User talk:Majorly

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Majorly (talk | contribs) at 21:33, 29 November 2006 (→‎fuck you: ekb). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Welcome to Majorly's talk page!

1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 • 23 • 24 • 25 • 26 • 27 • 28 • 29 • 30 • 31 • 32 • 33 • 34 • 35 • 36 • 37 • 38 • 39 • 40 • 41 • 42 • 43 • 44 • 45 • 46 • 47 • 48 • 49 • 50 • 51 • 52 • 53 • 54 • 55 • 56 • 57 • 58 • 59 • 60 • 61 • 62 • 63 • 64 • 65 • 66 • 67 • 68 • 69 • 70

AllUser talk:Majorly/Message

WP:RFPP decisions

Not that I have anything against the decisions you made to certain RFPP's (such as Japan and Lion) but I just wanted to clear some stuff up with you. You may not agree with me, and that's perfectly fine. I personally think that saying "It's been alright for today, no need for protection at the moment." is not a totally sufficient reason for protection. I usually try to look at overall article history (last 50,100 edits) and try to see trends that would clearly indicate if the vandalism is getting worse, and who's behind the vandalism. I don't think that you can really say "It's been alright for today" because there are usually lapses in editing of certain articles. If we were to judge what articles should be protected and what shouldn't based on editing at the exact moment, that wouldn't be very effective at all. I semi-protected both Lion and Japan because they have been hit with vandalism more than a dozen times each in the last 50 edits (which translates to the past few days). However, there are times when looking at the times of recent edit history is effective. For example, look at [1]. I denied the user's request for semi-protection because it was apparent that the vandalism to the userpage had ceased, and it appeared that those vandals were not going to come back and vandalize. The last edits to that page were made nearly two days ago, and so I used that timeframe to judge my decision regarding semi-protection. That's all I have to say about that. Anyway, keep up the great work as admin so far! You're doing a good job with the tools. =) Nishkid64 01:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. About the Lion article - I did look through the history, and to me it appeared to be mostly one vandal, User:TaylorBrown, and previous to that I didn't think there was much. I said "today" because I felt there was little point in protecting a page which vandalism had appeared to have stopped for the most part two days previously. As it appeared to carry on after I declined the request, it appears semi-protection was in order. Again with the Japan article, it was not vandalised much at all at the point I declined it (as far as I could tell, people weren't using edit summaries) and only afterwards it started needed semi-protecting. Anyway, thanks for your message, I'll bear it in mind. --Alex (Talk) 02:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Removal from Esperanza

Hi, I just noticed your self removal from Esperanza, and your comment:

Just out of curiosity, why do you think this is? Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 05:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why it appears that way. It's a nice idea I guess, but I've decided it isn't something I want to be part of anymore. --Alex (Talk) 11:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for AA Semi-Protection

Thanks for adding the Semi-Protections for Alcoholics Anonymous.--Twintone 17:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween

I was busy making some constructive edits to the page when you protected it. Are you sure it is necessary to protect it? There seems to be a discussion going on already. Thanks. - Mike | Happy Thanksgiving 21:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for unprotecting the page! - Mike | Happy Thanksgiving 22:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When Mike is done, can the page be fully protected again? I'd like for the investigation into Caloon2000's POV edits and possible meat/sock puppetry to be given a chance before he/she starts doing mass reverts, ruining Mike's work, and the work of other editors who have been watching/protecting this page from vandals for days now. Thanks. -- Weirdoactor 22:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really aware of what editing disputes are going on as I just dropped by to edit the page, but I'm more or less done for now, so if there are any serious editing disputes going on, then by all means, go ahead and protect it. - Mike | Happy Thanksgiving 22:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protecting the page. Could you please revert the edit by the anon before you protected though? It was vandalism. Also, please remove the duplicate picture of the children in Bonaire in the Halloween around the world section. Thanks! - Mike | Happy Thanksgiving 22:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex, the version which is online now is highly partisan and in violation of the NPOV rule. I redited the article and created a balanced version using neutral wording. However, the version which user User:Kathryn NicDhàna inserted and which is now online is highly partisan uses POV wording "Other Christians get very emotional about Halloween", "A response among some fundamentalist Christians" "Some fundamentalists consider" and removed most of the references, links and literature. From 12 books a single one is supporting the position held by many christians. Most of the others have been removed by User:Kathryn NicDhàna [[2]] The article which is now online is in clear violation of the NPOV rule and can not stand as it is. Please revert to a NPOV version (one of the versions which were online at Halloween eve). Thanks Caloon2000 08:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you wait for consensus on the talk page. Remember the protected version is not necessarily the "correct" one. --Alex (Talk) 10:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I would suggest to insert a notice that this page is not neutral and does not represent a consensus. (NPOV notice). Thanks! Caloon2000 16:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As is evident on the talk page, Caloon2000 is the only one blocking consensus. And as you can see from his talk page, he has been warned by another admin for violating the "undue weight" clause of NPOV. He has also violated 3RR and is now posting vandalism warnings on my page, and the pages of others who reverted his edits. I am perfectly fine with changing "Other Christians get very emotional" to "Other Christians are concerned" or "critical" or something similar. And if "fundamentalist" is not NPOV, perhaps "evangelical" or similar. What the other editors and I are not ok with is letting Caloon2000 re-insert the inaccurate, hate speech links and content he insists are NPOV. Thanks for your work on this, Alex. --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie

Thanks for semi-protecting the page. It's a pity that this became necessary but the page needed a holiday from juvenile and disruptive edits.--Ianmacm 22:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween

Hi, thanks for protecting Halloween. The last edit before protection was an IP vandalism, changing the pope who instigaed celebrations in 835 from Pope Gregory IV to Pope Boniface IV. As Pope Boniface IV wasn't alive in 835, could you revert this edit. Thanks, Addhoc 22:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Addhoc 22:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gears of War

Thanks for semi-protecting this article. :) -Xeon25 23:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting my RfA

 Thank you for your support in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of (56/0/2). It was great to see so much kind support from such competent editors and administrators as commented on my RfA.

I know I have much reading to do before I'll feel comfortable enough to use some of the more powerful admin tools, so I'll get right to it.

Again, thanks; └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Alex, I ask you because you seem to be making a lot of the RFPP decisions.

I created a few articles related to a radio show I have in St Cloud, MN. They have been the target of vandalism many times over the year the pages were up. Recently the pages were deleted (notability) and it was suggested in one of the discussions that I move the info to my user page instead. I did so and the vandals followed. The vandals are typically new users or anon. The anons IP addresses I track and some of them match IPs of vandals of other non-Wikipedia sites related to the show. The new users have typically between 1 to 10 edits and about half of them are accounts that are older than a week.

Recently they have begun a trend outside of Wikipedia...personal threats to me and my family. Here they have begun making edits (which still can be viewed even if reverted) that contain personal private information. While I strongly request protecting my user page so that only I and admins can edit it, I more strongly ask for a rollback to the 08:27, October 17, 2006 edit to protect my anonymity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnyakko (talk • contribs)

Do you mean you want the revisions after 08:27, October 17, 2006 to be deleted? --Alex (Talk) 15:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for you attention. --Tony 16:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

...for your nod of support during my recent RfA. If you ever need any help from a fellow admin, a pair of fresh, disinterested eyes to review an article, or need help whacking vandals with a Millwall brick, do not hesitate to holler over yonder. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, first time user who needs unprotected to make some changes to early life about parentage, talk about his military techniques concerning his revolutionary echulon formations, and the makeup of his army.

-Thanks, Trd89 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trd89 (talk • contribs)


AFC Asian Cup

Thanks a lot for semi-protecting this article. I'll get down to restoring it straight away. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gimlei (talk • contribs) .

