User talk:Majorly/Archives/30

The MfD
No, no, Majorly, you didn't have to apologize. I was sure I knew what you meant and so I explained your reasoning. No apology is necessary. :) Acalamari 23:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's OK then :)  Majorly  (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct! :) Acalamari 03:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar!

 * Thanks Giggy!  Majorly  (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently a good time for this...

 * Thanks AndonicO, but surely you meant to post this on my Commons talk page, where I actually do clear backlogs :P Cheers all the same though :)  Majorly  (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe I did, not sure. ;) · AndonicO Talk 01:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you userfy these?
I noticed you closed these AFDs:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Wrestling. All the wrestling DVDs would fit in well at. If you have the time, can you put them in my user space here: User:RobJ1981/wrestlingdvd so I can move them to the wrestling wiki. RobJ1981 16:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * All of them? Surely it would be better to have separate pages?  Majorly  (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * On second thought: not all of them. Hulk Hogan Ultimate Anthology, Cheating Death, Stealing Life: The Eddie Guerrero Story, The Ultimate Ric Flair Collection, Shawn Michaels: From The Vault, Tombstone: The History of The Undertaker are the only ones I need userfied. One subpage per DVD works. RobJ1981 23:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅. I also restored the history, in case the wrestling wiki can import. Cheers.  Majorly  (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment
Thank you for your comment on my RfA, which was successful. LyrlTalk C 01:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

UAA
Thanks for your help at WP:UAA, it was backlogged really badly :)  Mel sa  ran  19:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem! :)  Majorly  (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks! I hope the same for you. ;) · AndonicO Talk 23:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.
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 20:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Blockl of Neil Larson
Thanks for that. Shall I indent his comments to the various RFA's and mark as a blocked user or are you going to do that ? Happy to help! Pedro |  Chat 09:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can do that. This is different to Kurt Weber though; he is an established user, who does lots of article work. This new user was adding stub tags and fixing links. Also very new, so no need to let him continue his disruption here.  Majorly  (talk) 09:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Yes, Kurt is not trolling just adding an opinion. This was clearly different hence why I bought it to WT:RFA. I appreciate the quick resolution. Pedro |  Chat 09:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Majorly. On what evidence of disruption has Neil Larson been blocked? I've just looked and I see no disruption as such. I see a user opposing non-self-noms. People may not agree with the user's view, but !voting with a stated reason is not disruptive - indeed, I have seen other users who hold similar individualistic views. The conversations the user has held with those who disagree with his/her view have been low key. I see no disruption. Regards SilkTork 15:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it's a single purpose account. Other than opposing RfAs in the four days he has made edits, he's added stub tags, and shuffled blank lines around pages. Clearly not here for any constructive purpose other than to disrupt our RfA system. There's no need to put more salt on the wound.  Majorly  (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry. While I agree that the knowledge the user has shown may lead one to suspect the user has experience of Wikipedia, that in itself is not grounds for a block. Can I be a nuisance and ask you to look again at the user's actions and put my mind to rest that you have blocked the user on some evidence of disruption? I can't see any disruption, and I'm not clear why making minor edits to Wiki and voting individually in RfAs is reason for blocking - regardless of your, possibly accurate, suspicion that the user has another account on Wiki. Bear in mind that having a second account is not necessarily a bad thing, and the user may have a valid reason for his/her actions. SilkTork 21:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see this thread. The user is Android Mouse, and most of the users on the thread appear to agree with the block. And for your information, using a sockpuppet to avoid scrutiny from other editors is a violation of policy, and grounds for blocking.  Majorly  (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have responded on the thread indicated. Copy here for your records:

