This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello there, I've got a question. I'm unsure about an image I came across in CAT:CSD, it was tagged as "non-commercial use only", but was uploaded before May 19, 2005 and is currently used in an article. Does this image qualify as an item for speedy deletion? If not, shall I remove the speedy deletion tag? WP:CSD doesn't explain the process, so I thought I should ask. Peacent 18:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd remove the tag, perhaps list on IfD if you are unsure. Majorly ( talk) 19:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Done, thank you. Peacent 19:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

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 02:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought you might want to know that I have responded to it. :) Acalamari 19:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's a ptarmigan for you! Ptarmigans somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Hús ö nd 02:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am a little unsure as to why you edited my attempt at archival at the Super Smash Bros. Brawl talk page. Perhaps I made a mistake during the process or something... either way, there's now a rather large conflict between the talk page and its 15th archive, and I'm mildly peeved at the work it would take to fix it. =/ Arrow 13:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It looked like you were blanking it. An edit summary would help greatly next time. Majorly ( talk) 13:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I would have thought it was a blank too. Use of an edit summary stating your intentions would have prevented it. Wikidan829 14:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a little random, but I think having June 8 of this year as your day was cool. I also think you're a good contributor here. If in the heat of moment I say something that seems uncivil to you, I'm sorry. BH (T| C) (Go Red Sox!) 15:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am *really* confused. First off, why did you remove the admiral insignia? And secondly, why does it still appear in the article despite being taken out? I tried two different browsers and page purge. - N 18:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• How odd, it just disappeared. That's some server lag we've got. Still, I'm reverting the removal. - N 18:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Now really, are you going to argue the insignia designs aren't really PD? First off, show me where the consensus says this. And use more descriptive edit summaries. - N 19:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Admiral insignia.gif. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - N 19:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Per my report here at ANI, and a prior case at WP:ANI which led to its semi-protected status once (or twice?) before, I am curious as to what you believe in the spam link. The general consensus is to remove the fan site, but the reverts continue from various IPs based upon that Howard Stearn has its own fan spam. I'm not affiliated with the articles in any way, and only saw the case through ANI. I requested semi-protect earlier but was probably jumping the gun since there was not enough activity at the time to justify it, but if the persistance continues, could a request be made for the link to be whitelisted? Just curious, Seicer ( talk) ( contribs) 04:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Does it really need whitelisting? Majorly ( talk) 12:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's being continuously spammed, despite administrator actions in the past, consensus at WP:ANI (prior case), and consensus by other editors through reverts. Like today. Seicer ( talk) ( contribs) 18:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't you mean blacklisted, if it's a bad link? Majorly ( talk) 19:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I saw whitelisted mentioned somewhere, and for some reason, that stuck with me. Seicer ( talk) ( contribs) 19:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, could you not have just semi-protected the pages, since they're only being vandalised by IPs (it's not a dispute; they're adding unsourced information and comments such as "get off your high-horse").-- Rambutan ( talk) 07:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It was a dispute. Majorly ( talk) 12:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't: facts on WP must have a listed source using <cite> or [http://www.example.com], but the info being added didn't, so they were wrong.-- Rambutan ( talk) 13:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that right above my post (that you removed) is a small discussion about schools that have banned wikipedia from their campuses. my post was on a school that fails its students because of citing wikipedia in scholarly reports. So i guess it does tie in with the article above and some people may care. As they will see a patern of higher education and their attitude towards wikipedia. and thanks for the little smiley faces after removing the post, arent you so cute.

Question. There was a famous wikipedia hoax article about a fictitious war with Canada for Michigan’s upper peninsula. I don’t remember how I came across it. Can anyone direct me to that page?

--Billwsu 03:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Majorly, thank you for your note of support at my RfA. Shyamal 04:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I’ve made a proposal here, about fan-cr*p on Doctor Who articles in the wake of a broadcast. Any opinions?-- Rambutan ( talk) 16:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete my user page?

