User talk:Masssiveego/Archive 2

You seem to have all but dissapeared from the WP:RFA page. -Zero^Talk 07:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dear Masssiveego, would you please be so kind as to expand your article to include: raison d'être, dates and numbers of personnel? --die Baumfabrik 22:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's a shame you can't supply the info. I was wondering where the militia came from. For example, was it created as a sort of unofficial defence unit after the Pearl Harbor attack, or does it have more recent or early roots? I'll have a look around myself, to save you getting bogged down in a tedious conversation with myself, but thank you for replying to my little query. --die Baumfabrik 04:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have responded to your oppose on my RfA. I believe my explanation of Bumpusmills1's comments should clear up any qualms you may have with my nomination. Thank you so much. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 02:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Masssiveego, I noticed you vote keep for a lot of band deletions that would otherwise be unanimous deletions. Could you include your reasoning from now on? It helps others understand your vote and strengthen your position. Thanks! Wickethewok 09:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

On the discussion page of this article you put "Any notable sight seeing landmarks?" What do you mean by that exactly, because I may be able to answer your question--M Johnson (talk • contribs) 10:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:WaveMotionGunfiring.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. feydey 01:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC) fReply

Would you be able to write a Fair Use Rationale for the image, it basically states why the image qualifies to fit under fair use provisions (is it unique etc). If you have any questions please efeel free to leave me a message :) -- Tawker 22:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

  Hi Masssiveego. Thank you for taking the time to register your opinion in my RfA. It passed at 105/1/0, putting me in WP:100. I'll do my best to increase my 500 or so project space edits to meet your standards in the hope that I can meet the expectations of all 106 people who expressed a preference. Cheers. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for voting on my RfA. It passed with a consensus to promote of 45/7/1. To those of you concerned about the fact that I am a relative newcomer, I encourage you to poke me with a sharp stick if I make a mistake. Or better yet, let me know on my talk page, and I'll do my best to fix it. Makemi 05:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

For attacking your vote in Joturner's RFA   mmeinhart 01:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

My RfA recently closed and it was a success, passing at 84-02-00. I would like to thank you for taking the time to weigh in and on your subsequent support. And I know it's quite cliche, but if you ever need any assistance and/or want another opinion on something, grab a Pepsi and don't hesitate to drop me a line on my talk page. Thanks again. Pepsidrinka 04:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Masssiveego, I would like to apologize if anything I have said has been taken as a personal attack on you. I sincerely disagree with the reasoning for many of your votes on RfA, and I reserve the right to do that, but perhaps I should have brought this up with you directly. You are right, the discussion is over as we are unlikely to reach an agreement on the issue, but I would like you to know that I hold no hard feelings and I hope you feel the same way. Thanks, JHMM13 (T | C)     01:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

In response to your comment on my RFA, I can assure you I know Wikipedia's policies, also see my answer to JoshuaZ's question on the RFA. Happy editing! —Prodego ^talk 20:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Was that intended to be a proposal to undelete this article? If so, the appropriate place to discuss is WP:DRV. Royboycrashfan   00:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

