|
User talk:Majorly/Archives/23
Beer pong page protect deniedI know you do a lot of these, so here's the context:
It's impossible and fruitless to discuss these things on talk pages, as most IP users don't know that talk pages exist, and simply edit away. If they actually looked at the article, sources, or facts, they could clearly see that the name that they call it in their "home town" or "high school" isn't what the rest of the world calls it... but don't, and won't. Some have tried to discuss on talk pages, but no one responds from the Beirut side, as there's no logic behind it. What else do you propose that we do in the mean time to prevent these vandalizing edits? Thanks in advance! - hmwithtalk 11:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Less tedious edits means more cleaning up the article or other similar ones. - hmwithtalk 18:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Hierarchical Linear Models - why deleted?Hi, could you please explain why you tagged Hierarchical linear models for speedy deletion? It'd also me nice to know why you don't give a reason for every article you so designate. Would it slow you down that much? [| Talk] RedHouse18 22:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
RedHouse18 15:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
My RFAMy most heartfelt thanks for your continued support throughout the past few months, and in particular recently in my wonderfully encouraging RFA. Hope to work with you in making this place a better place. The Rambling Man 19:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: RfA templateIf you are speaking of the discussion from Sept. 2006, I think you would be hard pressed to describe that as a consensus in any direction. In any case, I don't really case about the actual template so much as the perspective its wording implies, so I won't revert for now. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia Weekly Notification!Hello. This is just a friendly notice that Wikipedia Weekly episode 19 has been released!
.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.com/2007/05/05/wikipedia-weekly-19/ and as always, you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/. Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in! For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 20:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC) You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to receive such notifications please remove yourself from the list. Stoop!d Monkey LogosHello, there seems to be some misunderstanding on whether the logos were a keep or delete. Since you were the admin who closed the AfD, I thought you could provide some help. I am saying they were "keep", as you said...another user (the one who started the AfD in the first place) says they were to be deleted and the article kept, which I can't find said. You help would be appericated. Thanks...SVRTVDude (VT) 23:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: NameI'm backed up on Wikipedia work to do, but I was just sort of wondering where your username came from. Cool Bluetalk to me 13:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
HandbraHandbra is under attack again and needs your assistance. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 12:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
User numberHow exactly do you find out which number user you became? Just curious. Simply south 19:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.
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 06:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Northern Ireland page protectionHi there. You protected the Northern Ireland article, quite rightly so, last month. Due to current events several requests have been received to unprotect the page for updating. I have the ability to do so but thought I should ask you as the protecting admin before doing so. Ben W Bell talk 13:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Gaara (Mount) Sufii Massacre (Eastern Oromia)That was the right db-tag to use, right? I mean, it was a copy/paste, too, but it was clearly a one-sided article. HalfShadow 18:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
RFA statsHi Majorly, thanks for adding in my stats. I couldn't figure out how to copy it all correctly, so I owe it to you for getting it all right! The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of article
Deletion of Galaxy 2 Galaxy ArticleHello, you deleted my article on Galaxy 2 Galaxy, even after my hold on and expansion (I expanded the article from 2 lines and a track listing to many lines) to include the bands notability, which fulfilled the notability of bands rule on wikipedia. If you could restore the article to its previous form I would be very grateful, as I feel it has been unfairly deleted. If you disagree could you please let me know why, as I feel I justified its existence. As well as this, the speedy delete was very speedy and maybe you did not realise the expansion had taken place. Many thanks - Curious GregorTALK 15:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Thomas X. HammesI looks like you may have deleted Thomas X. Hammes,which, I belive, was marked for "speedy deletion" - According to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion the policy is "for cases where an article does not contain useful content" and gives a list, which one fits the article in question? KAM 15:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of Criticism of the FDAWhy was this page deleted? There has been an extensive discussion on the fate of this page over the past month by many long-time contributors to wikipedia. As of last night, a vote was on the talk page as to whether the page should be retained or merged with Food and Drug Administration - I believe the tally was 4-4, with no one expressing the opinion that all content on that page should be deleted. While the page itself was created by a sockpuppet, the content orginated on the main FDA page, and the banned user in question contributed a minority of the content currently on the page, with his contributions heavily edited since. Please restore the page or explain why it was deleted. Thanks. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 17:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Question about creating a Countering Systematic Bias task forceHi, Majorly. This is a somewhat random query, so no sweat if you don't have time to respond. I admire your work for the community, though, so I thought I'd stop by. I'm proposing a task force for the Countering Systematic Bias group focused particularly on making sure that global perspectives are included equitably in relevant articles and that U.S.-centrism doesn't inadvertently creep in. I've been editing for a while, but I've never attempted to organize any efforts within the community. My questions are 1) do you think such a task force is a good idea? 2) Is it better to start this as a task force than an independent group? These questions no doubt seem naive to an editor of your experience, but while I've been contributing to Wikipedia for a while, I've never started any groups/task forces. Regardless, keep up the outstanding work! Benzocane 04:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
My RfA logic -- if you really didn't know it, all you had to do was ask! :)Hi, Here's why I am tough on RfA candidates: When I started editing Wikipedia, the project had some really incivil admins, most of whom have since left us. This was during a period before ArbCom became "tough," when desysoppings were still very rare. Even when these incivil admins did "the right thing", they did it in such a brusque way that the community was justifiably angry. This taught me early that, although "adminship is no big deal," an incivil admin can create much ill-will by doing small things in a mean, curt way. Because ArbCom ineffectual at the time, RfA was the one stop-gap I saw to prevent incivil folks from becoming admins. Incivility is a hard thing to catch in an editor: talk page discussions can get heated, and I didn't want to be unfair in judging folks based on one or two slips of the tongue. I finally decided that wiki-space experience is a good filter against incivility: perspective admins ought to at least be able to argue about policy dispassionately. Plus, wiki-space is the place where admins do admin-type things; if an editor has a record of work there, s/he will not only know "the right thing" to do in a given situation, but will also know "the right way" to do the right thing. Wiki-space participation teaches an editor to respect different points-of-view and to argue you calmly in a way article-space doesn't. In article-space, people are usually arguing about real-world stuff, issues they cared about passionately before coming to Wikipedia. In wiki-space, people are often arguing about abstract stuff (encyclopedicality, deletion policy, whatever), issues that they should be more dispassionate about, because they (probably) have never encountered them before coming here. People learn to disagree constructively in wiki-space more readily, because they are arguing over technicalities, and everybody knows they are! There are other reasons to value wiki-space participation, but learning both "the right thing" to do and "the right way" to do it are the main reasons I value that it candidates. It assures me they won't be incivil. You're probably thinking that I don't assume enough good faith: maybe you're right. The thing is, in my experience, wiki-space participation leads to greater competence. The editors I notice around XfD, Cent. Discussions, or even RfA itself, tend to do more, and do it better, when they get the mop. I also know that things have changed: ArbCom is tougher on incivil admins, and backlogs are huge. These changes in circumstance don't convince me, however, that "more admins of lower quality" are needed. I like to see people seasoned before they get the mop, because I remember how much damage they can do (moral-wise) if they use the mop in bad ways, or even use it in good ways; but, explain those uses badly. I don't think 500 or so edits (of good quality) to wiki-space is too much to ask of a perspective admin. There are LOTS of ways to get those edits, it doesn't take long (two weeks of XfD patrol... I've thought about it), and the results are an admin with a richer knowledge of wiki-norms, much less likely to be a meanie, even unintentionally. I'm not saying all this to start a debate with you. I just wanted to let you know what my reasons were. I'm sure you disagree with some things; but, I hope I've made myself clearer. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC) LugarHi, wonder if you can help sort this one out. The page Lugar (town) has been created as a cut and paste from Lugar when that page was turned into a dab page. Thus leaving all of its history on the dab page. Infact the page needs moving again to Lugar, East Ayrshire to go with the normal naming conventions for UK place names. I could just do this move and ignore the page history if that is best. Keith D 13:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Bureaucrat botI've replied to your comment at Cecropia's RfB. This idea is seriously interesting. Walton Need some help? 18:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC) |
||||||||||||||||||
