User talk:Majorly

Welcome to Majorly's talk page.

    MAJORLY

Guidelines

I have ended all participation with Wikimedia, so will not be replying to any further messages left here. Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page by starting a new thread, using a descriptive header. Is your comment missing? It's probably in my archives. I will normally answer on this page.

Archives

1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6

---

Wikipedia mascot

Hi, just wondering why you think that there's no need for protection to this page. I archived it in this edit, on April 3, 2006. Despite that, there were nearly 40 vote edits after that. Seeing that there's no formal request or need for a mascot, wouldn't it make sense to lock this down? -- Zanimum 14:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Rename

Hi, i'd like to be renamed to Texcarson. I have already been renamed on the spanish wikipedia, commons, and i'm waiting for it to happen on the english wikipedia, here, the simple wikipedia, and the italian wikipedia to avoid problems with the new login system. Thanks in advance Raffaello9 16:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[1] Raffaello9 16:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Done Majorly (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Your input would be awesome

... if you get a chance, can you pop by Requests for comments/Meta-wiki suffrage in regards to local elections and the talk page? Kylu took the bull by the horns. Your voice carries a lot of weight here. Thanks in advance. ++Lar: t/c 21:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, but I don't think anyone agrees with my ideas. Majorly (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and you'd be surprised. ++Lar: t/c 13:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

bract

I have submitted a bug request here. Once this has been done, I intend to promote any admin (with the exception of temporary admins) who asks me for rights, as long as they have been an admin for more than a month. Majorly (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

so, can you promote me? I'm a sysop here from January 2007 ;-) --.snoopy.  18:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Only once it's possible to demote as well. When it's been set, I'll set your rights. Majorly (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Message

Hope you're OK and all is well... AP aka --Kelsington 19:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Blacklist

please ensure you log any entry to the blacklist & ensure there is a pointer to where the request was made (using a permanent link) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot

It edits its own userspace, and is useful for counter spam. Thanks for flagging it, really did not think it would be a problem. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 22:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Response

mw:User talk:Kylu. Will not look on this page for a reply. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA removal

I realise it is not "serious" however I have just mailed the CU list with a link to the piece you removed as it is a cross wiki issue. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Majorly (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much!

For your prompt name change! --Vlad 16:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I might as well put this in the same header. Thanks for changing my name, and for the welcome thereafter! 21655 ^{ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ?} 16:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Planet Wikimedia feeds

I saw your request to restrict to only have posts that have the Wikipedia label included. See my request, I wasn't sure how to do feeds by labels but there is an explanation given further up the page, which links to this help. Maybe you might want to suggest the URL to them the way I did. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 23:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Welcome to Meta!

I'm a bureaucrat here. Would you like me to usurp Ryan for you? :) Majorly (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's not too much of a problem, why not? :) ~ <RyGuy>Me/You</RyGuy> 18:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, wasn't expecting you to be quite that quick about it, but thanks. :) Ryan 18:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Log

When you log something it needs to say who put the entry into the blacklist & why - preferably with a link to some discussion/request in a permanent link format. As a number of the regulars have pointed out to people recently it really does make for far more work if we cannot find out why when an appeal arrives --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There are several without any details at all, and I simply followed that format. The request was on IRC, so there's no diff. Majorly (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Point to any without diff this year - I can see none (probably last year too). Bear in mind that they are grouped - there is a header with the admin name & rationale then the listed sites unless they are singles. I assure you without rationale it would be removed by someone on appeal in due course. In the past with that sort of request someone has made the request after the listing to enable it to be the logged.

For any appeal (& really before any listing other than emergencies) much more info is required. How many wikis are affected? Static/changing IP? What warnings have been given? Are local users reverting the link? Etc. By listing a site here you are blocking it from something approaching 30,000 wikis - we really do need to be able to justify it with real facts.

It is fine that you are helping - however please do actually follow the format used by all the others who help. If not you will be making life much less easy for those who have to deal with appeals, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously my posting on that list is not about you - I mean that. By all means help - if we need to fix stuff to make it easier then we must do that. And I don't think any of us have had any instructions in using the page/log etc. The fact that something is "well known" now does not mean it will be to those around in 6/12 months time.

