User talk:Majorly/Archives/48

Discussion at Talk:Linda Darling-Hammond
Hey Majorly, I noticed there's some discussion at Talk:Linda Darling-Hammond about how to incorporate content -- I was hoping you could weigh in there, or send me an email about how we can move forward on this. Thanks! JDoorjam    JDiscourse 21:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
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 (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

WMF building
"If they want privacy and safety for employees" - if they want that they can install locks on their doors. Maybe they could also consider not publicizing the street name and/or not having their logo on the front of the building. Perhaps they could also use the P.O. Box you mentioned rather than their street address when registering as a charity, but I don't know the details of the laws that apply there, so maybe they can't. --Random832 (contribs) 00:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Cowsay
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cowsay. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 23:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Err...sorry about that. It was closed by User:Mercury, but since I knew that username was no longer in use I went to the talk page of what I thought was the new account of that individual, without bothering to double-check that I had the right person...I got "Mercury" and "Majorly" mixed up.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 16:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Simon Hoggart
I'd be interested in your opinion/advice on this matter: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 10:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Shalom Yechiel
Please respond to an RFC I have filed about my conduct. Please evaluate my responses to false statements about me during my recent RFA. Yechiel (Shalom) 01:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Badger Drink
Majorly, I am not very pleased with your block of Badger Drink. I must confess that I had a moment of weakness and was tempted to overturn you, but of course it's no emergency and I'll have to settle for expressing my concerns to you before considering anything close to that thought. Administrators should not issue blocks in response to perceived harassment directed at themselves (the veracity of your claim of "harassment" notwithstanding). Is there any reason you couldn't have brought the breach of civility you noticed to the uninvolved admins at WP:ANI and avoided the impropriety of blocking somebody for having the temerity to backtalk in your direction? This smacks to me of a retaliatory block that furthers the dangerous meme of "don't talk shit to me, I'm an admin and can bury you" and its associated chilling effects. I'm hoping that somebody with your level of circumspection can see the sense in my concerns and unblock Badger Drink yourself while you ask for outside opinions. If he gets reblocked that's fine, but surely you can see why this is a problem now. east718 //  talk  //  email  // 20:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On reflection, it would have been much better not to block him myself. I don't appreciate being called a "dweeb", but yeah, you're right. Someone impartial should have done it. I don't disagree that he should have been blocked, it was an outrageous attack on both Milk and me (especially me). It would probably be better to get outside opinions here.  Al Tally  talk  20:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an admirable step forward. I've asked for opinions on the Board of Egalitarian Doom and Gloom. east718 //  talk  //  email  // 21:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC) called him first troll. You provocative language is excusable but the person who got insulting comment from you can't be allowed to say "dweeb"? --Caspian blue (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I said he was trolling, something quite different. Which he was, too.  Al Tally  talk  20:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, trolls do trolling according to the definition of our "troll" page. That is not even a good reply. Besides, you're involved in the RFA, and your block looks like a retaliation.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Alex, my apologies. I believed that you had concurred with the unblock to Badger Drink that I made here. As noted, as consensus seems to be unblock I'mnot going to revert my mistake, but please be assured it was a good faith error on my part and not a unilatteral overturning of your actions. Pedro : Chat  21:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies for what? It was clearly an incredibly stupid block, since we now allow personal attacks on Wikipedia. Thanks for overturning my massive error.  Al Tally  talk  21:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't try to reduce this to the absurd. You called him a name, he called you a name, you blocked and that was found to be wrong. That is a far cry from personal attacks being allowed here and you know that. Perhaps you should take a wikibreak until you clear your head. Chillum  21:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the policy is violated all the time. How is it not allowed?  Al Tally  talk  21:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The policy holds up very well, the policy itself is clear that minor infringements are not reason for blocking. For God's sake man, you yourself called him a name directly prior to him calling you a name. If your understanding of policy is so different than everyone else's that they feel the need to reverse and admonish you then you need to reconsider your interpretation of the policy, not just assume the policy is bad. Chillum  22:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It'd be nice of the AN/I section could be closed - I think the problems have been addressed, and all we need now is for Majorly to calm down a bit and then everything will be fine. If anyone wants to address the violation of the meatball "DefendEachOther" clause, ArbCom is thataway. Otherwise, we're done right? Majorly, don't take it too hard - tea and cookies and etc. Avruch  T 22:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

