User talk:Majorly/Archives/55

RfA thanks

Thank you for the trust you placed in me by supporting my RfA (which passed and, apparently, I am now an admin!). I will do my best to continue to act in a way that is consistent with the policies of wikipedia as well with our common desire to build and perfect this repository of human knowledge; and can only hope that you never feel that your trust was misplaced. Thanks again! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 22:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Julie Lemieux

Hi,

You said that Julie Lemieux was not eligable for speedy deletion. The tag says that is applies to articles which are about "a real person that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject." Could you elaborate/direct me so I understand that tag better?

Bladeofgrass (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A voice actress for several notable productions suggests she is notable. Feel free to PROD or AFD it, but it's not speediable. Majorly talk 13:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Right to vanish

Dear Majorly, back in September I attempted to vanish after some disconcerting circumstances arose. At the time I was not indefinitely blocked, involved in arbitration, etc. An account created shortly after the attempt to vanish was alleged to be me and I was subsequently unvanished, but renamed. It was then made clear to me while being renamed that we cannot vanish and start over, which I now see is bolded on the RTV page: "The "right to vanish" is not a "right to a fresh start" under a new identity;" however, Secret while invoking the right to vanish says he will come back as hidden account as a fresh start. If I and others are not allowed to do that, then I do not think it is fair if others can. Thus, should this be taken to an admin board as Balloonman suggested? I am concerned if it is allowed then it reflecting a double standard of sorts. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If he wants to be an admin that badly why not just let him? If he's unsuitable then we'll detect it in his RFA.--Patton^t/c 22:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The challenge is catching people as they do it... I suspect that if somebody wanted to, in a few weeks (give him time to recreate the account) that a check user would identify his account---or people might notice a similar editing pattern/history. I know that if I were to vanish, people would recognize me (I posted once as an IP, and somebody said, "I think that's Balloonman.") So, yes, the rules forbid it and when we know about it, it's not allowed. (It would doom any RfA if it came out.) That being said, the new account has to be identified and tied to the old account, otherwise we are waving our hands.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If someone states that they intend to not really vanish, do we still delete their talk page history as for example the edit history of my talk page is pretty much intact from before my name change. On another note, it is discouraging when people disagree, especially admins and go with incivil edit summaries, but what can you do? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologise if you thought that was uncivil A nobody Best.Pedro :  Chat  23:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Accepted and thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Can you guys (especially A_Nobody) leave me alone please, this is becoming harrassment. 147.70.92.48 (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
    • How is it harrassment? You don't have to look at this talk page. Majorly talk 22:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• This isn't harrasment. This is discussion. Why do you want the tools so badly? Why can you not contribute mainspace content like Majorly, A Nobody and I? I think it's mighty immature of you to storm out and come back on a different account to gain adminship, but then I can't stop you, so go ahead.--Patton^t/c 23:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Oh for fucks sake, look at the second edit afterwards I'm not planning to come back under any account, I even exposed that account for it to get blocked. Also do your research before doing allegations of myself not contributing to mainspace. I had three FAs, wrote hundreds of articles, and over 15,000 mainspace edits under my belt. I'm not a immature teenager trying to whine to get my tools back. I was also willing to contribute to the project, do an WP:RFC and go back to RFA when I think I gained the trust of the community again. But this was becoming a "we don't like him, let's lynch him" fest instead of saying a simple no for valid reasons and I'm sick and tired how wikipedia is resulting to this resort again and again, with editors such as ALoan, Cla68, Giano, Worldtraveller, Zscout, Bishonen and so fourth. They have no respect for article contributers just wiki politics and most people has to agree with me here. I'm just fucking worn out and tired of this nonsense. I'm not planning to ever come back to the project unless it resorts to it's original intent. An encyclopedia. 147.70.92.48 (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, it was wrong of Patton to say that comment about articles. Majorly talk 23:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Er what? I have never seen any of those editors you just mentioned retire. Stop accusing A Nobody of harrasment. You are following him around accusing him of things, which is basically harrasment. Please stop commenting here, create another account and get on with your fresh start.--Patton^t/c 23:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Uhh I'm not following him around, I'm just defending myself, I had Majorly talk page in my watchlist for a long-time. I just want to leave in peace and for A_Nobody to just stop it. I left the project and him continuing doesn't help the situation, especially for me. If I want to go to another username (not saying I will), so what, I'm not a banned user, and I'm being treated like I'm banned. This is why I don't want anything to do with the project anymore. I was a user in good standing. Secret ^account 23:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Putting words in your mouth, sort of

I hope you don't mind me doing this. If you do, please undo it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I've posted a general apology in my withdrawal statement at the Oversight election page, but I felt that as a contributor you deserve an individual apology too.