You are someone with a good brain & good cross wiki experience - do help & if you don't know what to do ask - it has been the same for all of us.

As to how many you are affecting see take a look at A. B.'s comments here. I must stress this is not about you - I had that typed before you came on line & I realised that you didn't understand the system - I do hope you can see that --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I know what to do now, so hopefully won't make any more errors. Majorly (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Appreciate the quick response. Enigma 22:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for welcoming me!

I can't wait to see what I can do to help! --Gp75motorsports 00:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Terima kasih

Hai, terima kasih banyak!
Hi, thanks a lot! ~REX^{••talk••} 06:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot flag

Thanks for giving Erwin85Bot a bot flag. I checked the bot policy and decided to use a high throttle and not apply for a bot flag, because I only just created the bot account and this will probably be a one time run. I'd have expected that getting a bot flag would have been quite troublesome, but I guess you've proven me wrong. Thanks. --Erwin(85) 16:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not difficult for non-controversial stuff. If it's a one time run, I can remove it again. Just say when. Thanks. Majorly ^talk 16:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It'll probably be finished in two hours. As far as I'm concerned you don't have to remove it though. It's up to you. I'd be happy to apply for a flag if I do run it again, but if removing is not necessary it would be fine by me to leave it as is. --Erwin(85) 16:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikibooks Logo Copyright Issues

Could you take a look at Wikibooks/Logo/Proposal/D. The majority of the images there are copyright violations based on this image. I would also argue that the image Image:Wikibooks simple book3.svg that just got deleted is not a copyright violation. I created it myself and it is significantly different from the original copyrighted work. Thanks --Ezra Katz 02:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I restored it. If another user disagrees they can take it to M:RFD. Thanks, Majorly ^talk 02:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Meta:Deletion policy

Hi Majorly,

Could you please explain me why you undid this edit? What do you consider a "bad, bad idea"—my revert, the sentence itself, or the fact that this change should be discussed first, as I explained in the edit summary? Thanks, Korg 19:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The sentence itself. There's no way someone should be desysopped for one deletion. Please discuss *before* you add it. Thanks. Majorly ^talk 19:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Policies are built by the community, so changes to them (except minor or non-controversial ones) should also reflect the opinion of the community if they are implemented. You seem to misread this sentence, it doesn't say "someone should be desysopped for one deletion". Obviously, this wouldn't be the case (except under exceptional circumstances). Rather, if an administrator misuses the tools, for example if they repeatedly delete pages that don't fall under criteria for speedy deletion, they may be desysopped, either after a community discussion, or through the regular process of confirmation.

Maybe this sentence should be reworded, or even removed, but not without the assent of the community. Please consider readding it. The discussion you opened on the talk page will be the occasion to review it. Thanks, Korg 10:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've readded this sentence, primarily because I don't think this change reflects consensus, but also to see the sentence in context when discussing it. Please comment at Meta talk:Deletion policy#Administrators section. Thank you, Korg 16:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Korg, you added the sentence without any consensus. There's no point in having it there. I'm removing it again. Majorly ^talk 17:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven't added this sentence in the first place (please check the edit history: it was added to this page in 2005, and it was discussed before). Maybe I'm mistaken, but my understanding is if the change doesn't reflect consensus, then it should be discussed with a wider audience before its implementation. Why did you remove this sentence without seeking consensus? Korg 18:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No sysop will ever be desysopped for "lack of respect" for a policy, unless it's a foundation one. The current page reflects current practice. Having it state people will be desysopped is both wrong and pointless, as Pathoschild says, there are regular confirmations. Majorly ^talk 18:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. A sysop can be desysopped for abusing the tools, obviously; if the concerns are serious, a discussion could be opened without waiting the confirmation time, even if it hasn't been the case till now. That said, I understand the points you and Pathoschild raised. Best regards, Korg 15:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucratship

What's the deal? At Meta talk:Requests for adminship#Radical idea, you seem to generally feel that most Meta admins should be bureaucrats. Andre (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That was a while ago now, and just an idea. We now prefer bureaucrats to be very active admins. Majorly ^talk 00:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you comment on my latest comments in the discussion on the request? Andre (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hum

You may wish to follow up this one a little. Or not - I found it "different" --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you mean? Majorly ^talk 17:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Shall we say I found some things odd. You may wish to try some names here. I have no idea what (if anything) is going on - like I said I just found it odd. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Similar message for Durova?

