|
User talk:Majorly/Archives/55
RfA thanksThank you for the trust you placed in me by supporting my RfA (which passed and, apparently, I am now an admin!). I will do my best to continue to act in a way that is consistent with the policies of wikipedia as well with our common desire to build and perfect this repository of human knowledge; and can only hope that you never feel that your trust was misplaced. Thanks again! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 22:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Julie LemieuxHi, You said that Julie Lemieux was not eligable for speedy deletion. The tag says that is applies to articles which are about "a real person that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject." Could you elaborate/direct me so I understand that tag better? Bladeofgrass (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear Majorly, back in September I attempted to vanish after some disconcerting circumstances arose. At the time I was not indefinitely blocked, involved in arbitration, etc. An account created shortly after the attempt to vanish was alleged to be me and I was subsequently unvanished, but renamed. It was then made clear to me while being renamed that we cannot vanish and start over, which I now see is bolded on the RTV page: "The "right to vanish" is not a "right to a fresh start" under a new identity;" however, Secret while invoking the right to vanish says he will come back as hidden account as a fresh start. If I and others are not allowed to do that, then I do not think it is fair if others can. Thus, should this be taken to an admin board as Balloonman suggested? I am concerned if it is allowed then it reflecting a double standard of sorts. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The challenge is catching people as they do it... I suspect that if somebody wanted to, in a few weeks (give him time to recreate the account) that a check user would identify his account---or people might notice a similar editing pattern/history. I know that if I were to vanish, people would recognize me (I posted once as an IP, and somebody said, "I think that's Balloonman.") So, yes, the rules forbid it and when we know about it, it's not allowed. (It would doom any RfA if it came out.) That being said, the new account has to be identified and tied to the old account, otherwise we are waving our hands.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 22:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Putting words in your mouth, sort ofI hope you don't mind me doing this. If you do, please undo it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC) ApologyI've posted a general apology in my withdrawal statement at the Oversight election page, but I felt that as a contributor you deserve an individual apology too. It was not my intention to let the election begin without a statement, but an IT gremlin "ate" my first attempt at posting there some hours before the election was to begin and then unforseeable RL issues prevented me from getting back to it until too late. Thank you for your consideration and sincere regrets for wasting your time. --Dweller (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
PennsylvaniaPennsylvania shares a border with Canada. You don't think this is worth mentioning?68.238.184.72 (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Live and KickingI posted some comments for further improvement. I didn't follow up because I wanted to give you the time to address it. I had no idea you made further edits. - Mgm|(talk) 18:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) What are you up to?What are you up to Majorly, reverting my edits to my own talk page?[1] I'm already paranoid enough about administrators, without having you on my case as well. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 19:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Contacting developersDo you know how to get in touch with a developer? You had suggested that I do this in order to get my edits re-assigned after my name change but the only thing I could find was meta:Developers and that list is hopelesly out of date. Can you let me know? Please and thank you. Peace! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Majorly talk 22:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Quick message to let you know I promoted the article to GA earlier today. Have fun! - Mgm|(talk) 22:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Smile! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009
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.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Re: DemographicsSorry I didn't sort out the demography section for Cheadle Hulme myself, I got carried away with Scheduled Monuments in Greater Manchester and it's FLC. The section looks good, depending how developed you want it to be, it might be worth selecting some statistics and comparing them to figures for the borough or England; for example, in all of England 28.9% have no academic qualifications, but in Cheadle Hulme this falls to 20.8%. It's not essential, and probably wouldn't affect a GAN if it wasn't there. I've added some sources to back up the figures, and I'm assuming you're using the same sources as I did (although Stockport council may have their own stats). I think it should be explained that the figures come from adding together the stats for two political wards. I found some minor discrepancies between figures, but nothing major. It's probably best to keep figures to 2 or 3 significant figures, or 1 or 2 decimal places for consistency (IMO it doesn't matter which you choose). The population table needs a source, but I don't know which one you used. Figures from after 1871 probably don't exist for Cheadle Hulme individually as it became part of the township of Cheadle. A note probably needs to be added explaining this, but what could be done is explaining the general population trends of the area with the caveat that it may not apply to Cheadle Hulme (but probably generally does). Nev1 (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Lapsing admin statusI think you should propose it; anything that manages to get you, me and Malleus in agreement has got to at least be worth considering. WP:PEREN is a lame argument against it; it translates as "we didn't agree to it before so there's no point discussing it again", but Wikipedia isn't a law court and isn't bound by precedent. My personal opinions are even further towards auto-desysopping than you – to save rehashing them, they're spelt out in points 2 & 3 here. I've not yet seen any counter argument to make me change my mind on either point. – iridescent 22:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009From the editor — A new leaf
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. Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 07:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
RFA  Thanks to everyone who participated in either my successful RfA, or the trial run, whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks to I'm Spartacus! and Cyclonenim for nominating me, and for those of you who treated this as a !vote not a vote and reviewed your position as the discussions developed. I am deeply humbled by the trust that the community has put in me. I'd also like to thank my tallybots, the closing crats, the vandalfighters who wiped vandalism from my RFA, the users who initially welcomed me and gave me rollback, everyone whose worked with me here, those who created the various guides and tools for aspirant admins, the Lolcat who nommed me in my first RFA and everyone else who has helped make Wikipedia such a wonderful site. ϢereSpielChequers The lycanthropic loquacious fruit tree.
Dear Majorly, thanks for your support in my RFA, hope to meet you at one or more of the upcoming meetups. ϢereSpellCheckers 23:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC) QueryHey Majorly, You wrote at wt:rfa Nothing I ever did as an admin was nearly as stressful as going through my reconfirmation RFA. Does that include the RfC against you that got you to step down from adminship? I would have thought that was worse.---I'm Spartacus! The artist formerly known as Balloonman 15:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank You!
Thanks for yer editsTo Norman Birkett. Trying to get an FA, are we? :P. You wouldn't happen to know of any good copyeditors? I want this thing damn close to perfect before it heads off to the big FAC in the sky. Ironholds (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC) RfCLetting you know about this: [2]. Hope my guess was correct. Acalamari 00:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Uncertified RfCPlease note [3] as this RfC is not approved. Minimum requirements for an RFC to be certified are found here: Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours. The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it. It appears that you've missed that section - for convenience, I've reinserted that section [4] so that it may be filled out by either you, or any other user who wishes to certify the basis of the dispute. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
|
||||||||||||||||||||
