User talk:Majorly

Welcome to Majorly's talk page.

    MAJORLY

Guidelines

I have ended all participation with Wikipedia, 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. Please note that the talkback template is officially banned on this page! :) So don't use it here; I watch your talk if I've left you a note. Thanks!

Archives

1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 • 23 • 24 • 25 • 26 • 27 • 28 • 29 • 30 • 31 • 32 • 33 • 34 • 35 • 36 • 37 • 38 • 39 • 40 • 41 • 42 • 43 • 44 • 45 • 46 • 47 • 48 • 49 • 50 • 51 • 52 • 53 • 54 • 55 • 56 • 57 • 58 • 59 • 60 • 61 • 62 • 63 • 64 • 65 • 66 • 67 • 68 • 69 • 70 All

---

Wikipedia:Username policy allows some Wiki* usernames

FYI: User:Wikiusername123 is actually legal now, but Wikipediauser123 isn't. It's only when they try to mispresent themselves as an official at a Wikimedia-project that a violation has occurred, but since you've blocked already, it's up to you whether you want to AGF or not. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm interesting. If he/she shows any interest in being unblocked, I will, otherwise it's probably best to leave. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

Will this protect my talk page, too? HalfShadow 23:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, only your userpage. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that out. I've never done this before. HalfShadow 23:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Lisa Daniels

Can you move-protect the article? It got moved to POS News Reporters and then the text was copied back to Lisa Daniels, so the history is all messed up. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

All done :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've never seen a stub article get 10 edits of vandalism in one minute... The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Signature

I've finally gotten my signature problem 1/3 of the way solved!!  ~Steptrip 01:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Still five lines long :D Majorly _{(o rly?)} 01:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Eau Rouge corner

Hi. The way I read it, the proposal was to merge and redirect Eau Rouge corner to Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps. You seem to have carried out the redirect, but not the merge. Have I understood correctly? 4u1e 23 March 2007, 13:51

I said that a user which knowledge of the subject to merge it. There's too much information to add it all, so I wouldn't know what to do, so yes you understood. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah - didn't see your comment on the AfD page, and of course once the pages are merged, it's not straightforward to link back there, or to fish the information to be merged out again. Thanks for taking the time to do the redirect. Cheers. 4u1e 18:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Hey, thank you very much for your semi-protect! It's really appreciated. I was just wondering though, can you make it a semiprotect2 so that it just has the lock at the upper right (the message at the top is kind of distracting)? This is how it was before. Thank you lots again!UberCryxic 17:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Saw you already did :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Page protection notice on WP:ATT

A number of the administrators who were involved in the edit war that lead to the page being locked are continuing to remove the {{pageprotected}} notice. I have significant issues with the fact that the current notice supported by these editors in no way mentions that "protection is not an endorsement of the current revision". I'd appreaciate your (further) thoughts over at WT:ATT and/or WP:RFPP. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Since I don't want to edit war over this, and as I'm an outside party, I'd rather I kept away from discussing. I don't have an opinion on it either way. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the only three people who are currently able and interested in editing the page all happen to be on the same side of a large debate. The protection has rendered us plebes impotent. We can discuss all we want, but unless a neutral admin steps in at at least says something it's unlikely anything will happen. If you don't want to get involved, at least help us find another, neutral admin who does. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 00:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed it back. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 01:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you be willing to put {{Disputedpolicy}} or {{Proposed}} on it? Just looking at Wikipedia talk:Attribution, Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion and Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll, there is clearly a dispute as to its status. I could do it myself but I am hardly neutral. --Henrygb 02:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done Majorly _{(o rly?)} 02:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You cannot do that, Majorly. See my comment below. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT

WP:ATT is policy since Feb 15 2007. The challenge by Jimbo was not about its status as policy, but about the merger of other policies into it. ATT, V, RS and NOR have been protected while the community is discussing the level of consensus for the change in policy structure. If you want to challenge the protection, do so. But please do not edit pages that have been protected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the same can be said for yourself :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 03:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's also highly inappropriate for you to be editing the page, as it appears you are part of the dispute. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 03:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Jimbo has explicitly indicated that for the time being, "WP:ATT is canonical, and WP:V and WP:NOR exist as separate pages to more fully describe those" [1], and he personally tagged WP:NOR and WP:V to explain this [2]/[3]. —David Levy 03:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin???

Hi Majorly, thank you for offering to nominate me for adminship, and I appreciate your confidence in my abilities. I did think it over, but ultimately feel it would be a bit premature given that I've been very active only since December. The general standards applied at RfA seem to expect candidates to have a little more experience and proven dedication. For now, I plan to continue contributing without sysop perms :-) -SpuriousQ (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

How to delete a recreated deleted article?

Hey. Earlier this month, you closed an AFD case. The article has been recreated and so, I tried to renominate the article for deletion again. However, renominating the page through normal procedure leads to the old closed AFD case. So, my question is, how do I nominate the article for deletion, given the circumstance? __earth ^(Talk) 09:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it already got deleted again. If this should happen again, and the page isn't significantly different to before, you can tag it with {{db-repost}} which will alert admins to delete it again. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty. Thanks. __earth ^(Talk) 03:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected?

