Jump to content

User talk:Majorly: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→RfA: new section
Line 446: Line 446:


Good nomination, imo, [[User:Floquenbeam]]. I really like his/her editing style, and think this user would make a good example for adminship on wikipedia. --[[User:IP69.226.103.13|<font color="green"><strong>IP69.226.103.13</strong></font>]] | [[User talk:IP69.226.103.13|<font color="green"><strong>Talk about me.</strong></font>]] 02:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Good nomination, imo, [[User:Floquenbeam]]. I really like his/her editing style, and think this user would make a good example for adminship on wikipedia. --[[User:IP69.226.103.13|<font color="green"><strong>IP69.226.103.13</strong></font>]] | [[User talk:IP69.226.103.13|<font color="green"><strong>Talk about me.</strong></font>]] 02:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
:You haven't supported. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:cambria; font-size:11pt; color:#365F91">Majorly</span>]]''' [[User talk:Majorly#t|<span style="font-family:calibri; font-size:9pt; color:black">talk</span>]] 02:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:11, 15 January 2010

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

User:Mixwell/scrolling


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)[reply]

It's used in references of Cheadle Hulme railway station. Majorly talk 14:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Well, I had no idea how to selectively do things like that. Regards, Majorly talk 15:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
There is a debate going on at the Questions talk page. Tony (talk) 10:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Question

Is this [1] sarcastic or earnest? Jehochman Talk 02:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's both, Je. Majorly talk 02:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it might hurt his feelings, or it is good natured? Jehochman Talk 02:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is of course good natured. Why would you think otherwise? Ottava helped me with a few articles I wrote, in particular Bramall Hall and Charles Redheffer. I'm sure he just forgot to mention me. Majorly talk 03:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I thought so, but wanted to be thorough. He's complained that people have been antagonizing him and I don't know who he considers friend or foe. Jehochman Talk 03:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly certain he considers me a friend. Majorly talk 03:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A project you might be interested in

Hi, I've recently created a project which, broadly speaking, will help to develop and support the enwiki community. At this stage, we're currently calling for individual proposals on how to improve Wikipedia. If you're interested, sign up and add your ideas here! –Juliancolton | Talk 03:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC) (Cross-posting)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

Hi Majorly, re your comment on the signpost article, what change would you suggest to the wp:NEWT instruction "Write an article that doesn't meet the deletion criteria" to allay your concerns? There's at least one parallel thread on this already taking place on Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at CSD, and your input as a critic of the project would be useful. ϢereSpielChequers 14:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administartor Request

Hi

Would it be OK if I could be an admin? I'm retired, and I have decided that I would like to become an administrator, here on Wikipedia. Thanks.--Deanna Lacey (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure, just request at WP:RFA. Good luck SamDeanna! Majorly talk 22:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re Samlaptopvarious numbers (what am I, a dictation machine?)

Do you also receive emails from the above, requesting unblock and promising to reform? I do, which is why I am unable to respond to your request at ANI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite often. Majorly talk 23:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Block this IP please!

Hi Majorly

Please could you block this IP until Christmas please. Do this also on Simple. Thanks!--92.13.10.175 (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone deal with the above please? It's a sockpuppet of Samlaptop85213 (talk · contribs). Thanks, Majorly talk 18:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just send a message to DMacks and LessHeardVanU. One of them will block me until Christmas soon. Please could you change my Simple block until Christmas day please! Thanks! After when the block expries, I will never ever vandalise.--92.13.10.175 (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trolling me. Majorly talk 19:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh....

What is up with User:IslandersZweiSieben? Are they a sock? I try to warn him/her and it says it's a sock and that it's been blocked but they're not...I'm so confused =/ A8UDI 15:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sock, yeah. They aren't blocked though. I reported it already. Majorly talk 16:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gracias A8UDI 16:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your candidate assessments

o_O? I do hope it wasn't my response that had you request deletion of the whole thing? — Coren (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm just too busy to be messing about making detailed assessments of everyone. I'll vote as I choose to, and anyone who cares can ask me here. I do note that I was quite negative on your assessment. Perhaps I should have written more positive: I've noted that you care, seemingly more so than most other arbitrators. That's a good quality, even if we disagree with what you're caring about. Good luck, regardless of how I vote. Majorly talk 15:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually enjoy the discussion borne out of disagreement when it's done in good faith, which is why I appreciate the voter guides, which is why I was a little disappointed you won't have the time to do yours. I'm just happy that I wasn't the cause.  :-) Best to you. — Coren (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Apparently, 57% = consensus now. Oh well. No one will be able to see my vote, unfortunately, so will be unable to question me about it. The page should be restored, if consensus has now changed to = majority. Majorly talk 20:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

