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.

I've just closed a 3RR report again you with no action, since I agree with your assessment of the user's edits, however you really shouldn't have edit warred over it. You should have gone to AN and got another opinion. I trust you'll be less zealous in future? -- Tango 20:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd spoken to the user via email, who promised me he'd not spam the link, and I'd let him recreate the articles. Since he had not been welcomed properly, I decided to give a fresh start by replacing the page with a welcome template. I was reverted for some bizarre reason, and the user was warned (for the second time) about spamming, even though he'd stopped hours ago. I removed it as unneeded, and it was readded. There's times when users are warned plenty enough times, and this was well over the top, and the user did not understand the background before reverting me. It's ways like this we lose potentially good editors. Sad, but true.

Next time, I'll be less zealous, but then that'll be another editor lost. Majorly ( talk) 20:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I already said I agreed with your decision. It was reverting 4 times which was over-zealous. Next time, go and get some support from someone else rather than reverting lots of times yourself. -- Tango 21:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It was 3 times actually. The first was replacing the page with a welcome, the others were reverts of a couple of editors undoing this action. Nevertheless, I'll ask for help next time. Majorly ( talk) 21:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I can't count. Sorry. Thanks! -- Tango 21:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:3RR: A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content, undoing page moves (sometimes called "move warring"), I can only count this as 4 reverts, plus number five today. Now I don't want to make a big thing out of this, but I think next time you might mention something in the edit summary about ending an indefblock after email correspondence with the user. All I could see is an indef block that had just been appealed and declined and suddenly someone out of nothing replaces the page by a welcome message, which I really didn't understand. I agree btw that an indef block was too harsh. Han-Kwang ( t) 19:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Majorly. In regards to Giggy, I understand that you are trying to keep the circle as small as possible, and I'm sure there is a good reason why. I'm just concerned, however, he just, left. He was a good friend, and I was expecting an RfA nom off him soon. Anything you could offer would be great. Cheers, Dfrg. msc 01:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

See my August archive where I explain, Majorly ( talk) 01:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There is currently an attempt to truncate this list at 1707, removing a large amount of detailed work and information. Please have a look at the talk page to find out more. TharkunColl 15:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for the congrats to AD on the wrong page. I was confused there for a second...

Cheers, Perfect Proposal ^{Speak out loud!} 14:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is defacto percent and numbers, regardless of how much people pretend it isn't. See Deskana's response on his page. Rlevse 11:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is in fact not numbers or % - perhaps read the article on it. Majorly ( talk) 11:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have read the article already. Don't assume I haven't. The bottom line is that no one is going to call a 99% vote lack of consensus, or a 50/50 vote a consensus, etc; as 90% is "general agreement" and 50/50 isn't. It's the area around 3/4 vote when the "serious consideration" part and the closer's judgement come in. Don't worry, one day you and I will actually agree on something-;). Rlevse 11:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I suppose in this case Deskana used his judgement - which I believe to be correct (and I supported, so I'm not exactly biased to say that). Majorly ( talk) 12:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit war with you over this, but I have expressed my reasons for prefering Andre's system at Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats#Sorting of crats by activity - do explain why you prefer the WP:LA approach so we can get to a consensus on the matter. WjB scribe 19:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Man that makes me sad. Juanita Hodges 20:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete it, it was certified by about 15 users not one. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 00:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be only one signature in the "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" section. WjB scribe 00:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

But 14 users in, Other users who endorse this summary which means certifying. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 00:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't - RFC requires 2 or more users who have "tried and failed to resolve the dispute". Those who fit that description sign as Users certifying the basis for this dispute. Those who agree with the initiator but haven't tried to resolve the dispute sign as Other users who endorse this summary. In this case, it would appear that there was only one person who felt they had tried and failed to resolve the dispute and so Majorly seems to have been correct to delete it. WjB scribe 01:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Majorly, hi. I am working as a mentor with User:Thelmadatter's mentoring project. Her students are creating accounts collectively, so that they are compromised. She says they will not be disruptive, but I have a funny feeling about group accounts. I would like to know how to treat this. Any help is much appreciated. J-stan ^Talk _Contribs 19:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I have notified Thelmadatter of Wikipedia:Username#Sharing accounts, and am awaiting a response. I will let you know if something else happens. J-stan ^Talk _Contribs 20:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A battle-weary JetLover 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. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{ subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you fr protecting Killzone 2! There was a HUGE vandalism wave all at the same time! Cheers, Je t Lover ( Report a mistake) 22:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Until when will this page be protected and please tell me when is revert warring if page is reverted 2 times in 3 days ?? I am very angry because you have now protected page without sources !!! Rjecina 23:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There's very clearly a dispute. Please discuss it on the talk page, and when you come to agreement, I'll unprotect. Cheers. Majorly ( talk) 23:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Or other possibility is that protection will be moved after user:Votec is blocked and I want him blocked because of personal attacks on me:

