User talk:Majorly/Archives/40
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Majorly. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Re: Thrug
This same user that you just blocked vandalized [[Image:Asimov.jpg]], and I do not know how to restore the earlier version of the image. If you can assist me, I would appreciate it immensely. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- All fixed! There's a revert button on the left of the upload table. Regards, Majorly (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, sir! I have never had much to do with images here on Wiki, and so I was loathe to start experimenting. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at the image again, this is clearly not an image of Isaac Asimov, as it claims to be. Perhaps the image should be deleted entirely? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for participating in my RfA!
|
Thanks for participating in my RfA! | |
| Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Moreover you alerted me to your understandable concerns about disruption. I will take heed and carefully address them. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
Happy Melon's RFA
This [1] nearly had me running off to WP:SSP! Nice one. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 16:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Have you ever considered that perhaps you do not love England too much, nor too little, but actually just the right amount? Darkspots (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
RFA
Macrons
Hi Majorly,
I see you reverted User:198.37.18.232's addition of macrons to SPQR and indicated on the user's talk page that it was an unconstructive edit. Is there some policy that I'm unaware of? --Slashme (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- His/her addition of an ä at the bottom prompted me to revert. Majorly (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Vanadalism?
I don't think a big article based on one newspaper story and taking a chunk of Canadian history out of context really works. 209.217.66.171 (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
re: congrats
User:Zeibura/Smile Thanks for the support in RfA, everything's going okay so far! See you in February, - Zeibura ( talk ) 08:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Raffles Girls School (Secondary)
Hi,
The edit I put in is supported by 2 references from the main newspaper in Singapore. Considering that most of rest of the article is quotidian, unreferenced or both, I find the repeated revertings of my edit bizarre and puzzling, but I don't have the time to get caught in edit wars/mediation.
gssq (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: Not Vandalism
If the problem I mentioned is not vandalism, then what is it? The Haunted Angel sent me a message, part of which said I will allow this information on the page after the deluxe edition has been released, or when I see a reliable source myself Notice he says HE will allow it when HE sees a reliable source HIMSELF. I gave him the information on where to find the source, and he's ignored it. He seems to think he's an administrator or something the way he's saying that HE will allow things. So if I'm not mistaken. If he'd found the information the same way I did, he would put it on unquestioned as he seems to think he's the administrator of the Cradle of Filth articles. I have the album in question, before it's release. So I know the information to be valid. I've tld him how he can find the information, but chooses to ignore it, and continually remove my information. Alinblack (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Huggle whitelist
Wouldn't it be better though having everything in the Wikipedia space? D.M.N. (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems to work. Majorly (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK. Anyway, I'm struggling to access the top header on this huggle page. The subpage for the banner, seemingly doesn't exist. D.M.N. (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also... D.M.N. (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Jealous?!?
LOL Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
My Rfa
My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, But I wanted to thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Rollback and edit summaries
I noticed this on ANI, and had a question: "Then we should remove it from the ton of admins (including myself) who use rollback for non-vandalism." - do you use edit summaries when carrying out rollback of non-vandalism? I use edit summaries to explain my edits, but then I suppose an edit summary could be misleading. I do find it annoying when checking a diff with no edit summary and having to work out why something was done. Do you think the lack of useful edit summary in rollback outweighs the convenience? Carcharoth (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Raffles Girls School (Secondary)
Hi,
The edit I put in is supported by 2 references from the main newspaper in Singapore. Considering that most of rest of the article is quotidian, unreferenced or both, I find the repeated revertings of my edit bizarre and puzzling, but I don't have the time to get caught in edit wars/mediation.
gssq (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: Not Vandalism
If the problem I mentioned is not vandalism, then what is it? The Haunted Angel sent me a message, part of which said I will allow this information on the page after the deluxe edition has been released, or when I see a reliable source myself Notice he says HE will allow it when HE sees a reliable source HIMSELF. I gave him the information on where to find the source, and he's ignored it. He seems to think he's an administrator or something the way he's saying that HE will allow things. So if I'm not mistaken. If he'd found the information the same way I did, he would put it on unquestioned as he seems to think he's the administrator of the Cradle of Filth articles. I have the album in question, before it's release. So I know the information to be valid. I've tld him how he can find the information, but chooses to ignore it, and continually remove my information. Alinblack (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Huggle whitelist
Wouldn't it be better though having everything in the Wikipedia space? D.M.N. (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems to work. Majorly (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK. Anyway, I'm struggling to access the top header on this huggle page. The subpage for the banner, seemingly doesn't exist. D.M.N. (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also... D.M.N. (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Jealous?!?
LOL Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
My Rfa
My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, But I wanted to thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Rollback and edit summaries
I noticed this on ANI, and had a question: "Then we should remove it from the ton of admins (including myself) who use rollback for non-vandalism." - do you use edit summaries when carrying out rollback of non-vandalism? I use edit summaries to explain my edits, but then I suppose an edit summary could be misleading. I do find it annoying when checking a diff with no edit summary and having to work out why something was done. Do you think the lack of useful edit summary in rollback outweighs the convenience? Carcharoth (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hypokritz
Hi, I tried to post a section on Emerald Ridge High School's page about our student run comedy club, which is an incredibly influential part of going to ERHS for a lot of people. Hypokritz is one of the things that people think of when they think of ER and it has been around since 2000. Almost a decade. Please re-post my posting, or at least tell me why it was deleted! If the Athletics gets a part, I think it is only fair for The Arts to have their say! Thank you very much,
Ryan McNamara —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.139.1 (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted page.
