Jump to content

User talk:Majorly

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mactographer (talk | contribs) at 08:52, 12 February 2011 (→Harassment from user: Badger Drink: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to Majorly's talk page.


    MAJORLY

Guidelines

I have ended all participation with Wikipedia, so will not be replying to any further messages left here.

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page by starting a new thread, using a descriptive header. Is your comment missing? It's probably in my archives. I will normally answer on this page. Please note that the talkback template is officially banned on this page! :) So don't use it here; I watch your talk if I've left you a note. Thanks!

Archives

1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 • 23 • 24 • 25 • 26 • 27 • 28 • 29 • 30 • 31 • 32 • 33 • 34 • 35 • 36 • 37 • 38 • 39 • 40 • 41 • 42 • 43 • 44 • 45 • 46 • 47 • 48 • 49 • 50 • 51 • 52 • 53 • 54 • 55 • 56 • 57 • 58 • 59 • 60 • 61 • 62 • 63 • 64 • 65 • 66 • 67 • 68 • 69 • 70

All

User:Mixwell/scrolling


aboutmyarea

Hi Majorly. Apparently you asked User:Prodego to remove aboutmyarea.co.uk from the blacklist (diff) in May of this year. That removal resulted that the original problem again restarted, upon which I re-blacklisted it this week. As generally removals are requested and discussed, and I can't find any discussion for this removal, may I ask why you wanted this link removed? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's used in references of Cheadle Hulme railway station. Majorly talk 14:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I whitelisted those two links, but that a site is a reference somewhere is not a reason to de-blacklist the whole domain. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I had no idea how to selectively do things like that. Regards, Majorly talk 15:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC merge

Yes, I was actually just about to ask you about that! I tweaked it a bit further... How's it look? --Elonka 18:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. Majorly talk 18:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:David Proud/GA1

Hey. Whenever you have a minute, either pass or fail the article. The writer hasn't edited in over a month, so unless you've talked with him no need to keep it on hold. Wizardman 21:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Majorly talk 22:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

Trying to rationalise the arb questions

Hi Majorly, I'm listed as an assistant to the electoral process. We're trying to slim down the General Questions, given the gigantic and often messy process last year, and the fact that voters will have to sift through lots of GQs (still 32, down from 44) times the number of candidates, plus the individual questions.

I see your first question is very similar to that of Camaron's first question. Would you consider dropping it? (He's already removed two of his.)

I'm not seeing how it's similar... could you elaborate? Majorly talk 13:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your second question does appear to be a fait accomplis: "Do you feel that it is important the community tries to resolve issues before arbcom step in?" I wonder who would answer "no". There is text to this effect at ArbCom hearings pages, anyway. We're trying to retain only the most probing questions, and with respect, this does not appear to be one of them.

Actually, there have been cases where arbcom have deemed the situation serious enough to take on the case without any formal dispute resolution first. I'd be interested in their thoughts on when this situation might apply. I think it's a relevant question. Majorly talk 13:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The admin question, "Would you consider taking a case where it is clear, for example, that an admin has lost community trust, but has had no RfC, attempts at resolving the issue etc?" seems to lack the kind of details that arbs would need to resolve it. Would it be possible, somehow, to conflate it with your final question, which really does expose candidates to scrutiny as to how they would behave on the Committee: "Would you say that arbcom are/should be too tough/too soft on editors who frequently flout community norms?" Tony (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This I can agree with, but again, it's kind of linked to the second question regarding following process. (I have found at times that some arbitrators seem to consider process more important than actually solving real issues). Majorly talk 13:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think many people will not understand the intention behind your second question. The organisers may decide to ask more formally, after 8 November, for a single question from each user. That is when the crunch time for rationalising was hinted at. Do you want to raise the matter on the discussion page? I forgot to insert (Camaron's) "first question" above, which concerns the power and scope of ArbCom. I see that you've changed your first of four questions to "In your opinion, how important is the dispute resolution process?". They both appear to be asking "Is it worth having an ArbCom"/"How important is ArbCom's process". I thought I saw an opportunity for rationalisation. Tony (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mine is more about the process prior to Arbcom proceedings, rather than during cases. If it's causing issues, I'll just ask each one individually. Majorly talk 14:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a debate going on at the Questions talk page. Tony (talk) 10:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Majorly: I've conflated one of your questions with one of Cameron's; they seemed very connected, even though his is framed a little more in terms of inter-wiki. Please revert if you don't like it; it's here. Tony (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is this [1] sarcastic or earnest? Jehochman Talk 02:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's both, Je. Majorly talk 02:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it might hurt his feelings, or it is good natured? Jehochman Talk 02:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is of course good natured. Why would you think otherwise? Ottava helped me with a few articles I wrote, in particular Bramall Hall and Charles Redheffer. I'm sure he just forgot to mention me. Majorly talk 03:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I thought so, but wanted to be thorough. He's complained that people have been antagonizing him and I don't know who he considers friend or foe. Jehochman Talk 03:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly certain he considers me a friend. Majorly talk 03:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A project you might be interested in

