User talk:Majorly/Archives/64

Your comment on an RfA
Hello. The other day on Steve Crossin's RfA you noted that I had "minimal contributions". I'd like to know why that was of any importance. According to the RfA page, "Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, but IPs are unable to place a numerical (#) vote". On that same page, it is also stated that "Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets.". Not only is it obvious that I did not use an IP, but if you check my details, you'll notice that my account is almost two years old (older than the candidate's), so it is not exactly new. My reasoning was well argued and more extensive than most others supporting Steve. There is nothing on the page that even suggests that people with "minimal contributions" are not allowed to voice their opinions or that their support (or opposition) should not be counted. I'd like to know why you saw it necessary to point this out. Thank you --In continente (talk) 06:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me ask you a question. If you don't contribute to this encyclopedia, why do you care about who is or isn't an administrator, and what gives you the right to vote against those of us like Majorly who do? --Malleus Fatuorum 07:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not wish to start a flame war, but to answer your questions: a) I do contribute b) While I do care who is or is not an administrator, that was by no means the point of my question. My concern has to do with the fact that RfA (as most community discussions, I guess) are supposed to be open, and, as such, every legitimate user's vote (or !vote) should be counted c) I have not voted against anyone (?) but, according to the RfA page, I do have the right to do so. Wikipedia gives me that right, same as you or anyone else --In continente (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's important because users with minimal contributions tend to not be as familiar with rules/guidelines for admins. You might have been here a while, but you've barely made any contribution under your current name. It was just a note for the bureaucrat. Users with minimal edits stumbling across RfA is not the norm.  Majorly  talk  13:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still very much puzzled. Were you implying that because I've "barely made any contribution under my current name" that my support or opposition shouldn't count towards achieving consensus? What was the bureaucrat's need to know? Forgive me, but I cannot think of any other reason why you felt compelled to point out my edit count. Thank you --In continente (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's exactly right, yes. It helps to inform them if there is sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry going on by pointing out a) accounts with a low amount of contributions b) users returning from long wikibreaks to either support their friend or oppose their enemy. It's up to the bureaucrat to decide how much worth he will give to a vote. Likely, an account with fewer than 50 edits isn't going to get much attention, whereas a more veteran editor with a history of good judgement when it comes to picking admins will.  Majorly  talk  14:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Main Page redesign
Hii Majorly. I saw your discussion yesterday on Talk:Main Page and wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of the situation; I decided not to further fuel the fire there, but if you would like to collaborate on a proposal again in future I would be thrilled to work with you. Best, --P retzels Talk! 15:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

 * Opinion essay: White Barbarian
 * Localisation improvements: LocalisationUpdate has gone live
 * Office hours: Sue Gardner answers questions from community
 * News and notes: Vibber resigns, Staff office hours, Flagged Revs, new research and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Stunting of growth, Polanski protected and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Note
is a public computer, and should not be blocked for two years. I'm using that IP right now. This is the only page I can edit.  Majorly  talk  11:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've temporarily made you IP-block exempt, and will raise the matter with the blocking admin, as it said it was a checkuser block. Happy editing. BencherliteTalk 12:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Majorly, I have made the block anon-only. Can you clarify (by email?) whether this computer is publicly accessible or if it is on a dynamic range? Because that's quite a regular for Tile-Join. -- Luk  talk 13:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
Don't revert and then say please stop edit warring. It takes two, and I am done now that you raise the idea of edit warring. Jehochman Talk 14:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good!  Majorly  talk  14:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you joking?
? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 18:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No. There are certainly more appropriate people who should be desysopped, for actually frequently abusing their position to gain an upper hand. Lara/GlassCobra are not among those people.  Majorly  talk  18:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not addressing my question - you find Ottava's posts completely appropriate? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I find parts of them appropriate. Perhaps not completely. I can't exactly disagree with what he says on Jehochman, just having been on the receiving end of him.  Majorly  talk  18:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you redact that statement then, as Ottava certainly has a point regarding following procedure and keeping posts within ones own section, but as usual, he is also dragging in unrelated matters to complain about an editor he disagrees with. It would be best for Wikipedia if you didn't encourage him in a practice which has him in his own case before ArbCom as we speak; knowing the appropriate venue for voicing complaints is a skill OR sadly lacks. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 18:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done sir. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 19:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Psst!
Don't let Fuchs get under your skin at Bramall's FAC, you're almost there. I'll try and take a look to see if I can help with any of the image licences, as I've had similar problems in the past. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The images are all perfectly acceptable, and this nitpicking is an excellent way of driving people away from FAC. Like the average reader will even click on the images to look at the descriptions...  Majorly  talk  21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd agree, but we content contributors stick with it. Great to see you're now working on content full time. :)  ceran  thor 21:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't mind people picking nits, but I do object to "this is junk" type comments, which is why I thought I'd just pop along. I know how I tend to react to such comments, and it ain't always pretty. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

 * New talk pages: LiquidThreads in Beta
 * Sockpuppet scandal: The Law affair
 * News and notes: Article Incubator, Wikipedians take Manhattan, new features in testing, and much more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia used by UN, strange AFDs, iPhone reality
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: New developments at the Military history WikiProject
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Bramhall Hall
I only just noticed that the article's been promoted to FA, very well done! It's great to see a fine article on such a nice place. Nev1 (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I also noticed Stockport government have redesigned their website so all the links there are broken. I'll have to search out the new ones. I sent them an email asking them to be more considerate and implement redirects instead of leaving ugly 404 pages.  Majorly  talk  21:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on your second featured article! The article looks excellent; great job. Acalamari 21:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice job Maj.  MBisanz  talk 18:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

