User talk:Majorly/Archives/9

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

Simple News: Issue Eleven[change source]

The Simple News
The Simple News
Issue Eleven
3rd August 2009
Announcements
User Articles
In his fourth article, Pmlinediter talks about Oversight, DYK and more
Administrator News
Swine Flu update

As of Sunday 3th August 2009 188,139 cases of Swine Flu have been confirmed. 1265 people have now died from it.

QandA
  • The QandA. Every month, a user will be interviewed by a member of the Simple News team. This idea was started by Kennedy. Interviews are generally taking by a member of the Simple News Team - to date this has included Bluegoblin7, Kennedy, Pmlinediter, Shappy and Yotcmdr.

This weeks interview is with Barras.

Click here for Barras' interview!

The Commander's Choice

The Commanders's Choice. For every edition, Yotcmdr will be chosing articles that need creating, expanding or being attended to. This time Pmlinediter is selecting the articles. Here is this edition's list:

The News in Brief

Main Stories:

Click here for the Sports stories!

Pmlineditor 10:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request[change source]

Hi! Here is an unblock request. You blocked the range where this IP is included. Please review the request, because I am not familar with the block. I don't know if this is a try to create an other sockpuppet. Barras || talk 19:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

protection of Barras' RfO[change source]

'Excessive vandalism'? I don't think that one case of vandalism is excessive (especially when it was a registered account). Griffinofwales (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that seeing as Barras is being targeted by some idiot-minded individual, this protection is fine. Registered account? Yeah, for about five minutes. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For 15 minutes, actually. The vandal will get smart and autoconmfirm his account(s). Then do you fully protect it? Protection protects pages, not people. Griffinofwales (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, when they autoconfirm we block. -Djsasso (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't you do the same with IPs/non-autoconfirmed accounts? Griffinofwales (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because of possible collateral damage and people who didn't exist prior to the RfO can't !vote anyways so protecting against them isn't that big a deal.. -Djsasso (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Collateral damage? 2. But non-autoconfirmed accounts and IPs are allowed to voice their opinions on the candidates. Griffinofwales (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IPs can be shared, blocking it may block others. As for your second point, the talk page is still open to them so they can still voice their opinions on the candidates. -Djsasso (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and if the vandal starts putting swastikas on the talk page, what are you going to do? Griffinofwales (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to understand that not everything is black and white. I think people have pointed this out to you on your review. -Djsasso (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about that. Since this protection isn't going to change, I'll drop the subject. Griffinofwales (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hallelujah![change source]

I read your comments to Griffinofwales about redlinks... and I'm glad to see someone else feels the same way I do about them: They're there to encourage new articles to be written about the subjects. I get rather tired of seeing them deleted (here and on English Wikipedia) for no good reason. (Deleting redlinks to common terms that shouldn't even need articles is another matter... though I will sometimes change those to Wiktionary links.)

I'm also already getting a mite tired of Griffin's approach to editing (which is more like what I would call "hairsplitting")... but that's another matter, and I'll stand back from that one. Keep up the good work. Zephyrad (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight[change source]

I have closed your request as successful. Please remember the oversight policy and good luck. Respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you'll 'remember' what to do. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well done on getting the bit. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 23:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be COI, but there are some PAs to your talk from an IP that you may want to OS. EhJJTALK 03:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You must be mistaken about what COI is then. Majorly talk 12:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OS mailing list[change source]

Wikipedia talk:Oversight#Mailing list. If you could sign that so we have definitive on-wiki evidence of consensus for a mailing list, that'd be grand. Thanks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proxy blocking bot[change source]

I noticed that you made a request for a proxy blocking bot at en:Wikipedia:Bot requests. Fr:Utilisateur:Proxybot has been blocking open proxies at the French Wikipedia for almost 2 years and the source code is available here. You might be able to modify it to run on this wiki. Regards, SUL (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankspam[change source]

You do know...[change source]

You do know that the three pages about Austria you just deleted have inherent notability because they are places in the world, right? They also have pages on the English Wikipedia. Razorflame 15:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy that argument. When creating an article, editors should put a little effort into it before posting. Otherwise, users may as well read the English Wikipedia article, because it'll be more informative. Articles that tell us "X town exists and has n people living there" do not show any notability. My house exists, but it wouldn't have an article. Majorly talk 15:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. But the French communes were kept weren't they? The article can be expanded. PmlineditorTalk 16:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
en:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The editor should put some effort into at least making it more than one line long before posting it. Otherwise, we will be flooded with one line stubs, which aren't articles under any kind of definition. Majorly talk 16:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Apple[change source]

Hi,

You redirected Big Apple to New York City. But I want to notice that Big Apple has several interwiki.