Khatami's reform protection

I was wondering if you took a look at the current version of Mohammad Khatami's reforms before protecting it. The version you have protected HEAVILY violates NPOV and it even has the pov tag removed from the beginning of the article. Also, User:Patchouli which has created this article and has been it's sole editor until now, has a reputation for POV pushing and contributing negatively biased material about the middle east in wikipedia. Please see the following links for evidence about his misconduct: User_talk:LittleDan#POV_pushing and Talk:Mohammad_Khatami#Patchouli_edits and User_talk:LittleDan#hello. You can also take a look at the user's talk page and see how another administrator (LittleDan) has failed to convince him to abide by wikipedia policies. It seems that nobody cares to put an effort into stopping him. Your protecting the page in it's current form is encouraging abusers such as User:Patchouli to take advantage of loop holes in wikipedia regulations. Therefore I request that you revert the page to it's previous verion (just take a quick look, it's a matter of common sense, you don't need to even know anything about the topic of the article to understand the *heavy* POV pushing in the current version). I am also asking you as a wikipedian to please help to put a stop to User:Patchouli's abuses. It seems that no one has the power to stop him from sabotaging wikipedia. It's really frustrating. Barnetj 13:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I just read Patchouli's comment on the request for protection page! I can't believe this guy and I really can't believe how he's getting away with it! He is accusing *me* of creating sock puppets and not being reasonable!!! My god! You should investigate evidence before taking action on accusations. First of all, please read the evidence that I have provided in my previous post about User:Patchouli. Second of all take a look at the history of the article to see that I have only edited the article in one occasion and afterwards I reverted it only once because Patchouli had reverted ALL of my edits without any explanation on the talk page. That's it. Barnetj 13:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. Please discuss on the talk page. Thank you. --Alex (Talk) 14:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Would you help with the problem then. It's not limited to this article. The other party is stuborn and bullying. His list of contributions to wikipedia almost entirely consists of inserting negative POV-pushing remarks about different subjects related to the middle east. His history of misconduct has shown that there is no reasonable hope to reach a resolution with him through dialogue. Please advise me on how to prevent him from continuing his sabotage of wikipedia middle east articles . I hope you care enough to answer. Barnetj 14:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Before doing anything else, do your best to civilly talk to the user. As I am relatively inexperienced with this kind of thing, perhaps you could raise the issue at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct to see what other users think. Leave me a message if you need thing else and I'll do my best to help. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 15:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Meanwhile could you please add a { {pov} } tag at the top of the article. If visitors are going to see the current version, there should at least be a pov tag on the article. Barnetj 16:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the pov tag. btw, you might want to read my reply to your comment in the talk page. Barnetj 19:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seen it. --Alex (Talk) 19:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi Protect on Matt Drudge page

Thanks for the semi protect on the Matt Drudge page. Reverting the same sorts of vandal edits from IP users over and over again was getting old. I was actually going to request one today anyway. Thanks for being so proactive. Caper13 21:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-templates

Why did you unprotect WP:AUM? That page has been unanimously rejected many times, but Netoholic has persistently tried to resurrect it for disruptive purposes. He has been blocked from editing it in the past because of disruption. Please read through the talk page and page history before fulfilling a "user request". — Omegatron 05:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the protection policy page: Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing – you appeared to be. That is why I unprotected the page. I'll go ahead and reprotect it, if the user is causing problems. Perhaps requesting page protection is what you should have done? I seriously do not want to wheelwar, especially in my second week of being an admin. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 12:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry; you're fine. He's an expert at convincing random admins that he's been wronged and they need to help him out. Just remember that you always need to discuss with an admin before undoing their actions. See Wikipedia:Wheel war — Omegatron 16:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Millwall brick

I added to Millwall brick. The article needs photos of how its made and the variation with string and nail. Since you took the original photo, perhaps you would be so kind as to take and upload the additional photos mentioned in the article. -- Jreferee 07:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh wow that is very impressive, well done! Is it possible to go on DYK, or is it too late? I can't do any more photos at the moment, very sorry. --Alex (Talk) 12:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Sudais

Alex, thank you for protecting Al-Sudais, it was very hard for mee to keep it OK. --Ioannes Pragensis 18:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

May I ask why you semi-protected Astronomy? — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A user requested it, and it has had lots of vandalism recently. --Alex (Talk) 18:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn’t seem like sufficient justification to me. I count only one instance of vandalism in the twenty-four hours prior to your semi-protection, and only two in the five days prior to your locking the article. This level of activity does not merit semi-protection; recent-change patrollers can easily handle this amount of vandalism. A user’s request may draw attention to a problematic article, but by itself cannot be used to justify protection. Please remove it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every recent IP edit was vandalism, so the answer is no. --Alex (Talk) 12:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your consideration. Rather than lift the protection myself, I have requested feedback. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The level of vandalism was nowhere near high enough to justify protection on that page. -- Steel 20:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've unprotected Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais and Neuqua Valley High School for the same reason. -- Steel 21:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November Esperanza Newsletter

For your reading pleasure, the newest Esperanza newsletter (November '06 edition) can be found at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter. —Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, The Halo, Shreshth91 and HighwayCello, 20:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Fallujah