On which basis did you unprotect these policy/guidelines pages? No longer needed? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested on WP:RFPP.

3 days is enough.

There was no edit warring.

Involved admins (incl. yourself) keep editing the page.

It didn't really need protection in the first place.

I unprotected just one page as well. I notice you continue to edit the protected pages, despite being part of the dispute. I'm trying my hardest to stay neutral here, but I'm struggling to find a basis for it staying protected. Also see this. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a substantial discussion on V, RS, NOR and ATT, as requested by Jimbo. There are users attemting to change policy in the midst of the discussions. That is not good. Several admins have agreed to the protection. I have re-protected it. I have not edited these protected pages, beyond adding an explanation for the protection. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer not to comment in SMcCandlish's behavior over the last few days. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There are several users who disagree to this. Notice you just reverted my action? WP:WW. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Re. Thanks

Frustrated vandals, don't we just love them when they come back for more... :-) You're welcome. Regards, Húsönd 02:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Disputed policy tag

Thank you very much for restoring the disputed policy tag to WP:ATT. Unfortunately, user Jossi removed it again, saying that the status as policy is not disputed. The status as policy is very much disputed. There is a poll being prepared to ask about the status of this page; the very existence of the poll indicates that the status is disputed. I consider user Jossi to be too heavily involved in the whole thing for it to be proper for the user to edit the page while it's protected, though possibly this is arguable. I believe Jossi was one of the main developers of the page (I'm not quite sure about that) but certainly has been heavily involved in editing the poll questions. I would appreciate it if you would re-restore the disputed tag.

Merge tags on WP:V and WP:NOR, and a proper, complete merge tag on WP:RS, are also needed. Thanks for what you've done already and thanks in advance for future such actions if any! (Edit conflict; user Jossi would not have seen this paragraph before replying.) --Coppertwig 18:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you give it a break, please? There is a new tag added to WP:ATT that clearly explains the status of that page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Jossi seems to have sorted that out fine... If I added it back, it'll only get removed again, by involved users no doubt, and I don't want to edit war over a tag I don't particularly cared about. I suggest WP:RFPP, where an uninvolved admin can take a look. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

RFPP was rejected. Can we stop quibbling about a tag and let the debate about ATT unfold unencumbered by that minutiae? It will be much appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Coppertwig, there's not much I can do, for reasons above. I'm already too involved with it, and I feel uncomfortable having to do these requests. You'll have to find another admin to. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible image dispute

Hello there, I'm really just looking for a second opinion and/or clarification on what do do next.

My trouble is with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lesnar_Hogan.jpg

User:I Shook Up The Pedia keeps adding it to Hulk Hogan. I have asked User:I Shook Up The Pedia about the image and the user has claimed on their talk page that it is indeed their image from an event. However, while I want to assume good faith, I cannot fail to think the image is in fact from a WWE photographer and therefore copyrighted.

I don't normally get invovled with image disputes, but this one keeps being added to the page and I just wanted to know where to go from here.

Thanks in advance Gretnagod 21:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Try to find the original image. If you cannot, you'll have to assume it is indeed their image. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Will do, thanks Gretnagod 22:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Username reports at AIV

Damn, when I started watching new usernames, I had no idea reporting policy and practice was so contentious. Anyway, think I'll move on to something else...enforcing this policy just isn't worth the drama :) RJASE1 ^Talk 22:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Aww but you were so good at it :( Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark Conner

Whilst disappointed with the outcome (many people voted early and didn't review the page for its subsequent improvements), I understand it. However, I wonder if you could please give me a copy of the final page? I'd like to maintain it and extend it, so that if/when something does happen to support notability, I don't have to rewrite it from scratch :-) Thanks! Natebailey 04:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I put it into a subpage in your userspace here. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 10:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hope all goes well

Thank you very much. I hope everything goes smoothly. I'll be in touch with you after I get back. =) Nishkid64 13:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 13	26 March 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Tardiness, volunteers, RSS
Patrick and Wool resign in office shakeup	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Board resolutions, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

DRV notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/No longer identified. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Otto4711 14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As you decided that the close was in error, you could have restored and relisted the article, and closed the deletion review. Since you choose not, to, I have. Even when a deletion decision is under review, deletion review precedent is to always let the original admin change their mind. If anyone wants to challenge that change, we'd need a new review, so the old review is closed. GRBerry 12:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, thanks for that. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Good decision

I think this was a very good decision of yours, particularly because it was kind to the editor. -- Jreferee 14:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The use of Template:oldafdfull and Template:oldafdmulti

Dear Majorly, I noticed you closed the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sideshow Cinema (2nd nomination) and added Template:oldafdfull to the talk page of the article (Talk:Sideshow Cinema). You used the template in combination with "subst:". To keep maintenance of AfD templates easier, they are preferably not substituted, however. In addition, you might want to think about using Template:oldafdmulti instead, especially when the article has been listed on AfD before (see the talk page I mentioned for an example). Since you often close AfD debates, I thought I'd just let you know. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the script I use to close them, not me personally. I'll remove the subst: manually each time :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you can also change the script, I contacted Mailer Diablo about this too and he changed his script: [4]. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look at my monobook it borrows heavily from User:Voice of All, which is where the "subst" is probably located. I can't remove it, but you could ask him to. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Help please

