User talk:Majorly: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:59, 10 January 2008

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

ooooooh

Oh I'm so glad you got your bit back, I didn't find out about your reconfirmation RfA until it was over, but thought you were treated very randomly! Hope yoou enjoy being an admin again, and that we in the UK can have a new meet.:) Merkinsmum 17:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Real Life Barnstar
		For your organisation of off-wiki events—Phoenix -wiki 21:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Majorly (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha

Loved this edit summary. I'm surprised that didn't happen sooner. :) Acalamari 19:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion

Hello, Majorly,

As you are an admin, I thought I'd ask for your help. There appear to be duplicate articles here (Zaiarna) and here (Lilia Zaiarna). Additionally, this appears to be the primary source for everything in her article: http://nwsa.mdc.edu/hs_artdep_-_music/faculty/faculty.html

Thanks, and happy new year! --MosheA (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted Zaiarna. Whether she's notable or not is another question. Perhaps prod it, or send to AFD? Majorly (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's fine. My main concern was the double article. Thanks again. --MosheA (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD / orphan talk pages

It seems you've deleted thousands of image talk pages of images that are on Commons as "orphaned talk pages." The CSD criterion is explicit that image talk pages of Commons images are clearly not speediable. What's going on? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[I wrote this earlier, but am just now submitting it]

Is there a consensus to delete orphan talk pages, or are you just deleting ones that do not have any useful discussion? (Coming here after clicking on the discussion tab at Image:Timeline of web browsers.svg which was blue at the time and not coming to a page, due to server cache update lag)

Also, you might want to switch the "LOGS" link on your user page to LOGS. Now, it is "hard coded" to link to en.wikipedia.org and if you are using the secure server or some other type of access, it makes you leave it. See Wikipedia:Fullurl and Google. This would make it a relative link instead of an absolute link. Jason McHuff (talk) 08:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted those without useful discussion, or discussion from months ago. I know it isn't within the speedy criteria, but if you can find me any use for those discussion pages I'd like to know it. Otherwise, keeping them is just confusing and unhelpful. I intend to start a discussion about this on the CSD talk page, as I obviously disagree with keeping pointless old discussion.

I'll consider changing it the link, thanks for telling me! :) Majorly (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Majorly, I don't need to be one to tell you that CSD isn't some random essay on a user subpage, it's policy. Unless there is an incredibly good reason to ignore it, you absolutely should not have unilaterally deleted 9000 image talk pages. In addition, not only is it not your call to determine whether or not talk page discussion can be deleted after months, it also doesn't appear to be what you did. I ran the orphaned talk page query and looked at your logs; thousands of pages were deleted rapid-fire and it seems that few or almost none were kept. Do you mean to tell me that out of 10,000 orphaned talk pages, there are entire sections of the alphabet that didn't have a single page that could have been kept and not speedily deleted? That's simply bullshit. There was no discussion about this anywhere until after you deleted the images. 9000 pages, all out of process and your response is "if you can find me any use for those discussion pages I'd like to know it" and a two sentence post to WT:CSD. Is there any reason you should retain +sysop after a stunt like this? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to undelete them (all), then I will. However, I feel such a stunt would be pointless. IAR exists to ignore rules if they prevent you from improving or maintaining the encyclopedia in some way. I believe that the old discussion pages of non-existent images are unhelpful and confusing, so I think deleting them as orphans is improving things. If you are questioning my admin rights, I suggest you bring up a discussion for others to comment on. Majorly (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I haven't deleted any images, just the talk page - many were test pages, and some didn't even discuss the image. Many were from this wiki, and images uploaded to commons are often deleted. Majorly (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1.3 images per second for the most recent 5 minutes of deletion log sampled. I guess my issue isn't as much that you batch deleted all of these pages as it is that you're now trying to claim you examined each page individually for legitimate content before deciding whether or not to delete it. Even if you were able to sit at your computer and watch each page, there's no way of knowing what the page history contained at that high-speed rate. In addition, I doubt you sat at your computer and watched each page because it would be incredibly dull to do so. I'm not going to open an RfC or run to AN or AN/I because I know that the last thing we need is more drama. I just hope that you consider discussing, or at least saying somewhere, that you intend to do major things like this (i.e., things that are outside the bounds of established policy) before you do them. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will in future. I'm sorry if it caused a problem. I'll just stick to article work... Majorly (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to say that I posted on this article's talk page about one day ago, regarding the image. I don't think my post was "without useful discussion" and it certainly wasn't old — to say that when it obviously wasn't even read seems kind of rude to me. Anyway, when I came back to see if anyone had replied I found it had been deleted so I came here to see what the deal was. You don't have to reinstate the pages (I don't know about the others but my post wasn't that important). I just don't want anyone to get in trouble or lose their admin powers for this mistake, but I hope these things are handled better in the future. Thanks. --71.112.159.122 (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