Hi, I've recently created a project which, broadly speaking, will help to develop and support the enwiki community. At this stage, we're currently calling for individual proposals on how to improve Wikipedia. If you're interested, sign up and add your ideas here! –Juliancolton | Talk 03:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC) (Cross-posting)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

Hi Majorly, re your comment on the signpost article, what change would you suggest to the wp:NEWT instruction "Write an article that doesn't meet the deletion criteria" to allay your concerns? There's at least one parallel thread on this already taking place on Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at CSD, and your input as a critic of the project would be useful. ϢereSpielChequers 14:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administartor Request

Hi

Would it be OK if I could be an admin? I'm retired, and I have decided that I would like to become an administrator, here on Wikipedia. Thanks.--Deanna Lacey (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure, just request at WP:RFA. Good luck SamDeanna! Majorly talk 22:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re Samlaptopvarious numbers (what am I, a dictation machine?)

Do you also receive emails from the above, requesting unblock and promising to reform? I do, which is why I am unable to respond to your request at ANI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite often. Majorly talk 23:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Block this IP please!

Hi Majorly

Please could you block this IP until Christmas please. Do this also on Simple. Thanks!--92.13.10.175 (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone deal with the above please? It's a sockpuppet of Samlaptop85213 (talk · contribs). Thanks, Majorly talk 18:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just send a message to DMacks and LessHeardVanU. One of them will block me until Christmas soon. Please could you change my Simple block until Christmas day please! Thanks! After when the block expries, I will never ever vandalise.--92.13.10.175 (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trolling me. Majorly talk 19:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh....

What is up with User:IslandersZweiSieben? Are they a sock? I try to warn him/her and it says it's a sock and that it's been blocked but they're not...I'm so confused =/ A8UDI 15:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sock, yeah. They aren't blocked though. I reported it already. Majorly talk 16:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gracias A8UDI 16:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your candidate assessments

o_O? I do hope it wasn't my response that had you request deletion of the whole thing? — Coren (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm just too busy to be messing about making detailed assessments of everyone. I'll vote as I choose to, and anyone who cares can ask me here. I do note that I was quite negative on your assessment. Perhaps I should have written more positive: I've noted that you care, seemingly more so than most other arbitrators. That's a good quality, even if we disagree with what you're caring about. Good luck, regardless of how I vote. Majorly talk 15:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually enjoy the discussion borne out of disagreement when it's done in good faith, which is why I appreciate the voter guides, which is why I was a little disappointed you won't have the time to do yours. I'm just happy that I wasn't the cause.  :-) Best to you. — Coren (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Apparently, 57% = consensus now. Oh well. No one will be able to see my vote, unfortunately, so will be unable to question me about it. The page should be restored, if consensus has now changed to = majority. Majorly talk 20:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

Oxford Music online

I thought this might be of interest. You can cite from it, in the Merry Xmas article:

<removed text in history>

Thanks, but it only briefly mentions the song, and it's nothing I don't already have. Majorly talk 22:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your helpful comments at the FAC for Bale Out. I responded, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bale Out/archive1. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Povenmire

Hi, I responded to your comment at the FAC. Come check it out. The Flash {talk} 15:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey; you're comments have been resolved for a while now, in case you didn't know. It'd be appreciated if you can follow up/support/something. Thanks, The Flash {talk} 23:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your question

You asked a question. Look on the page at 23:59, 19 November 2009 for the answer. Mrathel and I were bothered, but the person kept insisting and insisting. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

Thank you !