"In his answers he has made personal attacks on me with words that I am holocaust denier (4 times), that only "sick-minded or genuine retards" persons do not understand importance of Stepinac words, screaming again that I am "GUARDIAN OF THE HOLOCAUST DENIAL" and playing with my user name (with his playing I am becoming little river). This is on discussion of page you have protected. On my talk pages you can see his last comments. Can you please tell if this are personal attacks ?? Rjecina 23:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, sorry. They don't look at all civil, but perhaps you should report it to another place, like WP:AN/I. Majorly ( talk) 00:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed only now after reading WP:AN/I. User:Votec is WP:SPA account !! Rjecina 01:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Hahaha! Cheers, Je t Lover ( Report a mistake) 23:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[1]

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. R Delivery Bot 04:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey mate, when you get the chance, could you please undelete my old talk archives, and my monobook? Thanks, Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Did it for you Majorly. ;) Did I miss anything Dihydrogen? · AndonicO ^Talk 11:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete my vote from the Heamo case, this is unacceptable ganming the system, SqueakBox 23:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Majorly, he's obviously edited before, there's no need to ask him whether he's done it. Do you think he's likely to abuse the tools because he is either a sockpuppet or edited as an IP prior to 14:38, March 27, 2007? I don't think the fact that he didn't put on a show of being a new user is a negative thing, since cautious sockpuppets can just repeat the newby edits from their first account and avoid detection that way, tedious as it must be. Picaroon (t) 00:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There's plenty of need. Some users do indeed get the wiki way from the first edit, and get everything right. On the other hand, some edited prior, as an IP. But some edited as logged in accounts. I'd like to know, if this is case, what the account was, why he left it etc. There's plenty of reason to ask. Majorly ( talk) 00:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I am very disappointed that you backed up POV pushing by others and banned me for 24 hours without even talking to me (I was apparently online - though I had just gotten off at about the time you put on the ban.) Then, I sent you a message when I discovered the ban the next afternoon, to which you never responded. You then never contacted me after I returned. I find this very disappointing from a moderator. ludahai 魯大海 00:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note Ludahai, that Majorly is an administrator, and he didn't ban you, he blocked you. There are no moderators on Wikipedia, and banning a user is a very different process to blocking a user. Sebi _[talk] 00:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Answered. -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor ( tαlk) 03:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sometime back someone had attempted to spoof me on the Simple English Wikipedia with my real username: simple:User:Persian Poet Gal. I see that you are an admin on that Wikipedia as well so I wanted to ask if you could block that account as well and replace the page with the indefblock tag. Thank you. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 04:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done Majorly ( talk) 11:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

just thought I'd sy hello and thanks for your contribs for no reason at all-- Phoenix 15 23:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw your comment on WJBscribe's talk page. I feel exactly the same. I can't believe he's still not a bureaucrat. Feel free to add a conomination. And speaking of. I hope you run again. Best regards.-- Wikipedier is now U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 23:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I am positive Will won't accept this nomination, sadly. He's told me many times he wishes to wait a while (and it states quite clearly on a section of his talk page his intentions). Generally bureaucrats self-nominate, although this isn't a hard fast rule. And I dislike co-noms, and also I respect his wishes that he doesn't want to go yet.

I will not be running for bureaucrat, certainly not any time soon. Majorly ( talk) 23:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I certainly respect WJBscribe's decision not to run and yours as well. Assuming that he declines, I won't ask him again until April 2008 and he says he declines for the time being.(I saw that you recently, however, become a bureaucrat on Meta. Congratulations! I'm sure you're great there! Best wishes)-- Wikipedier is now U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 23:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at the RfA instuctions, and I thought it would be a good idea to change it where it says "After you accept the nomination, answer the standard questions for all canadates" to have it say something like "It is recommend to answer the standard questions, but it is in no way required", or something like that, because they are optional. I just think that having it the way it is would confuse many people into thinking they're required. What's your opinion?-- U.S.A. talk 02:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Change it I'd say. Although people will still think they are required... Majorly ( talk) 02:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, some are like that. Do the honors!(if you wish)-- U.S.A. talk 02:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. ( talk • contribs)

