User talk:Majorly/Archives/50
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 62
Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 62 has been released. It's the first episode since Wikimania and it packs a lot of content! You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.
Old RfA "archives"
I've noticed (while stalking your edits trying to find out what recently happened) that you created a lot of those old-RfA-"archives". If I understand it correctly, it was Matthew Bisanz's idea to create them, so I contacted him here with my concern that, while generally practical, those pages should contain some sort of hatnote with a link to the source page which contains the actual history. Everyme 08:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Very old reverts?
Just out of curiosity, why did you revert this?
- You voted on it about 7 months after it ended. It says "no edits should be made" for a reason. Majorly talk 20:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Revising the history of RFAs
I've raised this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Majorly revising history on old RFAs. Please feel free to comment on it there. Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'll not comment on it there, but here. I'm astonished at how often someone will do something here that they find useful. Like cleaning up those old numbers. Someone else mistrusts it and claims bad faith. Someone else says it shouldn't be done because it's useless, a waste of time. However, the community wastes far more time debating it, than in simply letting it happen, and only addressing it if something seriously harmful is going on (more harmful than a single editor allegedly wasting their time). As I'm sure you know, if you changed those stats in a way that could not be defended, you'd be in serious hot water. But, apparently, you didn't -- even if, possibly, you made a mistake somewhere. I'm sure you had a good reason; you are presenting statistics, and you want the statistics to reflect what actually happened, not to incorporate old errors. If you don't fix the old errors, someone could try to impeach your statistics. So you are fixing the old errors. Right? Good luck. --Abd (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Currently running bots
To be entirely fair, you could also mention other running bots, for example my "outrageous" username and pagemove blocking bot (currently mentioned on my talk page) and likewise "unapproved" image deletion bot (not mentioned anywhere currently, due to its impeccable work). There are also other regulars I see running, so do your research properly if you believe such statements really aid your crusade (hint: they don't). Миша13 11:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is not a crusade, quit violating policy and trying to weasel your way out of it. Majorly talk 12:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Successful RFB stats
Just in case you didn't see it on WT:RFA, I have put together User:Useight/RFB Stats, which is just about completed, with the same information that you're doing for successful RFAs. Feel free to use that copy rather than start one from scratch. Useight (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Completeness of stats
Majorly, nice work on the stats. Just for completeness in my record, my 128/0/0 was my second RFA - the first was conducted as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Budgiekiller. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- LOL... my wife was the reason you changed your name... I never realized who you were... but she was shocked when she first saw your name... and had to look it up!---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
RfA stat suggestion
Perhaps User:Majorly/RfA/Stats should get broken up by year? If they get done up as subpages, with their table headers noinclude'ed, you could then combine them on a single catch-all page for the times that people want to compare all the stats, but it'd be more manageable when updates need to be made (300k is a lot of data to edit just to add a single line).
Just a thought. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, I could go ahead and make the subpages to show you. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- I know exactly what you mean, and was planning to do so myself. It'd be helpful if you could split them up. (But I'd like to make it clear to everyone that these stats aren't mine, and probably should be moved to project space... maybe deleting the old stats in the process...) Majorly talk 15:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Trolling
Majorly, please refrain from trolling and incivility amidst your intense jubilation at finally getting your mortal enemy blocked. It's starting to get a little annoying. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Majorly, both you and Erik the Red 2 need to stay away from each other. Neither one of you is looking very good right now, and you're both distracting from the discussion about Kurt. As well, you're shooting yourself in the foot with your very heated approach: [1]. Even if other editors say things you think are unreasonable, you don't need to respond with such abrasiveness. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the term 'trolling' should be struck from the Wikipedia collective vocabulary. There are better ways of describing unhelpful behaviour. — Werdna • talk 06:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Blanking
It may not have been your intention, but this edit [2] removed another editor's contribution to a discussion. I have undone it. DuncanHill (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- It was accidental. I have left a note with the user. Majorly talk 23:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- OK, cool. DuncanHill (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 37 | 15 September 2008 | 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 (talk) 04:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on User:Alex9891, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.
If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jordan Timmins (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on User:Al tally, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.
