User talk:Majorly/Archives/20

This 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.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 15	9 April 2007	About the Signpost

Danny Wool regains adminship in controversial RFA	Leak last year likely to produce changes for handling next board election
Association of Members' Advocates' deletion debate yields no consensus	WikiWorld comic: "Fake shemp"
News and notes: Donation, Version 0.5, 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

Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting me on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a tally of 45/0/0. Please let me know if I can help with something or if I make a mistake. Cheers! --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and better luck next time :) --Spebi 09:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Majorly. Do you mind if we work together to coach Sir james paul? I'm flexible, so anything is okay. Let me know as soon as possible. Thanks!--Tdxiang 03:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'd rather not coach that particular user at this time. I'm currently rather busy in real life, but the main reasons are that I find this user highly unsuitable to be an administrator... ever. He has requested adminship on several other Wikimedia projects, all unsuccessfully, and he has his own wiki hosted at editthis.info, where he is what I deem to be a rather dictatorial administrator - adminship is a big part of the project for him it seems, and there is evidence he has abused his powers on that particular wiki. I think he believes it is a trophy. I also remember an edit he made recently saying he was no longer interested in being an admin. He's also not particularly active at the moment - I like new administrators to be more active than him, so they can put tools to good use often. Sorry about that, but good luck with it anyway. Majorly (hot!) 21:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back, buddy. =) Nishkid64 18:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you Nishkid! Welcome back too :) Majorly (hot!) 18:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just thought i'd point out to you that your userpage says you had an unsuccessful RfB in April 2006, according to the rest of your Userpage you weren't even registered then lol. Also its really well designed. Thanks - Tellyaddict^Talk 16:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that :P Majorly (hot!) 16:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Majorly, could you quickly protect Template:Non-free media? Its being transcluded into every non-free image copyright tag and, as such, is transcluded at least probably 100 000 times. --Iamunknown 18:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

 Done Majorly (hot!) 19:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You closed this AfD ,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chance Phelps, as keep but I see some very troubling votes, the person who created the article voted, also another "keep" vote cited a google search which combined the name chance phelps with michael phelps, because michael phelps is a very notable person I see this as fraud in the voting process. I think that the AfD for Chance Phelps should be relisted or deleted because there is not enough of an unbiased vote.--Joebengo 20:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw some troubling "delete" opinions as well. If you're unhappy about the close, request a review here. Majorly (hot!) 20:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am not a new but still rather procedurally ignoprant wikipedian. I don't do a lot in the way of edits but do some minor to moderate contributions and edits here and there ... in light of that ... I am interested in the AFD Discussion for this article. It seems there were some interesting ideas posted including expanding the article. How would one go about doing this ? As in merging list to new article on "Faith Communities in Fort Wayne Indiana". Any thoughts ? M-BMor 04:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Be bold and move the page if you want. If you were to expand it, the information must be verifiable, written neutrally and following the manual of style. Majorly (hot!) 12:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 16	16 April 2007	About the Signpost

Encyclopædia Britannica promoted to featured article	Wikipedia continues to get mixed reactions in education
WikiWorld comic: "Hodag"	News and notes: Wikipedia television mention makes news, milestones
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 06:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Satellite images censored by Google Maps. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Chardish 23:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite, what part of WP:U does Dmjimjjbj violate?--VectorPotential^Talk 12:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Consists an apparently random sequence of characters. Majorly (hot!) 15:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the name Jim surrounded by a few other characters, that's pretty borderline isn't it?--VectorPotential^Talk 15:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say not, jim in the middle is probably a coincidence. Majorly (hot!) 15:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you please block Makalp (talk · contribs) this user is causing edit wars mostly helping others revert, he has no knowledge of the issue and is just randomly reverting to cause conflicts. Note: This is not a dispute this is Vandalism. He is removing any text that says "Armenian Genocide" and many other things like Kurdish. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] all evidence of disruption. OMG please see this with ignorance he redirects the page removing all content he has been here long enough he is doing this to stir up trouble. [6] look if this isn't vandalism I don't know what is, he doesn't even discuss it this is blatant vandalism. This is just a few of his disruptive edits, last week he removed any mention of Kurdish in more than 50 articles he doesn't dare discuss anything instead he labels it "clean up" and removes any mentions of Kurdish. Over here he reverts an admin using "undo", [7] [8], over here he removes Armenian [9]. On this page he insists on adding tags in which he can't even handle a debate in the talk page, he simply adds it to notify users seeing the page that this content is fake or alleged [10] more nonsense reverts [11]. Ashkani 19:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Newest one, [12] Ashkani 19:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for comment are a good place if the user is really causing problems, or the community sanction noticeboard. I'm not sure myself. Majorly (hot!) 20:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffersonian Model, but I think you did not delete a redirect from "Jeffersonian model" as well. The article has been recreated (at Jeffersonian Model) based on the material in the edit history of that page by the original author, User:Nuvious. I've notified the author about the AfD at his talk page, requesting that he add sources to the article. I'm not sure if this should go to deletion review, have another AfD, get speedy, or what, although I'm tempted to recomend giving Nuvious a day or two to respond to my comments, as the user was inactive during the AfD (for a long time before that, besides). On the other hand, perhaps userfying and re-deleting would be more inline with policy. What do you think? Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It can be deleted under G4 of the speedy deletion criteria. Majorly (hot!) 20:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to bug you, but there is one more rd to delete, Jeffersonian Presidents. I believe that when deleting articles, you need to check for redirects, and delete/re-redirect those as well. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Tag them with {{db-g6}} if you come across anymore :) Majorly (hot!) 20:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely hope you do not intend to toss one of these on every RfA from now on. This is editcountitis gone too far, and the content of the graph is at best meaningless, and at worst, will make RfA even more idiotic than it is now. Please don't – Gurch 17:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That's one nice essay :) You should get one done, Gurch! Majorly (hot!) 17:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried, but I'm not very good at it – Gurch 20:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I like those essays, and I told you so when you were Qxz :) Majorly (hot!) 20:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. You recently closed Allegations of apartheid as keep. This was an article that had been deleted, then been up for review, then been up for afd again. Given the importance of this closure - it effects many articles - and given the importance of the conduct of the voters there which has an impact on many other articles, and will be assessed in due course, could you please elaborate on your reasoning for this keep for the record - at this stage, it is very important to know the reason and I have asked each closing admin this same question. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 09:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I followed what I believed to be a consensus. I don't have a "reasoning", I simply followed the consensus of the participants. Majorly (hot!) 15:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I'm not really satisfied by the "consensus" in this case as it was subverted by long term strategies from a large pool of editors concerned with the status of a different article. Most of these keep editors have admitted at various stages that the allegations of apartheid article does not meet policy and by rights should be deleted, but in this case invoked WP:ALLORNOTHING en masse as part of this strategy - an argument that should have no bearing and is discouraged by the community. Here is what our deletion policy states concerning afd decisions,

Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates such policies, and where it is impossible that an article on any topic can exist without breaching these three policies, such policies must again be respected above other opinions.

which means that a decision on an article where NPOV and NOR has been stated as reasons for deletion needs to be justified by the closing admin in those terms (as was the case here among other policy violations including WP:NOT). And regarding your reluctance to comment on this decision, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion which states

Please also note that closing admins are expected and required to exercise their judgment in order to make sure that the decision complies with the spirit of all Wikipedia policy and with the project goal. A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached.

-- Zleitzen^(talk) 17:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all reluctant, I'd rather you didn't make it out that I am. The "keep" opinions were more convincing to me. It easily passes WP:NOR, and whilst WP:NPOV is not so clear, the deletion arguments tended to not dicuss these policies, but instead referred to essays, which are non-negotiable. Regardless of writing "Strong" or "easy", it doesn't help the argument either. If you think I closed it wrong, please see WP:DRV. Majorly (hot!) 18:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Already been to WP:DRV. But essentially, you did have a reasoning beyond "no consensus" after all. Either my judgement on policy has completely failed me all of a sudden - or the article did not easily pass WP:NOR at all and certainly failed WP:NPOV. But as I wrote during the debate, an issue as complex as this requires a firm understanding of the way the article interacts with our policies and how it fails them. These types of articles also require the closing admin to have a firm understanding of the debate and how it interacts with policy. The problems surrounding this and similar articles and debates will run and run until they are properly addressed, then all will come out in the wash and this interaction between us will help people understand the problems that have arisen. Thank you.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 18:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you have just protected the Libby page. Check out the talk page (and the recent archives) and you will see that this involves a single user bucking the consensus from an rfc that he himself initiated. Your comments on the talk page would be appreciated. Notmyrealname 17:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather stay neutral on it, thanks anyway though. Majorly (hot!) 18:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Understood. However, we really need some help bringing this to some sort of resolution. The same group of editors have been rehashing the same tired ground for several months now. I've brought this up on the WP:BLPN page twice. Mediation has been rejected. The recent rfc doesn't seem to satisfy one of the parties. Do these things just go on forever, or is there some sort of other process through which some admins can bring this to some measure of closure? Thanks. Notmyrealname 19:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If a requests for comment hasn't solved it, you could try WP:RFM, or as a last resort WP:RFAR. Majorly (hot!) 19:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol. :-) [13] · AO ^Talk 18:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

=) Majorly (hot!) 18:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Terribly sorry about supporting Andonic0 before he accepted. Count me in for a vote, when he accepts. --Random ^{Say it here!} 18:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologise :) Majorly (hot!) 19:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Blargh! I realized he hadn't accepted, but I forgot to comment it out... thanks for doing it for me. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 19:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why this was a keep in any way. Where did any one of them assert notability? It seems that you looked more at the quantity of keepers, not the quality of their arguments. Another article was closed as delete, and that character had seven episodes. I don't see any reason why being a detective in Law & Order is even an assertion of notability in Law & Order. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

On top of that, only one keep argument could be called legitimate - two of the others weren't even keep arguments, they were more merge arguments than anything. And the other ones were "seems significant", without explaining why at all, and another was from an editor who made very few edits, and can therefore be said to have less understanding of guidelines such as WP:FICT. I saw no assertion to say that Law & Order main characters have a lower standard of notability besides popularity of the series, which does not assert notability for each and every character who is in a role considered to be a main role. Nicolas Falco exists solely to fill a role that needed to be filled temporarily while a major character was off the show so the actor could do the film Rent. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't vote count, but there was one deletion opinion other than the nomination, who was willing to reconsider, or even merge his character. There was no where near consensus to delete it. Majorly (hot!) 21:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Majorly, I don't see the point of hiding information from people so that they have to go searching for it. People will look at the numbers no matter how hard you try to stop them, so it seems to me we should just offer the figures, not make a big deal of them, and be done with it, as most RfAs do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Roy O. Martin, Jr.. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

I am only DRV'ing this procedurally; it was requested by User:Billy Hathorn on the article's AfD page. As he's recently accused me of wikistalking him on XfD discussions, I won't take any part in the DRV other than this. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, Majorly. I hope this RfA will not fail on that account, and supported it as seeing no reason why to oppose, and hope that other users will assume good faith.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent to see that :) Majorly (hot!) 23:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)