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. |
Hello. The other day on Steve Crossin's RfA you noted that I had "minimal contributions". I'd like to know why that was of any importance. According to the RfA page, "Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, but IPs are unable to place a numerical (#) vote". On that same page, it is also stated that "Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets.". Not only is it obvious that I did not use an IP, but if you check my details, you'll notice that my account is almost two years old (older than the candidate's), so it is not exactly new. My reasoning was well argued and more extensive than most others supporting Steve. There is nothing on the page that even suggests that people with "minimal contributions" are not allowed to voice their opinions or that their support (or opposition) should not be counted. I'd like to know why you saw it necessary to point this out. Thank you -- In continente ( talk) 06:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Hii Majorly. I saw your discussion yesterday on Talk:Main Page and wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of the situation; I decided not to further fuel the fire there, but if you would like to collaborate on a proposal again in future I would be thrilled to work with you. Best, -- Pretzels Talk! 15:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
193.112.136.12 ( talk · contribs) is a public computer, and should not be blocked for two years. I'm using that IP right now. This is the only page I can edit. Majorly talk 11:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't revert and then say please stop edit warring. [1] It takes two, and I am done now that you raise the idea of edit warring. Jehochman Talk 14:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
[2] ? KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 18:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't let Fuchs get under your skin at Bramall's FAC, you're almost there. I'll try and take a look to see if I can help with any of the image licences, as I've had similar problems in the past. ;-) -- Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
≈ Chamal talk ¤ 06:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I only just noticed that the article's been promoted to FA, very well done! It's great to see a fine article on such a nice place. Nev1 ( talk) 21:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi! This article was placed on hold at WP:GAN by you back on September 2. The last comment in the GA review was on September 8. GA reviews should really not take longer than about 2-3 weeks, so if you could wrap this up in the next day or two, that would be appreciated! Thanks! Dr. Cash ( talk) 14:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Please undelete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Tampa_meetup_Jimbo1.jpg. It's not (currently, anyway) an orphan and the image is used prominently at http://commons.wikimedia.org/?title=Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people and refers to thi deleted page. TIA! -- Elvey ( talk) 20:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 | |
---|---|
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing |
Hey Majorly. I saw that you removed a couple of reflist templates from articles that didn't have any references. I try to include the template anyway since article should include and be based on reliable third party sources. As the articles are improved they should be added and I don't think it's any more intrusive than the templates posted at the top of pages. Do you mind if I add them back? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 04:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
Yes, I was actually just about to ask you about that! I tweaked it a bit further... How's it look? -- El on ka 18:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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.)
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.
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)
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. |
Hello. The other day on Steve Crossin's RfA you noted that I had "minimal contributions". I'd like to know why that was of any importance. According to the RfA page, "Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, but IPs are unable to place a numerical (#) vote". On that same page, it is also stated that "Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets.". Not only is it obvious that I did not use an IP, but if you check my details, you'll notice that my account is almost two years old (older than the candidate's), so it is not exactly new. My reasoning was well argued and more extensive than most others supporting Steve. There is nothing on the page that even suggests that people with "minimal contributions" are not allowed to voice their opinions or that their support (or opposition) should not be counted. I'd like to know why you saw it necessary to point this out. Thank you -- In continente ( talk) 06:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Hii Majorly. I saw your discussion yesterday on Talk:Main Page and wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of the situation; I decided not to further fuel the fire there, but if you would like to collaborate on a proposal again in future I would be thrilled to work with you. Best, -- Pretzels Talk! 15:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
193.112.136.12 ( talk · contribs) is a public computer, and should not be blocked for two years. I'm using that IP right now. This is the only page I can edit. Majorly talk 11:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't revert and then say please stop edit warring. [1] It takes two, and I am done now that you raise the idea of edit warring. Jehochman Talk 14:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
[2] ? KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 18:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't let Fuchs get under your skin at Bramall's FAC, you're almost there. I'll try and take a look to see if I can help with any of the image licences, as I've had similar problems in the past. ;-) -- Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
≈ Chamal talk ¤ 06:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I only just noticed that the article's been promoted to FA, very well done! It's great to see a fine article on such a nice place. Nev1 ( talk) 21:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi! This article was placed on hold at WP:GAN by you back on September 2. The last comment in the GA review was on September 8. GA reviews should really not take longer than about 2-3 weeks, so if you could wrap this up in the next day or two, that would be appreciated! Thanks! Dr. Cash ( talk) 14:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Please undelete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Tampa_meetup_Jimbo1.jpg. It's not (currently, anyway) an orphan and the image is used prominently at http://commons.wikimedia.org/?title=Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people and refers to thi deleted page. TIA! -- Elvey ( talk) 20:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 | |
---|---|
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing |
Hey Majorly. I saw that you removed a couple of reflist templates from articles that didn't have any references. I try to include the template anyway since article should include and be based on reliable third party sources. As the articles are improved they should be added and I don't think it's any more intrusive than the templates posted at the top of pages. Do you mind if I add them back? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 04:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
Yes, I was actually just about to ask you about that! I tweaked it a bit further... How's it look? -- El on ka 18:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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.)
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.
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)