This is an archive of past discussions with User:AutomaticStrikeout. 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.
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, ElectricCatfish22:46, 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). AutomaticStrikeout00:59, 30 August 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. AutomaticStrikeout21:07, 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. AutomaticStrikeout21:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
IMO its a clear case of edit warring, though some admins may be stricter that it has to be four reverts within a 24-hour period. Since I'm involved, I'm choosing to stay on the sidelines and leave it for other admins.—Bagumba (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's certainly the right approach to take. I don't care how many reverts he has in a whatever-length time span, if isn't edit warring against consensus, nothing is. AutomaticStrikeout21:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
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, Ocaasit | c02:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
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!
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). WizardmanOperation Big Bear20:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
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!
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
Background
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.
Progress so far
Stage one of the dispute resolution noticeboard request form. Here, participants fill out a request through a form, instead of through wikitext, making it easier for them to use, but also imposing word restrictions so volunteers can review the dispute in a timely manner.
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.
Proposed changes
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.
Similar to the one that was deployed, with great success, to the DRN.
Structured based on the specific issues most commonly dealt with at each forum.
Designed to improve the quality of requests for DR and the efficiency of DR at that forum.
Forms will merely fill out any existing templates (such as Arbcom's) and create a markup-free form in line with specific noticeboard practices otherwise.
Example form fields: What pages are involved? What users are involved? What is the issue? What resolution is desired?
This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute.
It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent.
If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors).
The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?".
Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired.
Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline.
Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time.
3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.
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. AutomaticStrikeout02:37, 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. AutomaticStrikeout02:41, 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)
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. AutomaticStrikeout03:23, 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)
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)
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. AutomaticStrikeout02:57, 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. AutomaticStrikeout03:17, 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)
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)
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. AutomaticStrikeout21:21, 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)
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. AutomaticStrikeout01:36, 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)
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. AutomaticStrikeout02:01, 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)
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)
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. AutomaticStrikeout02:24, 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)
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. AutomaticStrikeout02:46, 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)
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. AutomaticStrikeout02:58, 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)
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)
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)
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!
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)
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? AutomaticStrikeout00:59, 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)
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. AutomaticStrikeout18:21, 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)
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)
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)
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--Jac16888Talk21:49, 12 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)
That's ok. It happens. On the bright side, I might not have thought to change out the article template from the food page to Entertainment until quite a bit later if you hadn't brought up the subject. AutomaticStrikeout20:30, 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. RyanVesey20:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Darn! I just realized I didn't add anything about AFD participation, which will probably be needed...before it's transcluded, I should probably do that. GoPhightins!03:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
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. AutomaticStrikeout18:00, 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)
I'm starting an adoption program with Rcsprinter123 to staunch up my knowledge of the policies and am going to contribute for a few more months, rack up about 10-15,000 edits and then give it a go. I only have about 3500 right now. GoPhightins!19:26, 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). GoPhightins!19:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