Oxford Music online

I thought this might be of interest. You can cite from it, in the Merry Xmas article:

<removed text in history>

Thanks, but it only briefly mentions the song, and it's nothing I don't already have. Majorly talk 22:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your helpful comments at the FAC for Bale Out. I responded, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bale Out/archive1. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Povenmire

Hi, I responded to your comment at the FAC. Come check it out. The Flash {talk} 15:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey; you're comments have been resolved for a while now, in case you didn't know. It'd be appreciated if you can follow up/support/something. Thanks, The Flash {talk} 23:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your question

You asked a question. Look on the page at 23:59, 19 November 2009 for the answer. Mrathel and I were bothered, but the person kept insisting and insisting. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

Thank you !

Small kindnesses (with my many typos) are always appreciated! [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do find other people's opinions interesting, which is why I appreciate viewing people's voter guides - often you can learn something about someone you didn't know that may influence your vote. All this secretive nonsense has put me off voting at all. Majorly talk 22:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:

  • Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
  • Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
  • Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
  • Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
  • Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
  • Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
  • Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
  • Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
  • Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
  • In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew talk at 03:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this user still admin?

Why is this user an admin again?

  1. Blocked Puddinmandotcom (talk · contribs) as a Spamusername, yet he also enabled 'account creation blocked' and failed to leave a block message. Read the instructions at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Listing instructions and WP:BLOCK.
  2. Semi-protected Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, even though it was only vandalised 5 times in 1 week.
  3. Blocked Jamietrolland (talk · contribs) + SPVA Comms Team (talk · contribs) + Re suisse (talk · contribs) with UsernameBlocked, Trolland is a real name and heu again forgot to leave a block message for any of them. At least he allowed account creation for them this time.
  4. Reason he provided for speedy deleting Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Levin H. Campbell Jr. & Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Levin Hicks Campbell Jr. was wrong. Read Wikipedia:Namespace & WP:R2.
  5. Reason he provided for speedy deleting Cheaper By The Dozen 3 (2011)film was complete bull. See Cheaper by the Dozen 2.
  6. Didn't provide a reason for deleting Talk:ES Freeski.
  7. There's probably plenty more incorrect speedy deletions if an admin looked at the things he deleted.

Imagine how long this list would be if I looked at what he's done outside of yesterday?--Selena3151 (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you telling me? I was someone who was strongly against his rights being returned, but alas, he resigned "in good standing" apparently. I would log in to your normal account and create an RFC, if I were you. Majorly talk 10:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

I hesitate to say it ...

... but congratulations anyway on Bramall Hall's mainpage appearance tomorrow. (I'm only hesitant because I know how it'll get vandalised.) :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - what do you think the vandalism will be like? Majorly talk 19:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No idea, I only know that there will be lots of it. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I (and others) will click the "watch" icon - the Hall's a short drive away from me, so it'll be like caretaking for an old friend. Very well done to all. Haploidavey (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks great: congratulations on getting a (second, I think?) featured article on the Main Page! Acalamari 03:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on taking it all the way, Majorly. Cheers,  Skomorokh  11:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read the article and then the history lead me back here. Excellent job by everyone particularly your good self - a really enjoyable read. Pedro :  Chat  12:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone! It's a shame the stats page seems to be down, it would have been interesting to see how many people viewed it. Majorly talk 13:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you're seeing nowt in statistics: 31.5 sorry, 31.3k views on 11th Dec. Haploidavey (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's up now. That feels great - 31,300 people read my work yesterday. Majorly talk 18:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Merry Xmas Everybody

Hi Majorly.

I wanted to let you know that I've archived the FAC for Merry Xmas Everybody. This is primarily to give you time to track down a copy of the Holder bio and possibly the Pedler book. If you get the books more quickly, feel free to ignore the "several weeks before renomination" rule and bring the article book sooner. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda pointless as the article was intended to be nominated for a main page appearance on Christmas Day. I don't need a copy of the Pedler book, it's on Google books, and the Holder bio is unlikely to add anything to it. The best plan is to just leave it, and know that it is a FA just without the pretty star. Majorly talk 20:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without "the pretty star" it isn't an FA Majorly. ;-) Why not take Karanacs up on her offer? I would. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way I'll be able to get either book in enough time. Majorly talk 22:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Christmas comes every year.... Perhaps it can be featured next year? Karanacs (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. Majorly talk 22:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:VideoKids.jpg

⚠
⚠
 Thanks for uploading File:VideoKids.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays!