You may want to take a look at the oppose votes for his RfA again and note the day on the Gregorian calendar. JoshuaZ 05:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey. User:Robchurch did a lot of April Fool's cleanup on the RfA in removing about seven joke oppose votes; with zero offense intended: was your vote serious? ~ PseudoSudo 19:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Since when was photo uploading a requirement for becoming an admin?! —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 06:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pointing out that 2 images I'd uploaded were orphaned (the 3rd is used on my user page, and is not an orphan. Also, as far as I'm concerned and as far as I care, your reason to oppose in an RFA could be "Grrr, purple dingbats", or "User breathes too noisily" and I'd still respect your right to vote as you please. But please don't hate on shoe polish. It can't defend itself. :) Proto||type 06:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your questions and support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. I hope you continue to take the slings and arrows in stride - you're a tough nut to crack on RFA votes but you've got your principles and you stick to them. --CBDunkerson 14:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Please do not add categories to userboxes, such as you did to Template:User Volleyball Player. That causes both the template itself and every user page which includes it to be listed in the category, which is entirely not what the categories system is intended for. Cheers --Pak21 15:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Furthermore, should probably read Wikipedia:Categorization#User namespace for the guidelines on which categories are appropriate for user pages. I've nominated Category:User volleyball for deletion. Cheers --Pak21 15:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually, there's a way to do it. If you put <noinclude>[[Category:Xyz]]</noinclude> in the userbox, it will put the userbox in that category, but not all the pages where the box is used; by contrast, if you put <includeonly>[[Category:Xyz]]</includeonly> in the userbox, the pages where the userbox is used will appear in the category, but the userbox itself is not. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I think what you were trying to do was to add everybody using the userbox to Category:User volleyball, but this should still be a sub-category of Category:Wikipedians (or one of its subcategories), not of Category:Volleyball, which (including its subcategories) is intended only for articles: "Users should not add their user pages to article namespace categories" (Wikipedia:Categorization#User namespace). However, you unfortunately made a bit of a mess of this, and ended up adding lots of user pages to Category:Volleyball instead. Faced with this, I decided the easiest way was just to undo your changes, rather than try and fix them up. If you're willing to fix them up, please do so and I'll withdraw the CfD nomination. Cheers --Pak21 08:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Massiveego, sorry about the delay in answering your questions. I'll get on it soon. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 13:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Are you serious about all those oppose votes? You commented that someone had too few photo uploads. Is that really one of your criteria? - Richardcavell 04:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

After reading your response to that question, this is a friendly little reminder to check commons when looking for photo uploads. I know for one that most of the pictures I take go to commons as I like to let other projects use them, it's just something you might want to check before opposing based on no photo uploads -- Tawker 08:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind explaining what you mean by that, I'm a little confused. Thanks! -- Tawker 08:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks for your replu. Might I direct you to the user talk pages in each one of the situations when I've explained the actions and the subsequent replies. Things happen, I think you also know that we're all only human and the ability to say sorry is one of the best assets a person can have. I also am a little curious why you seem to have something like 35% of your recent contribs being RfA votes, it seems a little unusual -- Tawker 03:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just triple checked all of your examples and if you take a look, they all have explainations. I don't know if you looked very deep but I really don't see how I have been / will be "bad" as I get the impression you're thinking of me. -- Tawker 03:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

And yet your own statement says 3 in a row. In a row. If you check my history since your line of "unchanged pattern" really doesn't make sense. The last contrib you showed was well over 2 months ago. As for your "not learning from their mistakes" - take a look at my recent history and for that matter some of the voters way above you on the RfA page. I've had some pretty uncivil notes regarding Tawkerbot2, do you see the same pattern in those responses? I think you would have a very hard time finding such a pattern in most of my recent responses. -- Tawker 03:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Again, every single one of the edits you have provided have been responded in a civl and respectful manner to the satisfaction of the original postee. Some of those were not even complaints and "thanks for looking into this" really doesn't look like a complaint to me. I'd hardly see how they could be classified as mistakes on my part. Are you saying that error reports for an automated bot (for me to take a look at and fix) are fault of myself even when I take steps to correct them. In fact, the 3 posts you've posted as evidence are not even mistakes at all, but I guess I'll just have to accept that you don't want to take a deeper look at what is going on and I won't waste your time any more -- Tawker 05:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, the bot was in QA for 2 weeks before it went live, there is no way of getting every single bug sorted out. As for the tone of the complaints, with the exception of true vandals (who generally cannot be happy with the bot as it's reverting their hard work at vandalizing Wikipedia) - all of the posts you have mentioned have been friendly and haven't been "mad" at the bot or myself in any way shape or form -- Tawker 05:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

(exdent) Hi Masssiveego. I just wanted to let you know that I commented on Tawker's talk page about your concerns about the error Tawkerbot2 made. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Masssiveego! Thank you for supporting my recent successful request for adminship despite an incorrect answer to your question. If you ever have problems that you could use my assistance with or see me doing stupid things with my new buttons, don't hesitate to contact me. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 02:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