Small kindnesses (with my many typos) are always appreciated! [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do find other people's opinions interesting, which is why I appreciate viewing people's voter guides - often you can learn something about someone you didn't know that may influence your vote. All this secretive nonsense has put me off voting at all. Majorly talk 22:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:

  • Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
  • Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
  • Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
  • Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
  • Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
  • Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
  • Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
  • Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
  • Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
  • In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew talk at 03:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this user still admin?

Why is this user an admin again?

  1. Blocked Puddinmandotcom (talk · contribs) as a Spamusername, yet he also enabled 'account creation blocked' and failed to leave a block message. Read the instructions at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Listing instructions and WP:BLOCK.
  2. Semi-protected Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, even though it was only vandalised 5 times in 1 week.
  3. Blocked Jamietrolland (talk · contribs) + SPVA Comms Team (talk · contribs) + Re suisse (talk · contribs) with UsernameBlocked, Trolland is a real name and heu again forgot to leave a block message for any of them. At least he allowed account creation for them this time.
  4. Reason he provided for speedy deleting Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Levin H. Campbell Jr. & Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Levin Hicks Campbell Jr. was wrong. Read Wikipedia:Namespace & WP:R2.
  5. Reason he provided for speedy deleting Cheaper By The Dozen 3 (2011)film was complete bull. See Cheaper by the Dozen 2.
  6. Didn't provide a reason for deleting Talk:ES Freeski.
  7. There's probably plenty more incorrect speedy deletions if an admin looked at the things he deleted.

Imagine how long this list would be if I looked at what he's done outside of yesterday?--Selena3151 (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you telling me? I was someone who was strongly against his rights being returned, but alas, he resigned "in good standing" apparently. I would log in to your normal account and create an RFC, if I were you. Majorly talk 10:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

I hesitate to say it ...

... but congratulations anyway on Bramall Hall's mainpage appearance tomorrow. (I'm only hesitant because I know how it'll get vandalised.) :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - what do you think the vandalism will be like? Majorly talk 19:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No idea, I only know that there will be lots of it. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I (and others) will click the "watch" icon - the Hall's a short drive away from me, so it'll be like caretaking for an old friend. Very well done to all. Haploidavey (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks great: congratulations on getting a (second, I think?) featured article on the Main Page! Acalamari 03:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on taking it all the way, Majorly. Cheers,  Skomorokh  11:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read the article and then the history lead me back here. Excellent job by everyone particularly your good self - a really enjoyable read. Pedro :  Chat  12:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone! It's a shame the stats page seems to be down, it would have been interesting to see how many people viewed it. Majorly talk 13:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you're seeing nowt in statistics: 31.5 sorry, 31.3k views on 11th Dec. Haploidavey (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's up now. That feels great - 31,300 people read my work yesterday. Majorly talk 18:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Merry Xmas Everybody

Hi Majorly.

I wanted to let you know that I've archived the FAC for Merry Xmas Everybody. This is primarily to give you time to track down a copy of the Holder bio and possibly the Pedler book. If you get the books more quickly, feel free to ignore the "several weeks before renomination" rule and bring the article book sooner. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda pointless as the article was intended to be nominated for a main page appearance on Christmas Day. I don't need a copy of the Pedler book, it's on Google books, and the Holder bio is unlikely to add anything to it. The best plan is to just leave it, and know that it is a FA just without the pretty star. Majorly talk 20:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without "the pretty star" it isn't an FA Majorly. ;-) Why not take Karanacs up on her offer? I would. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way I'll be able to get either book in enough time. Majorly talk 22:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Christmas comes every year.... Perhaps it can be featured next year? Karanacs (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. Majorly talk 22:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:VideoKids.jpg

⚠
⚠
 Thanks for uploading File:VideoKids.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays!

