User talk:Majorly/Archives/16

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 he doesn't want any asociation with those RfAs, and he's no longer active under that username.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.

The Wikipedia Signpost 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

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 —Preceding unsigned comment 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.

The Wikipedia Signpost 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

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)