User talk:Majorly/Archives/22

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Majorly. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

It has been a long day...

For having to deal with an angry user just for doing your job, I award you the Purple Heart Barnstar. You truly are an asset to our community. Cheers, Sean William 04:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to second that 'star. Through the Looking-Glass into the crazy world of the Ref Desk regulars is no place for a jobbing editor just trying to do their bit. Rockpocket 09:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Good evening (GMT time); I've noticed you to be extremely active in RfA areas, so I've left a note for you under Sir James Paul's !vote at my RfA (above) - hopefully you can sort it out.

Anthony 20:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you ask Sir James instead? Majorly (hot!) 20:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Libricide discussion

This article had plenty of credible sources and some of the delete comments seemed as if they had missed reading the article. For example, one writer (admin?)questioned if they accidentally burned a library would this be libricide? Hello...

"I'm still no clearer. So if I accidentally start a fire in a library and it burns down I'm guilty of libricide? Because that was one of the most frequent causes of unique books being lost forever in the era of candlelight. And police informers burning evidence of their past activities in Iraq is not "cultural genocide", it's self-preservation. "Cultural genocide" is an immensely loaded term anyway and I'm really not sure this article has addressed the POV issues or distinguished itself fully from book burning. --Folantin 14:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The comment itself seems heavily loaded in POV. I wanted to make the point that a legitimate international organization, Human Rights Watch as well as members of the press could see the damage that destroying records and national artifacts might create and has created, in the chaos and symbolism of cultural attacks. Total War is with us, it is not just the bomb. It has its subtleties and it requires a knowledge of history to properly contextualize. The resignation of Martin E. Sullivan, then the Chairman of the President's Advisory on Cultural Property who quit in disgust over the libricides of the Iraq invasion may not be regarded by wikipedia yet, but he will be. There will be hell to pay for what my fellow countrymen have done to iraqui culture. Perhaps wikipedia only wants to win its popularity contests vetted by its near-sighted opportunistic admins.

It is a great irony for me that Wikipedia burned this article and keeps other articles that popular opinion alone seem to justify. It's no laughing matter but it is somewhat amusing to think that if wikipedia was around when the term genocide was coined, it would probably find: "No evidence the term genocide is widely used." Trash Libricide, hide it from view, and keep the Homer Simpson piece for example. No one can argue that Homer is a notable person and will be forever. Perhaps I'm mixing my metaphors. I am guilty of POV. Guilty, guilty, guilty.

Kafakaesque would more aptly describe the deletion process in regard to Libricide as I have observed it. The process was even more of a disorganized mess than my article and is one more reason your repuation for serious scholarship still has far to go.

Still, i wish you folks the best of luck and i want to thank those who participated in this discussion and saw a salvageable piece. I think you need to spend more time reading books.

Neil zusman 03:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Libricide. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Project Offset

Jesus Christ, it was just undeleted, and was deleted again in a second. How about you people give us a chance to fix it? Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Unlike many of you admins, I don't eat and breath WP. Could at least have kept it up for 24 hours and not 5, it's not like I sit here and refresh that page for it to be undeleted. Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What article? Majorly (hot!) 10:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Presumably Project Offset. Attempting to look for sources reveals it's a game in development, with news sources having nothing to say other than it's a game in development, so pretty much anything written about it would be grasping at straws. (Also, Offset Engine redirects to the deleted page; what should be done about that?) Phony Saint 15:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it :) Majorly (hot!) 15:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Projectifying a few lists

Hi. In closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Alberta-related topics you noted that you were willing to undelete pages to allow their projectification. Would you please undelete the following four pages so that I may projectify them? All 4 have a corresponding, active WikiProject that can make use of the list.

Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

All four restored :) Majorly (hot!) 16:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, all done! Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Shadow Raiders planets. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 64.178.96.168 17:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thank you, Majorly/Archives, for your constructive comments in my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without frying my brain, of course.
Thank you once more,
· AndonicO ^Talk

Jitterbit

Hi there - I noticed you'd removed the CSD tag from this article. I've looked at it again, and it still looks like an advert to me - plus I can't see any claim of notability (A7) or secondary sources. I presume you've removed the tag to see if it expands? Cheers, EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be correct. Try prod'ing it. Majorly (hot!) 19:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Envision Financial

