah, you may have seen that one coming), but I definitely would trust your judgment in using the admin tools responsibly. If you are planning on taking the plunge, I'll reiterate Kudpung's suggestion to read the page he links to above, and I wish you the best of luck. =) Kurtis (talk) 05:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Support --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
i think that it was a wise decision, but I'd still Support you if you ran now. Also, I'd like to help you update baseball and managerial stats, as you have been doing, even though today is the last day of the regular season :(. Can you please show me how to do this? Thanks! --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sure. I use Baseball-Reference.com as my source. You can use a different one if you like, although some other sites might not have managerial records available. Keep in mind that stats will likely be correct through the previous day and will not include the postseason. There will probably be between 3-6 stat fields showing in the infobox. You can check the career stats and update them as needed. Please also remember to update the date in the stat_year field. Of course, once the regular season ends, you can simply put 2012 season in that field, instead of the previous day. If you have any further questions, let me know. AutomaticStrikeout 02:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- On this topic, I did the Mets pitching staff, I think I followed these instructions, but if I didn't revert me and do it the right way...Go Phightins! (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Looks good except that you might want to wait until tomorrow to put it at 2012 season because the stats might not reflect any pitching that those players did today. AutomaticStrikeout 03:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's true...I saw that Zepppep had been noting that stats were through 2012 season for Phillies pitchers, and I forgot, since the Phillies are out of it, that there are games today. I'll wait and re-update them if necessary tomorrow--Go Phightins! (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! NPP has been less backlogged recently, so I've been doing other tasks here on WP. Unfortunately, my Angels didn't make the playoffs this year (I live in New York). --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's true...I saw that Zepppep had been noting that stats were through 2012 season for Phillies pitchers, and I forgot, since the Phillies are out of it, that there are games today. I'll wait and re-update them if necessary tomorrow--Go Phightins! (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Looks good except that you might want to wait until tomorrow to put it at 2012 season because the stats might not reflect any pitching that those players did today. AutomaticStrikeout 03:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- On this topic, I did the Mets pitching staff, I think I followed these instructions, but if I didn't revert me and do it the right way...Go Phightins! (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Also for your question at Σ's RFA, I'd revert all of the edits and issues a {{uw-vandalism3}}. If often happens when one editor trips a filter and you revert them, and you see that they've vandalized more when you see their contribs. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Ref's Task Force
With the regular MLB season over, what do you think about making an Referee's task force for Wikiproject American Football? Additionally, what do you think about contacting the Signpost to do an interview of the Umpire's task force at the start of the 2013 MLB season? --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know nearly as much about football refs, but that doesn't mean I couldn't help start a task force, I suppose. However, WikiProject American Football isn't the only option to place it under as there is also a WikiProject for the NFL and College Football. So, I guess the first thing to nail down would be choosing the WikiProject. Unless, of course, it is possible to create a multi-WikiProject task force. As for the interview idea, I wasn't aware that was a possibility, but I'm all for it. AutomaticStrikeout 21:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think that the NFL project is the best venue for us, unless you'd like to do hockey (assuming it doesn't get locked out) or basketball. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Okay. There's also college refs, but it might be simpler to just do the NFL ones for now. AutomaticStrikeout 21:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Not to butt in, but I'd definitely be interested in an NFL referee task force...as in baseball, in football I base the game I watch off the refs (unless it affects the Eagles or my fantasy team :) Go Phightins! (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a good idea. Perhaps it would be good to formulate how we want to go about this. If it sounds good, we could try to plan out how to do this below. AutomaticStrikeout 01:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- From a technical standpoint, I honestly don't know how one goes about creating a task force. Logistically as far as getting editors involved, I suppose we could look through page histories of NFL officials and identify major contributors as well as look at the NFL and College Football Wiki-Projects...Go Phightins! (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a good idea. Perhaps it would be good to formulate how we want to go about this. If it sounds good, we could try to plan out how to do this below. AutomaticStrikeout 01:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Not to butt in, but I'd definitely be interested in an NFL referee task force...as in baseball, in football I base the game I watch off the refs (unless it affects the Eagles or my fantasy team :) Go Phightins! (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Okay. There's also college refs, but it might be simpler to just do the NFL ones for now. AutomaticStrikeout 21:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think that the NFL project is the best venue for us, unless you'd like to do hockey (assuming it doesn't get locked out) or basketball. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