Weekly Delivery

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 08:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see how this falls under me doing something bad to the RfA. So I'm suggesting you respond to that email again. G 1 ggy ^Talk/ _Contribs 22:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

G1ggy, I don't know why you have such a problem with me, but if you are trying to blackmail me for whatever reason, it isn't working. Posting private logs just escalates the drama unnecessarily. I'll be responding to no emails, and I'll say what I did in the email originally - go and bother someone else about your ban. Why should I do anything for you if you do this to me? Majorly ( talk) 22:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahh I remember your oppose, and it was a stupid reason. Like Majorly said, posting private logs won't really do anything, in fact I take side with Majorly on the issue. People always find the dumbest reason to oppose even though the issue has nothing to do with being an administrator. This is just a classic case. I don't see why I can't come up with some BS reason to oppose your RfA if you don't think it's such a big deal. Wikidan829 23:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikidan: Go ahead, I’m not bothered by your opposition.

Majorly: Last time I checked, you can’t be banned from an IRC channel for non IRC offences. And I’m not trying to blackmail you, I’m simply requesting that you unban me. G 1 ggy ^Talk/ _Contribs 01:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

G1ggy: you aren't banned according to the list, and even if you are go to #wikimedia-ops. And FYI I did not ban you. Majorly ( talk) 01:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And you couldn't tell me this via email why? Thanks anyway, G 1 ggy ^Talk/ _Contribs 03:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for wishing me happy birthday! I had a great day - well, it could have been better, I spent all day studying for an exam! But let's concentrate on the positives, hmmm? :) My friends got me a great cake, a lot like this one, and since you've been so kind, I saved you a piece. Hope you enjoy it, and the rest of your day :) Riana (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Still waiting for my captions! *grumble grumble* :p

