User talk:Majorly/Archives/Mar 2007

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.

Contents 1 Banned 2 WP:Notability 3 RfA 4 Arshan Murder 5 My RfA 6 AFD 7 My account 8 Brandt 9 Thank dude :) 10 Email 11 Your actions on Brandt. 12 E-mail 13 Paul Staines 14 Pippa Jefferys 15 AWB 16 Avatar epiodes 17 Substitute Oldafdfull 18 Odd... 19 Articles for Deletion 20 RfA thanks 21 Revert for my user page 22 Semi-protection of user subpages. 23 Thanks! 24 Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007. 25 Almost ran out of fingers... 26 Regarding Yamuna Page 27 disruptive anon 28 User Jubby 909 29 Tomato 30 Arthur J Droge 31 RedsIndependent.com 32 WP:RFCU and clerks 33 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gianna Michaels (2nd nomination)‎ 34 Big big big thankyou! 35 My adminship 36 List of African Americans 37 PCD 38 Editor Review 39 Image problem 40 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snappy gum trick "keep"? 41 Concerning your Admin Coaching assignments 42 Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007. 43 RfA Messages. 44 User:89.243.211.183 45 DYK thanks 46 My RfA 47 Your review 48 Re: Adminship ad 49 Re: User_talk:BaronJuJu 50 Wikipedia Weekly Notification! 51 SNL Statistics of Frequent Host 52 == Unblocking request : Republic of Ragusa == 53 (The) Baseball Channel 54 Your review 55 Smile! 56 WP:UW future? 57 Wikiproject Actors and Filmakers 58 your reversion of clerk actions 59 Edits to User:Twsx/Log 60 Regarding the Yamuna Article 61 AfD 62 Gianna MichaelsAFD 63 Deletion of Red wings (Sexual Act) 64 Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007. 65 Thanks 66 Thank you for your support on my Request for Administration 67 Wikipedia:Username policy allows some Wiki* usernames 68 Thanks. 69 Lisa Daniels 70 Signature 71 Eau Rouge corner 72 Michael Jackson 73 Page protection notice on WP:ATT 74 WP:ATT 75 Admin??? 76 How to delete a recreated deleted article? 77 Unprotected? 78 RFA Thanks 79 Re. Thanks 80 Disputed policy tag 81 Possible image dispute 82 Username reports at AIV 83 Mark Conner 84 Hope all goes well 85 Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007. 86 DRV notice 87 Good decision 88 The use of Template:oldafdfull and Template:oldafdmulti 89 Help please 90 Thanks. 91 WP:EA 92 Ping 93 What's wrong with "Good morning, I'm gay"!!?? 94 Protection of 'David and Kim' 95 Greysouthen 96 Omnicide 97 Protection 98 RfA thanks 99 About Slavomacedonian language 100 bureaucratship 101 My RfA 102 RfB response

Banned

Your friend "Boris Allen" has been banned indefinately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.211.197 (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

WP:Notability

Thanks for protecting this page; it is a good idea to do so at this time. It will allow us time to discuss things on the talk page without edit wars. --Brianyoumans 11:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I was going to recommend it for protection this morning after reviewing the changes overnight, and as I was reading, I saw you had done it already. Dhaluza 21:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Sorry, I sent you an e-mail in return. In a nutshell: "No thanks, I'm not ready yet, but I'm trying to do a few more administrative tasks to prepare myself." Didn't you recieve it? · AO ^Talk 12:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No, never mind then... Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much anyways. :) · AO ^Talk 13:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Arshan Murder

Thanks for your cooperation, I will attempt to add some detail when I have some time!Alex 17:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your support in my recent RfA which passed unanimously - thus proving that you can indeed fool some of the people some of the time. I'm still coming to terms with the new functionality I have, but so far nothing bad has happened. As always, if there's anything you need to let me know, just drop me a line on my Talk page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

AFD

You mean you put the subst:at above the ==title== line? The code shows up above it even though I put it below that line. Then the subst:ab goes at the end of the article, which'd be above the next articles's == line?Rlevse 17:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be right at the top, and the ab needs to be right at the bottom. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks. I misread the instruction page for admins.Rlevse 20:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you check my closure here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M. A. Ramlu, this time I put the subst:at above the == line.Rlevse 21:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My account

I know my account was comprimised and thanks for taking the time to look into it, its appreciated :) however I've changed my password to something thats impossible (as I have with the email its registered to) so theres no chance at all it can be hacked again, im 99% sure I know the person resonsible and its not someone I know personally so theres no risk of them gaining any future access to my account anymore. Thanks again - Uncle Mart 85.178.223.233 18:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith, so I've unblocked you. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Brandt

Thanks for trying. I really hope that if it gets afd'd it can be semi-protected again but I think you have made the right decision for now, SqueakBox 18:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure about the protection? I'd like to argue against it, as I believe the edit war can stop even without the protection. (I won't revert your protection without your acquiescence.) It was only 2 reverts, hardly a bonfire. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to do about it, but feel free to reverse my decision however you like. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank dude :)

I see you not only removed my talk page block but my entire block, I really appreciate the show of good faith and you have nothing to worry about, im one of the most pacifistic people you're ever likely to meet but this whole hacked account thing has been pretty crappy for me, theres pretty much zero I can do about what was done when it was hacked but I do want to apologise for the double unblock template thing, I guess you can understand how I was feeling though and it honestly was a genuine mistake on my part. I've tightend up all my passwords on every single place I can think of (the hacking does indeed lie on my own fault because I used a stupidly easy password to guess but lucky for me this was the only site it was used at) so I can assure you there wont be any repeat of this again (oh god I hope I didnt just tempt fate). Anyway, just wanted to drop by and thank you for taking the time to sort this out :) Uncle Mart 23:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Email

Hi Majorly, just to let you know, I didn't recieve your email so I've emailed you so you've got my address, sorry for the inconvenience with not recieving it but hopefully you can directly email me now, cheers RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Your actions on Brandt.

