Jump to content

User talk:Go Phightins!/Archive 46

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48→Archive 50

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 40#Names for lists based on single-game stats

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball#Names_for_lists_based_on_single-game_stats Taffe316 (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Great Signpost this week

I gave some personal thanks to Bryce, but I wanted each of you Signpost board folks how much I appreciated this issue. Not only was the op-ed outstanding and thought provoking, the news section was well above average and Tony's travelogue was distinctive and fun to read. For my part, I'd like to see more profiles like that which appeared in the blog. It's impossible to cover every noteworthy event, but the statistical analysis seemed to line up with my anecdotal recollection of the event as it unfolded. Having the opportunity to see such an event analysis on an occasional basis may prove to be a different cross section of exactly how we function in real time. I'm taking the liberty to copy this to each of your board members; please pass my good wishes among your entire team. Outstanding reading. BusterD (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I can't take too much credit for this week's issue; Gamaliel did the heavy hitting on that one, but it's always great to get such positive feedback. Go Phightins! 02:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Wow, dude...Indians fan here who was delighted to see Jim Thome be today's Featured Article. Went through the talk page and you did so. much. work. Truly a prodigal amount, and so much of it gruntwork. Thank you!!! Mreleganza (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

WikiCup 2015 September newsletter

The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Scotland Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Philadelphia Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

  1. Belarus Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
  2. Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
  3. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
  4. Somerset Harrias (submissions), second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
  5. Washington, D.C. West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
  6. Somerset Rodw (submissions), from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
  7. United States Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
  8. England Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ken Giles

Hello! Your submission of Ken Giles at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

DYK for Ken Giles

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

Signpost request/suggestion

Hi Go Phightins! (and User:Gamaliel, who I'm pinging)

If one were to want to request/suggest that the Signpost cover something, where would one do that? Here? User talk:Gamaliel? Some subpage of the WP:SIGNPOST that I can't figure out? I closed the RFC on this year's ArbCom election, and one of the ideas that had some support was "there was some interest expressed here for the Signpost to do this [post interviews with all of the ArbCom candidates before the election], but it is left up to the editorial board (or editor, or Rupert Murdoch, or whoever runs the place) to decide whether to do it, and if so, how." Since the RFC obviously can't "make" the Signpost do anything, I just wanted to alert you to this interest expressed in the RFC, so you could do with it what you will. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Floquenbeam. Sounds like a great idea ... if someone wants to coordinate it. Right now, the editorial board is in somewhat of a transitional stage that inhibits new project acquisition, but certainly if someone has the time to put that together, it sounds like a noble idea. Thanks! Go Phightins! 19:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'm not volunteering, I'm just the messenger. Any suggestion on which section of the newsroom pages (I assume?) to post this on, so if someone is interested they can run with it? I got a little confused trying to navigate around the subpages for a "suggested articles" location. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions is a great place to post an article suggestion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Signpost FC

Hi, Go Phightins!,
I know you are busy but you have helped out with the Signpost article on Featured Content in the past so I thought I'd let you know that this week's edition has just been posted, if you would like to help with some descriptions or resizing photos: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-10-07/Featured content. Thanks for your help! Liz Read! Talk! 16:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey Liz. I am going to try to publish Saturday morning, and am not sure how much time I'll have before that, but will help if I can. Thanks! Go Phightins! 00:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

WER

Re:seconding. I nominated a couple that you might find interesting. Buster Seven Talk 15:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

Signpost submission

Greetings! I have a submission that may be suitable for The Signpost. I submitted it to Wikipediocracy but they have not gotten back to me. Its on a rather special, controversial topic and it is unclear if The Signpost would be the appropriate place but I figured it best to ask. It is investigative reporting into a world government manipulating Wikipedia. Would you be interested in looking at it? If so, what's the best way to send it to you? Or is there a better place to send it? Thank you for any information or guidance. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, DaltonCastle. I will surely read it. Email it to gophightins_wiki@verizon.net. Thanks! Go Phightins! 22:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible Feature cross-post

This Feature has been in development for a while for the Video Game Newsletter. I'm wondering if this can be crossposted to the Signpost. I think its grand. I suggested this to Gamaliel as well, which I am aware that they (and I guess I too an extent) have had some involvement with. GamerPro64 21:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, GamerPro64. We are discussing it on the editorial board. Thanks. Go Phightins! 22:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

Retiring

You might want to recruit someone to facilitate the Editor of the Week. Buster Seven Talk 08:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

i have distributed this weeks Award. no-one responded so B7 asked me to do it. i probably did a half-assed job but what do you expect from a half-wit.Buster3.5 (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh my. Sorry, I have been so scarce around here myself I didn't even notice this. Well, unfortunately I am not sure I can pick it back up right now. I'll see what I can do. Thanks. Go Phightins! 10:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I have returned to editing and will continue to facilitate the Award. Buster Seven Talk 15:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

Editorial

Regarding this week's editorial: I'm a bit confused by the conclusion: But if you do care, you will only have to do one thing: get out of the way. ... If you do this, we'll fix the problem for you and preserve your sandbox for as long as you want to play in it. Editorials are usually written in the voice of the editors, so is the Signpost saying it will fix the problem? isaacl (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

WikiCup 2015: The results

WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.

