User talk:Majorly/Archives/14
 | This page 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. |
I heard you might be interested in co-nomming? riana_dzasta 22:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- Hey, thanks a lot for the co-nom especially since you don't like them. I've accepted and added it to the main RfA page. Just a friendly notification. Thanks, James086Talk 06:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC-5)
Closing AFDs
When you close AFDs I see:
It's confusing at first. Please let me know if you know what I'm talking about. SakotGrimshine 09:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC-5)
It's like if I see. "The result was a strong consensus to X, majorly so. --John Smith" SakotGrimshine 12:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC-5)
"The result was keep. Majorly" (I didn't first think majorly was your name, but a description of how strong the keep consensus was). SakotGrimshine 13:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC-5)
I just thought it was amusing and interesting, that's all. Sometimes an AFD does end with a major keep or a major delete consensus. SakotGrimshine 02:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC-5)
Thanks
Thank you for reverting a strange modification to my user page. I guess it wasn't vandalism, but anyway I didn't ask for any font to be changed. Odd. :-P Regards, Húsönd 10:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- User in question was blocked indefinitely earlier today, as a troll. Can't say I'll miss him :P --Majorly (o rly?) 10:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC-5)
For seeing the merit in Cornwall Iron Furnace! Dincher 15:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC-5)
Note on Pbehnam's admin nom
Hi Majorly. You surely did well by removing User:Pbehnam's nomination, but I'd argue that using the rollback button for that was not the best thing to do. The rollback is primarily associated with vandalism removal and when an edit summary is not necessary. I'd argue that when you remove nominations from RfA you specify in the edit summary why you did that (in that case I think the nomin page was blank). Wonder what you think. You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- Yeah I totally agree with you. It kind of is vandalising though, adding an empty nom page when it returns a red link; I just wish people would bother to read the instructions more. Cheers. Majorly (o rly?) 11:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- Yep, green admin wannabies (more precisely redlinked admin wannabies) are annoying. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC-5)
DYK
Um, you do realise that every one of the entries that you have added to the Next Update are US-related? Are there no non-US suggestions? -- ALoan (Talk) 07:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- No, I didn't, but I was hurrying because it was 10 hours overdue for an update. --Majorly (o rly?) 07:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- It was on my to do list, but then I saw you had already got to it. I expect we will get complaints again. Unless you object, I am tempted to swap a couple out and put them back in Next Update for next time - most of the 14 Feb candidates have negative comments, but there are a couple of decent non-US ones in 15 Feb, Michael Kühnen and Poverty in France... -- ALoan (Talk) 07:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- I would tell the users whose entries you've swapped that you'll be re-adding them later then. --Majorly (o rly?) 07:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- Thanks - I am updating the Next update and selecting some new ones, and putting Chicago Lawn and Cheshire Mammoth Cheese back there. I also changed the image for the French homeless man. -- ALoan (Talk) 08:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- I would tell the users whose entries you've swapped that you'll be re-adding them later then. --Majorly (o rly?) 07:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- It was on my to do list, but then I saw you had already got to it. I expect we will get complaints again. Unless you object, I am tempted to swap a couple out and put them back in Next Update for next time - most of the 14 Feb candidates have negative comments, but there are a couple of decent non-US ones in 15 Feb, Michael Kühnen and Poverty in France... -- ALoan (Talk) 07:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC-5)
Adminship
Hello I know that you like choosing Wikipedians and nominating them for Adminship and I have a request for you. There is an Editor Quasyboy. He has over 14000(14928 to be exact) Edits and I recently asked him why he doesnt apply for Adminship and this was his answer " don't know. I'm afraid if I apply I might be denied and much rather have someone request for me then request my own self. But I really don't know about that at the moment."[1] and I would like you to Nominate him for Admin cause he has really been doing a good job and as I said he has over 14000 Edits in just Nine Months (thats something) and so who better to Nominate him for Adminship than you..I hope you would look into this..Thanx.--Cometstyles 16:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- Thanks for asking, but I don't think he'd pass. I like a candidate to have experience in project space, that is Wikipedia: pages. QuasyBoy has 64 edits which isn't really enough. Also, I have never heard of him or seen him before; I generally only comment in RfAs of users I've seen about, and so nominating someone I've never heard of wouldn't be a good idea. You can always nominate him yourself of course, but that's my opinion. --Majorly (o rly?) 16:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- I could but Iam a nobody so I was hoping for an Admin to Nominate him..Anywayz I think we should leave it to him..Thanx Anywayz..--Cometstyles 17:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC-5)
Hello. You may be interested in my reply to your comment here, as it provides additional context which may not have been available at the time of your note.
