User talk:Majorly/Archives/3

Latest comment: 16 years ago by Zenwhat in topic Your comments.

Typo on your user page edit

Since January 2007, I've been expand my editing areas. ........ A missing ing Alex ! Cheers matey. Pedro :  Chat 

And now I've pointed out your typo like some miserable old git can you help with this at all ? [1] Thanks Majorly!! Pedro :  Chat  23:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah thanks for noticing that. I wonder how long that was like that... and, you've been renamed. Cheers. Majorly (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the rename matey. Pedro :  Chat  12:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

payment methods ... edit

could you pls leave this page? see foundation-l thread on how best get donations into chatpers/foundation. --ThurnerRupert 15:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well GerardM restored, then deleted it again. I'd rather not, really. Maybe ask Gerard. Majorly (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WM:B edit

Thanks for the help with the 'crat documentation! Slade 23:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. It's a long needed page. Majorly (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should 'crat elections will be made in a different way of the RfA? Other pages and rules? Slade 23:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I think they should be the same page. They could have some rules written though. Majorly (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFA archives edit

Nice initiatives! Thank you for your hard work :) --Aphaia 02:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! I'd been meaning to get to it for a while. There's still one archive needs spliting, and the one I did needs labelling on the main page. I'll do them tomorrow. Majorly (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE:Welcome to Meta! edit

Thanks for the welcome, Majorly! BTW, is there any specific reason as to why w:MediaWiki:Signature hasn't been implemented here? Happy editing! --Agüeybaná 00:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No reason, but it looks useful. Majorly (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice work on reorgs, and changing user names edit

Hi, nice work on reorgs... much needed. On user names, I think it makes sense to ask for crosslinks. I thought I'd touch base with you first since you seem to be doing most of them lately. Let's bat it around and then take it to the talk of the new page you just created Meta:Changing username(good work on that one too!) ++Lar: t/c 12:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it says something similar already. The page will need its own archives though. Majorly (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well the users aren't giving crosslinks that I can see, at least for the most part, and some crats aren't asking for them either... I sort of figured you were not asking because it wasn't in the guidelines. Maybe I'm more conservative about things than you are though? ++Lar: t/c 16:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, perhaps I'm more trusting than you :) If someone requests an ordinary rename, I assume they're doing it for good. If they wanted to impersonate, they'd simply create the new account. But perhaps we should ask for cross links in future - although, with a little research it is often obvious the user is who they say they are. Majorly (talk)
Maybe I'm just more of a process kinda guy, I like to see things done in a well documented way and with a clear consensus, etc. Also, to my way of thinking, someone asking for a rename should make the crosslink obvious to the 'crat, why make the crat do the digging around to find it? So I'd support changing the policy to be a bit clearer, and making a template available to remind requestors, kinda like my informal one on commons. ++Lar: t/c 19:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Images deletion from Wikisource edit

Your deletion of an image from wikisource has the cryptic comment: "(Removing "William_Henry_Harrison.png", it has been deleted from Commons by Majorly because: In category Unknown as of 20 October 2007, missing essential information.)". This was also done for several other images. In case you don't know Harrison was a former US president from the 1840s. The link to category:unknown yields a page with nothing on it and with no history, and you say there is essential information missing but fail to say what that information is. It is really inappropriate to take such radical action without previous discussion, and I hope you will explain yourself to the people at Wikisource. Eclecticology 20:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This would really be better for my commons talk page, but nevermind. Basically there was no source for the image, and as it had been tagged for a month it needed to be deleted. I'll happily undelete if you can provide a source for the image. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never saw the picture, and I do not participate at Commons. The month in question was at Commons; no notice was given at Wikisource until the image was deleted. For images that are used at Wikisource, where we may be more pragmatic about some of these issues, the better solution would be to provide Wikisource with the opportunity to have the image transferred to Wikisource. Eclecticology 21:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Errr edit

Ooops, b*gger, damn. Gone to get the calculator out. Seriously thanks - I boobed, fortunately that one was uncontroversial - I'll be way more careful on the next one, thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It doesn't matter too much, especially as it was pretty obvious... and we've had very early closings done before... but just a friendly reminder for next time that a day might be pushing it :) Majorly (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, I was wrong and I appreciate you pointing it out, it won't happen again! --Herby talk thyme 17:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And the difference between 1 day early and an hour & a half early is.... 22.5 hours --Herby talk thyme 08:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thx! edit

