User talk:Majorly/Archives/66

RfA Thanks
  My RFA →→→    Dear Majorly, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind vote on my request for adminship which failed with a final result of (40/19/12).

Thank you for your participation in my RfA which I withdrew after concerns of my knowledge of policy. Special thanks are owed to Coffee, who defended me throughout and whom I cannot thank enough for the nomination; to 2over0 for being supportive and helpful; to A Stop at Willoughby for the thorough, thoughtful and articulate support rationale; to IP69.226.103.13 for maintaining composure and for a pleasant interaction on my talk page and, last but not least, to Juliancolton who was good enough to close the RfA at my request and, frankly, because an editor whom I respect so much found the time to support me! If the need for more admins at the main page is still apparent in a few months, I may try again. Thank you all for a relatively drama-free RfA and for providing me with much material from which to learn from my mistakes. You're all welcome to drop by my talk page any time. God save the Queen Wiki! HJMitchell  You rang?   19:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

RfB comments
At SoWhy's RfB you said "I am adamantly opposed to any editor who is clearly inclusionist-inclined to receiving further privs." and I responded with "Wow. Just wow. Next time anyone claims that "inclusionists are playing politics at XXXX" I'm going to point them to this." which you felt was sarcastic. Your later comments clear things up a bit, but really and truly I was shocked that anyone, let alone you, would say such a thing. Read literally, which I assume you meant, it indicates you'd !vote against all inclusionists at RfA and RfB. Basically, I'm trying to say I meant exactly what I said. I was shocked and surprised that an admin I respect (though often disagree with) would support such a notion, let alone make the claim out of the blue at an RfB. Hobit (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does read like that. But, I wouldn't. What the big issue for me is the way in which SoWhy (and others) vote at RFA, opposing people over making minor mistakes at CSD - nitpicking at best. I find this a fundemental misunderstanding of what adminship is about. Admins are not perfect and all make mistakes - indeed, many taggings are endorsed by admins, and simply disagreed with by SoWhy, and others. I feel inclusionism seriously damages Wikipedia. I don't define myself as anything, certainly not a deletionist. I take every article I see on its merits with an open mind. I certainly do not come in with the attitude of "keep unless it doesn't exist" or "delete not notable". I take a stance based on the article's merits. Deletionists aren't particularly great either, but at least if a mistake is made the article can be undeleted. When an article is kept and it's a complete mess, it simply makes Wikipedia look amateur.
 * My biggest gripe is inclusionists opposing over minor issues at RFA, and SoWhy happens to be one of them. I have never seen deletionists do anything like this. A Nobody is another editor who opposes based on minor mistaggings (often from up to a year before). The world won't end if an article doesn't exist for a little while if it's deleted and later decided it was a mistake to do so.
 * So to clear things up, I would probably oppose any editor who frequently opposes people based on minor mistaggings of things (CSD, UAA, AIV etc) because mistakes are allowed and admins aren't always right anyway. With regards to the sarcasm comments, I considered the "Wow. Just wow." comment to be, but it seems I was wrong. Also, I'm not an admin.  Majorly  talk  22:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I'd always thought you were an admin (and take that as a complement btw as you certainly seem to know what you are doing). My view is that getting lots of taggings wrong recently is a bad thing for anyone who plans on working on CSD or XfD, but having a better track record in the last few months (high 90% or so not being blatantly wrong) is plenty.  In any case, I largely disagree with you it seems, but I appreciate your clarifications and comments. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was an admin, so it's not really a compliment, but thanks all the same. Yes, getting lots of taggings wrong is bad, and I'd oppose for that. It's when hardly any mistakes are made, out of thousands of correct ones, and the candidate is opposed, that is the issue. It's happened.  Majorly  talk  22:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Figured out the admin thing after I commented. Sorry about that.  Hobit (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Such as plagiarism, copyvios, hoaxes, libel etc, all the kind of thing which inclusionists bend over backwards to "save". I'm sorry but judging by the copyvio angle, that argument doesn't stand. Discovering a that an article at AfD contains a copyvio is generally a slam-dunk for deletion, as the speedy G12 puts an immediate end to the proceeding. Somehow implying that any particular wiki-philosophy is to blame for copyvios is, IMO, a mistake.