This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. Belarus Cas Liber (submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.

Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to United States Rationalobserver (submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.

A full list of our award winners are:

We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · logs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · logs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup Award

Awarded to Go Phightins! for participating in the 2015 WikiCup. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

Hi

Ping. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes? Go Phightins! 15:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Help needed at DRN

You are receiving this message because you are signed up as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We have a number of pending requests which need a volunteer to address them. Unless you are an inexperienced volunteer who is currently just watching DRN to learn our processes, please take a case. If you do not see yourself taking cases in the foreseeable future, please remove yourself from the volunteer list so that we can have a better idea of the size of our pool of volunteers; if you do see yourself taking cases, please watchlist the DRN page and keep an eye out to see if there are cases which are ready for a volunteer. We have recently had to refuse a number of cases because they were listed for days with no volunteer willing to take them, despite there being almost 150 volunteers listed on the volunteer page. Regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Signpost

Ben, I'm very disappointed that Signpost appears to be joining the ranks of the Red tops and encouraging rogue journalitic tactics and condoning gutter press behaviour from its contributors. --04:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Hi Kudpung, well I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of what happened here. While I will stipulate that many of the questions are somewhat outlandish statements, the point is to offer voters a snapshot of the candidates' differences, which we have done similarly in past elections. One point I will concede is that the auto-recording of non-responses as a four would have been a mistake, and I will personally ensure that does not happen. Beyond that, I am somewhat confused by the perception that candidates are required to answer -- while I did not see the initial email Tony distributed, I can say that I am sure any implication candidates are required to answer was unintended. We do questionnaires like this because with as many candidates as there are, even allowing 100 words of prose per candidate quickly becomes an unreadable behemoth. If you have suggestions on how to improve our coverage of elections in the future, I am all ears. Thanks, Kudpung. -- Ben (Go Phightins! 04:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC))
I 'm not saying t wasn't done in good faith, but that good faith was misplaced. You (Signpost) may have done this in previous years but as I was not directly involved in the elections I would not have noticed. The email I received , and the tone of the dialogue which followed left me (and others) in no doubt that this 'survey' is officially sanctioned and is more or less required. Not to metion the short deadlines tat are imposed as if the candidates don'thave enough on jeir plarers already. Like you, those candidates are volunteers.
I was extremely taken aback by the blatant accusation in public of being a liar by one of your colaborators. That does not reflect well on you, your editorial staff, or your 'free lance' contributors. Personally, IMO, good journalism would be to synthesise what candidates have said about themselves in their nomination statements, and which would be more than enough to let the electorate make up its mind. The questions asked were of such a kind that it does not guarantee that op-ed piece will not be an unbiased Signpost piece of private grandstanding. The questions clearly demand candidates to provide information that they have not deeed necessary to provide in their nomination statement and some candidates have already received warnings by email that if they refuse or decline t5o participate in this 'survey' it will be regarded as a negative towards their candidacy. As a candidate for a post that demands a high level of integrity, I would hope tat those involving thenselves in this election as candidates, controllers, or otherwise, would be happy to bind themselves to similar levels of action and behaviour. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

Journalistic malpractice

The behaviour of the Signpost in publishing a survey response I had publicly and privately withdrawn, without even noting that fact, shows a lack of journalistic competence, integrity, and honesty. As the editor of the project, it would be appropriate for to take responsiblity and corrective action. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I must confess that I saw your message on Mike V's talk page in passing, and this afternoon while we were spending stupid amounts of time troubleshooting markup/crosschecking data input in the table, it slipped my mind to include an asterisk next to your responses. My apologies. Will do so now. Go Phightins! 00:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
On a side note, I did not receive an email. Did you use the "Email this user" function? Go Phightins! 00:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I emailed Tony, since he had been the Signpost's contact for the survey. Thank you for taking corrective action. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Go Phightins!. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Mdann52 (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

Your GA nomination of 2014 Philadelphia Phillies season

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2014 Philadelphia Phillies season you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Go_Phightins!/Archive_46&oldid=1114480838"