User talk:Majorly/Archives/59

Cheadle Hulme
Hi, Please stop making offensive remarks on my talk page. If you care to check the article history, you will see that I have been working on the article. How I choose to do GA reviews is my concern not yours, provided that they are assessed in accordance with the GA requirments, which all of mine are. I am perfectly entitled to make minor corrections to articles under review as apposed to say failing the article or putting it On Hold a waiting for someone else to fix.

Making snide remarks on my talkpage about "someone a little more active", "supposed reviewer being slow and unresponsive" and "how seriously you're taking this" hardly produces a conducive atmosphere in which to carry out a WP:GAN review. Having just run Soxreg93, it appears that you have done 3485 edits in 2009 as apposed to my 2305 edits; this hardly qualifies you to give advice on what is rude and was is not rude. I have competed 91 WP:GAN reviews: at one end of the spectrum I have completed several reviews in under a day and quote a few have taken a week or more. However, yours is the only one where I've had offensive / snide comments during the review. I've not had that from the 11 that I failed. I will finish this review but I will not review any more of yours at WP:GAN level. Pyrotec (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You made one edit in the entire week after you said you'd review it (a minor edit adding a link), and you only continued to make any edits after I posted on your talk page. You're not doing any reviewing with this article. It's sat there doing nothing, when someone else could actually be reviewing it. You're taking on other articles after mine and reviewing them in less than a day, before you've even left anything for me to do on mine. It's perfectly fine to edit the article before failing it/passing it, but to leave me waiting here without any kind of message or notice is downright rude. I waited over a week before I left you the message - and I only did so because I noticed you weren't doing anything with the article, and you were actively working on others. My last GA took far too long because the reviewer simply wasn't bothered, and as with you, took several articles at a time, and dealt with them first. I find it insulting my work is just tossed aside. I slaved away on it for weeks and weeks, so the least I'd expect is for a reviewer to actually review it promptly, instead of just leaving it for ages. I gave you well over a week before I even left you the message.


 * You are being slow and unresponsive. You've taken over a week to even make a decision on it, in the meantime taking on other articles and passing them, without even glancing at mine. You then removed the message I left you on your talk page without response. It should not take this long to even make some notes. I'm happy you're not going to review anymore of mine, and hope you consider putting mine back for someone else to review, seeing as you're not interested. I'm waiting around so I can move on to my next project, and you are preventing me from moving on.  Majorly  talk  17:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've got better things to do than take insults from you. I will not be reviewing it.Pyrotec (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, can we cut Pyrotec a bit of slack please? Reviewing articles for GA isn't always a rewarding task, but I've seen Pyrotec take on many reviews for (apparently) little thanks. When I see that he's puts his name against an article to review it on the GAN page, I feel confident that the article will undergo a fair but testing review. These things take time, don't forget that Cheadle Hulme is a substantial article, especially compared to Partington, Greater Manchester (which, while covering the subject just fine, would disappear in a strong breeze). Sometimes with a difficult review it helps to take some time away from it; while Pyrotec may not have made reviewing Cheadle Hulme his first priority (and there's no compulsion to, GAN does not set a deadline for when reviews should be complete) you can be assured that Pyrotec will get round to it. I know it's frustrating to spend a lot of time on an article, list it on GAN, be ready to go and have your enthusiasm sapped by having to wait weeks for a review, but someone has chosen to review the article so it will be done sooner rather than later. If in the meantime you want to prep the article for FAC, there is a certain wikiproject worth consulting for advice so you don't have to lose momentum. I know you're not harassing Pyrotec, you're just protective about the article, but there's not a lot to be done to rush things. I suggest you ask Pyrotec to reconsider doing the review as he has a good track record and you may otherwise be waiting weeks. Nev1 (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that Pyrotec is among the best of the current crop of GA reviewers, and I agree with everything that Nev1 said above. Reviewing is a thankless enough task as it is, without this kind of additional pressure. We all know how frustrating it is to have to wait after a GA or even FA nomination, but that's just the nature of the beast. Personally I'm always very happy to see Pyrotec turn up at a review, and if I was in your position Majorly I'd try to make my peace and entice him back. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * When I saw he was reviewing it, I was very pleased as well - I've seen the reviews he's done on place articles, so I was looking forward to a decent review and make the article very GA-worthy. I was merely disappointed with the time taken over it, and the apparent lack of attention to it. As you noted, and I noted, I spent a lot of time on it, and I appreciate there are other reviews, but I expect a decent service on the review system. When I review an article (and I only normally do when I nominate) I make sure to set aside some time to complete it as a priority. It was well over a week while I patiently waited, before I even asked what was going on. The last GA I did had a reviewer who refused to respond to talk page messages, and did not use the review page as I politely asked him to, instead leaving his comments all over the place. Instead of leaving one thorough review, he spread each individual problem out, and I had to ping him every time I had done, since he didn't appear to watch the review page.
 * It is my unfortunate experience with this reviewer that made me wonder why Pyrotec was doing this. The most problematic part for me was that he was taking other articles and reviewing them before mine, as if mine was less important than other ones.
 * I'm happy for him to review this article, if he actually does review it sometime soon (i.e. let me know what to improve, or pass/fail it). There are plenty of reviewers out there, and marking the article as being reviewed when at most it's being copyedited a little occasionally isn't right in my view.  Majorly  talk  02:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There most certainly aren't "plenty of reviewers out there", but I'm not here to argue with you. As Nev1 said above, there's no reason to sit on your hands while you're waiting in any case. I had a look through the article earlier, and a few things occurred to me looking forwards to FAC. In fact it reminded me very much of the early versions of Sale, an article that Nev1 and I slaved over (him a lot more than me) through six FACs until we finally got it over the line. Anyway, obviously your choice. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if you would be so kind as to mention any improvements somewhere I'd be very grateful. You are probably right wrt reviewers, still, I think a reviewer ought to have a time limit of about a week to at least make some notes - I think it's uncaring to leave the nominator waiting. As I said, I don't know what to do on this until the review is done.
 * I did not intend to insult Pyrotec at all, but if he felt insulted by anything I said, then I apologise. I just want to get this article better.  Majorly  talk  03:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Would you prefer me to comment here or on the article's talk page? BTW, it won't be until tomorrow, so promise you won't get on my case if I'm a bit tardy. ;-)