That being said, the best way to forge yourself an opinion you can back up is of course direct observation. As it happens, WP:SCV and WP:CCI are massively backlogged and could definitely benefit from your assistance, even if only for the purpose of verifying your above claims. Cheers, MLauba (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Inclusionism and "rubbish"
I don't want to further clutter the RFB with off-topic discussion but you are right: Keeping things for the sake of having them is not a good thing and those who do simply argue to keep everything without a policy-based reason to do so are no better than those that propose to delete anything they think should go. It's a fine line and you seem to be more on the deletionist side of it while I'm more on the inclusionist side. But all wikiphilosophies are only helpful as long as you follow them with common sense on your side - just like you won't propose France for deletion, I won't argue to keep Some MySpace band or Some copyvio just for the sake of having it. Regards  So Why  22:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed - at least you are not Kmweber who voted to keep everything that exists... and you are right, I probably am on the deletionist side more, as I tend to believe "better safe [deleted] that sorry". We are constantly adding new articles and improving existing ones, so in my opinion, the lack of an article isn't that big a deal especially when we have several million already. We have our differences, and it's just a shame I feel so strongly about your RFA opposition votes because I have found you are generally fair, thoughtful, hardworking etc though we rarely agree. I just don't think minor quibbles (as I think they are) are worth opposing somebody over. Obviously, someone with a horrendous track record should be opposed, and I have certainly opposed such people in the past. But a few little mistakes in several thousand tags is not worth it in my view.  Majorly  talk  22:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I know this will sound like I'm trying to sway you - but I agree with you. It all comes done to whether those mistaggings are mistakes or whether the candidate has not grasped the policy in question. I am all for supporting people who just made a mistake and I have supported and neutral-ed a number of such candidates even when others opposed them for it (Requests for adminship/Kingpin13 for example). We may have our differences when it comes to handling certain things but it's not as if we really disagree on everything. We may just phrase our position differently :-) Regards  So Why  23:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wythenshawe
Greetings. Explain 'english'... in wot way tis our re-rite ov sed articul rong ? ! O, de de-tayuls b rite ! ROBERT TAGGART (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Standard English is what I mean. Listen, I think you genuinely want to improve articles, but you're doing so in a way that's contradictory to norms here.  Majorly  talk  16:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

we just had an edit conflict
at Justice. You got it done first. Thanks. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed section Gps2sms
I saw you removed the article, which by all means should be possible under certain circumstances. I googled for the name gps2sms and that name wasn't covered by just one guy or website, there's 2800 google hits, referring to different websites. So although the audience might be limited, it's still a legal word worth explaining. If you agree I can write the article as neutral as you'd like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.210.249.81 (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Rubber duckie
Good find! Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 05:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

RfA
Good nomination, imo, User:Floquenbeam. I really like his/her editing style, and think this user would make a good example for adminship on wikipedia. -- IP69.226.103.13   |   Talk about me.   02:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You haven't supported.  Majorly  talk  02:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Put it in the wrong place. -- IP69.226.103.13   |   Talk about me.   05:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Who gives a fuck about RfA? It's just (largely unnecessary) jobs for the (usually teenage) boys. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Who gives a fuck? You do, for one. It seems you give enough of a fuck to comment on my comments on it in two different places. -- IP69.226.103.13   |   Talk about me.   05:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I care about stupidity, not about RfA ... on reflection I think I begin to see what you're getting at. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Majorly! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Steve Wilson (presenter) -

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your nomination, and for your support. I hadn't really thought this through enough to realize that your honesty was going to be called into question, and I regret that. You have my deepest appreciation. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't worry. It's something I'm used to. It went very well, all things considered. Wikipedians are a very suspicious bunch, and often assume that because someone is hiding something it must be bad. Luckily most people managed to give us the benefit of the doubt. Have fun with your new tools!  Majorly  talk  19:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Already used ✅ twice on WP:ERRORS. This is kinda fun (so far). --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well done
Hello mate, just read all the crap on the Baby P page, God, you guys have your work cut out. Just thought amongst all the flaming and trolling you might appreciate someone saying Well Done and keep up the good work! Captain deathbeard (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Subway restaurant article
Regarding the Subway article image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Subway_restaurant_world_locations_Updated.PNG), India has 156 branches so it should be coloured cyan and not green. I am writing on your personal talkpage since you deleted the image discussion page earlier. Thanks Lilaac (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion for List of English monarchs
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of English monarchs, has been proposed for a move to another title. If you are interested in the move discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Goustien (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Block on simplewiki
I see from your Simple English Wikipedia user page that you are the person responsible for blocking my account there as an alleged sock-puppet of an apparently disruptive user Snow Funn at tall. Since I have never edited Simple I can't imagine what grounds you could have had for accepting the blatant falsehood, now plastered on my user page there, that my account had any connection with the person responsible for the activities of Snow Funn at tall.