You'll be leaving a similar message for Durova, I presume? Or, do you figure she won't heed it like I did, anyway? -- Thekohser 15:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't think her latest edits are becoming problematic. I'm not condoning her (I haven't even read the blog), but arguing about it on here is silly, and leaving unnecessary messages to Angela doesn't really help the situation. Whether it's on Planet Wikimedia or not, it'll still exist. All she has done here is revert you, which I don't think requires any kind of message. Any issues you have with her or her blog, please take elsewhere. Cheers, Majorly ^talk 15:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have. I just spoke on the phone with a Lutheran pastor in Texas who has interacted with Durova on Wikipedia a few times, and he suggested that I just ignore her. He agreed that if she wants to keep escalating her personal attacks against me, that will just make her look like she's flaming out bitterly, at least to those who take the time to see that I really didn't provoke her in the first place. She generated an imaginary libel about me back in February 2007, before I had ever butted heads with her, and that's what got this whole thing rolling. I think she's incapable of apologizing. I've dismantled the CafePress store, per her request -- and immediately, I might add. Time to take the high road, as it were. Thanks for your advice, too! -- Thekohser 15:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Meta:Huggle

Hi. Would you mind explaining why you deleted Meta:Huggle? Without it, edits made with Huggle on this wiki leave a red link, and it seems odd to have a collection of subpages without a parent page explaining what they are actually for. If you're wondering why Huggle pages exist on this wiki at all; first, it has been requested that Huggle be made usable on this project, and it requires certain subpages to be present in order to function, and second, in order that supporting a new project does not entail releasing a whole new version, a Wikimedia-wide configuration page incorporating a list of projects needs to be maintained; Meta seems the logical place to do this. Thanks -- Gurch 18:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Huggle is not really suitable for Meta. The recent changes goes so slowly it would not be feasable for it to be used. Additionally, edits made on this project may be considered as vandalism when they aren't, due to the multilanguages used here and confusion occurs. Anti-vandal tools are useful on content projects with fast moving recent changes, but not really for this project.

If you need a Wikimedia-wide page, it would be better to put Huggle in the mainspace here. Meta: space is for this project's discussions, and mainspace is for stuff that affects globally. Cheers, Majorly ^talk 19:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin criteria

Is it worth another stab at this? I agree with you that the 100 edits or whatever is plain misleading. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think the only criteria should be that the user is an admin on another project. If the user is familiar enough with Meta they'll know that they'd need probably at least 200 edits to really have a good chance of passing. If they aren't and request, well, we'll oppose because they'll be unfamiliar. Having a number makes it seem like there's a target to get to, then immediately request once you've reached the target. That isn't really what adminship is about imo. Majorly ^talk 11:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely - worth trying to get a thread going again with no minimum count? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol... have a look at the RfA talk page... I assumed you'd seen it :) Majorly ^talk 11:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My bad - I saw the comment on the RfA & agreed. Gone to look at the other & comment. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with you far too much today :) Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess you will see it but

Just in case cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Temporary adminships

Please see Meta:Requests_for_adminship/KTC... I plan to shortly restore these temporary adminships unless a compelling reason not to do so, or a clear consensus not to do so, arises. The original agreement was for them to last until mid september. The election is not yet over, there is still work they need to do. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 05:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The election is quite obviously over, we know who won... as I said, there are four of them with adminship already. Where are they? Majorly ^talk 06:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. We know that often in committees, a smaller subset of people do the actual work... in this case, the three without permanent adminship have stated they have been carrying out most of the tasks and are now hampered. It is not our place to enforce on a committee that they need to get their members to do the work. We agreed to grant temporary adminship until the work of the committee is done. It's not done. They still have work to do, there is material that needs posting, detailed results and the like, that hasn't been posted. I would ask you as a personal favor not to try to force this committee to do things a certain way, but allow them to be unencumbered. ++Lar: t/c 15:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the election is over, the pages should be unprotected. There is basically no need for adminship other than the sake of "they asked for it, and we granted it for six months". As I said on the page, six months is excessive. I won't revert against consensus, but I really feel six months is a really long time - I seriously don't think people will be interested in the results next month, let alone September. Majorly ^talk 16:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Your message

Yes, I am Paris Hilton. But I can't add the link to my homepage due to the blasted spam blacklist!!