It was not my intention to let the election begin without a statement, but an IT gremlin "ate" my first attempt at posting there some hours before the election was to begin and then unforseeable RL issues prevented me from getting back to it until too late. Thank you for your consideration and sincere regrets for wasting your time. --Dweller (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't worry about it. Majorly talk 15:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania shares a border with Canada. You don't think this is worth mentioning?68.238.184.72 (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Live and Kicking

I posted some comments for further improvement. I didn't follow up because I wanted to give you the time to address it. I had no idea you made further edits. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you up to?

What are you up to Majorly, reverting my edits to my own talk page?[1] I'm already paranoid enough about administrators, without having you on my case as well. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 19:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Lol, sorry, I intended to click on the diff button but missed. That teaches me for noseying around other people's talk pages :) Majorly talk 19:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Contacting developers

Do you know how to get in touch with a developer? You had suggested that I do this in order to get my edits re-assigned after my name change but the only thing I could find was meta:Developers and that list is hopelesly out of date.

Can you let me know? Please and thank you.

Peace! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Try contacting User:Brion VIBBER or User:Tim Starling. Hope you get this sorted soon.

Majorly talk 22:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, man! 'preciate it. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Live & Kicking

Hi! Quick message to let you know I promoted the article to GA earlier today. Have fun! - Mgm|^(talk) 22:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

Hello Majorly/Archives, Filper01 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 6	8 February 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more	Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs"
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music
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.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Demographics

Sorry I didn't sort out the demography section for Cheadle Hulme myself, I got carried away with Scheduled Monuments in Greater Manchester and it's FLC. The section looks good, depending how developed you want it to be, it might be worth selecting some statistics and comparing them to figures for the borough or England; for example, in all of England 28.9% have no academic qualifications, but in Cheadle Hulme this falls to 20.8%. It's not essential, and probably wouldn't affect a GAN if it wasn't there. I've added some sources to back up the figures, and I'm assuming you're using the same sources as I did (although Stockport council may have their own stats). I think it should be explained that the figures come from adding together the stats for two political wards. I found some minor discrepancies between figures, but nothing major. It's probably best to keep figures to 2 or 3 significant figures, or 1 or 2 decimal places for consistency (IMO it doesn't matter which you choose).

The population table needs a source, but I don't know which one you used. Figures from after 1871 probably don't exist for Cheadle Hulme individually as it became part of the township of Cheadle. A note probably needs to be added explaining this, but what could be done is explaining the general population trends of the area with the caveat that it may not apply to Cheadle Hulme (but probably generally does). Nev1 (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Lapsing admin status

I think you should propose it; anything that manages to get you, me and Malleus in agreement has got to at least be worth considering. WP:PEREN is a lame argument against it; it translates as "we didn't agree to it before so there's no point discussing it again", but Wikipedia isn't a law court and isn't bound by precedent. My personal opinions are even further towards auto-desysopping than you – to save rehashing them, they're spelt out in points 2 & 3 here. I've not yet seen any counter argument to make me change my mind on either point. – iridescent 22:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I also think the subject could use further thrashing out. While I do support one particular position in this matter I would prefer that whatever consensus is to win out than my personal opinion. The ideas presented on both sides have merits and the community that is discussing it does change as the days pass. Chillum 22:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that auto-desysopping of dormant accounts is a sensible security precaution and increasingly necessary as the site gets older. But bearing in mind the difficulty of getting a consensus for change here I'd go for a very minimalist first step - something like 24 months or more with no edits for a desysop. Then require 500 new edits before a crat can evaluate that we are probably dealing with the same individual and they've had a chance to get back up to speed, before getting back the mop. ϢereSpellCheckers 23:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that it would be relatively easy to take over the accounts of at least some inactive administrators, as long as they have email enabled. I won't say how, for fear of giving people ideas. So I agree, there's at the very least a potentially serious security problem. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I may even try it, as an exercise, but if I do I'll be sure to fess up as soon as I'm in. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Anything that may change the opinions of those who think adminship should be kept for life, regardless of inactivity or incompetence is a good thing. Let us know if you manage it. Majorly talk 23:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Since when does inactivity affect ones ability to be an admin? Sure, incopetence warrants immediate dessysoping, but inactivity, no.--Patton^t/c 23:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Policy changes very quickly and custom and practice change even quicker. People who knew everything a year ago don't necessarily know how we work now. Also, the "long term" admins often develop a "we are the elite" mentality. Go to any of the flameboards and look at the admins who are being complained about for "abuse" of one sort or another and check when their RFAs were – you'll consistently find that the "problem" admins are those who passed three or more years ago. This is why I don't just support desysopping for inactivity, I support desysopping automatically after two years, with a simplified "does anyone object?" re-sysopping procedure after a couple of months of "ordinary editor" status. Inactivity makes it worse, as there's a reasonable presumption that the admin concerned won't have kept up to date with current policy. – iridescent 00:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

