User talk:Go Phightins!

User:Go Phightins!/Tabs

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by when more than 10 sections are present.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Sennecaster	223	0	0	100	17:20, 25 December 2024	0 days, 21 hours	no	report
RfB candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report

Last updated by ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} at 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If you'd prefer, I can be reached via email here. Thanks--Go Phightins! 20:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Go Phightins!, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Talk:Lou Rymkus/GA1

The last comment I can find on this GA review page is that you were about to pass the article on December 26. Was there something wrong? Is something still needing to be done with the article before it qualifies? It would be nice to get this completed; it's the fifth oldest GA review. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you. I completely forgot about it; it was one of those things I planned on doing in just a second (right after I said I would) and then I must have gotten sidetracked and then I forgot. Thanks for the reminder. It is

Done. Go Phightins! 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know! I'm happy it worked out. (I've also done a ping for the Michael Vick GAN on its review page which I hope wasn't premature. I'm trying to check on all those reviews that have been ongoing for over a month.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if Batard0 thought my updated referencing was adequate or if he wanted more. That one is under some special circumstances...no need to elaborate but it's not exactly a typical GAN. Go Phightins! 01:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brains Work Better Barnstar

		The 'Brains Work Better in A Community' Award
		Thank you for all your efforts to befriend and assist your fellow Wikipedian Editors (WE). Your efforts have a cascading effect throughout WP. What's so bad about Peace, Love and Understanding? ```*Buster Seven* *Talk* 01:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like Thanks very much. Peace, love, and understanding would go a long way to solving WP's problems. Go Phightins! 01:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Craddock1

I'm not sure if you have Craddock1's talk page on your watch list, but if you don't, you probably should and also be aware that I have given him his one and only warning about not breaking the conditions of his unblock. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. I even told him at the top of the page he wasn't to edit anything other than his talk and the adoption page. His answers to my first set of questions was also pathetic. Not sure this is going to work out. Thanks again. Go Phightins! 11:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a peripheral observer, it seems to me that the unblock condition should have been to not edit anything to do with this Amirite thing, i.e. to demonstrate that he's not here just to promote that product. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he had already promised that earlier, so I was considering that to be a part of it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me a bit of my efforst with Dannyboy. Ryan Vesey 15:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the article has been deleted, I wonder if he'll be back at all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Go Phightins!

Hi Go Phightins! I just wanted to let you know that I borrowed the code for the format of your userbox table. Thanks! JHUbal27 (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sysop?

Go P, thank you very much for the praise. I've had a few editors come to me and offer to nominate me for RFA, but have never taken them up on the offer. For a long time I didn't feel a need for the tools; with my position as FLC director, the ability to edit blurbs would be nice, but there aren't too many other areas where the tools would help me. I'm not really involved with ANI or AFD, and most of what I do is normal editing that doesn't need any tools. There are also practical considerations as to why I don't feel the urge to run: I'm straining to keep up with my regular editing schedule and can't take on an admin's duties, and I'm unsure whether the greater community would vote for me. They want people with more hands-on experience at admin processes than I have. To be honest, I don't have a strong need for the tools anyway, and those processes bring drama that I don't want to be a part of. Unlike many others on Wikipedia, I get to edit in peace most of the time. I'd like to keep it that way if possible. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just something I thought you were qualified for if you wanted it. Go Phightins! 20:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Working out the details at Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement

The RFC for TAFI is nearing it's conclusion, and it's time to hammer out the details over at the project's talk page. There are several details of the project that would do well with wider input and participation, such as the article nomination and selection process, the amount and type of articles displayed, the implementation on the main page and other things. I would like to invite you to comment there if you continue to be interested in TAFI's development. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Go Phightins!. You have new messages at Pizzamancer's talk page.
Message added 07:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Pizzamancer (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An invitation for you!


	Hello, Go Phightins!. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, you're already a member! Sorry for the new message box atop your page! Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Go Phightins!. You have new messages at Pizzamancer's talk page.
Message added 00:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Test run with twinkle Pizzamancer (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:John_Philip_Sousa/GA1

Sorry for delay. Ping. — Yash ^[talk] 04:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an irrelevant comment, to remind us all that people actually do read these articles, I've had the Sousa page open plenty of times (not as much recently), listening to the audio clips of the marches with my brothers. I think I might have added portal links to the page or something like that. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

Op-ed: Meta, where innovative ideas die

WikiProject report: Where Are They Now? Episode IV: A New Year

News and notes: 2012—the big year

Featured content: Featured content in review

Technology report: Looking ahead to 2013

Tea house user looking for help

Phightins! Good day. I am new.

A user has started demanding an article layout be changed according to his desire against the vote of everyone else who has reverted the changes. It is really odd. I am a new user and have no idea how to handle the situation. And is this type of thing a regular occurrence? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_people_who_have_been_called_a_polymath

I am also updating the page of Patrick M. Byrne which has extremely confusing Talk page requirements.Bhalluka (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for coming by. It seems to me that a Request for Comment has been started, so I would advise you to hold off until consensus is reached there before you do anything else to the article. These types of conflicts can be frustrating, so I'd suggest you just work on something a little less stressful for a while...there always have and always will be conflicts on Wikipedia, so I guess it would be fair to say disputes are a regular occurrence...we do have a dispute resolution process to resolve them, but all of those things take a little time. Thanks again for dropping by and feel free to let me know if you have any other questions. Go Phightins! 20:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Manuel de Rosas

In here you may find my comment. I could go on and on forever, but in case there is still any doubt, let me know. Also, I'd like to make it clear that I requested a third opinion and that Noleander accepted the role. He agreed with me and complained that Cambalachero never presented any sources (despite being requested to do so in five different moments). When he finally did it, he brought books (he didn't tell what were the pages nor what were their titles or year in which they were published) written by self-described Revisionists who have been dead for the past 40 years. The sole author cited who is alive is not even a real historian. And these are books that you can not find either online nor mentioned anywhere as sources in other books. --Lecen (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historians are not the owners of history (as much as it pains me to say that).

Phightins, please (if you have not yet) read pages 414 and 415 from the following book: [1].

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re curtaintoad

Hi, I'm curtaintoads mum.

I have just read through my sons recent messages and I'd like to thank you for the advice and support you have shown.

He is a child with autism, so, that makes things pretty difficult for him.

He has a genuine wish to be a good Wikipedian, sometimes he is too enthusiastic, but I think he will settle down.

Once again, thanks for helping.

WendyS1971 ^Talk 10:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]