HI Masssiveego, I have answered your questions on my RfA. However, you stated that I have three orphan images; I have only been able to retrieve one. Could you please read the answer to your question and possibly name the other two that are orphans. Thanks! Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 12:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

You misunderstand. I did not say I loathe Mr. Murdock. I said I am loathe to give him publicity. That goes for any televangelist, frankly. However, some televangelists are deserving of a Wikipedia article, however much I may not like it. Mr. Murdock is one of those. Do you need further explanation? Powers 02:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, this is Matt Yeager. I wanted to thank you for your vote on my request for adminship. The count was something like was 14/20/5 when I decided to withdraw the request. My decision was based on the fact that there are enough things wasting people's time on the Internet that doomed RFA's shouldn't be kept up for voters to have to think about. Regardless of the rationale behind your vote, I hope you will read this note for an extended note and discussion on what will happen before I make another try at adminship (I didn't want to clog up your userpage with drivel that you might not be interested in reading). Thank you very, very much for your vote and your time and consideration of my credentials--regardless of whether you voted support, nuetral, or oppose. Happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello Masssiveego. I have come here to address you on your questions regarding RFA's. A couple of things...

1) These questions do not have to be answered withen 24 hours regardless if the user is on Wikipedia or not.

I automatically oppose regardless of qualifications if the user if they do not answer in 24 hours. I find it rude if an user refuses to answer in the time limit. WP:Civil. Masssiveego 18:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

2) These questions should be opinion questions like:

"What do you plan to do..."

type-questions, not right or wrong questions like

"Are copyright claims legal threats?"

The above question demonstrates knowledge in policy. Masssiveego 18:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

In conclusion, please give editors time to respond to your questions and ask more opinionated questions please. Moe ε 16:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Would like to give more time, manners dictate returning messages promptly. 24 hours is more then enough time for a user to notice, and respond. Opinionated questions rarely demonstrate what the user knows about policy. Masssiveego 18:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but if a user isn't on Wikipedia and doesn't see them, how is he/she supposed to know? People aren't psychics. I would give someone 24 hours after they have logged in to start the 24 hour minimum.

As to opinionated questions rarely demonstrating what the user knows about policy, thats completely the opposite of what is true. Have you noticed the standard questions given on every RFA are opinionated? A newbie could log on to Wikipedia and give the same answers to the questions you're giving. It's not that hard to look at WP policy pages to find out what's what. On the other hand you got opinionated questions, which in turn ask what someone knows.

In short, opinionated questions puts a user on the "spot", so to speak, and asks them a question about what they would do, which it's better to judge someone on what they might do rather than if they have the ability to look up Wikipedia policies. Moe ε 18:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's a question do they know how to really use Wikipedia resources? If a person just once a day checks the "my watchlist"

when they login, they would have noticed something changed in the RFA. I test to see if they know, or have the ability to research. For instance, the [Mike Murdock] page, it was A7 without a hint of research. I want to bring up where I think the user is weakest, or wrong at, and either have the problem corrected or oppose if they are obviously incapable of handling the questions. Masssiveego 19:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not even going to respond because I want to avoid a confrontation. I feel you have the right to ask whatever you want, but I would like for you to take what I said into consideration. Moe ε 20:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your vote in my request for adminship. I'm slightly puzzled by your reason for your oppose vote, i.e. "not active enough with the wikipedia community." I would just like to point out that any user has a finite amount of time to spend on Wikipedia. Some of us are going to contribute almost 100% content, while others' contributions may tend to be 100% maintenance etc. For an admin you'd be right to say that nominees must demonstrate at least some involvement in the community — but I would argue that although my contributions are biased towards making article contributions, I do find time to make contributions to the Wikipedia community. Any way, constructive criticism never did anyone any harm! No hard feelings, Mark83 09:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

You seem to fixated on quantitative measures rather than qualitative. Nearly all my talk page edits are full discussions/comments/responses. You have 537 talk page edits - most of which were in March 2006 - any what where they? Overwhelmingly welcome messages. We would both agree that this is an important duty, but still, I don't think you have the right to denegrate my talk page contributions. Adding a standard template is less sociable than engaging in discussion and debate with fellow editors. Regards Mark83 11:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply