User talk:Majorly/Archives/57

Got a bit above my station there

[1], Thanks for reverting. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Maybe we'll be seeing you on ArbCom soon enough? :) Majorly talk 03:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite likely I suppose, as the defendant. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well hopefully not as a defendant at least. Majorly talk 03:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

Hello Majorly. Could you do me a favor and stop linking your statement header? I have been removing user links from statement headers to keep the page in the format the Arbitration Committee desires. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I prefer it linked to me. It's my statement, not the committee's. Why should it matter if it's linked or not? And where does it say user names should not be linked? Thanks for your help. Majorly talk 14:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It is customary, not policy. I have already delinked about 5 other statement headings and prefer to keep everything consistent. I am not going to make a big deal about this, I am just trying to do my job. KnightLago (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

After my last reply it was pointed out to me that delinking is not just customary. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings: "Section names should not normally contain links, especially ones that link only part of the heading; they will cause accessibility problems." Also, Wikipedia:ACCESS#Links: "Avoid putting links in section headings, unless the link text is the only text in the title. Some screen readers, such as earlier versions of JAWS, will stop reading the heading title when they encounter a link, and if the link is the first part of the heading title, they will only read the link text. For example, a heading title of "The chimpanzees invade the sewer system" may be read as "The", and a heading title of "Boxes in popular culture" may be read as "Boxes"." I have delinked your section again. Please do not revert. KnightLago (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

MOS is for articles, not for arbitration requests. Please go and boss someone else around. Thanks. Majorly talk 21:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, it was me who pointed out to KnightLago the section in WP:ACCESS. It is technically part of the manual of style that applies to articles, but, as far as I'm aware, we try to ensure all our pages are as accessible as possible. In particular, the requests for arbitration pages need to be as accessible to readers with disabilities as our articles. KnightLago is not bossing you around - he made a polite request, and has explained to you the reasoning behind the requests. Please have the courtesy to acknowledge that. Carcharoth (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should not bother inputting my opinion to RFAR in future then, if this is the attitude that arbitrators and their "helpers" have. I linked it to me for good reason, and it is very sad a "clerk" wishes to spend his time edit warring over it. Very, very sad indeed. Do neither of you have anything else to do, instead of pushing me around? I've had a hard enough day as it is without something as lame as this being added on top. Majorly talk 22:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you've had a hard day, Majorly. Your input at RFAR is, of course, appreciated (as is everyone's input), and no-one has suggested otherwise. Now, if you will excuse me, I need to attend to other matters. Feel free to drop by my talk page or e-mail me if you want to continue discussing this. Carcharoth (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't be sorry, it's not your fault. I really should not have snapped at you two. My apologies. It is an unrelated matter that is the problem here. Majorly talk 00:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It's OK. No worries. Carcharoth (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

• Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
• News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
• WikiProject report: WikiProject China
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Message

Here: Is there something wrong with re-adding TB templates? --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 01:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. They're irritating and pointless, and if someone removes one from their talk page, it indicates they've seen it. Adding it is unconstructive. Majorly talk 01:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was being vague. I was re-notifying that a new "new" message was ready. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 01:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, it is fine. For future reference, I have user talk pages watchlisted, so there is no need. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 01:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN

Please apologize for your behaviour toward me at WP:AN. Your conduct in your responses to me was most uncivil. You displayed a snarky attitude that your way was the only right way and you badgered me and A Nobody, who also opposed your call for a ban. In specific, you made a false accusation at incivility when I said nothing of the point, you accuse me of disruption by voicing my dissenting opinion at a forum (which by the way is the same thing you accused DougsTech of doing... is no dissent allowed here anymore?), you lay the blame on me for allowing a user to (in your opinion) troll while I never had any relationship with him before today, and you made a snarky response which in effect said that I wasn't welcome at the AN posting, merely because I disagreed with you. Please issue a sincere apology to me and acknowledge that I am acting in good faith. I don't want to bring this to WP:WQA but I'll gladly do that if I feel that your behaviour towards me was incorrect. ThemFromSpace 02:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Per your recent contempt for me on IRC I'm not waiting any longer. Your actions are being discussed at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Majorly. ThemFromSpace 03:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A strictly voluntary experiment

As a named party in the Aitias request for Arbitration (which is expected to resume/restart shortly), I'd like to invite you to participate in an experimental new format for arbitration (outlined here). It's a smaller format, with only three arbitrators assigned to the case, that is designed to increase interaction between the arbitrators and the named parties. The expectation is that it will lead to a faster resolution, but that has yet to be demonstrated.