Get on IRC and you will have them :) Majorly ( talk) 10:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for supporting my RfA, which closed successfully yesterday... W00t! I hope to be a great admin (and editor) and I'm sure you can tell that my use of a large, boldfaced, capital "T" and a big checkmark image in this generic "thank you" template that I swiped from some other user's Talk Page that I totally mean business! If you need anything in the future or if you see that I've done something incorrectly, please come to my Talk Page and let me know. So now I've got a bunch of reading to do.... see you around! - eo 13:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia Weekly Episode 20 Good news, everyone: Wikipedia Weekly Episode 20 has been released! .mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.com/2007/06/19/wikipedia-weekly-20-return-of-the-podcast/ 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! For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 05:21, 23 June 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. Wikipedia Admin Channel Hi, I would like access to the Wikipedia admin channel. It is my understanding that I have to ask you (an operator of the channel) to get on the access list.-- Jersey Devil 15:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC) PM me on IRC and I'll add you :) Majorly ( talk) 15:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC) It said: Private messages from unregistered users are currently blocked due to spam problems, but you can always message a staffer. Please register! When I tried to PM you. How do I "register"? I never use IRC that is why I'm asking.-- Jersey Devil 15:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC) mail Did you get my email? — AldeBaer ( c) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Indeed. Did you want a reply? Majorly ( talk) 20:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC) No, I just expected one, as a cue of sorts. — AldeBaer ( c) 20:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Admin opinion It appears people are trying to get a template deleted. They have taken the notability template to TfD, but Ned Scott has pointed out that if the template belongs to a policy or guideline then it shouldn't be taken to TfD, but discussed on that policy/guideline's page. Thoughts?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Apparently, Matthew is citing WP:IAR as his motivation to go to TfD.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC) He can go to TfD. Majorly ( talk) 00:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Request unprotection of Template:Trivia Hi, you indefinitely protected Template:Trivia six weeks ago in response to an edit war. Under protection policy, only temporary protection is called for in cases of edit wars. No pattern of vandalism has been established. Two admins have made edits to the template in the past week, neither of which reflect consensus. I'd like to ask you to unprotect the page. If the edit war breaks out again, temporary protection can be reapplied.-- Father Goose 17:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Unprotected. Majorly ( talk) 17:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 26 25 June 2007 About the Signpost Board election series: An interview with the candidates RfA receives attention, open proxies policy reviewed WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer" News and notes: Logo error, Norwegian chapter, milestones Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST 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 07:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC) It would be less work for us to simply disagree. You sound almost like you're trying to goad me now. You disagree with my opinion- I get it. I disagree with yours too but I'm not spending lots of words hassling you about it. Friday (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Since when did I say I disagree with you? I'm fairly certain I didn't. Basically, I'm saddened you're opposing a candidate because they do not agree with you. You've given no other reason, and it shows poor judgement, making you as bad as what you're opposing for. Majorly ( talk) 23:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC) I tried to clarify this, but didn't think it was very appropriate to get into long rambling opinions of my own, at someone else's RFA. Reasonable people can disagree reasonably- it happens all the time, just look around. However, there are some opinions that, in my view, are so astoundingly foolish that I hesitate to trust the judgment of whoever holds them. We all draw this line at different points, obviously. The editor in question set off my bad judgment detector. You can translate this in your own mind as me opposing because someone disagreed with me, if you really want to, but it doesn't make it true. I disagree regularly with any number of people on here whose judgment I generally trust. I can't say I appreciate how you've responded to my vote, though. Even now, you seem to be hounding me. Reasonable people can disagree. Friday (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC) It isn't a vote, Friday. RfAs are for opinions - not to be hidden on the talk page, or user's talk pages like you have here. Anyway, I understand you now. If you'd said so, on the page where you're meant to, I wouldn't have had to question anything. So, sorry if I seemed incivil or anything - you should understand though, from my view, it appeared to be retaliation. If you'd explained yourself in the first place, I'd have never needed to question you and we could have been doing something more productive. Anyway, I hope there will be no hard feelings over this. Majorly ( talk) 23:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC) No problem, I think we were just communicating poorly. Thanks for clarifying. Looking at it now, I can see how it could be seen as retaliation, but damn, nobody who'd be so petty should be allowed anywhere near Wikipedia - that's high school stuff. I surely hope I'm not that foolish and immature in my thinking. Ironically, the big reason I keep a suspicious eye on IRC is that I fear it encourages exactly that sort of petty retaliation. Chat rooms make friends.. and enemies. Wikipedia works better without there being friends and enemies. I fully realize we can't prevent people making friends or enemies on the wiki, but I'll be damned if I think we should be encouraging it. Friday (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC) PS. It would be "himself", by the way, not that it's important. Friday (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Whoops! I was reading your RfA and you were down as "she". Sorry! Majorly ( talk) 23:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC) I used to never bother correcting people, but I think it's confusing when it's inconsistent. I'll shut up now before people start thinking I'm being insulting to high schoolers. :) Anyway, glad we got things clarified, no hard feelings of course. Friday (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC) John Green (composer) and John Green (musical director) I have been correcting some of the dab pages and noticed that there is significant circumstantial evidence that the John Green (musical director) article you deleted should have been merged with John Green (composer). If you have a chance, could you undelete the article and confirm if they are the same person (flagging them for merger if so)? Burzmali 13:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC) They are not the same from what I can see. Majorly ( talk) 13:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC) I can't see John Green (musical director), but from John Green (composer): "Green was the Music Director at MGM" "(John Green) was inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame in 1972" "born ... 1908 ... died ... 1989" In addition Grammy Awards of 1962 lists John Green (musical director) as a winner for "Best Sound Track Album or Recording of Original Cast From a Motion Picture or Television" for "West Side Story", which is listed as a credit in John Green (composer). Burzmali 14:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Adminship When's a good time to re-run for adminship? I've had a few people saying they'd nominate me when I was ready to re-run, so as to gain more time of experience and edits here. What's standard? From looking at the talk page, I've gotten about 3 months for general candidates. Would that be good for me as well, taking into consideration that the majority of my oppose discussion concerned my lack of time here?  hmwith   talk 14:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Most people like 3 months, yes, but I couldn't care less - as long as I could see improvement that would be all that mattered. And yeah, don't self-nominate, wait for someone to offer (and they will!) Majorly ( talk) 14:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Haha, yeah, people said that they will, but since it was time that was an issue more than improvement, I wasn't quite sure. Thanks, Majorly!  hmwith   talk 14:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)