User talk:Go Phightins!/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I saw your contention of deletion on the talk page of the article. As standard procedure for a PRODed article (see WP:PROD for more info), I've taken it to the Article for Deletion discussions. You can voice your opinion about whether or not to keep the article here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Fipp. Thanks. Ravendrop (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The article James Urban has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Fails WP:N notability.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Paul McDonald (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of James Urban for deletion
The article James Urban is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Urban until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Paul McDonald (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment See? Stick to what you think is right! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Urban. Sure we disagree, but so what? Wikipedia wins!--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Re: A barnstar for you!
Um, thanks! Wow that was... 4 years ago. I had to do some digging to remember exactly what you were talking about... how exactly did you come across it? Gscshoyru (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
BOT false positive
Hi, bot tagged "section blanking" and reverted in San Severo. It's a false positive: "Demographic evolution" dummy empty section. 137.204.148.73 (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- All right, sorry. Go Phightins! (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- As IP I'm not able to remove. Please do it for me. 137.204.148.73 (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- A request for adminship is open for discussion.
- Open letter regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's potential disclosure of editors' personal information.
- Should all administrators seeking resysop have made an administrative act within the previous five years?
- Extended-confirmed pending changes and preemptive protection in contentious topics
- Are portals encyclopedic, and are they appropriate redirect targets?
- Should recall petitions be limited to signatures only?
- Should the length of recall petitions be shortened?
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Dick Anderson (American football coach), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill O'Brien (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) 11:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Bob Bicknell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill O'Brien (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) 10:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
2014 Big East Conference Football Season
Hi there User:Theworm777! I was patrolling the page you created, 2014 Big East Conference football season, and was wondering why you felt it necessary to create an article so far in advance for this topic especially with all of the conference realignment. I didn't propose the article for deletion, but I was curious as to your reasoning. Please reply on your talk page. Thank you very much. Go Phightins! (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I did it because of all the changes in conference realignment to show what Big East Football Conference will look like in 2013,2014 and 2015 and plan on linking to it from team pages and the conference realignment page to better show how it will be. Theworm777 (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Eric Bruntlett, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harrison High School (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) 10:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The article Aryanna Strader has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Candidate only, does not meet criteria of WP:POLITICIAN.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ... discospinster talk 03:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 13
Hi. When you recently edited Aryanna Strader, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Head Start (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) 11:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Aryanna Strader for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aryanna Strader is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aryanna Strader until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. tedder (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey I posted on my talk and the pages talk page, I was trying to break up the history section i added. For some reason I could not get the imbedded section to show up, so now they are running together. I could not figure out why, is there format protection on wikipages?? I was not trying to vandalize the page, just trying to make it look better. Hope I didnt mess any of your stuff up.DerickDiamond (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- I could not figure it out, i tried moving the history section underneath the application section and now the external links and reference section wont show up. It even has a red cite error tag at the bottom. I put up a wikify tag on the page, maybe someone else can figure it out. I am out of ideas lol. DerickDiamond (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- On another note, thanks for your help with this page. Also, is there a way to use the reflinks tool without putting up a barelinks tag on the page?? Thanks again,DerickDiamond (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- By barelinks, do you mean like the refs at the bottom of the page currently? Go Phightins! (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
July 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Boy Scouts of America, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. While I agree that the adjustment you made is most likely correct, the source provided does not support the statement, and as such Wikipedia does not support making such statements.Thanks for your understanding! KhalfaniKhaldun 02:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Barnstar - Victor Poor: Thank You!
