User talk:Majorly/Archives/38

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 Dawat e Islami Page 2 Leighton Andrews article 3 Sysop bit restored 4 Happy New Year! 5 Happy New Year, Majorly 6 Aqwis RFA 7 Thanks 8 ooooooh 9 Barnstar 10 Ha ha 11 Articles for Deletion 12 resigned uncontroversially 13 RE: Welcome Back! 14 IRC 15 Question 16 People will talk .... 17 Endorsement 18 Barnstar 19 CSD / orphan talk pages 20 DYK 21 Signpost / bot 22 Re IRC 23 ComputerGuy RfA 24 rfa 25 Rudget!

Dawat e Islami Page

i removed a gramatically incorrect and barely conherent sentence which was obviously propoganda and did not cite its sources. how can you claim it wasn't constructive? we, the representatives of the organisation, have been meaning to post an article referenced to third party sources and are in the process of compiling such an article, but it seems that wikipedia is not the right place for this. as your editorial policy seems to be justifying the spread of misinformation, should i suggest to the members of dawat e islami (numbering over 20 million world wide) that they should undertake a pro-active boycott against wikipedia - spamming your pages and servers?

given that Dawat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.192.44 (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Leighton Andrews article

Darren Wyn Rees's edits and reversions (below) appear to be in breach of both Wikipedia's rules and the UK libel laws. First he has inserted material which challenges the subject's sincerity in supporting the Burberry workers. That suggests defamation - and malicious defamation at that. Second, he is clearly using the article to make a personal attack on the subect. Third, he is removing valid source references from respected sources, eg the BBC, and replacing them with a source from an obscure blog. Looking at both the blog and Darren Wyn Rees's page on Wikipedia, he is either the the blogger - whom he sought to quote on this article - or closely allied to him/her. If he is the blogger, then replacing legitimate sourced references to cite a quote from his own blog is, to say the least, narcissistic. It is certainly not objective Penpych (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Penpych (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help reverting this article. It's been the subject of anonymous vandalistic edits on many occasions. I'm beginning to wonder if it's worth carrying on editing the article. Thanks. --Darren Wyn Rees (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's worth carrying on! :) If the vandalism is a problem, consider requesting protection at requests for page protection. Cheers, Majorly (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't yet have the technical skills to revert the article, due to multiple recent reversions. Thanks for the suggestion regarding page protection request. --Darren Wyn Rees (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sysop bit restored

I've restored your sysop bit, per your request and my comment here Raul654 (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Majorly (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Happy to have you back. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to you and also to Raul for doing that. Welcome back. --John (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Needless to say I strongly agree you should have the bit back, but the wider implications of asking for it at BN are less than ideal (I guess that's also why Walton opposed it). I dorfbaer I talk I 10:33, January 1, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 10:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you with your bit back! 24.68.242.27 (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Blah Blah Blah. Don't ask for it to be removed again. It's only a website buddy (although an important one). Still, Happy 2008 - let's try and arrange a meet up. Pedro :  Chat  23:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back! (Even though I've not been around much myself). I hope New Year's eve was kind to you. Have a good 2008! -- Flyguy649 ^talk 00:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear friend, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Eve, and that 2008 is your best year yet! ~ Riana ⁂ 02:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see you back. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 02:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Majorly

Congratulations on being re-sysopped, Majorly. I'm am very glad you are an admin again. :) Rest assured that had you had to re-run through RfA, I would have very strongly supported you. Regards. Acalamari 04:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The Cabal wishes you a Happy New Year. Welcome back. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. Considering there was no way you could pass another RfA, I applaud you for saving time by going through the bureaucratic system. It save us all (pretty much just you) some embarrassment. the_undertow ^talk 11:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

How I love sarcasm. :) Happy new year, and congrats on being the last admin of 2K7. · AndonicO ^Talk 12:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I'm glad you've got the tools back, even though I think you should have gone through an RfA (which I believe would have passed). You were (and are) a good admin and there was nothing personal in my stance on this issue. Walton^One 13:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Aqwis RFA

Hey Majorly, I've withdrew my neutral on Aqwis's RFA and changed back to support. I hope you acknowledge that the (!)vote wasn't in bad faith, but I just felt there was a lack of experience in key areas: CSD, user interaction etc. But seen as though Aqwis hadn't done anything wrong, I felt it partially necessary to restore my original support. Apologies for any inconvenience. Best, Rt. 16:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for letting me know about the meetup, i'll try to attend if i can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi (talk • contribs) 17:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, I'm looking forward to it. Majorly (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

ooooooh

Oh I'm so glad you got your bit back, I didn't find out about your reconfirmation RfA until it was over, but thought you were treated very randomly! Hope yoou enjoy being an admin again, and that we in the UK can have a new meet.:) Merkinsmum 17:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Real Life Barnstar
		For your organisation of off-wiki events—Phoenix-wiki 21:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Majorly (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha

Loved this edit summary. I'm surprised that didn't happen sooner. :) Acalamari 19:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

Hello, Majorly,

As you are an admin, I thought I'd ask for your help. There appear to be duplicate articles here (Zaiarna) and here (Lilia Zaiarna). Additionally, this appears to be the primary source for everything in her article: http://nwsa.mdc.edu/hs_artdep_-_music/faculty/faculty.html

Thanks, and happy new year! --MosheA (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I deleted Zaiarna. Whether she's notable or not is another question. Perhaps prod it, or send to AFD? Majorly (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that it's fine. My main concern was the double article. Thanks again. --MosheA (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

resigned uncontroversially

I noticed you used this phrase with a bureaucrat action on another project. I'm wondering if this is terminology creep from enwiki to other projects, or if that other project has a similar standard of resysopping based on controversy or the lack thereof. Really just an idle curiosity on my part as I have been thinking about how ArbCom standards and procedures on enwiki vary from ArbComs from other projects. Btw, I'm glad you are back and active again. Cheers, NoSeptember 19:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never known such a case on Meta - I simply copied what goes on here when I promoted. We are having a discussion on the admin confirmation page about it. Yes, it probably is enwiki terminology, but it sounded the best wording to use. And I'm glad you are glad too! I shall be less active over the next few weeks though, sadly. Majorly (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Welcome Back!

Welcome back! Good to see you around again. Majorly (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad to be back. Ryan ^{Got something to say?} 22:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC

Pursuant to your offer at WP:BN, could you help me get set up with IRC? Since I've never used it before, I have no idea what to do, and need step-by-step instructions. Walton^One 22:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you use any IM program? Such as MSN, AIM, gtalk? It'd be far easier to work in real time. It doesn't matter if you don't, it's just easier. Majorly (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't have anything like that. I need to log off now, I'll talk to you tomorrow about this. Walton^One 23:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

Why did you delete Image talk:Missionary Sex Position1.png? That talk page was related to Image:Missionary_Sex_Position1.png. Sarsaparilla (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The image doesn't exist here. It's over on Commons. The discussion should take place there. I'll undelete though. Majorly (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

People will talk ....

... we're just starting to agree on things a bit too often!! :) Pedro :  Chat  10:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd better stop that... :) Majorly (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorsement

I noticed you on IRC, and I was wondering if you could do me a favor. I am seeking authorization for use of {{commons ok}} and I noticed that you are authorized. To get authorization requires an endorsement of someone currently on the list. Would you mind endorsing me, at Wikipedia:MTC#current request? I have done some image moves before (5 total, before deciding that there must be a better way), and I believe that I know the criteria well enough. Thanks for your time, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 00:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If this is too much to ask, feel free to say, since I know you can be busy. Just a reminder( only requires "#:~~~~" below my name at Wikipedia:MTC#current request). Have a nice day!--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 20:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humour
		For continually lightening up Wikipedia with your excellent sense of humour. Acalamari 21:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As well as all the other humour I've seen from you, I definitely laughed at this. :) Acalamari 21:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah thank you! I don't intend to be funny - I'm really more sarcastic than funny, especially when things start annoying me :) Cheers, Majorly (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever your intention was, the comment was funny. :) See you at RfR. Regards. Acalamari 21:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Er yeah, I don't intend to go there very often (article work calls!) :) Majorly (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case, see you in the mainspace, or even RfA. :) Acalamari 21:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

UGH RFA?! Majorly (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• With sigs, how does this look? Acalamari 21:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You should make it link to the talk page - or have an extra link. Majorly (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure why it would need an extra link: those always seems to add extra unnecessary bytes to pages, and with a talk page link, that leads to self-linking when responding on my own talk page. Thanks for the suggestion of a signature improvement, though. :) Acalamari 22:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
      • There's a way around it - sadly I can't remember how :( Majorly (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

CSD / orphan talk pages

It seems you've deleted thousands of image talk pages of images that are on Commons as "orphaned talk pages." The CSD criterion is explicit that image talk pages of Commons images are clearly not speediable. What's going on? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

---

[I wrote this earlier, but am just now submitting it]

Is there a consensus to delete orphan talk pages, or are you just deleting ones that do not have any useful discussion? (Coming here after clicking on the discussion tab at Image:Timeline of web browsers.svg which was blue at the time and not coming to a page, due to server cache update lag)

Also, you might want to switch the "LOGS" link on your user page to LOGS. Now, it is "hard coded" to link to en.wikipedia.org and if you are using the secure server or some other type of access, it makes you leave it. See Wikipedia:Fullurl and Google. This would make it a relative link instead of an absolute link. Jason McHuff (talk) 08:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted those without useful discussion, or discussion from months ago. I know it isn't within the speedy criteria, but if you can find me any use for those discussion pages I'd like to know it. Otherwise, keeping them is just confusing and unhelpful. I intend to start a discussion about this on the CSD talk page, as I obviously disagree with keeping pointless old discussion.