Well that didn't last long! Care to explain your reasoning? Mr Stephen 23:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It was blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. And the creator was Envision Financial Communications, so a definite conflict of interest. Majorly (hot!) 23:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My memory is that it was primarily descriptive, I couldn't see anything to hang a db-spam on. COI for sure, but AFAIK that isn't a CSD reason. Thanks, Mr Stephen 08:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm the creator of the Envision Finanical article -- this was my first contribution, and I feel like I've been "bitten." Two questions/comments here: 1) If I create a personal Wikipedia account with my own personal username to avoid the "COI" thing, and then re-create the article about my credit union, Envision Financial, is that then acceptable? 2) I'm failing to understand the "substantial re-write" bit. Mr. Stephen is absolutely right in saying that the article was primarliy descriptive -- I modelled it after several other currently exisiting descriptive Wikipedia articles that describe other players in the British Columbian credit union industry, including Vancity, Coast Capital Savings, Aldergrove Credit Union, North Shore Credit Union, etc. I'd appreciate it if you could explain how my article on Envision Financial differs from these articles, and why my article was deleted while these articles are perfectly acceptable. What makes my article "blatant advertising" and these articles not? I'd be happy to make whatever changes are necessary to make the article more encyclopedic; I just don't understand how to do that given that it was just descriptive in the first place. Please advise -- thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.34.137.188 (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC). Forgive me, I should probably sign this too: my former username (which I will now drop) was "Envision Financial Communications" (hence the COI).

OK, I restored it. Sorry, I might have been a little fast on that one... Majorly (hot!) 19:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow... thanks! I'll change my username anyways for future. Would you recommend making any more changes anyways? Is the page still a candidate for deletion? Do I have to do anything else to save it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.34.137.188 (talk • contribs)

Add some references to it. Majorly (hot!) 20:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for the note & welcome, Majorly. As an aspiring writer and scholar, hopefully I'll be branching out from stubs on Canadian financial institutions, and will be contributing some worthwhile academic/encyclopedic information in the future... cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BrianBevi (talk • contribs) 20:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Bureaucrat

Since you're so interested in seeing a new bureaucrat join the ranks, I looked through RFA history and found User:Kusma. He's been an admin for a full year, he's been consistently active the whole time in both editing and admin work, and he's made 150 edits to WT:RFA. I think he's qualified to run for bureaucratship. I'm not willing to bring this up with him directly, but if you would, it might succeed. YechielMan 01:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

He has the slightest chance, depending on his answers and how blue the sky is on the day he requests :P Majorly (hot!) 19:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris Bosh the wrestler

I really don't feel why this had to be deleted, it should've been kept, he is a very popular wrestler in Southern California region plus getting alot of bookings lately in Japan and other feds in the US. I feel it should be kept back on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.127.6.148 (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

I expect his notability wasn't shown. Majorly (hot!) 16:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 18	30 April 2007	About the Signpost

Students in Western Civilization course find editing Wikipedia frustrating, rewarding	Statistics indicate breadth of Wikipedia's appeal
Featured lists reaches a milestone	Backlogs continue to grow
WikiWorld comic: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Board resolutions, user studies, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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 06:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatlinburg Public Services

Not sure exactly whats happened here but I think you closed the first in a series of noms believing it to be a bundled nom (in fact I think it was just a list of other articles also AfDed). As a result there are three AfDs I've seen that you've already deleted the article being discussed.

Would you mind looking at them, seeing whether delete is still the right outcome, and closing them? WjBscribe 09:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This was really messed up. I'd rather they were simply left deleted as per the outcome in the first AfD. I'd rather not close them though. Majorly (hot!) 12:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, well I'll do my best... WjBscribe 16:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've gone for "The result was delete by Majorly in line with the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatlinburg Public Services". WjBscribe 16:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: OTRS

How does one go about complying with that (ie: identifying oneself to the foundation?). Thanks, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey buddy, asked you the same question on Meta - feel free to answer here or there :) Cheers, – Riana_ऋ 18:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll answer here. When it comes to your "turn", Cary will e-mail you. I'm not too sure myself, but I expect he'll explain how to identify yourself, and if he doesn't you can always ask. Hope that helps :) Majorly (hot!) 18:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for the heads-up :) Take care, – Riana_ऋ 18:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto, sweetie, thanks for the advice :) I'm willing to provide my personal information to the Foundation, so that's no problem; but it was a great opportunity to drop by and say hi to you nevertheless ;) Have a great day! Phaedriel - 07:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks as well ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My (Selket's) RfA

Thank you, Majorly/Archives, for your support on my recent RfA, which recently passed 54/1/1. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations. I will certainly take the constructive criticism I recieved to heart. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. Thank you again· --Selket ^Talk 18:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Social Christianity

I nominated Social Christianity for deletion, changed my mind (because it was given some content) but the concensus remained that it should go, and you have now deleted it. One editor commented that Category:Social Christianity should also be deleted along with it. As it was not I am flagging this up. Ros0709 19:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted it, empty category. Majorly (hot!) 19:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Eryian's RFA

I've replied to your question on Eryian's RFA (I'm not one of those people who doesn't reply when they find out they're wrong but refuses to change their !vote :) ) --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 22:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA nomination

I accept your nomination -- with thanks DGG 00:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Lack of wisdom in decision?