Hi. I noticed you quite rightly protected this article to protect it from edit-warring. I am currently trying to negotiate a solution with Clintonesque and Freepsbane. You can see it on my talk page at User talk:Guinnog#Virtual restraining order requested. At the moment I am waiting for Freepsbane to accept; Clintonesque has already done so. Assuming he accepts too, would you mind if I unprotected the article and watched it? Would you, if you agree to this, go for semi-prot or full unprotect? --Guinnog 02:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine. --Alex (Talk) 11:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for November 6th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 45 6 November 2006 About the Signpost
Arbitration election campaigns begin Blogger studies Wikipedia appearance in search results
Intelligence wiki receives media attention Report from the German Wikipedia
News and notes: Foundation donation, milestones Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins 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 05:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks

Hi Alex, thanks a lot for your support to my RFA. And all the best for your upcoming exams. Hope to see you around soon.. -- Lost(talk) 11:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam0 Protection

Hi, I noticed you protected the template {{Spam0}} as a high-risk template. I created this template, and now that I notice some questionable grammar, I can't fix it! Is there a reason this template is so "high-risk" that it should be fully protected? It should always be substed, it's on my watchlist, so any vandalism (of which I can only find one case in the spam templates) would not likely even make it to any inclusions of the template. I noticed you fully-protected several other warning templates at the same time. I am not an administrator and am frequently working to fight spam, including improving these templates. It would be a great help to me if these were only semi-protected. -- Renesis (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, they seem to be high risk templates. When it is substed any vandalism that might be there will be on the user's talk page until it is manually removed. Since I'm not doing any unprotections or protections much at the moment, I suggest you request any changes at WP:RFPP or request it be unprotected altogether. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 13:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Updated DYK query On 9 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Millwall brick, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Allen3 talk 16:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Thank You!

Thank you for the award. I, in turn, awarded Spylab the Wiki Wiffle Bat for his contributions to the article. -- Jreferee 17:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks. KP Botany 19:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For your User Page

  • The Bright Idea Award In view of the numerous issues that have arisen over the Millwall brick article and your outstanding initiative to be the first to bring forth to Wikipedia this important part of human knowledge that would otherwise have remained known only to a few, I hereby award you the Bright Idea Award. --Jreferee 20:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    The Bright Idea Award
    In view of the numerous issues that have arisen over the Millwall brick article and your outstanding initiative to be the first to bring forth to Wikipedia this important part of human knowledge that would otherwise have remained known only to a few, I hereby award you the Bright Idea Award. --Jreferee 20:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh wow thank you! It can go in my nice things page. --Alex (Talk) 20:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA:

Thank you so very much for voting support in my RfA. However, I have withdrawn due to reasons that a stressed user would withdraw under. I'm sorry I have failed you & your expectations. Thanks, Spawn Man 08:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AHRHAR

YOU MAEY HAV WUN TEH BATTEL BUT TEH WAR IS NOT OVAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.72.114.25 (talk • contribs)

List of monarchs of England

Do you think you'd be able to find and arrange such details for every single monarch, from Alfred to the current queen? If so, then I certainly think it's worth exploring. TharkunColl 08:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on the user's talk page. --Alex (Talk) 12:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks
Thank you for the extra feathers on my wings!

Thank you so much, Alex9891, for your support in my RfA, which passed on November 11, 2006, with a final tally of 82/0/2. I am humbled by the kind support of so many fellow Wikipedians, and I vow to continue to work and improve with the help of these new tools. Should you have any request, do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Húsönd 19:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Edit To Coronation Street

Why did you revert my edits on the page Coronation Street about Salverland then send me a template about vandalism I was just adding some imagination to the article. Gee, you are all uptight on theis site. This is why I am working on my own website encyclopedia. On it you will do anything you want and when i buy Wikipedia you wont be able to revert innocent imagination. I will readd Salverland to the article, 75.109.101.139 01:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Fair use rationale for Image:Colleen Mccabe.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Colleen Mccabe.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. JDtalk 11:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Fair use rationale for Image:Teenageopera.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Teenageopera.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. JDtalk 11:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Hi Alex9891, and thanks very much for your support during my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 64/0/0. I am grateful for the overwhelming support I received from the community, and hope I will continue to earn your trust as I expand my participation on Wikipedia. It goes without saying that if you ever need anything and I can help, please let me know. Wait, I guess it does go with saying. ; ) --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks

Mike's RfA Thanks
Alex9891: Thanks very much for your support at my RfA. Unfortunately, it was clear that no consensus was going to be reached, and I have withdrawn the request at a final tally of 31/17/4. Regardless, I really appreciate your confidence in me. Despite the failure, rest assured that I will continue to edit Wikipedia as before. If all goes well, I think that I will re-apply in January or February. - Mike | Talk 04:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for November 13th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 46 13 November 2006 About the Signpost
Full accessibility, dramatic growth reported for Chinese Wikipedia ArbCom elections: Information on Elections
Report identifies Wikipedia as a leader in non-US traffic News and notes: Board passes four resolutions, milestones
Wikipedia in the News 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 04:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Shiny new buttons

Two weeks ago I couldn't even spell administratur and now I are one (in no small part thanks to your support). Now that I checked out those new buttons I realize that I can unleash mutant monsters on unsuspecting articles or summon batteries of laser guns in their defense. The move button has now acquired special powers, and there's even a feature to roll back time. With such awesome new powers at my fingertips I will try to tread lightly to avoid causing irreversible damage and getting into any wheel wars. Thanks again and let me know whenever I can be of use.
~ trialsanderrors 05:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin tools

mop
The mop 		Congratulations on becoming an admin!

Enjoy your new-found powers, and remember to use them only for good, and not for evil. If you would like to try out your new mop, here are some spots that always need loving care:

All the best! - Quadell

mop
The flamethrower

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN JFBurton 22:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Polo

Please, don't remove the sprotect tag from the article. After you have removed, several vandalism occured. Thank you.--Giovanni Giove 12:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it. Please request page protection at WP:RFPP. Adding the notice does nothing. --Majorly (Talk) 13:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second request

Don't remove tag. It is not true that "it does nothing". After the removing several vandalism occured. Please, if you don't agree discuss in the talk page. Thank you--Giovanni Giove 13:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It had "several vandalism" after it was added, so it does do nothing. Please refrain from adding it, unless the article is protected. Thank you. --Majorly (Talk) 13:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello32020 RFA

I accepted the nomination for adminship. Would you like to post it on RFA? Hello32020 22:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William and Mary

Just give them separate boxes with overlapping reigns. That's what was done with Stephen and Matilda for example. TharkunColl 01:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks
Thank you for the Support

I'd like to express my huge thanks to you, Alex, for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with 100% support at 71/0/1. Needless to say, I am very suprised at the huge levels of support I've seen on my RfA, and at the fact that I only had give three answers, unlike many other nominees who have had many, many more questions! I'll be careful with my use of the tools, and invite you to tell me off if I do something wrong! Thanks, Martinp23 14:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

W. S. Gilbert

I just wanted to thank you for your help with today's Gilbert front page. By keeping down the vandals, you helped a lot of good edits to get through, a surprising number of which are of very good quality. Thanks! Adam Cuerden talk 15:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

amanda dowler article

The source cited says she was not taken by foce and the removal of the word not makes the rest of the paragraph nonsence. Please do not revert and please read through the source when changing a cited section.--Lucy-marie 19:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support!

A week ago I nominated myself, hoping to be able to help Wikipedia as an administrator as much as a WikiGnome. I am very glad many others shared my thoughts, including you. Thank you for your trust! Be sure I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting, pat me so that I can correct myself. Thank you very much for your support! ReyBrujo 22:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Tourette syndrome

Yeah, I know. Sandy was already talking to me about why I protected the page. I personally don't want to handle it, since I was the one who originally protected the page; so I'll let some other admin deal with it. Nishkid64 00:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Nishkid64 00:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate rollback

Here, you claim that I used the rollback inappropriately. In fact, I was using it to enforce Wikipedia policy. It is a violation of WP:FUC to add an image with a noted blatantly false license, no source, and no rationale. --Yamla 18:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but rollback is for vandalism. --Majorly (Talk) 19:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VAND: (emphasis mine) "Image vandalism. Uploading provocative images, inserting political messages, making malicious animated GIFs, etc. Repeatedly uploading images with no source and/or license information after notification that such information is required may also constitute vandalism." The user has previously been warned about images missing fair-use rationales and images missing sources, though I mistakenly believed the user had been warned much more often than he had. Additionally, the editor did not upload that particular image, though I still believe the edit in question would have fallen into that definition of vandalism had the editor been warned more often about missing fair-use rationales. In any case, I have discussed the matter with the editor and believe both sides are satisfied (if not necessarily happy) with the results. --Yamla 19:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If both sides are satisfied, then I am. --Majorly (Talk) 19:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I appeared rude but he has removed an article that I took the time to write without any reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frog on a log (talk • contribs)