Best wishes for the holiday season and the upcoming new year! –Juliancolton | Talk 16:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Protection

The protection was as much to cease the thread. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 22:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still though, a year is completely excessive. Majorly talk 23:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder about an offer you made a while ago

Hi Majorly,

You might recall your offer back in September to nominate me at RFA. I declined at the time, due to what I considered certain failure because of a low edit count. I've been a bit more active recently, and I believe an RFA has at least a fighting chance of being successful now. If the offer still stands, I'd be honored. In the same thread, Pedro asked if he could co-nominate, so I'm going to ping him too.

Before you agree, there's one wrinkle you should know about. I previously edited under another name. I retired that account for privacy reasons, so I don't want to publicly disclose its name. I've asked Alison to review the old account's edits, and verify on-wiki that I'm not hiding any blocks, bans, warnings, edit warring, POV pushing, or any other skeletons in the closet. I've also asked her to review my "privacy reasons", to verify it's a legitimate concern, and not a smoke screen. Her comments, once she's finished her review, will be here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam#Alison's review of my previous account.

I plan to basically say what I just said above in the RFA, and link to her comments. I'm convinced having privacy issues with an old account shouldn't preclude future adminship, and I'm being up front with it at RFA, so I don't think this will torpedo anything. But I'm not sure how you feel about this kind of thing, so I didn't want to spring any surprises on you. In any case, I certainly understand you'll probably want to wait to see her review before going forward. Let me know if you have any problems with this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd like to be able to know the account name myself (FWIW I'm a checkuser/oversighter on Simple English Wikipedia, so take privacy seriously) before nominating you for anything. But yes, the offer still stands, unless you've done anything dreadful in the past few months I hadn't noticed. Majorly talk 17:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really want to prevent this from becoming an "open secret", like some other situations I've seen semi-recently. But due to your Checkuserness/Oversightitude on Simple, and the fact that, as a nominator, you'd be sticking your neck out here, I'll email you with the old name. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Email sent. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alison has done her bit; I'm ready whenever you and Pedro are. If real life is keeping you too busy, I'm happy to wait a week or two more, just let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get it done tomorrow. I'll send you a copy that you can check over before I post it. Majorly talk 23:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I pestered Pedro as well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Majorly. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam for your attention good sir. Pedro :  Chat  12:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks

My RFA →→→

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!

Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfB comments

At SoWhy's RfB you said "I am adamantly opposed to any editor who is clearly inclusionist-inclined to receiving further privs." and I responded with "Wow. Just wow. Next time anyone claims that "inclusionists are playing politics at XXXX" I'm going to point them to this." which you felt was sarcastic. Your later comments clear things up a bit, but really and truly I was shocked that anyone, let alone you, would say such a thing. Read literally, which I assume you meant, it indicates you'd !vote against all inclusionists at RfA and RfB. Basically, I'm trying to say I meant exactly what I said. I was shocked and surprised that an admin I respect (though often disagree with) would support such a notion, let alone make the claim out of the blue at an RfB. Hobit (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does read like that. But, I wouldn't. What the big issue for me is the way in which SoWhy (and others) vote at RFA, opposing people over making minor mistakes at CSD - nitpicking at best. I find this a fundemental misunderstanding of what adminship is about. Admins are not perfect and all make mistakes - indeed, many taggings are endorsed by admins, and simply disagreed with by SoWhy, and others. I feel inclusionism seriously damages Wikipedia. I don't define myself as anything, certainly not a deletionist. I take every article I see on its merits with an open mind. I certainly do not come in with the attitude of "keep unless it doesn't exist" or "delete not notable". I take a stance based on the article's merits. Deletionists aren't particularly great either, but at least if a mistake is made the article can be undeleted. When an article is kept and it's a complete mess, it simply makes Wikipedia look amateur.
My biggest gripe is inclusionists opposing over minor issues at RFA, and SoWhy happens to be one of them. I have never seen deletionists do anything like this. A Nobody is another editor who opposes based on minor mistaggings (often from up to a year before). The world won't end if an article doesn't exist for a little while if it's deleted and later decided it was a mistake to do so.
So to clear things up, I would probably oppose any editor who frequently opposes people based on minor mistaggings of things (CSD, UAA, AIV etc) because mistakes are allowed and admins aren't always right anyway. With regards to the sarcasm comments, I considered the "Wow. Just wow." comment to be, but it seems I was wrong. Also, I'm not an admin. Majorly talk 22:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I'd always thought you were an admin (and take that as a complement btw as you certainly seem to know what you are doing). My view is that getting lots of taggings wrong recently is a bad thing for anyone who plans on working on CSD or XfD, but having a better track record in the last few months (high 90% or so not being blatantly wrong) is plenty. In any case, I largely disagree with you it seems, but I appreciate your clarifications and comments. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was an admin, so it's not really a compliment, but thanks all the same. Yes, getting lots of taggings wrong is bad, and I'd oppose for that. It's when hardly any mistakes are made, out of thousands of correct ones, and the candidate is opposed, that is the issue. It's happened. Majorly talk 22:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Figured out the admin thing after I commented. Sorry about that. Hobit (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Such as plagiarism, copyvios, hoaxes, libel etc, all the kind of thing which inclusionists bend over backwards to "save". I'm sorry but judging by the copyvio angle, that argument doesn't stand. Discovering a that an article at AfD contains a copyvio is generally a slam-dunk for deletion, as the speedy G12 puts an immediate end to the proceeding. Somehow implying that any particular wiki-philosophy is to blame for copyvios is, IMO, a mistake.