An explanation, if nothing else
Major Tally - I'll be as brief as possible here. In re-reading the RFA thread, I saw that my statement could be - and may well have been - read as saying, "seeing YOU, Mr. Majorly Orly Albert Tally, of all people, responding to opposes here and in person, would point to MySpace tendacies". That was not my intent. I was simply saying that seeing anybody in the (de facto self-appointed) role of Oppose Opposer could be seen as being indicative of an over-emphasis on social networking. I believe the remainder of the thread is res ipsa loquitur. --Badger Drink (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your username
Sorry if you've had to answer this a thousand times, but why are you using two accounts in this manner? For one, redirecting your user talk page breaks some scripts that try to leave you xFD notifications and the like so it can result in messages getting left on the wrong talk page, but being invisible because that page is still a link. But more than that, if you are going to be exercising your administrative tools, you really need to pick one account and use it for transparency. If you are trying to work around SUL (ie, if Al Tally is your SUL name, but Majorly is your preferred identity here), there is another way around it - you can use the Wikimedia secure server here and the regular server everywhere else (or vice versa). They have two separate sets of credentials and that's what I do. Someone else has User:B on Commons, so I use User:UserB there and I simply use the http: URLs for commons and the https: URLs for Wikipedia. --B (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Destructoid
Hey, it's TBC from Simple. Anyhow, I've has asked for a deletion review of Destructoid. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.  T B C  ♣§♠  (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy)  23:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
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 (talk) 05:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thankspam
Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy gabs adds 19:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly
Hello there! New: Episode 58: Wikimania 2008, Jimbo and Reflections. Have a listen. Also, if you haven't heard, all of the other Wikimania episodes are up and accessible through the homepage at http://wikipediaweekly.org. Peace.  W ODU P bot  09:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 59
Hey there! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 59: An Interview with Sue Gardner at Wikimania 2008 has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page (at least one listener thought this could be the best interview ever), and as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. Peace.  W ODU P bot  01:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

ANI
You may be interested in this discussion on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 60
Hello! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 60: Diplopedia has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page, and as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org.  W ODU P bot  05:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Follow-up on Yulia
Hi Majorly -- I noticed you are working on OTRS 1840950. I'm the one who blocked Glyn for making legal threats. Is the issue resolved, and do I need to do anything? I'm willing to unblock if he retracts his threat and so forth ... feel free to contact by e-mail if anything is sensitive. Cheers, and thanks for working on this, Antandrus (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I sent you an email. Cheers,  Majorly  talk  00:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

RFB
No-one's badgering, just asking you to consider more than the nomination. Your oppose is really disappointing, particularly as it's based on my nom, not all of Dweller's qualities and responses to the (already ten) questions. I think the level-headed approach he takes is clear in the nom and a clear indication of how he'd make a good 'crat. But there you have it. Please don't oppose him because you oppose me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake, are you still going on about that? I thought we'd left it behind at the time. But I guess I was wrong.
 * My oppose isn't totally based on the nomination. I just don't see him being a particularly good bureaucrat. There are some users that "have it" - WJBscribe, Deskana, Essjay (when he was one), Redux and others, including people not bureaucrats. I don't think Dweller has that bureaucrat quality. Not everyone does. This has nothing to do with you. Stop taking it so personally.  Majorly  talk  17:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm "not still going on about that" and I'm not "taking it personally". Your opposition, in your words, was based on the fact that the nomination didn't show you that Dweller would make a good 'crat.  The nomination is irrelevant.  Judge him on his responses to the many questions.  Thanks.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have and decided he's not suitable. Bureaucratship isn't a reward for great article work or great admin work. It's something that is earned by good work in bureaucrat areas, which I don't think Dweller has - not saying his work is bad, just that it's not substantial enough for me to think "Wow, I really thought this person was a bureaucrat" or, with WJBscribe for example "This guy really needs the tools!" Dweller gives me neither of those thoughts.  Majorly  talk  17:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, I understand.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Question
Is this addition to Dweller's RfB really necessary? It's about having a discussion, and it doesn't seem that anything I've seen at that RfB would qualify as badgering. And even if it did, is dropping an image of a badger really that helpful? S. D. D.J.Jameson 17:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's making fun of people who oppose all the time and hate people "badgering" them. Remove it if you don't like it.  Majorly  talk  17:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you meant it as satire of a sort? I guess I missed that. Carry on... :) S.  D. D.J.Jameson 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 61
Hello! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 61: Corpus_Linguistics has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org.  W ODU P bot  06:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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 (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)