User talk:Majorly/Archives/8
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This 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. |
Fair use rationale for Image:Colleen Mccabe.jpg
 |
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:Colleen Mccabe.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. JDtalk 11:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Teenageopera.jpg
|
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:Teenageopera.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. JDtalk 11:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
RfA thanks
 |
Hi Alex9891, and thanks very much for your support during my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 64/0/0. I am grateful for the overwhelming support I received from the community, and hope I will continue to earn your trust as I expand my participation on Wikipedia. It goes without saying that if you ever need anything and I can help, please let me know. Wait, I guess it does go with saying. ; ) --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
RfA Thanks
 |
Mike's RfA Thanks | |
| Alex9891: Thanks very much for your support at my RfA. Unfortunately, it was clear that no consensus was going to be reached, and I have withdrawn the request at a final tally of 31/17/4. Regardless, I really appreciate your confidence in me. Despite the failure, rest assured that I will continue to edit Wikipedia as before. If all goes well, I think that I will re-apply in January or February. - Mike | Talk 04:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC) |
Signpost updated for November 13th.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 46 | 13 November 2006 | 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 04:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Shiny new buttons
 |
Two weeks ago I couldn't even spell administratur and now I are one (in no small part thanks to your support). Now that I checked out those new buttons I realize that I can unleash mutant monsters on unsuspecting articles or summon batteries of laser guns in their defense. The move button has now acquired special powers, and there's even a feature to roll back time. With such awesome new powers at my fingertips I will try to tread lightly to avoid causing irreversible damage and getting into any wheel wars. Thanks again and let me know whenever I can be of use.
|
 |
Admin tools
 The mop |
Congratulations on becoming an admin!
Enjoy your new-found powers, and remember to use them only for good, and not for evil. If you would like to try out your new mop, here are some spots that always need loving care:
All the best! - Quadell |
 The flamethrower |
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN JFBurton 22:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Marco Polo
Please, don't remove the sprotect tag from the article. After you have removed, several vandalism occured. Thank you.--Giovanni Giove 12:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have removed it. Please request page protection at WP:RFPP. Adding the notice does nothing. --Majorly (Talk) 13:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Second request
Don't remove tag. It is not true that "it does nothing". After the removing several vandalism occured. Please, if you don't agree discuss in the talk page. Thank you--Giovanni Giove 13:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- It had "several vandalism" after it was added, so it does do nothing. Please refrain from adding it, unless the article is protected. Thank you. --Majorly (Talk) 13:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello32020 RFA
I accepted the nomination for adminship. Would you like to post it on RFA? Hello32020 22:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
William and Mary
Just give them separate boxes with overlapping reigns. That's what was done with Stephen and Matilda for example. TharkunColl 01:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
RfA thanks
 |
I'd like to express my huge thanks to you, Alex, for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with 100% support at 71/0/1. Needless to say, I am very suprised at the huge levels of support I've seen on my RfA, and at the fact that I only had give three answers, unlike many other nominees who have had many, many more questions! I'll be careful with my use of the tools, and invite you to tell me off if I do something wrong! Thanks, Martinp23 14:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC) |
W. S. Gilbert
I just wanted to thank you for your help with today's Gilbert front page. By keeping down the vandals, you helped a lot of good edits to get through, a surprising number of which are of very good quality. Thanks! Adam Cuerden talk 15:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
amanda dowler article
The source cited says she was not taken by foce and the removal of the word not makes the rest of the paragraph nonsence. Please do not revert and please read through the source when changing a cited section.--Lucy-marie 19:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your support!
 |
A week ago I nominated myself, hoping to be able to help Wikipedia as an administrator as much as a WikiGnome. I am very glad many others shared my thoughts, including you. Thank you for your trust! Be sure I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting, pat me so that I can correct myself. Thank you very much for your support! ReyBrujo 22:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC) |
Protection of Tourette syndrome
Yeah, I know. Sandy was already talking to me about why I protected the page. I personally don't want to handle it, since I was the one who originally protected the page; so I'll let some other admin deal with it. Nishkid64 00:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Inappropriate rollback
Here, you claim that I used the rollback inappropriately. In fact, I was using it to enforce Wikipedia policy. It is a violation of WP:FUC to add an image with a noted blatantly false license, no source, and no rationale. --Yamla 18:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe so, but rollback is for vandalism. --Majorly (Talk) 19:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- WP:VAND: (emphasis mine) "Image vandalism. Uploading provocative images, inserting political messages, making malicious animated GIFs, etc. Repeatedly uploading images with no source and/or license information after notification that such information is required may also constitute vandalism." The user has previously been warned about images missing fair-use rationales and images missing sources, though I mistakenly believed the user had been warned much more often than he had. Additionally, the editor did not upload that particular image, though I still believe the edit in question would have fallen into that definition of vandalism had the editor been warned more often about missing fair-use rationales. In any case, I have discussed the matter with the editor and believe both sides are satisfied (if not necessarily happy) with the results. --Yamla 19:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I appeared rude but he has removed an article that I took the time to write without any reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frog on a log (talk • contribs)
Signpost updated for November 20th.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 47 | 20 November 2006 | 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 06:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Information Clarification
Dear Alex, thank you for offering your assistance, now I will take advantage of that. I was wondering if you could guide me in regards to the page I am working on for my High School. I would like to make a list of all the school's past student government officers, but so far, the attempts have been deleted. Let me know what you think--Brogman 14:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
User name change
It took me a while to figure out this was you! Maybe you should add a notice to your userpage indicating your old username? Mike 
18:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
RedemptionBot
Definitely Galactian/Sunderland/SpaceBot/Molag Bal. Thanks for letting me know. I tagged the user as blocked sockpuppet of Molag Bal. Nishkid64 20:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Userpage
Hi there; thank you; you were so quick at reverting my userpage that I had not noticed it had been hit.--Anthony.bradbury 00:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Please don't delete.