 * Article talk page would be better. And it's 4:15 in the morning, we ought to be going to bed anyway :)  Majorly  talk  03:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As the GA review has started now, I'll wait until it's done before commenting on the article. Don't want to muddy the water. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure no insult was meant, if I thought there was I wouldn't have asked Pyrotec to reconsider reviewing the article. He's agreed to continue for now and has started raising points on the GA page. While he did review other articles at the same time as Cheadle Hulme, Radyr and the Haldane Reforms were already in the process of being reviewed before Cheadle Hulme, and Partington, Greater Manchester is half the size of Cheadle Hulme (28kb compared to 54kb) so I can understand why it was passed so much more quickly. And those were the only other reviews. Nev1 (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and thanks for all your assistance!  Majorly  talk  00:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Update on Chet
User talk:Coffee. لenna vecia  01:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Link request
Excuse me, and sorry to bother you, but I've been unsuccessfully trying to track down the discussion or final decision on meta whereby Jimmy Wales' administrator status was revoked, so that I can add a mention of it at Role_of_Jimmy_Wales. I seem to remember you being involved in the discussion, and so wonder if you knew where I might be able to find it. Regards, Skomorokh  17:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem - I'm busy being attacked by sockpuppets and wikigamers right now though, so I'm not in the mood to look. I'll have a search later, if that's OK.  Majorly  talk  17:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for that. Skomorokh  17:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See here.  Majorly  talk  18:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, thanks for your help. Skomorokh  20:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Please refrain from making personal attacks as you did here. I suggest you familiarize yourself with wp:agf. If you can't interact with other editors in a respectful manner, I suggest you find a new hobby. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you go away and familiarise yourself with the situation first. I also suggest you warn the editors who attacked me unprovoked instead. Or maybe just keeping out of it altogether.  Majorly  talk  18:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

And now I'm a sockpuppet?
I understand you're very upset about the DougsTech situation, but you're slinging insults all over the place is helping nobody. I am not a troll. I am not a sockpuppet. If I have to, I'll gladly submit to a checkuser to prove this is my only account here save one that I created to demonstrate a Wiki to someone. I can't even remember the name of that account, and all its edits were to its userspace and all deleted. If you'd like, I'll start a sockpuppet investigation on myself and save you the time. Would that be easier for you?

