Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 05:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
Note: If you'd prefer, I can be reached via email here. Thanks--Go Phightins! 20:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Go Phightins!, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Adoption
Yes, I did hope to be adopted by someone. I have been less active as of late due to school commitments, but I still want to learn how to contribute in a way with less potential to produce a giant mess. My first edit was about a year ago as an IP, but I have never really become truly active. I have always contributed by looking at the syntax of another thing that I thought was what I wanted to do, and then mimicking it, which seems...disaster prone. It seems like there is a lot of jargon thrown around, and while I'm starting to get the hang of it, I still can't get through something like an AN/I discussion without looking at about three separate linked esssays.... I have created an article, a BLP chess grandmaster stub Throstur Thorhallsson (before I knew that there were separate rules for BLP's), and translated a few articles to simple:. I am thinking that wikipedia is very close to done, and so am mostly focusing what time I do have in the project in simple. (I have the same username over there.) I am hoping to learn what exactly I should be doing, and the correct way to do things around here. Thanks for volunteering to adopt me! Tazerdadog (talk) 06:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Outstanding! Well, I think the best way to do this is to run you through a series of lessons that cover all the basics of Wikipedia. I will post a link to the first one as soon as I get it up, which will probably be some time this afternoon (I'm on the Eastern Time Zone, so when I say some time this afternoon, that's in about six hours). See you there. Go Phightins! 13:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I had a few more minutes than I thought, so lesson one is up. Your adoption headquarters is located here. Post any questions you have relating to the specific lesson in the questions section of the lesson, and about the adoption in general on the adoption page's talk page. Thanks, and let's get started! Go Phightins! 13:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I have read it, and posted my response in a new section under the lesson.Tazerdadog (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I found the test, and finished it. You hid it well. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- All right. In the future, let me post the tests on your adoption page...I want to keep blank copies of the test where I had them so I can have them for future users. I wasn't quite finished with writing questions, so I'll post a few more on your adoption page. Thanks. Go Phightins! 19:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have posted the rest of the test and will begin writing the next lesson. You really jumped in! Great work on those first few answers! Go Phightins! 19:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I have finished the test.Tazerdadog (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll take a look. Thanks. In the interim, I'll post the next lesson for you to read over. Go Phightins! 20:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, it seems I'm getting my dispute resolution test early. See my talk page. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- That was a great reply! Maybe I'll give you an extra credit point or two on your DR test . I'm about to grade your vandalism test. If the IP replies and you need help, let me know. Go Phightins! 03:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey Go! Can you please revert your closure of the AfD and let an admin perform the closure. Nomination itself is a delete vote so there exist one delete vote with no support whatsoever for keeping the article. Such articles usually get Softly deleted. Thanks! TheSpecialUser TSU 01:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, based on my reading of WP:NAC as the second clause in appropriate closures, I thought closing it as no consensus when there was little or no participation was acceptable. Go Phightins! 02:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes I agree. But in past I've seen many discussions where an admin usually deletes the article (never really saw such debates getting closed as NC). I'm too busy to search such discussions out so its okay to leave it like this. It is always open to a re-nom and I'll go for it after a month or some. Thanks! TheSpecialUser TSU 02:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Okay...thanks for bringing it to my attention. Go Phightins! 02:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes I agree. But in past I've seen many discussions where an admin usually deletes the article (never really saw such debates getting closed as NC). I'm too busy to search such discussions out so its okay to leave it like this. It is always open to a re-nom and I'll go for it after a month or some. Thanks! TheSpecialUser TSU 02:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The no consensus close was correct, but I think you should have closed it with no prejudice against speedy renomination as there were no comments or !votes in this debate. This means that anyone can re-nominate this article at any time. →Bmusician 04:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Is there any policy that would otherwise prevent anyone from starting another AfD right away? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done I added NPASR. Go Phightins! 11:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Question
How am I editing in a disruptive way? I have provided a reliable link and this is accurate information (REfreakk5555 (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC))
- Hi, and I apologize for the poor choice of template. Basically, what I was trying to say was that your edits to the Petraeus article were not from a neutral point of view and violated the policy on biographies of living persons. If you have any additional questions on how to edit constructively, please don't hesitate to let me know. Go Phightins! 02:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 November 2012
- News and notes: Toolserver finance remains uncertain
- Recent research: Movie success predictions, readability, credentials and authority, geographical comparisons
- Featured content: Panoramic views, history, and a celestial constellation
- Technology report: Wikidata reaches 100,000 entries
- WikiProject report: Directing Discussion: WikiProject Deletion Sorting
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harrias
Message added -- Trevj (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Request; please immediately stop closing any AfD
Hi Phigtins, again, please don't take this otherwise. May I please request you to not close or relist AfDs unless you gain experience in seeing how they're actually closed/relisted? Please allow an administrator to handle borderline closure or relisting of discussions. What you did here, here, here, here, here, here are clearly problematic. And why did you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WBBA before seven days? Please immediately stop closing any AfD. Best regards. Wifione Message 17:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Can you explain the problems that you see Wifione? I followed a few of your links, but didn't see anything egregious. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sure. In order listed above. First one might have been deleted by an admin. Second one should have been closed by an admin, given there were two keep !votes and one nom's delete !vote, despite there being apparent strength in the keep !vote. Third one could have been deleted by an administrator instead of getting relisted. Fourth one should have gone to an admin, who may have deleted the article. Fifth one again should have been relisted. Sixth one should have definitely been closed by an admin because of the borderline nature of keep !voters. The reason I request Go_Phigtins to not close AfDs is because there are simply too many of them which are borderline and are being closed/relisted en masse by him. My request is not intended to put him down; far from it, I'd appreciate it if Go handles only the sparklingly clear cases of keep closures than those that are borderline and could go either way. Wifione Message 18:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'll let Phightins! worry about the other ones, but I see nothing wrong with this closure. The article had already been redirected and the AfD had not seen any participation since. It was basically just housekeeping. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- I understand what you're mentioning. I feel that there should have been no hurry to undertake the said housekeeping. If, after seven days of relisting, there's no editor who has added new content claiming that WBBA is actually "Washington Biotechnology & Biomedical Association", then this bold redirect close would have been viable. Wifione Message 18:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- First off, someone had already redirected WBBA so I simply closed the AfD as such. I haven't looked at the other ones yet. Give me a few minutes. Go Phightins! 20:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I understand Wifione's point that you could have left it open, but I have no real problem with your closure there. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- First off, someone had already redirected WBBA so I simply closed the AfD as such. I haven't looked at the other ones yet. Give me a few minutes. Go Phightins! 20:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- I understand what you're mentioning. I feel that there should have been no hurry to undertake the said housekeeping. If, after seven days of relisting, there's no editor who has added new content claiming that WBBA is actually "Washington Biotechnology & Biomedical Association", then this bold redirect close would have been viable. Wifione Message 18:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'll let Phightins! worry about the other ones, but I see nothing wrong with this closure. The article had already been redirected and the AfD had not seen any participation since. It was basically just housekeeping. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sure. In order listed above. First one might have been deleted by an admin. Second one should have been closed by an admin, given there were two keep !votes and one nom's delete !vote, despite there being apparent strength in the keep !vote. Third one could have been deleted by an administrator instead of getting relisted. Fourth one should have gone to an admin, who may have deleted the article. Fifth one again should have been relisted. Sixth one should have definitely been closed by an admin because of the borderline nature of keep !voters. The reason I request Go_Phigtins to not close AfDs is because there are simply too many of them which are borderline and are being closed/relisted en masse by him. My request is not intended to put him down; far from it, I'd appreciate it if Go handles only the sparklingly clear cases of keep closures than those that are borderline and could go either way. Wifione Message 18:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
All right, I'll reply to these one at a time.
- I'll concede that this one wasn't a great closure. Sorry about that.
- I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here. The nominator stated that he couldn't tell if it was notable based on foreign language refs, and two others !voted keep with additional sources. Even if an administrator closed this, they would have had to close it as either keep or no consensus, which has the same de facto result, WP:NOHARM may apply. I understand your point, but I think that I would stand by that closure.
- Not sure why you object to a relisting where the !votes thus far were delete, delete, delete, an explanation for why it was created, and a strong keep. There's no consensus there, and if an administrator wanted to override the relisting and close it as delete, they'd have been welcome to do so, but they haven't. Additionally the newest !vote is to redirect, a scenario that hadn't been considered. I'm going to stand by my relisting of this one too.
- I just discussed this with someone else. I closed this immediately after re-reading WP:NAC. I double-checked because I didn't know what the protocol was, and I closed it as was listed as an appropriate closure.
- Why should the fifth one have been re-listed?