To do
We'll need to create a task force page, define our scope and purpose, tag appropriate articles, design an invitation to send to interested editors, and create some goals for article improvement. Hopefully, my experience with helping to set up the umpires task force will be beneficial. AutomaticStrikeout 02:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Suggested purpose- "to improve and expand coverage related to American football officials"...I think it can be as simple as this. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding inviting editors, what did you do for the umpire task force? Did you have a template, or just drop a note on their talk pages? Go Phightins! (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- We used this. AutomaticStrikeout 02:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose we could work off of that to modify it, maybe a picture of Ed Hochuli, who had a GREAT Sports Illustrated Article today, I might add. I guess I could look into that, but I have little skill in anything non-writing, non-reverting, non-warning, non-welcoming, non-helping, non-copyediting, non-updating, field (a.k.a., my template knowledge is awful, just look at my user page) Go Phightins! (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- We used this. AutomaticStrikeout 02:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
It might also be helpful to create a category specifically for NFL refs. AutomaticStrikeout 02:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- And it does appear like the NFL WikiProject uses subprojects instead of task forces. AutomaticStrikeout 02:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
The page has been created here a basic skeleton just like I did with the umps task force: Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Referees subproject. AutomaticStrikeout 02:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK, good. A sub-project is essentially the same as a taskforce, correct? Go Phightins! (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I added what I thought the scope should be and added my self to the participants list, but feel free to add your name ahead of mine as you started this. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I adjusted your wording a little but I think the concept is the same. And yes, as far as I know, subproject and task force are two names for the same thing. AutomaticStrikeout 02:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've created the a category and begun tagging articles. I'll continue in the coming days...Go Phightins! (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I created a userbox in case you're interested. AutomaticStrikeout 02:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I like it.
I'll add it to the articles. As mentioned, my skills are in content. I can add that to the pages as well as add them to categories. While on the pages, I'll compile a list of possible editors who may be interested so that we can ask them. Thanks for your work on this--Go Phightins! (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)- I mean I'll add it to my userpage--Go Phightins! (talk) 02:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, good. I was about to say, that's not for the articles! The list of potentially interested editors is certainly a good idea. Thanks for your help as well. AutomaticStrikeout 02:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- One of those things where somewhere between my brain and my fingers, it got a little messed up. I'm going to go call it a night soon, but tomorrow and definitely over the weekend I'll start getting a list together of prospective editors and adding the pages to the category. The only other template-related thing I'd say is that do we want to have something for the talkpages of articles or should we just stick to the main NFL Wiki-Project one? Go Phightins! (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- We will want a subproject-specific banner to put up on the talk pages. Of course, we can't do everything first. AutomaticStrikeout 02:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I figured that we probably would. But for now, I think a primary focus should be recruiting as well as tagging. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- We will want a subproject-specific banner to put up on the talk pages. Of course, we can't do everything first. AutomaticStrikeout 02:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- One of those things where somewhere between my brain and my fingers, it got a little messed up. I'm going to go call it a night soon, but tomorrow and definitely over the weekend I'll start getting a list together of prospective editors and adding the pages to the category. The only other template-related thing I'd say is that do we want to have something for the talkpages of articles or should we just stick to the main NFL Wiki-Project one? Go Phightins! (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, good. I was about to say, that's not for the articles! The list of potentially interested editors is certainly a good idea. Thanks for your help as well. AutomaticStrikeout 02:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I mean I'll add it to my userpage--Go Phightins! (talk) 02:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I like it.