I wrote a very long explanation about what I did and why I did it. I said that I would not wheelwar over any reversion, but I asked the reverting admin to provide a full explanation. I tried directing the discussion out of another non-consensus AFD, certainly not a premature one. Yet, you recklessly went in and unprotected it, without even leaving a message on the talk page. I consider that really rude, ill thought out, and counterproductive. Did you at least read my reasoning and my request? Zocky | picture popups 00:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This user has engaged in conversation on IRC, so no need to reply. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No, please answer the questions on wiki. Zocky | picture popups 01:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

In answer to the question, yes. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 01:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, this is being discussed here. Hope you can chime in, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems there is agreement on my action, so I'd rather not. Cheers for telling me though. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 08:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

I sent you an e-mail, tell me if you recieve it. · AO ^Talk 01:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Received, replied :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 01:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul Staines

I see the Paul Staines page is protected, any particular reason why?--Lobster blogster 03:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There was edit warring going on. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 08:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

And Lobster blogster intends to stir it up a bit more by posting libellous stories [1] see [2] for details..... Beware. Nssdfdsfds 10:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid Nssdfdsfds is quite wrong here. There is no libel risk. I've seen the article for myself at the British Library Newspapers Collection, and it is discussed on my blog Lobster Blogster. It has been there for a full week now. If Staines felt there was some problem with my post, he has not got in touch to say so.

My personal view is that Staines used a false claim that his blog was "protected" from libel by inventing an offshore company. He has now tried to use that same fake company to cover up the shadier aspects of his past. Lobster blogster 00:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Majorly, I wonder if you could have a look into this problem? I strongly suspect that User:Lobster blogster is a sockpuppet of indef blocked User:Pogsurf, based on edit histories [3] [4]. Both users demonstrated a high level of Wikipedia skill immediately after registration, and have edited a very narrow range of articles (especially Paul Staines and Claire Ward, who is the current MP for Watford, a page Lobster blogster has also edited) and repeatedly linked to the same Guardian article. I don't think this qualifies for Checkuser, but perhaps you could investigate? Cheers, DWaterson 12:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment, DWaterson  :0) --Lobster blogster 15:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So you don't deny that you are evading an indef block by the use of sockpuppets? Actually, a quick google confirms the link between User:Pogsurf and User:Lobster blogster, however I won't post the links as it's poor wikiquette to reveal peoples' real names online unless they volunteer them. However, I will report your sockpuppetry on WP:ANB. Majorly: sorry to clog up your talk page. Cheers, DWaterson 15:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Pompous twit! --62.136.198.105 16:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No sign of a report at WP:ANB. Is DWaterson all mouth and no trousers? --Lobster blogster 00:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Pippa Jefferys

Hi, just a quick note: you closed this AFD as delete but the article was never deleted. :-P Cheers, skip (t / c) 14:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, odd. Thanks for the reminder! :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

AWB

You're already on the list as Alex9891. Since you're an admin, you can change it yourself to Majorly. Tra (Talk) 15:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It still doesn't work though. The application failed to initialise properly. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

According to WT:AWB#Frequently asked questions, this might be because you haven't got the right version of .NET framework. Tra (Talk) 15:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorted now, cheers for your help :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Avatar epiodes

Since you closed the AFD titled various episodes of Avatar: the last AIrbender, I have a request. Could you restore those and move them to the Wikiproject Avatar: The Last Airbender project space as subpages? The Placebo Effect 02:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? Majorly _{(o rly?)} 02:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I was planning on doing that as soon as I got back but you already closed it. It does no harm and makes recreating the pages easier. The Placebo Effect 02:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The pages cannot be recreated, unless they are substantially different. It isn't worth it, they were all one line stubs. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 02:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

THose are most likley the episode names because they come from an accurate, although not verrifable source. The Placebo Effect 02:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Substitute Oldafdfull

Excuse me, Alex. I'm wondering why you often substitute Oldafdfull on talk pages? This template should not be subst as far as I know. Regards, PeaceNT 10:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The script I use does it, not me. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Odd...

You've deleted a couple of old RfA's under right to vanish, but that user (under a marginally different user name) is still active. Is it because of the presence of the surname in the user's former username? If not, deleting RfA's generally does not occur in Right to Vanish deletions. Even more odd is that the user is still active and the previous RfA's may play some role for the user in the future (and even if they don't, it is still unusual to delete RfA's). Just curious. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The user told me he was receiving hate mail, and personally asked me to delete them. I don't know how they'd play any further role here. Can I ask how you noticed I deleted them? Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I had finished deleting a slew of images and had clicked the complete deletion log and, poof, there they were. Everything is logged, there is always a trail, so a better question is why you are suprised I found them.

Back on point, would you mind bringing your deletions up on DRV with your rationale for doing so — I just think its kind of unusual for an active user to have an RfA deleted. Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Right to vanish is the reason as I stated in the summary... he doesn't want any asociation with those RfAs, and he's no longer active under that username. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI, then, I am going to bring it up on DRV. If he was actually gone, then sure, but he is still active and the his rationale for wanting the deletions bothers me. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be more productive to go and write an article or something instead of hassling me over this. If you're so concerned, I'll undelete them. Let's hope he gets no more hate mail. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... First, the "Go write an article" argument is genuinely insulting. Second, DRV is no big deal and they way I had drafted it was largely in support of both viewpoints, with the goal of gathering discussion. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I do apologise if I insulted you :) I just don't think it's a big deal to make a DRV out of it. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

I notice that today you closed an article on Diane Roubowitz after one vote (ive no issue with that). Ive noticed this often occurs when someone puts speedy delete and its not gone the full 5 days of debate. Can you advise what qualifies somethign to be closed that quickly, as I notice that in my opinion some articles which should be closed off that quick often rumble on for several days. Thanks --PrincessBrat 17:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Check out WP:CSD. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi, Majorly. Just popping down here to the command deck to say thanks for your support at my RfA. I was, to say the least, surprised by how uncontroversial it was in the end and I thoroughly intend repaying the faith in me with some really solid admin work. I was also quite honoured that you would have considered me worthy with a nom yourself. That in itself means a lot to me. Thanks again, and see you around, no doubt. :) Bubba hotep 20:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert for my user page

Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 23:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection of user subpages.