Your urgent help would be most appreciated here. -- Jreferee 21:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

You were one of the first three users to support me; I want to thank you for your support. :) The RfA came to no consensus, but as I said in my nomination, I'll treat it as a "large-scale editor review". Thanks also for the comment on the the quality of the self-nomination. Acalamari 21:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, be sure to take the good advice from it and continue to edit the areas you enjoy... I hope to see your name there again soon! :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:EA

I stopped engaging with Ed because he started out trying to whitewash the criticisms and was trying to change the essay for the sake of changing it by the end, and I got fed up with it and him. Everyone else has moved on to other things, and every time Ed tries to get people on his side he is met with complete apathy and comments along the lines of "Are you still arguing over this?", but he seems incapable of taking the hint. I hope you're prepared to protect again shortly... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If it needs it, then yes of course I am ;) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It needs it. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please reprotect it. Looks how much has happened so shortly after you unprotected it. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 22:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reprotected it for 3 hours as an immediate step, Majorly, could you review it and remove if desired, or extend? Cheers Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Told you... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha! How ironic... Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ping

Ping! -- Jreferee 02:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with "Good morning, I'm gay"!!??

Since that fellow admits himself/herself/itself a gay, why do you still block him/her/it!? I don't think it will offend anyone... --Edmundkh 10:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User names that imply sexual orientation are not allowed. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 10:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Sexual orientation? What do you mean? --Edmundkh 11:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Gay could mean homosexual. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 11:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection of 'David and Kim'

I thank you very much for protecting 9am with David and Kim. I trust, that the fats added by humble me stand the test. If moire footnotes are required, I suppose I shall be able to help.

Furher to that, my edits to

• Iain Hewitson
• Network Ten

are apparently not easily acceptable to some.

I kindly request you keep these pages in the corner of the eye too.

Articles about tv programmes do not need to be following a promotional scheme!

Let it be noted, I surely accept the usual 'in the flow' edits. Wholesale reverts of well considered recalibrations of articles are nevertheless uncalled for.

I thank you kindly for your attention in this matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oalexander-En (talk • contribs) 11:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Greysouthen

Hi,

wondering if you can help with this one. User:Cjmcgreevy (Contribs} has moved Greysouthen to Grooglefishdotcome, and then later blanked the page.

Does the blanking need reverting and then a request made at Wikipedia:Requested moves or do we just list it at Wikipedia:Requested moves in the Uncontroversial proposals section?

Keith D 13:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved it back. You can tag it with {{db-move}} should something like that happen again. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I will have a look at {{db-move}}. Keith D 22:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Omnicide

Hello,

I have a question in regards to the page on Omnicide. I'm confused by your decision to redirect the page to human extinction. Here are my reasons:

• The original basis given for nominating the page for deletion was that it was a not notable neologism. In response to this, I edited the page to show showing multiple independent sources for the term (a total of six). I think that the page now satisfies Wikipedia's notability policy quite abundantly.
• After these edits, requests to redirect the article were based on the claim that omnicide was just a synonym for human extinction. I think this is a simple (somewhat bizarre) mistake, which should by apparent to anyone who reads the article carefully, and which both I and one other user have explained in the deletion page for the article.
• Subsequent to the edits I performed, two users other than myself have advocated for keeping the article, and two have asked for redirect/merge, so 'rough consensus' does not seem to obtain.

I'm new to this aspect of Wikipedia, so that could be my problem. Is there something I'm missing? I'm quite in the dark.

Yours,

Chris Christopher Powell 14:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If the page was improved significantly, you can simply recreate the page again. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, you haven't answered my questions, and now I wonder which version of the page you've seen or which revisions you think I was referring to. But thanks just the same. I will try to recreate the page when I've had a chance to do some more research on the topic. Christopher Powell 23:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Hi Alex. I'm somewhat surprised by your protection of 9am with David and Kim, especially in a state containing libellous remarks about a living person. I would have thought a more appropriate response would have been to warn Oalexander-En (talk · contribs), the only 'warrior' in the supposed edit war, of the three-revert rule. I was tempted to ignore the protection and remove the addition again, but I thought it prudent to ask you to undo your action first. Thanks, --cj | talk 06:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine, do what you think is best. Thanks for checking first! Majorly _{(o rly?)} 11:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. Cheers. - Michael Billington (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

About Slavomacedonian language

Can you tell why you consider as vandalism the change of the term macedonian in slavomacedonian? Another admin constanly reverted my changes. What kind of consensus is this? the particular article for the "macedonian" language is one-sided. Among the many mistakes they claim that "macedonian" language is spoken in Greece. This is one of the few LIES. You can visit CIA World Factbook Greece and check it... (see the languages) [5]