User talk:Majorly/Archives/23

Beer pong page protect denied

I know you do a lot of these, so here's the context:

• Request: "People keep changing the name it 'Beirut', a less popular version of the name, according to sources. Most of them are doing it through IPs or new names."

• Response: "This looks like the start of a dispute, which may require full protection. Please use talk pages and discuss changes."

It's impossible and fruitless to discuss these things on talk pages, as most IP users don't know that talk pages exist, and simply edit away. If they actually looked at the article, sources, or facts, they could clearly see that the name that they call it in their "home town" or "high school" isn't what the rest of the world calls it... but don't, and won't. Some have tried to discuss on talk pages, but no one responds from the Beirut side, as there's no logic behind it. What else do you propose that we do in the mean time to prevent these vandalizing edits? Thanks in advance! - hmwithtalk 11:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a month. Majorly (hot!) 12:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Less tedious edits means more cleaning up the article or other similar ones. - hmwithtalk 18:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hierarchical Linear Models - why deleted?

Hi, could you please explain why you tagged Hierarchical linear models for speedy deletion? It'd also me nice to know why you don't give a reason for every article you so designate. Would it slow you down that much? [| Talk] RedHouse18 22:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, both the speedy tag and the deletion log would have told you what the reason was: this article was written as an advertisement and made no claim of notability. It's important, when writing an article, to stay away from both wording and contents that simply promotes the products or services of a company; or that expounds on a service or concept exclusive to that company, unless they are notable and properly sourced.

Incidentally, I did not delete the article. I tagged it for deletion, and an admin then reviewed it and deleted it. So at least two persons agreed that the tag was warranted. You might want to take a moment to read the guidelines above, and the manual of style. Those will help you write articles that will stand the test of time.  :-) Coren 23:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. As you know, I'm a relatively inexperienced wikipedia editor. I'm confident that the deletion of my article on hierarchical linear models was a mistake though. They are unarguably notable. One of my mistakes though, was not realizing that there was already an article Hierarchical linear modeling. I should have just made it redirect. I'd like to have my article undeleted though, so I can copy some of the content into the pre-existing article. Is that possible?

RedHouse18 15:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll undelete it now and you can make it into a redirect. Majorly (hot!) 15:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

My most heartfelt thanks for your continued support throughout the past few months, and in particular recently in my wonderfully encouraging RFA. Hope to work with you in making this place a better place. The Rambling Man 19:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

RFA question - I've seen some RFA submissions. What's XFD? How does it differ from AfD (articles for deletion)? Is XFD just the big umbrella for different deletion debates, like articles, templates, categories, etc. and AfD is a subset? I didn't see a FAQ so I chose to ask you, though I could ask someone else, I suppose. VK35 21:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

XfD is just the broad term for deletion discussions - i.e. X for deletion. AfD (articles) is just one. TfDs, IfDs, MfDs, RfDs, CfDs all exist too, under XfD. Thanks for asking! =) Majorly (hot!) 21:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: RfA template

If you are speaking of the discussion from Sept. 2006, I think you would be hard pressed to describe that as a consensus in any direction. In any case, I don't really case about the actual template so much as the perspective its wording implies, so I won't revert for now. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there should be another discussion on the talk page? ;) Majorly (hot!) 22:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

Hello. This is just a friendly notice that Wikipedia Weekly episode 19 has been released!

In this episode:

• New Mission and Vision statements for the WMF
• The Chaser springs Jimmy Wales
• new uses for categories
• vandalism studies
• Unreferenced BLPs.

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.com/2007/05/05/wikipedia-weekly-19/ and as always, you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 20:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to receive such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

Stoop!d Monkey Logos

Hello, there seems to be some misunderstanding on whether the logos were a keep or delete. Since you were the admin who closed the AfD, I thought you could provide some help. I am saying they were "keep", as you said...another user (the one who started the AfD in the first place) says they were to be deleted and the article kept, which I can't find said. You help would be appericated. Thanks...SVRTVDude ^(VT) 23:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I just said the article was to be kept, I don't know about the logos :( Majorly (hot!) 23:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

See, no one said....maybe there needs to be a vote on the logos themselves or just leave 'em alone due to no ruling given. This is where the confusion is setting in. - SVRTVDude ^(VT) 23:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Currently there is an edit war being engaged by a user who is obviously reading something I am not or making things up. Could you revert his changes and protect the Stoop!d Monkey page until the logo situation can be worked out. - SVRTVDude ^(VT) 01:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for locking the page. He wasn't going to give up on his little edit war, I had, but he wasn't. He did make a funny before you locked the page. I am "Mr. Low Impulse Control Stalker" apparently, if it is possible to be a stalker with low impulse control.