Now All interwiki from en:Big Apple link to simple:New York City, but interwiki from simple:New York City links to en:New York City. It's interwiki conflict. --Dnikitin (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One big can o'worms...[change source]

I thought I was being helpful regarding the Bambifan101 issue and instead I've caused a rather lively discussion over at the AN. I'm sorry for causing trouble, but in light of the massive cross-wiki trouble Bambifan has caused, I thought I was doing the right thing. If he comes back here, I'll let the admins here deal with him and I'll deal with him at English. I had an idea as to how to channel his desire to contribute, but after the ramblings on the talk page of that recent blocked sock, I may have to reconsider the idea. I don't want to tip my hand on this just yet, but I'll let you know what come of it. It may save all of us a lot of headaches. I'll be in touch and again, sorry for the inconvenience. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live?[change source]

I added you to Live Messenger to talk about edits made on SEW. Negano (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't appear to have come up. Make sure the address is right. Majorly talk 23:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is your id full account thing? Negano (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The name written above on the right at hotmail dot co dot uk. Majorly talk 23:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkusership/NonvocalScream 2[change source]

Hello Majorly, I hope that you don't my bringing this here to avoid cluttering up NonvocalScream's CU request. As I said earlier, there's a difference between "asking for clarification" and what fr33kman does. I have no problem with other users questioning my !vote reasons, but it's all in the way you do it. Talking down to someone you feel superior to is never helpful, and if fr33kman had worded his comment more respectfully, I would have no issues. Hope this explains my position a bit more. :) Respectfully, – Katerenka (talk • contribs) 19:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how his comment was disrespectful. It's not like he was even talking to you, so why did you feel the need to jump down his throat with the badgering ploy? Majorly talk 21:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, I should just let him talk down to everyone and not say anything? Interesting. – Katerenka (talk • contribs) 21:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, I don't think he was talking down. Out of every user on this project, I think Fr33kman is one of the best ones, and I don't say that sort of thing lightly. I'd have probably said things differently to how he did, but his general gist is spot on. Majorly talk 22:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not he has the right idea, his general delivery leaves much to be desired, and gives off a terrible first impression. I'm not the only one that feels this way, either. – Katerenka (talk • contribs) 22:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I've not known anybody take issue with him, ever. And you are obviously not new, per your enwiki talk page. Have you ever edited here before? Majorly talk 22:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock review[change source]

Hello Majorly. This user asks for an unblock. You blocked the /18 range. Can you please review this? Cheers Barras (talk) 12:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably fine to unblock. Majorly talk 12:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple News Issue 12[change source]

The Simple News
The Simple News
Issue Twelve
26th October 2009
Announcements
Administrator News
User Articles
Fr33kman talks about his latest initiatives for his debut article...
In his fourth article, Pmlinediter talks of what to do to keep Simple WP running

GoblinBot3 (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page.[change source]

Hey. Just saw that you deleted Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/gordonrox24 That. I was just wondering, did I create that a long time ago, or did somebody else make that? I don't recall making that, but it has been a while since I was here last. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone created it just today. Majorly talk 23:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for getting rid of it!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Deletion[change source]

There are a lot of empty user pages - surely they comply with QDG7? Liverpoolfan567 Send me a message 17:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No... Majorly talk 17:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? If the author blanks the page, this can mean that he or she wants it deleted.Liverpoolfan567 Send me a message 17:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the case I reverted, the page wasn't blanked, and the policy says can not does. Majorly talk 19:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have already reverted all my other similar edits, I was just interested to know. Thanks. Liverpoolfan567 Send me a message 19:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ophelia Bretnacher disappearance[change source]

I noticed you redirected that. I had an RFD going on that (and also have one on the page you redirected it to). Could you either close the RFD or undo the redirect until the RFD works itself out. Thanks, Purplebackpack89 (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. There is no benefit whatsoever in having two identical articles. Majorly talk 18:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then can you close the RFD, since it is resolved now? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No - the article has notability issues. Majorly talk 19:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are two of them. I agree that the one that's still a full article should continue, but the one that's now a redirect needs to be closed. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Next time, just make one RfD and list both articles in it, since they're the same. In fact, in this case, you could have redirected the incorrectly spelled one to the correct one and not made an RfD for the incorrectly spelled one at all.EhJJTALK 22:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to do one of those things, but I didn't know how to do A and wasn't sure which was right for B Purplebackpack89 (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very Majorly[change source]

Majorly, you majorly deleted my article about Catherine Morland! I am, majorly sad! Please bring it back. I need it, and I worked on it for a long time. I hope I'm not too worked up, but... Oh, yeah, and in english wikipedia there are pages about Elinor and Marianne Dashwood. So, please, to prevent me from being, um, major mad, please bring it back. Okay? Write back to me on my talk page!! (Please excuse my majorly majorness.) Majorly yours, Pretty Lydie (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it but please edit it to make it like other articles - categories, references, headers, wikilinks etc. Majorly talk 13:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Cavaliers[change source]

I would like to bring your attention to an RFD I posted concerning this article: Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2009/Northern Cavaliers. It should be closed since your deletion renders it moot. Thanks. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 22:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason earles[change source]