If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jordan Timmins (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikimedia UK 2.0 Vote
Hi you signed up as being interested in being a memeber of wikimedia UK 2.0. Just a reminder the that the vote for the inital board at m:Wikimedia UK v2.0/Vote ends next Saturday (September 25th).Geni 03:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
London 14
In case you were not already aware, London 14 is scheduled for October 12. Best, WilliamH (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
RfA stat summary page
So WBOSITG beat me to breaking the stats out into individual pages, but I still wanted to create a summary page. The result is User:Majorly/RfA/Stats/all. Good times. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Tiptoety
Hi. I think you might be overly harsh on Tiptoety; the problem, if it is a problem, is that Peter Damian is banned. We can't fix that by ignoring his rather pointed evasion of the ban, which I am told (with no real first-hand knowledge) was well-founded per evidence that can't be shared publicly due to privacy concerns. If you want to go to Jimbo or ArbCom and request a time-limit to the ban or a relaxation with mentorship or something, I'll happily do what little I can to help, but I don't think it's fair to blame the janitor in this case as I think it was a reasonable interpretation of policy and the correct response to a somewhat pointed bit of ban evasion. If you're in contact with Peter off-wiki do please counsel him not to queer his pitch by further sockpuppetry; there is nothing more calculated to make relaxation of a ban near impossible to negotiate, as you know. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 63
Hello! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 63, an interview with Florence Devouard, has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 06:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.
Deletion
You need to notify people when you put up their article for deletion. Thanks. Fresheneesz (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Old RfAs
I hope you don't mind very much about my reverting the tallies on the old RfAs. (I still haven't finished doing that.) I recognize that you did a lot of work there and that the results of your work are valuable. I myself got interesting information from the table you produced. At least the information is still there in the page histories, even after I revert. Later analysts can still refer to the "Majorly tallies". Some of the work you did – such as deleting late votes that came after the RfA was closed – I am not intending to revert. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Time for resolution
Hiya. For several months now, the article naming for 18th Century British royals has been ever-which-where — all over the shop. In an attempt to solve this, I have prepared a page for discussion: here. Please, please, please come and discuss, even contribute to the Poll. Cheers! DBD 15:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 64
Hello! Good news, Wikipedia Weekly Episode 64 has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.
Wisdom's RFA
Although I supported, that may have been one of the best-worded opposes I've ever heard. —Ceran(sing / see) 18:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Shame he took it so badly, even though I opposed he's a very dedicated Wikipedian, who in time could have been a great admin. Al Tally talk 13:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikimedia UK v2.0
Hello! Thanks for showing an interest in Wikimedia UK v2.0. Formation of the company is currently underway under the official name "Wiki UK Limited", and we are hoping to start accepting membership in the near future. We have been drawing up a set of membership guidelines, determining what membership levels we'll have (we plan on starting off with just standard Membership, formerly known as Guarantor Membership, with supporting membership / friends scheme coming later), who can apply for membership (everyone), what information we'll collect on the application form, why applications may be rejected, and data retention. Your input on all of this would be appreciated. We're especially after the community's thoughts on what the membership fee should be. Please leave a message on the talk page with your thoughts.
Also, we're currently setting up a monthly newsletter to keep everyone informed about the to-be-Chapter's progress. If you would like to receive this newsletter, please put your username down on this page.
Thanks again. Mike Peel (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC) (Membership Secretary, Wikimedia UK [Proposed])
Hey
I would appreciate if you didn't pontificate about me off-site. "disgustingly uncivil editors". Well, well, well. Ceoil sláinte 05:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know....
Per this, your right, no kidding. 220.239.47.163 (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Link to Wikimedia UK v2.0 membership info
- meta:Wikimedia UK v2.0/Membership. Warofdreams talk 22:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Wiki UK Ltd Membership applications now invited!
Hello,
It gives me great pleasure to announce that Wiki UK Limited is now inviting membership applications! You can download the application form in PDF format from meta:Image:Wiki_UK_Ltd_membership_application_form.pdf
Information is given on the form about membership fees (£12/year standard, £6 for concessions); these need to be paid by cheque initially, although we hope to accept other forms of payment in the future. Applications should be submitted to me at the address given on the form. If you have any queries about the application process, please let me know.
We will formally start accepting members once we have a bank account, as we cannot process membership fees until that time. We will be submitting our application for a bank account in the very near future, and we hope to have this set up by the end of December at the latest.
Thank you for your support so far; I look forward to receiving your membership application.
Mike Peel (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Membership Secretary, Wiki UK Limited
P.S. if you haven't already, please subscribe to our newsletter! See meta:Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Newsletter for more information and to subscribe.
Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.