User talk:Majorly/Archives/17

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 [1]

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 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

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

[2][3]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.

The Wikipedia Signpost 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

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" [4], and he personally tagged WP:NOR and WP:V to explain this [5]/[6]. —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)