There is no pressure to volunteer, and the case will proceed in the usual manner before the whole committee unless all parties unanimously agree to participate.

Thanks, — Coren ^(talk) 14:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It's expect to resume/restart? This is news to me. Majorly talk 14:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I, er, went faster than I should have.  :-) See the motion of RFAR now. — Coren ^(talk) 16:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not be the guinea pig to be honest, in case the result of the case is an undesirable one. I'd rather go through the normal motions at this time. Thanks anyway. Majorly talk 16:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries; noted. Thanks for considering it. — Coren ^(talk) 16:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

How shall I understand this question, Majorly? — Aitias // discussion 14:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Understand it as it's written, Aitias. Majorly talk 16:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, I understand that you dislike me (that's fine of course), however, please note that I have never used another account besides Aitias (talk · contribs) (and Aitias (alternate account) (talk · contribs)) neither before I registered with this one nor afterwards nor will I ever be using another one. Disliking a person is one thing, but alleging one of sock puppetry without providing proper evidence is something one shouldn't do — I would never use sock puppets. — Aitias // discussion 16:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Curious comment you made

This user and User:DougsTech started arguing Doug's point early on together. At the time, I immediately thought "sock" but disregarded it as a coincidental pairing of two users with an odd viewpoint. I'm curious if your point and the odd pointy partnership with Malleus are enough probable cause for a checkuser inquiry? Thoughts?--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 23:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt very much they are the same, so no, I wouldn't seriously not recommend a check. Majorly talk 23:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia is not censored etc, but Alex, please remove this before Malleus or Ottava sees it unless you have a burning desire for a talkpage resembling Abd's on a bad day. – iridescent 23:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they are the same person. Just similar ideas. Chillum 23:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Tally

Hello! I noticed you reverted back to 28, but the numbering is showing up as 29 oppose. As I don't believe in edit warring, I thought I'd ask first. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Please disregard as I have noticed the thread elsewhere. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Majorly/Archives's Day!

Majorly/Archives has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as Majorly/Archives's Day! For your valiance in the ongoing DougsTech case, enjoy being the star of the day, dear Majorly/Archives! Signed, Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign)

For a userbox you can put on your userpage, please see User:Dylan620/Today/Happy Me Day!.

You deserve better than the shit DougsTech's putting you through. So I'm giving you better. :) --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 23:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

A trout on all your houses.

This is not what rollback is for. It is also revert warring, thankfully tame. Please stop.--Tznkai (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I would have used the undo function. Other than that I would say removing trolling comments is a good thing for an admin or any editor to do. You should be more careful with your troutings. Chillum 00:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Please guys just take the time to use the undo function or something. It's virtually impossible to retain the credibility of rollback policy if admins are rolling back so lamely. I'd seen Doug doing it and was going to remove it, but that wouldn't exactly be credible. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I made a mistaken assumption here. Listen to Tznkai then! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Edit warring is pretty much never a good idea. The amount of harm that can be mitigated by edit warring (with the possible exception of BLPs, but thats a separate argument) is rather much outweighed by how incredibly quickly bad ideas thrive during edit wars. The amount of harm in restoring the vote (however you judge it) wasn't anything that couldn't have been solved without reverting it.--Tznkai (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

My tally

Eh, you can leave the Opposes at 3, if having it at 2 is going to keep compelling people to "fix" it; if you're right that the crats are going to ignore it anyway, then no need to worry (although feel free to fix it before the page is locked on Monday). :) BOZ (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm way offf base with this...

...but I thought I'd float it out there (I didn't want to do it on a noticeboard in case I'm totally wrong). I used to be around WP more back when Kurt was !voting on RFAs and have been following the DougsTech issue, but only superficially. There was some mention of DT being a sock. His manner has been utterly brilliant stirring the pot, so I was wondering if it been commented anywhere that maybe DT is a sock of Kurt? I was going through a few contribs of each and comparing the style, but I'm not well versed in doing that. Kurt DT. If this is inappropriate, please feel free to undo my post to your talk page, I was just running it up the flag pole to see if anyone would salute. --64.85.216.71 (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That second quote actually sounds like something Malleus would say... if all I saw was the quote, I would swear it was from Malleus!---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggested as admin candidate

See WT:RFA#Candidate suggestions; I've suggested you and four other users as candidates at WP:RFA. Rather than responding here or on my talk page, please respond at the linked-to section at WT:RFA. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 20:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll be honest with you, while I would love to see Majorly get the bit back... I doubt if he would pass and would urge caution on his part if he were to run. I think his railing against DougsTech would impair any serious run at the current moment.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias

An Arbitration case involving you 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/Aitias/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/Aitias/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 22:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Pblllllgggghhh!