Oh, and I have edited my article on Wikipedia (y'know, the one with en.wikipedia as the address..) a fair few times, but you wouldn't know it until now... look through the history there. --Paris Hilton 20:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• You probably didn't know that I edited my article as an IP address a lot of the time, and got away with it. But I'll be editing it again in no time... --Paris Hilton 20:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Locking Moulton's talk page

I see that you locked User_talk:Moulton. It might be a good idea to discuss this on Babel to make sure there is community consensus for that action. I'm not exactly a fan of his, but from what I saw, other users in good standing seemed to be participating there amicably, and the discussion does seem to at least tangentially related to the Meta mission. ++Lar: t/c 11:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Lar, as an admin, I am free to make my own decisions. Should we be discussing every block, every delete we make as well, to make sure there's community consensus? Some things are of course bigger than that (e.g. adminship) and require a larger amount of agreement, but this isn't, not even close. All these two users have done is socialised. Meta-Wiki is not for socialising. They are free to use email or other means to talk, but when it's all they do on this wiki, I find it quite out of order. We are obviously not a social-networking site, so any user that treats it as such will be prevented from doing so. I haven't blocked them; I have simply locked the page for an indefinite amount of time until they can understand that what they are doing is inappropriate. There is no need to discuss everything. We'd never get anything done with that attitude. Moulton has seen the protection log, and has already moved to Wikiversity (again, another inappropriate place, but that's not my business). Majorly ^talk 14:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. While your point about not always discussing everything in advance is valid, I evaluated that page and I do not see the several users participating there as socializing. Rather, they are discussing matters that relate to how things are done on WMF projects, which seems quite in scope for Meta to me. I would ask you to overturn your decision, or if you still feel it is correct but it's now a decision that you know at least one other admin disagrees with, take it to some appropriate forum here on Meta for further discussion. I'm open to whatever venue you think best fits. Talking through this is the way to go. Moving to Wikiversity is also not the way to go. Better to get this resolved here, because if the community consensus here is that it's inappropriate here, it's certainly not likely to be appropriate there. ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I stand by what I did; you can take it to whatever forum you like and see what others think. Majorly ^talk 15:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

See Meta:Babel#Locking_of_Moulton.27s__talk_page... please advise if that's not worded neutrally enough. I think getting precedent established will be of benefit. ++Lar: t/c 15:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for your efforts to help various WikiMedia projects. Whether or not that discussion was appropriate for this project, Wikiversity is a better place for that discussion, so we will continue our efforts to improve WikiMedia projects from there. Thanks again. WAS 4.250 17:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Lar here. It might do us all good if you overturn yourself. Respectfully, NonvocalScream 17:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for unlocking my talk page. The interrupted discussion that WAS and I were having here on the Future of Wikipedia has since moved to Wikiversity, and has further evolved into a Wikiversity Learning Project on the Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia. Please feel free to participate there. —Moulton 17:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Unresolved Issues

These are the unresolved issues left dangling when Cbrown1023 prematurely closed the conversation at Meta:Babel.

Prediction of Dire "Effects"

I think it's fair to say that WAS and I were gobsmacked to find our discussion about The Future of Wikipedia summarily shut down, without warning and without prior discussion of applicable policy. I also think it's fair to say that Lar and NonvocalScream were perplexed and dismayed, as well. In any event we understand that our conversations are not welcome here, and we have moved our work to Wikiversity, where we find a more collegial, congenial, and receptive culture. —Moulton 18:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, leave off the hyperboles Moulton, it's not going to have any effect on anything except yourself. Have fun on Wikiversity. I stand by the protection. Majorly ^talk 18:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)::

Would you care to disclose the "effects" you have in mind? —Moulton 01:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