Hi, I was looking at WP:RFPP and I noticed recently you've been declining requests for semi-protection of subpages of a user's own userspace, citing a lack of persistent vandalism. Now, I'm still something of a newcomer and certainly no expert in this area, so is there a hard-and-fast rule on this? I'm wondering only because I asked Luna Santin if my userpage (which is just a redirect to my talk page) could be semi-protected and he said that was no problem. It was vandalised a couple of times but hardly persistent vandalism. I just want to make sure I'm not in violation of some policy by having it semi-protected. Thanks – Qxz 14:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No, there's no policy. I just don't see the need for semi-protecting pages that are never vandalised. If it had been vandalised at least once, I would have considered it, but it has never been. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your support on my RfA. It passed with 55/0/0. I'll try my best to be worthy of the trust the community has put in me. If there are any of my actions you have a problem with or a question about, please feel free to discuss this with me and if needed to revert me. If there is anything else I can help you with (backlogs, comments, ...), you can always contact me on my talk page. Fram 14:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 10	5 March 2007	About the Signpost

New Yorker correction dogs arbitrator into departure	WikiWorld comic: "The Rutles"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 06:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Almost ran out of fingers...

I'm always running across things (just found a wrong link from the Signpost's announcement of GWH approval to his RfA page) so I wondered... Looking at the RfA(2) I couldn't figure out why the first 'oppose' vote wasn't numbered, or counted. Shouldn't there have been 10 opposes?

And the reason I'm asking here is you last 'touched' the RfA, likely know much about the process, and the closing admin is no longer here. Shenme 09:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It got retracted. See the third comment underneath it. Hope that helps :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Yamuna Page

Hello Majorly,

I am contacting you regarding the Yamuna page. The reason for the edit war was because two individuals kept on adding information that had nothing to do with topic. Their line insinuates that Seleucus campaigned as far as the Yamuna, which is false. They continually stretch any greek relationship with an Indian topic. That was the reason for my deletion. If the page is to remain protected, could you please remove the offending lines at least? I have nothing against the greeks, but the contributions of these individuals are inaccurate and are removing from the purpose of those articles.Thank you.

Best Regards,

Devanampriya

I'd rather it was discussed on the talk page. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 02:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Majorly,

As per your instructions, I have posted on the article's talk page. Please consider my arguments for the removal of those lines. Thanks.

Regards,

Devanampriya 15:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The requests for edits to a protected page is a good place to go. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

disruptive anon

This user, whom you blocked recently for making disruptive edits (making an identical edit many times over, despite having been RV'd by 4 other editors, and refusing to discuss), is back, with the same edit. KarlBunker 10:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User Jubby 909

Hi, wonder if you can help User:Jubby 909 has just been created and is the same vandle I managed to get blocked yesterday under User:Jubby 919. I will start the process of revert/warning but is there another way when he reinvents himself an another user?

Keith D 13:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Tomato

Ok, thanks. I'll do that from now on.--Mr Beale 22:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Arthur J Droge

You deleted the Arthur J Droge article. The article was 'hangon' tagged with comments on the talk page. The article was rewritten and did not include anything of the referred url. I'm not very pleased, I can tell. --Roberth Edberg 22:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it four hours later. You added a few books to the article, but still left in the copyvio. Copyright violations are not allowed on Wikipedia. Recreate the article if you wish, just without a copypaste from another site. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you would have read closer, you would have found out that I changed the violating part and also updated the information with the latest. The information about Chicago was gone and new information about his present relation to University of Toronto was added. This wasn't in the violated infomation at all. In fact no information was left in the article that could be concidered violating. You did a mistake in deleting the article, according to me. We all can do mistakes and I have no problem with that. But I feel it's my duty to inform you about the mistake and it's up to you how you handle the information. If you do not aknowledge the mistake, then we have a problem. --Roberth Edberg 09:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I may have made a mistake, however, I found your method of informing me rather rash and accusative. Please assume good faith in the future. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for my rash and accusative way of telling and there is of course no "however" excuse which link your mistake to mine. So assume good faith is of course something that is applicable for both of us. We're all in it togeather. --Roberth Edberg 14:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

RedsIndependent.com

Hello, Majorly. I saw that you unblocked User:RedsIndependent.com for his username. This was a good choice because he was a significant contributor, and I wouldn't have blocked him, either. But the name is still a violation of WP:U. I think the best action here would be to ask him kindly to rethink his username. Thank you! BlackBear 22:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It is, but I'd rather not get into problems with it. Perhaps you could? :P Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU and clerks

Greetings! A recent change has been made in the clerking system at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. There are no longer any obstacles to editors who wish to help out in this areas, as the standby list has now been deprecated. You were listed as a volunteer on the standby list before it was deprecated. If you are still interested in helping out in this area, please:

• Consider adding yourself to the list of active clerks at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks.
• In helping, please make sure you follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Procedures as it is very important to the process there to follow these instructions for smooth operation.
• Please remember "Trust between the clerks and the checkusers is essential. Clerks who persistently make problematic comments on requests or otherwise violate decorum may be asked by the checkusers to cease contributing here."
• Add Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Noticeboard to your watchlist to stay up to do date on the latest communications happening regarding this role.
• "Be aware that this position is rather dull and carries no particular prestige; status-seeking will not be looked upon kindly."

