This is an archive of past discussions with User:Majorly. 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.
Thanks for the namecheck at RfB. If my absence from CHU (which, incidentally, hasn't been backlogged since I became a 'crat) was such an issue for you to bring it up at RfB, I would have preferred you to have brought it up with me personally rather than use another editor's RfB to do it. As it happens, a number of unexpected and unpleasant issues both on and off wiki have curtailed my editing. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not an issue, just pointing out a fact. I don't really care how much you use the tools, but it is a fact there are lots of inactive bureaucrats, and I'd rather Avi didn't become another, and I just used you as an example. I'm sorry to hear you're having issues - perhaps having a break will do good? Regards, Al Tally (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
No, it may not be an issue for you but to be upheld as a 'crat who's not using his tools seems a little personal to me. I have made several promotions and, like I said, CHU hasn't actually been backlogged since late March. As for a break, perhaps, and perhaps a long one. There seems to be a cloud developing over this particular project which is causing me concern. I noticed you seem a lot more active on simple Wikipedia, myself also of late. Sometimes Wikipedians bite and then reality bites even harder. Such is life. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry I brought it up. I hope you feel better soon and continue contributing brilliant articles. Al Tally (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully you'll be glad to know that I found some time this morning to head to WP:CHU and perform some renames. I'll endeavour to ensure that backlogs there are minimised in future. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I've restored the introduction that matches the article's current (protected) title. Since that title considerably narrows the content of the page, I have also deleted works that do not now fit under this title, which has been vigorously protected by those who restored it. I have no quarrel with restoring a list to that page, but the list must match the title. I had worked on a very different solution to that page's problems, but the solution we had arrived at was aggressively attacked and obliterated recently. I am confining myself at this point simply to insuring that whatever the title is will match the contents of the list. Thanks for your work! I'm not in opposition to it. SocJan (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
All I did was revert to the last revision there was a list in the article. Seemed pretty pointless to have a List without any items on it. Cheers, Al Tally (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. It's anyone's guess what will happen next. I guess we'll see! (Don't be surprised if someone calls you a pro-pedophile activist; that seems to be the fate of anyone who touches this radioactive article.) I'd invite you to read the entire Talk page for that article except that I wouldn't wish such a thing even on my worst enemy. It's been a contentious mess. Cheers! SocJan (talk) 05:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
RfB questions
With respect to my question here, I did not intend to be insulting about it. I don't particularly have issue with you being an administrator. I wanted to know Avi's opinions on what is and what is not permissible under the ArbCom ruling, as well as how reconfirmation RfAs affect this. I think that your case exemplified the lack of cohesion in what the community believes. Since bureaucrats are, for better or for worse, the ultimate deciders in issues RfA, I would like to know how a potential bureaucrat might act in that situation. At any rate, it isn't clearly about you, since the two candidates that have been asked about it thought of ^demon. Who knew? seresin ( ¡? )04:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Maj. You said despite clear consensus for me to be one. I just wanted to comment that there was clearly a consensus forming in your reconfirmation RFA, though not for you to "be one", which is why you withdrew it and "trotted" over to BN. I think that's what the question referred to; When an admin resigns of their own accord, goes through an reconf RFA just because, and then pulls it and uses their option to simply request the tools back, when it becomes obvious that the community does not support them in their decision to regain the bit. It is a reasonable question, and less rude than your question regarding The Rambling Man, regardless of how you intended it. Lara❤Love15:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
How is stating a true fact rude? You can see he's not been active as a bureaucrat in the logs. I don't mind my RfA being brought up, in fact it's a great scenario and I brought it up myself on WJBscribe's RfB. I take issue with the wording of the question, that's all. Al Tally (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, I have been possibly the most active 'crat for RFA promotions (during my own waking hours) and, in case you missed my note above, I've endeavoured to improve my appearances at CHU. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
You've made a total of 11 actions as a bureaucrat as of yesterday. You've been totally inactive in renames and bots. This is not an attack on you, just stating some facts. I don't have an issue with you not doing them. I fully understand you have a real life, and there are more important things (like articles) to work on. I am simply using your inactivity as an example in my question, in the hope that Avi will work on WP:CHU. If you don't want to do it, that's perfectly fine. This is not your job. You're not being paid anything for this. You're a volunteer. I'm asking in the hope Avi will understand it's an area that does get backlogged quite a bit, and will work in that area if he can. If he stops editing once his RfB is over, that's fine with me as well. He doesn't have to do anything, but whilst he's on RfB, I'd like to be able to be sure he'll do the job he's being elected to do. In all, I wish I hadn't even said anything, as it's simply causing drama. Thanks, Al Tally (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Funny thing though, isn't 11 actions better than zero? I read time after time people moaning about RFAs going hours overdue - I closed a couple which were over six hours late. And if you trust someone with the tools, why shouldn't they take some time to get used to them? Becoming a 'crat is quite a challenge and the very last thing a new 'crat wants to do is make errors given the "power" with which they've been entrusted. I remember taking really baby steps when I became an admin. Now I don't need to think twice in 99% of my admin actions. I'm sure the same will happen with the 'crat tools. Just a shame you chose to isolate me rather than include me with the utterly inactive 'crats. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course it's better than zero. I only picked you because you were the last to be promoted. Anyway, this is really causing bad feeling, and I don't like it... can we drop it and be friends instead? :)Al Tally (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Just for your information, here's a quick check on the "active" 'crats actions since 1 April, 2008:
