This is an archive of past discussions with User:Go Phightins!. 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.
Hello, Go Phightins!. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 03:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jim Thome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily Herald (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Well, they were Greek, so they probably were nuts :)
I have heard that before, but I am more interested in whether they think that every fact, no matter how obvious it seems to them, needs a source. And you're violating your Wiki-Break, good sir!
It's not so much to keep me away from Wikipedia. I can check in on Wikipedia occasionally and not waste my time. The Wikibreak is to keep me away from my watchlist. Most of my time gets sucked into checking and rechecking pages during a discussion, there are times when I spend a long time going through my watchlist, just to refresh when I'm done, spend a long time looking through it again, refresh again, still have 10 or more new updates to check.165.123.233.100 (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
(stalker alert) You bring up a subject of interest. Let me ask you both a Question. Would it be safe to say that "most" editors, once they settle into a routine, check their watchlist, first thing, and then contiually while editing? The reason I ask is that I want to add that "Veteran Advice" to the Welcome that I use. I don't see any mention of it, in general, on various Welcomes I have accumallatedacumualeted collected. But I think it makes editing much more interesting and personal. The sooner a new editor starts to check his/her watchlist first (like the rest of us), the more chance they will stay past the inevitable hurdles. Thoughts, Comments, please. ```Buster Seven Talk23:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I would feel like most do, but I couldn't be sure. I tend to assume that the way I edit is the way everyone edits. Or I'll think to myself, "nobody actually uses such and such a tool or such and such a page". In reality, I mean "I don't use such and such a tool or such and such a page".165.123.233.8 (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I haven't done much welcoming lately, but when I do, I have taken to writing out my own welcome. For example, the other day a newbie started editing some pages on the Philadelphia Phillies. In case you didn't know, Phightins is a reference to the Phillies, so obviously I took interest. I put my own welcome on his page with links to the Phillies WP and the Baseball WP. That said, haven't heard anything back from him, so I don't know if it worked, but... GoPhightins!12:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
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!
When is it that one decides that S9000 needs to be indef blocked because he's either a troll, or completely incompetent to edit here? It seems to me that he's been given more than enough rope, and every step forward is accompanied by two or three steps back. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I was about to leave a message here about the exact same issue as well. Also, what if you let S9000 nominate an article for GA status and I will review it (I have lots of expirence with GA's). I will review the article just like any other and hopefully it will teach him a lesson.--Dom497 (talk)03:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, I don't know. I doubt he's a troll...I just think he is too young to fully grasp everything. He has uploaded images to the Commons that are at best fair use. I've been asking myself that same question for months. GoPhightins!03:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
GA nominations (and declines) are an equally bad way to "teach someone a lesson" as adoption programmes, and I hope that for the future you would not think of using a GA review as a means to do so, nor canvassing for an opportunity to do so.
As for the likely chances of the current experiment succeeding, I'm not wildly optimistic. Maybe you should raise the issue at WP:AN, or contact an administrator with a past history of dealing robustly with similar problems, like User:Worm That Turned. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Demiurge, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on the point that adoption programs are a bad way to teach people about Wikipedia; my course and especially the editor you mentioned, Worm, 's course has turned out many productive users. Heck, it was Worm's course that mentored Ryan; I don't think any sane person is going to say that letting Ryan go by the wayside and remain eternally blocked would have been a good idea. I am not keen on letting S9000 nom a GA just for the sake of having it rejected. That's disingenuous. I have emailed a couple of administrators and we're going to work something out. GoPhightins!19:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I would think that an informal review - basically saying that an article is not ready to undergo a formal GA review should be enough in this situation. I know that there have been issues of "not hearing that" with the editor in question, but if multiple editors including the mentor (GP) don't believe an article is ready for GA review, the mentor should be able to say not to do it. The point of a mentorship is to give a guiding hand; if the mentee disregards that guidance, the point is lost. LadyofShalott19:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The whole point of a mentorship program is to teach editors how to contribute constructively and grasp an understanding of Wikipedia's