I am not involved with the checkuser system. I am acting only to inform you of this change. Thank you. --Durin 14:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gianna Michaels (2nd nomination)‎

Just letting you know that you failed your duty as a wikipedia administrator today. Not only did you not care to acquire an overview of the debate, which would have lead to no consensus, you also failed to really read it. None of the keep votes gave any weightily base. WP:PORNBIO, which still is the official guideline for pornstar biographies is failed at one hundert percent, regardless, you let yourself be overwhelmed by the massive amount of keep votes by 15 year old porn lovers, who, whatever one may think of those people, do not put the common good of an important encyclopaedia over their own affection for these surreal women. Although I have always had a high opinion of almost all wikipedia administrators and I will keep doing so, you, sir, have shown great incompetence in dealing with the matter, and you are a shame to your kind. I don't think I care enough for the subject to pursue it any further, but even though I know you won't care for my opinion towards you and you will dismiss it right away, I needed to tell you this. Regards, ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 14:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. What a horrible, incivil comment to find on my talk page. I can assure you I read the AfD thoroughly, and if you have a problem with it, don't come running to me to whine about it. Take it to WP:DRV like any other user would. How dare you tell me I have "failed", and shown "great incompetence"? Let me point you to WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The quote "don't come running to me to whine about it" is just as u(i)ncivil. Nevertheless, i'm sorry, I was just a little late with calming down.
I dare calling you those things because they are true. I was actually surprised that anyone could not only not decide for delete, but also skip the no consensus level. The circumstances are absolutely obvious and clear. Article fails the given requirements without an exception, case closed. But probably you can tell me what made you decide against the policy, and maybe i can even understand it? ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 15:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess apologies for the personal attack are in order. Sorry. Everything else stands. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 14:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't really see what the problem is. Even if it was no consensus it would still have been kept. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of that. I only pointed out that you two-way failed handling the decision, despite the fact that it doesn't make any difference. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 15:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't fail. I may have written the wrong result (which I don't believe I did), but I didn't fail. Please stop saying I did because I didn't. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Then explain, 4 paragraphs above. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 15:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:DRV is the best place to go. I already said, I looked at every comment and thought the keeps were stronger. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have already addressed my intentions regarding further persuasion. Are you unable to justify your decision, or why can you not answer my question? ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 16:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I went with the consensus, which was keep if you discounted the "I don't like it" votes. I didn't go against policy. Please take it to WP:DRV like I asked; I have no wish to continue discussing this, I have no preference of whether the article stays or not, and I'd rather other users discussed it if you are unhappy with the result. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Big big big thankyou!

Majorly, what can I say? I guess thankyou would be a good start for trusting me! I really can't believe this has happened so soon. Thanks so much for nominating me, I promise I won't let you down Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My adminship

Thanks for voting for me, and sorry to take so long to thank you properly - I'm afraid I was ill around the time the adminship happened, and, well, support was more than I expected (I have to admit I was convinced someone would show up about some ancient mistake I had made, and was surprised the worst thrown at me was I didn't give enough feedback on a GA back when I started GA work. Ah, well! In any case, thanks!

I'm doing all of these individually. You're number 2. I wonder how long before I devolve to one-sentence comments? Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It was a pleasure to support. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 01:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

List of African Americans

Do you think that the list is better as a list of lists? I've been working at sorting it, but its quite long, and I don't want to do the work if it isn't going to last... I guess we'll know it the list of black innovators passes AfD... Let me know what you think, thanks. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure, I just closed the AfD. Anything is worth a try I suppose. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

PCD

Im removing the article and linking it to the PCD article as the article provides no reliable sources and is therefore based purely on speculation —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JJH1992 (talk • contribs).

Editor Review

Hello, Majorly, thanks for reviewing me. I would just like top point out that the reason for my high talk page edit count is that I greet new users quite often. During these "greeting sessions", I usually greet anywhere from 25 to 100 users. --Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book, review me!) 22:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you cut down greetings, while it is nice, many of these users will make 1 or no edits and never return. Greet any users with a red talk link that appear on your watchlist as you find them is my suggestion. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Image problem

Administrator, I want to put this WikiCommons image on the article James Semple, a former senator. However, there is an image in wikipedia Image:Semple.jpg with the same name but is about a football field. So when I put "Image:Semple.jpg" on the article the football field appears instead of the senator. Is there any way to get around this and put the correct commons image on the article? Wooyi 22:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

User, I'm sorry I don't think that's possible. I suggest you upload the image under a different name, if the name here is already taken (or vice versa). Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snappy gum trick "keep"?

Not a "major" issue, but I noticed you ended the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snappy gum trick afd with the result as "keep". However, at least half the editors that responded recommended either deletion or merger since the article appeared to have serious verifiability problems, and the word "keep" usually implies that there was a consensus to keep. Perhaps you might want to consider changing the comment to something like "No consensus - keep by default", or if you prefer to leave it as "keep" at least add a brief follow-up comment as to why you want to have it as "keep". Dugwiki 15:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not really what I want... as you say it isn't a major issue. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should clarify my request, then, and say it would be a good idea to explain why the result was Keep versus No Consensus regardless of whether it was your decision or someone else's. Dugwiki 15:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Erm, actually on another look, it was no consensus. I was confused with people changing their minds on it. Will update accordingly. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking another look. Later! :) Dugwiki 16:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Concerning your Admin Coaching assignments

Your name is still listed at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Volunteers. The department is heavily backlogged with student's requests for coaches, and we need your help!

Note that the instructions may have changed since the last time you checked, and the department now follows a self-help process...

If you don't currently have a student, or if you believe you can handle another one, please select a student from the request list at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests and contact them. See the instructions on Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Good luck.

If you are no longer available to coach, , please remove yourself from the volunteers list.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    03:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 11	12 March 2007	About the Signpost

Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits	Essay tries to clarify misconceptions about Wikipedia
Blog aggregator launched for Wikimedia-related posts	WikiWorld comic: "Cartoon Physics"
News and notes: Wikimania 2007, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 05:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA Messages.