''*I have some slight concerns over both the blocking of the Neil Larson account, and the use of an identity check. I would have thought there needed to be some clear evidence of disruption before either of these things were done. I see no such evidence. While the use of the Neil Larson account did indicate it was a secondary account, that in itself - while frowned upon - is not in itself disruptive. The Neil Larson account did some general tidying editing, modest but useful, and then made individualistic oppose comments in 6 RfAs (one later withdrawn). The oppose comments attracted some casual side discussion; nothing that would reflect badly on the candidates, and nothing that turned unpleasant. There was no disruption. Now, I can understand that people felt (rightly) that Neil Larson was a secondary account. And I can understand that people might disagree with what that account was doing. But to take that disagreement to the level of a CheckUser and a Block seem inappropriately strong measures. Was there something else that could have been done first? I see no evidence of anyone talking to the account; questioning the behaviour; requesting explanation; asking if the account was a secondary account. The guidance on using CheckUser says: "On Wikimedia wikis, privacy policy considerations are of tremendous importance. Unless someone is definitely violating policy with their actions (e.g. massive bot vandalism or spam), revealing their IP, whereabouts or other information sufficient to identify them is likely a violation.". This says: "The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to one or several of Wikimedia projects. The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position)." The guidance on using a Block says "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." While I agree that Android Mouse has been unwise in creating this second account for the use it has been put it, a better approach might have been more in the nature of a message to the second (Neil Larson) account rather than the rather seemingly excessive and heavy handed approaches that were taken, and which not only appear to violate Wiki policy, but also violate the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees and maybe even a privacy law or two. Serious stuff, not to played around with or used lightly. This is a done deal now, but I wanted to put my view forward, and to suggest more caution in the use of Blocks and Checks, and more discussion with users whose behaviour may be odd.''

Regards SilkTork 09:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * He was checked to see if he was a sockpuppet of a banned editor. Maybe you like sockpuppets trolling RfAs? I blocked the account, and nearly everyone has said it was a good idea, and it was wrong fot AM to do what he did. Then you come here and decide to stick up for the sockpuppet who trolls RfAs. It's clear to me that NL made all those other "useful" edits to attempt to look genuine. This deceitfulness ensured me that a block of the sockpuppet account was the correct thing to do. (And I have the agreement of most editors on that thread). If we discussed and talked to every troll account on Wikipedia, nothing productive would get done. I blocked it before it could escalate into something much bigger.

You're also conveniently forgetting this user broke the sockpuppet policy, which is why I decided to block in the first place. I knew it was a sockpuppet account, and sockpuppets doing what this account was doing are not legitimate uses I'm afraid. I suggest you stop sticking up for sockpuppets and trolls, and do something more productive. I have no time for them, and most other users don't either.  Majorly  (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JakeDHS07
Can you please help make my indentation is proper at Requests for adminship/JakeDHS07. I have no clue why, but HTML formatting just hates my freaking guts when it comes to rfas... :( -WarthogDemon 19:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it was your striking that did it :P  Majorly  (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And it turns out it was a recycled RfA to boot! :P I almost prefer the poop propaganda I had to deal with a few hours ago... (don't ask) -WarthogDemon 19:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Smile


-- Kkr ouni  /Ккроуни  /ΚκρΩυνι  21:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at 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. Let's see how far we can get this, pass it on to three more people, and spread the joy!

Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.
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 05:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

