Hey there Majorly, since I brought your name up on my talk page, I thought I'd mention that here.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 22:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Done with my dissertation; life is settling down somewhat. Am pondering my own RfA in... a month? Six weeks? Dunno. But see you there. :-) Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 07:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
|
|
| Thank you for your participation in
my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.
Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith ( talk), 22:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
Denbot ( talk) 22:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi there; ref my comment in support at this editor's RfA, and you comment in turn, which I have only just seen. My point, possibly mistaken, about Moreschi, was that I got the impression that he was trying to make a point about the RfA process in general, and that a specific RfA would clearly be the wrong place so to do. But if my impression was wrong then I apologise herewith both to him and to you. -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 12:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. Useight ( talk) 00:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 |
Majorly has been identified as an almost awesome Wikipedian, |
- I am honoured to receive this prestigious award. I shall treasure it always in my talk page archive. Majorly talk 03:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, just wondering, where does it say in the MOS that numbers should be used instead of words in the opening of articles such as those on presidents of the United States? It really doesn't matter either way to me, but I believe words have been used for a while. Thanks, Happyme22 ( talk) 03:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
-
This seems quite clear to me. Words have indeed been used, but they shouldn't really. It's both inconsistent (within the article, there's digits in the infobox) and it violates the MOS. I've tried to change them, but people don't seem to listen. *shrug*. Especially as Barack Obama is a featured article, it should be setting the example, not following the bad examples.
Majorly
talk 03:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well it is really not all that clear. Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Numbers_as_figures_or_words says: "numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million). This applies to ordinal numbers as well as cardinal numbers." So it is at the discretion of the concensus. I read through the exceptions and nothing seems to justify writing "43" over "forty-three". Again, this issue specifically does not really matter to me, but consistency and consensus building do, so I would attempt to gain a general consensus before proceeding to change them all. I was just looking at the Obama article nearly a half-hour ago and it read "fourty-four". -- Happyme22 ( talk) 04:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
lol, sorry. You weren't serious on Talk:RFA, by the way? rootology ( C)( T) 17:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 80 support, 2 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the community has placed in me. R'n'B ( call me Russ) 21:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC) |
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 4 | 24 January 2009 | 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.-- ragesoss ( talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered at 04:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot ( Disable)
You finally tripped up, and I've found it. Think twice before you apply for RFA, and yes, I know you've thought about it.
Remember when you wrote: "Some people are just not suited I'm afraid. I'm honestly surprised he's not been banned yet. Certainly shouldn't be promoted to admin."
Just yesterday you wrote at Rootology's RFA: "it's almost as if Rootology is a different person. I have not seen a single bad thing come from him since he returned. This is clear proof that people can change. Rootology is dedicated to writing the encyclopedia. [...] and has recently shown he could put admin tools to great use here as well. Since more admins are needed, and Rootology has shown he is totally dedicated and qualified, this should be an obvious shoe-in."
You're saying this about someone who actually was banned. Yet to me, even though I never was banned, you said you would never support. You are a hypocrite, Alex. BURN! Yechiel ( Shalom) 04:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- BAHAHAHA! Rootology is nothing like you, Shalom. Rootology didn't vandalise Wikipedia. Rootology didn't create harrassment accounts such as Minorly ( talk · contribs). Rootology didn't start his wiki-life creating a Google bomb. Yes, he was banned, but that was after he got in too deep in a dispute. Yes, he did some stupid things off-wiki. So have you. Like your constant whining about me opposing your RFA. And I'm glad you failed it. I'm glad I opposed. Only rarely am I pleased to oppose someone's RFA. This is one rare occasion I am pleased you failed. You haven't changed, Shalom. Now, kindly get off of my talk page and stay away from me. I've had just about enough of you. Majorly talk 11:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Am I suffering Deja Vu here??? didn't I read this someplace else??? I mean, if you're going to make attacks, make sure they are personal, not cut and paste!--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 19:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Those are the details from imdb. Tim! ( talk) 17:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to make a comment about "Next thing we'll be asking is if banana's are yellow," but I didn't want you to take that the wrong way ;-)--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 19:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Majorly, I always drop by a talk page when I say something in a thread that someone might interpret as a put-down ... I never consciously put anyone down on Wikipedia, and I want to make sure we're clear. I talked about people talking with "moral authority" at WT:RFA#Arbitrary break about how arbitrarily everyone is dismissing keepscase's perspective. I agree with your position on silly questions. I don't want to make a call whether that applies to Keepscases' questions or not; his questions have enough support that it's likely to just become a big brawl with people complaining about censorship, but I support the idea of looking at anything that would improve RFA, looking for consensus, and writing it down. My sense is that consensus is leaning in the direction of letting people ask whatever question they want to at RFA, but that whatever it is that's making people uncomfortable might be dealt with by letting candidates know in the RFA instructions that it's a minority position that "silly" questions are useful in RFAs. Whatever your position is, I'd appreciate your input in the thread. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 18:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey Alex, I haven't had much of a chance to talk lately, what with school having resumed with me. Just wanted to drop by and see how things were with you lately, on the 'pedia and off. Cheers, — Anonymous Dissident Talk 15:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I've read and annotated the article on paper. Tomorrow (Sunday, Feb 1 2009) I'll post my comments. - Mgm| (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
| My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology ( C)( T) 07:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |  |
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 5 | 31 January 2009 | 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.-- ragesoss ( talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 21:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Live & Kicking GA review
I've posted my review of the article. It's nomination is now on hold awaiting improvements. Please let me know when you've addressed my concerns. - Mgm| (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey there Majorly, since I brought your name up on my talk page, I thought I'd mention that here.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 22:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Done with my dissertation; life is settling down somewhat. Am pondering my own RfA in... a month? Six weeks? Dunno. But see you there. :-) Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 07:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
|
|
|
| Thank you for your participation in
my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.
Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith ( talk), 22:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
Denbot ( talk) 22:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi there; ref my comment in support at this editor's RfA, and you comment in turn, which I have only just seen. My point, possibly mistaken, about Moreschi, was that I got the impression that he was trying to make a point about the RfA process in general, and that a specific RfA would clearly be the wrong place so to do. But if my impression was wrong then I apologise herewith both to him and to you. -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 12:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. Useight ( talk) 00:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
|
Majorly has been identified as an almost awesome Wikipedian, |
- I am honoured to receive this prestigious award. I shall treasure it always in my talk page archive. Majorly talk 03:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, just wondering, where does it say in the MOS that numbers should be used instead of words in the opening of articles such as those on presidents of the United States? It really doesn't matter either way to me, but I believe words have been used for a while. Thanks, Happyme22 ( talk) 03:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
-
This seems quite clear to me. Words have indeed been used, but they shouldn't really. It's both inconsistent (within the article, there's digits in the infobox) and it violates the MOS. I've tried to change them, but people don't seem to listen. *shrug*. Especially as Barack Obama is a featured article, it should be setting the example, not following the bad examples.
Majorly
talk 03:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well it is really not all that clear. Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Numbers_as_figures_or_words says: "numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million). This applies to ordinal numbers as well as cardinal numbers." So it is at the discretion of the concensus. I read through the exceptions and nothing seems to justify writing "43" over "forty-three". Again, this issue specifically does not really matter to me, but consistency and consensus building do, so I would attempt to gain a general consensus before proceeding to change them all. I was just looking at the Obama article nearly a half-hour ago and it read "fourty-four". -- Happyme22 ( talk) 04:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
lol, sorry. You weren't serious on Talk:RFA, by the way? rootology ( C)( T) 17:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 80 support, 2 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the community has placed in me. R'n'B ( call me Russ) 21:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 4 | 24 January 2009 | 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.-- ragesoss ( talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered at 04:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot ( Disable)
You finally tripped up, and I've found it. Think twice before you apply for RFA, and yes, I know you've thought about it.
Remember when you wrote: "Some people are just not suited I'm afraid. I'm honestly surprised he's not been banned yet. Certainly shouldn't be promoted to admin."
Just yesterday you wrote at Rootology's RFA: "it's almost as if Rootology is a different person. I have not seen a single bad thing come from him since he returned. This is clear proof that people can change. Rootology is dedicated to writing the encyclopedia. [...] and has recently shown he could put admin tools to great use here as well. Since more admins are needed, and Rootology has shown he is totally dedicated and qualified, this should be an obvious shoe-in."
You're saying this about someone who actually was banned. Yet to me, even though I never was banned, you said you would never support. You are a hypocrite, Alex. BURN! Yechiel ( Shalom) 04:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- BAHAHAHA! Rootology is nothing like you, Shalom. Rootology didn't vandalise Wikipedia. Rootology didn't create harrassment accounts such as Minorly ( talk · contribs). Rootology didn't start his wiki-life creating a Google bomb. Yes, he was banned, but that was after he got in too deep in a dispute. Yes, he did some stupid things off-wiki. So have you. Like your constant whining about me opposing your RFA. And I'm glad you failed it. I'm glad I opposed. Only rarely am I pleased to oppose someone's RFA. This is one rare occasion I am pleased you failed. You haven't changed, Shalom. Now, kindly get off of my talk page and stay away from me. I've had just about enough of you. Majorly talk 11:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Am I suffering Deja Vu here??? didn't I read this someplace else??? I mean, if you're going to make attacks, make sure they are personal, not cut and paste!--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 19:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Those are the details from imdb. Tim! ( talk) 17:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to make a comment about "Next thing we'll be asking is if banana's are yellow," but I didn't want you to take that the wrong way ;-)--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 19:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Majorly, I always drop by a talk page when I say something in a thread that someone might interpret as a put-down ... I never consciously put anyone down on Wikipedia, and I want to make sure we're clear. I talked about people talking with "moral authority" at WT:RFA#Arbitrary break about how arbitrarily everyone is dismissing keepscase's perspective. I agree with your position on silly questions. I don't want to make a call whether that applies to Keepscases' questions or not; his questions have enough support that it's likely to just become a big brawl with people complaining about censorship, but I support the idea of looking at anything that would improve RFA, looking for consensus, and writing it down. My sense is that consensus is leaning in the direction of letting people ask whatever question they want to at RFA, but that whatever it is that's making people uncomfortable might be dealt with by letting candidates know in the RFA instructions that it's a minority position that "silly" questions are useful in RFAs. Whatever your position is, I'd appreciate your input in the thread. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 18:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey Alex, I haven't had much of a chance to talk lately, what with school having resumed with me. Just wanted to drop by and see how things were with you lately, on the 'pedia and off. Cheers, — Anonymous Dissident Talk 15:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I've read and annotated the article on paper. Tomorrow (Sunday, Feb 1 2009) I'll post my comments. - Mgm| (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
| My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology ( C)( T) 07:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 5 | 31 January 2009 | 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.-- ragesoss ( talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 21:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Live & Kicking GA review
I've posted my review of the article. It's nomination is now on hold awaiting improvements. Please let me know when you've addressed my concerns. - Mgm| (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)