Best wishes for the holiday season and the upcoming new year! –Juliancolton | Talk 16:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Protection

The protection was as much to cease the thread. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 22:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still though, a year is completely excessive. Majorly talk 23:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder about an offer you made a while ago

Hi Majorly,

You might recall your offer back in September to nominate me at RFA. I declined at the time, due to what I considered certain failure because of a low edit count. I've been a bit more active recently, and I believe an RFA has at least a fighting chance of being successful now. If the offer still stands, I'd be honored. In the same thread, Pedro asked if he could co-nominate, so I'm going to ping him too.

Before you agree, there's one wrinkle you should know about. I previously edited under another name. I retired that account for privacy reasons, so I don't want to publicly disclose its name. I've asked Alison to review the old account's edits, and verify on-wiki that I'm not hiding any blocks, bans, warnings, edit warring, POV pushing, or any other skeletons in the closet. I've also asked her to review my "privacy reasons", to verify it's a legitimate concern, and not a smoke screen. Her comments, once she's finished her review, will be here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam#Alison's review of my previous account.

I plan to basically say what I just said above in the RFA, and link to her comments. I'm convinced having privacy issues with an old account shouldn't preclude future adminship, and I'm being up front with it at RFA, so I don't think this will torpedo anything. But I'm not sure how you feel about this kind of thing, so I didn't want to spring any surprises on you. In any case, I certainly understand you'll probably want to wait to see her review before going forward. Let me know if you have any problems with this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd like to be able to know the account name myself (FWIW I'm a checkuser/oversighter on Simple English Wikipedia, so take privacy seriously) before nominating you for anything. But yes, the offer still stands, unless you've done anything dreadful in the past few months I hadn't noticed. Majorly talk 17:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really want to prevent this from becoming an "open secret", like some other situations I've seen semi-recently. But due to your Checkuserness/Oversightitude on Simple, and the fact that, as a nominator, you'd be sticking your neck out here, I'll email you with the old name. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Email sent. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alison has done her bit; I'm ready whenever you and Pedro are. If real life is keeping you too busy, I'm happy to wait a week or two more, just let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get it done tomorrow. I'll send you a copy that you can check over before I post it. Majorly talk 23:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I pestered Pedro as well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Majorly. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam for your attention good sir. Pedro :  Chat  12:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks

My RFA →→→

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!

Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfB comments

At SoWhy's RfB you said "I am adamantly opposed to any editor who is clearly inclusionist-inclined to receiving further privs." and I responded with "Wow. Just wow. Next time anyone claims that "inclusionists are playing politics at XXXX" I'm going to point them to this." which you felt was sarcastic. Your later comments clear things up a bit, but really and truly I was shocked that anyone, let alone you, would say such a thing. Read literally, which I assume you meant, it indicates you'd !vote against all inclusionists at RfA and RfB. Basically, I'm trying to say I meant exactly what I said. I was shocked and surprised that an admin I respect (though often disagree with) would support such a notion, let alone make the claim out of the blue at an RfB. Hobit (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does read like that. But, I wouldn't. What the big issue for me is the way in which SoWhy (and others) vote at RFA, opposing people over making minor mistakes at CSD - nitpicking at best. I find this a fundemental misunderstanding of what adminship is about. Admins are not perfect and all make mistakes - indeed, many taggings are endorsed by admins, and simply disagreed with by SoWhy, and others. I feel inclusionism seriously damages Wikipedia. I don't define myself as anything, certainly not a deletionist. I take every article I see on its merits with an open mind. I certainly do not come in with the attitude of "keep unless it doesn't exist" or "delete not notable". I take a stance based on the article's merits. Deletionists aren't particularly great either, but at least if a mistake is made the article can be undeleted. When an article is kept and it's a complete mess, it simply makes Wikipedia look amateur.
My biggest gripe is inclusionists opposing over minor issues at RFA, and SoWhy happens to be one of them. I have never seen deletionists do anything like this. A Nobody is another editor who opposes based on minor mistaggings (often from up to a year before). The world won't end if an article doesn't exist for a little while if it's deleted and later decided it was a mistake to do so.
So to clear things up, I would probably oppose any editor who frequently opposes people based on minor mistaggings of things (CSD, UAA, AIV etc) because mistakes are allowed and admins aren't always right anyway. With regards to the sarcasm comments, I considered the "Wow. Just wow." comment to be, but it seems I was wrong. Also, I'm not an admin. Majorly talk 22:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I'd always thought you were an admin (and take that as a complement btw as you certainly seem to know what you are doing). My view is that getting lots of taggings wrong recently is a bad thing for anyone who plans on working on CSD or XfD, but having a better track record in the last few months (high 90% or so not being blatantly wrong) is plenty. In any case, I largely disagree with you it seems, but I appreciate your clarifications and comments. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was an admin, so it's not really a compliment, but thanks all the same. Yes, getting lots of taggings wrong is bad, and I'd oppose for that. It's when hardly any mistakes are made, out of thousands of correct ones, and the candidate is opposed, that is the issue. It's happened. Majorly talk 22:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Figured out the admin thing after I commented. Sorry about that. Hobit (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Such as plagiarism, copyvios, hoaxes, libel etc, all the kind of thing which inclusionists bend over backwards to "save". I'm sorry but judging by the copyvio angle, that argument doesn't stand. Discovering a that an article at AfD contains a copyvio is generally a slam-dunk for deletion, as the speedy G12 puts an immediate end to the proceeding. Somehow implying that any particular wiki-philosophy is to blame for copyvios is, IMO, a mistake.

