User talk:AutomaticStrikeout/Archive 3

Previous discussion on Greinke ejection

User:Isaacl is asking for a discussion on the Greinke ejection.[1] --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Replied there. AutomaticStrikeout 18:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: WoTD

Oh, I saw that! I thought you were talking about any (official) portal/project! Though it is an excellent one! --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok. There is no official project and right now, I'm not really interested in proposing one. I've had enough ideas get shot down for now. AutomaticStrikeout 19:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, go for one! --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably not, I've got my wiki-hands full at the moment. If you wish to make a proposal, go ahead. AutomaticStrikeout 19:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Many editors like to stay anonymous, some of them'll oppose it. And I have not thought how to suggest to highlight an editor– featuring at a corner of main page– that's the only place where featuring someone will be meaningful, but, going to be opposed again. --Tito Dutta (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, probably. That doesn't mean that in the future, a small group of editors couldn't start up their own project, nor does it mean that I wouldn't be interested, in a little bit. AutomaticStrikeout 20:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Google translate

I liked your answer to Q7. However, if you find a Google translate from Japanese that does make sense, it probably means something else altogether. Beyond establishing that someone appears to be a singer aged 9, I don't think I've ever got much from one. Chinese isn't much better. Having said that, others are worse than Google. Part of Google's problem (as with all translation) is idiom. What does "Put your foot down!" really mean? and alternative meanings of words - Is a 'hydraulic ram' a water-powered male sheep? A personal example: I've just changed 'penguin' to 'auk' in Provence because on the one hand, there weren't any penguins (birds like Tux, paper back books, or chocolate covered biscuits) in Provence 18,000 years ago. There could well have been auks, as the north was still ice-bound, and the French source will have said 'pingouin' - which means both penguin and auk. See what I mean? I could spot that, having a knowledge of both birds and French, but a computer couldn't. I do use GT - outward only for brief messages to users on other Wikipedias (or edit summaries there), but I have used it quite a bit for translation from other languages to English where I can gauge the idiom from the context. WP:PNT is the place for anything uncertain that's written in Foreign. People interested in languages get them sorted, or they get prodded after two weeks. As to AfD - if all Malleus comes up with is lack of experience, you've obviously buried the bodies well and not been on IRC. Get some more widespread experience, stay off IRC, Conservapedia, ED, etc - and you should get through in six months. Ask me for CSD tips and such - I stay off the discussion boards and still have never uploaded an image, but of my 18000 odd deletions, only about four have turned up at DRV and they ended up unrevived. Good luck. Peridon (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

A follow-on from this is that one has to be careful if one suspects one is talking to a non-native English speaker. Also, the use of words like 'sanction' (which has two totally opposite meanings) is best avoided as the person addressed might take it that something is allowed when you mean it isn't. Yet we expect words in other languages to be of single meanings and everything to be straight-forward and not idiomatic. This is how lawyers get rich... Peridon (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to remember that. Google Translate just isn't very reliable at times and I don't really know any foreign languages. AutomaticStrikeout 20:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Another thing to remember is that when you get your mop eventually, you are very rarely the only one around. You can't really say this at RfA, but there's always something else to be doing, and when you come back to whatever it was, someone will have sorted it. As you go on, you get the hang more and more. Some RfA regulars expect perfection before the candidate can even find the bucket. I scraped through on my CSD nom record and being seen in various other areas. I had very few thoughts of becoming an admin - I got picked on instead. Or should that be 'picked up'? (Example of making a deliberate mistake in wording to make a joking point, and asking a silly question.) I wasn't all that worried about passing. I enjoyed what I was doing, in an unusual area - edits by new editors. Not New Page Patrol. I was the gleaner, picking up the unconsidered trifles (I do like trifles, but these weren't that sort), and retagging things wrongly tagged (after I got the hang). Unlike NPP, I was often working up to 12 hours after the latest (just when they thought they were home and dry.... I recommend it for experience. Good fun, too. Peridon (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Sound advice, Peridon. A coincidenc e- very similar to my own experience, especially being picked out/on for adminship and not really worried one way or the other. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I also think your answer to #7 was generally sound and I left some feedback for you that echoes some of Peridon's sentiments above under the "Neutral" section of your RfA. I think my comments came off as that I was disappointed with your response, but that is not the case; I think your answers to user's questions, including my own, have been thoughtful and show evidence that you are generally thinking in the right way about how to use the tools. I've found that RfAs are a good place to get nominees to consider alternatives in many circumstances and in one's general philosophy too-- and I think this is a very positive consequence of the RfA process, regardless of whether it is successful or not. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point. AutomaticStrikeout 15:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your RfA