You removed this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Timeline_of_web_browsers.svg. please put it back or maybe move it to commons. Helpsloose 20:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Done, apologies for the inconvenience. Majorly (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Majorly. I've asked a question re: your support at the above RfA as it, well, basically makes no sense (in terms of the English language, not you supporting of course). I'm hoping you'll have time to clarify it. Ta. Pedro : Chat 19:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Replied there. Majorly (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 5 | 28 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your support. I will take on board all the comments made and look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you please undelete this? The main article was a good-faith CSD by accident but had been restored. ViperSnake151 23:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done, apologies for the inconvenience. Majorly (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Ultraexactzz is now an Administrator
My RfA was successful, and closed with 44 Supports, 6 Opposes, and 1 Neutral. For your support, you have my thanks - I fully intend to live up to the lofty yet not-a-big-deal responsibility you have granted me. For those who opposed my candidacy, I value your input and advice, and hope that I may prove worthy of your trust. Special thanks to both Rudget and bibliomaniac15 for their expert coaching and guidance. I look forward to serving the project, my fellow editors, the pursuit of higher knowledge, et cetera, et cetera. Again, you have my thanks. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks from Happy-melon
I just wanted to say thanks for your support for my RfA, which closed (74/2/0) this morning. Your comment and support certainly brought a few laughs to the discussion, even if it did make some people's head spin! Happy‑melon 14:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
lol
Nice recall terms. Mønobi 16:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nice and simple, I think. Majorly (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Simple, perhaps, but not realistic though. Was there a reason that you set terms that are numerically impossible to achieve? Most of the other people in the category seem to set terms that are at least halfway reasonable. A random observer might see your terms as rather pointy. It's a voluntary category so you don't have to be in it if you don't want to, but if you are, you probably ought to consider actually being in it. ++Lar: t/c 19:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Any reason you are dropping by my talk page? How did you see the recall page? Majorly (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- I keep an eye on additions and removals to Category:Wikipedia_administrators_open_to_recall. Since you're now in the category, seeing if you had recall criteria was a natural search, as you may know, I have been encouraging all members to develop specific criteria by leaving them this message. Once your criteria are serious, you may want to reference them from Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria which is a page where these are referenced, for the benefit of those who are seriously trying to develop their own variants. ++Lar: t/c 19:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- They are not serious, obviously, and I don't intend to make serious ones. Majorly (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. I suspect that any reasonable person would feel you're probably not eligible to be in the category then. ++Lar: t/c 20:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- PS I appreciate your voluntarily removing yourself from the category. ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. I suspect that any reasonable person would feel you're probably not eligible to be in the category then. ++Lar: t/c 20:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- They are not serious, obviously, and I don't intend to make serious ones. Majorly (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- I keep an eye on additions and removals to Category:Wikipedia_administrators_open_to_recall. Since you're now in the category, seeing if you had recall criteria was a natural search, as you may know, I have been encouraging all members to develop specific criteria by leaving them this message. Once your criteria are serious, you may want to reference them from Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria which is a page where these are referenced, for the benefit of those who are seriously trying to develop their own variants. ++Lar: t/c 19:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Any reason you are dropping by my talk page? How did you see the recall page? Majorly (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Simple, perhaps, but not realistic though. Was there a reason that you set terms that are numerically impossible to achieve? Most of the other people in the category seem to set terms that are at least halfway reasonable. A random observer might see your terms as rather pointy. It's a voluntary category so you don't have to be in it if you don't want to, but if you are, you probably ought to consider actually being in it. ++Lar: t/c 19:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You'll be receiving a new message shortly. Rudget. 19:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for reverting my talk page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Can we sort this out to give the candidate a fair run? Best that we revert to 3 supports and no other comments. Pedro : Chat 23:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you!
Hi, just dropping by to say thanks for supporting my RfA, I totally wasn't expecting to get so much support, it was a really pleasant surprise. Melesse (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Melesse (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 41
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 41 has been released!
.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/02/04/episode-41-setting-the-record-straight/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.
For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 23:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.
Squad Five-0 reversion
Kind Regards, why was my edits to Squad Five-O considered vandalism? Many articles have a triva section, and my remarks are commonly circulated among all Squad 5-0's fans, so I would think that it could atleast be discussed via the talk, rather than reverted' via alleged vandalism. If you haven't listened to Squad Five-o, I recommend it. Otherwise, I'd ask your recommendation on how to add valuable content 216.80.86.22 (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please just readd it, I'm not interested in the content. It was probably a mistake. Majorly (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 6 | 4 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Star
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| We seem to be in the same state of mind. Thanks for combating the nonsense. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC) |
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Shakespeare.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 04:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
|
lol
I'm trying to resist the temptation to thank people for voting before my RfA is over because I don't want to be intrusive along the way, but "Sup Doc" genuinely made me chuckle.
Thanks for the laugh.
And as long as I'm here anyway, thank you for the vote. I just hope I can live up to anyone's expectations. Doczilla (talk) 07:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- O rly? I didn't intend to be funny. :D Majorly (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Funny business
Stop being funny. You know we frown on any bit of humor here. This is your only warning. нмŵוτнτ 05:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, sorry. I'll stop. Majorly (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
BARNSTAR!
|
The Barnstar of Good Humor - Awarded to particularly light-spirited Wikipedians who, by their unshakably good humor, consistently and reliably lighten the mood, defuse conflicts, and make the Wikipedia a generally better place to be. - jc37 09:55, 10 February 2008 |
- Giving this Barnstar due to the incredibly pun-worthy "Sup Doc" at Doczilla's RfA. Enjoy : ) - jc37 09:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! Majorly (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)