That being said, the best way to forge yourself an opinion you can back up is of course direct observation. As it happens, WP:SCV and WP:CCI are massively backlogged and could definitely benefit from your assistance, even if only for the purpose of verifying your above claims. Cheers, MLauba (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusionism and "rubbish"

I don't want to further clutter the RFB with off-topic discussion but you are right: Keeping things for the sake of having them is not a good thing and those who do simply argue to keep everything without a policy-based reason to do so are no better than those that propose to delete anything they think should go. It's a fine line and you seem to be more on the deletionist side of it while I'm more on the inclusionist side. But all wikiphilosophies are only helpful as long as you follow them with common sense on your side - just like you won't propose France for deletion, I won't argue to keep Some MySpace band or Some copyvio just for the sake of having it. Regards SoWhy 22:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - at least you are not Kmweber who voted to keep everything that exists... and you are right, I probably am on the deletionist side more, as I tend to believe "better safe [deleted] that sorry". We are constantly adding new articles and improving existing ones, so in my opinion, the lack of an article isn't that big a deal especially when we have several million already. We have our differences, and it's just a shame I feel so strongly about your RFA opposition votes because I have found you are generally fair, thoughtful, hardworking etc though we rarely agree. I just don't think minor quibbles (as I think they are) are worth opposing somebody over. Obviously, someone with a horrendous track record should be opposed, and I have certainly opposed such people in the past. But a few little mistakes in several thousand tags is not worth it in my view. Majorly talk 22:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know this will sound like I'm trying to sway you - but I agree with you. It all comes done to whether those mistaggings are mistakes or whether the candidate has not grasped the policy in question. I am all for supporting people who just made a mistake and I have supported and neutral-ed a number of such candidates even when others opposed them for it (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kingpin13 for example). We may have our differences when it comes to handling certain things but it's not as if we really disagree on everything. We may just phrase our position differently :-) Regards SoWhy 23:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

Wythenshawe

Greetings. Explain 'english'... in wot way tis our re-rite ov sed articul rong ? ! O, de de-tayuls b rite ! ROBERT TAGGART (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Standard English is what I mean. Listen, I think you genuinely want to improve articles, but you're doing so in a way that's contradictory to norms here. Majorly talk 16:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

we just had an edit conflict

at Justice. You got it done first. Thanks. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section Gps2sms

I saw you removed the article, which by all means should be possible under certain circumstances. I googled for the name gps2sms and that name wasn't covered by just one guy or website, there's 2800 google hits, referring to different websites. So although the audience might be limited, it's still a legal word worth explaining. If you agree I can write the article as neutral as you'd like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.210.249.81 (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rubber duckie