Hi Majorly, thanks for the fast rename! Maybe you also want to look at Help talk:Help. Best regards, Jón 16:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. Majorly (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Designing userpages edit


How do you create the user pages like the ones on Wikipedia, i've just signed up for Wikimedia "meta-wiki" respond at my talk page if available. SKYNET X7000 10:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cancelled Question, found out how to do it. SKYNET X7000 14:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inactivity edit

I'll help where I can. I'm a little irritated by the idea that we need to unelect someone who was never elected as a checkuser. Let me know --Herby talk thyme 19:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, me too. I'd do the same for b'crats, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable doing that. Do you think it's a good idea? Majorly (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rather than put my foot in it too many times today I'll think first and get back to you tomorrow (same issue with inactive 'crats on Commons too!) --Herby talk thyme 19:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Btw., JFYI, we are thinking about the same issue on dewiki at the moment. And it looks like we will have a desysop policy due to inactivity soon there. --Thogo (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thogo - you will have trouble. The Commons one was not well received (but we will do the next batch soon!). En wb also have great trouble each time they deal with inactivity. Tools are for those who use them not for making a page look nice :)) --Herby talk thyme 19:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Woah. That's such a great comment, Herby! "Tools are for those who use them not for making a page look nice". Next time someone brings up desysopping inactive admins/'crats on enwiki, I'll have to steal that :D Majorly (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes; I think that would be some good advice to some people, I'd say... --Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • reset

So - thoughts.

  1. If they have never been elected I would think the approach might be to place something similar to the Ausir one and allow the community to make up their own minds?
  2. However - if they have been elected the answer will be "annual confirmation". So future confirmations should list the roles the user can be confirmed for? That way it would be possible to confirm someone as a sysop but not as a 'crat (& would be the same for Pathoschild, Lar & I for CU rights)

Worthwhile? (& I would like to see confirmation on Commons too - see posting there) Cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, when I am up for reconfirmation in April, it will just be for my sysop bit? And then I think it'd be October for bcrat bit. Is that what you're saying, annual confirmation for each position you hold, when you got it? Majorly (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point - certainly some issues to be looked at. I guess I am looking for an "easy" way to deal with people who have lost there real interest in a project. I'll think some more. Equally this is relevant. I'll get back to you but also it is likely I'll work on the Commons one - cheers --Herby talk thyme 16:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Snake311 edit

Hiya Majorly, can you rename me as Snake311, so it can match the username I use on simplewiki (which I'm sure you already know). Thanx;) --Alastor Moody (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done Majorly (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My successful request for adminship edit

Thank you for supporting my request for adminship with 28 supports unopposed. Thank you for your appointment as well.--Jusjih 00:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow! edit

Major reorganization on the admin/crat/CU archives. Nice work. I'm wondering if (since I'm assuming you did it all via cut/paste, the amount of deleting/moving/undeleteing you'd have to do to preserve history would boggle the mind) it would be a good idea to put a link to the history of the old page (to the particular version with the last change to that "section") in all the individual pages. If it is, I wonder if a bot could do it? It would be a fair bit of work for a human I expect. Anyway, thanks for taking that task on! ++Lar: t/c 03:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, the history is all in the main RFA page - all the pages I deleted were simply copy and paste archives. We could, I suppose add a link to the page, but I'm not sure it'd be worth it. Majorly (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, thanks for the compliment :) The archives were such a mess, they needed major work. Majorly (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about this... I could do an AWB pass through all the new archive pages to put a little note at the bottom saying something like "if you need specific history, go look for it in the main RFA page history, and if you actually did need it, please consider, after you find the right page version, placing the link to it ::here::" so that it would sort of encourage people to add the links that they actually needed, avoiding the work now? ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well... is it that necessary? The old archives had no links to the page history either, and following enwiki's style with older RFBs, they were copy and pasted at a later date. I suppose if you didn't mind going through them, it wouldn't be a bad idea. Majorly (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OTRS edit

Not sure how things usually work around there...but it would seem logical (to me anyway) if one was to give a more descriptive reason than "based on my own experience". Of course, that's just one man's opinion. Giggy\Talk 05:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I thought you weren't interested in talking to me anymore... anyway, you know very well what my experience is, so I'd rather not add it unless anyone else is interested. Majorly (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Permissions edit