policies; if that doesn't occur, then the point is lost. I agree that the article is not close to obtain good article status yet, but although fairly difficulty sometimes, it is usually possible. Learning about reliable sources and such at an adoption course can certainly help them be able to easily improve articles and understand the criteria further anyway. Starship's agreement seems to be appropriate to me in any case, currently. TBrandley(what's up)20:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Go Phightins, you seem to have misunderstood my comment here. There is a difference between "teaching someone a lesson" (which has strongly negative implications) and "teaching people about Wikipedia". Hopefully you can see that. (If it makes it any clearer, I've been using a version of Worm's course with my own adoptees for several years now.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Editor of the week - Reply
Hi there GP, AL here,
deeply moved by the honour, even though i again stress i feel several other editors are much more deserving of the accolade than myself. However, if i was chosen, i must have done at least something right no? :)
Hello, Go Phightins!. You have new messages at WP:AN/I. Message added 20:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Of the three, I most wanted Tasker to be notable. Mostly because he's an Ivy Leaguer. If the article is kept, something more needs to be written about the education side. RyanVesey13:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
With Spring training set to begin the countdown to opening day has begun. From your username it seems you're a Phillies fan (I could be wrong) but do you think the team will be get back into contention or fall back behind the Nationals and Braves? –BuickCenturyDriver06:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't my edit notice give it away? Yeah, I'm a Phils Phan. I'm optimistic (and those who know me in RL would say that's rare ); I could see a second place finish and a wildcard spot and from there, who knows. If our veteran core stays healthy, I like us to go maybe as far as the NLCS. The key is that Rollins, Utley, Howard, and Ruiz stay healthy (and that Ruiz doesn't get caught using drugs!) and that the starting rotation stays healthy. If those two things happen, it's going to be a good year. We have a revamped bullpen, some solid bench players, and a young outfield. We'll see. GoPhightins!12:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Aw, don't be that way; every Mariners fan is allowed to be optimistic until at least April 15th. As the first fellow Mariners fan I've run across, I offer you one free unblock, no matter what misdeed you ever commit. We gotta stick together. GoPh will tell you that I've already predicted the Mariners will defeat the Phillies in Game 7 of the 2013 World Series. Get your bets in now, while the odds are good. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
That's ironic; I edit conflicted with Floq; I was going to say you could comiserate. But I do seem to recall that you're also predicting a Felix no-no? GoPhightins!22:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Some were funny/clever, but most of them seemed like you could pretty much substitute any team name for "Mariner"; they were more generic put-downs rather than Mariner-specific. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
My personal favorite was the Jason Vargas one, though he's not the only pitcher that could go for. They were pretty generic, but I thought that they were moderately amusing. Don't despair! The Mariners are the 28th best team! We still have the Marlins and the Astros. GoPhightins!22:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Well I think it's only fair that I give my opinion. Let's just say, the division race will be much closer between the Indians and Tigers this year .--Astros4477 (Talk)04:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but I think the Royals will finish second. Minnesota will be really bad again and poor Gardenhire will probably be gone, although the Twins gave Tom Kelly something like 7 or 8 straight losing seasons before he was done. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive
WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
Hi, GP. I may be going on a bit of a Wikivacation here real soon. I just completed a new article, only my third one, and I was wondering if you would take a look at it and consider nominating it as a DYK? It is titled Snake River Correctional Institution, and I think a good hook would either be the biggest public works project, or the call center thing? If you haven't the time, I understand. It just seemed kinda tacky to nominate it myself. Thanks! Gtwfan52 (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Gtw...first off, you are absolutely welcome (and encouraged) to nominate your own articles for DYK. All three of mine were self-noms, but here's the problem. Using the DYK check tool, since you started this in your userspace over two months ago, it would have to have been expanded 5x in the last five days (which seems odd, I thought you could move things from userspace), so unless it's an error, which I would check at WT:DYK first, you'll have to expand it fivefold. The article itself looks pretty good though! Keep up the good work. GoPhightins!20:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!
Awarded to everyone who participated in the Wikipedia Teahouse during its first year!
To celebrate the many hosts and guests we've met and the nearly 2000 questions asked and answered during this excellent first year, we're giving out this tasty cupcake badge.
