User talk:Majorly/Archives/46
RfAWould you mind clarifying your oppose at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jbmurray; all candidates are editors, and it's hard to determine what it is about Jbmurray having admin tools that you object to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC) TrollingHello Al Tally, please stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a POINT. I too find User:Kmweber opposes on RFA's unideal but that is no reason for you to parody him. Please stop; if you continue you will be blocked. Icewedge (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
AFD Close on EDI know that was a difficult discussion to do, good job. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Wildthing61476 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message. You earned yourself this one for closing that AfD. Great job summarizing the close and reasoning for it. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations, and I sure hope there isn't yet another DRV to follow... we need further DRVs or AFDs on ED like we need a hole in the head. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for laying out your reasoning in the close. You did a good job in doing that, and thanks for doing one of the harder jobs. Now please reconsider the whole thing and reverse your decision completely, and I'll be completely satisfied! Seriously, here's where I think the decision is faulty: In point 2: And yes, it is just a guideline, not a policy. It does not have to be strictly followed Granted "guidelines are advisory in nature" but in deletion decisions the option of not following guidelines seems to be constricted by (a) a consensus (by the numbers, it's there, so no objection), (b) "common sense" (I can't really fault your decision much there) and (c) the 'occasional exception" -- emphasis added -- (this is taken from the generic guideline box at the top of WP:N and WP:WEB). So what's the nature of the exception here other than a raw consensus on the page? A finding by a majority of editors that sources only two, three or five sentences long do not constitute "a brief summary of the content"? Both? If the way you ruled were to be a standard for all AfDs, they'd become something close to referendums, and the more that happens, the more they get closer to popularity contests. Consensus has got to have at least a somewhat reasonable relationship to the guideline or the guideline means next to nothing. A totally elastic definition of "trivial source" (which is what we have here) eviscerates WP:N and WP:WEB because you could drive a truck through that interpretation. Almost every article or potential article has or can get citations to sources with trivial amounts of information. I see a convoy of trucks coming. In point 4: Additionally, there are going to be more mentions of it out there. Just because they aren't immediately available to you doesn't mean they don't exist. As to the present, it seems to me that a lot of work went into finding more sources for this article, and they came up with no non-trivial sources. Tillamook Cheddar (dog) can fetch sources. Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow can milk the media for airtight sourcing to pass AfD twice in two weeks. But not Encyclopedia Dramatica, with an army of friends beating the bushes to scare up a source. As for the future, yes, there may well be another source coming along, but AfD isn't a crystal ball, and there will be a lot of work done in monitoring the article in the meantime. In other words, we can well afford to wait until adequate sourcing actually comes along. That brings me back to "common sense" because if we're going to have "common sense exceptions" then we should bring into consideration common-sense reasons for not having the article. To me, the principal one would be the additional workload on editors who will need to watch this new mischief magnet. It seems to me common sense that this article will not just channel already-existing mischief but actually attract more of it to Wikipedia. I sure hope I'm wrong. So please reverse your decision, delete the article and I'm sure everyone, on reflection, will be quite happy you did. Noroton (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, as you can probably guess from my opinion on the AFD ("delete"), I do not agree with the outcome of the AFD, but that it wound up being kept is not your fault. Your job as an AFD closer is to evaluate consensus, and if there isn't consensus to delete, and the arguments for deletion are not deal-breaking concerns over WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:COPYVIO or similar, then closing as "keep" or "no consensus" is the way it must happen. Your reasoning for closing it the way you did was impeccable, and I would like to thank you for your efforts in writing that summary. Good job. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Small mistakeDon't know if it's anything you can fix, but the time at the top of your page is using a 24 hour clock and also uses PM. Enigma message 21:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Also, google talk is axel9891? Enigma message 21:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Help neededWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Worrying vandalism to suicide We need someone to call the Ilford Police: 020 8478 1123. Can you? --S.dedalus (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
My recent RfAThank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace and talk space, so that is what I will do. I have made a list and I hope I will be able to get through it. I will go for another RfA in about three month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been about three months. I will not be checking back to this page so if you would like to comment or reply please use my talk page. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 06:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC) thx[1] Was wondering what the eff was going on, cheers. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 23:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
MistakeMy apologies. I was on the lupin recent ip edits page and about a third of of the ip edits are vandalism. I must not have noticed it was a legit edit. Please undo my edit. This is why you must be careful with rollback, you really don't get a chance to see the effect your edits will have.Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 23:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for being more considerate than Iridescent.Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 02:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Or Metros.Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 02:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Re:Lradrama/HuggleWell in that case, would you like to sift through a few thousand automatic edit summaries in order to try and find some scattered edits in which a user hasn't used any form of tool? There was no need to be as degrading as that. :-S Lradrama 16:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Good work
Hello!--Creamy!Talk 22:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC) recent commentsAnd they were being uncivil first. GreenJoe 13:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 50It may not be weekly, but Wikipedia Weekly has finally reached Episode 50! Listen or download MP3 and OGG versions at the episode's page.
For the Wikipedia Weekly team, WODUPbot 00:49, 29 May 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. Redirect of Christina MadoniaHello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Christina Madonia, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Christina Madonia is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). ANI threadYou are more or less accused of sockpuppetry here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Prima_Facist. Thought you might be interested... Fram (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to take PF's word for it that it's not you, especially since you've been honest when you've pulled stunts like this in the past. Apologies, at least, for that bit. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Majorly, would you mind commenting over in that thread? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC) RFARIt would be nice if you could stick to your own section. That way I could respond to your statement, which is currently in my section. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Get your facts straightI have no clue when I last edited Intelligent design, but it may have been when it was a Main Page FA. I rarely edit those articles, because I don't have the time to battle intellectual douchebags. Nearly all of my edits lately, save for fighting racism wherever I can, are in medical articles. Oh yeah, I've taken a recent interest in cleaning up some US Navy and Marines articles, just to keep my mind going. Check it out, if you want to get your facts right. Second, I did not canvass shit. I asked slrubenstein and Jayjg, both of whom are fellow members of the tribe as to whether or not I was out of bounds on considering DHMO a racist, anti-semitic enabling pig. If I were wrong, which I am apparently not, then I'd retract my vote, and support his nomination--I'm a big enough person to admit my faults and errors. By the way, I also dropped a comment on Hfran's page because he gets amusement out of being part of a cabal. So there's my point, do with it what you want. I'm pretty loyal to this project, and an outstanding contributor, so you can have whatever opinion you want, as long as you don't try to convince me that drinking from the urine of a camel will cure cancer. But I would suggest accurate descriptions of me in the future. I've vented for now. Hope you understand my viewpoint here.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
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) 06:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC) HiUser_talk:Dihydrogen_Monoxide#You're_awesome Al Tally, please read my response, I do not understand you're prior comment within that section regarding me. I hope after reading what I said, and assuming that I am an honest wikipeidan when I state such things, you will not gag at my contributions anymore. Beam 02:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Reminder Sunday LunchtimeJust a reminder about Wikipedia:Meetup/London 10. You said you might be able to make it. Hopefully we'll see you Sunday 1p.m.! -- Harry Wood (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
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) 07:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC) |