Hi AutomaticStrikeout. Having watched a fair number of RfAs in my time and done an awful lot of research on the topic, I'm afraid to say that your RfA does not appear to be likely to succeed. What's more, I don't believe you are likely to get much more constructive feedback from this point on, but much more likely to get pile on opposes. Rather than push this to the end, can I recommend that you consider withdrawal? Many fine admins did not pass their first RfA, in my opinion, those who don't generally turn out to be better administrators. Worm^TT(talk) 19:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd second that. Things can get rather acrimonious if they are allowed to stew. You lose no face by stepping down from what can become a pillory. You've managed to get a pretty good reception for an unsuccessful bid - experience being the main stumbling block. I don't mind if you shadow me and ask questions - and I'm sure Worm won't object either. I'm not saying I'm a particularly good admin (having passed first time...), but not much of mine gets challenged. Worm gets into places I don't go (well, worms do, don't they?) so you'll get more idea. RfA is a gamble - and you know what any gambler should do. Quit while ahead. (Unlike mediaeval nobles, who should have quit while they still had a head...) Peridon (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have to echo Worm here. I think you've been given some good advice and I don't see much more coming. Hopefully a majority of the !voters who aren't supporting will continue to end up in the neutral column; however, I don't know that continuing the RfA does you any good. You should certainly be happy that virtually all of the neutral and opposing !voters have suggested that you run again and have suggested that they would support in the future. I know I will. Ryan Vesey 20:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I have decided to take your advice. I am currently considering if getting a mentor would be a good idea and am open to any advice regarding that. AutomaticStrikeout 21:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, you don't need a mentor - you're far past mentoring, and we don't do admin-coaching anymore (because they became guaranteed to fail). The basic gist of the opposes and neutrals (and even some supports) was keep doing what you're doing for 6 months ... oh, and work a little in some admin-y areas. That's pretty easy dangerouspanda 21:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think you are right. AutomaticStrikeout 21:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Aww phooey. I just hit save on a support and it was closed. Sorry to have been so slow :-( Yngvadottir (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries. It wouldn't have really made any difference. AutomaticStrikeout 21:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry it didn't work out

Well, I didn't expect it to be quite this one-sided. Sorry for pushing the idea so early in your tenure. The good news is, as has been said by several, most of the neutrals and opposes said they'd support you in six months. Sorry there are so few (but believe me I'm one of them) who support it now. Oh well, your day will come. Go Phightins! 21:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's hope next time goes better. Will you want to nom or co-nom then? AutomaticStrikeout 21:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely! Go Phightins! 21:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

...and just to note, never close your own RFA: you simply state that you`re withdrawing, and ask for it to be closed ... there`s a lot of steps to formally closing it! dangerouspanda 21:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I wasn't sure what to do. Hopefully, I won't have to do it again next time! AutomaticStrikeout 21:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I've done it right. Let me know if I messed anything up. →Σσς. (Sigma) 21:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. Thanks. AutomaticStrikeout 21:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I was very sincere in my comments, that it isn't a matter of "if", only "when". I waited 5 years to run, but I never wanted to be an admin until then. It just takes a while to learn the nuances and such and get a well rounded set of experiences. Without question, you have the right demeanor for an admin, and if you look at anything I have written on admin, that is always my number one criteria. In 4 or 5 months, I will be happy to give a full blown review and would likely nominate you at your one year mark if you are interested. Even though you didn't get the admin bit yet, you really should see that RfA as a success, as the only concern was experience, and time can fix that soon enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that on the whole, the RfA could easily be viewed as a positive. AutomaticStrikeout 02:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

re: Thanks

Hello, AutomaticStrikeout. You have new messages at Moe Epsilon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Regards, — Moe ε 22:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Hey! Thanks for the welcome! :) Jonty Monty (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I hope those links were/will be helpful. AutomaticStrikeout 22:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AutomaticStrikeout. You have new messages at Hahc21's talk page.
Message added 01:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— ΛΧΣ21™ 01:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AutomaticStrikeout. You have new messages at Go Phightins!'s talk page.
Message added 01:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Go Phightins! 01:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Your RfA

