User talk:Majorly/Archives/5

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)

Tangents, etc.

In response to Moulton's large addition. (— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cbrown1023 (talk) )

This wasn't in response to any posting in particular, actually. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 12:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Majorly, they're doing fine on Wikiversity... more than fine, actually, now that tempers seem to have subsided and they're creating content. In the future, a gentle suggestion that a group like this might be more appropriate there might make things a bit easier for the WV custodians (=admins). Ping me on IRC channels if you have questions.

Moulton, please give it a rest for a while. The learning resource that you, WAS, et al are making on wv is actually quite good, and you might have better luck coming back to things like this after establishing a bit of a positive track record (not a few days, but at least a couple months). Right now you're screaming at deaf ears, and this can only serve to annoy the heck out of people. Relax. Teach. Learn. It's all good. :-). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 20:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Johnny, Majorly has already buried the hatchet, it's Moulton who keeps bringing it up... :-) Cbrown1023 talk 00:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

May I ask if there is any interest here in the process of civil dispute resolution? Several of us took exception to the strong-arm tactics of Majorly and Cbrown, and sought to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution and clarification of the Meta-Wiki policies and practices going forward. But rather than forthrightly addressing the issues in a professional and responsible manner, Majorly adopted a perplexingly defensive posture and Cbrown has twice^[1][2] attempted to sweep it all under the rug, as if our concerns are of little meaning, importance, or consequence. I'd frankly prefer to resolve fundamental issues in a timely manner, on the turf in which they arise. Failing that, long-festering issues are likely to become the subject of ongoing action research within the framework of the Wikiversity Learning Project on Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia. —Moulton 08:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"Sweep under the rug" implies that there is unfinished business that I am trying to hide... I did what we normally do with controversial things that have reached solutions, no need to continue things if there was a satisfactory resolution. Give it a break, work on your information at Wikiversity. Cbrown1023 talk 13:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If it were true that the core issues of ethical management have been satisfactorily resolved, there would be no need to take them up as urgent items of action research in a learning project at Wikiversity. —Moulton 14:05, 17 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)

User talk:Kylu#October 2008?

I realized that my answer wasn't quite...informative. :D

While I think the whole confirmation process is a bit irritating and should be done as few times per year as often, I've got a bit of a conflict of interest regarding the October 2009 confirmations, since I'm one of the admins to be confirmed.

A different confirmation and I'd be happy to just be bold and all that... or, failing that, I could just go for RfA again on here and if I get to stay an admin/'crat, then be bold, or something, but I really...really dislike the idea of pushing a change that would benefit me first. It goes against my ideas of wikidom. :)

If others not on that confirmation are willing, that's cool though. Thanks for noticing though. :) Kylu 01:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop.

Don't follow from discussion to discussion, wiki to mailing list, to separate wiki just to strike down my ideas and discussion. I'm getting rather annoyed by it. Lets agree to stay away from each other if that is permissible to you. Cordially, NonvocalScream 20:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting rather annoyed by your irritating behaviour, on multiple wikis and in other places. You stay away from me. Majorly ^talk 20:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I can do that. I'm glad we come to this agreement. Thank you. NonvocalScream 20:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you do that

I need this template, have the green, why I can't put the yellow? You are god? Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 01:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a template for pure decorative purposes, so really isn't required on Meta. You can request it be undeleted if you liked, on M:RFD. Majorly ^talk 10:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comments

Your latest snipe at the Board Elections Committee ("I wonder if the other temps are done yet? They've not made a single edit since the RFA where they "needed" admin tools") is ill-informed and wrong. If you look at my contributions you'll see I've made 10 edits, including adding a full vote dump and all the statistics I could generate from the data. I suggest that if you have some sort of problem with those of us who got onto the committee, then take a step back and don't let it get in the way of an otherwise friendly relationship. And yes, I'm now done with my temporary adminship; you can remove it. - Mark 01:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I only looked at KTC's edits (who requested in the first place). Who says I have anything against you? This isn't personal - I simply don't see it necessary to have adminship for 6 months for an election that takes place in significantly less time, especially when you aren't even using the rights. Majorly ^talk 02:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So I requested temp adminship back at the time because it wasn't finished, because of it, members (it turned out not to be me) were able to add things to it that they were otherwise not able to, is there a problem with that? Admittedly, I didn't managed to add some extra things that I had planned, but that doesn't mean the initial removal wasn't too soon. And yes, I just hadn't got round to requesting removal because I've been busy in real life. KTC 02:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that adminship was requested, which in my opinion wasn't really needed. And in the end, as you note, it wasn't. I would have objected to the 6 month temporary adminship term, since the election doesn't last nearly that long. As I say, this isn't the slightest bit personal, but simply that I feel adminship on this wiki, especially temporary adminship should be for a very good reason, and good use should be made of it. Majorly ^talk 02:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was needed. As was stated at the time by other editors, one cannot guarantee that other members of the committee who were admin will carry out the tasks needed, and so it turned out, they were carried out by one of the temporary admin who got the bit back after my request. So it wasn't me personally, doesn't make the request I made invalid. Anyhow, there's still things one can add to that result page, that I had planned, but don't have time to do. You have adminship, why don't you go an add it? KTC 02:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What page is it? It'll be fine to unprotect now. Majorly ^talk 02:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd removal

