Jump to content

User talk:Majorly/Archives/56

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

RE: Requests for comment

Responded. — Aitias // discussion 15:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Majorly. :) Just so I know, how long do you expect me to not edit the Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback page? Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 22:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't expect or demand anything; I haven't been looking at your edits or anything. Just please don't get engrossed in contentious debate. Perhaps only see to people that you think are suited for a while. A while could be any amount of time you think is suitable. If you think you're able to return there now, feel free. Majorly talk 23:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
That's not Majorly's decision. It's yours. I guess that maybe Majorly's point....? Meantime, perhaps we can work to set up some informal guidelines on granting of rollback? Pedro :  Chat  23:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
@Majorly: Okay then. Thank you for the explanation. :)
@Pedro: That's a very, very good idea. :) However, I don't feel very confident that there will be a consensus in any way. :( — Aitias // discussion 23:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandal on simple

Hi, A1a5s is active on simple right now. fr33kman -s- 00:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) fr33kman -s- 00:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Essay

For arguing with logic and creative use of a "reverse wedge", I hereby dedicate WP:WEDGE in your honour.

When debating, I've noticed that you may be passionate and that you may argue a line I disagree with, but you can always be depended upon to acutally argue. Hooray for that. This is a rare quality in Wikipedians and we need more like you. --Dweller (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 16:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi Majorly, I've sent an E-mail. Thanks. Acalamari 23:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, replied. Majorly talk 23:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester March Newsletter, Issue XV

Delivered on 1 March 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Billion Ernies

How did this meet G8 by any chance? Majorly talk 22:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirect to A Billion Ernies, which got deleted at an AFD. Stifle (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well...

...I guess you've been proved right once again: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Jasonr and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#3rd_party_reconfirmation_RfA_posted. — Aitias // discussion 15:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the usual "keep all admins forever no matter what" crowd. However, the RFA is going well so far. Touch wood. Majorly talk 15:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sadly it didn't succeed, but it seems mostly because people objected to their being no official process. I don't think anyone could seriously say Jasonr had the trust of the community. Which means it's probably worth trying to hammer out a recall system (or at least trying again). Nev1 (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Star of the day

Majorly has been identified as the Star of the Day,
and therefore, he has officially declared today as Majorly's day!
For being such awesome person, brilliant personality, and kind individual,
enjoy being the Star of the Day, dear Majorly!

Cheers, Majorly talk 21:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

I assume you're making some kind of oint with this.--Pattont/c 21:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Oink? I also award myself a Good Work sticker and a lollipop for being good today. Majorly talk 21:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL... and I thought Sharkface's Award Center was clammering for recognition... or your clamoring for Giggy's almost awesome wikipeidian award... but this is Great!---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This beats the "who watches this page?" self-posts. :D Acalamari 22:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Cute ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 00:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It's certainly a nice star. I was wondering, Alex, given that you do spend a lot of your time promoting the presence of children on WP and engaging in discourse with a large number of users who are below the age of majority, what qualifications or licenses you have for doing so? For example, volunteers in Australia are required to have a state-based accreditation - [Check]. If my children are to interact on WP, what assurances can I have that their adult colleagues will take the appropriate steps to protect them as children; not exploit them; and not engage in inappropriate behaviour with them? Adult human beings have a duty of care to the children with which they associate and interact. As adult human beings, what will adult WP users do to justify their continued interaction with any children on a site that has no visible COPPA complianceto speak of?58.105.147.253 (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
It's certainly untrue I "spend a lot of [my] time promoting the presence of children on WP", and most of the people I talk to I understand to be adults, or at least over the age of 16. I have proposed several immature, underage children to be banned, not just on here but on Simple WP too, and I tend to agree that most children have no place on WP. When I joined Wikipedia, I was just a teenager myself, so tend to empathise with those that still are, so it's kind of unfortunate. I totally agree a COPPA system should be in place on WP, but is it my responsibility? No, it isn't. I'll gladly support any proposal to add one though. Majorly talk 11:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Aitias

Latest acts not good.
A new RFC needed.
Or perhaps the dogs?

--MZMcBride (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, nice. I'd say “the dogs”. Or, as an alternative, realising that you are the one who is mistaken here. :) — Aitias // discussion 00:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Aitias, you've explicitly stated that nearly everybody involved in this discussion is "mistaken" or "clearly wrong". –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
No, User:Protonk is right as well. :) — Aitias // discussion 00:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

E-mail

I've sent one. I used the "E-mail this user" feature on your talk page, by the way. Best wishes. Acalamari 01:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

check it

[1]

Amusing. Majorly talk 20:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Aitias

A motion regarding the above, which you have been listed as a party, has been passed as of follow :

This request for arbitration is temporarily suspended for up to 72 hours. Aitias is requested to officially advise us during this time whether he intends to continue as an administrator. Should Aitias be voluntarily desysopped within the next 72 hours, this request for arbitration will be closed as moot.
It is noted that if Aitias resigns while a request for arbitration is pending, any later request for restoration of Aitias' adminship would require either a new RfA or a vote of this committee (see, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch#Return of access levels; compare Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Proposed decision#Return of access levels). If Aitias were to request return of adminship after a break, the committee anticipates that it would invite community comment before addressing his request.
Should Aitias confirm that he will not resign as an administrator, or fail to respond within 72 hours, then the arbitration case will be opened at that time, unless otherwise directed by the committee.
Aitias is requested to refrain from any use of administrator tools until this matter is resolved.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 16:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Motions Re: Aitias

The request for arbitration named above has been superseded by four motions that were passed by the Committee.

  • A motion was passed on 18 Mar 09 for this request for arbitration to be temporarily suspended for up to 72 hours to allow Aitias to officially advise the Committee during this time whether he intends to continue as an administrator. Should Aitias confirm that he will not resign as an administrator, or fail to respond within 72 hours, then the arbitration case will be opened unless otherwise directed by the committee.

By 22 Mar 09, Aitias (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has not voluntarily requested that his administrator access be removed. The Commitee then passed three additional motions, as of follow :

  • In order to avoid a ruling without the participation of the main party to the case, this request for arbitration is suspended until Aitias returns to editing. After this motion passes the Committee will invoke an immediate temporary suspension of his adminship. When Aitias returns to editing, he may contact the Committee and request the return of his adminship, which would trigger an additional ruling by the Committee about this current request for arbitration; or as an alternative, he may submit an RFA on his return to editing in lieu of a case.
  • The suspension of Aitias's adminship becomes a permanent desysop if he doesn't return within 6 months. Thereafter, Aitias may request adminship again through an RfA only.
  • Aitias is instructed to edit Wikipedia English with only the User:Aitias account until the issues in this dispute are resolved.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Mailer Diablo 14:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard#Incivil personal attacks from Malleus Fatuorum

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard#Incivil personal attacks from Malleus Fatuorum. Thank you. Ipatrol (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I did ask you not to post there as nothing good will come of it. Majorly talk 21:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

22 Cotefield Road

Hi Majorly, I see your active/interested in Manchester, any chance you could look at 22 Cotefield Road or pass this on to someone interested in mid century manchester? Its tagged as a hoax but I suspect could be an attack. ϢereSpielChequers 09:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No sources, probably a hoax, get rid of it. I've dropped the Greater Manchester WikiProject a note just in case it is notable/not a hoax and someone knows about it. Nev1 (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
(Update) I've deleted it myself. Nev1 (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Nev1, ϢereSpielChequers 23:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MBisanz talk 23:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Epileptic Gaming - second opinion required

Hi - you recently closed off this afd as delete. The article was recreated a few days later, and subsequently tagged for speedy as WP:CSD#G4. I therefore deleted it. However, following an appeal on my talk page, I looked at the articles more carefully, and it seems the new article differs significantly from the original, so I've restored it again. On the other hand, I'm not convinced it still meets the notability requirements. Would you have a look at it, and give me a second opinion. Thanks. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 19:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Recently? I closed it 2 years ago! :) The article looks fine, but G4 should no way apply here. Try another AFD if you're not sure. Majorly talk 21:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
D'oh! I'd looked at that AfD several times, and never noticed the year. I always assumed it was a couple of weeks ago ;-) —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't be a twat listed at RfD

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Don't be a twat. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Don't be a twat redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). –Black Falcon (Talk) 06:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to announce...

...that I majorly love you all. Super srs. GlassCobra 13:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

blocked user

Since you have also been involved with user:PrincessKirlia you may want to take a look at User talk:Rjd0060#blocked user. Jay (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester 5

You've expressed interest in Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester 5; I'm just coming to give you the details and a reminder. We will be meeting on 4 April at The Manchester & County near Picadilly train station at around 1:00pm (although some will be turning up an hour early). There will be a Wikimedia sign to identify us, I believe. Ironholds (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Grass

Thanks for reverting that. I was just about to do it myself.--gordonrox24 (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Majorly/Archives/56&oldid=1140412909"