- Ok, I created a userbox in case you're interested. AutomaticStrikeout 02:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've created the a category and begun tagging articles. I'll continue in the coming days...Go Phightins! (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I adjusted your wording a little but I think the concept is the same. And yes, as far as I know, subproject and task force are two names for the same thing. AutomaticStrikeout 02:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Just so you know, I believe tagging would technically refer to adding the subproject banner to the talk page, but I could be wrong. Right now, my biggest concern is getting the project main page taken care of. AutomaticStrikeout 02:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I apologize, I meant adding to the category, should've been more clear. If you get the main page taken care of, I'll focus on more people. I'll just drop a normal note on their talkpage until we have a banner worked out. Sorry I'm not much of a help in the graphics department. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's ok, no harm done. Yes, I hope to get the main page hammered out at some point in the not-too-distant future. AutomaticStrikeout 03:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- All right, I've pinged about 5 users, some of whom are involved with the Umpires task force, others of whom are involved elsewhere on this topic. We'll see what happens and I'll try to recruit more in the near future, but I'm about to pass out, so that's all for tonight. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, sleep well! I'll try to brush up the subproject page a little more. AutomaticStrikeout 03:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- All right, I'm back for an hour or so. I saw you added all of the referees, so I added all the other officials' pages to the category. Go Phightins! (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, sleep well! I'll try to brush up the subproject page a little more. AutomaticStrikeout 03:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- All right, I've pinged about 5 users, some of whom are involved with the Umpires task force, others of whom are involved elsewhere on this topic. We'll see what happens and I'll try to recruit more in the near future, but I'm about to pass out, so that's all for tonight. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's ok, no harm done. Yes, I hope to get the main page hammered out at some point in the not-too-distant future. AutomaticStrikeout 03:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 22:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
-- Cheers, Riley Huntley 22:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Do you also want to invite Bagumba to the task force? --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, forgot to respond. Sounds like a good idea. AutomaticStrikeout 18:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Done I invited Bagumba. Go Phightins! (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you! AutomaticStrikeout 19:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! Also, can I trouble you for a list of NFL Referee BLPs that need to be created? Thanks. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'll get on that. AutomaticStrikeout 20:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, you can find a ton of redlinks in this article: List of NFL officials. Does that work? AutomaticStrikeout 20:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'll get on that. AutomaticStrikeout 20:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! Also, can I trouble you for a list of NFL Referee BLPs that need to be created? Thanks. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you! AutomaticStrikeout 19:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, forgot to respond. Sounds like a good idea. AutomaticStrikeout 18:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm working on one right now. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
2012 Wild Card
Could you please see the talk page topic I started about the 2012 Wild Card on the Infield fly rule page? I'd appreciate your input. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 15:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
RfA
Hi. I seem to recall that you might possibly considering running for adminship sometime in the not too distant future. I'm just letting you know that with this action you just lost my support. If you would like further explanation, don't hesitate to ask me. Cheers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I would. AutomaticStrikeout 23:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I'm prepared to help you over this hurdle, but as a former specialist in education, I always first ask my students to reflect and see if they can come up with some reasons for my comments on their assignments. Want to give it a try? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's fairly obvious that you didn't like the fact that I closed a contentious conversation before it could get to the point of someone getting blocked. Am I right? AutomaticStrikeout 00:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's pretty obvious that I didn't think the closure was appropriate. I hardly think there was any risk of anyone getting blocked (who would block whom?), but I'm looking for the reasosn why you think I disapproved of the closure. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm guessing because I'm not an admin. AutomaticStrikeout 01:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- It not a question that needs knowledge of admin tools to answer. At least try to answer the question - it will help me to help you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- That was my answer. The fact that I made a non-admin closure is probably what you didn't like. Sorry, I worded that rather confusingly. AutomaticStrikeout 18:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- The actual answer has noting to do with whether I like what you did or not, nor the fact that I'm an admin. Quite simply, talk pages like that are not noticeboards and threads are not 'closed' and do not need 'moderators'. That said, i agree that it was getting nasty - and still is - but if people there are stupid enough to insult each other, the best thing is to let them get on with it. No one is likely to get blocked, but some have already lost a lot of credence through acting in bad faith. It will be remembered, and give them enough rope they will hang themselves as one did with their blatant PA by adding an image to the thread. I realise that you were acting in good faith, but it's really best to keep out of stuff like that, just as it is for unconcerned editors, for example, to stay out of discussions at ANI, etc., it backfires too often. That said, keep up your good work, and each time you learn something new, don't hesitate to pass your knowledge on to others :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- That was my answer. The fact that I made a non-admin closure is probably what you didn't like. Sorry, I worded that rather confusingly. AutomaticStrikeout 18:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- It not a question that needs knowledge of admin tools to answer. At least try to answer the question - it will help me to help you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm guessing because I'm not an admin. AutomaticStrikeout 01:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's pretty obvious that I didn't think the closure was appropriate. I hardly think there was any risk of anyone getting blocked (who would block whom?), but I'm looking for the reasosn why you think I disapproved of the closure. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's fairly obvious that you didn't like the fact that I closed a contentious conversation before it could get to the point of someone getting blocked. Am I right? AutomaticStrikeout 00:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I'm prepared to help you over this hurdle, but as a former specialist in education, I always first ask my students to reflect and see if they can come up with some reasons for my comments on their assignments. Want to give it a try? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- You can practically do what you like on your own talk page as long as you never refactor other editor's comments other than correcting minor format errors such as aadding a miossing header, indenting, removing unnecessary white space etc. You are perfectly at liberty to declare a thread closed. How you do it is up to you. If I close a thread I do it like this:
Closed
|
|---|
|
This thread is now closed. |
- but it's very rare that I do that.The best solution is to archive you talk page occasionally; too often is of no help to anyone, while once a month is adequate even for an extremely busy talk page like mine. It's generally not normal to use the {{archivetop}}, {{archivebottom}} tools outside official noticeboard pages and RfCs. Hope this helps. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes it does, thank you. AutomaticStrikeout 18:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Ref Wiki-Project UserBox
Hey, I wanted to tell you that the second link in the userbox should link to the NFL WikiProject page, but instead links to the Baseball WikiProject page. I'm assuming that this was just an oversight from recycling your ump userbox, but I wanted to let you know. Thanks for your help on the project--Go Phightins! (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 04:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Poor Man's Talk Back
Please find a response to your post on my talk page here. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Couple more responses, same page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
psst
Special:UserRights/Jac16888. I was simply making the comment directly that some editors would no doubt intend to insinuate. Seriously though I don't really support your idea, I don't think it is necessary to give recognition to admins like that anymore that it's necessary to give it to non-admins. Barnstars and friendly notes are enough for anyone--Jac16888 Talk 21:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
So he didn't make this statement ! Do you have any proof to dispute this profound statement?
Major Yeats-Brown, in his "Life of a Bengal Lancer", summarises the Christian Doctrine of the Atonement in just a single sentence:
"NO HEATHEN TRIBE HAS CONCEIVED SO GROTESQUE AN IDEA, INVOLVING AS IT
DOES THE ASSUMPTION, THAT MAN WAS BORN WITH A HEREDITARY STAIN UPON
HIM: AND THAT THIS STAIN (FOR WHICH HE WAS NOT PERSONALLY
RESPONSIBLE) WAS TO BE ATONED FOR: AND THAT THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS
HAD TO SACRIFICE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON TO NEUTRALISE THIS MYSTERIOUS
CURSE."