Thanks for reading, and for working to keep Wikipedia functional! :)
—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-20 01:07Z
- Thanks! :) —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-20 01:26Z
The Re-Direct Too
Hi. Saw your Afd close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Economic Stabilization And Recovery Act (third nomination). Please delete the re-direct NESARA as well. Thanks. MortonDevonshire Yo · 20:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC-5)
removed comment
it was just an edit conflict; I didn't mean to remove anything. Whiskey Pete 22:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC-5)
Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 8 | 19 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC-5)
Moved from userpage
Wow, you are very popular. I'd better not upset you. I have a very contentious edit protected on Paul Staines, and a suggestion pending on the protected Iain Dale. They are linked in that they published a book together. Do you think you could take a look? thanks--Pogsurf 10:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- I think a request at WP:RFPP under "edit requests" will do some good :) --Majorly (o rly?) 10:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC-5)
He has returned as Bert20. He has already vandalised my user page again as well as created an attack article. IrishGuy talk 11:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC-5)
RfA comments
[2] My thoughts exactly. And btw, that problem isn't just recently...it's been going on for months. [3] Sarah 16:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC-5)
Re: Manufacturing Engineering Centre
Hi Majorly,
Thank you for removing the Afd notice for the 'Manufacturing Engineering Centre' article. Keep up the good work! Sweetpea2007 07:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC-5)
Semi Protection
You recently semi-protected Colin Cowherd. New users are still able to edit this page. Please check into this. Thanks. STS01 12:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- Its protection ran out. Should it need further protection, request at WP:RFPP. Cheers. Majorly (o rly?) 12:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC-5)
You protected this page. It appears to me to be a violation of WP:USER (not free webhosting). I have already gotten what appears to be agressive pushback from the "owner" of the page. Can you provide assistance, here? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC-5)
Thanks
It's been a week since my recent request for adminship passed, and since I haven't managed to delete the Main Page - yet - I figure it's safe to send these out. Thanks a lot for participating in my RfA; I hope to do a good job. If you see me doing something wrong, need help, or just want to have a chat, please don't hesitate to drop by :) – riana_dzasta 02:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC-5)
Thanks
I've posted a thanks on the Ultimate Spider-Man (Story Arcs) Talk page, but I'll say it again; thankyou for blocking the page, and stopping Wrestling-whatever from continuing to vandalise it. I suppose I'll get a stream of gramatically incorrect abuse from him by tomorrow, but it's a small price to pay. Thankyou for keeping the 'Ultimate Knights' info I put in. SaliereTheFish 13:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- I haven't stopped it at any particular version; I guess you are lucky it stopped at yours. I expect you to discuss the issue with the user before it gets unlocked. Majorly (o rly?) 13:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- He won't discuss anything in a civil manner, nor less do anything that prevents him from getting his own way. thus, he has started a Vendetta against anything I do to that article.SaliereTheFish 14:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- Perhaps a request for comments might be an idea? Majorly (o rly?) 14:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- I'll think about it. Meanwhile, as a Personal Favour to me, could you not un-block the page until the actual 'Ultimate Knights' Arc has started, i.e. around March 6th, when Spoilers for it will be out and the paltry info already there can be changed? You can collect in my debt to you anytime, so long as it's on Wiki. And, thanks again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SaliereTheFish (talk • contribs) 15:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC-5).
- Perhaps a request for comments might be an idea? Majorly (o rly?) 14:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- He won't discuss anything in a civil manner, nor less do anything that prevents him from getting his own way. thus, he has started a Vendetta against anything I do to that article.SaliereTheFish 14:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC-5)
RFA talk
I've tried it and all it comes up with is the text in the template, which is not how it is meant to read.
What i mean is
14's edit stats using XTools as of ~~~~~:
(below is my timestamp. This and the text in the brackets are not part of the template) Simply south 19:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC-5)
Ok i'll try. Maybe i'l remember this on my rfa when i do. Simply south 19:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC-5)
If you're going to protect this page, I submit that my edit, having thoroughly explained Every single edit I've made on the article's talk page, should be the version that is currently held as protect, and not the version by BGC, who has done nothing to dispute my reasoning. I submit that my edits should be protected until THEY discuss the issue... otherwise how will the issue be resolved? BGC has what (s)he wants right now with the article protected in their form. They have no reason to discuss the issue. TheHYPO 19:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- Protection is not necessarily endorsement of the version it is locked at. Majorly (o rly?) 19:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- Yeah, but what is the point? Protect until there is some consensus... but there isn't going to be because the person who is reverting the edits isn't discussing it... And won't discuss it so long as his version is protected. TheHYPO 20:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- How could BGC say it? BGC hasn't posted a single word in the talk page about the latest edit's I've done which they have reverted two or three times now. They merely revert without so much as an explaination. I have point by point explained my edits. BGC cannot claim to be discussing their action when they haven't done so. TheHYPO 00:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5)
Improper Administrative Actions
There is an admin named Khoikhoi that disagrees with the discussion page majority on whether or not a particular article should be moved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reggaeton
A contributor asked for facts which support why the page should not be moved, and those facts were provided. Rather than allow users to see these new facts, KhoiKhoi has decided to simply delete them with no explanation and has blocked the talk page in an attempt to prevent others from restoring them. Its irrelevant as to whether or not its a contributor with a screen name or an anonymous IP, the fact is that evidence was provided, and it was immediately deleted. I'm not sure where to report Adminstrators for actions unbecoming of Wikipedia's TOS, so I was hoping maybe you would have some insight, thanks. 68.155.86.174 22:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- If you're still unhappy with it, a request for comment might be a good place. I'd rather stay neutral on it. Majorly (o rly?) 09:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5)
I was hoping you would take a minute to have a look at this page. Is this a newer, possibly better article than the one you deleted, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daily Planet (band), or is this just a repost of the previous material? -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 00:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5)
hi majorly
re: your comment on essjay's talk page - you said that I complained last time that other users were replying. I didn't - i just apologised to essjay that i seemed to have created a conversation about him, and I thought it might come across as rude to talk about someone without them participating. I'd say the same thing might be happening again, hence i've come here.