Signpost updated for November 20th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 47 20 November 2006 About the Signpost
One week later, Wikipedia reblocked in mainland China Military history dominates writing contest
News and notes: Wikibooks donation, milestones Wikipedia in the News
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 06:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Information Clarification

Dear Alex, thank you for offering your assistance, now I will take advantage of that. I was wondering if you could guide me in regards to the page I am working on for my High School. I would like to make a list of all the school's past student government officers, but so far, the attempts have been deleted. Let me know what you think--Brogman 14:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User name change

It took me a while to figure out this was you! Maybe you should add a notice to your userpage indicating your old username? Mike 18:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, better not :) --Majorly (Talk) 21:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RedemptionBot

Definitely Galactian/Sunderland/SpaceBot/Molag Bal. Thanks for letting me know. I tagged the user as blocked sockpuppet of Molag Bal. Nishkid64 20:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

Hi there; thank you; you were so quick at reverting my userpage that I had not noticed it had been hit.--Anthony.bradbury 00:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete.

If you see an article named hamdrew please do not delete it. It was meant for a joke and I created it. --Hamdrew 04:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Something funny...

Hahaha...=) That user is out of control on Wikipedia. That...and he's also a total idiot. He edits the same exact articles with different accounts, thinking he won't get caught. It's pathetic. Nishkid64 17:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Big Brother

At the start of articles it says it is the third series when it is the second, the fifth when it is the third and the sixth when it is the fourth. Bencey 20:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are correct as far as I can see. Please see the lengthy talk page discussion. --Majorly (Talk) 20:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titles

I think you might overload the list if you put titles in like that. Some of the Anglo-Saxon ones were extremely long, and at the other end of the list, Elizabeth II has been queen of 32 realms in her time. TharkunColl 00:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll use smaller text. The tyle I have for Elizabeth isn't that long. --Majorly (Talk) 00:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does it significantly add to the list though? How about placing each title, as long-winded as we like, in a note? TharkunColl 00:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"By the grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith". It adds to the article, but not worth a section. Every single title in individual notes? --Majorly (Talk) 00:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a reference note containing all the titles of each individual king, linked from his name (or something). That way we won't bloat the boxes. TharkunColl 00:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm not too sure. Perhaps you could just went ahead and did it, so I could see what you mean and if it would work? --Majorly (Talk) 00:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'll have time. But for an idea of just how bloated those boxes will be, look at this page [3] which lists all the extremely long titles held by the pre-Norman kings, for example. TharkunColl 00:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure how it would work, but I have to come off now. I'll continue tomorrow. --Majorly (Talk) 00:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accession dates

I have found out the proclamation dates for Sweyn and Harthacanute. Both of these succeeded in unusual circumstances (Sweyn was a conqueror and Harthacanute was out of the country). All the rest, so far as I have been able to tell - I'm still looking into it - were described by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as succeeding their predecessors without further comment. We must assume that formal "election" by the Witan - as was customary during this period - would have taken place as soon as possible. Taking Harold Godwinson as an example of this practice, and in the absense of any other evidence, I'm going to assume that this "election" took place the following day, which at least gives us a specific date even if it might be out by a day or two. I shall amend the list accordingly. Note also Athelstan, whose accession to the whole of England was delayed a few weeks by Elfward in Wessex, hence the gap. I've also amended Ethelred to show one continuous reign, because he was never actually deposed and was only out of the country for a few weeks from January to Lent. TharkunColl 14:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were By Far The Greatest Team deletion

Thanks for that. I was having visions of me speedy tagging that for the next couple of hours. The fact that the creator's talkpage was vprotected didn't help! Thanks for the unblock. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy question

What's the guideline for amount of recent activity to warrant page protection? I didn't see a mention of level of activity in the policy pages regarding protection or semi-protection. I'm the person who requested protection for the Bee article, which I did due to the consistency of vandalism that page gets (about one vandalism every 29 hrs over the past month). Granted it's not a page that's currently subject to heavy current vandalism or edit warring, but it does seem to be a common target of vandals (not sure why that would be, considering how non-controversial it is). Anyway, for the benefit of my understanding and my decisions to recommend for protection in the future, please give me some 411 on this issue. Please respond here, I am not a fan of dueling talk-page messages.

Cheers,  Erielhonan  17:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warn any vandals who vandalise. If they continue report them to WP:AIV. The vandalism on Bee was simply not enough, and could easily be dealt with without locking the page. One every 29 hours is nothing really – 1 every 0.29 hours might be :) Thanks. --Majorly (Talk) 17:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do the first two things when it's called for. I see your point with the degrees of vandalism magnitude. As someone who aims to give ~10 hrs per week to Wikipedia, the threshhold for protection seems kinda high, since manually dealing with vandals usually takes me about 5-10 minutes per depending on circumstances (and to some degree how taxed my computer is at the time), and I want to get on to other work like rating and doing administrative upgrades on articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 projects. But I do see why that threshhold makes sense too, since unregistered and new users shouldn't be prevented from adding valuable content.
Curious - do you know/could you find out what the average vandalism-revert time is? I'd be happy to leave vandal patrolling to other entities, but since I start from my watchlist it's usually the first thing I do when I sit down for wikitime. Knowing that statistic might help me assess how much weight I put on reverting versus other activities.
Thanks,  Erielhonan  18:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what the average vandalism-revert time is, nor do I know where to find out. I expect it's usually very fast. --Majorly (Talk) 18:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my userpage

I DIDNT GODDAMN copy anyone's userpage. I demand that you revert it now!Grreat56 16:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant lies like the edit count, the number of times the page was vandalised, and the barnstar not given to you tells me otherwise, so no. --Majorly (Talk) 16:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. You are jealous at the proffesionalism of my userpage. 2. Cant I make up things, to make my self sound better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grreat56 (talk • contribs)

1. I'm not jealous in the slightest at the "proffesionalism" of your userpage.
2. No you can't. It makes you sound worse by lying about things.
--Majorly (Talk) 16:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lefty

You are a lefty, go and marry George Galloway, and by the way long live Norwich City, Nintendo and President George W. Bush! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.47.80.147 (talk • contribs)

Can't Touch me

doo doo doo doo can't touch me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.47.80.147 (talk • contribs)


current DYK correction needed

I was not aware that the article to which I contributed was DYK nominated and sorry for the belated correction but

needs replaced for

The reasons are the following.

  1. Fedorovych was an elected Hetman by non-registered Cossacks. As such, some viewed his Hetmanship as illegitemate. Replacing Hetman by Leader resolves the controversy since he was a leader unquestionably.
  2. The uprising was of Cossacks and peasants. Peasant uprising is a narrower term and a better link than uprising
  3. "unsuccessfull" is a too strong term. The uprising was militarily a victory of rebels as they won all important battles. They got much less than they wanted in negotiations but the result was a compromise, the increase of Cossack register (by less than rebels wanted). Besides, Fedorovych saved his head. So, "unsuccessful" needs removed.

I would have commented during the nomination, but I was not made aware of it. The changes here are not controversial and I don't believe anyone would object to them anyway. Thanks, --Irpen 19:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I contacted you because you are an admin active at DYK and seem to be online right now.

Done. --Majorly (Talk) 19:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, --Irpen 19:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Moose

Hi, I saw you declined the semi-protection of Moose and I wanted to see why exactly you did so. Almost all of the last 50 edits are either vandals or reverters, and the page is hit about 3 times a day. Although the last 50 edits cover 7 days, I don't think that really qualifies "There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time.". Anyway, I'm just wondering, as I was about to protect the page before I saw that you declined protection. Nishkid64 00:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the fact that the vandals are reverted is a good thing. I should only like to lock articles that get vandalised a lot more regularly than that, to the stage where it is difficult for the reverters to get to a stable article. IPs might have some useful information to add, and I think that protecting it isn't necessary at the moment. However, if you disagree, I really don't mind if you do protect it. Thanks. --Majorly (Talk) 01:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait...wth you're Alex???? Omg...I thought you were some old admin I never knew about lol. Nah, I won't protect it then. I just was merely curious as to your reasons. I guess I already knew that judging from the conversation I had with Alex (at the top of the page). Your name change confused me lol. Nishkid64 02:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh maybe I should write a notice saying who I used to be! Or maybe not... I don't really like "Alex9891" anymore, but I'm still the same! --Majorly (Talk) 12:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Foley Scandal