Thank you for taking the time to think me especially as I opposed at your RfA. I did want to support you as I think things like time here are given too much weight but your CSD answers were just a little far off, although I also saw a lot in those answers that I liked. Your answers very much gave me the impression that you're the sort of editor that would make a good admin but that, at the moment, you might not know our policies and guidelines quite well enough. With that in mind I'm not sure you need to become so much a "better editor" as a "more knowledgeable editor". Dpmuk (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope that I'll be more knowledgeable next time, and I'm not surprised it did not work out, but what did I have to lose? I was planning to run on my one year anniversary, which is about six months away. My impression is that six months is a fairly safe space between RfA's. So, I ran now, but I probably can still run on my one year anniversary. And I got some good advice out of it. AutomaticStrikeout 03:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AutomaticStrikeout. You have new messages at Webclient101's talk page.
Message added 03:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Webclient101 (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Gigs RFA

I hope you don't mind, I asked a follow up question on that RFA to yours...if you do mind, I'll get rid of it, don't hesitate to ask, but I thought with an answer that vague, some elaboration was necessary. Go Phightins! 03:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind. AutomaticStrikeout 03:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

RE: Thank you

Hello, AutomaticStrikeout. You have new messages at Trevj's talk page.
Message added 05:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

No problem

Per your comment on your talk page, I would like to encourage you to keep going and not be demoralised by whatever I (or the others) say about your RfA. Do interact with others more (and in the admin functions too) or come on to IRC to help out. I wish you good luck and all the best! :) --Hydriz (talk) 06:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree...just stay and continue your good work. Lectonar (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Your recent RfA

Thanks for the note on my talk page. I adopt the view that being an admin is no big deal. I'd like to see more admins, and I wish the process were a little gentler. It's small consolation, but I wanted to support you. I recognized your user name, and had a good impression of it. I don't need to see tens of thousands of edits or a huge involvement in admin areas. I'll look at the number of contribs, but 3000 is usually enough for me. I'll look a the distribution; if it's not heavy on article space, then I get curious; there better be some significant talk space edits. More importantly, I need to see clear evidence that a candidate understands the duties and will exercise restraint.

I read Q1-Q3 not only for their content but also for their showing that the candidate understands what editors want to see in an admin. It's OK to state conclusions, but conclusions should be backed up with evidence (just like articles need references). Think about how many hours editors will spend evaluating an RfA. Q1-Q3 will give them a heads up about you. It helps if the answers show strength and allow easy verification. One or two sentence answers are not going to be sufficient. I want a highlight, but I also want an explanation with some substance. When you read somebody else's RfA, what do you want to see in those answers?

I put a lot of weight on the Q3 conflict question. It's sad to say it, but I like to see a candidate in a bad situation and react well to it. It's sort of a rite of passage. There are all kinds of editors out there. Even well-meaning editors can be trouble. BTW, thanks for adding more detail to your RfA Q6 answer. The technical term is an ad hominem attack, and it is a frequent problem in WP disputes. I expect admins to know about conflict and about poor responses. Getting off the proper subject is a big problem.

I didn't see what I wanted in Q1-Q3, but I still went looking for reasons to support.

Candidates should have a general idea about various admin duties, but they are not expected to have detailed knowledge. If, however, the candidate states an interest in fighting vandals, CSD, AfD, copyright, or some other specialty, then there will be additional questions about those areas, and more detailed knowledge is required. (BTW, some wrong answers, if the logic is reasonable, are OK on difficult questions; see Oppose 18.) That's where you fell down for me. An answer emphasized the importance of communication to newbies, but you weren't being very communicative. You expressed an interest in deletion, but I didn't see clarity there. Evaluating an AfD (or anything else) takes some time; while you're taking that time, be conscious of the reasons. When you voice your opinion, state the crucial problem. Don't just say an article doesn't meet WP:N; say something specific. For example, look at the elements in WP:GNG; say there is no significant coverage or source XYZ isn't reliable or that a press release is not independent. That will not only convince us that you know and understand the rules, but it will also help new editors know and understand the rules.

I trust you can read many of the neutral votes for what they are.

None of the above issues is a long term impediment. You don't appear to have any serious flaws. You haven't been blocked. The opposes were primarily about inexperience/tenure. Poor behavior in an old conflict converts to a plus. Some criticized you for the admin-of-the-day proposal, but that won't have legs.

Good luck next time.