Sir, I Thank You for your Barnstar award! The article on Victor Poor in the state that it was deserved a deletion debate/AFD. Secondly, part of any editors problem in recognising the significance of Poor in various developments is that the external ref's disagree. In particular, his major claim to WP:NOTAB re microprocessor development, our own articles and the exteral refs majorly disagree and make few mentions of him in the major media/non-technical publications. In improving the article, it became obvious to me that we have no consistent timeline for microprocessor development from 1969 through to 1973+. I have made this comment both within the ongoing AFD debate, the articles talk page, and made a note of the WikiProject Computing TalkPage to ask for their input. You are a good editor, and if ever you need my help, please - just ask! With Best Regards, --Trident13 (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. When you recently edited Josh Earnest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marion Berry (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) 12:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Do not edit User talk:EauOo again
Do not edit User talk:EauOo again. Your point has been made and continuing to leave the same message in different manners is disruptive. Considering the age of the account, it is also bitey. If you continue to be disruptive in this manner, I will be bringing you to ANI. Ryan Vesey 04:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- I understand your point and honestly didn't notice the age of the account, but it bothers me when I post something assuming good faith and the person deletes it, then I post an explanation of my reasoning, and am called a bully for stating my opinion, and then it's deleted. What would you have recommended? Go Phightins! (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- I would have recommended removing the page from your watchlist after the first removal. Alternatively, you could have just ignored the issue from that point. It is possible that it wasn't clear to you, but to an observer, it was clear that making the same point, even through explanation, would only inflame the situation. I never give out an AGF warning to begin with and it might have been better to leave your second comment first. In any case, I apologize for being a bit gruff and issuing a pseudo-ultimatum in my response here. Ryan Vesey 04:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, the ANI threat, for lack of a better term, did catch my attention. I do have that personality, for better or for worse, that once I'm in a discussion I intend on finishing it. You're probably right that it would have been better to go with the explanation first. Thanks for your thoughts, I probably did step a little out of bounds. Go Phightins! (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- On a happier note, are you a poly sci major and as a phillies fan, do you live anywhere near Philadelphia? I'm studying political science at the University of Pennsylvania. Ryan Vesey 04:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks by the way for fixing that table, I played with it for 15 minutes and couldn't get it without my preview looking like a giant disjointed blob. I do live about an hour and a half west of Philly. I'm just interested in politics, no degree or anything. Go Phightins! (talk) 04:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- If it is any consolation, I had a minor run-in with the same editor when he/she made a most outrageous reply to a simple and good-faith addition to an article. The editor then removed my comment claiming it was a "personal attack" - which it most certainly wasn't. I content myself with my own opinion of that particular editor which is certainly a great deal lower that the his/her own opinion of him/herself. Velella Velella Talk 08:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Glad I wasn't the only one. Go Phightins! (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- On a happier note, are you a poly sci major and as a phillies fan, do you live anywhere near Philadelphia? I'm studying political science at the University of Pennsylvania. Ryan Vesey 04:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, the ANI threat, for lack of a better term, did catch my attention. I do have that personality, for better or for worse, that once I'm in a discussion I intend on finishing it. You're probably right that it would have been better to go with the explanation first. Thanks for your thoughts, I probably did step a little out of bounds. Go Phightins! (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
ANI discussion
Hi, Go Phightins! Look, I sincerely apologize if I did anything wrong in the ANI thread. I did not mean to bite anyone, nor did I intend to cause any trouble in the thread. Thank you for the helpful comments and suggestions. I appreciate it very much. I'll keep your comments in mind next time. :) Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't believe you did, but obviously this is for a different venue such as mediation. Have you applied yet? Go Phightins! (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Not yet, but I would like to apologize to Niemti for my unintentional wikihounding. I did not mean to stir up any trouble in doing so. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Why don't you apply for a mediation now, and after the dispute is resolved you can make up with Niemti. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, then. :) That's a good idea. I did not intend to suck up to anyone who resolves the dispute in any way, as I thought that "find different interest areas and edit articles on those specific areas" was a more logical discussion and I should abide by it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I'm glad I could help broker a solution, but I would appreciate this being deferred to the Mediation committee. Have a good day. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Correction, I meant arbitration, which resolves inter-editor disputes rather than mediation which resolves inner article disputes Go Phightins! (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Okay. As a good faith editor, I do not intend to cause any disruption and want to seek good advice, as I wanted to give Niemti the fair chance he has been given to come back to edit as I always have with almost every editor. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Outstanding, as soon as there is consent from Niemti, get the arbitration and get on with your editing as I've seen both of you can make valuable contributions. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments and advice. Also, I do not want to game the system, as I am a rule-abiding editor and do not want to cause any trouble. Once again, please accept my apologies for this matter here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Not to be rude, but please apply for the arbitration now, and abide by it's decision. Thank you Go Phightins! (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- @Sjones23. You tell: "As a good faith editor, I do not intend to cause any disruption". This is great. If this is indeed your intention, you can do the following: (a) Do not go to arbitration, follow WP:FORGIVE; (b) stop commenting on ANI and administrator's talk pages about N.; (c) do not follow and do not revert any edits by N. If N. does the same (he said that was his intention), everything will be immediately resolved. End of story. Does it sound reasonable? My very best wishes (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- My very best wishes, I apologize for what I did, and I've seen you a few times recently giving very bad advice. You do realize that you are asking this user to assume bad faith on my part? If you are going to make an accusation like that you best be prepared to support it with evidence. Per this discussion, Berean Hunter told me that I should work with N and allow him the fair chance he has been given to return and I will maintain good faith and be civil towards him. I did not intend to violate wikihounding in doing so and I intend to help edit collaboratively and cooperatively with N, and not cause any more confrontations between us, and want to reconcile and apologize to him. I will still clean up errors that N makes in his edits. However, if there are any MoS, policy or guideline violations that he might need, anyone should warn him about these. The community has decided to unban Niemti and I respect that, but that still does not absolve them from adding the Ninja Turtles article, which was removed per the relevant guidelines at WP:NFILM and WP:FUTFILMS, since principal photography has not started yet. And should there be any more behavioral issues with N, I should contact Berean Hunter or remind N about what happens or if I feel that it goes really bad, I should take this to ANI. If I feel that content disputes with N are bad, Berean suggested that I will follow dispute resolution options or posting in one of the public venues for wider community input. I am consulting with User:Dennis Brown about this and I intend to be guided by what the administrators have said about the situation. I would encourage them to avoid the bad-faith-assuming advice by best wishes. Thank you. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I only made a suggestion that sounds simple and reasonable to me. Speaking about the alleged wikihounding, I would like to notice (see edit histories: [1], [2]) that both articles were first edited by Niemti; then you came to revert his edits. What you do is merging/deletion of an article, and I do not see a discussion with consensus to delete this article [3]. My very best wishes (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I had to revert these edits per the following guidelines: Wikipedia:NFILM#Future_films.2C_incomplete_films.2C_and_undistributed_films, which states that "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun." and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Future_films, which states that "All film articles pertaining to future films must meet the future film requirements of the film notability guidelines. This may also include related articles which are primarily about the film's content, such as character pages. For these articles, the primary notability guideline is that the article should not exist prior to a verified confirmation of the start of the film shoot." After taking a closer look at the article, I saw that they held no notability and there was no source to confirm start date for principal photography, and so the best option was to merge it into the film series article, as it should be documented on the film series article and once it starts filming, a separate article for it can be created then. I discussed these edits over at WT:FILM#Ninja Turtles article, and Betty Logan assured me that the page was stable and I did not edit war, as I felt that Niemti was close to getting involved in an edit war. There was no consensus, but the guidelines were made perfectly clear. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I only made a suggestion that sounds simple and reasonable to me. Speaking about the alleged wikihounding, I would like to notice (see edit histories: [1], [2]) that both articles were first edited by Niemti; then you came to revert his edits. What you do is merging/deletion of an article, and I do not see a discussion with consensus to delete this article [3]. My very best wishes (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- MVBW, do you see why I recommended arbitration? Go Phightins! (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have just received word, from Dennis Brown, that "sometimes it is better to simply walk away and let others deal with the problems, particularly if we have been too 'involved'" and "things don't happen in a vacuum here, if he [Niemti] is doing something wrong, it will likely get noticed by someone else." However, if he has made a major violation of some policy, I can always ping Berean Hunter, who is familiar with the situation, and let him make a determination, but it might be better to remove myself from noticing for a while. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your support in my RfA and the well wishes.—Bagumba (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, you deserved it Go Phightins! (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The article Josh Earnest has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Non-notable writer. One reference is his workplace. One reference doesn't mention him by name and the other is an interview (and thus not independent). No in depth coverage in independent sources.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
