User talk:Majorly/Archives/3

Active discussions

MadeToContactYouEdit

I think that the disruption that he is causing should be ended now. I am pretty sure that we have all learned a lesson from this and I am pretty sure that he just made that page to be a disruption to the normal flow of encyclopedic life. I would therefore like to suggest protecting that user talk page because it is most likely going to end up with disruption and also because it has already started to disrupt the normal flow for this site. Cheers, Razorflame 19:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I protected it, Majorly (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I would also reset Ionas's block to April 23rd, 2009. Cheers, Razorflame 19:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd rather not actually. He only edited his talk page, and he made it no secret he was Ionas. I'd rather he learnt his lesson and wait till next January. Majorly (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Gsthae With Tempo!Edit

I would highly recommend that you protect the creation of this page because this page has been recreated 13 times in the past 24 hours by a troll. Cheers, Razorflame 19:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, no only twice. I think if it keeps this up, I'll be making some range blocks :O Majorly (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Look back in the logs and you'll see many deletions of this page, including different names. Cheers, Razorflame 19:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought you meant that particular page. Anyhow I've protected several. Majorly (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed. Here are the 2 specific ranges that I can see making these pages: 80.170.xxx.xxx and 213.103.xxx.xxx. I think it might be time to do a range block. Razorflame 19:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
And 77.218.xxx.xxx. Next time something happens. Majorly (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Something else has happened though. I just noticed that you deleted a page created by the 213.103.xxx.xxx range. Cheers, Razorflame 19:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Done then! :) Majorly (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I've made a post about these ranges to the AN. I hope you appreciate my thoughtfulness in this matter. Cheers, Razorflame 19:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting)Creol said on the Administrator's Noticeboard that extended blocks on all three of the trolling ranges would have minimal collateral damage, so therefore, he said that you could do extended blocks on those ranges. Cheers, Razorflame 14:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

80.170.0.0/16Edit

I just noticed some decent changes from these users, should they request unblocks:

  • • 2004-12-05 80.170.91.169 changed (diff) Thermometer (+pt)
  • • 2005-01-02 80.170.47.21 changed (diff) Canton (+pt)
  • • 2004-12-29 80.170.44.250 changed (diff) Buzz Aldrin (+pt)
  • • 2004-12-25 80.170.21.208 changed (diff) Genghis Khan (+pt)
  • • 2005-02-01 80.170.181.93 changed (diff) Blitzkrieg (+pt)
  • • 2004-12-22 80.170.179.67 changed (diff) Dog (+pt)
  • • 2005-01-25 80.170.174.91 changed (diff) Lance Armstrong (+pt)
  • • 2005-05-15 80.170.143.216 changed (diff) String theory (+pt)
  • • 2004-12-02 80.170.114.237 changed (diff) North Pole (+pt)

All of these users were adding completely legitamite changes and I believe that these users shouldn't be blocked. Cheers, Razorflame 20:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Back in 2005. It's 24 hours to allow the troll to calm down. If it's a problem, the user can post an unblock request. Majorly (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!!!Edit

  Congratulations: You have been given a Barnstar!

For being a great Admin.--   ChristianMan16  21:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Majorly (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Your Welcome!--   ChristianMan16  21:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

RfAEdit

why you think that?--   ChristianMan16  00:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Basically what Maxim says, plus your latest edits on commons leave a lot to be desired... Majorly (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It's called not knowing the backstory.---   ChristianMan16 
As I said on Herbythyme's talk page, if you don't know the back story, don't comment. Majorly (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

JesusEdit

seems to get a lot vandlism. Can you sprotect it, please? Maxim(talk) 19:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

  Done Majorly (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Impostor a/csEdit

Hi Majorly. I strongly suspect that User:Vintagekits, User:One Night In Hackney and User:Sarah777 are also impostor accounts, related to the V-DAY V-DAY VAFFANCULO DAY guy (likely JtV vandal). Prolly best to block them, IMO - Alison 00:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

  Done then. I hope you are right. I ought to ask the real users if they are aware of it too. Cheers Majorly (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks ;) I know it's JtV, don't worry. If anyone complains, send them my way ... - Alison 00:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you block 208.53.157.19, please? It's an open proxy - Alison 00:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  Done - and yes, they were all tied to the V-day account, along with one other that was already blocked for harrassment. -- Creol(talk) 00:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Great, thanks! - Alison 03:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

BarnstarEdit

Thanks for the barnstar. --JulesN Talk 21:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