[2] :-P KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

What would be more useful is a notice saying "Anything discussed here is a waste of time" :) Majorly talk 15:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I'm not arguing. Baby steps, right? Baby steps. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

• License update: Licensing vote begins
• News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
• Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
• 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

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wilmslow Road

Hi Majorly,

I noticed you recent(ish)ly renamed the article Wilmslow Road and made a small change. I did quite an overhaul on it a while ago but I was never really happy with the name. I took the name as I found it, but really the article is about Wilmslow Road, Oxford Road and Oxford Street. I took this coverage as I found it too... but do you think it should be renamed Wilmslow Road, Oxford Road and Oxford Street?Yaris678 (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No that's far too complicated imo. Since almost the entire stretch is called Wilmslow Road, I think it's best that it's kept as it is. Majorly talk 19:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Yaris678 (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please keep it relevant

This problem you have with my edit from the other day is not very relevant to Synergy's RFA, so I don't know why you're bringing it up there. It seems like irrelevant drama-stirring to me. If you want to complain at me, you know where my talk page is. Friday (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not one edit - your entire attitude is disgraceful. It's all very well labelling kids in a chatroom as kids in a chatroom, but going so far as to make a silly little blacklist of so-called problematic editors (without any evidence to speak) fits the definition of drama-stirring precisely. It's absolutely insulting to some of Wikipedia's best editors, whom you appear to take entirely for granted. I hope you realised what a serious error of judgement it was in creating such a list - an off-topic, irrelevant to our mission, inaccurate, and drama-stirring list, with no possible benefit. You do realise several people on the list haven't edited in months, and even years? Bringing up stuff that old is precisely what drama stirring is.

I've called you out on some of your comments in the past, and while there is the rare occasion I agree with you, this list really hit a nerve with me - the final straw so to speak. Some people on that list write quality content day after day after day, and what thanks do they get? The immature editors list. What do you do? Delete junk occasionally which doesn't require any real judgement whatsoever, and spend your time whining about so-called problem editors, that don't actually cause any problems, but instead write the encyclopedia, that you spend so little time writing.

I found the whole thing so hypocritical - you're always whining on about immature people, but I found creating a little list is an incredibly immature thing to do. If you're not going to practice what you preach, stop preaching it. Seriously, I suggest stop obsessing yourself over IRC and immature editors (which I don't disagree, we do have several and they are a problem sometimes) and work on articles instead. Otherwise, you're the one that comes out sounding like a whiny kid who isn't here to write the encyclopedia, but rather to delete other people's stuff and police people about. Majorly talk 16:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Like most everyone, I contribute in areas where I think I can be useful. I'm no great writer, and I often do Wikipedia things while multitasking. Deleting junk from the new pages list is a good match for me because it requires no writing skills, and can be done for 10 seconds at a time. I don't agree with this notion that there is only one way to contribute usefully. Wikipedia requires many different types of work. Sure, my contributions are trivial compared to someone who writes good articles, but deleting junk is still useful. The janitor at a magazine office is no replacement for the actual writers, but it's still useful to have people sweeping the floors. It would be foolish to try to get the writers to do that job- their time is more usefully spent elsewhere.

I certainly don't think I whine about people who cause no problems- I try to only whine about problem editors, and only as much as is useful in fixing the problem. Poor behavior from editors is the biggest single problem I see at Wikipedia. And, it's also one of the few areas where Wikipedia hasn't improved in years. We're still no better at dealing with problem editors than we were years ago, and this is a problem I think is worth trying to fix. Maybe you don't see it that way, but that's where I'm coming from. Friday (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Open Your Heart

Should I just be bold and revert the user's review? They haven't even taken the article off of the nominee list. The only thing is, I'm not good at explaining things to users, so I'm not sure how to tell the reviewer that they didn't review the article in a manner that befitting of a GA reviewer. CarpetCrawler^{message me} 19:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians

Hi Majorly, I've blocked three IPs on this page in the last 24 hours for edit-warring with each IP. I see this has gone on for some time. Is this IP edit-warrior someone who follows AdirondackMan around or just a random troll trolling? Either way, the IPs are blocked for disruption. Thanks. Acalamari 21:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)