Majorly,

Why did you do this? You seem to be suggesting that those who have already expressed an interest in a bid should be discouraged from moving forwards unless they have a bid page up. As someone involved in a particular bid, it doesn't look very good. :-)

James F. (talk) 06:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Red links in the template just look ugly to me. It's not difficult to create a basic empty page so at least the link is blue. Majorly ^talk 12:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverts

Just caught up with my talk page history - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Main Page

Check out talk, it already got vandalated. :) rootology (T) 01:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Taggings

Replied at my talk page. Duly noted, I won't blank again when tagging, thanks for the advice. Also as an aside, thank you for deleting those pages. Cheers, Cirt 00:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Metapub archival

[3] - It appears some of these threads were still active/ongoing discussions - is there a replacement place for them or a notice for potential confused users? Cirt (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be useful if you could find such discussions and readd them to the page. Cheers, Majorly ^talk 20:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, will do that a little bit later. Cirt (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I moved 9 threads back to Metapub that looked like they were still active (all had comments from August 08) feel free to move stuff around if you think differently. Cirt (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WM UK v2.0 board

Hi! Thanks for volunteering for the Wikimedia UK v2.0 board. We've made a page for candidate statements, so please add yours here, and sign the declaration (it's quite long and scary-looking, I know, but being on a board is a serious thing!). The proposed deadline for statements is 13 September, but we'll make a final deadline soon. Good luck! --Tango 02:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I won't be running, sadly. I'm far too stressed and busy to have a position of responsibility like that, as much as I'd love to. I'm still very much interested in being part of the process though. Majorly ^talk 14:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

They'll be plenty to do for people not on the board, I'm sure! Best of luck with the real world. --Tango 14:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Not an encyclopedia

When the template was created,it had the image. The image was later removed without discussion. Continued removal of it must be discussed. XxJoshuaxX 01:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why must it be discussed, that is ridiculous, it was not discussed to include it in the first place either. Please there are really more important matters, stop bugging people about that, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 01:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why must it be discussed? To prevent edit wars. There was no need to discuss its inclusion;the person who created the template included the image when they created it,and there was no discussion to remove it. Way to go abusing your admin powers,Spacebirdy. XxJoshuaxX 01:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please help me...

I am being tracked down on here by someone who refuses to go away. I have not once posted to his Talk page, and I have asked that he stop communication with me, but he just keeps posting to my Talk page, as well as stalking my posts to other editors. Majorly, would you do me a kind favor and delete all of the edits on my Talk page that include and immediately follow this one? Perhaps if you do it, he will get the message that it's not welcome any more. -- Thekohser 02:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't you just revert it? Deleting it isn't really appropriate. If he posts again, I'll leave him a message. Majorly ^talk 02:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have already asked him via e-mail and publicly NOT to focus his attention on me any more, but he persists, SPECIFICALLY on my Talk page. I will go ahead and delete it myself, but I suspect that just eggs him on even more. I'll appreciate your back-up when he does re-pollute my page with hate about my family and about my supposed need to seek psychiatric evaluation. (It would seem that this sort of personal attacking wouldn't be permitted on a Wikimedia project, especially one where I am productively contributing.) -- Thekohser 03:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright Greg, I'm going to lay this out one last time: You post or mention me one more time, I will request a block. Between your personal attacks, harassment, legal threats, trolling, forum-shopping, and your history which I documented, the case will be solid. One more time Greg, and that's the next step, is presenting everything I wrote as evidence for you to be blocked on Meta. It's an open-and-shut case. This is the last warning. --David Shankbone 03:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome

I've been editing here since February 2005, albeit intermittently, so I guess some sort of welcome at some point would have been appropriate. Probably would have had more of an impact in 2005, but better late than never, I suppose. Jayjg 05:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I welcome all editors I have seen around that have a red talk page. Majorly ^talk 13:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

O.K., thanks. Jayjg 03:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

more pages

OK - thank you,--10caart 08:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, can you take a look if I did well? Thanks. It looks loke I have unintentinally offended Comet in some way: could please take a look at this too, starting from my user talk page? Thankd. Bests, --10caart 09:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK 2.0 Voting is open :-)

