User talk:Majorly/Archives/62

FT2 sockpuppet

You can't use the 'too long ago' argument when he has consistently denied it or avoided questions about it for so long. Now he has admitted it. Leave it be. Peter Damian (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you leave it be. What purpose does doing this have, exactly? Majorly talk 21:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well then everyone can leave Geogre's RFAR be. The purpose is to uncover evil doings. Peter Damian (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any serious abuse, unlike the nature of Geogre's edits, which are far more recent as well. Why don't you tag my page too? I'm a sockpuppeteer. But I know you won't, because you're obsessed with FT2, for whatever reason. Majorly talk 21:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

He consistently denied it, which you presumably didn't. He held high office in Wikipedia. I am against all forms of corruption. What's your position on corruption? Peter Damian (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

On the serious nature of the abuse, you should read the policy on abusive socking. That's not the same as multiple accounts. Peter Damian (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Note

I have a couple of "morning tasks" to do, and will be offline for a little bit. Can it wait for a little longer before I move it? Thanks for the work you're doing on it. Acalamari 15:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. Majorly talk 15:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be back soon. Acalamari 15:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Moved and filed. It's all up now. Acalamari 16:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

should I inform people of it, who participated in the RFC/RFAR? Majorly talk 16:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as they participated in it last time. I've informed Aitias Acalamari 16:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

JP Travel and general notability of smaller bus operators

Hello, there is a discussion at Talk:JP Travel which you may be interested in regarding notability of smaller bus operators. (This is a copy and paste message, I have included you in this as you make bus related contributions in the past) Jeni ^(talk) 18:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing my typos. Guess I need to learn to spell, huh? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least you had the initiative to get this drama over and done with. We were going to wait a week, but nevermind. It's not like anything he says will somehow magic all the problems away. Majorly talk 23:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation

I will try to follow the process and see how it goes. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note this. Majorly talk 23:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that. I still don't really understand the details of how the wheels turn for these processes. Fox example it's not clear to me what role the RfC played. And I notice that some Arbcom proceedings sit open or stall for months at a time, others move forward with some expediency. And it all seems to involve an insane amount of "drama", for lack of a better word, and bureaucratic hoop jumping. And yet other bans and blocks are handed out per individual whim at the noticeboards. Shouldn't there be a way to empanel a review boards to consider admin-editor disputes and protracted content disputes? I think Arbcom needs to do more outside the box thinking in attempting to work these things out. Maybe the could make mediation binding? It would still be subject to appeal or review, but I think more delegation would be helpful. It all seems a bit Wizard of Ozy as it's impossible to know how decisions are actually made and the Wizards are called on to sort all these things out and there are really to many for them to deal efficiently with. Perhaps as a result they take an insanely long time and then make sweeping and backwards looking (punitive) enforcement measures. I don't really understand how it all works. Even sorting out which arbcom page is which seems to me a herculean task. But I guess it kind of all works out somehow? Shouldn't there be a way to review a particular admin action if it's controversial in an expedient way and to have it corrected or upheld. Or to put an admin up for desysop or review by the community? I don't know, I guess people work on these ideas for reform and they get bogged down. What became of the advisory panel to arbcom? At the end of the day it all seems a bit cabalesque to me and to depend a whole lot on who you know and how well connected you are. Anyway, let me know if you have any thoughts. I'm not meaning to be negative or critical, I do see signs of accountability improving and I think that's a good thing. But it does seem to be coming at a cost as far as the difficulty and struggle it takes to make it happen. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

• News and notes: WMF elections, strategy wiki, museum partnerships, and much more
• Wikipedia in the news: Dispute over Rorschach test images, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester August Newsletter, Issue XVIII

Delivered on 5 August 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Nev1 (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Reversion explained

Hi Majorly. I have only just noticed this edit of yours. Please see this edit, and have a quick check for any truth anywhere, including the reference[1] and the Criminal Laws Act 2009 (links). Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, my bad. I should have checked the reference. Thanks for letting me know... Majorly talk 21:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Majorly. You have new messages at Freshacconci's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

freshacconci talktalk 00:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

• Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community
• News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sincere apologies

Small details often slip from memory. Sorry, ceranthor 00:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

• From the editor: Where should the Signpost go from here?
• Radio review: Review of Bigipedia radio series
• News and notes: Three million articles, Chen, Walsh and Klein win board election, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Reports of Wikipedia's imminent death greatly exaggerated, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

FA concern

I understand your viewpoint and it seems reasonable enough. However there are few concerns I would like to tell you.