Glrx (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and taking the trouble right it all. AutomaticStrikeout 17:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

RFA/RFC

Hi, would it be possible for you to refine your comment to clarify whether it is the OP or my comment you are referring to? cheers. Leaky Caldron 19:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done I was actually intending to make my comment earlier than I did, but the computer was temporarily unavailable, and you got your comment in first. AutomaticStrikeout 19:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Many thnx! Leaky Caldron 19:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem. AutomaticStrikeout 19:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

SNIyer12

I'll likey let the others present their evidence, before I comment. They've a better grasp at providing diffs, then I. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't really want to spend a bunch of time digging around for diffs, it's not really my fight, so to speak. AutomaticStrikeout 20:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I confess to being concerned that things are being rushed a bit: if those who feel a more direct connection to this issue didn't feel ready yet to open a discussion on the incident noticeboard, I'm not sure that your escalating the discussion as a disinterested third party was the best course of action. Giving more time for the discussion to progress on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball page and to allow for SNIyer12 to respond may have been better. (In context of your recent request for adminship, as a general suggestion I think it would be good for you to allow for more discussion in disputes before moving forward with actions.) isaacl (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but SNIyer12 had plenty of time to respond and did not do so. AutomaticStrikeout 02:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Time for others to continue the discussion and reach a consensus on next steps would have been desirable. If you wanted to take the next step of opening a discussion at WP:ANI on your own behalf, naturally that is your choice, but doing so in the name of others pre-empted their ability to decide on what should be done next. isaacl (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that's a fair point. However, please note that while there had been suggestions made on what to do, nobody appeared to be taking steps to follow through. Still, in retrospect, it might have been wise to ask first before making the report. AutomaticStrikeout 03:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Change to Abraham

I will live with it. Please also see changes I made here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith#Reactions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srhzaidi (talk • contribs) 03:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Umpire task force

Not just baseball umpires, but referees in general: what is the notability of serving as one? It's not at all a jab at the importance of the role each one of these men (and women, in the case of other pro sports) plays, but a lot of the articles seem to be about "so and so umped this game when so and so hit his 300th home run" and controversies. If it takes a controversy to make someone's name (note, I'm not arguing profession) notable, or being in the presence of another's achievement, that is sort of a sad excuse for WP to donate a bit of server space. Umpires are not allowed to comment on their calls, so these articles are not going to contain any direct quotes from the umps themselves. Additionally, the articles are at risk for failing WP:NPOV because the quotes that usually do make it on article page (or that the press bothers to provide) is from a player/manager that does not hold an unbiased opinion. Simply including both sides' side of the story still doesn't equate to NPOV, as the article's subject is not included (due to their not being allowed to attend press conferences post-game or comment on rulings in general). These umpires are to be worker bees humming along in the background. (This is different than say, a team's GM, who is allowed to talk with the press and give comments on the team's failures/successes, trade scenarios, etc.) It could be argued no one goes to a ball game to see or hear an ump, but I guess there might be a few dozen folks out there who actually do. But I guess there might be a few people who pay to go see the Mona Lisa when it's time for it to be dusted off, rather than look at it.

We don't let articles keep trivial information such as "so and so was playing second base during the game so and so recorded his 3,000th hit." What I could see, however, is a group article, similar to what is done for minor leaguers of a certain team (a bunch of them will have stubs appearing within the same article) or just a mighty fine article on baseball umpiring in general. I would say that an article that likely draws its most viewers from editors making vandalizing edits shouldn't exist, but the controversy surrounding an article should not preclude it from existing. But the notability should—and does. I guess this probably goes into further detail why I decided to decline your gracious invitation to the task force when it was created months ago, and why I am unlikely to devote much time to any of the articles. But my opinion can be swayed...Sincerely yours, Cynical (Zepppep (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC))

Personally, I believe that umpires are generally notable, they do receive a significant amount of press coverage. I think part of the problem is that most of that coverage focuses on negativity because people prefer to deride officials rather than support them. However, I think plenty of sources can be found, and at least somewhat decent articles can be written as a result. It would be helpful if people were a little more willing to be inclusive regarding controversial ejections. AutomaticStrikeout 22:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Significant press is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. Yes, they are mentioned in articles from time to time, but not everything that is mentioned deserves its own WP article. Additionally, when they are mentioned, it typically is for critical reasons. It's a hometown newspaper saying a call was bad, or the national media giving a guy a hard time because replay showed the player was out when he ruled safe, and so on. There are no stats available to the public on their no. of calls, strike-to-ball ratio, etc. They occasionally have pieces which feature their role, but typically it's just games they've been a part of (i.e., ppl are talking about it for something the players or managers have done), their opinion on a game they didn't work, or the game at-large (steroids, players' union, HoF). The recent SI cover was about the refs in general, not one particular official. Refs that try to get their names in the paper drive me crazy, so I guess anything that goes to give them more exposure than I think is needed I am against. That being said, I know that others do believe they deserve their own articles, and well beyond a stub, so I wish you luck in your endeavors. And again, thanks for the invitation. Zepppep (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome for the invite. Keep up the good work! AutomaticStrikeout 18:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, AutomaticStrikeout. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

TheSpecialUser ^TSU 08:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. I may not be able to respond right away, due to my email situation. AutomaticStrikeout 18:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

PERM

Theoretically, there's nothing to prevent any user proposing another user for Autopatrolled. Do bear in mind however, that it's not a user right, a trophy, or a hat to collect. There is absolutely no benefit to the user - it's just a purely technical fix to reduce the load on the new page patrollers, nothing else. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

True. But the editor in question has been quite prolific in creating acceptable articles and is the kind of editor that autopatrolled is for. AutomaticStrikeout 18:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, but you may wish to consider using neutral phraseology that won't possibly be misinterpreted that 'Autopatrolled' is a big deal for the user. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. AutomaticStrikeout 01:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for protecting my user page. I appreciate it. Go Phightins! 01:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. AutomaticStrikeout 01:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on my talk

Hey thanks for your help, but I can take it from here...it's probably best only one of us discuss this because he's getting defensive feeling that he's getting double-teamed. Thanks for your input, you know I always appreciate it. Go Phightins! 02:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I understand. AutomaticStrikeout 02:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Tabs

I went to your userpage and saw you added tabs. I initially thought it was my userpage and I got all confused about how I ended up there. I stole the concept from Worm's old Userpage. In any case, I left you a note on Go Phightins! talk page. Ryan Vesey 04:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the explanation. Btw, I stole the tabs idea from your page! AutomaticStrikeout 17:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Understood, I'm glad to spread the patriotism (or UPenn pride?) You're probably having a great week considering 2012 American League Championship Series. Ryan Vesey 18:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did enjoy the way it went. Not sure what patriotism/UPenn pride you are referring too, but thanks again for the signature help! I think editors tend to copy other editors styles sometimes. I copied your tabs, and now I've copied Phightins! sig, except for the colors. AutomaticStrikeout 18:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The colors of the tabs I used were red white and blue which are the colors of the American Flag and of Penn. Ryan Vesey 18:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I didn't bother with the colors (would've probably been too confusing), I just copied your basic framework and made the necessary additions/removals. I don't get a lot of that formatting, so it's easier to borrow someone else's design. Consider it a status symbol, other people imitating you! AutomaticStrikeout 18:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Leyland Fire Storm

Not sure if you live in Detroit as I do, or listen to the radio, but Leyland has been under fire for not bringing the team a title. As my edit stated, he has been asked whether he has "thought of next season" multiple times (especially this year) by reporters and is a constant victim of angry callers for radio stations. It also mentioned he has taken them to three post seasons (now two world series). Not sure why that is "impartial", as I think you called it, as these are facts. I didn't say "0h m4y g4awd l3lyand sucks!!!11!!!!1!!" (as happened on Valverde's page).

Side not, also a Cubs fan (sadly) so not partial here either.

76.226.177.8 (talk) 08:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Al76.226.177.8 (talk) 08:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Unfortunately, what you're describing is constituted as original research. The proposed content, if written in a neutral manner, could be included if you provide a verifiable reliable source. Thanks--Go Phightins! 15:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The mention about a supposed "rivalry" that is based upon a run-in at a bar is unsubstantiated, trivial, and on its face false since your wording indicated this was a "rivalry" the players know little about. You need to find reliable sources if wanting to add a rivalry (or pretty much anything to WP). Re: Leyland, all of which you added was not sourced and would therefore violate WP:Verifiability. Additionally, anytime a user adds "seemingly" with an edit, it pretty much tells the reader (and any passing editors) "I think so." Readers don't come to Wikipedia for the same reason they go to a fan blog, rumor mill, or personal website. We are only as good as our sources and adherence to our five pillars. Additionally, might recommend a quick glance at our manual of style. Zepppep (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks Phightins! Your assessment was exactly correct, it is original research. I don't live in Detroit, but I am big time Tigers fan, I've listened to or watched most of their games for the majority of Leyland's tenure, and I have been calling for his head off and on since 2008. Still, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and content must be encyclopedic, not commentary. Still, you are right, some of what went up on Valverde's page was way worse. Also, Zepppep is right about the Diamondbacks rivalry mention. AutomaticStrikeout 17:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Calling for the head of a guy who's led a club to its first repeat playoff appearance for the first time in 80 years, 2 World Series appearances (and perhaps one win?) in 7 seasons, including their first WS in more than 20 years and a 95-win season in his first year (club had 71 the previous year), and one losing season in those 7 years? You are one tough customer. Zepppep (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know all about the ugly times before he came. I was happy until the severe letdown in 2008. I guess I can live with Leyland as manager, but he just isn't my favorite. For a manager as successful as he is, he has quite a few detractors. AutomaticStrikeout 18:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