Note: User:188.62.129.70 posted the aforementioned content. Go Phightins! (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) First off calm down. Shouting (using all caps) is generally an atrocious idea when trying to get someone to respect your point. Secondly, on Wikipedia, we need proof that something did happen, not proof that something didn't. Thus, if you can provide a reliable source to substantiate this, it'll likely be added to the article. Thank you. Go Phightins! (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Next week's TAFI
I assume that the date on the schedule on the WP:TAFI page dictates when it ends, and since the food utensils one ends today, next week needs a designated article for improvement. Just a heads up. Go Phightins! (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, Entertainment starts today. AutomaticStrikeout 20:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- My fault, misread chart. Go Phightins! (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Entertainment
Can you look at my comment on the talk page of the article? I'd like to get someone else's opinion. If other people agree, I'd like to put empty sections for the 15th-21st centuries to hopefully lead people in that direction for improving, otherwise it will just become a lot of people adding different forms of entertainment, which isn't bad, but I don't think this is the best page for that. Ryan Vesey 20:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 02:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You're probably watching, but just in case Go Phightins! 02:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Up
Here it is. Go Phightins! 02:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. It looks good. AutomaticStrikeout 02:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- I assume you have the edit counting tools enabled...Go Phightins! 02:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe I do. AutomaticStrikeout 02:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Once you accept the nomination, I believe you need to answer the questions, and then it can be transcluded. Go Phightins! 03:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I am currently doing that. AutomaticStrikeout 03:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- All right. Go Phightins! 03:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I am currently doing that. AutomaticStrikeout 03:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Once you accept the nomination, I believe you need to answer the questions, and then it can be transcluded. Go Phightins! 03:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe I do. AutomaticStrikeout 02:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- I assume you have the edit counting tools enabled...Go Phightins! 02:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Not seeing anything. Go Phightins! 03:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- I added my edit stats to the RfA talk page. I think that is all. Do you want to transclude the page or shall I do the honors? AutomaticStrikeout 03:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Don't lose heart
I just wanted to drop a note and tell you not to lose heart at the way your RFA is going. I would not its actually pretty positive and doesn't seem to have a lot of the usually nasty comments that RFA's tend to have so that should make you feel rather good. A lot of the opposes are based on some imagined criteria that some have to be the perfect admin but since RFA doesn't have seet criteria for a reason they are really pointless. I just wanted you to know that I'm still glad you submitted and it appears that a lot of others feel that way too. I would also note that several have mentioned that you need more experieince in areas that are inherently administrative and you really won't get experience in until you are an admin so take that for what its worth. I think some have been admins for so long they forget that we aren't born with those tools. :-) Kumioko (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the encouragement. I had hoped for better, but I am not very surprised. If nothing else, this experience will be helpful when and if I run again at some point in the future. Yes, this actually is a fairly positive RfA and maybe it demonstrates that the system is not completely broken. AutomaticStrikeout 18:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well its not over yet but normally once the opposes start others jump on the bandwagon. Yours really seems more like they are searching for a reason to oppose rather than a reason to support unfortunately but the length of time you have been editing seems to be the key factor for what thats worth. Anyway good luck in the future. Kumioko (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Hopefully next time will be better. AutomaticStrikeout 19:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Too bad it's not working out. I'd still leave it open for a few days to get some more feedback for next time. Go Phightins! 19:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm not surprised but you never know what might happen if I leave it open. As for you Phightins, when do you wish to run? AutomaticStrikeout 19:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Too bad it's not working out. I'd still leave it open for a few days to get some more feedback for next time. Go Phightins! 19:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Hopefully next time will be better. AutomaticStrikeout 19:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well its not over yet but normally once the opposes start others jump on the bandwagon. Yours really seems more like they are searching for a reason to oppose rather than a reason to support unfortunately but the length of time you have been editing seems to be the key factor for what thats worth. Anyway good luck in the future. Kumioko (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Will do, but let's get back to your RFA. Who knows, maybe a flood will come! It happened for Sigma (though in the wrong way). Go Phightins! 19:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)