Hi Majorly. Would you mind restoring this article? As you can see, I was in the middle of cleaning it up when it was deleted. Thanks, ···Katerenka (討論) 03:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katerenka, you should be able to access the deleted page history. You may want to simply create a new article at Jason Earles. It is likely that Majorly deleted the article within seconds of your change, without knowing it. EhJJTALK 03:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was actually what I was planning on doing. I made a few minor changes and added a reference and was planning on moving the article when it was deleted. I would like to use the last revision of the article that I made to start the new one, but didn't want to just restore it without first talking to Majorly. ···Katerenka (討論) 03:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. I suppose since you're using material contributed by the IP, you'll also want to have the page history. EhJJTALK 03:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict)  @EhJJ - Katerenka is asking Majorly because she doesn't want to Wheel war. DivineAlpha (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't been Wheeling if you restored either direct to userspace or restored then moved supressing redirect. Just do it, it doesn't need the dramafied discussion. Goblin 03:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]
 (change conflict) Yes, I am aware of wheel warring. However, in this case the article was deleted as "G2 - Test page" less than a minute after Katerenka fixed it. Clearly Majorly would not consider this article deletable under G2 now that it has been fixed; his deletion was a simple mistake. If not, perhaps we should open a Request for deAdminship on Majorly for a bad deletion? ;) EhJJTALK 03:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DevineAlpha - Hope the above is not BITEy. Looks like you're new here. Thanks for the advice. EhJJTALK 03:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluegoblin7, I'm sorry that you feel this discussion is a "dramafield". However, since Majorly was the deleting admin, reversing his administrative action without first discussing the issue with him is both wheel warring and rude and something that I'm not going to do. Kind regards, ···Katerenka (討論) 04:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kate, in that case you're misunderstanding deletion and wheel warring. Restoring this page directly to your userspace is not wheelwarring nor rude. Wheelwarring and rude would be reverting the delete to mainspace and leaving it as it was, then going on a spree with Maj's other reverts. This is definitely being dragged out way too much for such a trivial matter. Someone just perform the undelete already. Goblin 04:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]
Considering Majorly has made no edits in a few days and this delete was his only logged action today, I'm going to guess he's not around at the moment. I honestly believe this was a simple mistake and this looks like it would speedy close in a request for undeletion. I'm going to restore and move it. Consider this resolved. EhJJTALK 05:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either way as was discussed on simple talk I believe it was awhile back, speedies here are treated the same as prods on en. As soon as it is objected to and its not blatant vandalism, any admin can restore it. So on simple it wouldn't have been wheel warring for you to restore it. It would have been following procedure. :) But letting Majorly know was indeed a nice thing to do. -DJSasso (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really wheelwarring - it would be if I deleted it again. Majorly talk 14:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[change source]

For blocking that Pickbothmanlol sock. I am assuming you caught my AN report, no? --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 23:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did, yes, thanks. Majorly talk 23:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

footballer articles[change source]

I never ignore Barras. Barras mentioned football seasons (about Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2009/Category:Football seasons) in November. Barras did not mention footballers then.

A conclusion of the keeping is given about footballer by an argument in September. (Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2009/Footballer pages) Nobody does the argument to change this conclusion.

Because I am not a user good at English, I cannot write the substantial article. But these articles are enough well-known players and coaches. Please stop deleting articles by a one-sided claim. --Nameless User (talk) 07:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight[change source]

Can you pop on IRC for a second please. Need an oversight. fr33kman 19:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't do IRC sorry. Majorly talk 21:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block[change source]

Please redefine the block on User:RMFullSupport to restore my original settings. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have contacted Grif when I altered his settings, and had his agreement. I've restored the 72 hours, and ask that we can discuss this before it is altered, or a consensus of the community for an indef. I made an administrative decision and ask that it be respected. Unless I'm contacted, or a rough consensus to undo my administrative actions exist. Warmly, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarre. Since when do we tolerate such blatant racism? It should be an indef block on sight. Majorly talk 12:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And btw, don't wheelwar. Majorly talk 12:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing bizarre about/ Basically, it boils down to you disagreed with my decision and decided to wheelwar yourself. Do you think it is a little below the belt to accuse me of wheelwarring when I above tell you what I've done, don't you think I realize that. I did not wheelwar, because I restored you settings when you undid me.
Regardless of what we tolerate, that does not negate the fact that if you think I made a mistake, you have to contact me on my talk page you don't just go reverting. If it happens again, I'll have to bring it up to the community. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative actions are not yours. You do them on behalf of everyone else. If you made a mistake, as you did, you should have no problem with someone undoing your error.
Undoing someone's action is not wheelwarring. A wheelwar requires a third action to complete. Just look at how many times you blocked/unblocked that editor. It should have been left alone right at the beginning with Griffinofwales' original block. Majorly talk 16:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you were acting in good faith. The thing that has me all riled up, is that lack of a note. I always (I try) to leave a note if I *have to* alter someone else's action. The root of it all, is I just want a note is all. Without that note, I would like that action to stay. At lease I would like the oppertunity to undo myself, or discuss it. The choice and the note, please :) (p.s. I had Grif's consent) Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Majorly/Archives/9&oldid=8906127"