If you see an article named hamdrew please do not delete it. It was meant for a joke and I created it. --Hamdrew 04:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Re:Something funny...
Hahaha...=) That user is out of control on Wikipedia. That...and he's also a total idiot. He edits the same exact articles with different accounts, thinking he won't get caught. It's pathetic. Nishkid64 17:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Celebrity Big Brother
At the start of articles it says it is the third series when it is the second, the fifth when it is the third and the sixth when it is the fourth. Bencey 20:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- The articles are correct as far as I can see. Please see the lengthy talk page discussion. --Majorly (Talk) 20:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Titles
I think you might overload the list if you put titles in like that. Some of the Anglo-Saxon ones were extremely long, and at the other end of the list, Elizabeth II has been queen of 32 realms in her time. TharkunColl 00:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'll use smaller text. The tyle I have for Elizabeth isn't that long. --Majorly (Talk) 00:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Does it significantly add to the list though? How about placing each title, as long-winded as we like, in a note? TharkunColl 00:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- "By the grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith". It adds to the article, but not worth a section. Every single title in individual notes? --Majorly (Talk) 00:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Yes, a reference note containing all the titles of each individual king, linked from his name (or something). That way we won't bloat the boxes. TharkunColl 00:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I don't think I'll have time. But for an idea of just how bloated those boxes will be, look at this page [1] which lists all the extremely long titles held by the pre-Norman kings, for example. TharkunColl 00:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
I'm still not sure how it would work, but I have to come off now. I'll continue tomorrow. --Majorly (Talk) 00:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Accession dates
I have found out the proclamation dates for Sweyn and Harthacanute. Both of these succeeded in unusual circumstances (Sweyn was a conqueror and Harthacanute was out of the country). All the rest, so far as I have been able to tell - I'm still looking into it - were described by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as succeeding their predecessors without further comment. We must assume that formal "election" by the Witan - as was customary during this period - would have taken place as soon as possible. Taking Harold Godwinson as an example of this practice, and in the absense of any other evidence, I'm going to assume that this "election" took place the following day, which at least gives us a specific date even if it might be out by a day or two. I shall amend the list accordingly. Note also Athelstan, whose accession to the whole of England was delayed a few weeks by Elfward in Wessex, hence the gap. I've also amended Ethelred to show one continuous reign, because he was never actually deposed and was only out of the country for a few weeks from January to Lent. TharkunColl 14:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Were By Far The Greatest Team deletion
Thanks for that. I was having visions of me speedy tagging that for the next couple of hours. The fact that the creator's talkpage was vprotected didn't help! Thanks for the unblock. Tonywalton | Talk 17:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Policy question
What's the guideline for amount of recent activity to warrant page protection? I didn't see a mention of level of activity in the policy pages regarding protection or semi-protection. I'm the person who requested protection for the Bee article, which I did due to the consistency of vandalism that page gets (about one vandalism every 29 hrs over the past month). Granted it's not a page that's currently subject to heavy current vandalism or edit warring, but it does seem to be a common target of vandals (not sure why that would be, considering how non-controversial it is). Anyway, for the benefit of my understanding and my decisions to recommend for protection in the future, please give me some 411 on this issue. Please respond here, I am not a fan of dueling talk-page messages.
Cheers, Erielhonan 17:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Warn any vandals who vandalise. If they continue report them to WP:AIV. The vandalism on Bee was simply not enough, and could easily be dealt with without locking the page. One every 29 hours is nothing really – 1 every 0.29 hours might be :) Thanks. --Majorly (Talk) 17:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I do the first two things when it's called for. I see your point with the degrees of vandalism magnitude. As someone who aims to give ~10 hrs per week to Wikipedia, the threshhold for protection seems kinda high, since manually dealing with vandals usually takes me about 5-10 minutes per depending on circumstances (and to some degree how taxed my computer is at the time), and I want to get on to other work like rating and doing administrative upgrades on articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 projects. But I do see why that threshhold makes sense too, since unregistered and new users shouldn't be prevented from adding valuable content.
-
- Curious - do you know/could you find out what the average vandalism-revert time is? I'd be happy to leave vandal patrolling to other entities, but since I start from my watchlist it's usually the first thing I do when I sit down for wikitime. Knowing that statistic might help me assess how much weight I put on reverting versus other activities.
my userpage
I DIDNT GODDAMN copy anyone's userpage. I demand that you revert it now!Grreat56 16:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Blatant lies like the edit count, the number of times the page was vandalised, and the barnstar not given to you tells me otherwise, so no. --Majorly (Talk) 16:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
1. You are jealous at the proffesionalism of my userpage. 2. Cant I make up things, to make my self sound better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grreat56 (talk • contribs)
- 1. I'm not jealous in the slightest at the "proffesionalism" of your userpage.
- 2. No you can't. It makes you sound worse by lying about things.
- --Majorly (Talk) 16:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Lefty
You are a lefty, go and marry George Galloway, and by the way long live Norwich City, Nintendo and President George W. Bush! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.47.80.147 (talk • contribs)
Can't Touch me
doo doo doo doo can't touch me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.47.80.147 (talk • contribs)