Thanks for moving the FA nomination tag. My mistake. Thesmothete 02:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monifieth High School Links

i don't see what was wrong with the links I put on on Monifieth High School — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.124.22 (talk • contribs)

I suggest you take a look at WP:EL. --Majorly 15:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Before deleting the page again, could you tell me what parts of the article I need to find sources for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Random2502 (talk • contribs)

I didn't delete it, I removed unsourced info. See the talk page. --Majorly 21:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fromkin

Just to say thank you for aiding my enforcement efforts in the David Fromkin article (where mostly anonymous users keep adding a section about some dog named after the guy). Theleek 22:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Shakespeare sprotect

Thanks for your comment on page protection and for adding the tag - however, I thought you had to be an admin for page protection tags to work? It looks to me as if the page was still unprotected given the large number of unsigned vandalisms today until just now when you intervened, is that correct...? MarkThomas 22:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Centrx protected it at 10:03 (UTC). --Majorly 23:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riana's RfA - Patiently....? What is this patiently you speak of?

Indeed. I know not that word patiently. So naturally I've nominated her immediately as well... Hope you can vote. :) Spawn Man 01:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly will!!!! --Majorly 01:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! :D - Spawn Man 01:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alex - I had to decline. Don't quite feel ready yet... Thanks for the vote of confidence though, it means a lot to me :) All the best, riana_dzasta 03:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks Bearing Gifts

Hi. Just wondering why you reverted that particular image. Reply on Talk:Greeks Bearing Gifts (Torchwood) if you need to. Thanks. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 18:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey

Hey, thanks for voting on my request for adminship, even if I was "oppose". However, I do contest your reasoning when you say I am inexperienced only by virtue of my edit count. I hate to argue over these sorts of things, but I feel that experience is based on not just edits, but the ammount of time one has spent using Wikipedia. I have been using this site for years (although it took me a while before I realized I could actually get an account. I was too scared to make edits!) and I consider myself experienced. However, I do understand your concern. All I ask is, from now on, you ask users about their experience before saying that they have little/none. Thanks jstupple7 19:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading is a lot more different than editing. How do we know you have the experience? It's best if the actual account shows you have experience before requesting adminship. --Majorly 19:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major thanks for your support at RFA

I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me (especially your support of my answer to Q1), and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future, along those lines or any other. Cheers! -- nae'blis 21:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for November 27th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 48 27 November 2006 About the Signpost
Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles Steward elections begin
Group apologizes for using Wikipedia name in online arts fundraiser News and notes: 1.5 million articles, milestones
Wikipedia in the News 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 01:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

High school

Now that you have reverted my corrections this opening paragraph is very misleading. It reads as though the terms high school and secondary school are synonymous which they are not. In England and Wales we call the schools used for secondary education secondary schools and there are many types of secondary school but they are NOT called high schools. If this article is going to be titled high school it should confine itself to describing what a high school is in those countries which use the term. There is already an article on secondary education.Dahliarose 09:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, actually I think you'll find that they ARE called high schools. I have recently attended one, all the "secondary" schools in my area are called high school and I've never heard "secondary" used anywhere. Where are you getting this info from? --Majorly 12:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Where is your area? Do you actually live in the UK? I live in Berkshire, England, and have two children at secondary school. I've also lived in Essex and Gloucestershire. No one ever uses the terminology high school over here. Some Scottish schools are called high schools but they are still classed as secondary schools. Have a look at the OFSTED reports, DFES website, etc. They all refer to secondary schools not high schools. Dahliarose 12:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I live in the UK. I attended high school until last year: this one in fact. I know people who attended this as well. Both have never been called secondary and never will be. --Majorly 16:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, I passed. I appreciate your input. Please keep an eye on me(if you want) to see if a screw up. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fuck you

fuck you majorly. suck my dick asshole. 204.10.140.100 18:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow big aren't you, using naughty grown-up words. I decline your "offer". Go and troll elsewhere. Cheers. --Majorly 21:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Majorly&oldid=90995886"