1. The reason for the failing of 4 Minutes was lack of support. However, can we add this reason in the archive page before closing it so that nominaters are not perplexed?
2. Snarky posts in teh review. I can tell you two instance: Papa Don't Preach and No Jacket Required. Both their FAC's I noticed that instead of commenting on the content, reviewrs were asking the nominater to de-nominate and comments like "If Tony sees it". My point is you guys should help nominaters understand what is wrong with the article and not be rude! Do you guys who are regular at FA donot want articles to be nominated or is there some threshold that FA has regarding the passing of the articles that such snarky comments are incorporated? Such comments not only de-motivate the main contributer but also creates a bad feelings towards subsequent reviewrs like my feeling is now towards Tony1. How can I assume good faith on his part? This has to stop. Wikipedians shouldnot discourage others but teach them how to make this encyclopedia a better place. If you want I can raise this concern at the talk page. A fair amount of monopolization is going on I believe. Reply back if you feel like. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments such as "if Tony1 sees it..." probably aren't helpful to newer reviewers who aren't familiar with Tony1's reviews. Tony1 is a great supporter of clear and accurate writing (FA criterion 1a) and will oppose an FAC if he feels its article is not well enough written. He doesn't highlight every problem with prose as he does a lot of reviews and a random sample if enough to indicate that there are problems throughout the article. When addressing Tony1's comments, it's not enough to reply to his specific examples, you need to get someone else to copyedit the article as well, otherwise the point of the review is missed. When others say "if Tony1 sees it..." they recognise that it's not well enough written and needs more work on the prose; it essentially shifts the blame, and people should be confident enough to say "it needs work" themselves rather than use a proxy. Tony1 has some good exercises to help writers identify what needs work in their own prose, so I'd recommend reading through this. It's long, but going through it should make any future FACs you make easier and would improve your writing in general. Nev1 (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be good if the reason for not promoting could be added to the close. That, however, is up to the delegates who close them.

I also dislike the approach many take to FACs - usually an aggressive one, with unhelpful "not good enough" comments. They certainly demotivate people to both post articles and review them. But such people are often an integral part of FAC and generally point out things that need fixing - just not in a constructive way.

I would hardly call myself regular at FAC. I nominated a single article there (well, I have others but they didn't pass and it was years ago), and only review when asked or when I notice an article on a topic I am particularly interested in.

I suggest you just go with the flow and renominate it again in a few weeks. Nothing will change by talk page discussion, it's as entrenched as it can be. Majorly talk 12:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Specifically in reply to Nev - if you do get an oppose from Tony, don't always assume he's right. Although he often is right, FA criteria 1a says "its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard", not "Tony likes it". As long as you're confident in the material as it stands and can justify why it is of its current format, it's entirely possible to get an FA promoted despite opposition from Tony.

A particular example (just because it's the area I know the best, I'm sure there are similar cases elsewhere) is that of science and engineering articles; here, the "professional standard" is often that of heavily technical body text, with footnotes and/or links used as explanation of the concepts and terms under discussion (to avoid idiot lectures to ensure the article is understandable to everyone, even though most of those interested in the article won't need an explanation). This results in articles that look jargon-heavy and dull to people who don't know the field, but still meet criteria 1a. For examples of recently promoted FAC despite prose-style opposition from Tony, see SR Leader class or Albert Bridge. – iridescent 19:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ageism

Hey Majorly, I was wondering what your thoughts were to the revised version of the essay?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. BTW I emailed you the other day, can you check please. It's a little dated now though. Majorly talk 22:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look for the message... I didn't see it...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Lane End Primary School

Hello! I just wanted to commend you for your excellent input during the AfD discussion regarding the Lane End Primary School. This was one of the more invigorating AfDs that I have come across recently. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and thank you for your thoughtful closure. Obviously I agree with how it went, and I'm glad you read the arguments instead of counting heads. (I have nominated a load more primary schools for deletion, and I hope the closing admin takes the time to close those as well). Majorly talk 00:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It was a surprisingly tough battle, but it ended with the right result. Hopefully the closing admins on your other primary school AfDs take the trouble to look at the arguments as Pastor Theo has done with this one. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note my comments at User talk:Pastor Theo. Camaron · Christopher · talk 14:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy Majorly/Archives's Day!

User:Majorly/Archives has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Majorly/Archives's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Majorly/Archives! Peace, Rlevse 00:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

• News and notes: $500,000 grant, Wikimania, Wikipedia Loves Art winners
• Wikipedia in the news: Health care coverage, 3 million articles, inkblots, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Emo

You semiprotected this article on 20 May 2007 due to heavy vandalism. I've started a review to see if semiprotection is still considered necessary. Please see the talk page. --TS 00:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

207.102.0.15

207.102.0.15 has been blocked for vandalism for 48 hours, although I may lengthen the block. Do you want the revisions he made to your talk and user page deleted? I assume Acalamari can sort out his own page as he's an admin. Nev1 (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I've requested oversight. Acalamari 21:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Since this affects both of you, would you prefer a block longer than 48 hours? It's clearly disruptive and I doubt the IP will come back wanting to contribute to the encyclopedia so would endorse an extension if either of you feel it's appropriate. Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like an open proxy. It was editing earlier on a different IP, so I don't think extending will do anything. Majorly talk 21:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)