User talk:Majorly/Archives/4

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Has any consensus been reached regarding User:Aphaia yet? ~Kylu (u|t) 07:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, some time ago. Majorly (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More specifically, despite Anthere's comment, the consensus among active 'crats, including Anthere, was that the reconfirmation failed. Aphaia has accepted a temporary adminship here to continue the work she does. That means we will have to deal with this again, potentially. There was a minor question about whether her permissions should be turned off and turned back on or if that was needless process. By default we seem to have come to the second conclusion. I'll say that on the page as well. ++Lar: t/c 14:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

+ sysop[edit]

Thanks. I'll read our policies and guidelines. And I add my name on template. Have a nice day, too! Alex Pereira falaê 17:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, it's me![edit]

Hello! I was wondering where the best place to get started would be. Is there something specific the wiki needs done? I don't really speak another language (I can use babelfish and have someone proof-read if necessary), but I want to help out. Justin(u) 23:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Watch recent changes for vandalism. Copyedit pages. Make new ones. Create templates. Vote on some RfDs. Vote on some RfAs. Vote on some Proposals for closing projects. There's loads more too. Majorly (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I'll get started! Justin(u) 23:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And thanks for the welcome :) Justin(u) 23:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the review[edit]

Appreciate you updating the template to mark the other 'crats and CUs etc... I had not realised it was that far out of whack. ++Lar: t/c 16:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. I had been meaning to add the other rights for a while, but hadn't got round to it, so thanks for reminding me! :) Majorly (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which do you think looks better? indented or not? Cbrown1023 talk 17:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indented is better, because otherwise it's way too crowded in the middle area. Majorly (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree, indented. That also makes the box narrower. ++Lar: t/c 21:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

deleted Image: "FeldPost 6 1945.png"[edit]

Hello Majorly..... In November 2007 I had uploaded a picture of a world warII US leaflet Image: "FeldPost 6 1945.png" on the Wikimedia Commons. I was not sure whats the correct copyright status of this leaflet is. So I try it with the "U.S. government work" tag. I am the owner of this leaflet and had scanned is by my self. It is in my opinion an important historical document and it is incomprehensible to me why no experienced users can find a usable correction of the copyright tag. So I ask you for any idea to make this file "delete-resistant"? thank you for your help and excuse me of my bad English .... i grow up in the France-sector of berlin....;o)) 18:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)PilsomReply[reply]

Please leave me a message over on Commons, thanks. This is my talk page for Meta-wiki. Majorly (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

[1] Raffaello9 16:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done Majorly (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your input would be awesome[edit]

... 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)Reply[reply]

Done, but I don't think anyone agrees with my ideas. Majorly (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, and you'd be surprised. ++Lar: t/c 13:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]


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


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)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]


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

RfA removal[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Majorly (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much![edit]

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

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)Reply[reply]

Planet Wikimedia feeds[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Re: Welcome to Meta![edit]

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

If it's not too much of a problem, why not? :) ~ <RyGuy>Me/You</RyGuy> 18:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heh, wasn't expecting you to be quite that quick about it, but thanks. :) Ryan 18:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

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


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

Thanks for welcoming me![edit]

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

Terima kasih[edit]

Hai, terima kasih banyak!
Hi, thanks a lot! ~REX••talk•• 06:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot flag[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Wikibooks Logo Copyright Issues[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

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


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)Reply[reply]

How do you mean? Majorly talk 17:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Similar message for Durova?[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Admin criteria[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
I agree completely - worth trying to get a thread going again with no minimum count? --Herby talk thyme 11:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lol... have a look at the RfA talk page... I assumed you'd seen it :) Majorly talk 11:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

I'm agreeing with you far too much today :) Cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess you will see it but[edit]

Just in case cheers --Herby talk thyme 18:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Temporary adminships[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

RE: Your message[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

  • 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)Reply[reply]