Failing that, knock it off. Go and do something productive. If you can't edit without insulting people and getting angry when people disagree with you, then just stop editing until you can. This is a collaborative environment. Start collaborating. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean like calling other editors "bastards?" Or maybe going around bitching and whining making bad faith accusations about Xeno is more to your liking. In a perfect world everyone would stop what they are doing to defend a troll, but oh well. Landon1980 (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think majorly needs a cool down block for personal attacks and harassment. But if I were to propose that, I would be a troll, right Majorly? --DougsTech (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Nobody needs a cool down block; they're against policy, and they don't work. I am not one of Majorly's biggest fans, but I nevertheless find this ganging up on his talk page to be distateful. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I find his continuing insistence to insult people left and right to be distasteful. Now he's claiming I'm a self admitted sockpuppet . Unreal. Unreal. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm only going off what's been said. Normal editors don't start off playing on Huggle as DougsTech did, or mass removing fair use images as you did. Normal editors write articles - perhaps Hammersoft and DougsTech should try it once in a while. DougsTech is a troll regardless of whether I am given a "cool down block" or not anyway. Feel free to propose it DougsTech. Just another thing to add to the list of things he's done to disrupt the workings of this project.
 * What is "unreal" - how much trolling and disruption is defended on this site under the guise of "dissent" and "right to opinion". I find your supporting disruption to Wikipedia processes to be distasteful. But apparently, I'm a bastard to even complain.  Majorly  talk  21:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I really can't let that awkward "his continuing insistence" go unremarked. User:Tony1 has a number of useful guidelines and exercises on his page that are well worth referring to; it should of course be "his continual insistence". I frequently disagree with Majorly, but I don't stomp around on his talk page, or waste my time with specious ANI reports, which are as likely to rebound as not. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, I offered to start a sock puppet investigation on me to assist you. Either accept that offer, start the investigation yourself, or shut the hell up with your accusations. I am sick to death of it. Put up, or shut up. NOW. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, how about no? Shut the hell up yourself, and go and do something useful.  Majorly  talk  13:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing personal attacks even after being warned
I've posted a discussion of your behavior at wp:an ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Transclusion-proofing user pages
Hey there - I just read the AN thread referenced above, and I wanted to point out that you can actively discourage transclusion of userspace pages if you want to (I do want to, which is how I know). To do so, you can just add this code to the top of whatever page you want to protect:

If someone does transclude a page with that code at the top, they'll just end up displaying a wikilink to the page they transcluded instead. For instance: is a transclusion of my userpage. Obviously this sort of kludge isn't something to use outside of userspace, but for issues like the one discussed in the AN thread, it will work. Hope this helps. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Bridge Hall
I don't know much about it TBH. Pretty much all I know is that it was a small manor house, finally cleared in the 1950s, and houses were put up around the site. Perhaps you could stick it in whichever article you think best, then if it gets to be a decent size it can be split off into its own article? Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wilmslow Road bus corridor
I may take a trip to the Central Library, look up some details on old tram routes, try and find out some more about the history. Would also be good to list some of the competitors post 1986 and what happened to them. Perhaps a table detailing buses per hour on each route would be in order, so that we can try and work out the overall frequency? Also, I might look into the possibility of a Stockport Road bus corridor for the 192, which Stagecoach reckon is the busiest single bus route in the country! Divy (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That'd be brilliant. I was hoping to work on Wilmslow Road, but could find nothing about it. Do you live locally by any chance? BTW I'm planning to create an article on the 192 route itself!  Majorly  talk  22:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah I see you're from Burnage. I assume you're familiar with the 50 service from Parrswood to Manchester along Kingsway?  Majorly  talk  22:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But of course - the 50 is my local route. No night service though, so I'm pretty familiar with Wilmslow Road bus corridor (plus a 15 minute walk)... Divy (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Bahahaha
Gosh, thanks for the tremendous vote of confidence. Do you really believe I'm in the habit of making things up?!? Friday (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And now we're on the same side in an RFA! What's going on?  Majorly  talk  15:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it should be quite clear. We're on the same side whenever you're right about something.  Friday (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

AfDs
I have never closed an AfD, ever, and I would not do so in the future. The point is academic. Everyking (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The point isn't academic as it exists to reflect your objection to consensus building. Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 16:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Objection? I'm not sure you understand my viewpoint&mdash;I'm opposed to admins making AfD closes against consensus based on their own opinions of the arguments. Everyking (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

BN
See crat board. We agree on something. — Rlevse • Talk  • 22:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * First Malleus, then Friday, now you :) Wow.  Majorly  talk  22:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI
Since you post at WR, you should know what kinds of statements on Wikipedia can get you called a "Nazi". -- Noroton (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Wilmslow Road bus corridor
== Wikipedia Signpost : 11 May 2009 ==


 * News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
 * Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

O_O
Majorwheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee....--Warpath (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Email
Email sent your way. Thanks. — R  2  19:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ping
Mike's offer might be helpful; thought I'd give you a poke. Ironholds (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I already got tickets.  Majorly  talk  15:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Belated thanks
Thank you very much for your work on, and GA review of, the York article last month. Your comments are appreciated.--Harkey (talk) 08:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)