User talk:Majorly/Archives/18
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. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 13 | 26 March 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 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)
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)
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: [1]. 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)
- I suppose you can also change the script, I contacted Mailer Diablo about this too and he changed his script: [1]. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:29, 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)
Wikipedia:Esperanza
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)
- Please reprotect it. Looks how much has happened so shortly after you unprotected it. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 22:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- It needs it. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:04, 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
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) [2] —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)
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)
