User talk:Majorly/Archives/34
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Majorly. 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. |
Signpost updated for October 03, 2007
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 40 | 1 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST | ||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
University Painters
Majorly, thank you for your help on the University Painters entry. It's pretty blatent and desperate vandalism by the CEO himself if you ask me. So thanks once again. Oh by the way, where does it go from here? Is the page protected forever? Sorry I'm still learning the back-end of wiki.209.190.55.139 19:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- The page is protected until someone unprotects it - I didn't set a limit. Majorly (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Ronald A. Carson
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ronald A. Carson. Since you deleted and/or restored this article at one point in time, you might want to participate in the deletion review if you have not already done so. -- Jreferee t/c 23:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5
 Volume IV, no. 4 - September 2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Congratulations to our 225 new members |
The newsletter is back! Many things have gone on during the past few months, but many things have not. While the assessment drive helped revitalize the assessment department of the project, many other departments have received no attention. Most notably: peer review and our "workgroups". A day long IRC meeting has been planned for October 13th, with the major focus being which areas of the project are "dead", what should our goals be as a project, and how to "revive" the dead areas of our project. Contribute to the discussion on the the new channel (see below) We decided to deliver this newsletter to all project members this month but only those with their names down here will get it delivered in the future. This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned or post news on the next issue's talk page
Lastly, a new WikiProject Biography channel has been set up on the freenode network: Our thanks to Phoenix 15 for setting it up.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Complete To Do List
Suzanne Carrell • Mullá Husayn • John Gilchrist (linguist) • Thomas Brattle •
Assessment Progress
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 32
Great news! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 32 has been released!
.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/10/09/episode-32-trust-me/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.
For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 08:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.
Wikipedia Weekly
A couple new episodes - we're posting the infobox to save duplicating info.
Subscription · Feedback
For the podcast crew -- Tawkerbot 20:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
If you could...
I'd like your feedback at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Subheadings for discussion sections. Consensus seems to have shifted towards this being helpful, but I'd still like have all the bases covered. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not interested - that sort of thing is why I've cut down here. My opinion is not cared for. As a liberalist would say, it's the tyranny of the majority that makes RFAs suck. Majorly (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Eh, fair enough. Still thought it would only be fair to ask. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, thanks for telling me, I appreciate the thought :) Majorly (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Eh, fair enough. Still thought it would only be fair to ask. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikimania 2008/Conference of the Americas
Hello, As you may or may not know, Alexandria, Egypt was selected to host Wikimania 2008 [1]. So as to prevent the hard work of the many Wikimedians involved in the Atlanta bid from going to waste, we have decided to host a conference for the Americas. This is in no way an attempt to compete with Wikimania or make a statement against Wikimania.
As one of the people signed up to help with the Wikimania Atlanta bid, we hope you will join us at the Wikimedia Conference of the Americas. We will be having a meeting tonight in IRC tonight (Oct 15) at 9:30PM in #cota-atlanta on irc.freenode.org to discuss the conference. For more information about IRC see [2].
For more information about the Wikimedia Conference of the Americas see http://www.cota-atlanta.org and our wiki http://www.cota-atlanta.org/wiki.
If you do not wish to receive further notices about the COTA please remove your name from our notify list. --Cspurrier 20:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 42 | 15 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Question
What's wrong with him? @pple complain 18:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Run out of fuel. Majorly (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Cheadle Hulme High School
Hey, you removed a speedy from this article. While the speedy was in error, you are the original and primary contributer to this article, and so you should not be the one to remove it. The admin that saw it next would obviously deny it. I presume you already knew this, but I thought I'd point it out again. As a side note — I'm glad you haven't left entirely. i said 19:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Cheadle Hulme High School
Cheadle Hulme High School, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Cheadle Hulme High School satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheadle Hulme High School (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Cheadle Hulme High School during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 11:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Majorly. I understand now that CSD A7 doesn't apply to schools but, not only was it a little questionable for you, as the original creator of the article, to remove the tag, but to do so without giving any explanation seems rather unfair: it certainly fails WP:CIVIL horribly.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 11:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- It does apply to schools when they are obvious speedy candidates. This is obviously not - it has several references that backup notability. And furthermore, it's been around over a year. To simply tag it as A7 is ridiculous. If you'd bothered to do an internet search, you'd have found further evidence of notability. I reverted your poor decision just in case an admin happened to agree with you. It looks like the AFD is going for keep so far though. Better luck next time, and try to do a little more research before tagging well established articles for deletion. Good day. Majorly (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Dearest Supporter,
- P.S - I like your comment :)
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 33
Great news! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 33 has been released!
.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/10/26/wikipedia-weeekly-30/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.
For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP (?) 07:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.
Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 43 | 22 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
RFA question
Can a vote in a RFA be discarded? PatPolitics rule! 16:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why do you ask? Majorly (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- It is under discussion in the RFA of Hdt83. PatPolitics rule! 16:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have expanded. I added that he has applied 4 times. I do not base on edit count, but should have added at the beginning that he has applied 4 time in 6 months. PatPolitics rule! 17:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Your whole rationale is edit count. Majorly (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have expanded. I added that he has applied 4 times. I do not base on edit count, but should have added at the beginning that he has applied 4 time in 6 months. PatPolitics rule! 17:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- It is under discussion in the RFA of Hdt83. PatPolitics rule! 16:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, sorry I lost my cool back there. That wasn't acceptable, either, but I really wasn't expecting this notice. Your comment has definately been noted and I have stopped. I hope (inspite of my meltdown) you don't consider me as a vandal, troll, spammer, or an otherwise harmful user to the project. I hope this is all behind us.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Village pump: Anonymous page creation
I'd like to remind you that the reenabling of anonymous page creation is temporary (a month) so deleting AFC would be premature. Also, I think AFC would have a life even if it sticks: it could be a place where people with limited experience can post their efforts and receive comments to lower the chance of speedy deletion affecting their entries. Also, I don't think comparing en-Wikipedia with any other wikis is accurate when this issue is concerned. English Wikipedia is the largest wiki in existence and anything here is on a scale many times larger than on any other wiki. A mere glance at WP:AFC shows that a majority of the entries are still declined and reenabling anonymous page creation will allow all that to seep into the mainspace. Result: Unsuitable entries that any could cleanup are now exclusive admin terrain and even worse, if they're not technically speediable, they also cause unneccesary work at AFD.
Unless I can get a bot running to help me counter floods of crap material with minimal clicking, I'm not even going to bother with newpages patrol or deletion when this happens. An extended month-long wikibreak would be a lot less stressful. - Mgm|(talk) 12:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, it's permanent unless there are significant problems with it. Maybe AFC will continue, maybe not. My opinion still stands. I can compare, as it is the same principle. Maybe admins should work harder if there's bad articles "seeping" in. If they aren't technically speediable, then why does it matter? If you don't want to do it, don't. There are plenty of others who will. Majorly (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
My (KWSN's) RFA
Thank you for supporting my recent (and successful!) RfA. It passed at at 55/17/6. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 44 | 29 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Majorly ;) I've left a comment at User talk:Qst#Highly hypocritical, regarding the dispute at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gurch 2. I'd like to apologise here, on behalf of Qst. As you'll understand, he's still settling in to Wikipedia and, although I hope he develops this skill fairly soon, he is still re-adjusting to the skills of calm and reasoned discussion.
I hope you can forget about this incident, and give him another chance?
Anthøny 21:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- This was already discussed and long forgotten. Majorly (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
My recent RfA
Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. Although the voting ended at 36/22/5, there was no consensus to promote, and the RfA was unsuccessful. I would like the thank you nonetheless for supporting me during the RfA, and hope that any future RfA’s proceed better than this one did. Again, I thank you for your support. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 02:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Remove per subject request?
Hi, I am confused by this edit. Can you please explain the reason? The link in the edit summary leaves me with a login page. (Perhaps an elaboration on the article's talk page is needed, I'm not sure.) -- Pepve 13:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's because the text was incorrect. The login page is from the OTRS system for Wikipedia, that the band emailed and complained to. Majorly (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining this to me, I wouldn't have figured it. -- Pepve 16:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
It looks like you removed my oppose post on this RfA. Could you restore it, please?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 19:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, completely unintentional. Majorly (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- No worries.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 19:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- But aren't you supposed to strike and indent your removed oppose, rather than just take it out?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 20:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Or does it not matter?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 20:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- People can do it as they like. Majorly (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I was only asking because I did that same thing, and it was re-enstated, striken and intented. But I'm sure people can do what they want, though.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- People can do it as they like. Majorly (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Or does it not matter?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 20:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- But aren't you supposed to strike and indent your removed oppose, rather than just take it out?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 20:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- No worries.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 19:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
IRC
Hey Majorly, I saw that you removed my request from WP:WEA, but I haven't been invited yet. I'm registered with NickServ as east718 and cloaked as wikipedia/east718. Could you please get on this when you have some free time? Thanks! east.718 at 00:13, 11/4/2007
- I didn't add your cloak, I'll do it now :) Majorly (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, still not working. Looks like Sean Whitton hasn't gotten around to cloaking me yet, I'm still <redacted>. Regards, east.718 at 01:13, 11/4/2007
- Come into #wikipedia-en and we'll sort it out. Majorly (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, still not working. Looks like Sean Whitton hasn't gotten around to cloaking me yet, I'm still <redacted>. Regards, east.718 at 01:13, 11/4/2007