 * From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
 * Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
 * Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
 * News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
 * Dispatches: Sounds
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

GA review of David Proud
Hi! This article was placed on hold at WP:GAN by you back on September 2. The last comment in the GA review was on September 8. GA reviews should really not take longer than about 2-3 weeks, so if you could wrap this up in the next day or two, that would be appreciated! Thanks! Dr. Cash (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please undelete File_talk:Tampa_meetup_Jimbo1.jpg
Please undelete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Tampa_meetup_Jimbo1.jpg. It's not (currently, anyway) an orphan and the image is used prominently at http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people and refers to thi deleted page. TIA! --Elvey (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I am not an admin, I cannot undelete. Please ask an admin.  Majorly  talk  23:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ (since it is just Jimbo confirming the license).  MBisanz  talk 23:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Matthew,  Majorly  talk  23:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And thanks. Didn't notice your admin status had changed.--Elvey (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
 * In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

RFA spam

 * &mdash;Kww(talk) 18:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Reflists
Hey Majorly. I saw that you removed a couple of reflist templates from articles that didn't have any references. I try to include the template anyway since article should include and be based on reliable third party sources. As the articles are improved they should be added and I don't think it's any more intrusive than the templates posted at the top of pages. Do you mind if I add them back? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No - I do think that empty sections look a little odd though, but no big deal.  Majorly  talk  11:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm always hoping someone else will do the heavy lifting and add references. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interview: Interview with John Blossom
 * News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
 * In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

aboutmyarea
Hi Majorly. Apparently you asked User:Prodego to remove aboutmyarea.co.uk from the blacklist (diff) in May of this year. That removal resulted that the original problem again restarted, upon which I re-blacklisted it this week. As generally removals are requested and discussed, and I can't find any discussion for this removal, may I ask why you wanted this link removed? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's used in references of Cheadle Hulme railway station.  Majorly  talk  14:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I whitelisted those two links, but that a site is a reference somewhere is not a reason to de-blacklist the whole domain. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I had no idea how to selectively do things like that. Regards,  Majorly  talk  15:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC merge
Yes, I was actually just about to ask you about that! I tweaked it a bit further... How's it look? --Elonka 18:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's fine.  Majorly  talk  18:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:David Proud/GA1
Hey. Whenever you have a minute, either pass or fail the article. The writer hasn't edited in over a month, so unless you've talked with him no need to keep it on hold. Wizardman 21:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.  Majorly  talk  22:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Trying to rationalise the arb questions
Hi Majorly, I'm listed as an assistant to the electoral process. We're trying to slim down the General Questions, given the gigantic and often messy process last year, and the fact that voters will have to sift through lots of GQs (still 32, down from 44) times the number of candidates, plus the individual questions.

I see your first question is very similar to that of Camaron's first question. Would you consider dropping it? (He's already removed two of his.)
 * I'm not seeing how it's similar... could you elaborate?  Majorly  talk  13:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Your second question does appear to be a fait accomplis: "Do you feel that it is important the community tries to resolve issues before arbcom step in?" I wonder who would answer "no". There is text to this effect at ArbCom hearings pages, anyway. We're trying to retain only the most probing questions, and with respect, this does not appear to be one of them.
 * Actually, there have been cases where arbcom have deemed the situation serious enough to take on the case without any formal dispute resolution first. I'd be interested in their thoughts on when this situation might apply. I think it's a relevant question.  Majorly  talk  13:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The admin question, "Would you consider taking a case where it is clear, for example, that an admin has lost community trust, but has had no RfC, attempts at resolving the issue etc?" seems to lack the kind of details that arbs would need to resolve it. Would it be possible, somehow, to conflate it with your final question, which really does expose candidates to scrutiny as to how they would behave on the Committee: "Would you say that arbcom are/should be too tough/too soft on editors who frequently flout community norms?" Tony  (talk)  12:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This I can agree with, but again, it's kind of linked to the second question regarding following process. (I have found at times that some arbitrators seem to consider process more important than actually solving real issues).  Majorly  talk  13:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think many people will not understand the intention behind your second question. The organisers may decide to ask more formally, after 8 November, for a single question from each user. That is when the crunch time for rationalising was hinted at. Do you want to raise the matter on the discussion page? I forgot to insert (Camaron's) "first question" above, which concerns the power and scope of ArbCom. I see that you've changed your first of four questions to "In your opinion, how important is the dispute resolution process?". They both appear to be asking "Is it worth having an ArbCom"/"How important is ArbCom's process". I thought I saw an opportunity for rationalisation.  Tony   (talk)  13:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mine is more about the process prior to Arbcom proceedings, rather than during cases. If it's causing issues, I'll just ask each one individually.  Majorly  talk  14:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a debate going on at the Questions talk page. Tony   (talk)  10:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Majorly: I've conflated one of your questions with one of Cameron's; they seemed very connected, even though his is framed a little more in terms of inter-wiki. Please revert if you don't like it; it's here. Tony   (talk)  13:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine - thanks for assisting with this.  Majorly  talk  17:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)