From the editor — A new leaf

Commons Picture of the Year
Picture of the Year 2008 begins voting

News and notes
Flagged Revisions, historical image discovery, and more

In the news
Political tiff, error repeated in press, predictions of doom

Dispatches
How busy was 2008?

WikiProject report
WikiProject Gaelic games

Discussion report
Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins
Approved this week

Technology report
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Arbitration report
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.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 07:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

RFA

Chequers Tree

Chequers Tree fruit - eat when well bletted

Thanks to everyone who participated in either my successful RfA, or the trial run, whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks to I'm Spartacus! and Cyclonenim for nominating me, and for those of you who treated this as a !vote not a vote and reviewed your position as the discussions developed. I am deeply humbled by the trust that the community has put in me. I'd also like to thank my tallybots, the closing crats, the vandalfighters who wiped vandalism from my RFA, the users who initially welcomed me and gave me rollback, everyone whose worked with me here, those who created the various guides and tools for aspirant admins, the Lolcat who nommed me in my first RFA and everyone else who has helped make Wikipedia such a wonderful site. ϢereSpielChequers The lycanthropic loquacious fruit tree.

To copy this elsewhere type {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Ta muchly for RFA}}

Dear Majorly, thanks for your support in my RFA, hope to meet you at one or more of the upcoming meetups. ϢereSpellCheckers 23:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Query

Hey Majorly,

You wrote at wt:rfa Nothing I ever did as an admin was nearly as stressful as going through my reconfirmation RFA. Does that include the RfC against you that got you to step down from adminship? I would have thought that was worse.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 15:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was as bad, just it was totally different. The point is though, actual admin actions were never, ever stressful for me. Majorly talk 16:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I missed your response when you made it... I know that the process leading to your loss of the bit is largely to blame for my current view on the process. Eg that it should have been easier to get the bit out of your hands---it felt like a blood bath. AND it should be easier to get the bit back into your hands than it probably will be. It needs to be easier to give and take it away. (I know you want it easier to give, but I think we need both.)---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 14:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 61 support, 3 oppose, and 1 neutral Cheers! Nja247 19:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for yer edits

To Norman Birkett. Trying to get an FA, are we? :P. You wouldn't happen to know of any good copyeditors? I want this thing damn close to perfect before it heads off to the big FAC in the sky. Ironholds (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Letting you know about this: [2]. Hope my guess was correct. Acalamari 00:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep I saw it. Thanks for the fix. Majorly talk 00:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Uncertified RfC

Please note [3] as this RfC is not approved. Minimum requirements for an RFC to be certified are found here: Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours. The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.

It appears that you've missed that section - for convenience, I've reinserted that section [4] so that it may be filled out by either you, or any other user who wishes to certify the basis of the dispute. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I should think the multiple times he has been in some sort of conflict, having been told he's beating a dead horse would have been enough. Majorly talk 15:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The diffs in the evidence section of an RfC can demonstate instances where user conduct or judgement may cause concern, or instances where it does not cause concern. However, the section that I'd added in this case, exists separately, because that evidence needs to stand out and demonstrate that RfC is warranted for the dispute - why other venues cannot be tried, and why this is serious. That section needs evidence that all of the users certifying the basis of the dispute did not just make multiple attempts to discuss it with the user in question, but also made attempts to find resolution or even compromise - if after all this, they failed to resolve the dispute, that's when it is RfC worthy.

An RfC/U shouldn't be filed in haste; it's considered a formal step in dispute resolution (often considered the second last step). The talk page of the RfC exists to sort out differences that either appear on the RfC itself, or to sort out other loose ends of the dispute. Hope that clarifies. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)