I wasn't sure whether to remove the oppose or not on Alison's RfA. Now I know. Acalamari 19:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It can wait till it's been accepted and transcluded on to the main RfA page. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

User:89.243.211.183

Any chance you could take a look at this unblock request? Just want to make sure I did the right thing in blocking for trolling and vandalism for 24 hours (The IP's blanked their warnings so you'll need to check the history) - much aprreciated Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 19:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have been dealt with. Yeah, I would have blocked as well... :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats good then! Cheers for looking into it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 19:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK thanks

Thanks for selecting my article for DYK! That is a totally unexpected honor. Tinlinkin 20:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Majorly. I'm glad I've earned your trust. Rest assured that I have heard every voice loud and clear during the discussion, and will strive to use the mop carefully and responsibly. Thank you for your support. Please don't hesitate to give me constructive criticism anytime. Xiner (talk, email) 00:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Your review

I have a signature contraction script installed in my monobook.js, but the script seems to decide when to work.  ~Steptrip 02:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Adminship ad

I would suggest a change where it asks "Have you edited for six months?" because it makes it sound like that is the required amount. It may put users who are perfectly capable off requesting, when users like myself, Husond, Arjun01, Ryanpostlethwaite and Yandman had less than that amount (recent examples) and passed. Also not too sure about the featured article thing either, or the clean block log; it just seems like these are just set standards being advertised and people may take them seriously. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 02:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your feedback. I have scanned through a number of adminship requests and found that many users will oppose a user with less than six months' experience; the fact that some users get through with less doesn't affect the fact that six months is the point at which one can feel certain they will not be opposed solely for length of time with the project. Your argument that it's better not to make the standards look higher than they are is a good point; however, I think it is better to do that than to make the standards appear lower than they are and risk misleading users. In other words, if someone meets the standards specified they will almost certainly pass an RfA, rather than just having a chance depending on circumstances. Furthermore, I think some of the latter frames in the animation should make it clear beyond reasonable doubt that these are not set standards. Thanks – Qxz 02:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've reworded some of the sections in a way that is hopefully agreeable to all. I've also extended the disclaimer at the end. Is this to your satisfaction? – Qxz 03:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine, I just wasn't too keen on the numbers thing. Thanks! Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: User_talk:BaronJuJu

Removing content from Wikipedia is only vandalism is the intent was vandalism. If the content itself needed to be removed as it was not encyclopedia in context, then it is not vandalism, it is editing. Antman -- chat 07:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

He removed content without a summary, and it looked like vandalism to me. Apologies if it wasn't. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode..... 15!

The link to all versions of Wikipedia Weekly 14 is at [5]

The OGG version is here The MP3 version (non free file format but it works on an iPod) is here

In this edition

This episode sees Liam, more commonly known as Witty Lama, catching up with Rama’s Arrow and Ragib to talk about contributing to Wikipedia from and Indian and Bangladeshi perspective. Topics include their growing collection of Featured Articles, the success of the Indian WikiProject, and the problem of Internet access on the Subcontinent.

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 23:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to receive such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

SNL Statistics of Frequent Host

Hi there, I'm contacting you because I was wondering why was "Statistics of Saturday Night Live hosts" deleted by you. That page has been up for a long time and it is based on pure statistical facts. I would like to know what can be done to restore it. (Deej30)

It was debated, and consensus was to delete. To restore it, request at WP:DRV. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

== Unblocking request : Republic of Ragusa ==

Reason: the protection was request by Tar-Elenion, a confirmed sockpuppet of banned user:Afrika_paprika. He did mass reverts against my referencied edits, together User:Thewanderer and User:Jesuislafete. Another time I was right. I ask to prevent further mass reverts by the last two users. I did several edits, telling my reasons: they have to show where and why I am wrong: it's too easy to act mass reverts. Best regards and thank you for your work.--Giovanni Giove 23:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

(The) Baseball Channel

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Baseball Channel. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Baseball Channel was recreated after both it and The Baseball Channel were deleted. I think they should both be locked until an official announcement from MLB. Milchama 13:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Your review

My imported script, sigContract.js, is finally functioning (see here for proof).  ~Steptrip 17:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Still 5 lines long here though. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been told (and recently I verified) that if a user does not have the Signature Contraction script installed, then the sig is still 5 lines long (I really think that the script is more trouble than it is worth). P.S., how much time do you spend at WP:ER?  ~Steptrip 17:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you cut down the sig length then, it doesn't need to be so long. I don't really spend a lot of the at WP:ER, sometimes I might give a review to user I've seen around. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

Saber girl08 04:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:UW future?

Hi Majorly,

Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace templates. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers ^Khukri 10:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Actors and Filmakers

Hey see my proposals at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Actor and Filmmakers and the main WP Film and Biography talk page. Know anybody who is interested? Actors and all film people articles need a body on wikipedia to upkeep them asthey need more focus -it would be a part of Biogrpahy and Film. If you are interested or know somebody who would be, please let them know and whether you think it is a good progession for the project or not. Please leave your views at the council or biogrpahy main talk page. THanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 14:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

your reversion of clerk actions

[6][7]Please don't use automatic reverting for non-vandalizing edits. My actions were based on RFCU procedure, and I would appreciate it if you could provide actual explanations when reverting.

Don't get me wrong here...I'm not mad. *Ed hugs Majorly* I'm a new clerk, so I would like some feedback on my "clerking". :) Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 00:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I only used it so it would be quicker for me (I'm on a slow connection at the moment which makes clicking save a tedious job... :P) I'm glad you're not mad at me... but yeah, that particular user has always used both code C and F (although I think F is the more appropriate here). I'll just use F in the future I think, if that's the better way to do it. I'm sure I was a clerk at some point as well... I know I am for WP:CHU. I'll check when I get a chance. Anyway, I'm sorry for simply rolling back, but it did the job a lot quicker than manually reverting. See you around! :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies...I just talked to PTO, who said that you really can add multiple code letters to a request. (see my talk page)--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits to User:Twsx/Log

Hello. I would like to sincerely ask you to stop vandalizing my subpage User:Twsx/Log. Thank you. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 04:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read up on what vandalism is. I'll be taking this to WP:AN/I for other users' opinions. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Yamuna Article

Hello Majorly,

I am unsure as to whether you have responded to my request for significant edits to a protected page, but I was wondering whether you would consider removing the two lines about Seleucus Nicator from the Yamuna page. Seleucus' campaigns had nothing to do with the Yamuna, but those two users insist on placing it there because they seek to reorient every indian page to greek topics. I have nothing against the greeks, but this is clearly irrelevant material. The individuals refuse to negotiate and are very close minded wherever they are challenged on such topics. Please consider the removal of those two lines ("The Yamuna was known to the ancient Greeks following the campaigns of Seleucus I in 305 BCE. It was called Ioames by the ancient Greeks, and Jomanes by the Romans.") in the ancient history section as the impasse will not be resolved. This way, we at least move back to the status quo ante. Thank you for your consideration.