He's old school, in an industry that is seemingly going new school. Just imagine how much differently he would've handled a struggling star than say, Giradi. Instead of "I had a talk with Alex. I want him to succeed, but right now I told him I'm feeling..." it would've been "I am paid to be the manager of this ball club. If someone doesn't like that fact, they can fire me. Until then, I determine the starting lineup." Zepppep (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind him being old school at all. In fact, I like to consider myself somewhat old school. I just don't always agree with some of his lineups and pitcher use. AutomaticStrikeout 21:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

He certainly doesn't believe in pitch counts. Seemed to work out OK for Paige, Feller, Koufax, Gibson...he rubs some folks the wrong way, for sure. The turnaround the team had this year just goes to show the system he put in place works; once the bats started coming alive, making the playoffs became a cake walk. Zepppep (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, when he gets them to the World Series, it's a little easier to overlook things I disagree with. Although if he's putting Raburn in the starting lineup again next year... AutomaticStrikeout 21:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Being silly

I've revoked his talk page access for that last bit of nonsense. Peridon (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

A good move. He asked for a second chance in his unblock request, which got rolled back, then he went and demonstrated that he doesn't intend to change a thing. AutomaticStrikeout 20:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I meant the one with the seven articles, who reverted me and you reverted him... Peridon (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's who I was referring too. AutomaticStrikeout 21:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

To quote him or her: that really "says it all". Hadn't noticed the self-reverted request. Peridon (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Right. Blanking a page containing an unblock request asking for a second chance and replacing the content with what is basically vandalism is a sure-fire way to stay blocked. AutomaticStrikeout 21:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

RFA followup

Credits to you for sending out notices to the participants in your RFA. I wanted to followup with the concerns I had with the CSD taggings from User:StephenBuxton/CSD Exercises.

1. The first exercise was actually a G10 CSD (attack page), which should have resulted in an appropriate warning to the editor. A followup with the editor that placed the A7 would be helpful.
2. Correct, while additionally letting the NPP tagger know that five minutes was a bit hasty.
3. A bit tricky, but was really not an attack page. It should have been a simple redirect to Malcolm Hardee (note the difference in spelling between the article title and article content). A polite followup to the editor thanking him for creating the article could be made, letting him know the article was redirected to one that already existed for the subject.
4. Fine; another choice (just my personal thoughts) would be to simply move it to the editor's userpage, delete the redirect, then place a welcome message on his talkpage and letting him know that you moved his "Hello" introduction message to his userpage and then offer a link to WP:Userpages and possibly WP:Userpage design center. A note to the tagger about biting would be appropriate.
5. Completely off the mark and a bit concerning. Always keep in mind that A7 CSD has nothing to do with notability, but rather applies to articles which fail to indicate how and/or why the subject is significant and/or important. This is a lesser standard than notability. It is irrelevant whether or not the article would clearly fail to meet the notability guidelines, if it makes a credible assertion of significance or importance. An appropriate response to this article may include either searching for sources to support notability, if sources are not readily apparent, a BLP PROD should be placed. Also, make sure to offer a welcome (if not previously offered), then a notice to the editor about creating autobiographies.
6. Again, A7 has nothing to do with notability. The A7 is accurate, but since the content includes a personal address and personally identifiable content about an apparent minor, a request for oversight should be made. I would also welcome the editor and provide a link to Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors.
7. Again, the A7 CSD tag is completely wrong. A7 ≠ notability. The article makes claims of awards won, so this meets the threshold for credible assertions of significance or importance. It doesn't meet the G11, since the tone can be addressed through editing. A proper response here, since the article offers no references, would be to place a BLP PROD. Notice the username. A clear conflict of interest and violation of the username policy. A softblock would be appropriate letting the editor choose a different username. I would also recommend offering guidance on drafting first in a subpage/sandbox to avoid speedy deletion and ask the editor if they would like to protect the article from deletion until they change their name and are ready to add sources to the article to establish notability. Then userfy the article accordingly. Hope all this helps. I'm sure you'll be a fine administrator one day! Best wishes, Cindy(talk to me) 20:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for taking the time to write this lengthy explanation. AutomaticStrikeout 20:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I was planning on making similar comments this weekend (now that I finished my essays). I think Cindy summed it up nicely. Ryan Vesey 20:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. This article I just tagged as an A7 may need oversight. How do I go about that process? AutomaticStrikeout 20:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That one's fine because it doesn't contain identifiable information. Ryan Vesey 20:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but what should I do the next time I find an article that does require oversight? AutomaticStrikeout 20:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Ping one of the editors at Wikipedia:Oversight#Oversighters or check Wikipedia:Requests for oversight and use one of the other options listed at the bottom of the page. Ryan Vesey 20:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. AutomaticStrikeout 20:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Another trick is revdel. If you haven't met it, it's what admins can do to hide edits in an extant article. It removes content, and/or poster and/or edit summary from public view. Admins can view, like they can view deleted articles. If something is very urgent, get an admin to revdel (it can be undone, anyway) while waiting for the oversighting. The edit stays in history, but struck through and greyed. It's useful too if someone has made an edit summary that is offensive or copyvio, too. The summary can be dealt with by revdel without affecting what might be an otherwise OK edit. Never gets asked about at RfA. Should be wider known, perhaps. Peridon (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