Anywho, I am working with others and another admin on a way to incorporate the explanation lines/links into the Robot Chicken episode list. Doubt it will make Calton happy and there will probably be a huge edit war about that too, but what are you going to do. I ain't here to make him happy, if that is even possible. Thanks for your help and input, it has helped. Take Care and enjoy the rest of your weekend....SVRTVDude ^(VT) 22:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You can unlock the Stoopid Monkey page. I have moved the stoopid monkey explanations lines/links to the episode lists for Robot Chicken and there will be no need for the page to remain locked. Thanks...SVRTVDude ^(VT) 00:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Name

I'm backed up on Wikipedia work to do, but I was just sort of wondering where your username came from. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 13:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Areopagitica? That's what I thought it was :) Majorly (hot!) 14:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The origin of my username. Thanks for the interest! (aeropagitica) 18:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Handbra

Handbra is under attack again and needs your assistance. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 12:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It is? Majorly (hot!) 17:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

User number

How exactly do you find out which number user you became? Just curious. Simply south 19:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Special:Preferences, User ID. I think... Majorly (hot!) 19:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I think it shows that i was somewhere over 1,100,000. Simply south 20:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 19	7 May 2007	About the Signpost

Four administrator accounts desysopped after hijacking, vandalism	Digg revolt over DVD key spills over to Wikipedia
Debate over non-free images heats up	Update on Wikimania 2007
Norwegian Wikipedian awarded scholarship	WikiWorld comic: "Friday the 13th"
News and notes: Election volunteers, admin contest, 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 06:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland page protection

Hi there. You protected the Northern Ireland article, quite rightly so, last month. Due to current events several requests have been received to unprotect the page for updating. I have the ability to do so but thought I should ask you as the protecting admin before doing so. Ben W Bell talk 13:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I just did :) Majorly (hot!) 13:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. Ben W Bell talk 13:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Gaara (Mount) Sufii Massacre (Eastern Oromia)

That was the right db-tag to use, right? I mean, it was a copy/paste, too, but it was clearly a one-sided article. HalfShadow 18:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter to be honest, as long as it's brought to an admin's attention. Majorly (hot!) 18:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So even if I mis-tag it, if the admin thinks I had the right idea, away it goes. I figured as much, but I like being correct if I can. HalfShadow 18:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say so. Majorly (hot!) 18:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder to use an edit summary when proposing deletion for an article. Edit summary usage is always good, but it is especially important that edit summaries are used when proposing deletion. The reason for this is that articles proposed for deletion that later have the {{prod}} tag removed should not be proposed for deletion again, but rather sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The only easy way to check if an article was previously proposed for deletion is to look at the edit history and the edit summaries people have left before. Thanks! Oo7565 18:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry? Majorly (hot!) 18:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

RFA stats

Hi Majorly, thanks for adding in my stats. I couldn't figure out how to copy it all correctly, so I owe it to you for getting it all right! The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It's no prob, good luck with it! Majorly (hot!) 22:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks for the support you've already given! The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of article

• You deleted Reachout Trust. I would request that you please restore this article to its previous form. I will check the article, and if necessary put it up for AFD myself, unless I can find multiple reputable secondary sourced material to use as citations to make it more encyclopedic. Smee 23:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Restored. Majorly (hot!) 23:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you most kindly. I will see if I can expand the article with reputable sourced citations from secondary sources. Smee 04:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

• After some research, I was able to expand and source the article with (14) (so far) reputable secondary citations. Let me know what you think... Smee 12:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Looks fine, good job! Majorly (hot!) 13:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you. And thank you for your most kind and polite demeanor during all this. Smee 15:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
• You deleted First Index. I followed all the instructions and removed all *blatant ads*. The company is in business for almost 15 years. Why the article was deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FirstIndex (talk • contribs)
  • It didn't assert notability. Majorly (hot!) 23:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • What infomration needs to be provided? Please advise. The company is in business for 15 years. www.firstindex.com Thank you.
      • Make it longer than a line, and find some external references. You appear to have a conflict of interest as well. Majorly (hot!) 23:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Galaxy 2 Galaxy Article

Hello, you deleted my article on Galaxy 2 Galaxy, even after my hold on and expansion (I expanded the article from 2 lines and a track listing to many lines) to include the bands notability, which fulfilled the notability of bands rule on wikipedia. If you could restore the article to its previous form I would be very grateful, as I feel it has been unfairly deleted. If you disagree could you please let me know why, as I feel I justified its existence. As well as this, the speedy delete was very speedy and maybe you did not realise the expansion had taken place. Many thanks - Curious Gregor^TALK 15:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In its current state, I won't be restoring it. It reads like an advert at the moment, and I would think a complete rewrite would be more suitable. But then, I cannot guarantee it would stay in then. Majorly (hot!) 15:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In what way does it sound like an advert? - Maybe some pointers on the rewrite? - Can you paste the page onto my talk page and I shall edit it there with your suggestions included. Thanks You - - Curious Gregor^TALK 18:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Located here. Look at how similar articles are set out and written for improvement ideas. Majorly (hot!) 20:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thomas X. Hammes

I looks like you may have deleted Thomas X. Hammes,which, I belive, was marked for "speedy deletion" - According to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion the policy is "for cases where an article does not contain useful content" and gives a list, which one fits the article in question? KAM 15:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Criteria A7 - an unremarkable person/or didn't show how he is notable. Majorly (hot!) 16:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I though it meet the requirements of a stub - other editors could improve. Is being the author of "The Sling and the Stone" not notable? KAM 16:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. Is that his only book? Majorly (hot!) 16:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Criticism of the FDA

Why was this page deleted? There has been an extensive discussion on the fate of this page over the past month by many long-time contributors to wikipedia. As of last night, a vote was on the talk page as to whether the page should be retained or merged with Food and Drug Administration - I believe the tally was 4-4, with no one expressing the opinion that all content on that page should be deleted. While the page itself was created by a sockpuppet, the content orginated on the main FDA page, and the banned user in question contributed a minority of the content currently on the page, with his contributions heavily edited since. Please restore the page or explain why it was deleted. Thanks. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 17:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Restored then. Majorly (hot!) 17:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please also restore talk page if possible, thanks. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 23:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

OK... Majorly (hot!) 23:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Question about creating a Countering Systematic Bias task force

Hi, Majorly. This is a somewhat random query, so no sweat if you don't have time to respond. I admire your work for the community, though, so I thought I'd stop by. I'm proposing a task force for the Countering Systematic Bias group focused particularly on making sure that global perspectives are included equitably in relevant articles and that U.S.-centrism doesn't inadvertently creep in. I've been editing for a while, but I've never attempted to organize any efforts within the community. My questions are 1) do you think such a task force is a good idea? 2) Is it better to start this as a task force than an independent group? These questions no doubt seem naive to an editor of your experience, but while I've been contributing to Wikipedia for a while, I've never started any groups/task forces. Regardless, keep up the outstanding work! Benzocane 04:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, might work well as a WikiProject. Majorly (hot!) 09:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

My RfA logic -- if you really didn't know it, all you had to do was ask! :)

Hi,

Here's why I am tough on RfA candidates:

When I started editing Wikipedia, the project had some really incivil admins, most of whom have since left us. This was during a period before ArbCom became "tough," when desysoppings were still very rare. Even when these incivil admins did "the right thing", they did it in such a brusque way that the community was justifiably angry. This taught me early that, although "adminship is no big deal," an incivil admin can create much ill-will by doing small things in a mean, curt way.

Because ArbCom ineffectual at the time, RfA was the one stop-gap I saw to prevent incivil folks from becoming admins. Incivility is a hard thing to catch in an editor: talk page discussions can get heated, and I didn't want to be unfair in judging folks based on one or two slips of the tongue. I finally decided that wiki-space experience is a good filter against incivility: perspective admins ought to at least be able to argue about policy dispassionately. Plus, wiki-space is the place where admins do admin-type things; if an editor has a record of work there, s/he will not only know "the right thing" to do in a given situation, but will also know "the right way" to do the right thing. Wiki-space participation teaches an editor to respect different points-of-view and to argue you calmly in a way article-space doesn't. In article-space, people are usually arguing about real-world stuff, issues they cared about passionately before coming to Wikipedia. In wiki-space, people are often arguing about abstract stuff (encyclopedicality, deletion policy, whatever), issues that they should be more dispassionate about, because they (probably) have never encountered them before coming here. People learn to disagree constructively in wiki-space more readily, because they are arguing over technicalities, and everybody knows they are! There are other reasons to value wiki-space participation, but learning both "the right thing" to do and "the right way" to do it are the main reasons I value that it candidates. It assures me they won't be incivil.

You're probably thinking that I don't assume enough good faith: maybe you're right. The thing is, in my experience, wiki-space participation leads to greater competence. The editors I notice around XfD, Cent. Discussions, or even RfA itself, tend to do more, and do it better, when they get the mop. I also know that things have changed: ArbCom is tougher on incivil admins, and backlogs are huge. These changes in circumstance don't convince me, however, that "more admins of lower quality" are needed. I like to see people seasoned before they get the mop, because I remember how much damage they can do (moral-wise) if they use the mop in bad ways, or even use it in good ways; but, explain those uses badly. I don't think 500 or so edits (of good quality) to wiki-space is too much to ask of a perspective admin. There are LOTS of ways to get those edits, it doesn't take long (two weeks of XfD patrol... I've thought about it), and the results are an admin with a richer knowledge of wiki-norms, much less likely to be a meanie, even unintentionally.

I'm not saying all this to start a debate with you. I just wanted to let you know what my reasons were. I'm sure you disagree with some things; but, I hope I've made myself clearer. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Lugar

Hi, wonder if you can help sort this one out.

The page Lugar (town) has been created as a cut and paste from Lugar when that page was turned into a dab page. Thus leaving all of its history on the dab page.

Infact the page needs moving again to Lugar, East Ayrshire to go with the normal naming conventions for UK place names. I could just do this move and ignore the page history if that is best.

Keith D 13:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed up! :) Xoloz 14:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work. Keith D 14:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Xoloz :) Majorly (hot!) 14:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrat bot

I've replied to your comment at Cecropia's RfB. This idea is seriously interesting. Walton ^{Need some help?} 18:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)