Majorly, you know that the Permissions page is not the proper place to discussion decisions to grant user's access on Wikipedia English. Please make your comments in the correct venue which is the Wikipedia English Arbitration Committee. Also I ask you to please carefully consider your wording in these discussions. Your use of excessive hyperbole can be dispiriting and takes away from consensus building. Remember, we are all volunteers working towards the same goals. Take care, FloNight 15:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I was unaware of this. I'd much prefer checkuser to be granted outside of closed doors, so especially when they make (in my view) a bad decision it needs to be said. I've emailed details to the arbcom mailing list. Majorly (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the e-mail edit

Thanks for the e-mail -- I'm taking the plunge. --A. B. (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excellent! Majorly (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to see that you have decided to resign edit

I think your hard work is a credit to you even if I did not always agree with your approach on everything. I hope that in future things work out for you. ++Lar: t/c 17:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What happened to the fact my hard work is "actually starting to get a little frustrating"? How about I go out and get hit by a bus so I'll no longer be able to keep "hogging all the fun"? Really, I thought you'd be pleased so you'd have a chance to actually do something. There was a surplus of bureaucrats here: I've offered to be the one to go, and while I still think there's too many, it's a better situation than before. I strongly dislike people going for power just because they can: that's exactly what you and Herby appear to be doing. Did you not care, or bother to ask me before running, to see if I was returning? Nope. Did Herby care, or bother to check whether the current bureaucrats really did have "other things on their mind"? Nope, and not only that, he opposed my steward candidacy ironically enough. This is poor judgement. You don't request roles in a community just because you can: you should evaluated the situation, on whether those further roles are needed. The community, being the community will always support you both, because you are the Lar and Herby. However, the community are wrong. We should not be giving out roles just like that, whether the user is trustworthy or not. When I requested bureaucratship here, there were backlogs going back several weeks without any attention, and there were no really active bureaucrats. When you and Herby did, there was... nothing. Why did you request? What was the point of it? The only reason I can possibly think of is it's just another badge to add to your collection. Perhaps you can see by the fact you never get to do anything around here that too many bureaucrats is not a good idea. Your reasoning "might get hit by a bus, or get bored" is just silly. Why not wait until there is a need before requesting yet more power? Why the hurry to request as soon as I put up a retirement notice? To be honest, without you or Herby I suspect things would still be running just as smoothly here. There's no doubt in mind that another RFB will be up soon enough, which I will of course be opposing, whoever it is, simply on principle: we do not need anymore bureaucrats. This wiki is too small for as many as we have, and I'm simply being sensible, not "odd" as you once described my opposes. Majorly (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meta:Babel#Meta_Image_Policy edit

I'm not sure why you've said that fair use is allowed, I'm not aware of any such allowance. Do you really think that or are you just a bit disgruntled after resigning and also seeing the opposes mount up on my RfA which seems to focus on my interpretation of image policy. Regards. Adambro 17:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I'm disgruntled. Fair use is not allowed here as far as I am aware, but most other people think otherwise. Majorly (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Closure edit

Please check the page - it say "(RfA closes 05:23 26th January 2008 (UTC))". How does that make me early? --Herby talk thyme 15:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Az opened on the 20th... someone must have put it wrong. Please be sure to double check it! Majorly (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Please note edit

You are the first one against my thought as I have seen. If you check other stewards' logs [2], you will see even more temporary self-promotions and demotions. Some are not even explained. Please see also Talk:Steward_policies#Changing_rights_in_own_wiki.3F where Rdsmith4 has had a very different thought from yours while I have never exercised any privileged actions that would leave local traces.--Jusjih 02:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know what you are referring to in the log - I see mostly stewards giving themselves admin rights to block vandals/checkuser, user requested rights etc. Your reasoning "to facilitate my Commons work" is not a valid reason to make yourself an admin on any wiki. Majorly (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you seen Talk:Steward_policies#Changing_rights_in_own_wiki.3F yet? I have got a very different opinion from yours there. After all, it is the unclear policy causing you to think in a way while Rdsmith4 has thought in a different way.--Jusjih 02:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As you and I both administer Wikimedia Commons, we may encounter images claimed to be transwikied from another Wiki site without all required attribution, such as missing usernames from the upstream images. I have seen some of them deleted from another Wiki sites whose administrators have not looked at the Commons pages carefully. As missing any required attribution could be a GFDL violation, looking at the deletion log would be the only way to know what happened exactly. Looking through the upload log may be insufficient as the same image name on different Wikis may show different things. If we do not act quickly, chances are that someone may have copied the Commons image description with the GFDL violation expanded off Wiki site. I have never exercised any privileged actions that would leave local traces, such as deletion, undeletion, and blocking. Looking into the deleted edits alone will leave no local traces. I hope that I have explained everything to your satisfaction while Talk:Stewards#Assigning_rights_to_yourself also has useful information.--Jusjih 01:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, you misunderstand completely what steward rights are for. Please stop using them for yourself. Image checking is never urgent. Majorly (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changed usage for {{closed}} edit