Good find! Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Good nomination, imo, User:Floquenbeam. I really like his/her editing style, and think this user would make a good example for adminship on wikipedia. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 02:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't supported. Majorly talk 02:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Put it in the wrong place. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 05:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who gives a fuck about RfA? It's just (largely unnecessary) jobs for the (usually teenage) boys. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who gives a fuck? You do, for one. It seems you give enough of a fuck to comment on my comments on it in two different places. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 05:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I care about stupidity, not about RfA ... on reflection I think I begin to see what you're getting at. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Harrytown Catholic High School

Updated DYK query On January 16, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harrytown Catholic High School, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Majorly! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 34 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Steve Wilson (presenter) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Thank you

Thank you for your nomination, and for your support. I hadn't really thought this through enough to realize that your honesty was going to be called into question, and I regret that. You have my deepest appreciation. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't worry. It's something I'm used to. It went very well, all things considered. Wikipedians are a very suspicious bunch, and often assume that because someone is hiding something it must be bad. Luckily most people managed to give us the benefit of the doubt. Have fun with your new tools! Majorly talk 19:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Already used  Done twice on WP:ERRORS. This is kinda fun (so far). --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to Hungary Sasata (submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than Pennsylvania Hunter Kahn (submissions) and New Orleans TonyTheTiger (submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to Isle of Man Fetchcomms (submissions)- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Well done

Hello mate, just read all the crap on the Baby P page, God, you guys have your work cut out. Just thought amongst all the flaming and trolling you might appreciate someone saying Well Done and keep up the good work! Captain deathbeard (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Merge discussion for Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act

An article that you have been involved in editing, Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Avicennasis 12:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter

Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to Hungary Sasata (submissions), our round one winner (1010 points), and to Pennsylvania Hunter Kahn (submissions) and New Orleans TonyTheTiger (submissions), who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). Connecticut Staxringold (submissions) claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), Geschichte (submissions) claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points), Jujutacular (submissions) claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and Republic of Ireland Candlewicke (submissions) claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

Subway restaurant article

Regarding the Subway article image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Subway_restaurant_world_locations_Updated.PNG), India has 156 branches so it should be coloured cyan and not green. I am writing on your personal talkpage since you deleted the image discussion page earlier. Thanks Lilaac (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

WikiCup 2010 March newsletter

We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. Pennsylvania Hunter Kahn (submissions) leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. New Orleans TonyTheTiger (submissions) currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

WikiCup 2010 April newsletter

Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to Pennsylvania Hunter Kahn (submissions), our clear overall round winner, and to Colombia ThinkBlue (submissions) and Norway Arsenikk (submissions), who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants Bavaria Stone (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 17:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

Move discussion for List of English monarchs

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of English monarchs, has been proposed for a move to another title. If you are interested in the move discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Goustien (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

Block on simplewiki

I see from your Simple English Wikipedia user page that you are the person responsible for blocking my account there as an alleged sock-puppet of an apparently disruptive user Snow Funn at tall. Since I have never edited Simple I can't imagine what grounds you could have had for accepting the blatant falsehood, now plastered on my user page there, that my account had any connection with the person responsible for the activities of Snow Funn at tall.

I have only just become aware of this block because I used the toolserver to check the numbers of my contributions to various Wikimedia projects. As you can no doubt imagine, I was well and truly cheesed off to discover that my account on Simple had been blocked, apparenty on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, and without any effort being made to warn me that anyone had suspected me of being a sock puppet of another user. Since I only rarely visit Simple, I do realise that I might not have seen a note left on my talk page there for quite some time, but since you appear to have a global Wikiprojects account yourself, it might have occurred to you that I did so too (as, in fact, I do).

While I currently have no intention of contributing to Simple, I would neveretheless appreciate it if you would please:

  • unblock my account there, with a note in the block log to indicate that the original block was made in error; and
  • remove the blatantly false sockpuppet template from my user page there.