That being said, the best way to forge yourself an opinion you can back up is of course direct observation. As it happens, WP:SCV and WP:CCI are massively backlogged and could definitely benefit from your assistance, even if only for the purpose of verifying your above claims. Cheers, MLauba (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusionism and "rubbish"

I don't want to further clutter the RFB with off-topic discussion but you are right: Keeping things for the sake of having them is not a good thing and those who do simply argue to keep everything without a policy-based reason to do so are no better than those that propose to delete anything they think should go. It's a fine line and you seem to be more on the deletionist side of it while I'm more on the inclusionist side. But all wikiphilosophies are only helpful as long as you follow them with common sense on your side - just like you won't propose France for deletion, I won't argue to keep Some MySpace band or Some copyvio just for the sake of having it. Regards SoWhy 22:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - at least you are not Kmweber who voted to keep everything that exists... and you are right, I probably am on the deletionist side more, as I tend to believe "better safe [deleted] that sorry". We are constantly adding new articles and improving existing ones, so in my opinion, the lack of an article isn't that big a deal especially when we have several million already. We have our differences, and it's just a shame I feel so strongly about your RFA opposition votes because I have found you are generally fair, thoughtful, hardworking etc though we rarely agree. I just don't think minor quibbles (as I think they are) are worth opposing somebody over. Obviously, someone with a horrendous track record should be opposed, and I have certainly opposed such people in the past. But a few little mistakes in several thousand tags is not worth it in my view. Majorly talk 22:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know this will sound like I'm trying to sway you - but I agree with you. It all comes done to whether those mistaggings are mistakes or whether the candidate has not grasped the policy in question. I am all for supporting people who just made a mistake and I have supported and neutral-ed a number of such candidates even when others opposed them for it (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kingpin13 for example). We may have our differences when it comes to handling certain things but it's not as if we really disagree on everything. We may just phrase our position differently :-) Regards SoWhy 23:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

Wythenshawe

Greetings. Explain 'english'... in wot way tis our re-rite ov sed articul rong ? ! O, de de-tayuls b rite ! ROBERT TAGGART (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Standard English is what I mean. Listen, I think you genuinely want to improve articles, but you're doing so in a way that's contradictory to norms here. Majorly talk 16:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

we just had an edit conflict

at Justice. You got it done first. Thanks. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section Gps2sms

I saw you removed the article, which by all means should be possible under certain circumstances. I googled for the name gps2sms and that name wasn't covered by just one guy or website, there's 2800 google hits, referring to different websites. So although the audience might be limited, it's still a legal word worth explaining. If you agree I can write the article as neutral as you'd like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.210.249.81 (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rubber duckie

Good find! Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Good nomination, imo, User:Floquenbeam. I really like his/her editing style, and think this user would make a good example for adminship on wikipedia. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 02:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't supported. Majorly talk 02:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Majorly&oldid=337921971"