I added some info in the article of Luke Tasker. I don't know if it's enough to overturn the PROD label but I'm continuing to look and add before the March 2 deletion deadline. Thanks 173.78.231.251 (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to remove the PROD at any time if you feel he's notable... Personally, I don't think he's there, but I'm always more than happy to have a discussion. GoPhightins!02:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
RE dispute resolution section
Hello. Recently you posted a message on my talk page, mentioning how you were shocked that I could make a mistake as I did at WP:DRN. Well, thank you for the heads up, I have posted an apology saying how I misunderstood the situation at hand. However, I was a little hurt by the message that you left, because you didn't seem to understand that everyone can make mistakes (WP:BELLY). Just thought I should let you know. Regards — nerdfighter(academy)02:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you saw the message I posted literally moments ago, but you don't need to tell me that all editors can make mistakes. I was on my way out, and when I don't have a lot of time I tend to be a little more crass than normal, which is my own fault, so for that I apologize. The key is to fix the mistake, apologize for it, and move on. You did that. I did that. We're fine. GoPhightins!02:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.
Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.
Other contributors of note include:
Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...
March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!
A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Almost all of your answers are, to put it bluntly, flat out wrong. I would strongly recommend rereading WP:AGF and WP:THREAD, and then revising your answers. I can guarantee you that you will not pass with these answers. I would be shocked if you broke a 40% with these answers. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
This might sound a little weird for an editor with 2000+ edits, and one whom isn't looking for adoption, but I'd kinda like to take the earliest couple of tests, just to get a good feedback on anything I need to improve. That is, if it's not too much trouble. :) Lukeno94(talk)21:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I think I'd like to take the tests for lessons 1, 2, 5 and 8 first - copyright knowledge is a weak point of mine particularly, hence why I've uploaded a grand total of 1 image so far in my 2 years or so of editing. The first couple are just to polish up skills, 5 for better knowledge on how to improve disputes (after the disappointment of thinking I'd sorted one, only for it to then explode worse than ever before). Thanks for the prompt response :) Lukeno94(talk)21:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
First I'm looking for sources I don't know what do you expected. I'm looking for sources for the specific information and that's just not happening right now. Unless you see something I don't see or you see some articles with the specific information.It's not like I'm just putting information just to do it. Believe me I am looking for sources I just don't understand what you are looking for third party sources. I just don't see it. That's all. 173.78.231.251 (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The reason we need third party sources is to establish notability. We can use other sources for information, but to ensure that a football player is notable, we need some unique coverage. I'll check him out on HighBeam Research to see if I can find anything. GoPhightins!21:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I accepted this one due to this and this, both from HighBeam, which at least are a start. Still not convinced, but he's got a better chance than Smith. GoPhightins!21:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
A brownie for you!
I noticed that you reverted a racist comment on my user talk page before I even knew it was there when I was looking at the page's history - thanks! I appreciate your defense of my page and of other ethnic groups! Jackson Peebles (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Go Phightins! Is lesson six and seven switched? I think it would make sense. Also, Tazerdadog is a great teacher, but keeps adding "Phightins! If you have any comments, I would appreciate it." I got my first 2/5 on a question. Anyway, could you please comment on lesson 5. Thanks. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail05:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I switched 6 and 7 intentionally, I think it makes more sense that way. I did ask for input if you have any, however.Tazerdadog (talk) 06:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Go Phightins! I'm a Junior Wrangler at the Teahouse, and I was reviewing some of the advice you gave a guest, specifically this advice. Are you sure that this was the best suggestion for the editor? They pointed out that an article about the multi-use recreational facility in question, which has multiple snow-tubing lanes, already exists at Amesbury Sports Park (and has been there since 2008). So it seems unlikely that the editor needs to check notability guidelines. Also, if they create a new draft of the article at AFC, that means we end up with two completely different versions of the article - the new draft as prepared by the owners of the attraction, and the existing article as prepared by Wikipedia volunteers. Are you sure that this is an ideal outcome? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Good grief; they didn't link the current page and I didn't think to look for it since he was mentioning the article wizard; I assumed they didn't have one at all. They've taken to updating the page rather promotionally, which I've reverted with an edit summary. Thanks for catching this. I've watchlisted the page and have noticed the user has made no other contributions to the page thus far. I'll monitor this. Thanks again. GoPhightins!20:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