Cimon Avaro 0
Redux 1
Raul654 1
UninvitedCompany 2
Nichlp 2
Andrevan 6
Deskana 6
Taxman 9
RDSmith 9
The Rambling Man 11 (not including today, 16 including today)
The other three (Kingturtle, WJBScribe, WarofDreams) are obviously not included since they're very prominent in their respective areas of expertise. So that makes me the fourth most active Bureaucrat in English Wikipedia since beginning of April. I'll leave it here, I just wish you'd checked how our "experienced, active" 'crats are doing before identifying me as an "inactive" 'crat. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
And how many renames have you done, up to yesterday? That's what I was referring to. RfA is not the only bureaucrat arena, perhaps make a list for the same users in order of renames. Anyway, I already apologised for mentioning you (I still believe I am right about what I said though, with renames though). I wish to end this discussion. Al Tally (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Well perhaps you shouldn't have identified me and then closed your question with "We have far too many inactive bureaucrats, and I would not like to support unless I know for sure you will be active and useful." Anyway, case closed. Cheers for the barnstar. I appreciate it. And you'll be happy to know I'll be far more active around CHU. Just don't bring my name up again in a month if I don't flag any bots.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Al tally,
I know how important the RFA process is and its instances like what happened to Archtransit that i guess makes us all wonder that anybody can do anything. I know with Will nominating him for RFA must have made him pretty angry about the stuff he did and all the other 53 supporters, i guess he tricked the whole community. I dont know anything about the user but i guess we can all learn from it, how i dont know. It just i guess makes you wonder, of course it didn't take long for him to be banned but it puts a thought in your mind, that something bad although thankfully rare can happen. Thanks, just wanted your thoughts. Roadrunnerz45(talk 2 me)13:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
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 (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey Majorly, if you're available could you swoop over to Simple English and block a really persistent vandal? I think I must have reverted him at least 10 times now! Thanks, EJF (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a note about your suggestiong regarding that vote. I personally was going to put my vote in this morning, but abstained because the time had technically run out (but before the crat put up the DO NOT MODIFY note). Might be a dangerous precedent to consider votes like this. If this vote was considered, then I would feel obligated to then go put my vote in somewhere. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs14:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Dangerous?? This is a website, we aren't playing with fire here. If you think it's "dangerous", perhaps you should go and do something else for a bit. It's perfectly reasonable to accept late votes, especially in close cases like this. Al Tally (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Err, "dangerous precedent" is an expression, sorry for any confusion. This could potentially be used as an example where a crat said "do not modify" and then a vote was made, and then that vote was considered. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs15:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, I don't mean to imply that this is horrible or anything, but I guess I just wanted to clarify what was happening. It might seriously weaken "Do Not Modify" requests. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs15:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Rfb participation thanks
Hello, Al.
I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. I wanted to especially thank you for the support you gave me during the process. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It's one of the page rules. You aren't missing if you say you're leaving. Missing means "absent without leave", not an announced departure. Al Tally (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
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 (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Your recent post at ANI
Majorly, I completely agree with you about the aggravation that KMW has so eloquently provided to Wikipedia. He ironically has completely nullified all of his opinions because of the perposterous way he presents himself. He shouldn't be banned though. I very strongly dislike KMW for reasons I won't even link because I'm embarrassed of my responses (he hit a nerve I didn't even know I had on-wiki). Let him oppose self noms. And ADCO noms. Usually, it backfires in his face though, and what he'd like to see rejected ends up accepted simply because he advocates for rejection (how many "per kurt" supports have you seen? I've seen several). Sigh. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer22:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Stop removing the thread. You're an admin on several wikis, you should know how to deal with it properly. Sceptre(talk)22:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I made a note of that on ANI. I wrote a long post in defence of Kurt and opposing your proposed ban, which got lost in all that edit conflicting and edit warring. I don't mind that too much, but I wanted to expand here on the "other stuff" I mentioned. Please don't take offence, but I've noticed that recently, if you propose something and there is any opposition, you seem to back-pedal and give up and say "remove it", "delete it", and move on. Sometimes you have to just leave things the way they are, and let a thread archive, or restore a redirect that you tried to turn into a new noticeboard, for instance. It just seems a bit like you are trying things and then wanting to delete them if they don't work. That might be OK in your userspace, but not in the parts of project space that others use and read. Just a bit of advice that I hope you will take in the spirit in which it is being offered. Carcharoth (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Community noticeboard and Wikipedia:Requests for checkusership/Majorly are the two I'm thinking of. Those pages all contained (or do now contain) material written by others, which you just lost interest in and said "delete". If the thread at ANI had been in favour of banning Kurt, would you have removed it then? Do you see what people are saying when they say it it rude and disruptive to remove what others have written? Carcharoth (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Nice to know. That list is pretty poor, and isn't in line with how other lists are in any case, so it needs work all the same. Al Tally (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