BarnstarEdit

  The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks to you, the Simple English Wikipedia is vandalism free (or nearly). For that, I hereby award you this barnstar! Razorflame 13:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Clock codeEdit

Just to let you know that I like the idea of having a local time clock on my userpage that I've copied the code you're using. Hope you don't mind. - JulesN Talk 00:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I took it from someone else... :) Majorly (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

MelancholieBotEdit

If you are still looking for who owns this bot, it is w:en:User:Melancholie. Cheers, Razorflame 20:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ban/BlockEdit

Please block 213.232.79.146. Necknoise 09:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  Done Majorly (talk) 09:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't knowEdit

Can you take a look at this page, I can't figure it out. I added tags, but the IP who created the page removed them, I can't figure the article out at all. Oh and by the way: Hello! (I've never talked to you before, but I know you) ( ~: AmericanEagle 20:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it, it looks like a copyvio. And nice to meet you too! Majorly (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

RfCEdit

 
Here's a beer for the headache I'm guessing you might have :-)

I see you've closed the request and thus the coversation, but I wanted to say to you that I know you never intended to be a replacement. It just sort of developed that way and I think it's unfortunate. I just wanted to let you know that I understand that it was never your intention for things to be that way. Under other circumstances, I probably could have felt comfortable supporting you. Despite our occasional clashes, I respect your work around here. I hope the negative outcome doesn't ruin your weekend. I don't know about things in your neck of the woods, but we're finally starting to have some warmer weather around here. :-) · Tygrrr... 20:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall us ever clashing... in fact I thought we got on rather well... anyway, I don't let these things get to me, I have more important things to think about (oh btw, my weekend doesn't start till Saturday afternoon, I work Saturday morning :() But the weather, as you say, is getting nicer... Majorly (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
No major clashes, just some back-and-forth bickering a time or two. Boo to working on Saturday! Have a good weekend starting tomorrow afternoon, then. · Tygrrr... 20:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to see that you got turned down, you deserved it. Personally, my weekend started days ago. Because the sadness of the talk above...
  American Eagle has given you some cookies! Now enjoy them!
Hope that helps! AmericanEagle 23:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

EmailEdit

I've sent you a reply to your email. Hope that it clears up any lingering thoughts you might have on the subject. Cheers, Razorflame 18:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Archival botEdit

How do I get a bot to automatically archive my talk page over on the English Wikipedia? Cheers, Razorflame 19:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at my talk page. What kind of configuration do you want? Majorly (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I got help from another English Wikipedia user. Sorry for bothering you. There is something you can do for me though. Can you check my configuration that I've put onto my talk page tomake sure that I did it correctly? (Over on the English Wikipedia). Cheers, Razorflame 20:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks fine. Majorly (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. A question for you: If I was approved for using AWB, does that mean that I can use AWB on this Wikipedia as well as on the English Wikipedia? Cheers, Razorflame 21:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
You'd have to be approved separately here. Majorly (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Considering how much trouble I am going through just to download the .NET framework (over 1 hour 40 minutes of dealing with crap from my ISP), I am hoping that AWB is worth it. Is there a page here that I can ask to get approved for using AWB on this Wikipedia? Cheers, Razorflame 22:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This one will do :) Majorly (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Swirlboy's RfAEdit