Best Regards,

Devanampriya 04:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It might be better to request here. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Hi Majorly. The Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jreferee almost is ready for transclusion. Per your request on my talk page, I would be honored if you would like to co-nominate the request. Please let me know how you would like to proceed. -- Jreferee 21:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I won't co-nominate, as I think Nishkid64 has covered what needs to be said, and I think that co-noms are generally a waste of time. But, I will comment once it's open. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Gianna MichaelsAFD

The subject AfD led to some exchanges between you and another user. I wanted to see the deletion debate, but on the Talk page for the article, your summary of the February 2007 AFD links to an April 2006 Speedy Deletion for the same article. Could you please add a link to the discussion page which leads to the most recent AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gianna Michaels (2nd nomination). Thanks!. Edison 21:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Red wings (Sexual Act)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Red wings (Sexual Act). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I only closed it, another admin deleted it. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 12	20 March 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream"	News and notes: Bad sin, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 07:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for s-protecting Şebinkarahisar :-) That IP (suspected sock of blocked User:Oguz1) has been trolling that article for weeks.--Domitius 15:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support on my Request for Administration

I'm happy to say that thanks in part to your support, my RfA passed with a unanimous score of 40/0/0. I solemnly swear to use these shiny new tools with honour and insanity integrity. --Wafulz 15:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Username policy allows some Wiki* usernames

FYI: User:Wikiusername123 is actually legal now, but Wikipediauser123 isn't. It's only when they try to mispresent themselves as an official at a Wikimedia-project that a violation has occurred, but since you've blocked already, it's up to you whether you want to AGF or not. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm interesting. If he/she shows any interest in being unblocked, I will, otherwise it's probably best to leave. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

Will this protect my talk page, too? HalfShadow 23:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, only your userpage. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that out. I've never done this before. HalfShadow 23:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Lisa Daniels

Can you move-protect the article? It got moved to POS News Reporters and then the text was copied back to Lisa Daniels, so the history is all messed up. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

All done :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've never seen a stub article get 10 edits of vandalism in one minute... The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Signature

I've finally gotten my signature problem 1/3 of the way solved!!  ~Steptrip 01:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Still five lines long :D Majorly _{(o rly?)} 01:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Eau Rouge corner

Hi. The way I read it, the proposal was to merge and redirect Eau Rouge corner to Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps. You seem to have carried out the redirect, but not the merge. Have I understood correctly? 4u1e 23 March 2007, 13:51

I said that a user which knowledge of the subject to merge it. There's too much information to add it all, so I wouldn't know what to do, so yes you understood. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah - didn't see your comment on the AfD page, and of course once the pages are merged, it's not straightforward to link back there, or to fish the information to be merged out again. Thanks for taking the time to do the redirect. Cheers. 4u1e 18:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Hey, thank you very much for your semi-protect! It's really appreciated. I was just wondering though, can you make it a semiprotect2 so that it just has the lock at the upper right (the message at the top is kind of distracting)? This is how it was before. Thank you lots again!UberCryxic 17:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Saw you already did :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Page protection notice on WP:ATT

A number of the administrators who were involved in the edit war that lead to the page being locked are continuing to remove the {{pageprotected}} notice. I have significant issues with the fact that the current notice supported by these editors in no way mentions that "protection is not an endorsement of the current revision". I'd appreaciate your (further) thoughts over at WT:ATT and/or WP:RFPP. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Since I don't want to edit war over this, and as I'm an outside party, I'd rather I kept away from discussing. I don't have an opinion on it either way. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the only three people who are currently able and interested in editing the page all happen to be on the same side of a large debate. The protection has rendered us plebes impotent. We can discuss all we want, but unless a neutral admin steps in at at least says something it's unlikely anything will happen. If you don't want to get involved, at least help us find another, neutral admin who does. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 00:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed it back. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 01:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you be willing to put {{Disputedpolicy}} or {{Proposed}} on it? Just looking at Wikipedia talk:Attribution, Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion and Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll, there is clearly a dispute as to its status. I could do it myself but I am hardly neutral. --Henrygb 02:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Done Majorly _{(o rly?)} 02:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You cannot do that, Majorly. See my comment below. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT

WP:ATT is policy since Feb 15 2007. The challenge by Jimbo was not about its status as policy, but about the merger of other policies into it. ATT, V, RS and NOR have been protected while the community is discussing the level of consensus for the change in policy structure. If you want to challenge the protection, do so. But please do not edit pages that have been protected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the same can be said for yourself :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 03:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's also highly inappropriate for you to be editing the page, as it appears you are part of the dispute. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 03:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Jimbo has explicitly indicated that for the time being, "WP:ATT is canonical, and WP:V and WP:NOR exist as separate pages to more fully describe those" [8], and he personally tagged WP:NOR and WP:V to explain this [9]/[10]. —David Levy 03:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin???

Hi Majorly, thank you for offering to nominate me for adminship, and I appreciate your confidence in my abilities. I did think it over, but ultimately feel it would be a bit premature given that I've been very active only since December. The general standards applied at RfA seem to expect candidates to have a little more experience and proven dedication. For now, I plan to continue contributing without sysop perms :-) -SpuriousQ (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

How to delete a recreated deleted article?

Hey. Earlier this month, you closed an AFD case. The article has been recreated and so, I tried to renominate the article for deletion again. However, renominating the page through normal procedure leads to the old closed AFD case. So, my question is, how do I nominate the article for deletion, given the circumstance? __earth ^(Talk) 09:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it already got deleted again. If this should happen again, and the page isn't significantly different to before, you can tag it with {{db-repost}} which will alert admins to delete it again. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty. Thanks. __earth ^(Talk) 03:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected?

On which basis did you unprotect these policy/guidelines pages? No longer needed? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested on WP:RFPP.

3 days is enough.

There was no edit warring.

Involved admins (incl. yourself) keep editing the page.

It didn't really need protection in the first place.