How is that applicable to me, as I'm not an admin? AutomaticStrikeout 22:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

hof

Sounds good to me. Go Phightins! 03:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Great! AutomaticStrikeout 03:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Do I start the list? Go Phightins! 03:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please. We could list the candidates on the Hall of Fame page, but I think it might be wiser to simply do the whole thing via email. AutomaticStrikeout 03:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. I am working on creating a "Wiki-Email" and will get you a list of 3-4 names when I do. Go Phightins! 03:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Okie dokie. AutomaticStrikeout 03:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the New York Mets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Precursor (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:05, 20 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!

Stubs			Cleanup
	José Ceda			Jeff Fahey
	Jim Dennison			Cliff Lee
	Gary Thurman			Denis Morris Catholic High School
	Reid Cornelius		Merge
	U.S. Central Credit Union			List of velodromes
	Lee Owens			Street organ
	ISM-International School of Management			Connecticut Tigers
	Brad Hand		Add sources
	Scott Pickens			Greg Dobbs
	Franklin Gene Bissell			Yuta Muto
	Zack Cox			Merengue music
	Andy Dirks		Wikify
	Kyle Weiland			OnMilwaukee.com
	The Knocks			Rock Bay, Victoria
	Daniel Batman			Logan Hospital
	Alex Sanabia		Expand
	Ron Finley (American football)			Hidenori Kuramoto
	Ben Martin			Vince Dooley
	Eddie N. Robinson			Bear Bryant

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) 12:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Your username

You should seriously consider renaming yourself to User:Curtis Granderson; same exact meaning with a couple fewer characters. My fucking Yankees (obviously the pitchers, Jeter, and Suzuki excepted)... I was about ready to fly out to Detroit and try to convince them to sign me; I couldn't have done any fucking worse. </rant> Man, did I need to get that out of my system. Seriously, though, I'm impressed you and 4 other people managed to beat me to my own conom's RfA; looks good so far, albeit already more than twice as many questions as I had for my whole RfA. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that's part of the problem. I was inundated, but I might have deserved it. People needed more information to form an opinion. In Writ Keeper's case, it is fairly clear that they are asking questions just to ask them. Someone has to stop JC37 too, it's getting ridiculous. I don't have a problem with his boilerplate messages, but asking all 5 is too much. Pick one, if you need more information after that ask another question, but five questions at once is overwhelming. The same goes for Amadscientist in this one, throwing out 3 at once. Granted, administrators need to be able to respond to questions and work under stress, but people shouldn't ask these just for the sake of them being asked. Ryan Vesey 05:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