It is a stretch of the imagination and the intention behind WP:SNOW to close this RfA per SNOW. It was closed by a non-admin and should remain open unless Swirlboy decides to withdraw his request. A large number of opposes is not a reason to close a request early. · Tygrrr... 17:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you seriously think there's any benefit in leaving it open? I certainly don't. (Also using automated rollback on me is rather rude). Majorly (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't qualify for SNOW, though, and as such I see no reason to close it early. Like I said, a large number of opposes is far from a valid reason to close a request early. Do I personally think it will pass? Not likely, but my personal opinion of the matter has nothing to do with the guidelines of allowing an RfA to stay open or to close early. Maxim was in the wrong to close it so I have returned it. You were in the wrong to revert my edits and I honestly don't feel my rollback was any more rude than your revert of my returning it when I've actually explained why it should still be there. · Tygrrr... 17:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
If you two get into an edit war, there isn't much we other users can do about it (protection is useless). I suggest that you both stop editing the RfA page until this is sorted out and, above all, do not rollback each other's changes! --Gwib -(talk)- 17:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but I don't think we're edit warring. Neither one of us has edited it in a while and we're discussing it calmly. Nothing to worry about here :-) · Tygrrr... 17:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Tygrrr, it qualifies for SNOW easily. SNOW says if it doesn't have a chance in hell of passing, there's no point in continuing. There is no chance of this passing. A large number of opposes and one support makes it a SNOW candidate easily. Maxim was wrong to close it - however, rollback is really for vandalism, not for good faith edits. I was not in the wrong to undo you, as an admin, I am allowed to close it if it falls under SNOW. Which it does, quite easily. Majorly (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Guess you spoke too soon, Tygrrr. Last thing we need here is a rogue admin problem. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Removing an obvious SNOW RfA does not mean I am a "rouge" admin problem. Hopefully a bureaucrat will agree with my removal soon enough, and end the request as it has no chance of passing, and leaving it up just to attract more opposes is unhelpful. Majorly (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I was using it as an example of what could happen if an admin abused his/her powers on a wiki. It starts with rolling back and could end with blocks and protections, all of which would be useless.
I'm not suggesting that you're the rogue admin though, just that the article might prove to be interesting reading for you and Tygrrr on administrator problems and how they're dealt with. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm very familiar with the incident, I watched the articles being deleted. Majorly (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Can't you relate it to this then? Continuous deletion of articles and blocking of important people on a (much) smaller scale is repeated rolling back of two respected admins edits. This should be resolved without using the rollback tool once. --Gwib -(talk)- 18:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
ps. Not siding with Tygrrr, she's just as guilty since she rolled back as well. Maybe you'd like to bring this to the Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship?

I don't think either of us acted as "rogue" admins, but that's just my opinion. As Gwib says below and as I said above, this request simply doesn't qualify for WP:SNOW and I think some good can come of it remaining open, as is shown by Swirlboy not only not withdrawing, but also asking that it continue to run its course. Maxim had no right to close it so I reverted it. Majorly did a revert of my returning it without stating a reason. I returned it and started a conversation. I don't feel that RfAs should be closed at whim if there's no obvious reason for closing it. Majorly didn't give a reason for closing it (his edit summary of his revert was "removing rfa"). Let's be logical: WP:SNOW is for situations where it is obvious to everyone involved that there's no chance in hell of it happening. Swirlboy's RfA obviously doesn't qualify if we don't all agree that it should be closed. In this situation it seems clear that it needs to run its course unless Swirlboy decides to withdraw. · Tygrrr... 22:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I must agree here. RFAs should NOT be closed early like that unless it should be closed per snow or if the candidate withdraws. SwirlBoy39 22:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

ResultEdit

I know I won't pass now, but can we keep it open to see the advice/comments please? If it's already closed, fine, but otherwise please let it remain open. SwirlBoy39 19:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I have brought it back because Swirlboy requested to leave it open for constructive critisism. This doesn't violate WP:SNOW since "allowing a process to continue to its conclusion may allow for a more reasoned discourse, ensures that all arguments are fully examined, and maintains a sense of fairness." --Gwib -(talk)- 18:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Gwib. SwirlBoy39 19:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

net articleEdit

This is an article on a European offshot of the Technocracy movement. It is entirely self-sourced, and appears to be the work exclusively of single purpose accounts associated with the movement. Google finds 57 unique hits - Please continue on with the suggested article for deletion. 75.73.3.230 (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you help me do the nomination for deletion with the net article. I started the process but have not done this procedure before and could use your help or another editors help please. Regards. 75.73.3.230 (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

AWBEdit

I finally got the version of .NET framework that I needed to download in order to run AWB. That means I can finally try out AWB. Let us hope that I can use it correctly, eh? Cheers, Razorflame 20:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! :) I'll be sure to tell you if you're using it wrong :) Majorly (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The edits good so far? I'm going to stop for now so that I can go get huggle and start working on reverting vandalism on the English Wikipedia. Cheers, Razorflame 21:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks fine to me :) PS can you tell me when you intend to request adminship? Thanks, Majorly (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently being coached by w:en:User:Useight, so probably not until he believes I am ready, which probably won't be until later this year (at least 3-4 months from now). Cheers, Razorflame 22:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I am able to limit the number of edits I make using AWB, so I am thinking about not using it for now. Thanks for all the help, though. Cheers, Razorflame 00:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I should make a bot account for use with AWB....yeah, I think that would be very helpful. Cheers, Razorflame 00:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

ProtectionEdit

Thanks for this! Only just noticed. --Gwib -(talk)- 19:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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