I unprotected just one page as well. I notice you continue to edit the protected pages, despite being part of the dispute. I'm trying my hardest to stay neutral here, but I'm struggling to find a basis for it staying protected. Also see this. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a substantial discussion on V, RS, NOR and ATT, as requested by Jimbo. There are users attemting to change policy in the midst of the discussions. That is not good. Several admins have agreed to the protection. I have re-protected it. I have not edited these protected pages, beyond adding an explanation for the protection. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer not to comment in SMcCandlish's behavior over the last few days. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There are several users who disagree to this. Notice you just reverted my action? WP:WW. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Re. Thanks

Frustrated vandals, don't we just love them when they come back for more... :-) You're welcome. Regards, Húsönd 02:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Disputed policy tag

Thank you very much for restoring the disputed policy tag to WP:ATT. Unfortunately, user Jossi removed it again, saying that the status as policy is not disputed. The status as policy is very much disputed. There is a poll being prepared to ask about the status of this page; the very existence of the poll indicates that the status is disputed. I consider user Jossi to be too heavily involved in the whole thing for it to be proper for the user to edit the page while it's protected, though possibly this is arguable. I believe Jossi was one of the main developers of the page (I'm not quite sure about that) but certainly has been heavily involved in editing the poll questions. I would appreciate it if you would re-restore the disputed tag.

Merge tags on WP:V and WP:NOR, and a proper, complete merge tag on WP:RS, are also needed. Thanks for what you've done already and thanks in advance for future such actions if any! (Edit conflict; user Jossi would not have seen this paragraph before replying.) --Coppertwig 18:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you give it a break, please? There is a new tag added to WP:ATT that clearly explains the status of that page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Jossi seems to have sorted that out fine... If I added it back, it'll only get removed again, by involved users no doubt, and I don't want to edit war over a tag I don't particularly cared about. I suggest WP:RFPP, where an uninvolved admin can take a look. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

RFPP was rejected. Can we stop quibbling about a tag and let the debate about ATT unfold unencumbered by that minutiae? It will be much appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Coppertwig, there's not much I can do, for reasons above. I'm already too involved with it, and I feel uncomfortable having to do these requests. You'll have to find another admin to. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible image dispute

Hello there, I'm really just looking for a second opinion and/or clarification on what do do next.

My trouble is with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lesnar_Hogan.jpg

User:I Shook Up The Pedia keeps adding it to Hulk Hogan. I have asked User:I Shook Up The Pedia about the image and the user has claimed on their talk page that it is indeed their image from an event. However, while I want to assume good faith, I cannot fail to think the image is in fact from a WWE photographer and therefore copyrighted.

I don't normally get invovled with image disputes, but this one keeps being added to the page and I just wanted to know where to go from here.

Thanks in advance Gretnagod 21:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Try to find the original image. If you cannot, you'll have to assume it is indeed their image. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Will do, thanks Gretnagod 22:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Username reports at AIV

Damn, when I started watching new usernames, I had no idea reporting policy and practice was so contentious. Anyway, think I'll move on to something else...enforcing this policy just isn't worth the drama :) RJASE1 ^Talk 22:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Aww but you were so good at it :( Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark Conner

Whilst disappointed with the outcome (many people voted early and didn't review the page for its subsequent improvements), I understand it. However, I wonder if you could please give me a copy of the final page? I'd like to maintain it and extend it, so that if/when something does happen to support notability, I don't have to rewrite it from scratch :-) Thanks! Natebailey 04:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I put it into a subpage in your userspace here. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 10:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hope all goes well

Thank you very much. I hope everything goes smoothly. I'll be in touch with you after I get back. =) Nishkid64 13:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 13	26 March 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Tardiness, volunteers, RSS
Patrick and Wool resign in office shakeup	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Board resolutions, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 14:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

DRV notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/No longer identified. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Otto4711 14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As you decided that the close was in error, you could have restored and relisted the article, and closed the deletion review. Since you choose not, to, I have. Even when a deletion decision is under review, deletion review precedent is to always let the original admin change their mind. If anyone wants to challenge that change, we'd need a new review, so the old review is closed. GRBerry 12:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, thanks for that. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Good decision

I think this was a very good decision of yours, particularly because it was kind to the editor. -- Jreferee 14:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The use of Template:oldafdfull and Template:oldafdmulti

Dear Majorly, I noticed you closed the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sideshow Cinema (2nd nomination) and added Template:oldafdfull to the talk page of the article (Talk:Sideshow Cinema). You used the template in combination with "subst:". To keep maintenance of AfD templates easier, they are preferably not substituted, however. In addition, you might want to think about using Template:oldafdmulti instead, especially when the article has been listed on AfD before (see the talk page I mentioned for an example). Since you often close AfD debates, I thought I'd just let you know. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the script I use to close them, not me personally. I'll remove the subst: manually each time :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you can also change the script, I contacted Mailer Diablo about this too and he changed his script: [11]. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look at my monobook it borrows heavily from User:Voice of All, which is where the "subst" is probably located. I can't remove it, but you could ask him to. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Help please

Your urgent help would be most appreciated here. -- Jreferee 21:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

You were one of the first three users to support me; I want to thank you for your support. :) The RfA came to no consensus, but as I said in my nomination, I'll treat it as a "large-scale editor review". Thanks also for the comment on the the quality of the self-nomination. Acalamari 21:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, be sure to take the good advice from it and continue to edit the areas you enjoy... I hope to see your name there again soon! :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:EA

I stopped engaging with Ed because he started out trying to whitewash the criticisms and was trying to change the essay for the sake of changing it by the end, and I got fed up with it and him. Everyone else has moved on to other things, and every time Ed tries to get people on his side he is met with complete apathy and comments along the lines of "Are you still arguing over this?", but he seems incapable of taking the hint. I hope you're prepared to protect again shortly... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If it needs it, then yes of course I am ;) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It needs it. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please reprotect it. Looks how much has happened so shortly after you unprotected it. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 22:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reprotected it for 3 hours as an immediate step, Majorly, could you review it and remove if desired, or extend? Cheers Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Told you... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha! How ironic... Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ping

Ping! -- Jreferee 02:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with "Good morning, I'm gay"!!??