My personal theory is that people were so busy defending their right to act like dicks at RfA at WP:Requests for comment/Badger Drink they forgot to exercise that right at my RfA. That said, I agree the rapid-fire questioning from a couple users has for to stop; on at least one occasion, we had to block someone for (among other things) doing basically the same thing at the RefDesk. Not sure what to do, but I agree it makes things unnecessarily arduous. And now we have an oppose that makes no sense; this means it's a real RfA now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Rapid-fire questioning and irrational-opposes aren't the end of it. Apparently, supports that come in before questions are answered are a problem now. Ryan Vesey 05:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure which oppose Blade was referring too, but I fail to see how Writ Keeper could be opposed for being a newbie! Also, the wording on that same oppose indicates that his edit count is not-so low, why would one oppose based on that? Also, what's wrong with supporting before all 500 questions are answered? AutomaticStrikeout 15:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that one. The only reason I haven't responded to it is I don't have any idea how to. Any chance you'll take me up on the rename?. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

No, fraid not. I actually like Granderson. AutomaticStrikeout 17:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, User:2012 Red Sox seems to be available too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Haha, yeah. But I think I'll stay with this one. AutomaticStrikeout 20:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

email

Sorry if you've replied to the email I sent...for some reason the new account only sends, but doesn't receive, emails. I'm in contact with tech-support, but am going to turn in soon, so I'll end up addressing it within a few days. Go Phightins! 03:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I haven't replied yet, but I shall take a look at it. Thanks. AutomaticStrikeout 03:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. Go Phightins! 03:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI- I've changed my wiki-email back to my original one if you want to reply to me there, that way I can at least read it. Go Phightins! 03:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the note. I don't believe I have received the email yet. AutomaticStrikeout 03:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

All right, maybe the account doesn't send emails right either. I thought I sent an email to my old account and got it. Anyway, it is all screwed up, but I'm currently too tired to fix it. If you'd like, I can post my suggestions at the HOF page, or you can wait until the stars align and technology magically works for me. :) Go Phightins! 03:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess you can just post them on the HOF page. AutomaticStrikeout 03:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done And again, I apologize for my technical issues. Thanks for your willingness to include me in this endeavor. Go Phightins! 03:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. Don't worry about the tech issues. I will look into the suggestions you made. I don't know much about Batard0, so I may need to do some research there. AutomaticStrikeout 03:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I've reviewed several of his GAs. He focuses on Cleveland Browns related articles (a fan of a team as wretched as them deserves some recognition :) ) and he has brought numerous articles to GA plus one to FA. His account is relatively new, but I imagine he's already significantly surpassed my edit count. Go Phightins! 03:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I shall have to give it all some thought. I can only pick one candidate per month, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of the ones you mentioned are some of the first selected. As an aside, I don't know that we will use this format every month, I may eventually broaden the committee and maybe ask each committee member to give two suggestions, but as of now, you have it all to yourself. AutomaticStrikeout 03:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, concentrated power...I love it! Maybe you could have each inductee become a member of the committee. Go Phightins! 03:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a good idea. I believe that had occurred to me, and if you like it, it works. However, I will wait till next month to bring in Bagumba as I just told you it was all you for this month. (Breaking News: John Farrell to the Red Sox) AutomaticStrikeout 03:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, an IP is on it...time for temporary semi-protection :) good night. Go Phightins! 03:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Good night, and if it isn't semi-protected when I get back tomorrow afternoon, I'll give you a pie! AutomaticStrikeout 03:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

TAFI

Thanks for the information about TAFI lasting a week. You are right; I did not know. I would like to improve the Entertainment article further if I have time. There is much more to be done ... Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and it's great to see what you've done so far. I don't know how much you know about the project (it's fairly new), but this is probably the best work I've seen done on any of the articles selected so far. Of course, even when the week is up, you can still continue to work on the article. I admire editors who have the ability to rapidly improve an article like you've done. AutomaticStrikeout 02:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. :) Good that you brought the article to our attention. It was quite awful before and it's not good enough yet. I thought TAFI must be a new project as I hadn't seen it before, but then, there is a lot I don't know! I'll keep an eye on it. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. I'm not a great content worker myself, but I'm glad to be part of project dedicated to improving content. AutomaticStrikeout 03:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification about the end of TAFI for Entertainment. I am enjoying improving this article. I had to stop for a while (in order to do some real work) so I couldn't complete the sections that still need doing in time for the end of the TAFI period. For example, I am well aware that the sections of theatre and concerts need developing to match the rest. However, I will continue with it when I can to try to balance all the sections. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I think it would be really good for the project to actually succeed in promoting an article, it would give us credibility. AutomaticStrikeout 02:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Email up

All right, you can email me via the link. Go Phightins! 01:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting me know. AutomaticStrikeout 02:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

But please notify me on my talk page if you send me something as I am going to remain logged in on my other email on that website. Go Phightins! 02:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. AutomaticStrikeout 02:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)