I'll consider changing it the link, thanks for telling me! :) Majorly (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Majorly, I don't need to be one to tell you that CSD isn't some random essay on a user subpage, it's policy. Unless there is an incredibly good reason to ignore it, you absolutely should not have unilaterally deleted 9000 image talk pages. In addition, not only is it not your call to determine whether or not talk page discussion can be deleted after months, it also doesn't appear to be what you did. I ran the orphaned talk page query and looked at your logs; thousands of pages were deleted rapid-fire and it seems that few or almost none were kept. Do you mean to tell me that out of 10,000 orphaned talk pages, there are entire sections of the alphabet that didn't have a single page that could have been kept and not speedily deleted? That's simply bullshit. There was no discussion about this anywhere until after you deleted the images. 9000 pages, all out of process and your response is "if you can find me any use for those discussion pages I'd like to know it" and a two sentence post to WT:CSD. Is there any reason you should retain +sysop after a stunt like this? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want me to undelete them (all), then I will. However, I feel such a stunt would be pointless. IAR exists to ignore rules if they prevent you from improving or maintaining the encyclopedia in some way. I believe that the old discussion pages of non-existent images are unhelpful and confusing, so I think deleting them as orphans is improving things. If you are questioning my admin rights, I suggest you bring up a discussion for others to comment on. Majorly (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And I haven't deleted any images, just the talk page - many were test pages, and some didn't even discuss the image. Many were from this wiki, and images uploaded to commons are often deleted. Majorly (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

1.3 images per second for the most recent 5 minutes of deletion log sampled. I guess my issue isn't as much that you batch deleted all of these pages as it is that you're now trying to claim you examined each page individually for legitimate content before deciding whether or not to delete it. Even if you were able to sit at your computer and watch each page, there's no way of knowing what the page history contained at that high-speed rate. In addition, I doubt you sat at your computer and watched each page because it would be incredibly dull to do so. I'm not going to open an RfC or run to AN or AN/I because I know that the last thing we need is more drama. I just hope that you consider discussing, or at least saying somewhere, that you intend to do major things like this (i.e., things that are outside the bounds of established policy) before you do them. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I will in future. I'm sorry if it caused a problem. I'll just stick to article work... Majorly (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to say that I posted on this article's talk page about one day ago, regarding the image. I don't think my post was "without useful discussion" and it certainly wasn't old — to say that when it obviously wasn't even read seems kind of rude to me. Anyway, when I came back to see if anyone had replied I found it had been deleted so I came here to see what the deal was. You don't have to reinstate the pages (I don't know about the others but my post wasn't that important). I just don't want anyone to get in trouble or lose their admin powers for this mistake, but I hope these things are handled better in the future. Thanks. --71.112.159.122 (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I restored it, sorry about that. I suggest though, that you register at Wikimedia Commons, and discuss the image over there. Thanks, Majorly (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please also restore Image_talk:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png. There was a lot of ongoing conversation there, over the years, pertaining to the image. That conversation should be restored or visibly archived. --Magoon (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Majorly (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 11 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Humphrey Chetham, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 02:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost / bot

Occasionally it misses someone (I think AWB noted that 1 user was skipped, but didn't say who). See below. Ral315 (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 1	2 January 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "John Lasseter"	News and notes: Stewards, fundraiser, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Scouting
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 2	7 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Stepping in after delay
New Wikipedia discussion forum gains steam	WikiWorld comic: "Goregrind"
Wikipedia in the News	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. Ral315 (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Re IRC

Replied. Sorry for the late response, I've only been online sporadically today as I had a three hour exam this morning. :( Walton^One 18:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

ComputerGuy RfA

Are you going to close it, or are you waiting to see if he wants it reopened? I didn't realize it was un-transcluded when I added my most recent comments. ^Avruchtalk 22:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not doing anything to it. Majorly (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

rfa

Thank you for your support in my RFA of last week. If you ever need assistance, let me know. Archtransit (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

John Carter (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget!