Jump to content

User talk:Majorly/Archives/64

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Your comment on an RfA

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

Let me ask you a question. If you don't contribute to this encyclopedia, why do you care about who is or isn't an administrator, and what gives you the right to vote against those of us like Majorly who do? --Malleus Fatuorum 07:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not wish to start a flame war, but to answer your questions: a) I do contribute b) While I do care who is or is not an administrator, that was by no means the point of my question. My concern has to do with the fact that RfA (as most community discussions, I guess) are supposed to be open, and, as such, every legitimate user's vote (or !vote) should be counted c) I have not voted against anyone (?) but, according to the RfA page, I do have the right to do so. Wikipedia gives me that right, same as you or anyone else --In continente (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
It's important because users with minimal contributions tend to not be as familiar with rules/guidelines for admins. You might have been here a while, but you've barely made any contribution under your current name. It was just a note for the bureaucrat. Users with minimal edits stumbling across RfA is not the norm. Majorly talk 13:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm still very much puzzled. Were you implying that because I've "barely made any contribution under my current name" that my support or opposition shouldn't count towards achieving consensus? What was the bureaucrat's need to know? Forgive me, but I cannot think of any other reason why you felt compelled to point out my edit count. Thank you --In continente (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly right, yes. It helps to inform them if there is sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry going on by pointing out a) accounts with a low amount of contributions b) users returning from long wikibreaks to either support their friend or oppose their enemy. It's up to the bureaucrat to decide how much worth he will give to a vote. Likely, an account with fewer than 50 edits isn't going to get much attention, whereas a more veteran editor with a history of good judgement when it comes to picking admins will. Majorly talk 14:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Main Page redesign

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

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

Note

193.112.136.12 (talk · contribs) is a public computer, and should not be blocked for two years. I'm using that IP right now. This is the only page I can edit. Majorly talk 11:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've temporarily made you IP-block exempt, and will raise the matter with the blocking admin, as it said it was a checkuser block. Happy editing. BencherliteTalk 12:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Majorly, I have made the block anon-only. Can you clarify (by email?) whether this computer is publicly accessible or if it is on a dynamic range? Because that's quite a regular for Tile-Join. -- Luk talk 13:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

Don't revert and then say please stop edit warring.[1] It takes two, and I am done now that you raise the idea of edit warring. Jehochman Talk 14:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Good! Majorly talk 14:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you joking?

[2] ? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No. There are certainly more appropriate people who should be desysopped, for actually frequently abusing their position to gain an upper hand. Lara/GlassCobra are not among those people. Majorly talk 18:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
That's not addressing my question - you find Ottava's posts completely appropriate? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I find parts of them appropriate. Perhaps not completely. I can't exactly disagree with what he says on Jehochman, just having been on the receiving end of him. Majorly talk 18:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you redact that statement then, as Ottava certainly has a point regarding following procedure and keeping posts within ones own section, but as usual, he is also dragging in unrelated matters to complain about an editor he disagrees with. It would be best for Wikipedia if you didn't encourage him in a practice which has him in his own case before ArbCom as we speak; knowing the appropriate venue for voicing complaints is a skill OR sadly lacks. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Well done[3] sir. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Psst!

Don't let Fuchs get under your skin at Bramall's FAC, you're almost there. I'll try and take a look to see if I can help with any of the image licences, as I've had similar problems in the past. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The images are all perfectly acceptable, and this nitpicking is an excellent way of driving people away from FAC. Like the average reader will even click on the images to look at the descriptions... Majorly talk 21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree, but we content contributors stick with it. Great to see you're now working on content full time. :) ceranthor 21:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind people picking nits, but I do object to "this is junk" type comments, which is why I thought I'd just pop along. I know how I tend to react to such comments, and it ain't always pretty. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

DYK for Joseph Nash

Updated DYK query On October 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joseph Nash, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

≈ Chamal talk ¤ 06:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Bramhall Hall

I only just noticed that the article's been promoted to FA, very well done! It's great to see a fine article on such a nice place. Nev1 (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I also noticed Stockport government have redesigned their website so all the links there are broken. I'll have to search out the new ones. I sent them an email asking them to be more considerate and implement redirects instead of leaving ugly 404 pages. Majorly talk 21:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on your second featured article! The article looks excellent; great job. Acalamari 21:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Nice job Maj. MBisanz talk 18:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

GA review of David Proud

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

Please undelete File_talk:Tampa_meetup_Jimbo1.jpg

Please undelete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Tampa_meetup_Jimbo1.jpg. It's not (currently, anyway) an orphan and the image is used prominently at http://commons.wikimedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people and refers to thi deleted page. TIA! --Elvey (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

As I am not an admin, I cannot undelete. Please ask an admin. Majorly talk 23:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 Done (since it is just Jimbo confirming the license). MBisanz talk 23:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Matthew, Majorly talk 23:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
And thanks. Didn't notice your admin status had changed.--Elvey (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing
—Kww(talk) 18:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Reflists

Hey Majorly. I saw that you removed a couple of reflist templates from articles that didn't have any references. I try to include the template anyway since article should include and be based on reliable third party sources. As the articles are improved they should be added and I don't think it's any more intrusive than the templates posted at the top of pages. Do you mind if I add them back? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No - I do think that empty sections look a little odd though, but no big deal. Majorly talk 11:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm always hoping someone else will do the heavy lifting and add references. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Did I forget to thank you? ..

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 04:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

aboutmyarea

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

It's used in references of Cheadle Hulme railway station. Majorly talk 14:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I whitelisted those two links, but that a site is a reference somewhere is not a reason to de-blacklist the whole domain. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I had no idea how to selectively do things like that. Regards, Majorly talk 15:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC merge

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

It's fine. Majorly talk 18:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:David Proud/GA1

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

Done. Majorly talk 22:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

Trying to rationalise the arb questions

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

I see your first question is very similar to that of Camaron's first question. Would you consider dropping it? (He's already removed two of his.)

I'm not seeing how it's similar... could you elaborate? Majorly talk 13:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Your second question does appear to be a fait accomplis: "Do you feel that it is important the community tries to resolve issues before arbcom step in?" I wonder who would answer "no". There is text to this effect at ArbCom hearings pages, anyway. We're trying to retain only the most probing questions, and with respect, this does not appear to be one of them.

Actually, there have been cases where arbcom have deemed the situation serious enough to take on the case without any formal dispute resolution first. I'd be interested in their thoughts on when this situation might apply. I think it's a relevant question. Majorly talk 13:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The admin question, "Would you consider taking a case where it is clear, for example, that an admin has lost community trust, but has had no RfC, attempts at resolving the issue etc?" seems to lack the kind of details that arbs would need to resolve it. Would it be possible, somehow, to conflate it with your final question, which really does expose candidates to scrutiny as to how they would behave on the Committee: "Would you say that arbcom are/should be too tough/too soft on editors who frequently flout community norms?" Tony (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This I can agree with, but again, it's kind of linked to the second question regarding following process. (I have found at times that some arbitrators seem to consider process more important than actually solving real issues). Majorly talk 13:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I think many people will not understand the intention behind your second question. The organisers may decide to ask more formally, after 8 November, for a single question from each user. That is when the crunch time for rationalising was hinted at. Do you want to raise the matter on the discussion page? I forgot to insert (Camaron's) "first question" above, which concerns the power and scope of ArbCom. I see that you've changed your first of four questions to "In your opinion, how important is the dispute resolution process?". They both appear to be asking "Is it worth having an ArbCom"/"How important is ArbCom's process". I thought I saw an opportunity for rationalisation. Tony (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Mine is more about the process prior to Arbcom proceedings, rather than during cases. If it's causing issues, I'll just ask each one individually. Majorly talk 14:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a debate going on at the Questions talk page. Tony (talk) 10:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Majorly: I've conflated one of your questions with one of Cameron's; they seemed very connected, even though his is framed a little more in terms of inter-wiki. Please revert if you don't like it; it's here. Tony (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Majorly/Archives/64&oldid=1091522549"