User talk:Majorly/Archives/29
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Hey there
Hey there Majorly! It appears as if we both noticed a recent odd formatting thing on Jaranda's RfA. I just wanted to mention that in undoing John's recent edit (which I was curious about as well, and left him a note on his talk page), you actually removed his own comments to the RfA. You may want to try to re-insert his own comment without his other formatting tweaks if that's possible. I'd do it myself, but I'm leery of trying to fix formatting on RfA's, as I often just muddle things up even more, hehe. Thanks in advance! Cheers mate gaillimhConas tá tú? 20:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Canvassing?
Is there any truth to this? Surely you don't think such canvassing is a good thing? Friday (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, it's not true. However, it's generally well known I don't mind canvassing to a certain extent. See my RfA page for my thoughts on it. Cheers. Majorly (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 28 | 9 July 2007 | 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 07:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Dark Alex page - where to add further comments?
I was shocked and very disappointed that there was no wikipedia page dedicated to Dark Alex. I have never really been involved in editing wikipedia before let alone made a new page, but I feel so strongly that there should be a Dark Alex page that I attempted to start one. However, I seemed to be blocked. As I understand it, there used to be a page, but a few users that I assume know nothing about PSPs and the Sony vs homebrew struggle (that the PSP is more well known for than any individual game on the format) requested to have this deleted and were given their way because the majority of wiki readers would not have a clue what Dark AleX's importance was.
Surely the whole point of an encyclopaedia is that it contains knowledge that is important to some people around the world which others may which to refer to. Dark AleX is known around the world and an article [1] suggesting he might retire from the PSP homebrew scene received 697 diggs.
My view is that if you are going to delete articles simply because they only appeal to a core of a few hundred thousand fanatics, then you will find thousands more articles that could be taken down from wikipedia on the same basis. Instead you keep them up because it only really matters to the people that do want them. Therefore I cannot possibly see how wikipedia can justify to itself depriving us of the freedom to discuss Dark AleX.
Even more depressing, in my view, is that we are asked not to continue the conversation page as to whether the original page was worthy of being kept up.
Please, rethink your decision and allow us to create a new page dedicated to Dark AleX.
62.56.96.50 18:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Skip, 10 July 2007
Your RfB
Hey Majorly,
I just wanted to take a minute to apologize for not replying to the comment you made in response to my !vote. The reason I didn't is, quite frankly, that I didn't see it until just now. I had been away rather unexpectedly for four or five days after the holiday (July 4th, that is) and had no way (let alone time) to access the Internet from the road. Anyway, I feel that you at least deserved the courtesy of a reply and a more detailed explanation, particularly since my !vote reads like it was set in stone (which it really wasn't) and I feel bad about not following the discussion more closely. I hope you didn't take my remarks the wrong way. No hard feelings? S up? 22:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm sure it would have been good. ;) I believe we've discussed the canvassing issue on IRC before and I still believe that it's very much a slippery slope. I also still believe that taking a lax stance on this issue doesn't help and only helps to lower the bar on what is acceptable. The fact that it's taking place more or less in the open doesn't change that I'm opposed to it on principle. With regard to the second issue, I may have chosen the wrong word. Argumentative is a bit strong but I do recall scratching my head and thinking "Jeez, was that really necessary?" while reading some of your comments at RfA in the past. As I said, I won't digg up diffs because, well, that's just not something I do but I feel you at least deserved a response. -- S up? 22:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
My RfB
 |
Thank you, Majorly, for participating in my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3). |
Brother! :-) Húsönd 23:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thanks for the congrats, and I'll do my best to become more active. :) Andre (talk) 09:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
drv
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Manhattan Brewing Company. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --W.marsh 22:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi
Hi, this is the user formerly known as Black Harry. I haven't seen you around RFA lately, and I noticed you haven't made any edits for a few days, so I was just wondering if everything is ok. New England (C) (H) 13:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 29 | 16 July 2007 | 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 19:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
You've also known him for almost the entire time you've been here? Wow...same with me; he's one of the first users I met, too. Hope you're not upset for not being his nominator! :) Acalamari 01:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, not at all! I pretty much wrote all I wanted to say in a nomination in my support anyway. Cheers! Majorly (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Biography
Was linked to this talk to discuss a biography i was writing on a local figurehead? It had been changed and deleted - Ross McQuinn? As i beleive, the owner of rossmcquinn.com (who is 15 years old, and a different Ross to the desired one) came in and changed the appearance of the application. The biography is being written based on an interview done with the local martial arts champion. Any chance that it's deletion can be revoked? 203.208.65.209 04:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please try to follow instructions at the top of the page - thanks. There is not, nor ever has been an article called Ross McQuinn. Majorly (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Protection of Jurassic Bark
Hello, you put full protection on the Futurama episode article for "Jurassic Bark a few weeks ago. It has become apparent on the talk page that the editors involved in the edit war have no intention of hashing out the issue on the talk page. Also since none of the editors involved were regular editors of Futurama articles or that page specifically I suspect they were trying to make a point which has since been made elsewhere. All that being said, the tag they were edit warring about has since been deleted and the episode article issue has cooled down in general, for the moment. I made a request for unprotection which was denied and I was told to ask you instead. While I agree that the protection was necessary at the time I think it is no longer beneficial to the article. Thanks for your time. Stardust8212 14:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. The disputes have been resolved. The article should now be either unprotected or semi-protected. —TigerK 69 05:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 30 | 23 July 2007 | 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 06:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Is this real?
Are the contents of User:G1ggy/Chatlog Majorly at all real? Friday (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia Weekly Notification
Just a super quick note, Wikipedia Weekly Episode 21 is out and can be downloaded at the usual places (if you've forgotten, WikipediaWeekly.com works wonders. -- Tawkerbot 01:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 31 | 30 July 2007 | 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 00:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 32 | 6 August 2007 | 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 09:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The IRC Buddy Barnstar | |
| I, Greeves, hereby award you the IRC Buddy Barnstar for suffering through my questions on IRC this week. Thanks! Greeves (talk • contribs) 03:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC) |
- Aww thanks! But it was no trouble and I didn't suffer at all - any time! :) Majorly (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Is this why you prefer off-wiki communication?
I noticed that you archived my question without comment. So, I assume the chat log is legit. I hope you realize how spectacularly inappropriate this sort of behavior is. Maybe you should instead have these kinds of conversations on the wiki, where other editors can keep an eye on them. Friday (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's great Friday! Actually I missed it between all the other messages, so my apologies for that (perhaps assume good faith in future instead of jumping to the wrong conclusion). However, I'm starting to find your messages here slightly irritating, particularly after you said there'd be no hard feelings regarding our very, very minor dispute. I'm leaving you alone, perhaps you could do the same for me. Thanks in advance, and have a lovely day! :) Majorly (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Under pain of butting in, I'd have to agree with Majorly; it's important at all times to Assume Good Faith, or this "volunteer-written encyclopedia" thing can't work. Just a friendly reminder :) Cheers, Anthøny 18:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, obviously assuming good faith is important. Have I failed to do that here? I don't see it. Remember that "assume good faith" does not mean "assume everyone always does the right thing." But, Majorly doesn't seem to be interested in meaningful discussion of what I see as harmful behavior, so I don't see that there's much left to be said. Friday (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Friday, you appear to have a slight obsession with me, and I find it quite disturbing. I was simply having a little joke with Giggy, who sadly took it way too seriously (Giggy of course being a friend of mine, and he thinks of me the same way, if you see his userpage). Lots of people have seen the log, clearly, since it was brought up in the RfA. No one else has hassled me about it; no one else has started a little sandbox about it; no one else keeps coming to my talk page and taking it over-so-seriously. This behaviour is not harmful in any way - I'd never "fail" an RFA. How could I? I'm just an ordinary editor. I cannot see any benefit of you continually dropping by here questioning me about irrelevant stuff that no one else takes a second glance at. Why not, instead of worrying yourself unnecessarily with this silliness, go and do something more productive? I've made it quite clear I don't wish to discuss it; I've also spoken, in private, to other editors about your messages here, and AGK as well, and we agree that your interrogation here is unhelpful. You know we don't agree on anything - why continue the drama unnecessarily? Majorly (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Hope you're well!
Hey Majorly ;-) a very late apology for missing the Manchester meet-up; I think I said something to Ryan, but anyway: I was preparing to jet off on holiday at the time, and not only was preserving as much money as possible (GNER charge a fortune from Glasgow Central at the moment), I was backlogged with preparations for me and my lazy bugger room-mates. Maybe next time?
Anyway, I was here in the first place simply to say it's great to see you back; I've noticed your absence recently, and although I didn't comment about it, I was worried - I don't remember seeing a holiday notice up (although obviously it's not required :-) so I was just wondering what brought about the absence. Well, the important thing is you're back! Great talking to you, Majorly, and see you around.
Kind regards,
Anthøny 18:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Anthony, nice to hear from you! I've been dividing my time up between various projects recently, particularly on Meta and Commons, and I've not had much time as I'd like for enwiki. I was on holiday in France for a couple of weeks as well, without internet access (yes I was bored stiff :P). There's another meetup, here if you're interested. Hopefully you'll be able to make it this time. Cheers, Majorly (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)