- There were new references since the article had been nominated with the primary concern as notability, and every !vote since then was to keep. All votes prior to this were delete on account of there being no references to confer notability.
--Go Phightins! 20:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- I appreciate your reply. I hope you see this in the right perspective. As an administrator, I would have closed these six AfDs differently. It means that I am disagreeing with your closures in my administrative capacity. It also means that I believe these closures are either clearly opposite to my closures or are borderline closures and you should not from now on perhaps be closing such AfDs. If you had been an administrator, I would view your statement, that you stand by your closure, in a different light. You are not an administrator. And I am not comfortable with you closing AfDs that can be closed differently from what you've done. I've listed my replies sequentially again:
- First AfD: I appreciate your acceptance of it not being a great closure.
- Second AfD: You should have left this to an admin to close it as No consensus. I don't know whether you checked the sources given by the second keep !voter. First one was a primary source of the channel. Second mentions it's a press release. Third source has the starting copied from the press release. Fourth is a blog review written by a visitor. In other words, if it's a no consensus closure, you should leave it to an admin.
- Third AfD: I don't know whether you checked the sources provided by the one keep !voter. Both are primary links, being those of the media house organizing the fest at the institute. And you seem to be not considering the nominator's delete !vote in your final list. In other words, I see four delete !votes and one keep!vote based on primary sources. I would have deleted this at this point. It doesn't matter whether you stand by your closure. These relistings should be left to an admin to decide.
- Fourth Afd: It is the closing administrator's judgement to either delete the article or not as per No Quorum. In other words, you should not have closed an AfD which can go either way. Please don't close such AfDs again.
- Then what is your response to the second (it might be third, but I think it's second) type of appropriate closure under WP:NAC? Go Phightins! 21:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's a dated essay that has not been updated, has no view on BLPs, and goes in some perspectives opposite to what policy mentions. What you should be following is not the essay, but the guideline on non admin closures. Wifione Message 22:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Then what is your response to the second (it might be third, but I think it's second) type of appropriate closure under WP:NAC? Go Phightins! 21:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Fifth Afd: This would have been relisted when you consider that an editor could have believed there were two keep !votes and one delete !vote of the nominator, who mentions that the sources he's seen don't seem reliable. Again, it doesn't matter if the final result may have come out as keep. This is a borderline case and you should not be handling such AfDs, irrespective of whether you stand by your closure or not.
- Sixth AfD: Four delete !votes including the nominators. The first keep !vote gives no additional citation, only subjective opinion on what he/she thinks of Sigma Theta Pi. Second keep !vote mentions just one line that "This article is in need of expansion not deletion". Third keep !vote mentions "Keep if expanded as Drdpw has said above", additionally mentioning some references added look good. In other words, this is a case that should not be undertaken by a non-admin. If you had relisted here, I wouldn't have complained.
Please do realize. My intention is not to slight you or question your motivation. These are AfDs that you as a non-admin should not be taking a chance with. Please go ahead and close clear cut keep AfDs. But other AfDs, please be extremely careful and avoid closing borderline AfDs based on your conviction. Please do ask me for any assistance at any time on this. Best. Wifione Message 21:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- And just for clarification, you would be OK with my closing of this AfD because the nominator withdrew his request for deletion? Go Phightins! 22:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'll have to read any further replies in a few hours, I'm on my way out, but thanks a lot for bringing all this to my attention. Go Phightins! 22:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- No issues. Good to see you around. Best. Wifione Message 22:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'll have to read any further replies in a few hours, I'm on my way out, but thanks a lot for bringing all this to my attention. Go Phightins! 22:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
A brownie for you!
Brownies are proven to lift one's spirits by at least 500%.[citation needed] Eat it. Seriously.We all make mistakes or get into confusion now and then, but Wikipedia needs you--just like it needs everyone else--so take a break, eat some brownies, and sit right back down at that keyboard.:) —Theopolisme 01:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC) |
- Unfortunately, I think a stale chocolate chip cookie will have to suffice as far as real life, but thanks anyway . Thanks for the sentiment; I needed it. Go Phightins! 01:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Adoption
Dear Go Phightins, I would like to be adopted by you. I might not be able to come for days on end(perhaps) but I'll be here most weeks. I want to get some experience in editing articles as well, and I thought adoption might be really useful. Thanks-Clockery (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- OK, great! I'll set up a classroom for you. Go Phightins! 20:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Your adoption classroom is here. Post everything pertaining to adoption over there. Thanks! Go Phightins! 20:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Articles for creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1345 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our help desk.