I have only just become aware of this block because I used the toolserver to check the numbers of my contributions to various Wikimedia projects. As you can no doubt imagine, I was well and truly cheesed off to discover that my account on Simple had been blocked, apparenty on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, and without any effort being made to warn me that anyone had suspected me of being a sock puppet of another user. Since I only rarely visit Simple, I do realise that I might not have seen a note left on my talk page there for quite some time, but since you appear to have a global Wikiprojects account yourself, it might have occurred to you that I did so too (as, in fact, I do).

While I currently have no intention of contributing to Simple, I would neveretheless appreciate it if you would please:
 * unblock my account there, with a note in the block log to indicate that the original block was made in error; and
 * remove the blatantly false sockpuppet template from my user page there.

Thank you. David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * On checking your status on Simple I see you are no longer an administrator there. That unfortunately leaves me in a rather awkward position, since I am unable to post an unblock request anywhere on Simple without violating its rules on block evasion, and I'd prefer not to do that. I would therefore appreciate it if you would post a request to unblock my account on the administrator's noticeboard/incidents there.  For your convenience I include a draft of a suitable request:
 * In July last year I blocked the account of user David J Wilson as an alleged sock puppet of Snow Funn at tall. Editor David J Wilson on English Wikipedia has left a note on my talk page there maintaing that the Simple Wikipedia account is his, denying that he is a sock puppet of Snow Fun at tall, and asking me to post this request to:
 * unblock his account on Simple; and
 * include a note in the block log indicating that the original block was made in error.
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As Majorly is no longer active, I took the liberty of stepping in. David, your account has been unblocked . You are now able to remove the sockpuppet tag yourself, and I recommend linking to this thread here. Nev1 (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for that. Griffinofwales has now deleted my user page, so there's nothing now that remains to be done.
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 23:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to point out that two users on there, Dave "Snow Funn" Wilson and another were caught socking. -- B s a d o w s k i 1   09:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is that relevant? "David Wilson" is an extremely common name, especially among males around my age. When I created my Wikipedia acount I had to choose the username "David J Wilson" because "David Wilson" was already taken.  I'm afraid I don't see how the fact that some disruptive user had adopted the user name "Dave "Snow Funn" Wilson" suggests any connection at all with my account.
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

RfA stats
Hi,

I wanted to get info on RfAs, so I was told to look in your userspace; I saw User:Majorly/RfA/Stats but it doesn't have 2010. So, I started making it - User:Chzz/RfA/Stats/2010.

I couldn't see any way to fully automate gathering the stats, so I've been filling them in by hand, pretty much; is this a valid approach? Is it worthwhile me continuing with it?

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  10:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Harassment from user: Badger Drink
Hello. I believe I have been subject to unwarranted harassment and hateful spite attacks by a user who you've banned before for something similar. If you have time, would you mind checking the discussion, which (in part) revolves around his abusive notations regarding his edits on the Stonehenge page with regard to a photograph I had added to that entry. He his NOW harassing me on MY user page, and his latest addition to his entry: Stones, henges, userpages, and photographs is nothing less than a hateful and cheap-shot at a religious origination he apparently despises which has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion on the talk page. (oops... forgot to sign) --Mactographer (talk) 08:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Manchester wikimeet - would you be interested?
Hey. I'm proposing a Manchester wikimeet on 24 April - would you be interested in coming along? Mike Peel (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BBC Spider.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:BBC Spider.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Manchester wikimeet in June
Hello. The next Manchester wikimeet will be sometime in June (date TBD) - would you be interested in coming? See Meetup/Manchester 8 for details. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Your dislike of Talkback
I made this template a while ago, and never found anyone to use it on, until now. --43?9enter ☭msg★contribs 06:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Hello,. Your no-talkback demand is constantly ignored.

You will [ remove talkback notices] every time by removing the Talkback or Tb template. They will never stop.

Birmingham Meet up
See here. Late notice I know, please make a note on that page not here. Please pass this on. This will happen. Victuallers (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review for Pope John Paul II
Hi Mayorly, I was wondering whether you'd be interested in this? Kind Regards -- Marek

Just to let you know
I have mentioned you at Missing Wikipedians Ottawahitech (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy message from WikiProject Transport
Hi there Majorly. You are registered with WikiProject Buses and we are cleaning out our list of members. As you have not contributed to any page for over a year we have removed you as inactive. If you still want to participate in the project, just go back and add yourself again. Thank you.  Rcsprinter  (natter)  @ 18:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)