@Moulton: using hyperboles in your comments will only impress an English language examiner. People here prefer to listen to facts, rather than exaggerated emotions. Perhaps it was a mistaken protection, but I have reversed myself, and there is no need to be so upset about it. Majorly ^talk 10:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If I had disclosed my emotions with neither amplification nor attenuation, they would have been far more scathing than the substantially attenuated version I posted here. —Moulton 05:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection

• Majorly; If you stand by your protection, even after a few good editors on the meta wiki and other projects brought to your attention your error... and you continue to stand by your protection. I think it may be time for you to reconsider your tenure as an administrator here on the meta wiki. If you do not see your error and you are averse to change that is. Best, NonvocalScream 05:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't an error. Thanks for your opinion, but I don't believe it was. I'd never resign over something like this anyway, you're making a massive deal over one little thing. I've worked hard on this project for over a year and a half now, and I'll thank you, you of all people, not to ask me to stand down over one action, which wasn't even wrong. Okay, people disagreed, but there's no policy or guideline regarding this. Since people didn't like it, I reversed myself. Why are you still going on about it? Do you enjoy making drama over nothing? If you do, I'd rather not be involved. Majorly ^talk 10:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is no applicable policy or guideline, then the conversation that WAS and I were engaged in could hardly have been in violation. It occurs to me that people are entitled to be informed by an administrator that there is an applicable policy or guideline before taking summary enforcement action. I simply don't understand the practice of summary enforcement, without notice, of a non-existent policy or guideline. —Moulton 05:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, perhaps it was a mistaken protection. I was within my rights to protect it, and perhaps it was the wrong thing to do. I do find, however, the comments from Moulton and Scream most inappropriate. Moulton, you should not get so upset about this. It's a talk page. I didn't block you. And I reversed the page once it seemed most people disagreed with me. Using hyperboles will get you nowhere here though. Scream, asking me to stand down over this is frankly ridiculous. I'm honestly shocked you'd ask me to. I'm not going to, but I think you should rethink some of the things you say and do before commenting on others. Anyway, I apologise for the fuss that has been caused here. As I said, I have worked hard here for over 18 months now, and I'm in the top 12 most active admins. I was at one point the most active bureaucrat, before I suggested that every admin could share the work. I've done a lot of good work here, and I'm pretty surprised you'd even bring up resigning. I'd rather not go there. Majorly ^talk 10:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Majorly, I have an unalienable God-given right to have emotions, especially the emotional state associated with unjust treatment (namely indignation). You are fortunate that I attenuated my expression of those emotions. I daresay most people would not be so patient or restrained in the expression of justifiable indignation at such outrageously unjust treatment. —Moulton 05:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahh I'm in agreement with Majorly here and very soon I would have locked that page myself because a couple other admins do disagree with Moulton and WAS4.250 is doing on meta, this isn't their Personal Blog or Forum and people like them are not welcomed here or on any other wiki, Meta doesn't discriminate, i.e people blocked on enwiki or another bigger wiki are not necessarily blocked here but if they continue to do what they were banned in another wiki for doing, they will be blocked for disruption and NonvocalScream, I really didn't expect you to make such a harsh comment against Majorly and asking him to resign...and probably this is the reason why we do things differently here, I'm not sure who these "few good editors" are since apart from Moulton/WAS, the only other editor to comment here is Giggy. We probably will be updating our policies in the coming weeks regarding everything and hopefully get rid of all the trash we have ;) ...--Cometstyles 12:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have taken note of your uncongeniality. But I am curious to know the name of the class of "people like them." Is there a dictionary word that names the class of people you have in mind? —Moulton 05:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I really have to agree with both Majorly and Comets here. Also, it seems this thread is over. Cbrown1023 talk 13:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I regret that you closed the thread before the discussion was over. The issues won't go away by prematurely closing a discussion, erasing the closing comments of the aggrieved parties, and rapidly sweeping it under the rug. —Moulton 17:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Venue

Yeah I think the town hall is certainly the most promising single venue. There's a possibility though that the break-out rooms will be too small or too strangely laid out though for them to be appropriate, so I think it's worth while keeping Exam schools in consideration for that. You were right to delete the Sheldonian and the Playhouse since the town hall's main hall is certainly more suitable than either of them. --cfp 18:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)