If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions.
Plus, reviewing is easy when you use our new semi-automated reviewing script!
|
We tried!
Well, at least we tried. Had he not been a 3x sock, I honestly thought we might have gotten somewhere. Oh well. There's always more people coming to edit! gwickwire | Leave a message 23:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah. Too bad. Go Phightins! 23:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- I feel like what happened there was editor retention to the extreme. gwickwire | Leave a message 23:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yup. But as you said, there'll be more editors. Go Phightins! 23:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- I feel like what happened there was editor retention to the extreme. gwickwire | Leave a message 23:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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) 01:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Adoption
Hi there, I am really glad to know that you are willing to help me. I am interested in doing your course. I don't have any pressing engagements for at least 3-4 months so I think I can contribute a lot. Although, I am going on a vacation this week and will be back by 12th December. I can start after that. So please tell me what I have to do about it. I am really looking forward to working with you.
Aditya Roongta 14:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityaroongta40 (talk • contribs)
- Your adoption classroom is located here. Please sign at the top of the page to indicate you've found it. I'll post the first lesson momentarily. Good luck! Go Phightins! 20:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Review
Done here Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I really appreciate it and will heed your advice. My only question would be, if this summer gets crazy (which they always seem to) and my contributions fall off, would it be prudent to wait until I've been around for a few consecutive months (e.g., target next November) if my contributions are minimal in the summer? Go Phightins! 20:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think so. Having three solid months behind you, with at least 12 of the last 18 being solid is best. You can always do some minor sourcing and gnoming in your busy months, staying away from admin related areas, which will make it easy to keep your edits over 200 a month without requiring you follow up a lot. I expect to do the same myself in a couple of months, as three months of the year I tend to work 14+ hours a day, plus drive a couple hours. Plus I have a home life. The key is to put these edits in article space, as that is where you want most of your edits to be anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- That's what I thought. Thanks. Go Phightins! 20:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think so. Having three solid months behind you, with at least 12 of the last 18 being solid is best. You can always do some minor sourcing and gnoming in your busy months, staying away from admin related areas, which will make it easy to keep your edits over 200 a month without requiring you follow up a lot. I expect to do the same myself in a couple of months, as three months of the year I tend to work 14+ hours a day, plus drive a couple hours. Plus I have a home life. The key is to put these edits in article space, as that is where you want most of your edits to be anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Phightins!, I would suggest that during the summer, if you want to do gnomish stuff like Dennis suggested, you could try something I did a lot of during the season: update the infobox stats for baseball players. I'd even recommend it to Dennis if he wanted something gnomish to do. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Not a bad idea. My edits are football related now, but in the spring I'm sure they'll shift toward baseball. Speaking of which, I am about to finally get an article to GA. Jim Thome is finally going to be a good article. Go Phightins! 20:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm sure Eric and I would appreciate it if you'd take one last look at Hawk Harrelson's favorite person. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Not a bad idea. My edits are football related now, but in the spring I'm sure they'll shift toward baseball. Speaking of which, I am about to finally get an article to GA. Jim Thome is finally going to be a good article. Go Phightins! 20:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Phightins!, I would suggest that during the summer, if you want to do gnomish stuff like Dennis suggested, you could try something I did a lot of during the season: update the infobox stats for baseball players. I'd even recommend it to Dennis if he wanted something gnomish to do. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. This is the first time a vandal has hit one of my pages, which must mean I'm not fighting them enough. :) --BDD (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- No problem. Go Phightins! 20:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Reverts
Regarding this,[1] maybe you hit the wrong button. I've been known to do that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, were you looking at your watchlist when it happened? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I was on my watchlist...to scroll up and down I click the scroll wheel and move it up slightly, so I'm wondering if when I originally clicked it, I was over top of the rollback link. That's probably what happened. Go Phightins! 21:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I always wondered why it doesn't give a confirm window before proceeding.—Bagumba (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Probably because Rollback is supposed to be one click. Not that I necessarily agree with the thinking, but that is likely it. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- That'd probably be too logical. Go Phightins! 21:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I always wondered why it doesn't give a confirm window before proceeding.—Bagumba (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I was on my watchlist...to scroll up and down I click the scroll wheel and move it up slightly, so I'm wondering if when I originally clicked it, I was over top of the rollback link. That's probably what happened. Go Phightins! 21:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)