User/User_talk:MatthewFenton
Howdy! I'm considering undeleting User/User_talk:MatthewFenton. It seems as if that account was abandoned and an RTV request was executed, but as he... well, didn't vanish. There is no visible link between his two accounts, I think a restoral is worth considering. It isn't conducive to the health of the project to let users game the community, and that seems to be what he's doing. I wanted to chat with you about this first, thoughts? - C HAIRBOY (☎) 13:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, there is a discussion to this effect in progress. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 13:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why this user is the exception. There are plenty of users who don't keep their old userpage when they were renamed. I don't understand the desperation to make the link blue, when there's surely so many better things to do.  Majorly  (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To weigh in here briefly, it is my understanding that if a user continues contributing and wishes to retain their previous edit history, a link between their usernames is required to be public. But I could be wrong on that. Phil Sandifer 13:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a lot of /drama when White Cat (formerly Cool Cat) wanted to delete the redirect to his user page and replace all occurrences of his old name in archives with his new name (see here and here), so I'm not really sure that there is any consensus on this.  Melsaran  (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Matthew doesn't want the links all changed. Just the pages kept deleted.  Majorly  (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, while I thought Cool Cat's insistence was eccentric, and that he should have just let the matter drop, I couldn't understand the obsession of people who were following him around to revert his changing of the links to his own user name, instead of going off and writing an encyclopaedia. But that's just me! This is a far more serious matter. We have a minor who presumably regrets using his real name and wants to stop, for security reasons, and we're all running around getting upset that his real name isn't sufficiently publicised! Even if there were such a policy (and I'm unaware of any such), this would be one case where we should put other considerations first. I know of at least two users who changed from their real names to user names, and who had the user page redirects deleted. It's completely appropriate. ElinorD (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In most other cases, there would be no question about this, just leave it be. But in this case, we have a user with quite a block log who has just been blocked again under his new name.  A legit RTV scenario would be that he comes back under a new name to start fresh, grow past the missteps of his earlier actions, etc.  Instead, he's ground his heels in and is exercising the same tendentious practices he did before, but with a reset odometer.  This is not what RTV was meant for.  RTV was designed for people to disapear and go into that good night without being hounded for the rest of their days.  Instead, this seems to be a form of block history evasion and perception manipulation, and I don't believe it's in line with the original intent of RTV as a tool. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 14:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 100% agree with ElinorD, and under the circumstances the former username is really something that should not be discussed further on-wiki. Newyorkbrad 14:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A note, Majorly, your characterization of my question as "desperate" isn't very fair. Please don't inflame this, we're just chatting, and "I don't understand the desperation to make the link blue" is belittling and doesn't really help out. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 14:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies Chairboy, but I wasn't referring to you in particular. I was referring to you, Cyde, Grandmasterka and Ned Scott, who have all created the page again. Enough recreations of a page that doesn't need to be there makes me think that there is some sort of "desperation" (for want of a better word) to keep the link blue, and frankly I don't understand it. Anyhow, I'm sorry if I unintentionally offended you.  Majorly  (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I haven't recreated the page, I was consulting with you first both out of professional respect and because it's the right thing to do. It was a misunderstanding, no problem, but I'd still urge you to consider whether your good will and that of the project is being taken advantage of by the user we're discussing.  I'll defer to your judgment if there's no clear consensus to the opposite, and stand available if you want to bounce anything off someone else. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 16:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't clear in my last sentence: I meant it to say that the other three have, but not that you have. Must have been a misplaced comma.
 * Anyhow, I think that you should read the comments of Newyorkbrad and ElinorD above. He's not trying to hide from his block log at all. That's the least of his concerns.  Majorly  (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Haveaquestion single purpose account
Just to let you know that Haveaquestion made some mainspace edits. haveaquestion also appears to be a returning editor who can't access his/her old account (see bottom of talk page)-- Pheonix15 (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If he discloses who he was, then that's fine. Otherwise, to me, he is SPA all over, from the name "Haveaquestion" to his style of edits.
 * If I were to be locked out of my account, I'd do my very best to get it back. If I couldn't, for whatever reason, I'd create a new account, but the first thing I'd do is link the new account to my old one. This user hasn't done that. Perhaps he left a bad account behind? Also, I've never seen such questions asked on RfAs - it seems odd that would be his first activity under a new name.  Majorly  (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, He/she might have left a bad account that got involved in some controversial edit war behind and felt that he wanted to start over. Still, he/she seems to be a good editor--Pheonix15 (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Smiths Covers Artwork
Concerning your deletion of the article  I would like to ask you for the specified point of the rules. Thank you. -- Simplicius 18:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't a gallery of non free images, which is what that "article" was. Otherwise, it meets speedy criteria A1: Little or no content.  Majorly  (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please can you tell me the page where I can ask for the restauration of an deleteted article? -- Simplicius 09:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:DRV  Majorly  (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba 22:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)