Since that fellow admits himself/herself/itself a gay, why do you still block him/her/it!? I don't think it will offend anyone... --Edmundkh 10:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User names that imply sexual orientation are not allowed. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 10:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Sexual orientation? What do you mean? --Edmundkh 11:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Gay could mean homosexual. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 11:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection of 'David and Kim'

I thank you very much for protecting 9am with David and Kim. I trust, that the fats added by humble me stand the test. If moire footnotes are required, I suppose I shall be able to help.

Furher to that, my edits to

• Iain Hewitson
• Network Ten

are apparently not easily acceptable to some.

I kindly request you keep these pages in the corner of the eye too.

Articles about tv programmes do not need to be following a promotional scheme!

Let it be noted, I surely accept the usual 'in the flow' edits. Wholesale reverts of well considered recalibrations of articles are nevertheless uncalled for.

I thank you kindly for your attention in this matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oalexander-En (talk • contribs) 11:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Greysouthen

Hi,

wondering if you can help with this one. User:Cjmcgreevy (Contribs} has moved Greysouthen to Grooglefishdotcome, and then later blanked the page.

Does the blanking need reverting and then a request made at Wikipedia:Requested moves or do we just list it at Wikipedia:Requested moves in the Uncontroversial proposals section?

Keith D 13:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved it back. You can tag it with {{db-move}} should something like that happen again. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I will have a look at {{db-move}}. Keith D 22:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Omnicide

Hello,

I have a question in regards to the page on Omnicide. I'm confused by your decision to redirect the page to human extinction. Here are my reasons:

• The original basis given for nominating the page for deletion was that it was a not notable neologism. In response to this, I edited the page to show showing multiple independent sources for the term (a total of six). I think that the page now satisfies Wikipedia's notability policy quite abundantly.
• After these edits, requests to redirect the article were based on the claim that omnicide was just a synonym for human extinction. I think this is a simple (somewhat bizarre) mistake, which should by apparent to anyone who reads the article carefully, and which both I and one other user have explained in the deletion page for the article.
• Subsequent to the edits I performed, two users other than myself have advocated for keeping the article, and two have asked for redirect/merge, so 'rough consensus' does not seem to obtain.

I'm new to this aspect of Wikipedia, so that could be my problem. Is there something I'm missing? I'm quite in the dark.

Yours,

Chris Christopher Powell 14:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If the page was improved significantly, you can simply recreate the page again. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, you haven't answered my questions, and now I wonder which version of the page you've seen or which revisions you think I was referring to. But thanks just the same. I will try to recreate the page when I've had a chance to do some more research on the topic. Christopher Powell 23:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Hi Alex. I'm somewhat surprised by your protection of 9am with David and Kim, especially in a state containing libellous remarks about a living person. I would have thought a more appropriate response would have been to warn Oalexander-En (talk • contribs), the only 'warrior' in the supposed edit war, of the three-revert rule. I was tempted to ignore the protection and remove the addition again, but I thought it prudent to ask you to undo your action first. Thanks, --cj | talk 06:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine, do what you think is best. Thanks for checking first! Majorly _{(o rly?)} 11:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. Cheers. - Michael Billington (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

About Slavomacedonian language

Can you tell why you consider as vandalism the change of the term macedonian in slavomacedonian? Another admin constanly reverted my changes. What kind of consensus is this? the particular article for the "macedonian" language is one-sided. Among the many mistakes they claim that "macedonian" language is spoken in Greece. This is one of many LIES. You can visit CIA World Factbook Greece and check it... (see the languages) [12] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.239.236.63 (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

bureaucratship

Hi Majorly, and thank you for offering to serve the community in this extra extent. Good luck.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 21:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's my pleasure – thank you for your kind support. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Thanks for volunteering. · AO ^Talk 23:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I do hope it goes well :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope it was not too late, but I added a question to your RfB, of which I all the sudden stumbled upon me. I would have asked in any RfB;I was not curious for any particular person, and if you don't get to answering, that will be more than fine at this point.(Also, just so you'll know, I was previously Wikipedier (talk • contribs), and my request to have it changed was successful, do to the past one being a Wikipeida term.)--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 21:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC))

Good answer. Folling the concencus is what bureaucratship is a major part of. How did you format the question? I saw that it did not match with the others, and tried to fix it using a # before it.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 21:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see now from the diff, a :6 before it.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 21:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support, and subsequent congratulations, in my recent RfA. Good luck in your current RfB.--Anthony.bradbury 10:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

RfB response

I have considered my position. I considered it carefully before I left my first comment. I also reconsidered my position after reading your response on your RfB. If I was going to change my opinion, I would do so on your RfB. The fact that I have not done so should be response enough. I do not appreciate your continued badgering and its exactly this sort of unnecessary and intrusive sparing for a fight that I opposed you for in the first place. I have had my say, you have responded. I don't see any need for further discussion. If you want further discussion, why don't you correct the gross misrepresentations of the oppose opinions that some of your recent supporters have left? Gwernol 21:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You forget RfA is a discussion. We are meant to discuss it. I am not badgering you, I'm pointing out I have responded to your comments. I don't appreciate you ignoring me. It's necessary because I have explained my reasoning for the things you pointed out. You pulled a lot of things out of context, and I've had to correct you. Thus, you original reasoning is wrong, and now other people are opposing "per" this incorrect reasoning. Also, which supporters have made gross misrepresentations? Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I know RfB is a discussion, but your reasoning doesn't convince me to support you. You have made your case, others who have opposed per my reasoning will read it and change their opinions if they agree with you. Sometimes you just need to make your case and let it stand instead of insisting on continuing a discussion. You are badgering me, you don't have the right to demand I respond to every point you make. This is exactly why I and others don't trust you to be a bureaucrat. As for misrepresentations by supporters, I particularly liked Walton Monarchist who claimed "Most of the Opposes seem to centre around the apparent non-need for more bureaucrats, which is not a good reason to oppose." when this reason was given by exactly two of the 14 opposes. Gwernol 21:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks anyway :( Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)