Thank you.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On checking your status on Simple I see you are no longer an administrator there. That unfortunately leaves me in a rather awkward position, since I am unable to post an unblock request anywhere on Simple without violating its rules on block evasion, and I'd prefer not to do that. I would therefore appreciate it if you would post a request to unblock my account on the administrator's noticeboard/incidents there. For your convenience I include a draft of a suitable request:
In July last year I blocked the account of user David J Wilson as an alleged sock puppet of Snow Funn at tall. Editor David J Wilson on English Wikipedia has left a note on my talk page there maintaing that the Simple Wikipedia account is his, denying that he is a sock puppet of Snow Fun at tall, and asking me to post this request to:
  • unblock his account on Simple; and
  • include a note in the block log indicating that the original block was made in error.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Majorly is no longer active, I took the liberty of stepping in. David, your account has been unblocked [3] [4]. You are now able to remove the sockpuppet tag yourself, and I recommend linking to this thread here. Nev1 (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for that. Griffinofwales has now deleted my user page, so there's nothing now that remains to be done.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 23:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to point out that two users on there, Dave "Snow Funn" Wilson and another were caught socking. --Bsadowski1 09:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that relevant? "David Wilson" is an extremely common name, especially among males around my age. When I created my Wikipedia acount I had to choose the username "David J Wilson" because "David Wilson" was already taken. I'm afraid I don't see how the fact that some disruptive user had adopted the user name "Dave "Snow Funn" Wilson" suggests any connection at all with my account.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfA stats

Hi,

I wanted to get info on RfAs, so I was told to look in your userspace; I saw User:Majorly/RfA/Stats but it doesn't have 2010. So, I started making it - User:Chzz/RfA/Stats/2010.

I couldn't see any way to fully automate gathering the stats, so I've been filling them in by hand, pretty much; is this a valid approach? Is it worthwhile me continuing with it?

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  10:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

WikiCup 2010 May newsletter

We are half way through round 3, with a little under a month to go. The current overall leader is Hungary Sasata (submissions), who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by Pennsylvania Hunter Kahn (submissions), Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) respectively. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Two of last year's final 8, Sweden Theleftorium (submissions) and Iceland Scorpion0422 (submissions), have dropped out of the competition, saying they would rather their place went to someone who will have more time on their hands than them next round. On a related note, a special thank you goes to White Shadows (submissions) for his help behind the scenes once again. There is currently a problem with the poster, perhaps caused by the new skin- take a look at this discussion and see if you can help. The competition has continued to tick over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. Good luck to all! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 20:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

WikiCup 2010 June newsletter

We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were Ian Rose (submissions) (A), Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (B, and the round's overall leader), Colombia ThinkBlue (submissions) (C) New South Wales Casliber (submissions) and New Orleans TonyTheTiger (submissions) (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.

If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to Bavaria Stone (submissions) for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

WikiCup 2010 July newsletter

We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by Hungary Sasata (submissions) has ended up the more competitive, with three contestants (Hungary Sasata (submissions), Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and New Orleans TonyTheTiger (submissions)) scoring over 500 points already. Pool B is led by New South Wales Casliber (submissions), who has also scored well over 500. The top two from each pool, as well as the next four highest scorers regardless of pool, will make it through to our final eight. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards.

Earlier this round, we said goodbye to Pennsylvania Hunter Kahn (submissions), who has bowed out to spend more time on the book he is authoring with his wife. We wish him all the best. In other news, the start of this round also saw some WikiCup awards sent out by Finland Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions). We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 22:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

WikiCup 2010 August newsletter

We have our final eight! The best of luck to those who remain. A bumper newsletter this week as we start our home straight.

  • Pool A's winner was Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions). Awarded the top score overall this round, Sturmvogel_66 writes primarily on military history, favouring Naval warfare.
  • Pool B's winner was New South Wales Casliber (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology.
  • Pool A's close second was Hungary Sasata (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology.
  • Pool B's close second was Colombia ThinkBlue (submissions). Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock.
  • The first wildcard was New Orleans TonyTheTiger (submissions). Awarded the top score for did you knows and valued pictures this round, TonyTheTiger writes on a number of topics, including baseball, American football and Chicago.
  • The second wildcard was White Shadows (submissions). Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats.
  • The third wildcard was Connecticut Staxringold (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock.
  • The fourth wildcard was William S. Saturn (submissions). Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas.