resigned uncontroversially

I noticed you used this phrase with a bureaucrat action on another project. I'm wondering if this is terminology creep from enwiki to other projects, or if that other project has a similar standard of resysopping based on controversy or the lack thereof. Really just an idle curiosity on my part as I have been thinking about how ArbCom standards and procedures on enwiki vary from ArbComs from other projects. Btw, I'm glad you are back and active again. Cheers, NoSeptember 19:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never known such a case on Meta - I simply copied what goes on here when I promoted. We are having a discussion on the admin confirmation page about it. Yes, it probably is enwiki terminology, but it sounded the best wording to use. And I'm glad you are glad too! I shall be less active over the next few weeks though, sadly. Majorly (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Welcome Back!

Welcome back! Good to see you around again. Majorly (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm glad to be back. Ryan ^{Got something to say?} 22:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

Pursuant to your offer at WP:BN, could you help me get set up with IRC? Since I've never used it before, I have no idea what to do, and need step-by-step instructions. Walton^One 22:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you use any IM program? Such as MSN, AIM, gtalk? It'd be far easier to work in real time. It doesn't matter if you don't, it's just easier. Majorly (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have anything like that. I need to log off now, I'll talk to you tomorrow about this. Walton^One 23:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Why did you delete Image talk:Missionary Sex Position1.png? That talk page was related to Image:Missionary_Sex_Position1.png. Sarsaparilla (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image doesn't exist here. It's over on Commons. The discussion should take place there. I'll undelete though. Majorly (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsement

I noticed you on IRC, and I was wondering if you could do me a favor. I am seeking authorization for use of {{commons ok}} and I noticed that you are authorized. To get authorization requires an endorsement of someone currently on the list. Would you mind endorsing me, at Wikipedia:MTC#current request? I have done some image moves before (5 total, before deciding that there must be a better way), and I believe that I know the criteria well enough. Thanks for your time, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 00:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People will talk ....

... we're just starting to agree on things a bit too often!! :) Pedro : Chat 10:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd better stop that... :) Majorly (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 :::::1.3 images per second for the most recent 5 minutes of deletion log sampled. I guess my issue isn't as much that you batch deleted all of these pages as it is that you're now trying to claim you examined each page individually for legitimate content before deciding whether or not to delete it. Even if you were able to sit at your computer and watch each page, there's no way of knowing what the page history contained at that high-speed rate. In addition, I doubt you sat at your computer and watched each page because it would be incredibly dull to do so. I'm not going to open an RfC or run to AN or AN/I because I know that the last thing we need is more drama. I just hope that you consider discussing, or at least saying somewhere, that you intend to do major things like this (i.e., things that are outside the bounds of established policy) before you do them. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 20:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 ::::::Yes, I will in future. I'm sorry if it caused a problem. I'll just stick to article work... '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'') 20:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
+:::::::I wanted to say that I posted on [[:Image:ASTPpatch.png|this article's talk page]] about one day ago, regarding the image. I don't think my post was "without useful discussion" and it certainly wasn't old — to say that when it obviously wasn't even read seems kind of rude to me. Anyway, when I came back to see if anyone had replied I found it had been deleted so I came here to see what the deal was. You don't have to reinstate the pages (I don't know about the others but my post wasn't that important). I just don't want anyone to get in trouble or lose their admin powers for this mistake, but I hope these things are handled better in the future. Thanks. --[[Special:Contributions/71.112.159.122|71.112.159.122]] ([[User talk:71.112.159.122|talk]]) 12:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 ==resigned uncontroversially==