You also question my motivations - but they're written right there in my post. I think mistakes have been made, and need acknowledgment. Purples 19:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5)
PS - would you mind if we moved our conversation here from essjay's talk page? It might de-clutter a bit? Purples 19:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- I think your motivations here are bad and unneeded, and I ask you to stop this immediately. Majorly (o rly?) 19:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5)
I think there's a serious issue here, and I'm just trying to raise it quietly on essjay's talk page. There will be different opinions and schools of thought, but it's not on to claim bad motivations out of the blue. I want wikipedia to earn and retain respect as an encyclopedia and i think essjay's previous actions could undermine that unless mistakes that have been made are acknowledged... Purples 19:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- How will it undermine it? Just because he chose to write about himself in a certain way doesn't affect the encyclopedia! Go write some articles and quit trolling Essjay's talk page. Majorly (o rly?) 19:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5)
It's rude to say i'm 'trolling'. Put it this way - if an academic lied in such a way, all of their work would be thought of as dubious, and they would find it hard to get more work published. Academic honesty is very important, and this is a serious issue. Purples 19:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- Not serious... how is it? How has it affected the articles here? As I said before, email him. He already gave you an answer where you originally asked it, so I don't know why you continue to pester him. Majorly (o rly?) 19:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5)
I understand that you don't seem to think it's an issue at all. I think that to have such a senior editor lie to a journalist (and his peers) about his qualifications could effect the reputation of the encyclopedia, thereby undermining the articles. This is bad. Purples 19:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5) I mentioned in my post why i felt that the issue was not resolved
- I think it'll affect nothing. I don't know whose sockpuppet you are (I'm assuming you are one looking at your edits), but please leave it be. He's made it clear he'd rather not discuss it on his talk page, and by continuing to leave him messages is disruptive. As I said, go and edit some articles instead of worrying about absolutely nothing. Jimmy Wales isn't concerned, so I don't know why an editor with fewer than 60 edits could care less. Majorly (o rly?) 19:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5)
Urgh...Again...
I've started adding info to a related page (Ultimate Spider-Man), and Wrestling-whatever is deleting it again. It's verified Information, with a provided source, and he accuses me of using Wiki as a Crystal Ball. He's basically doing the same thing he did to get the last Topic locked. It's not the topics that need locking, it's him. Removing true, confirmed info for no other reason than a endetta counts as vandalism, Right? Right? SaliereTheFish 20:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- Right, right. I suggest you report him elsewhere if he's bothering you. Majorly (o rly?) 20:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- Problem Is, I have no idea who I can report him to who'll listen. Can't you ban him yourself? SaliereTheFish 20:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- You can mention it here, or if it's really a problem, and you've done as much as you can to try and solve the issue, open a request for comments. I cannot ban him personally, and I think allowing other users to view the issue might be best. Majorly (o rly?) 20:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- Problem Is, I have no idea who I can report him to who'll listen. Can't you ban him yourself? SaliereTheFish 20:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5)
Deletion Review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of YouThink.com. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.Electricbassguy 23:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5)
Mark Allan Robinson
You declined my request for semi-protection for this article. I believe it meets the policy as stated:
However, Jimbo Wales has suggested semi-protection may be used in cases of "...minor [biographies] of slightly well known but controversial individuals..." which are not widely watchlisted, if they are "...subject to POV pushing, trolling, [or] vandalism." In such cases, semi-protection "...would at least eliminate the drive-by nonsense that we see so often."
The same attack edits have been made to this article consistently for months by a number of different IP addresses. I already have this article watchlisted - please watchlist it yourself if you will not semi-protect, as I do not have the time to babysit it. Catchpole 06:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- It's barely edited at all, and you aren't the only one watching it. Majorly (o rly?) 06:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC-5)
- John Seigenthaler, Sr. was barely edited at all. Catchpole 06:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC-5)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Who in popular culture. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stbalbach 09:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC-5)
Ultimate Spider-man story arcs protect.
Thought you might like to see this reaction by the requesting editor: [4]. Bit of a WP:NPA breach, I think, and if not, definitely incivil. ThuranX 09:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC-5)