We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle. Geschichte (submissions) only just missed out on a place in the final eight. Alberta Resolute (submissions) was not far behind. Republic of Ireland Candlewicke (submissions) was awarded top points for in the news this round. Toronto Gary King (submissions) contributed a variety of did you know articles. Finland Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions) said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals. Norway Arsenikk (submissions) did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to Ian Rose (submissions), who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to Bavaria Stone (submissions) for these.

Signups for next year's competition are now open. Planning is ongoing, with a key discussion about judges for next year open. Discussion about how next year's scoring will work is ongoing, and thoughts are more than welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. Also, TonyTheTiger is compiling some information and statistics on the finalists here- the final eight are encouraged to add themselves to the list.

Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

WikiCup 2010 September newsletter

We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight. New Orleans TonyTheTiger (submissions) leads at the time of writing with 1180 points, immediately followed by Hungary Sasata (submissions) with 1175 points. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) closely follows in third place with 1100 points. For those who are interested, data about the finalists has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/finalists, while a list of content submitted by all WikiCup contestants prior to this round has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions. As ever, anything contestants worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Despite controversy, the WikiCup remains open. Signups for next year's competition are more than welcome, and suggestions for how next year's competition will work are appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. More general comments and discussions should be directed at the WikiCup talk page. One month remains in the 2010 WikiCup, after which we will know our champion. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

WikiCup 2010 October newsletter

The 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to New Orleans TonyTheTiger (submissions), with 2260, and third to New South Wales Casliber (submissions), with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists – White Shadows (submissions), William S. Saturn (submissions), Connecticut Staxringold (submissions) and Colombia ThinkBlue (submissions). Also, congratulations to Hungary Sasata (submissions), who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.

Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is New South Wales Casliber (submissions), for five featured articles in round 4. Winning the good article prize is Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for eighty-one good articles in round 5. Winning the featured list prize is Connecticut Staxringold (submissions), for six featured lists in round 1. Winning the picture and sound award is Jujutacular (submissions), for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for forty-seven articles in various good topics in round 5. Winning the "did you know" award is New Orleans TonyTheTiger (submissions), for over one hundred did you knows is round 5. Finally, winning the in the news award is Republic of Ireland Candlewicke (submissions), for nineteen articles in the news in round three.

The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Wikipedia itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the WikiCup talk page and on the scoring talk page. Also, people are more than welcome to sign up for next year's competition on the signup page. Well done and thank you to everyone involved – the Cup has been a pleasure to run, and we, as judges, have been proud to be a part of it. We hope that next year, however the Cup is working, and whoever is running it, it will be back, stronger and more popular than ever. Until then, goodbye and happy editing! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 03:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2010 Ribbon of Participation

The WikiCup 2010 Ribbon of Participation
Awarded to Majorly, for participation in the 2010 WikiCup. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 08:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

WikiCup 2011

Hello. You are being contacted because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup but have not yet signed up for the 2011 WikiCup, which starts at midnight. It is not too late to sign up! The competition will remain open until at least January 31, and so it is not too late to enter. If you are interested, simply follow the instructions to add your username to the signup page, and a judge will contact you as soon as possible with an explanation of how to participate. The WikiCup is a friendly competition open to all Wikipedians, old and new, experienced and inexperienced, providing a fun and rewarding way to contribute quality content to Wikipedia. If you do not want to receive any further messages about the WikiCup, or you want to start receiving messages about the WikiCup, you may add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the WikiCup talk page or contact the judges directly. J Milburn and The ed17 06:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2011 January newsletter

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to Greece Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, Principality of Sealand Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and United Kingdom Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment from user: Badger Drink

Hello. I believe I have been subject to unwarranted harassment and hateful spite attacks by a user who you've banned before for something similar. If you have time, would you mind checking the discussion, which (in part) revolves around his abusive notations regarding his edits on the Stonehenge page with regard to a photograph I had added to that entry. He his NOW harassing me on MY user page, and his latest addition to his entry: Stones, henges, userpages, and photographs is nothing less than a hateful and cheap-shot at a religious origination he apparently despises which has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion on the talk page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Majorly&oldid=413454495"