New section added to Cole Hamels article
Hello there. I have left details reasons alongside the tags (failed verification, clarification needed, vague and peacock term) I've added to the section you've recently added to the Cole Hamels article. If the items are addressed, I believe it would help the edit remain. However, if not, I would be in favor of removing the edit as there are so many issues with such little text, it'd probably be best to just remove the few sentences. I typically don't come to a talk page to make a special mention but I know your edits are in good faith. Let me know if you have any questions or might have any disagreements. Cheers! Zepppep (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate you assuming good faith...I knew this section would be a tough sell because it's hard to verify opinionated statements. I think most people definitely feel that Hamels possesses a great change up. I'll keep working on expanding this. Thanks for your time. Go Phightins! (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- But referencing a source that doesn't contain what you've written is not allowed. If you can't find a statement that talks about how many people think he possesses a good change up, find a quote from an opponent or pitching coach, ideally one with a lot of experience. The reader will be able to get some context as to how good his change up might be, but not given the impression that his change up is "widely known" as a good one. For example, an article I helped write, I included a quote from Ted Williams. If Williams is complimenting a pitcher, that probably gives the reader a pretty good idea of just how good the pitcher was if it was said during arguably the greatest hitter of all-time. But it's still letting the reader know it was an opinion from one player. Hope this helps! Zepppep (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- The ESPN article contains comments from teammate Adam Eaton, opposing hitter Craig Counsell, and esteemed pitching coach Mike Maddux that comment on how good his change up is. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- That still wouldn't allow for "widely known" to be used in the phrasing of the article. The only thing that would allow "widely known" to be used would be if you had referenced a source that had taken a poll of hundreds of players in the MLB, which you did not. If someone like Maddux has an opinion of Hamels having one of the best change ups, then state so in the article and let the reader know Maddux' POV (see: Wikipedia:Describing points of view)—we can only go with what is said in the sources cited. See this on words to avoid [4]. Zepppep (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note: the article no longer says widely known, I believe it currently says simply known...would it be better to say that according to pitching coach Mike Maddux, Hamels has one of the best change ups in the game? Go Phightins! (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- The article now reads "is known around baseball..." This is vague. Do your sources state thus, or do they state opinions from a handful of players and pitching coaches? Simply state the facts. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Words that may introduce bias. In the example there, the facts describe Dylan's prowess. It avoids attempting to measure things which are difficult to measure (such as someone's preference for songwriting). Also, I take issue with "the dominance." Simply state "the development of Hamels' change up" or "the addition of the change up to Hamels' repertoire." There is no context or facts given to allow the use of a word like "dominance." If he gets batters to strike out 70% of the time he throws it, then state it—but don't use the term in an unsupported way. Otherwise, it would be easy to categorize its use as a peacock term or POV. I would recommend you check out a GA, such as Cy Young. In the lead you can see the mention of those respected in the industry is mentioned (such as the TSN mention), as well as facts and placement of list. Rather than stating "Cy Young was the greatest pitcher of all-time," it is stated "Young established numerous pitching records," "Young was elected to the HOF..." It would be POV to say "Young was the greatest pitcher" or "one of the greatest pitchers." At the end of the day, the reader is allowed to decide for himself whether they think Young or any other pitcher was "the greatest." Zepppep (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Also, no need to use the talkback template on my page. I've been watching your page ever since I made my first posting to it. Zepppep (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry about the talkback, I assumed you were, but I just used it just in case. Anyway, according to the Fan Graphs page, it is the fourth best change up in the game this season. Do you object to dominance being changed to success? Or should it simply be changed to development? It is clear if you study the Fan Graphs statistics that it is one of the best in the game statistically, but I just wanted to see what you thought... Go Phightins! (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- No worries on the talkback. OK, so Fran graphs is from this season, but the Crasnick mention is from 2007. It's why I would use a more narrow focus and simply state the facts from the sources cited. If you have a quote from Maddux (which I see you've implemented), then use that. Use "in 2011, his change up was ranked..." I would get rid of the sentence beginning with "The time he spent..." It seems redundant. Also, don't change the article to read "several