Hello Majorly. At some point you used {{closed}} with the "text" parameter (ie, {{closed|text=Rogue deletion omg. ~~~~}}). This will no longer work correctly in the future, because the "text" parameter will contain the entire discussion (to wrap it in a coloured box). Instead, please use {{closed|Summary}} or {{closed|1=Summary}} (for complex summaries). Thanks. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:13:21, 05 February 2008 (UTC)

your comment on the "bureaucrat chat" edit

Majorly, since the "bureaucrat chat" was started on a talk page, I can find nowhere else but here to comment.

  • "Yes, Aphaia's RFA had a lot of people "less familiar" with Meta - but they are not unfamiliar with Aphaia, which is what really counts, in my view."<-- What really counts is Aphaia in relation to meta. Since every wiki has its own culture, a wikimedian who is not welcomed in one wiki should have the freedom to live in another without being bothered. Note that the root of the conflict (Aphaia leaking the name of another wikimedian) is not an issue of equal severity here and there. "...not a big deal"<-- setting a precedence of allowing external influences on a purely localy matter is a big deal; But if the policy itself is the source of the problem, I hope that the case should be one-off. Hillgentleman 03:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would you be kind enough to reiterate your views one last time? After some considerable thought I've decided to stand on the principle that we do have discretion, but... Herby has also commented, so your comments would make it unanimous (presuming you have not changed your mind) among the active 'crats and we could then close this formally. I hope you'll support Herby's suggestion for a temp sysophood so that would be unanimous as well. ++Lar: t/c 14:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

« Endorse, backlogs are huge » edit

Please stop doing thing. First, backlogs are not "huge". Second, endorsements are useful when they give relevant information about the candidate and his/her way to deal with disputes etc. Keeping on saying "backlog are huge" is simply useless; it's not because there is a little backlog that we should recruit every single user without considering if they are suitable for the work or not. Thanks. guillom 08:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are about 5 times bigger than in November, so, yes they are from my experience. We need all the people we can get. I haven't endorsed anyone I think would do a bad job, so there is no problem. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

uh edit

Why have you blanked the page for confirmation for Aphaia, while I was about to vote keep? Swatjester 20:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The confirmation is closed and the page was protected. Cbrown1023 talk 20:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The vote ended nearly 10 days ago... and I haven't blanked it, it's archived. Majorly (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, apparently the discussion wasn't over because Anthere voted as well, and you removed her comment. Seeing as the crats have not made their decision yet, it seems quite wrong that we should not be allowed to continue to comment up until that time. Swatjester 20:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anthere was reverted because the vote was over... it lasts a month, and it ended. The page should have been locked really. We have made our decision anyway, and we make it based on what was on the 31 January, not with any additional votes. Majorly (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revert edit

Thanks! --Herby talk thyme 07:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Criteria edit

Hi, Majorly. I found in Meta talk:Administrators/confirm that you proposed "no more voting on admins" and said "The problem is, we have discussed voting eligibility so many times and no one can agree. " How about adoping ja criteria of ja:WP:DESYSOP, the policy of the request for desysop? It requires in the 1st round "more than 3 months have past since the users made their first edit; more than 150 edits of the main namespace in the meanwhile; more than 10 edits of the main namespace in the last one month." In the 2nd round, "more than 1 month has past since the users made their first edit; more than 50 edits in the main namespace; more than 5 edits of the main namespace in the last one month." I don't know where is the main namespace in Meta, though. (Sorry if I mistranslated the policy.) Making requirements for voter eligibility is far better than "no more voting on admins", I think. Even if you would make a requirement in voting, anyone can comment all the same. --Miya 03:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The point is, I don't want a request for desysop. I want inactive admins removed without a fuss or a vote, but not something resembling an attack forum. Majorly (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your comments. edit

I responded to your remarks on my talkpage.

Thank you for deleting the articles, by the way. Zenwhat 13:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Return to the user page of "Majorly/Archives/3".