A warm hello to all those signed up as guarantor members of the soon-to-be-rebooted UK chapter! Voting is now open over at meta - there's tons of information online over there, and the mailing list has been very active too. Discussion, comment (and even the inevitable technical gremlins!) are most welcome at the meta pages, otherwise please do send in your vote/s, and tell a friend about the chapter too :-) Privatemusings 22:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)I'm not actually involved in the election workings, and am just dropping these notes in to help try and spread the word :-) I welcome any or all comment too, but 'election related' stuff really is better suited to the meta pages :-)

Thanks...

for keeping an eye on my talk page -- that was a former enwiki user who has been harassing me on multiple projects. --Jpgordon 04:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Welcome

Thanks Majorly for the welcome! Kennedy 20:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

WM:RFD#No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man

As the subject of the deletion request has been modified in response to your comment, you may wish to consider re-visiting the deletion discussion and updating said comment.

Specifically, the page history for the English version of the page has been imported. Kylu 18:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

rename account

I would like to rename my account to a new name; "Niduzzi", as my current name ("Izzudin") is already in use in id: and ar: by others. So I can't unify my account. Thanks! Izzudin 05:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Done Majorly ^talk 15:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Harassment Issues from the English Wikipedia

I am having problems with two admin, and they are very harassing, absolutely stalking us under Internet Protocol 12.210.198.245. These people think that we are trolls, but it is untrue and unfounded. We are college students from Wisconsin near the Minnesota State borders near Winona. We wouldn't troll-trolling is creating messages just for provoking attention and making someone get into emotion-based responses: rather we are really unsafe whatsoever on English Wikipedia due to this stalking. Everybody inside our group are getting harassed also and recently one editing confidant from our group decided to represent legal threats on 12.210.198.245 because of how frightening the harassment has gotten and it's making us angry. Before our returning to English Wikipedia (August 2011 at earliest), please tell us how to deal with the stalking or with harassing from admins. We fear our safety on the Wikipedia may wind up damaged or highly compromised because of the harassments.

Editors Anonymous 16:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I can't help you. Try contacting ArbCom or the admins that blocked you. Majorly ^talk 16:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Roger Davies

I didn't do Roger Davies. It's been over 8 hours already. LMK when you think the alleged COI issue is outweighed by the very real need to just get the job done, ok? IIRC you were among the voices asking that the new arbcom members get engaged immediately. ++Lar: t/c 06:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

8 hours? Goodness me. I suppose since there's what, 30 something checkusers on enwiki, it's suddenly urgent we need Roger Davies made one is it? I can remember you telling me off for being too quick on certain actions - why don't you take your own advice here? What's the hurry exactly, that makes it so someone who took part in the election has to press the switch at the end? If he still hasn't been done at the end of the day, I'll bug a steward on IRC. Majorly ^talk 08:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd again remind you that you wanted the new Arbs to take up the mantle ASAP. CU isn't just about running checks, it's also about access to the log. Please go find another steward on IRC to get Roger turned on. I would, but then I suppose you'd accuse me of a COI about that too. It's now been over 18 hours according to my math. Kylu is right, we should write into policy that this sort of thing is explicitly NOT a COI. ++Lar: t/c 14:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess I decided to take the risk. I found guillom who took care of it. ++Lar: t/c 16:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Risk? What risk would that be? What could I possibly do, even if you did change his rights? Perhaps you should just ignore my polite note, and continue changing rights on your home project. Majorly ^talk 19:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The risk of you giving me even more of a hard time about it. Which I see you have. ++Lar: t/c 23:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about that. Majorly ^talk 23:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's ok, don't worry about it. You do have a point about the COI but I felt the benefit far outweighted it. And if we get policy changed, then perhaps it will be clear that it's not even an appearance of it. Which seems goodness to me. ++Lar: t/c 00:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

WMUK 2.0 Page Move

Heya, could you do me a favour and move Wikimedia UK v2.0 to Wikimedia UK (which is currently a link to Wikimedia UK v1.0 and Wikimedia UK v2.0, with an empty history), now we're the official chapter. It would be good to preserve the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page history. Thanks. --cfp 16:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Done Majorly ^talk 16:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Great thanks. --cfp 16:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrat "keeps"

I've answered here. Thank you. --M/ 20:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Steward confirmation

Hello,

I added a statement. Regards, Yann 21:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Your fix

Thank you. -- Avi 02:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Now, can you fix that first oppose? I have a hunch that there is something "majorly" wrong with it -- Avi 15:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry. You simply don't have the experience for this role. Majorly ^talk 15:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

'twas an attempt at humor; the quotes and smiley face should have given it away. 8-) -- Avi 17:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my sense of humour must have been switched off :) Listen, get more experience in steward areas and cross-wiki work, and I'll happily support you next time. Best, Majorly ^talk 18:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)