months" simply at my mention; use what is mentioned in the sources. I would strike "success" and replace with "the development of Hamels' change up..." I would combine the broken arm sentence with the following one (the former seems a bit of a fragment as is). Lastly, while you're at it, I would go ahead and add the extra details to the sources you've referenced in the article (such as article date, work, publisher, etc.). You might also use Brooksbaseball.net for finding more info. regarding his pitches. Zepppep (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- All right, thanks for your help...the article regarding his broken arm didn't specify how long he was unable to work on the curve, but I think a fair assumption would be several months to a year, I don't think that's necessarily pertinent. Anyway, I implemented the quote from Maddux, I changed success to development, combined the sentences you suggested, and came directly out with the Fangraphs stat. Additionally, thanks for the point to brooksbaseball.net, that's a cool site that I was unfamiliar with. I'll keep that in mind. At this point, I think the section is all right as is. Sorry about the way that section began, my Wiki-philosophy, if that's a word, is to get the ball rolling on as many different topics as possible with the hope that over time the community will expand and improve them. I expect that eventually this section will be expanded further. Once again, thanks for your help, and have a good day. Happy editing! Go Phightins! (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- No worries. That's why I tagged the issues with the section rather than doing what I might normally do (a revert), hopefully encouraging the original editor (or others who like to work on the article) to be bold. I don't necessarily mind if there is vague wording, weak prose, etc. added but the biggest thing I took issue with was giving readers the idea that something was worded as being sourced, when it was not. Have a good one, as well. I may reply to your solicitation for editor comments within the next few days or so since I see no one has taken you up on that as of now. Zepppep (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- I just noticed you awarded me a barnstar. Wow, that was awfully nice of you...cheers Zepppep (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- No problem for the barnstar, you definitely earned it by not reverting and instead suggesting...that's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Have a good night (assuming it's night where you are) Go Phightins! (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- I just noticed you awarded me a barnstar. Wow, that was awfully nice of you...cheers Zepppep (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- No worries on the talkback. OK, so Fran graphs is from this season, but the Crasnick mention is from 2007. It's why I would use a more narrow focus and simply state the facts from the sources cited. If you have a quote from Maddux (which I see you've implemented), then use that. Use "in 2011, his change up was ranked..." I would get rid of the sentence beginning with "The time he spent..." It seems redundant. Also, don't change the article to read "several months" simply at my mention; use what is mentioned in the sources. I would strike "success" and replace with "the development of Hamels' change up..." I would combine the broken arm sentence with the following one (the former seems a bit of a fragment as is). Lastly, while you're at it, I would go ahead and add the extra details to the sources you've referenced in the article (such as article date, work, publisher, etc.). You might also use Brooksbaseball.net for finding more info. regarding his pitches. Zepppep (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry about the talkback, I assumed you were, but I just used it just in case. Anyway, according to the Fan Graphs page, it is the fourth best change up in the game this season. Do you object to dominance being changed to success? Or should it simply be changed to development? It is clear if you study the Fan Graphs statistics that it is one of the best in the game statistically, but I just wanted to see what you thought... Go Phightins! (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Also, no need to use the talkback template on my page. I've been watching your page ever since I made my first posting to it. Zepppep (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- The article now reads "is known around baseball..." This is vague. Do your sources state thus, or do they state opinions from a handful of players and pitching coaches? Simply state the facts. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Words that may introduce bias. In the example there, the facts describe Dylan's prowess. It avoids attempting to measure things which are difficult to measure (such as someone's preference for songwriting). Also, I take issue with "the dominance." Simply state "the development of Hamels' change up" or "the addition of the change up to Hamels' repertoire." There is no context or facts given to allow the use of a word like "dominance." If he gets batters to strike out 70% of the time he throws it, then state it—but don't use the term in an unsupported way. Otherwise, it would be easy to categorize its use as a peacock term or POV. I would recommend you check out a GA, such as Cy Young. In the lead you can see the mention of those respected in the industry is mentioned (such as the TSN mention), as well as facts and placement of list. Rather than stating "Cy Young was the greatest pitcher of all-time," it is stated "Young established numerous pitching records," "Young was elected to the HOF..." It would be POV to say "Young was the greatest pitcher" or "one of the greatest pitchers." At the end of the day, the reader is allowed to decide for himself whether they think Young or any other pitcher was "the greatest." Zepppep (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note: the article no longer says widely known, I believe it currently says simply known...would it be better to say that according to pitching coach Mike Maddux, Hamels has one of the best change ups in the game? Go Phightins! (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- That still wouldn't allow for "widely known" to be used in the phrasing of the article. The only thing that would allow "widely known" to be used would be if you had referenced a source that had taken a poll of hundreds of players in the MLB, which you did not. If someone like Maddux has an opinion of Hamels having one of the best change ups, then state so in the article and let the reader know Maddux' POV (see: Wikipedia:Describing points of view)—we can only go with what is said in the sources cited. See this on words to avoid [4]. Zepppep (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- The ESPN article contains comments from teammate Adam Eaton, opposing hitter Craig Counsell, and esteemed pitching coach Mike Maddux that comment on how good his change up is. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion contested: Acantelys
Hello Go Phightins!. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Acantelys, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A1: There is sufficient content to identify the subject, which is Acantelys Research Group. Thank you. Theopolisme 18:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- While it may very well be "deletable", that particular rationale does not apply in this case. Theopolisme 18:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- All right, at the time I tagged it there was far less on the page. I will likely AFD it or PROD it unless there's some more improvement, but all right. Go Phightins! (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The reference mentioned for the statement had no mention of the names Saleem Malik and Waqar Younis in the referred article about Tablighi Jamaat article in wikipedia. Hence I removed the names from the list of names in the wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.196.212.182 (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, but I still am going to leave the AFD. Go Phightins! (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Cheers
Thank You :-) --Filmsandtv2012report (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 09:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
NFL music
If I were working on this topic, I'd start a brand new article called NFL television theme music and would write a new sourced piece from scratch, making use of whatever sources are showing in the other extant pieces, but writing new prose. Then I'd probably make a single renomination for deletion of all the various pieces under the grounds that they had been superceded and therefore constituted forks. Let me know when this happens, I'd like to back this course at AfD. Carrite (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
template posted on my talk page
I was wondering about the template you posted on my talk page that tells me to include edit summaries and sign my posts. Looking at my contributions, I believe I have done this in every case as appropriate. So what is your point?Bstone1 (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2012 Philadelphia Eagles season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nate Allen (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) 10:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
An invitation for you!
|
|
| Hello, Go Phightins!/Archive 1. Please accept this invitation to join WikiProject Baseball's Hall of Fame task force. We are dedicated to improving articles relating to baseball Halls of Fame around the world, including their inductees. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to our members page. Happy editing! – Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks!
Keep up all your good work as well, Go Phightins! I see you making a lot of improvements to a lot of articles. Best, CCS81 (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Somebody else gave me the assistance I needed. Thank-you for helping me with my article. LM103 (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
New Section
Hi sir, you undid one of my edits which you said that I did not summarise, I respectfully disagree as I make a note of what edits I do which tends to focus on referencing, I humbly request you to restore the edit I did. Striving wellwisher (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)striving-wellwisherStriving wellwisher (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi there, looking back I noticed that I reverted 4 edits at one time on the Abbey Mills Mosque page. The first two may have been legitimate, but the last two removed a significant amount of content without an edit summary. If you would like to go back and restore the page to the way you feel it should be, you may do so under the view history page, then restore, but I would urge you to include an edit summary and adequate referencing. Or, and I would suggest this more strongly, you could go to the Abbey Hills Mosque talk page and start a discussion there as to why you want to remove the content in question. Thanks for coming by, and please feel free to always make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but remember to always include an edit summary. Go Phightins! (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
School Notability
I just happened to come across this article. While I don't really agree with it, there has become a consensus over the years that any secondary school has blanket notability. It's an easy trap to fall into in nominating a school article when, if it were any other organization, it would almost definitely be deleted. You have a better chance of getting Jimbo to dance the macarena in his underwear than you do getting a school deleted under AfD. Trusilver 05:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- It is annoying...all right thanks for your help. Go Phightins! (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2012 Penn State Nittany Lions football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fullback (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) 12:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)