On second thought, because other people think they're required(although not you or me) it may just be a good idea to leave it alone. I can't believe that my signature was invalad, or something. Probraly because I didn't include my userpage. I've got a new one.-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. ( talk contribs) 02:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		You have worked tireless on multiple Wikimedia projects, serving in many capacitys! I think you have definately earned the Working Wikipedian's Barnstar. Congratulations! I'm sure proud of all your accomplishments!!! Best Regards!-- U.S.A. ( talk contribs) 03:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Per your comment in yesterday's MfD regarding MedCom, you may be interested in a discussion now ongoing on the MfD talkpage here. As you were one of the users expressing concerns during the MfD discussion, although not necessarily for outright deletion of the committee pages, I am sure they would welcome your thoughts.

I had intended to give this notice to Wikihermit as well, and was very upset to see a redlink upon travelling to his page. I don't know if his decision to delete his pages was in any way related to the comments he received on the MfD, but I hope he and you both realize that I was simply expressing forum and process concerns. I hope to see him return to editing in the near future and would tell him so on his talk but do not wish to sully his request for a blank page. I may have limited online time due to real-world reasons for the next couple of days, so if you "speak" to him before I do, I hope you'll draw his attention to this. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I assume you're out to annoy because, in my experience, your question was ridiculous. You knew what I meant -- if you have an issue with semantics, say so (although any issue with the semantics is hopeless; as I've said, I've had people cast confused looks over "project-space" as well, thinking I referred to only Wikiprojects), then state your issue plainly. Say, "There is some disagreement about your terminology, Xoloz -- see wiki." Don't ask me a snide-sounding question to which you already know the answer. You are too much of a veteran, and too smart, for me to think you're clueless about the usage. When you ask me, "What does wiki-space mean?", and you know very well what I meant, you are being snide, coy, or deliberately obtuse. Don't be surprised when I characterize your behavior in a manner befitting it.

Had you said, "There is some disagreement over your terminology, Xoloz", I would have said, "Yes, I know that, but project-space has also met with objections in my experience, so I will continue to use the terms loosely and interchangeably, expecting veteran editors to know what I mean, and explaining politely to newcomers, as necessary."

It's fine that you were trying to begin a discussion on terminology -- although, perhaps, doing so on the RfA was not the best choice -- but, by opening the discussion with a rhetorical question, you invited a misunderstanding of your intentions, especially given your past history of criticizing my opposes when I use that very same rationale. I hope this experience will help you communicate more directly in the future. Take side issues to talk pages, and avoid the use of rhetorical questions where they are likely to be misperceived: this is a good lesson for you to take from the exchange. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall criticising your opposes with that rationale. I tend to agree with them, although they are very vague. Majorly ( talk) 19:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You have. That rationale "editor has too little experience in wiki/project/Wikipedia-space" is at the root of every discussion we've ever had under my oppose comments at RfA. I'm not sure, but I think this marked the sixth time. I believe our most extended discussion (which spilled over to Taxman's talk), regarded User:Slumgum, whom I also opposed for that reason. If you check back in your usertalk archives, I've explained to you at length before here on your talk page why wiki-space experience matters to me, and why it is a "pet peeve" when RfA candidates show so little of it. You must not have a great memory for those sorts of details, though I don't blame you. I'm sure I'd have trouble remembering my remarks, if I weren't trapped in this dull body! I'm not memorable. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? That was because he was promoted with less than the 75% support normally required, and I backed Taxman up because I agreed with his close. I totally understand why you ask for project space experience - especially as you told me so yourself. And as I said I often agree with it. Majorly ( talk) 20:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

With your memory jogged, you will doubtless recall why I opposed Slumgum... "Wiki-space" does exist, by the way. It's a common turn of phrase around here, and contractions are normal in the English language. I, thus, think your last reply at the RfA was coy in its own right, and have said so there. Given your inability to communicate without dismissive sarcasm, I think it best if we limit communication between us to matters of great consequence only. If any new user has an issue with my vague terminology, let him ask me myself. If you are confused by something I say, let it rest. I shall do likewise. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Enough of this silliness, you're not reading what I'm writing, clearly. Majorly ( talk) 20:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)