I don't see the logic in your decision to delete Gatlinburg Fire Department. There was a clear commitment by me to redo it. After I made that statement, nobody voted for delete. The delete votes were based on the editors seeing the short stub-like article. Just because they didn't know anything about the small fire department doesn't mean that there is nothing to write. In fact, it becomes important to write about it for their education.

The main reason for my commitment to write it was because I adopted someone and didn't want all of their contributions deleted. I personally don't have much interest in the fire department except to help my adoptee.

I am still willing to re-write the article but would like the old version in order to keep the same tone as the original author. Please be more careful in your decisions in the future. Few AfD get that amount of commitment that I promised to give. Those articles are ripe for deletion. Thoughts?VK35 06:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No lack of wisdom, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatlinburg Public Services. I don't really like your accusing tone that I wasn't careful. I followed the thoughts in the AfD. Yes, I'll undelete it if you want to work on it, but don't assume I made a mistake because I clearly didn't. Majorly (hot!) 09:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't take offence in my comments. I certaining didn't mean an accusing tone with the languauge "I don't see the logic in your decision..." If there is a nicer way to say it, I'm willing to use it (suggestions?). I didn't take the tone "why did you do ..." nor did I intend for you to defend your decision other than a few brief comments.

For me, it's just more work to edit it. I'll ask my adoptee. If both of us start the article again, is it considered improper? In other words, is it improper to re-do an article that has been deleted? Will anyone accuse me of fighting the delete decision? This question is actually more important than whether or not you un-delete the article.VK35 16:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You can work on it now I've undeleted it. I suggest you move it to your userspace (e.g User:VK35/Gatlinburg Fire Department) then tag the main article redirect for deletion. Of course you can work on the articles. It isn't really fighting the decision. If you vastly improve it, then no one can complain. Majorly (hot!) 16:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There is some confusion on the Gatlinburg Fire Department talk page on why the article is still up. I think all the information the article contains has already been transfered to Gatlinburg so if anyone would like to recreate the article they could use that. Pax:Vobiscum 13:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

None of the reasons User:VK35 gave above will help the article overcome its main problem: lack of notability of the small fire department. Helping new users is nice, adding sourced information to an article is nice, but if these activies don't shed light on how this small fire department is somehow notable, then the article will be speedily deleted. If you wish to mentor a new editor (especially this particular new editor), then the very first thing you will want to do is review with him/her Wikipedia's notability policies as well as what Wikipedia is not. "Helping" write about a backwater fire department isn't doing your novice friend any favors. Rklawton 19:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Project Offset

Since when couldn't people create articles based on future products? All you say is "Blabla spam ad blabla", when I'm telling you to give us a chance to clean it up. How can I make this any clearer to you? 81.0.131.209 10:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Make what clear? Make it less spammy then it might not get tagged. Majorly (hot!) 11:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

...I've been trying to get it unlocked so that I can work on it. If you don't want to unlock it - which I can't possible understand why besides having some sort of admin god complex - you can place the entire article as it was at User:Havok/Project Offset and I'll work on it from there, then when I'm done, I'll come back to you. You are really just hindering someone who wants to fix something on WP by closing the article right after I asked the first closing admin to open it again so I could fix it. Havok (T/C/e/c) 13:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How can a product that hasn't been released yet be notable? Most new products fail anyway, and Wikipedia is not a collection of misc information. Rklawton 19:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's notable because - let's see - Gamespot, IGN, Edge, EGM etc. etc. have all written about this game. G4TV has even featured it on Attack of the Show. Google shows up 811,000 hits for "Project Offset". Even if it hasn't been released, it's still notable and very much verifiable. By your definition, and Mr. Majorly's here, Duke Nukem Forever wouldn't be notable which it very much is. No wonder I've lost all hope for Wikipedia; Assholes like you two ruin it for everyone else, not even giving an article a chance to become a viable one because you yourself don't find the subject matter to be of any importance, whatever happened to ignore all rules. So, in closing, keep the article deleted, I've lost any "care" I had left for this place. Good luck. Havok (T/C/e/c) 22:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Willie Work

Should those page moves and changes be reverted, technically they are not really vandalism although they are against the manual of style. GDonato (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Request

Given your experience, I would greatly appreciate if you would offer your opinion. Thank you. Pastor David ^† _(Review) 23:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)